The Discursive Functions of Deliberative Voting

Author:

Serota Kristie1ORCID,O'Doherty Kieran C.2ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Canada

2. Psychology, University of Guelph, Canada

Abstract

This study aims to build on Moore and O'Doherty's (2014) proposal to integrate deliberative voting procedures into deliberative processes. Deliberative voting has been proposed to recognize collective endpoints of deliberation and solicit key reasons from participants for supporting (or rejecting) collective decisions. This article further develops the theoretical understanding of the function of embedding voting procedures in deliberative processes. Using discursive psychological analysis, we provide an analysis of transcripts from a public deliberation event on cancer drug funding policy to gain a deeper understanding of the discursive dynamics of deliberative voting. We investigate how participants use deliberative voting as a communication tool to signal three types of disagreement: actual, nuanced, and marginal. We pay particular attention to the role of the facilitator in the deliberative voting process and the role of the voting process in shaping the outputs of the deliberation. Finally, we recommend deliberation practitioners and facilitators should engage in reflexive investigation into how power operates within deliberative voting and deliberation events broadly.

Publisher

University of Westminster Press

Subject

General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Environmental Science

Reference33 articles.

1. Framing a deliberation: Deliberative democracy and the challenge of framing processes;Barisione, M.;Journal of Public Deliberation,2012

2. Bentley, C., Abelson, J., Burgess, M. M., Peacock, S., DPayette, O., Lavis, J. N., & Wilson, M. G. (2017). Making fair and sustainable decisions about funding for cancer drugs in Canada: Final report. https://cc-arcc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/EN-Making-Fair-and-Sustainable-Decisions-about-Funding-for-Cancer-Drugs-Final-Report-March-31-2017.pdf.

3. Tradeoffs, fairness, and funding for cancer drugs: Key findings from a deliberative public engagement event in British Columbia, Canada;Bentley, C.Costa, S.Burgess, M. M.Reiger, D.McTaggart-Cowan, H.Peacock, S. J.;BMC Health Services Research,2018

4. What is public Deliberation?;Blacksher, E.Diebel, A.Forest, P.Dorr Goold, S.Abelson, J.;Hastings Center Report,2012

5. Framing and power in public deliberation with climate change: Critical reflections on the role of deliberative practitioners;Blue, G.Dale, J.;Journal of Public Deliberation,2016

Cited by 1 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

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3