There is extensive research dedicated to civility in online deliberationIn a healthy democracy, deliberative scholars expect that citizens engage in reasonable discussion and try to understand each other by recognizing basic principles such as pluralism and mutual respect (Gutmann & Thompson, 2004; Habermas, 1996;Mansbridge et al., 2012;Steiner, 2012). In practice, of course,We have discussed some of the ideas in this article with Jürg Steiner, Patricia Rossini, Rafael C. Sampaio and participants of Group EME/UFMG and we thank them for their valuable comments. We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers of JCMC for their suggestions. We thank the undergraduate students -Bárbara Lana, Larissa Arreguy, Rodrigo Miranda and Thais Chouchair, who helped us with the methodological procedures of this work. Finally, we thank Capes, CNPq and Fapemig for the financial support that allowed us to conduct this research.
Esse artigo busca avaliar trocas discursivas realizadas no fórum online do orçamento participativo digital (OPD) de Belo Horizonte, Brasil. Para tanto, é formulado um modelo de análise das discussões entre os cidadãos participantes do programa baseado nas teorias de democracia deliberativa. São analisadas as mensagens dos usuários (n=375) postadas na ferramenta de comentários do site do OPD. Os resultados apontam que os aspectos discursivos concernentes à reciprocidade e à reflexividade se mostraram relativamente escassos; entretanto, o respeito pelos outros interlocutores, bem como a construção da justificativa dos pontos de vista expressos no fórum, alcançaram índices elevados, mesmo não havendo empowerment da ferramenta ou incentivo por parte da Prefeitura. Conclui-se que a internet pode, efetivamente, oferecer ambientes voltados para o estabelecimento de trocas discursivas qualificadas e que, mesmo nos casos onde há baixos índices de deliberatividade, há progressos importantes do ponto de vista do aprendizado a que são expostos os usuários. This paper aims to examine how political conversations take place on the online forum offered as part of the Digital Participatory Budget (OPD) in a Brazilian city, Belo Horizonte. The authors propose an analytical model based on deliberative theories in order to investigate the discussions over this participatory program. The main sample consists of the messages posted by the users (n=357) on the commentaries section. The results show that reciprocity and reflexivity among interlocutors are rare; however, the respect among the interlocutors and the justification levels in several arguments were high during the discussion. The authors conclude that, even in a situation in which there is no empowerment offered by of the digital tools, the internet can effectively provide environments to enhance a qualified discursive exchange. In spite of low levels of deliberativeness, the case study shows that there are important gains concerning social learning among the participants
From the local level to international politics, deliberation helps to increase mutual understanding and trust, in order to arrive at political decisions of high epistemic value and legitimacy. This book gives deliberation a dynamic dimension, analysing how levels of deliberation rise and fall in group discussions, and introducing the concept of 'deliberative transformative moments' and how they can be applied to deeply divided societies, where deliberation is most needed but also most difficult to work. Discussions between ex-guerrillas and ex-paramilitaries in Colombia, Serbs and Bosnjaks in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and police officers and locals in Brazilian favelas are used as case studies, with participants addressing how peace can be attained in their countries. Allowing access to the records and transcripts of the discussions opens an opportunity for practitioners of conflict resolution to apply this research to their work in trouble spots of the world, creating a link between the theory and practice of deliberation.
This article aims to investigate the forms of interaction and communicative exchanges in discussion groups composed of beneficiaries of a Brazilian income transfer program (BolsaFamília Program) and how these forms contribute to the deliberative process. Discussion groups are used as a method for showing how everyday conversation and political discussion are interrelated. Thus, this article is an empirical investigation that-within the theoretical deliberative democracy framework-helps to make explicit concrete situations within which fluid and disperse conversations change toward attitudes that include taking the risk of expressing dissonant opinions, explaining background assumptions, and producing counternarratives. We contend that informal conversation is part of the dynamics that prepare citizens for more demanding and formal deliberations.Studies carried out by political science and social communication researchers have shown special interest in the role communicative exchanges play within contexts in which individuals oriented toward mutual understanding seek to develop capabilities and skills related to political participation and the construction of citizenship These studies have shown that specific forms of discursive interactions, such as conversation and discussion, are essential to the construction of more complex modes of civic and political socialization. Hence, the intersection of communication, socialization, and participation requires social contexts that offer opportunities for discursive interactions within
This article investigates the role of the news media in constructing mediated deliberation, focusing on how instrumental politics intertwines with critical argument exchanges in public debates. In the context of Brazil's recent democratization process, the author analyzes mediated deliberation in the national referendum for banning firearm and ammunition sales in 2005. The following indicators are explored: (1) participant accessibility and characterization, (2) use of arguments, (3) reciprocity and responsiveness, and (4) reflexivity and reversibility of opinions. The article argues that normative deliberation principles add to controversy frame studies by helping understand how contending interlocutors increase the quality and the complexity of reasons in dispute in situations where no consensus or general agreement is expected.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.