Civic (Re)socialisation: The Educative Effects of Deliberative Participation

Abstract

This article examines the subjective experience of cognitive and behavioural change following public deliberation in two different nations. It examines short‐ and long‐term survey data from two highly structured deliberative forums – the 2009 Australian Citizens’ Parliament and the 2010 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review. Results showed increases in reported deliberative and internal efficacy, some measures of external efficacy, and communicative and community‐based engagement, though participants rarely reported increases in institutionalised political participation. Participants in an online process in Australia reported limited increases in their internal and external efficacy and communicative engagement. These findings suggest that well‐structured deliberative governance can transform the meaning and practice of citizenship.

A Systematic Review of Online Deliberation Research

“…He concludes as follows: “The results suggest that both online and face‐to‐face deliberation can increase participants' issue knowledge, political efficacy, and willingness to participate in politics” (Min, , p. 1369). Price et al (, p. 47) further found that “the argumentative ‘climate’ of group opinion indeed affects post discussion opinions.” Knobloch and Gastil () examined the subjective experience of cognitive and behavioral change following from face‐to‐face and online deliberation in Australia and the United States. They found that participants of both settings report an increase of internal and external efficacy, and communicative and community‐based engagement.…”

Inspiring and Informing Citizens Online: A Media Richness Analysis of Varied Civic Education Modalities

“…Deliberation can shape participants' knowledge on specific issues under discussion, raise awareness of their own and others' interests and values, foster a broader understanding of the public good, and increase political efficacy (Burkhalter et al, ; Delli Carpini et al, ; Pincock, ; Steiner, ). Deliberative participation can even increase confidence in deliberation itself (Burkhalter et al, ; Knobloch & Gastil, ).…”

“…Although knowledge gains may be highest in formats without interactive richness attributes, we expect more dialogic forms of deliberation to foster greater political empowerment and thereby change participants' convictions about the efficacy of deliberation itself (Knobloch & Gastil, ). We test this broader claim across four different civic attitudes.…”

“…Theories of group deliberation also have posited that participating in highly interactive political discussions should yield more support for the deliberative process, owing to the generally rewarding experience of deliberation (Burkhalter et al, ). This claim has found support in studies of face‐to‐face groups, but no support in very lean online interaction environments (Knobloch & Gastil, ). Deliberating online could enhance one's general faith in the efficacy of using highly interactive deliberation to arrive at public judgment.…”

A Framework for Critical-Empiricist Research in Political Communication

“…The solution of this conundrum is to take a detour through linking empirical insight into the world as it is into the world as it can be. (Gastil & Dillard, 1999;Knobloch & Gastil, 2015; on the larger point, see also Gastil, 2014). In terms of our research practices, it is important to note that the exemplar approach implies a greater focus on highly controlled, "counterfactual" experimental research as a way to maximizing insight gained through empirical research into the empirical possibilities of political communication (and other social phenomena).…”