公众审议和政策设计

IF 3.1 Q1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Policy Design and Practice Pub Date : 2021-04-24 DOI:10.1080/25741292.2021.1912906
Alastair Stark, N. Thompson, G. Marston
{"title":"公众审议和政策设计","authors":"Alastair Stark, N. Thompson, G. Marston","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1912906","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract What role can deliberative democracy mechanisms perform in relation to policy design? This article reports findings from an experiment which was conducted to answer that question. The experiment brought together a random sample of the public who debated public policy questions online and face-to-face. Three key findings emerged. First, deliberative democracy mechanisms are different from more typical participatory policy design tools because they offer something more dynamic than a ‘snapshot’ of public opinion. Second, public deliberation can contribute evidence to policy analysis processes that is more considered because it emerges from a process of citizen sensemaking. Finally, unique forms of policy relevant data can be produced by analyzing the justifications that citizens use to convince others during policy deliberations. These findings suggest that allowing citizens to “talk policy” through deliberative democracy mechanisms can produce unique forms of policy knowledge.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"4 1","pages":"452 - 464"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/25741292.2021.1912906","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public deliberation and policy design\",\"authors\":\"Alastair Stark, N. Thompson, G. Marston\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/25741292.2021.1912906\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract What role can deliberative democracy mechanisms perform in relation to policy design? This article reports findings from an experiment which was conducted to answer that question. The experiment brought together a random sample of the public who debated public policy questions online and face-to-face. Three key findings emerged. First, deliberative democracy mechanisms are different from more typical participatory policy design tools because they offer something more dynamic than a ‘snapshot’ of public opinion. Second, public deliberation can contribute evidence to policy analysis processes that is more considered because it emerges from a process of citizen sensemaking. Finally, unique forms of policy relevant data can be produced by analyzing the justifications that citizens use to convince others during policy deliberations. These findings suggest that allowing citizens to “talk policy” through deliberative democracy mechanisms can produce unique forms of policy knowledge.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20397,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy Design and Practice\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"452 - 464\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/25741292.2021.1912906\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy Design and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1912906\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Design and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1912906","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

协商民主机制在政策设计中能够发挥怎样的作用?本文报告了一项实验的结果,该实验是为了回答这个问题而进行的。这个实验随机抽取了一些公众样本,他们在网上和面对面地讨论公共政策问题。三个主要发现浮出水面。首先,协商民主机制不同于更典型的参与性政策设计工具,因为它们提供的东西比公众舆论的“快照”更具动态性。其次,公众审议可以为政策分析过程提供证据,而政策分析过程受到更多的考虑,因为它来自公民的意义制定过程。最后,通过分析公民在政策审议过程中用来说服他人的理由,可以产生独特形式的政策相关数据。这些发现表明,允许公民通过协商民主机制“谈论政策”可以产生独特的政策知识形式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Public deliberation and policy design
Abstract What role can deliberative democracy mechanisms perform in relation to policy design? This article reports findings from an experiment which was conducted to answer that question. The experiment brought together a random sample of the public who debated public policy questions online and face-to-face. Three key findings emerged. First, deliberative democracy mechanisms are different from more typical participatory policy design tools because they offer something more dynamic than a ‘snapshot’ of public opinion. Second, public deliberation can contribute evidence to policy analysis processes that is more considered because it emerges from a process of citizen sensemaking. Finally, unique forms of policy relevant data can be produced by analyzing the justifications that citizens use to convince others during policy deliberations. These findings suggest that allowing citizens to “talk policy” through deliberative democracy mechanisms can produce unique forms of policy knowledge.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Policy Design and Practice
Policy Design and Practice PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
4.30%
发文量
19
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍:
期刊最新文献
Data governance for smart cities in China: the case of Shenzhen Policy labs on the fringes: boundary-spanning strategies for enhancing innovation uptake After the announcement: an interdisciplinary analysis of blockchain development in governments Beyond the hype—the actual use of blockchain in government Governance impacts of blockchain-based decentralized autonomous organizations: an empirical analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1