Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 127
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Abdel-Monem, Tarik Herian, Mitchel N. Hoppe, Rick PytlikZillig, Lisa M. and Tomkins, Alan J. 2016. Policymakers’ Perceptions of the Benefits of Citizen-Budgeting Activities. Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 39, Issue. 4, p. 835.


    Akerlof, Karen L. Rowan, Katherine E. La Porte, Todd Batten, Brian K. Ernst, Howard and Sklarew, Dann M. 2016. Risky business: Engaging the public on sea level rise and inundation. Environmental Science & Policy,


    Baccaro, Lucio Bächtiger, André and Deville, Marion 2016. Small Differences that Matter: The Impact of Discussion Modalities on Deliberative Outcomes. British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 46, Issue. 03, p. 551.


    Böker, Marit 2016. Justification, critique and deliberative legitimacy: The limits of mini-publics. Contemporary Political Theory,


    Curato, Nicole and Böker, Marit 2016. Linking mini-publics to the deliberative system: a research agenda. Policy Sciences, Vol. 49, Issue. 2, p. 173.


    Ken Cor, M. and Sood, Gaurav 2016. Guessing and Forgetting: A Latent Class Model for Measuring Learning. Political Analysis, Vol. 24, Issue. 2, p. 226.


    LINDELL, MARINA BÄCHTIGER, ANDRÉ GRÖNLUND, KIMMO HERNE, KAISA SETÄLÄ, MAIJA and WYSS, DOMINIK 2016. What drives the polarisation and moderation of opinions? Evidence from a Finnish citizen deliberation experiment on immigration. European Journal of Political Research,


    Milewicz, Karolina M. and Goodin, Robert E. 2016. Deliberative Capacity Building through International Organizations: The Case of the Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights. British Journal of Political Science, p. 1.


    Pietryka, Matthew T. 2016. Accuracy Motivations, Predispositions, and Social Information in Political Discussion Networks. Political Psychology, Vol. 37, Issue. 3, p. 367.


    Ravazzi, Stefania 2016. When a government attempts to institutionalize and regulate deliberative democracy: the how and why from a process-tracing perspective. Critical Policy Studies, p. 1.


    Reedy, Justin Gastil, John and Moy, Patricia 2016. From the Secret Ballot to the Public Vote: Examining Voters’ Experience of Political Discussion in Vote-by-Mail Elections. Political Communication, Vol. 33, Issue. 1, p. 39.


    Regalia, Marta 2016. The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication.


    Vargas, Andrés Lo, Alex Y. Rohde, Nicholas and Howes, Michael 2016. Background inequality and differential participation in deliberative valuation: Lessons from small-group discussions on forest conservation in Colombia. Ecological Economics, Vol. 129, p. 104.


    Abdel-Monem, Tarik Herian, Mitchel N. and Shank, Nancy 2015. Public Affairs and Administration: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications.


    Andersson, Klas 2015. Deliberative Teaching: Effects on Students’ Democratic Virtues. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 59, Issue. 5, p. 604.


    BABA, Kenshi KITO, Misako TAKATSU, Hiroaki and MATSUURA, Masahiro 2015. Stakeholders' Attitudes Change on Wood Biomass Utilization by Online Deliberation. Journal of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Ser. G (Environmental Research), Vol. 71, Issue. 5, p. I_235.


    Bogaards, Matthijs and Deutsch, Franziska 2015. Deliberation by, with, and for University Students. Journal of Political Science Education, Vol. 11, Issue. 2, p. 221.


    Böker, Marit and Elstub, Stephen 2015. THE POSSIBILITY OF CRITICAL MINI-PUBLICS: REALPOLITIK AND NORMATIVE CYCLES IN DEMOCRATIC THEORY. Representation, Vol. 51, Issue. 1, p. 125.


    Eveland, William P. and Schmitt, Josephine B. 2015. Communication Content and Knowledge Content Matters: Integrating Manipulation and Observation in Studying News and Discussion Learning Effects. Journal of Communication, Vol. 65, Issue. 1, p. 170.


    Feilzer, Martina 2015. Exploring Sentencing Practice in England and Wales.


    ×

Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain

  • ROBERT C. LUSKIN (a1), JAMES S. FISHKIN (a1) and ROGER JOWELL (a2)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123402000194
  • Published online: 01 July 2002
Abstract

This article presents the results of the first Deliberative Poll, in which a national British sample discussed the issue of rising crime and what to do about it. We describe Deliberative Polling and its rationale, the representativeness of the deliberative sample, the extent to which the participants acquired factual information about the issue and about politics generally, and how much and how they changed their views. We also weigh the extent to which such changes of view hinge on small group influences versus information gains.

Copyright
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

British Journal of Political Science
  • ISSN: 0007-1234
  • EISSN: 1469-2112
  • URL: /core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×