The Nature of Citizenship in the United States and Great Britain: Empirical Comments on Theoretical Themes

Conover, Pamela Johnston; Crewe, Ivor; Searing, Donald D.

doi:10.2307/2131580

Cited by 130 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They are artificial deliberations, and (like deliberative polls) researchers have coded and investigated them as such (Conover et al, 1991. However, although it is tempting to use focus groups to test hypotheses, we think it is problematic to do so; because, as the old Yiddish proverb suggests, 'For example, is no proof' -and focus groups produce mainly examples.…”

Section: Focus Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Studying ‘Everyday Political Talk’ in the Deliberative System

2005

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

'Everyday political talk' is an increasingly important part of what Jane Mansbridge characterizes as 'deliberative systems' in industrialized democracies. However, how is it practiced by ordinary people? And how does their practice affect democracy and citizenship? Our paper addresses four questions: (1) How should everyday political talk be conceptualized as a component of the 'deliberative system'? (2) What can and cannot be learned by studying normative topics like deliberation empirically? (3) How can we investigate such everyday talk using the methodologies of survey research, focus groups and content analysis? (4) What have we learned in our own research programs from each methodological approach? Acta Politica (2005) 40, 269-283. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500113Keywords: deliberation; deliberative system; deliberative democracy; citizens; citizenship Introduction 'Everyday political talk' is central to democratic citizenship. It is an increasingly important part of what Jane Mansbridge (1999) characterizes as 'deliberative systems' in industrialized democracies. However, how is it practiced by ordinary people? And how does their practice affect democracy and citizenship? For unlike political elites, or even political activists, average citizens have few opportunities to deliberate rigorously in formal institutional settings. Most of their political discussions are therefore quite unstructured. And yet these exchanges both constrain and contribute to the evolution of political ideas and policy proposals. They are also said to provide a civic education that teaches desirable democratic attitudes and practices.Our paper addresses four questions: (1) How should everyday political talk be conceptualized as a component of the 'deliberative system'? (2) What can and cannot be learned by studying normative topics like deliberation empirically? (3) How can we investigate such everyday talk using the methodologies of survey research, focus groups and content analysis? (4) Acta Politica, 2005, 40, (269-283) What have we learned in our own research programs from each methodological approach?Everyday Political Talk in the Deliberative SystemThe deliberative turn in democratic theory illuminated public deliberations that seek common ground and that might strengthen the culture and practice of citizenship (Dryzek, 2000). This enlarged our focus to encompass not just the aggregation of preferences but also the processes by which preferences and the broader values that shape them are formed (Shapiro, 2003). Many liberal theorists and empirical researchers have recently joined the enterprise. However, they have frequently focused on deliberations in institutional settings, where exchanges are likely to be more genuinely deliberative, rather than on the everyday political talk of average citizens (Schauer, 1999). Indeed, many have pushed ordinary citizens out of the picture because their talk is often unstructured and not directed at producing publicly binding decisions (Gutmann and Thompson, 1996). Yet it is difficult to...

show abstract

Section: Focus Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Studying ‘Everyday Political Talk’ in the Deliberative System

2005

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Scholars in a wide range of fields have employed focus groups in their work (e.g, Sigel, 1996, Conover, Crewe and Searing, 1991, Delli Carpini and Keeter, 1989. It is used for exploratory research (for questionnaire development), explanatory research (after surveys to better understand respondents), and as a method unto itself (Delli Carpini and Williams, 1994).…”

Section: The Qualitative Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Searching for the Meaning of Youth Civic Engagement: Notes From the Field

Andolina¹,

Jenkins²,

Keeter³

et al. 2002

Applied Developmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: _______________________________mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By social rights, I am referring to rights to human welfare -encompassing, for the purposes of this article, provision for social security, healthcare, education, housing and other social services. Comparative research conducted over a decade ago in the United States and Britain suggested that while Americans then tended to accord most importance, or to give 'primacy', to civil and political rights, Britons gave primacy to social rights (Conover et al 1991).However, more recent research suggests that young Britons now think about citizenship more in terms of responsibilities than rights, and are unlikely to regard social rights as unconditional (Lister et al 2003). How should we understand this?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Popular discourse and the ethical deficiency of ‘Third Way’ conceptions of citizenship

Dean

2004

Citizenship Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article is in three parts. The first explores the connections and commonalities between different empirical investigations relating to popular discourses of citizenship and argues that these are constituted through the complex combination of overlapping discursive moral repertoires. The second part considers the discursive moral repertoires that constitute discourses of citizenship within the politics of the 'Third Way' project -as it is espoused in the British context -and argues that while such discourses accommodate notions of civic duty, moral obligation and enforced obedience, they seldom embrace a solidaristic ethic of responsibility. The third part discusses key findings from a more recent study of popular discourses of dependency, responsibility and rights. The findings suggest that what inhibits the translation of popular understandings of human interdependency into wider support for a form of citizenship based on collective responsibility and universal social rights is the hegemonic prevalence of a peculiarly individualistic conception of responsibility that seems to be consistent with Third Way thinking. _______________________________This article is concerned with the ethical/moral basis upon which social rights of citizenship are construed within popular discourse. By social rights, I am referring to rights to human welfare -encompassing, for the purposes of this article, provision for social security, healthcare, education, housing and other social services. Comparative research conducted over a decade ago in the United States and Britain suggested that while Americans then tended to accord most importance, or to give 'primacy', to civil and political rights, Britons gave primacy to social rights (Conover et al. 1991).However, more recent research suggests that young Britons now think about citizenship more in terms of responsibilities than rights, and are unlikely to regard social rights as unconditional (Lister et al. 2003). How should we understand this? In the intervening period 'Third Way' thinking, first associated with the Clinton era in 1 the United States, has crossed the Atlantic not only to become the orthodoxy of Britain's New Labour government, but to influence aspects of social policy across Western Europe (Bonoli and Powell 2001; Driver and Martell 2002: ch. 4;Surender and Lewis 2004). Central to the Third Way project is a conception of citizenship in which there can be 'no rights without responsibilities' (Giddens 1998: 65; and see Labour Party 1997;Dean 1999).It will be argued that, although the politics of the Third Way can have had only an indirect effect on popular conceptions of citizenship, it none the less represents an important constraint upon the development of social rights. There are two prefatory points that should perhaps be inserted here. First, it is acknowledged that the notion of social rights is in any event ambiguous, and indeed contested (Dean 2002: ch. 1;Powell 2002). While social democratic accounts have championed social rights as a means to ...

show abstract

The Nature of Citizenship in the United States and Great Britain: Empirical Comments on Theoretical Themes

Cited by 130 publications

References 20 publications

Studying ‘Everyday Political Talk’ in the Deliberative System

Studying ‘Everyday Political Talk’ in the Deliberative System

Searching for the Meaning of Youth Civic Engagement: Notes From the Field

Popular discourse and the ethical deficiency of ‘Third Way’ conceptions of citizenship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About