▪ Abstract  Many theorists have long extolled the virtues of public deliberation as a crucial component of a responsive and responsible democracy. Building on these theories, in recent years practitioners—from government officials to citizen groups, nonprofits, and foundations—have increasingly devoted time and resources to strengthening citizen engagement through deliberative forums. Although empirical research has lagged behind theory and practice, a body of literature has emerged that tests the presumed individual and collective benefits of public discourse on citizen engagement. We begin our review of this research by defining “public deliberation”; we place it in the context of other forms of what we call “discursive participation” while distinguishing it from other ways in which citizens can voice their individual and collective views on public issues. We then discuss the expectations, drawn from deliberative democratic theory, regarding the benefits (and, for some, pitfalls) assumed to derive from public deliberation. The next section reviews empirical research as it relates to these theoretical expectations. We conclude with recommendations on future directions for research in this area.

Research in political behavior has increasingly turned to the cognitions underlying attitudes. The simplest of these cognitions are political facts -the bits of information about politics that citizens hold. While other key concepts in political science -partisanship, trust, tolerance -have widely used (if still controversial) measures that facilitate comparisons across time and among studies, the discipline has no generally accepted measure of the public's level of political information. This paper describes the development and testing of survey-based measures of political knowledge, with special attention to the existing items on the National Election Study surveys. In so doing, it illustrates the use of a variety of techniques for item analysis and scale construction. We also present a recommended five-item knowledge index. Research in political behavior has increasingly turned to the cognitions underlying attitudes. The simplest of these cognitions are political facts-the bits of information about politics that citizens hold. While other key concepts in political science-partisanship, trust, tolerance-have widely used (if still controversial) measures that facilitate comparisons across time and among studies, the discipline has no generally accepted measure of the public's level of political information. This paper describes the development and testing of survey-based measures of political knowledge, with special attention to the existing items on the National Election Study surveys. In so doing, it illustrates the use of a variety of techniques for item analysis and scale construction. We also present a recommended fiveitem knowledge index. Disciplines Social Influence and Political Communication

What follows is an exploratory examination of the current disengagement of young Americans from public life, some thoughts on the roots of this disengagement, and speculations on the ways in which new technologies such as the Internet might be used to improve this state of affairs. It is meant to be a starting point for discussion.

No abstract

No abstract

Although there has been much speculation regarding the strengths and weaknesses of face-to-face versus online deliberative settings, no studies have systematically compared the two. Drawing on a national sample of Americans who reported deliberating faceto-face and/or online, we examine these two deliberative settings with regard to the participants, the motivations, the process, and the effects. Our findings, although tentative, suggest that the two settings are distinct in several important ways. Relative to face-to-face deliberation, online deliberation over-represents young, male, and white users, attracts more ideological moderates, generates more negative emotions, and is less likely to result in consensus and political action. At the same time, online deliberators perceived online settings as more politically and racially diverse. Implications for understanding the democratic potential of different forms of deliberation are discussed.

No abstract

This multivariate analysis shows that residents in and near Richmond, Virginia, where the state capital is located, are significantly more knowledgeable about state politics than are residents living elsewhere in the state, especially in the northern Virginia -Washington, D.C. metro area. A newspaper content analysis demonstrates that Richmond-area residents are exposed to far more news of state politics and government than are residents of northern Virginia. The study suggests that the media environment is highly important in providing the opportunity for citizens to learn about politics. Disciplines Social Influence and Political Communication ".Research consistently shows that citizens become politically informed if they have the motivation, capability, and opportunity to learn. 1 Statistical models that incorporate variables measuring motivation and capability can explain between 42 and 59 percent of the variation in political knowledge among samples of survey respondents. 2 However, opportunitydefined as the availability of political information -is, with few exceptions, assumed to be relatively constant for most citizens.Although news media vary greatly in the depth and quality of coverage, both the form and content of news has been nationalized, leading to an increasing homogeneity of information across the United States. This nationalization -standardization -has occurred not only because of the dominance of the federal government, but also because of technological and economic innovations such as wire services, radio and television networks, newspaperchains,satellitedelivery,andfacsimiletransmission. Thus, while not all media are equally informative, the range of available information about national politics is relatively constant across communities, with the consequence that individual differences in levels of political knowledge are primarily a result of differences in motivation and capability.However,