Book Chapters
2011
Karpowitz, Christopher F.; Mendelberg, Tali
An Experimental Approach to Citizen Deliberation Book Chapter
In: Druckman, James N.; Green, Donald P.; Kuklinski, James H.; Lupia, Arthur (Ed.): Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, pp. 258-272, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2011, ISBN: 0521174554.
@inbook{nokey,
title = {An Experimental Approach to Citizen Deliberation},
author = {Christopher F. Karpowitz and
Tali Mendelberg},
editor = {James N. Druckman and
Donald P. Green and
James H. Kuklinski and
Arthur Lupia},
url = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-handbook-of-experimental-political-science/an-experimental-approach-to-citizen-deliberation/BF0052E394A1345D08834AE35658B453},
isbn = {0521174554},
year = {2011},
date = {2011-06-13},
urldate = {2011-06-13},
booktitle = {Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science},
pages = {258-272},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
address = {New York, NY},
abstract = {Deliberation has become, in the words of one scholar, “the most active area of political theory in its entirety” (Dryzek 2007, 237). Our exploration of the relationship between experiments and deliberation thus begins with normative theory as its starting point. Experiments can yield unique insights into the conditions under which the expectations of deliberative theorists are likely to be approximated, as well as the conditions under which theorists' expectations fall short. Done well, experiments demand an increased level of conceptual precision from researchers of all kinds who are interested in deliberative outcomes. However, perhaps most important, experiments can shed greater scholarly light on the complex and sometimes conflicting mechanisms that may drive the outcomes of various deliberative processes. In other words, experiments allow researchers to better understand the extent to which, the ways in which, and under what circumstances it is actually deliberation that drives the outcomes deliberative theorists expect.
Our strategy for this chapter is to highlight the strengths of experiments that have already been completed and to point to some aspects of the research that need further improvement and development. We aim to discuss what experiments can do that other forms of empirical research cannot and what experiments need to do in light of the normative theory.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Deliberation has become, in the words of one scholar, “the most active area of political theory in its entirety” (Dryzek 2007, 237). Our exploration of the relationship between experiments and deliberation thus begins with normative theory as its starting point. Experiments can yield unique insights into the conditions under which the expectations of deliberative theorists are likely to be approximated, as well as the conditions under which theorists' expectations fall short. Done well, experiments demand an increased level of conceptual precision from researchers of all kinds who are interested in deliberative outcomes. However, perhaps most important, experiments can shed greater scholarly light on the complex and sometimes conflicting mechanisms that may drive the outcomes of various deliberative processes. In other words, experiments allow researchers to better understand the extent to which, the ways in which, and under what circumstances it is actually deliberation that drives the outcomes deliberative theorists expect.
Our strategy for this chapter is to highlight the strengths of experiments that have already been completed and to point to some aspects of the research that need further improvement and development. We aim to discuss what experiments can do that other forms of empirical research cannot and what experiments need to do in light of the normative theory.
Our strategy for this chapter is to highlight the strengths of experiments that have already been completed and to point to some aspects of the research that need further improvement and development. We aim to discuss what experiments can do that other forms of empirical research cannot and what experiments need to do in light of the normative theory.
2007
Mendelberg, Tali; Karpowitz, Christopher F.
How People Deliberate about Justice: Groups, Gender, and Decision Rules Book Chapter
In: Rosenberg, Shawn (Ed.): Deliberation, Participation, and Democracy: Can the People Govern?, pp. 101-129, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY, 2007, ISBN: 0230517358.
@inbook{MendelbergKarpowitz2007,
title = {How People Deliberate about Justice: Groups, Gender, and Decision Rules},
author = {Tali Mendelberg and
Christopher F. Karpowitz},
editor = {Shawn Rosenberg},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230591080_6},
isbn = {0230517358},
year = {2007},
date = {2007-11-09},
urldate = {2007-11-09},
booktitle = {Deliberation, Participation, and Democracy: Can the People Govern?},
pages = {101-129},
publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan},
address = {New York, NY},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
2005
Karpowitz, Christopher F.; Mansbridge, Jane J.
Disagreement and Consensus: The Importance of Dynamic Updating in Public Deliberation Book Chapter
In: Gastil, John; Levine, Peter (Ed.): The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the 21st Century, pp. 237-253, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 2005, ISBN: 078797661X.
@inbook{KarpowitzMansbridge2005,
title = {Disagreement and Consensus: The Importance of Dynamic Updating in Public Deliberation},
author = {Christopher F. Karpowitz and
Jane J. Mansbridge },
editor = {John Gastil and Peter Levine},
url = {https://www.wiley.com/en-ie/The+Deliberative+Democracy+Handbook%3A+Strategies+for+Effective+Civic+Engagement+in+the+Twenty-First+Century-p-9781118105108},
isbn = {078797661X},
year = {2005},
date = {2005-06-29},
urldate = {2005-06-29},
booktitle = {The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the 21st Century},
pages = {237-253},
publisher = {Jossey-Bass},
address = {San Francisco, CA},
abstract = {This chapter examines some specific methods of public deliberation that were deployed to facilitate town planning in Princeton, New Jersey, using this case to discuss the dynamics of deliberation more broadly. Kaprowitz and Mansbrdige raise a point that pertains to all methods of deliberation -- the importance of an open-minded, ongoing discovery of each party's values and interests -- and discuss what can be done to ensure that this dynamic updating takes place.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
This chapter examines some specific methods of public deliberation that were deployed to facilitate town planning in Princeton, New Jersey, using this case to discuss the dynamics of deliberation more broadly. Kaprowitz and Mansbrdige raise a point that pertains to all methods of deliberation -- the importance of an open-minded, ongoing discovery of each party's values and interests -- and discuss what can be done to ensure that this dynamic updating takes place.
Journal Articles
2005
Karpowitz, Christopher F.; Mansbridge, Jane J.
Disagreement and Consensus: The Need for Dynamic Updating in Public Deliberation Journal Article
In: Journal of Public Deliberation, vol. 1, iss. 1, pp. Article 2, 2005.
@article{nokey,
title = {Disagreement and Consensus: The Need for Dynamic Updating in Public Deliberation},
author = {Christopher F. Karpowitz and
Jane J. Mansbridge},
url = {https://ckarpowitz.com/karpowitz-and-mansbridge-2005/},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.25},
year = {2005},
date = {2005-03-01},
urldate = {2005-03-01},
journal = {Journal of Public Deliberation},
volume = {1},
issue = {1},
pages = {Article 2},
abstract = {This analysis compares a consensus-oriented procedure, Princeton Future, with a more adversarial procedure, the public meetings of the Princeton, N.J. borough council, organized as public hearings. It finds that the consensus-oriented procedure failed to pick up significant conflicting interests among the citizens and as a consequence failed to provide venues for discussing and possibly negotiating those interests. It advises that deliberative democratic procedures provide for dynamic updating on the underlying and changing interest structure before and during deliberation, with particular attention to the important lines of conflict. Thus facilitators should help participants in deliberation not only forge common interests but also clarify their conflicting interests.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This analysis compares a consensus-oriented procedure, Princeton Future, with a more adversarial procedure, the public meetings of the Princeton, N.J. borough council, organized as public hearings. It finds that the consensus-oriented procedure failed to pick up significant conflicting interests among the citizens and as a consequence failed to provide venues for discussing and possibly negotiating those interests. It advises that deliberative democratic procedures provide for dynamic updating on the underlying and changing interest structure before and during deliberation, with particular attention to the important lines of conflict. Thus facilitators should help participants in deliberation not only forge common interests but also clarify their conflicting interests.