Reasons and inclusion: The foundation of deliberation

Erik Schneiderhan, Shamus Khan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

62 Scopus citations

Abstract

This article provides two empirical evaluations of deliberation. Given that scholars of deliberation often argue for its importance without empirical support, we first examine whether there is a "deliberative difference"; if actors engaging in deliberation arrive at different decisions than those who think on their own or "just talk." As we find a general convergence within deliberation scholarship around reasons and inclusion, the second test examines whether these two specific mechanisms are central to deliberation. The first evaluation looks at outcomes within a laboratory setting; the second at videotapes of decision-making processes within this setting. Our results show two things. First, in terms of outcomes, deliberation differs from other forms of interaction. Second, reasons and inclusion are central to the deliberative process. The more reasons provided within each group, the more likely participants were to change their position; similarly, the more inclusive groups were, the more likely participants were to change their position. We conclude by arguing that more work needs to be done, both in evaluating the deliberative difference and in disaggregating deliberation and examining its central explanatory mechanisms.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-24
Number of pages24
JournalSociological Theory
Volume26
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2008
Externally publishedYes

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Sociology and Political Science

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Reasons and inclusion: The foundation of deliberation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this