Working through disagreement in deliberative forums

Adams, Brian

doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2014.10.008

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our research does not enable us to conclude how disagreement types and message target interact in more precise ways. Future work could measure reasoned disagreement by observing reciprocity in comment threads (Adams, 2015; Gastil, 2018; Stromer-Galley et al, 2015) or discerning users’ possible motivations for disagreeing in distinct online spaces—motivations including curiosity, aversion, and the desire to incite conflict for its own sake (Esterling et al, 2015).…”

Section: Discussion Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Kind of Disagreement Favors Reason-Giving? Analyzing Online Political Discussions across the Broader Public Sphere

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study adopts a systemic approach, focusing on real-world online discussions in legislative-, media-, and activist-based forums, to explore a set of factors that affects reasoned disagreement in digital environments. While conventional analysis investigates the effects of disagreement on civic and political participation, this study unpacks forms of disagreement that retain a principled link with reason-giving. Our findings demonstrate that context matters for shaping online communication, but that other variables have even stronger correlations. Specifically, moderating disagreement—conceptualized as a way of disagreeing that nevertheless signals a background of agreement in the conversation—strongly increases the likelihood of justificatory behavior, and it does so in more categories than bold disagreement. In conclusion, we argue that forms of disagreement and their respective consequences deserve more empirical and normative attention, not only to advance debates on deliberation but also to critically understand the communicative complexities in a new media landscape.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Kind of Disagreement Favors Reason-Giving? Analyzing Online Political Discussions across the Broader Public Sphere

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They explain that since there is not a "consistent definition of small group public deliberation," researchers have "drawn on diverse literature to create research designs aimed at empirically capturing aspects of deliberation" (p. 324). Assessment in public deliberations have utilized a variety of methods to answer different research questions about deliberation's quality and effectiveness (Weiksner et al, 2010), including, for example, quantitative political communication and civic engagement measures (Adams, 2015;Gastil & Xenos, 2010); inductive and analytical methods (Hartz-Karp, 2007;Knobloch et al, 2013;Mansbridge et al, 2006;Ryfe, 2006); discourse analysis (Tracy, 2005(Tracy, , 2010; and content analysis (Stromer-Galley, 2007).…”

Section: Assessing Deliberative Pedagogymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Third, understanding tradeoffs and tensions is often an obstacle to successful deliberation, as it is understood by many scholars to be challenging to achieve in public settings (Adams, 2015;Levasseur & Carlin, 2001). Focusing on whether prior instruction in deliberation increases the communication process of working through tradeoffs and tensions seems particularly relevant to making the case for deliberative pedagogy.…”

Section: Table a -Dplo Rubric Understanding Tradeoffs And Tensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Deliberative Pedagogy: Using a Learning Outcomes Rubric to Assess Tradeoffs and Tensions

Drury

Andre

Goddard

et al. 2016

Journal of Deliberative Democracy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teaching deliberative decision-making is a method of encouraging students to think critically, engage public problems, and engage in both public speaking and public listening. College instructors have begun to use deliberation as a pedagogical tool, yet further research is needed to understand the learning outcomes of deliberative pedagogy. We argue that the deliberative principle of "understanding tradeoffs and tensions" is a key learning outcome of deliberative pedagogy, and demonstrate an avenue for evaluating it through a learning outcomes rubric, and through critical-interpretative methods of rhetorical criticism. In our analysis, we demonstrate that students with prior training in deliberation achieve higher levels of understanding tradeoffs and tensions through their rhetorical behaviors of embodying a deliberative perspective, expressing inclusivity, and working through public problems.

show abstract