81 second reason for this lack of empirical evidence on mixed recruitment strategies may be a recent lack of experimental research in this field.1
4.2 Do mini-publics contribute to a high quality
82
Assembly during the deliberation process became “quite experts in the technical details of electoral systems” (p. 200). Moreover, studies showed that participants’ post-preferences were more logically linked in terms of values, causal relationships and political preferences (Böker &
Elstub, 2015; Fishkin, 2011). According to Luskin (1987) and Gastil and Dillard (1999), face-to-face deliberation refined participants’ policy preferences (also referred to as ‘political sophistication’), as they displayed more nuanced and integrated views and exhibited less attitudinal uncertainty after participating in deliberative mini-publics.
Price, Cappella, and Nir (2002) found that participants developed higher quality reasoning and argumentation after being exposed to disagreement.
Besides the fact that deliberation has several cognitive effects on the participants, research also found that it also can have behavioural effects. For example, Fishkin, Luskin, and Jowell (2000) found, by comparing participants’ post-preferences with their voting behaviour, that participants voted following their new-found preferences in elections. In addition, empirical evidence suggests that participants became more tolerant of opposing points of view and consensus-driven during deliberation. One reason for this provided by List, Luskin, Fishkin, and McLean (2012), who found that deliberation in Deliberative Polls would have made lines of disagreement clearer, which in turn would have led to more single-peaked preferences among participants. In line with this, Fishkin (2011) noted that participation in a Deliberative Poll reduced participants’ rational ignorance. Moreover, in their research into a few Dutch G1000 initiatives, Boogaard et al.
(2016) concluded that citizens participating in the Citizens’ Summit developed a sense of belonging during the deliberation process.
According to Fournier, et al. (2011), after their participation in the Citizens’ Assemblies participants became more politically interested as well as more attentive to political news.
83 Yet, although several empirical studies have indicated that mini-publics can have positive cognitive and behavioural effects on the participants, some scholars claim that the internal working of existing and new mini-publics has so far been poorly understood (c.f., Kim, Siu, and Sood (2010); Ryan and Smith, 2014; Bächtiger et al., 2014; O’Flynn and Sood, 2014). Ryan and Smith (2014) argued that research into the exchange of preferences and opinions in mini-publics alone would have provided little insight into the “deliberative quality of interactions within mini-publics” (p. 22). In line with this, Bächtiger et al. (2014, p. 225) and O’Flynn and Sood (2014) pointed out that little is still known about the internal inclusiveness of mini-public designs; how and whether they provide participants with equal opportunities to learn, express and reflect on their preferences.1 Previous research in this regard has indicated that this might not always be the case. For example, O’Flynn and Sood (2014) found that more knowledgeable participants would speak more than less knowledgeable participants. For example, Kim, et al. (2010) observed in their study on two online Deliberative Polls that many participants would hardly speak at all since they would be crowded out by other participants. In line with this, Luskin, Sood, Fishkin, and Kim (2009) found in their study on Deliberative Polls that individuals assigned to groups that were more attitudinally diverse learned more than those who were assigned to groups that were less knowledgeable and less attitudinally heterogeneous. However, while research suggests that participants’ level of education may affect their ability to contribute to dialogues, why some participants engage more
1 The question raised about internal inclusiveness is consistent with a number of deliberative democrats and pluralists who have raised several objections to Habermas’ ideal of rational discourse (cf. Sanders, 1997; Young, 2002). In their view, Habermas’ ideal of rational discourse would not pay sufficient attention to pluralism and the differences between the interlocutors.
Moreover, a rational discourse would only do justice to a few privileged people, which would lead to the potential exclusion of less privileged groups. In line with this argument, a few scholars suggested a move away from purely rational discourse towards a broader concept of deliberation, which would include alternative forms of communication such as emotional discourse, rhetoric, and storytelling (see Bächtiger, Niemeyer, Neblo, Steenbergen & Steiner, 2010).
84
or less in the conversation is still poorly understood (see Kim, et al.
(2010); Ryan and Smith, 2014; Bächtiger et al., 2014; O'Flynn and Sood, 2014).
4.2.1 What are the theoretical gaps in the literature on mini-publics in terms of their internal functioning?
To this date, a lot of research has been done into the opinion and exchange of knowledge in mini-publics and the question of whether participants change their personal preferences through deliberation and/or the provision of information. Nevertheless, a gap remains in the field of mini-public research, namely the lack of a more systematic examination of the internal functioning (or malfunctioning) of deliberative mini-publics (see also Ryan and Smith, 2014 thoughts on how research on mini-publics should be taken further). More specifically the question of how the different elements in a mini-public – e.g., structure or facilitated small group dialogues, voting procedures and planned sessions (in which experts are interviewed by participants) – contribute to the internal functioning of a mini-public, and thus influence its quality of deliberation and decision-making process remains unanswered. And how does this rather objectively assessable quality of the deliberation process relate to the actual perceived quality of deliberation and decision-making by the participants?
In analysing the internal functioning of mini-publics, different approaches have been taken in the past by scholars inspired by different disciplines. As a result, there are still no unified models (theoretical or empirical) that provide a “golden standard” for assessing the quality of deliberation in mini-publics (see e.g., Bächtiger, Niemeyer, Noble, Steenbergen & Steiner, 2010; De Vries, Stanczyk, Ryan & Kim. 2011).
Some scholars focused in their studies exclusively on the desirable outcomes of high-quality deliberation, while others developed frameworks that proposed a set of desirable criteria for an effective
85 overall deliberation process (see Rowe & Frewer, 2004). Yet, although most of these frameworks rely on normative theoretical criteria to assess the democratic value or quality of deliberation in mini-publics, there is a lack of consistency among scholars about what the basic normative requirements or quality criteria for good deliberation are. Moreover, several recent studies have criticised these approaches for their lack of focus on the explicit perceived effects of deliberation. For example, Jacobs and Kaufmann (2021) criticise earlier approaches for assessing the democratic value of mini-publics solely based on a set of normative criteria, rather than focusing on the perceived legitimacy of these participatory processes.
4.2.2 Framework for analysis of the internal functioning of mini-publics
To assess the internal functioning of a mini-public more thoroughly, we, therefore, propose a two-dimensional model based on the deliberation process and participants’ perceptions.
Process
In line with De Vries et al. (2010), we argue that one needs to consider both the design and the implementation of the deliberation process to assess the quality of the deliberation process within a mini-public. In the previous chapter, we highlighted four important design criteria for a high-quality discourse including (1) structured deliberation (e.g., dialogue rules and well-trained facilitators), (2) learning opportunities (e.g., briefing materials and questioning experts), (3) transparent proceedings and decision procedures, and (4) popular control. In analysing the internal functioning of mini-publics, we argue that research should focus on the extent to which deliberative mini-publics are designed to implement these four criteria.
86
1. Structured deliberation is an essential component of all mini-public designs, as the use of e.g., dialogue rules and trained facilitators can contribute to a more equal and respectful dialogue among deliberators.
2. Learning is one of the most important aspects of quality deliberation. Providing learning opportunities for participants throughout the participatory process can not only help them to consider and reflect on a particular issue from different perspectives and ultimately come to a more considered judgement but can also help to eliminate initial knowledge asymmetries between deliberators.
3. Transparency of proceedings and decision-making procedure is key to produce fair outcomes, ensuring that all participants had an equally clear understanding of the conditions under which they were participating.
4. Popular control is crucial when it comes to the role of participants in the deliberation process. All participants should not only have the same opportunity to participate in a mini-public, but they should also have the same opportunities to contribute to the deliberation and its agenda, as well as to influence the decision-making process.
Perceptions
In addition to the four objectively measurable design criteria presented above, we argue that to get a more comprehensive picture of the internal functioning of mini-publics, one must also include the subjective perceptions of participants’ experiences in the evaluation. We identified four desirable perceptual effects of deliberation and decision-making:
perceived (1) equality among participants, (2) respect, (3) transparency and (4) fairness of proceedings and procedures.
87 1. Equality among participants is crucial to warrant the inclusiveness of the deliberation process. All participants should have equal opportunities to participate in the deliberation and in the content of that decision.
2. Respect towards other participants’ background (e.g., particular groups), their demands and counterarguments are important to warrant that all participants feel safe and comfortable to contribute to deliberation.
3. Transparency of proceeding and decision-making procedures is a pre-condition for producing fair outcomes.
4. Fairness of proceeding and decision-making procedures is a pre-condition for producing perceived legitimate democratic outcomes in representative democracies.
While the first three perceptual effects are based on the normative ideals of good deliberation discussed in the previous chapter, the fourth effect is taken from the literature on procedural justice. According to this literature, the source of perceived just and legitimate democratic decisions is not only based on the perceived transparency or openness of decision-making processes but also on their perceived fairness (see e.g., Rawls’ (1958) essay on Justice is Fairness). Theoretically, this literature is based on the liberal assumption that perceptions of legitimacy are grounded in “how fair citizens are treated by their government” (Jacobs
& Kaufmann, 2021, p. 95; see also Tyler, 2003; Levi, Sacks, & Tyler 2009). However, as contemporary mini-publics function within liberal or representative democracies, we argue that their legitimacy also depends on the extent to which all participants experience the procedures and decision-making processes as fair and acceptable.
88