Widespread concern over recent changes in American civic life has spawned arguments in a range of disciplines about the importance of social capital, citizen civic capacity and deliberative democratic engagement in supporting the development of engaged citizens, as well as supporting a democracy that is effective, publicly-minded and accountable. This study contributes to this literature by empirically investigating the potential for a specific type of place-based community development called "cohousing" to enhance the quantity and quality of resident civic engagement. Cohousing neighborhoods marry elements of social contact design with democratic self-governance and intentional social practices designed to build trust and cohesion among neighbors. In addition to investigating civic engagement in cohousing, this study investigates the degree to which U.S. cohousing neighborhoods build social capital, develop residents' democratic capacities and provide a platform for deliberative democratic practice. The results of the study indicate extraordinarily high levels of civic engagement by U.S. cohousing residents as compared to both the general population and to individuals with similar educational, income and racial characteristics. A multiple-case analysis of three neighborhoods, selected for positive deviance in civic engagement levels, were found to possess high levels of trust, social cohesion and norms of reciprocity. Case community residents were also found to be developing a range of democratic capacities, individually and collectively, particularly through engagement in community self-governance via structures of distributed leadership and the use of consensus-based, community decision-making processes. This study suggests that self-governing, communities of place, such as cohousing neighborhoods may represent a promising new avenue for enhanced citizen-engagement at the grassroots-community level. These neighborhoods also represent an excellent arena for future investigation into conditions, necessary and sufficient, to catalyze increased democratic capacity and civic engagement on the part of citizens. / Ph. D.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This dissertation traces the rhetorical history of Virginia Tech's April 16th Memorial from its earliest appearance immediately following the April 16, 2007 shootings up to its present iteration as a permanent memorial on Virginia Tech's campus. Specifically, this study reveals how the April 16th Memorial is a public memory performance that has changed (and continues to change) in its form, function, and significance across time. Based on a data set that includes archival evidence, interview data, and fieldwork, I argue that over the course of its history, the April 16th Memorial has negotiated tensions and fusions between the epideictic and deliberative genres that exist within its bounds. In doing so, the memorial asks audiences to honor and remember the dead while also compelling audiences to deliberate over the social and political issues punctuated by the tragedy. Whereas the epideictic appeals in the memorial aim to reknit the community, the deliberative appeals invite audiences to imagine a better, safer world. By tracing the intersections between these two genres, this study demonstrates how complementary and competing forces in the memorial vie over not only constructions of public memory but also the lessons we are meant to gain from the April 16, 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech. / Doctor of Philosophy / Public memory refers to the shared recollections of history among members of a specific community. Rather than individual memory, public memory is constituted by what communities choose to remember and forget and what gets retold to future generations. Specific artifacts help support the creation of public memory, including archives, museums, monuments, and memorials. Scholars tend to agree that what communities chose to monumentalize in stone often reflects a desire to shape public memory in strategic ways. This dissertation traces the history of the April 16th Memorial at Virginia Tech in order to capture how the commemorative site has influenced (and continues to influence) public memory of the shootings that occurred at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007. Using archival evidence, interview data, and fieldnotes collected at the site, I argue that the April 16th Memorial asks visitors to honor and remember the dead while also compelling visitors to deliberate over the kinds of action that might prevent school shootings in the future. This study demonstrates how complementary and competing forces in the memorial vie over not only constructions of public memory but also the lessons we are meant to gain from the April 16, 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech.

A motivação para estudar modelos de democracia, em especial a participativa no viés deliberativo, deita raízes na conjuntura histórica compreendendo pelo menos duas décadas, em que ocorrem debates acadêmicos, lutas democráticas e movimentos sociais que vêm em alguns países nos últimos anos dando voz às reivindicações populares por mudanças nos modelos atuais de democracia, e por maior participação popular e um alargamento dos espaços públicos para discussões. Nesse contexto, o Orçamento Participativo se destaca como experiência no Brasil e em muitos países como instrumento para essas mudanças. O marco teórico escolhido foi a démarche de Jürgen Habermas. Suas digressões sobre democracia deliberativa envolvem diretamente as formulações sobre o conteúdo da esfera pública e seu reposicionamento em arranjo interno mais amplo relacionando-a com os sistemas da sociedade. A principal experiência objeto da pesquisa foi o Orçamento Participativo de Cascais, em razão do estágio de doutoramento com bolsa concedida pela CAPES no ano de 2013. / The motivation to study models of democracy, especially in participatory deliberative bias, is based on the historical context comprising at least two decades, they occur academic debates, democratic struggles and social movements that come in some countries in recent years giving voice to the claims popular for changes in current models of democracy, and greater popular participation and a broadening of public spaces for discussions. In this context, the Participatory Budget stands as experience in Brazil and in many countries as a tool for these changes. The chosen theoretical complex was the demarche of Jürgen Habermas. Their tours on deliberative democracy involve formulations directly on the contents of the public sphere and its repositioning in broader internal arrangement relating it to the systems of society. The main object of the research experience was the Participatory Budget of Cascais- PT, due to the doctoral stage with scholarship granted by CAPES in 2013.

A motivação para estudar modelos de democracia, em especial a participativa no viés deliberativo, deita raízes na conjuntura histórica compreendendo pelo menos duas décadas, em que ocorrem debates acadêmicos, lutas democráticas e movimentos sociais que vêm em alguns países nos últimos anos dando voz às reivindicações populares por mudanças nos modelos atuais de democracia, e por maior participação popular e um alargamento dos espaços públicos para discussões. Nesse contexto, o Orçamento Participativo se destaca como experiência no Brasil e em muitos países como instrumento para essas mudanças. O marco teórico escolhido foi a démarche de Jürgen Habermas. Suas digressões sobre democracia deliberativa envolvem diretamente as formulações sobre o conteúdo da esfera pública e seu reposicionamento em arranjo interno mais amplo relacionando-a com os sistemas da sociedade. A principal experiência objeto da pesquisa foi o Orçamento Participativo de Cascais, em razão do estágio de doutoramento com bolsa concedida pela CAPES no ano de 2013. / The motivation to study models of democracy, especially in participatory deliberative bias, is based on the historical context comprising at least two decades, they occur academic debates, democratic struggles and social movements that come in some countries in recent years giving voice to the claims popular for changes in current models of democracy, and greater popular participation and a broadening of public spaces for discussions. In this context, the Participatory Budget stands as experience in Brazil and in many countries as a tool for these changes. The chosen theoretical complex was the demarche of Jürgen Habermas. Their tours on deliberative democracy involve formulations directly on the contents of the public sphere and its repositioning in broader internal arrangement relating it to the systems of society. The main object of the research experience was the Participatory Budget of Cascais- PT, due to the doctoral stage with scholarship granted by CAPES in 2013.

This thesis empirically examines how lobby groups and activists respond to innovative forms of public participation. The study centres on processes that foster a particular kind of deliberative governance including citizens’ juries, consensus conferences and planning cells. These deliberative designs bring together a panel of randomly selected lay citizens to deliberate on a specific policy issue for a few days, with the aim of providing decision makers with a set of recommendations. While policy makers worldwide are attracted to these novel participatory processes, little consideration has been given to how well they work alongside more adversarial and interest-based politics. This doctoral research project examines this interface by studying what these processes mean to different kinds of policy actors such as corporations, advocacy groups, government agencies, experts and professionals. These entities are collectively referred to in this thesis as ‘interest organisations’ because in some way they are seeking a specific policy outcome from the state – even government-based groups.¶ The empirical research in this thesis is based on comparative case studies of four deliberative design projects in Australia and Germany. The Australian cases include a citizens’ jury on waste management legislation and a consensus conference on gene technology in the food chain. The German case studies include a planning cells project on consumer protection in Bavaria, and a national consensus conference on genetic diagnostics. Together the cases capture a diversity of complex and contested policy issues facing post-industrialised societies. In each case study, I examine how relevant interest organisations responded to the deliberative forum, and then interpret these responses in view of the context and features of the case.¶ The picture emerging from the in-depth case studies is that interest organisations respond to deliberative designs in a variety of ways. Some choose to participate actively, others passively decline, and a few resort to strategic tactics to undermine citizens’ deliberations. The empirical research reveals that though responses are variable, most interest organisations are challenged by several features of the deliberative design model including: 1) that deliberators are citizens with no knowledge or association with the issue; 2) that experts and interest representatives are required to present their arguments before a citizens’ panel; and 3) that policy discussions occur under deliberative conditions which can expose the illegitimate use of power.¶ Despite these challenges, the paradox is that many interest organisations do decide to engage in lay citizen deliberations. The empirical research indicates that groups and experts value deliberative designs if they present an opportunity for public relations, customer feedback, or advocacy. Moreover, the research finds that when policy actors intensively engage with ‘ordinary’ citizens, their technocratic and elite ideas about public participation can shift in a more inclusive and deliberative direction.¶ The thesis finds that, on the whole, weaker interest organisations are more willing to engage with lay citizens than stronger organisations because they welcome the chance to influence public debate and decision makers. It appears that powerful groups will only engage in a deliberative forum under certain policy conditions, for example, when the dominant policy paradigm is unstable and contested, when public discussion on the issue is emerging, when policy networks are interdependent and heterogeneous, and when the broader social and political system supports public accountability, consensus and deliberation. Given that these kinds of policy conditions do not always exist, I conclude that tensions between interest organisations and deliberative governance will be common. In order to create more cooperative and productive interfaces, I recommend that interest organisations be better supported and integrated into citizens’ deliberations, and that steps be taken to safeguard forums from strategic attempts to undermine their legitimacy.¶ The thesis also sends out three key messages to democratic theorists. First, the empirical research shows that different kinds of groups and actors in civil society vary in their willingness and capacity to participate to public deliberation. Second, the deliberative design model demonstrates that partisan actors, such as interest organisations, will engage in public deliberation when they can participate as strategic deliberators. In this role partisans are not expected to relinquish their agendas, but present them as testimonies before a group of deliberators. Third, the empirical research in this thesis should bring home to theorists that deliberative forums are closely linked to the discursive context within which they operate.

Rooted in philosophy of education, the overall purpose of this dissertation is to renegotiate the relationship between education, religion, and democracy by placing the religious subject at the centre of this renegotiation. While education is the main focus, the study draws its energy from the fact that tensions around religious beliefs and practices seem to touch upon the very heart of liberal democracy. The study reads the tensions religious pluralism seems to be causing in contemporary education through a post-structural approach to difference and subjectivity. The purpose is accomplished in three movements. The first aims to show why the renegotiation is needed by examining how the relationship between education, democracy, and religion is currently being addressed in cosmopolitan education and deliberative education. The second movement introduces a model of democracy, radical democracy, that sees the process of defining the subject as a political process. It is argued that this model offers possibilities for seeing religion and the religious subject as part of the struggle for democracy. The third movement aims to develop how the relationship between education, democracy, and religion might change if we bring them together in a conversation whose conditions are not ‘owned’ by any one of them. To create this conversation, Hannah Arendt, Jacques Derrida, Søren Kierkegaard, and Emmanuel Levinas are brought together around three themes – love, freedom, and dialogue – referred to as ‘windows.’ The windows offer three examples in which religious subjectivity is made manifest but they also create a shift in perspective that invites other ways of seeing the tensions between religion and democracy. The aim of the study is to discuss how education might change when religion and democracy become questions for it through the perspectives offered in the windows and what this implies for the particular religious subject.

Of the numerous public policy debates currently taking place throughout the United States, perhaps no issue receives more attention than the persistence of “chronically” low-performing public schools. As of 2009, approximately 5,000 schools—5% of the nation’s total—qualified as chronically low performing (Duncan, 2009d). Certainly, these statistics merit the attention of policy scholars, yet the political contestation of interests attempting to influence how the federal government should address such issues has reached a new fevered crescendo. Given the increased politicization of the federal government’s role in education and the growing number of interests attempting to influence the debates concerning school reform, education policy scholars have recognized the need to extend the field of policy studies by using analytical frameworks that consider both the discourse and performative dimensions of deliberative policy making. Therefore, this study addresses this particular need by employing a critical interpretive policy analysis that illustrates how both dominant discourses and the deliberative performances of the federal government shaped the policy vocabularies embedded within the Title I School Improvement Grant program of 2009 as the commonsense solutions for the nation’s chronically low-performing schools. In addition, this study provides a historical analysis, illustrating how the omnipresent threat of an economic crisis has been a primary influence in the politics of federal governance since the global economic collapse of the 1970s. This study demonstrates how over the course of the last four decades the United States has consistently reduced its commitment to the public sector, choosing instead to promote economic policies informed by the ideals of market-based liberalism. Subsequently, this study presents the argument that education, specifically the “chronic failure” of public schools, has emerged as a “primary emblematic issue” (Hajer, 1995) and now serves as an “effective metaphor for the nation’s economic crisis.” Thus, with such issues presented as a contextual backdrop, this study examines how the Obama/Duncan Administration operationalized dominant discourses and performative practices to establish consensual support for a turnaround reform agenda, effectively defining the policy solutions made available to those who participated in the revision of the Title I SIG program of 2009. / text