Why and how to compare deliberative systems

Abstract

The systemic turn in deliberative democratic theory presents empirical researchers in this field with a problem. Deliberative systems are complex, porous and shifting in nature. These features cannot be adequately assessed by existing tools for measuring deliberative and democratic qualities. Such qualities only become apparent when set against practices in other systems. Meaningful analysis rests on comparison. However, in turning to the comparative politics literature for inspiration, we caution that the two dominant traditions in this subfield – rigidly systematic comparison or thickly descriptive area studies – are of only limited utility. On the one hand, rigid comparative analysis will map uncomfortably on the systemic account. On the other, there is a need to move beyond idiographic accounts produced in thick descriptions. Instead, this article emphasises the value of two alternative traditions in comparative political analysis. The first is through the use of ‘family resemblances’ in comparative research design. The second is through post hoc comparisons that draw together eclectic affinities between systems. Both approaches are sensitive to the contextual complexities of deliberative systems in practice. Both can tell us a great deal about why and how deliberative practices and institutions emerge, flourish or fail, and how they enable, enhance or undermine the democratic and deliberative qualities of the system overall. This article draws on promising examples of these two approaches to emphasise their value in understanding deliberative systems in practice.

Design Matters! An Empirical Analysis of Online Deliberation on Different News Platforms

“…We must also stress that this study has taken a particular perspective by focusing on how design affects the level of deliberative quality in a specific discussion space. By adopting this perspective, we do not consider the claims raised in the literature on deliberative systems (e.g., Boswell & Corbett, ; Dryzek, ) that no single forum can possibly meet all the criteria required by deliberative theory; rather, different forums contribute different goods to the system as a whole. In the same vein, we did not consider research on other forms of communication beyond traditional concepts of deliberation (Black, ; Graham, ; Polletta & Lee, ).…”

The Roles of Referendums in Deliberative Systems

“…Indeed, it fails to capture the thought that many institutions are not formally constituted, but exist as informal yet patterned scripts of understanding and action such as discourses (Dryzek, 1996), a theme Chambers (2018) and Landemore (2018) develop when arguing that deliberative scholarship itself needs to be less exclusively focused on formal institutional design. There are many variations on these broad themes, and scholars urging colleagues to go even further in applying more dynamic, interpretivist, models of political change (Boswell & Corbett, 2017)or just less normatively-blinkered ones (Spada & Ryan, 2017). The point for now is to note that the tendency, alluded to in the introduction, to think of deliberative systems as sets of linked yet static and somewhat formal institutions is reasonably common, but misses out much that matters on more dynamic, communicative accounts like that set out in Bächtiger and Parkinson (2019).…”

Meta-deliberation: everyday acts of critical reflection in deliberative systems

“…The first question is what kind of acts ‘meta-deliberation’ refers to, or in other words, what would count as meta-deliberation. The question appears warranted, especially in light of recent arguments for a systemic perspective on deliberation (Boswell and Corbett, 2017; Mansbridge et al, 2012; Stevenson and Dryzek, 2014). According to theorists advocating for a systemic view, various acts and sites of communication may be important parts of public deliberation, not just those acts that best fit the idea of mutual reason-giving.…”