Disentangling Diversity in Deliberative Democracy: Competing Theories, Their Blind Spots and Complementarities
Disentangling Diversity in Deliberative Democracy: Competing Theories, Their Blind Spots and Complementarities
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00342.x
复制
发表时间：
2010-03-01
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Steiner, Juerg
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Baechtiger, Andre;Niemeyer, Simon;Steiner, Juerg
在过去的十年中，协商民主从“理论陈述”迅速发展成为“工作理论”。学者和实践者发起了许多旨在将协商民主付诸实践的倡议，从协商投票到公民峰会。有些人甚至把审议作为一种新的“革命政治理想”来提倡。关于政治角色此时此地应该如何表现。”协商民主也经历了经验转向的开始，作为一门经验（或实证）政治科学取得了重大进展。这包括一个小的，但越来越多的文献处理审议的规范标准之间的联系，如何满足这些标准，以及满足这些标准的经验后果。例如，这一趋势包括使用从政治和社会心理学等其他领域借鉴的方法和框架。这些研究表明，接近理想审议的情况很少，但根据这种理想，群体互动有时会出奇地好。5
IN the last decade deliberative democracy has developed rapidly from a “theoretical statement” into a “working theory.” 1 Scholars and practitioners have launched numerous initiatives designed to put deliberative democracy into practice, ranging from deliberative polling to citizen summits. 2 Some even advocate deliberation as a new “revolutionary political ideal... about how political actors should behave here and now.” 3 Deliberative democracy has also experienced the beginning of an empirical turn, making significant gains as an empirical (or positive) political science. This includes a small, but growing body of literature tackling the connection between the normative standards of deliberation, how well they are met, and the empirical consequences of meeting them. 4 This trend has, for instance, included the use of methods and frameworks borrowed from other fields, such as political and social psychology. Such studies suggest that cases approaching ideal deliberation are rare, but that group interaction sometimes works surprisingly well according to such ideals. 5