Abstract
AbstractOne of key goals of deliberative mini-publics is to counteract expert domination in policymaking. Mini-publics can be expected to democratize expertise by providing citizens with good opportunities for weighing expert information. Yet, there are concerns about undue influence of experts even within mini-publics. We test these expectations by analysing data from an online mini-public organized in Finland in March 2021. The topic of deliberation was measures taken to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. We examine whether experts’ field of specialization and the order of expert hearings had an impact on how participants’ views developed. We find that neither the field of expertise nor the order of hearings had systematic effects on participants’ perceptions on containment measures. The results suggest that interactive modes of expert hearings in mini-publics seem not to be prone to domination by experts.
Funder
Strategic Research Council
Academy of Finland
University of Turku (UTU) including Turku University Central Hospital
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Public Administration,General Social Sciences,Sociology and Political Science,Development
Reference35 articles.
1. Barisione, M. (2012). Framing a deliberation: Deliberative democracy and the challenge of framing processes. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8, 1. https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.124
2. Bogler, A. (2012). The paradox of participation experiments. Science, Technology & Human Values, 3(5), 506–527.
3. Brown, M. (2014). Expertise and deliberative democracy. In S. Elstub & P. McLaverty (Eds.), Deliberative democracy. Issues and cases (pp. 50–68). Edinburgh University Press.
4. Calvert, A., & Warren, M. E. (2014). Deliberative democracy and framing effects: Why frames are a problem and how deliberative mini-publics might overcome them. In K. Grönlund, A. Bächtiger, & M. Setälä (Eds.), Deliberative mini-publics (pp. 203–224). ECPR Press.
5. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献