Civic (Re)socialisation: The Educative Effects of Deliberative Participation
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-9256.12069 |
| Date | 01 June 2015 |
| Published date | 01 June 2015 |
| Author | Katherine R. Knobloch,John Gastil |
| Subject Matter | Article |
bs_bs_banner
P O L I T I C S : 2 0 1 5 V O L 3 5 ( 2 ) , 1 8 3 – 2 0 0
doi: 10.1111/1467-9256.12069
Civic (Re)socialisation: The Educative Effects
of Deliberative Participation
Katherine R. Knobloch
Colorado State University
John Gastil
Pennsylvania State University
This article examines the subjective experience of cognitive and behavioural change following public delibera-
tion in two different nations. It examines short- and long-term survey data from two highly structured
deliberative forums – the 2009 Australian Citizens’ Parliament and the 2010 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review.
Results showed increases in reported deliberative and internal efficacy, some measures of external efficacy, and
communicative and community-based engagement, though participants rarely reported increases in institu-
tionalised political participation. Participants in an online process in Australia reported limited increases in their
internal and external efficacy and communicative engagement. These findings suggest that well-structured
deliberative governance can transform the meaning and practice of citizenship.
Keywords: citizenship; deliberation; online discussion; political efficacy; political participation
Neither the ideal nor the practice of democratic citizenship remains static. Contemporary
understandings of the ‘good citizen’ reflect changes in the institutions that provide avenues
for civic engagement and shape norms about citizens’ roles in self-governance (Schudson,
1999). Though a professionalised and capitalistic public sphere has narrowed the scope of
democratic citizenship in many countries (Knobloch, 2011), new deliberative structures have
invited citizens into decision-making processes that model deliberative habits and dispositions
(Burkhalter, Gastil and Kelshaw, 2002).
Although previous research has shown that deliberation can influence both civic engage-
ment and attitudes towards citizenship, scholarly understanding of these effects remains
limited. Studies tend to focus on short-term attitudinal or behavioural changes within a
single context, typically a low-stakes face-to-face deliberation (Pincock, 2012). Longitu-
dinal studies have shown some changes over time (Gastil et al., 2010), but no researchers
have examined participants’ subjective experiences of these changes. This is particularly
important because in any public debate on democratic reform, citizens are more likely
to testify on behalf of deliberation’s transformative potential only if it is experienced as
such.
To address these issues, we used self-report measures to record participants’ sense of change
in response to two highly structured but distinct deliberative forums held in different national
contexts: the 2009 Australian Citizens’ Parliament (Carson et al., 2013) and the 2010 Oregon
Citizens’ Initiative Review (Knobloch et al., 2013). Survey measures were used both immedi-
ately after the events occurred and a year later.
© 2014 The Authors. Politics © 2014 Political Studies Association
184
K AT H E R I N E R . K N O B L O C H A N D J O H N
Our results indicate that the implementation of deliberative governance can alter how
participants understand themselves as citizens and their role in governance. Though par-
ticipants in an online-only process reported few changes, participants in the face-to-face
events reported increased faith in themselves and government as well as greater participa-
tion in communicative and community engagement. Such findings suggest that the insti-
tutionalisation of highly structured, face-to-face deliberative processes could have the
power to transform democracy by providing citizens with a meaningful and effective way
to engage in politics. Before inspecting these findings, we begin by reviewing the theoretical
justification for hypothesising participants’ experience of changing civic attitudes and
behaviour.
Do public forums change people?
Conceptions of deliberative democracy come in many forms, from philosophical ideal
(Dahlberg, 2005; Mansbridge, 1983) to a practical means of public consultation (Fishkin,
2009; Nabatchi et al., 2012). We agree with those who believe the best approach bridges
theoretical and empirical work (Jacobs, Cook and Delli Carpini, 2009). As Blaug (1996, p. 75)
argues, ‘a fully adequate deliberative theory would need to be both normative and empirical,
utopian and realistic’. One can conceive of, and experiment with, new deliberative structures
(Nabatchi et al., 2012) while recognising the value of existing deliberative bodies, such as
juries. Deliberative democratic theorists have often speculated about the possibility for delib-
eration to foster better citizens (Burkhalter, Gastil and Kelshaw, 2002; Fishkin, 2009;
Knobloch, 2011; Warren, 1993), and empirical research on existing practices generally sup-
ports this view (Delli Carpini, Cook and Jacobs, 2004; Gastil et al., 2010; Pincock, 2012). Most
prior research has focused on face-to-face deliberation, but participants in computer-mediated
deliberation may also experience changing attitudes and behaviour (e.g. Gronlund,
Strandberg and Himmelroos, 2009). Less clear is how often deliberation’s effects persist over
time and whether they are experienced directly by the participants themselves. In the
discussion that follows, we review a range of subjective impacts deliberation could have on
participants. After theorising these changes, we test participants’ experience of these changes
across two national contexts, across short- and long-term data, and across face-to-face and
online processes.
Attitudinal changes
The four attitudes we examine address core claims of empirical deliberative theory.
First, participating in such a process can instil confidence in deliberation as a means
of resolving public controversies (i.e. one’s ‘deliberative faith’), which should help
make deliberation a self-reinforcing experience (Burkhalter, Gastil and Kelshaw, 2002).
Second, deliberation is believed to restore one’s sense of political self-confidence, or
‘internal efficacy’ (Morrell, 2005), and generate sufficient perceived system legitimacy, or
‘external efficacy’ (Fishkin, 2009), to encourage one to take political action. Finally, a sense
of collective identification can encourage public action in which people organise and par-
ticipate together in public life, rather than as alienated, private individuals (Knobloch,
2011).
At deliberative events, participants build deliberative skills and habits and thus develop
their ability to reach common ground across differences (Nabatchi, 2010). Because of this,
© 2014 The Authors. Politics © 2014 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2015 VOL 35(2)
E F F E C T S O F D E L I B E R AT I V E PA R T I C I PAT I O N
185
deliberation likely increases participants’ willingness to engage in future deliberations
(Burkhalter, Gastil and Kelshaw, 2002). For example, even when reluctant to participate
initially, jurors generally leave the courthouse with more confidence in the jury process as a
means of resolving criminal cases and civil disputes (Gastil et al., 2010).
Participants in Deliberative Polls have consistently shown increases in internal efficacy
(Fishkin, 2009). Structured, online deliberation has been shown to increase participants’
feelings of political self-confidence (Min, 2007). Many other results have been more equivo-
cal. Morrell’s (2005) experimental work has shown that those in face-to-face deliberations
developed more situation-specific internal efficacy than those who only voted. A study of the
National Issues Forums found that participation in deliberative education actually had a
negative effect on group efficacy, by diminishing participants’ confidence that the group was
capable of performing political tasks (Gastil, 2004). Finally, Nabatchi (2010) found that
participation in a 21st Century Town Meeting increases internal efficacy, but not to a statis-
tically significant degree.
If deliberation serves a legitimising function, it should also heighten citizens’ sense that they
have a say in government decisions – that their representatives care about their opinions.
Such effects have been shown in longitudinal analyses of participation in 21st Century Town
Meetings (Nabatchi, 2010) and Deliberative Polls (Fishkin, 2009). In addition, survey data
indicates that discursive participation, either face-to-face or online, is associated with higher
levels of trust in government (Jacobs, Cook and Delli Carpini, 2009). In the case of jurors,
those who deliberated and were satisfied with the verdict developed greater trust in judges
(Gastil et al., 2010).
Deliberative events also should allow individuals from different groups to understand their
common concerns, as well as their distinct viewpoints (Benhabib, 1996; Dahlberg, 2005).
Deliberative participation can produce positive feelings between members of in-groups and
out-groups (Luskin et al., 2012). In fact, one of the cases studied here did lead to increases in
participant expressions of collective identity (Felicetti et al., 2012; Hartz-Karp et al., 2010): By
the end of the Australian Citizens’ Parliament, participants began to form a shared identity
with one another and crossed cultural and geographical divides despite Australia’s hetero-
geneous makeup and traditional ambivalence toward national identity. We will test for the
same effect in the other deliberative context examined in this article.
Behavioural changes
Deliberative participation can also spark three...
To continue reading
Request your trial