APPLICATION FORM FOR PROSPECTIVE WORKSHOP DIRECTORS

Transcription

1 APPLICATION FORM FOR PROSPECTIVE WORKSHOP DIRECTORS If you wish to apply to direct a workshop at the Joint Sessions in Helsinki, Finland in Spring 2007, please first see the explanatory notes, then complete this form, which will serve as the cover sheet for your workshop proposal. This form should be sent with your workshop proposal to the ECPR Central Services. You can do this by either ing both documents as an attached file (in word format.doc or rich text format.rtf) to the ECPR Central Services at ecpr@essex.ac.uk. Alternatively, you can print up the information and send it as a fax to the Central Services, fax: The deadline for applications is 15 February Title of proposed workshop: Advanced Empirical Study of Deliberation Abstract of proposed workshop. Maximum of 250 words (suitable for publication in the academic programme leaflet and on the ECPR web site): Long the exclusive domain of political theorists, there is now a growing community of scholars who empirically investigate deliberation. But deliberation remains highly controversial in the discipline with many scholars expressing scepticism about the role deliberation can (and should) play in real world politics. The major goal of this workshop is to broaden and deepen existing empirical research on deliberation using advanced theoretical and methodological tools. It shall make a concerted effort to address criticisms, to grapple with pressing methodological problems and to put existing rationalist, institutional and psychological approaches to deliberative democracy in a more coherent analytical framework. To do this, it brings institutional, psychological, and rational/social choice scholars together. It looks out for innovative papers that address four sorts of question: (1) How much deliberation is there in the real world (and how can we better distinguish between true deliberative action and other, more strategic forms of communication)?; (2) Under what rational, institutional and psychological conditions -- and particularly, combinations thereof is deliberation furthered?; (3) Does deliberation really produce better outcomes than other forms of collective decision-making (such as better public policy or the moderation of conflicts), or does it also produce negative outcomes such as polarization of opinions?; (4) Can empirical approaches be reconciled with philosophical ideals (e.g., political deliberation which is also responsive to marginalized votes) or are there inherent trade-offs and unintended effects in the real world that stifle any attempts at a comprehensive democratic renewal? Name of workshop director(s): André Bächtiger and Marco R. Steenbergen

2 Name and address of institution(s): Bächtiger, André Institute of Political Science University of Bern Lerchenweg Bern 9 Switzerland Steenbergen, Marco R. Department of Political Science University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill) Hamilton Hall, CB#3265 Chapel Hill, NC Telephone number/s: A. Bächtiger: ; M.R. Steenbergen Fax number/s: A. Bächtiger: ; M.R. Steenbergen: address/s: baechtiger@ipw.unibe.ch; msteenbe@ .unc.edu Please note that the information above is VERY important, as it will be used in all future correspondence and, if the proposal is successful, printed in the academic programme. Long the exclusive domain of political theorists, there is now a growing community of scholars who empirically investigate deliberation. But deliberation remains highly controversial in the discipline with many scholars expressing scepticism about the role deliberation can (and should) play in real world politics. The major goal of this workshop is to broaden and deepen existing empirical research on deliberation using advanced theoretical and methodological tools. It shall make a concerted effort to address criticisms, to grapple with pressing methodological problems and to put existing empirical findings in a more coherent analytical framework. To do so, it attempts to bring institutional, psychological, and rational/social choice scholars together. It looks out for innovative empirical approaches asking how much deliberation there is in the real world, under what rational, institutional and psychological conditions (and particularly, combinations thereof) deliberation is furthered, whether deliberation really produces better outcomes than other forms of collective decision-making, and whether (and how) empirical approaches can be reconciled with philosophical ideals.

3 Relation to existing research: For quite some time, empirical research on deliberation has lagged behind, not the least because in the eyes of many political scientists, real world politics are concerned with interests and power and not with understanding and the better argument. In recent years, however, a small but growing body of literature has tried to tackle the question of whether deliberation might also constitute a logic of action in the real world of politics. In a pioneering project on Arguing and Bargaining in Multilateral Negotiations, Risse, Müller and Ulbert (2004) found that processes of persuasion which change actors perception of the situation and definitions of interests have discernible consequences in multilateral negotiations leading to unexpected outcomes. Focusing on national legislatures, Steiner et al. (2004) found that political institutions make a difference for deliberation, while deliberation also leads to more unanimous decisions. Deliberation has also made inroads in rational choice theory. Cheap talk theorists (Austen-Smith & Feddersen 2002) have demonstrated through formal theory that under certain conditions (e.g., in positive sum games) talk can affect outcomes and that certain institutional rules (majority vs. unanimity voting rules) might matter for deliberation as well. Sophisticated social choice theorists, in turn, show that deliberation can induce preference structuration, thus making cycles in decision making less of a threat (Dryzek & List 2003). Fishkin and Luskin (2004) have engaged in experiments on deliberative polling and found that there are large changes of opinion and voting intentions in the deliberative polls. According to Fishkin and Luskin, these findings suggest that learning via deliberation matters for outcomes, contradicting the claim of psychologists that heuristics are sufficient to achieve adequate decisions. At the same time, increasing theoretical sophistication has combined with increasing methodological sophistication involving several attempts to quantify the quality of deliberation in a valid and reliable way (see Steenbergen et al. 2003). This overview shows that the empirical deliberative train is rolling and that the covered track yields a number of important insights in the role of deliberation in the real world. At the same time, skepticism and criticism towards the deliberative enterprise has proliferated as well. Some philosophers have argued that deliberation may exert a disciplinary function and is exclusionary to marginalized voices (e.g., Young 2003). Psychologists, in turn, remain skeptical whether people really possess the requisite abilities for entering a Habermasian discourse (Rosenberg 2003). Some critics, finally, have also speculated that deliberation might lead to the polarization of opinions (e.g., Sunstein 2003). In 2004, a conference brought together empirical scholars and deliberative philosophers for the first time (Bächtiger & Steiner 2005). It concluded that much empirical work lies ahead in order to address critics, to grapple with persisting methodological problems and to put the diverse empirical findings in a more coherent analytical framework. Broadening and deepening existing empirical approaches to deliberative democracy will be the major goal of this workshop, which could be seen as heralding phase II of empirical research on deliberation. Four interrelated topics need to be addressed: (1) A first topic is the question how much deliberation there really is in the political and civic sphere. Despite growing empirical research, this question is far from trivial, since existing empirical contributions have not been able to draw a clear-cut line between true deliberative and strategic action. In this regard, an urgent methodological issue is the question how one comes to terms with problem of truthfulness or

4 authenticity. So far, existing research must be content to claim that it has found something which excels standard forms of behavior. But is this something sophisticated bargaining, enlightened communication or true deliberation? Empirical research is in desperate need to find measurement and analytical strategies that can better discriminate among such different types of deliberation. This becomes even more important given the increasing use of the term deliberation in all fields of political science. (2) A second topic is to develop more unified analytical frameworks in the study of deliberation. Institutional scholars, for instance, have explored political institutions that favor deliberation but they have largely neglected psychological variables that might affect deliberative quality as well. Psychologists, in turn, have explored factors that affect the deliberative capacity of individuals (such as motivational factors), but they have largely ignored that these psychological factors may play out differently according to different institutional contexts. Finally, rational and social choice scholars have developed formal models that carve out favorable contexts under which instrumentally-oriented actors have incentives to deliberate. But these models are relatively isolated and ignore that in the real world, these favorable contexts might interplay with the larger institutional context. Thus, we need to re-unite these diverse perspectives with the goal of developing integrated analytical frameworks that model rational, institutional, and psychological variables simultaneously. In this regard, it will also be necessary to identify rational, institutional and psychological conditions under which authentic and transformative forms of deliberation can be achieved. (3) The third topic concerns the relationship of deliberation with outcomes. This is the most underdeveloped part of existing empirical studies on deliberation. Does deliberation really produce better policy outcomes (such as better public policy or moderation of conflicts)? Or does it produce the negative outcomes that deliberative critics fear (such as attitude polarization)? Furthermore, does deliberation mainly affect a social-learning and procedural dimension (e.g., the chance for achieving meta-agreement), or are there conditions under which it also affects a substantive dimension (such as the transformation of fundamental preferences; see List 2002)? (4) A fourth topic is to probe whether (and how) empirical work can be reconciled with philosophical ideals. Can political deliberation be also responsive to marginalized votes? How could the goal of more deliberation in the civic sphere be linked to the goal of more deliberation in the political sphere? We need to explore whether and how such multiple ideals can be realized in the real world -- or whether there are inherent trade-offs and unintended effects in the real world that stifle any attempts at a comprehensive democratic renewal. Participants: There is now a sizable group of scholars studying deliberation empirically. In Europe, this includes Katharina Holzinger, Christian List, Harald Müller, Patricia Nanz, Janusz Reykowski, Thomas Risse, Markus Spörndli, Jürg Steiner, and Elzbieta Wesolowska. Outside of Europe it includes James Fishkin, John Gastil, Robert Luskin, Tali Mendelberg, Michael Neblo, Shawn Rosenberg and Donald

5 Searing. Some of these individuals would be likely attendants of the workshop, but of course we welcome applications from other scholars, including graduate students. Types of paper: Papers should address the following sorts of questions: (1) How can we get a better handle at empirical blind-spots of deliberation, such as capturing the authenticity of deliberation or better distinguishing between different types of deliberation? (2) How much can different types of factors (rational, institutional, psychological) and especially combinations thereof explain variance in deliberative behavior? (3) Under what rational, institutional and psychological conditions can authentic and transformative forms of deliberation be achieved? (4) What outcomes follow from deliberation? (5) Can philosophical ideals be reconciled with empirical approaches? Papers could address a wide spectrum of analytical fields, ranging from international relations to comparative politics and the civic sphere. Papers could involve content analysis, experiments, surveys, formal models, and comparative studies. However, we are particularly interested in papers that combine theoretical approaches with empirical data. References Austen-Smith, D. & Feddersen, T. J. (2002) Deliberation and Voting Rules. Working Paper, Northwestern University. Bächtiger, A. & Steiner, J. (Guest Editors) (2005) Special Issue Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Democracy. Acta Politica 40/1 & 40/2 Dryzek, J. S., & List C. (2003) Social Choice Theory and Deliberative Democracy: a Reconciliation. British Journal of Political Science 33, List. C. (2002) Two Concepts of Agreement. The Good Society 11: Luskin, R. C. et al. (2002). Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science 32, Rosenberg, S. W. (2003). Reason, communicative competence and democratic deliberation: Can citizens effectively participate in deliberative decision-making? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA. Steenbergen, M. R. et al. (2003) Measuring Political Deliberation. Comparative European Politics 1, Steiner, J. et al. (2004) Deliberative Politics In Action. Analysing Parliamentary Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Sunstein, R. C. (2003) The Law of Group Polarization, in J. S. Fishkin and P. Laslett (eds) Debating Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Blackwell, Ulbert C. et al. (2004). Arguing and Bargaining in Multilateral Negotiations. Paper presented to the Conference on Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics European University Institute, Swiss Chair Firenze May 2004 Young, I. M. (2003) Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy, in J. S. Fishkin and P.Laslett (eds.) Debating Deliberative Democracy, Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp Biographical note André Bächtiger is senior assistant at the University of Bern. His research focuses on institutions and deliberation. He is co-author of Deliberative Politics in Action (Cambridge University Press, 2004). Marco R. Steenbergen is associate professor at the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill). His research interests lie in the fields of political psychology and quantitative methods. Recent publications include a paper about the humanitarian values and attitudes toward welfare policies (American Journal of Political Science 2001), a paper about multilevel models (American Journal of Political Science 2002), and a paper on the measurement of discourse quality (Comparative European Politics, 2003). He also is a co-author of Deliberative Politics in Action (Cambridge University Press, 2004).