The Lessons and Limitations of Experiments in Democratic Deliberation
The Lessons and Limitations of Experiments in Democratic Deliberation
复制标题
民主协商实验的教训和局限性
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
John Gastil
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
John Gastil
实验对于民主审议的实践是必不可少的，民主审议本身就是对自治问题的实验性补救措施。然而，这一领域受到限制，因为不可能进行考虑到审议理论的全部复杂性的生态有效实验，因为审议理论跨越不同的分析层次，其核心是一个多维变量。尽管如此，迄今为止在该领域进行的数十项实验室研究、调查实验和准实验中已经出现了信息模式。这一系列工作显示了收集不同样本的人进行审议的可行性，但它也突显了审议过程中出现的困难，包括极端分歧、冲突管理不善，以及缺乏多样性如何能够预防有意义的分歧。当公众参与策略和讨论形式减轻了这些危险时，商议可以提高参与者对问题的理解，提高他们的判断，并改变他们对公民参与的态度。广为人知的协商小公共甚至可以影响更广泛的舆论和投票意向。
Experiments are essential to the practice of democratic deliberation, which itself is an experimental remedy to the problem of self-governance. This field, however, is constrained by the impossibility of conducting ecologically valid experiments that take into account the full complexity of deliberative theory, which spans different levels of analysis and has a multidimensional variable at its core. Nonetheless, informative patterns have emerged from the dozens of lab studies, survey experiments, and quasi-experiments in the field conducted to date. This body of work shows the feasibility of gathering diverse samples of people to deliberate, but it also underscores the difficulties that arise in deliberation, including extreme disagreement, poor conflict management, and how a lack of diversity can forestall meaningful disagreement. When public engagement strategies and discussion formats mitigate those hazards, deliberation can improve participants’ understanding of issues, sharpen their judgments, and change their attitudes toward civic engagement. Well-publicized deliberative minipublics can even influence wider public opinion and voting intentions.