Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Institutional determinants of deliberative interaction

  • Claudia Landwehr (a1) and Katharina Holzinger (a2)
Abstract

A central assumption of deliberative theory is that political preferences are endogenous to decision-making processes in which they are transformed by communicative interaction. We identify discursiveness and coordination of interaction as central determinants of preference change and develop a typology of political modes of interaction that affect the likelihood of preference change differently. These properties are in turn influenced by institutional characteristics of the fora in which communicative interaction takes place. To illustrate our approach empirically we present a comparative analysis of two extreme modes of interaction, ‘debate’ and ‘deliberation’, providing a case study of a parliamentary debate and a citizen conference on the same conflict: the import of embryonic stem cells in Germany. We assess the discursiveness and coordination as well as the amount of preference transformation in both forums.

Copyright
Corresponding author
* E-mail: Landwehr@em.uni-frankfurt.de
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

A. Bächtiger , S. Niemeyer , M. Neblo , M.R. Steenbergen , J. Steiner (2010), ‘Disentangling diversity in deliberative democracy: competing theories, their empirical blind-spots, and complementarities’, Journal of Political Philosophy 18(1): 3263.

S. Chambers (2004), ‘Behind closed doors: publicity, secrecy, and the quality of deliberation’, The Journal of Political Philosophy 12(4): 389410.

S. Chambers (2005), ‘Measuring publicity’s effect: reconciling empirical research and normative theory’, Acta Politica 40: 255266.

L.J. Cohen (1989), ‘Belief and acceptance’, Mind xcviii(391): 367389.

D. della Porta (2005), ‘Deliberation in movement: why and how to study deliberative democracy and social movements’, Acta Politica 40: 336350.

J.S. Fishkin P. Laslett (eds) (2003), Debating Deliberative Democracy, Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.

R.E. Goodin (2003), Reflective Democracy, Oxford: OUP.

R.E. Goodin (2005), ‘Sequencing deliberative moments’, Acta Politica 40: 182196.

J. Habermas (2000), ‘From Kant to Hegel: on Robert Brandom’s pragmatic philosophy of language’, European Journal of Philosophy 8(3): 322355.

J. Habermas (2005), ‘Concluding comments on empirical approaches to deliberative politics’, Acta Politica 40: 384392.

J.C. Harsanyi (1955), ‘Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility’, Journal of Political Economy 63(4): 309321.

C.M. Hendriks , J.S. Dryzek , C. Hunold (2007), ‘Turning up the heat: partisanship in democratic innovation’, Political Studies 55(2): 362383.

K. Holzinger (2001), ‘Verhandeln statt Argumentieren oder Verhandeln durch Argumentieren? Eine empirische Analyse auf der Basis der Sprechakttheorie’, PVS 42(3): 414446.

K. Holzinger (2004), ‘Bargaining through arguing: an empirical analysis based on speech act theory’, Political Communication 21: 195222.

K. Holzinger (2005), ‘Context or conflict types: which determines the selection of communication mode’, Acta Politica 40(2): 239254.

D.C. Mutz (2008), ‘Is deliberative democracy a falsifiable theory?’, Annual Review of Political Science 11: 521538.

M.A. Neblo (2005), ‘Thinking through democracy: between the theory and practice of deliberative politics’, Acta Politica 40: 169181.

F. Nullmeier (2003), ‘Sprechakttheorie und Textanalyse’, in M.L. Maier, A. Hurrelmann, F. Nullmeier, T. Pritzlaff and A. Wiesner (eds), Politik als Lernprozess?, Opladen: Leske+Budrich, pp. 211223.

E. Schneiderhan S. Khan (2008), ‘Reasons and inclusion. The foundation of deliberation’, Sociological Theory 26: 124.

M.R. Steenbergen , A. Bächtiger , M. Sporndli , J. Steiner (2003), ‘Measuring political deliberation. A discourse quality index’, Comparative European Politics 1: 2148.

C.R. Sunstein (2003), ‘The law of group polarization’, in J.S. Fishkin and P. Laslett (eds), Debating Deliberative Democracy, Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell, pp. 80101.

D.F. Thompson (2008), ‘Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science’, Annual Review of Political Science 11: 497520.

Recommend this journal

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

European Political Science Review
  • ISSN: 1755-7739
  • EISSN: 1755-7747
  • URL: /core/journals/european-political-science-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 5
Total number of PDF views: 33 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 166 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 26th September 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.