Deliberative democrats have argued that democracy requires citizens to seek consensus, using a familiar style of principle-based moral argument. However, critics like Iris Young object that deliberative democracy’s favoured model of reasoning is inadequate for resolving deep value conflicts. She and others have suggested that the aim of improving understanding across political differences could be achieved if our conception of legitimate democratic discourse were broadened to include a significant role for narrative. The question is whether such a revision would amount to abandoning the deliberative democratic goal of seeking reasonable resolutions of value conflict. This thesis argues that a narrative approach to deliberative democracy can realize its commitment to reasoned justification, while preserving the significance of differing perspectives and promoting mutual understanding. The narrative-contextualist approach is developed and illustrated with reference to public debate over issues such as cultural accommodation and historical justice.

Abstract Title: A democratic organisation - one click away? A quantitative content analysis which studies the potential of democratic communication through intranet use. Authors: Stina Gabrielsson and Jill Johansson Vennelin Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether there is potential for democratic communication within the NGOs through intranet use. Key questions to be answered were: To what extent is authority versus members represented on the intranet Klick’s discussion forum? What/which communication-related functions out of social function, knowledge transferring and debate are featured in the posts published on the intranet Klick’s discussion forum? Are deliberative discussions being practiced in the discussion forumthreads on the intranet Klick? The thesis is based on the theory of deliberative democracy. In order to substantiate the theory has theoretical perspectives concerning participation and involvement also been applied. These perspectives are derived from organizational theory and internal communication. Method/Material: This study consists of a quantitative content analysis of the 477 posts and the 129 discussion threads available on the NGO RFSU’s intranet Klick the 29th of november 2012. Main results: The results show that 63, 4 percent of those who were active in the discussionforum represented the category authority, while the category members were formed by 36, 6 percent. The result of the communicational functions of the forum’s posts were 75, 7 percent knowledge transferring, 33, 3 percent debate and 23, 3 percent social function. 86, 6 percent of the discussion threads were considered neutral, 13, 2 percent deliberative and no, 0 percent, were considered non-deliberative. The study has found many examples of the presence of democratic communication within Klick, showing that this is possible through intranet use. However, the low participation in terms of members as a whole and the over-representation of authorities can be argued to not form democratic communication with reference to the chosen definition of democracy, the model of participatory democracy with deliberative qualities. Course: Media and Communication studies C University: Division of Media and Communication, Department of Information Science, Uppsala University Period: Fall 2012 Tutor: Josef Pallas Keywords: Employee empowerment, Employee participation, Intranet, NGO, Deliberative democracy / Sammanfattning Ansatsen med denna uppsats var att undersöka huruvida det finns potential för demokratisk kommunikation inom frivilligorganisationer via intranät. Detta undersöktes genom en kvantitativ innehållsanalys av intranätet Klicks diskussionsforum, vilket tillhör frivilligorganisationen RFSU, med frågeställningen: I vilken utsträckning representeras auktoriteter respektive medlemmar på intranätet Klicks diskussionsforum? Vilken/vilka kommunikationsmässiga funktioner av social funktion, kunskapsöverföring och debatt har inläggen publicerade i intranätet Klicks diskussionsforum? Praktiseras deliberativa diskussioner i diskussionsforumets trådar på intranätet Klick? Uppsatsen utgår från teori om deliberativ demokrati. För att underbygga teorin har teoretiska perspektiv som berör medbestämmande och deltagande tillämpats, vilka härstammar från ämnesområdena organisationsteori samt internkommunikation. Resultatet visar att 63,4 procent av de aktiva på diskussionsforumet utgjordes av kategorin auktoriteter medan kategorin medlemmar utgjordes av 36, 6 procent. Resultatet för de kommunikationsmässiga funktionerna var att den kunskapsöverförande funktionen återfanns i 75, 7 procent av inläggen, funktionen debatt i 33, 3 procent och den sociala funktionen i 23, 3 procent av inläggen. För deliberativ diskussion studerades, istället för enskilda inlägg, hela diskussionstrådar. Den största delen av diskussionstrådarna bedömdes vara neutrala vilka utgjorde 86, 6 procent medan deliberativa diskussioner utgjorde 13,2 procent. 0 procent av diskussionstrådarna ansågs vara icke-deliberativa. Undersökningen har funnit många exempel på förekomst av demokratisk kommunikation på Klick vilket visar att denna är möjlig via intranät. Dock kan det låga deltagandet sett till medlemmar som helhet samt överrepresentationen av auktoriteter argumenteras för att inte tolkas som demokratisk kommunikation med hänvisning till den valda definitionen av demokrati, modellen deltagardemokrati med deliberativa kvaliteter. Nyckelord: Employee empowerment, Employee participation, Intranät, Frivilligorganisation, Deliberativ demokrati

The purpose of this study is to investigate how six students at a Secondary School describes interaction patterns among teachers when students express in a way that the teacher perceives as racist and/or xenophobic, by presenting a qualitative interview study. The interviews were analyzed by two opposing models of value education: the traditional and the constructive model. The results show that students divide teachers in different categories based on five qualities: 1) they listening, 2) they accept students' opinions, 3) they allow discussion, 4) they are knowledgeable and 5) they can express their own opinions. These qualities are included in the value pedagogical model for deliberative conversations, whose strategies for interaction aim to create an understanding of different rules and values, thereby creating skills of rules by using a democratic approach. In contrast to this model, the rule-based moral education, in which the teacher uses his authority and refers to rules without giving an explanation for why they occurred, as strategies.

This thesis uses our lived experience of speech online to analyse the most common justification for freedom of speech: the "marketplace of ideas" metaphor. It opens with an account of a conversation in the feminist blogosphere that explicitly addressed the operation of social power in discussion. The lessons of that conversation is compared to accounts of the marketplace of ideas metaphor offered by theorists like Sunstein, Fiss, and Boyd White, as well as more internet-oriented theorists like Lessig, Benkler and Balkin. From that, and building on the insights of critics like Fraser and Mansbridge, the thesis argues that we ought to reject the "liberal-economic" paradigm of the function of speech and deliberation in a democracy, and proposes that we replace the "marketplace of ideas" metaphor with that of a "critical democratic culture." The thesis concludes by illustrating the usefulness of that new metaphor through the example of hate speech.

This thesis uses our lived experience of speech online to analyse the most common justification for freedom of speech: the "marketplace of ideas" metaphor. It opens with an account of a conversation in the feminist blogosphere that explicitly addressed the operation of social power in discussion. The lessons of that conversation is compared to accounts of the marketplace of ideas metaphor offered by theorists like Sunstein, Fiss, and Boyd White, as well as more internet-oriented theorists like Lessig, Benkler and Balkin. From that, and building on the insights of critics like Fraser and Mansbridge, the thesis argues that we ought to reject the "liberal-economic" paradigm of the function of speech and deliberation in a democracy, and proposes that we replace the "marketplace of ideas" metaphor with that of a "critical democratic culture." The thesis concludes by illustrating the usefulness of that new metaphor through the example of hate speech.

Deliberative democrats have argued that democracy requires citizens to seek consensus, using a familiar style of principle-based moral argument. However, critics like Iris Young object that deliberative democracy’s favoured model of reasoning is inadequate for resolving deep value conflicts. She and others have suggested that the aim of improving understanding across political differences could be achieved if our conception of legitimate democratic discourse were broadened to include a significant role for narrative. The question is whether such a revision would amount to abandoning the deliberative democratic goal of seeking reasonable resolutions of value conflict. This thesis argues that a narrative approach to deliberative democracy can realize its commitment to reasoned justification, while preserving the significance of differing perspectives and promoting mutual understanding. The narrative-contextualist approach is developed and illustrated with reference to public debate over issues such as cultural accommodation and historical justice.

In an attempt to lend legitimacy to the troubled wolf project and to root policies in wolf-affected counties, decision-making was decentralized to stakeholder-based county wildlife management delegations in Sweden in 2009. Drawing from Habermas’ critical theory, this paper suggests that a phenomenon of instrumental rationality is currently circumscribing free and open deliberation in these delegations. Consequently, stakeholders remain fixed in their predetermined positions as wolf-skeptic hunters or pro-wolf conservationists, unable to be swayed by the deliberative process. The aim of this paper is to identify the barriers to deliberation that account for the perseverance of this strategic stakeholder rationality. Three county wildlife delegations are investigated as examples of this. The paper identifies the following four barriers, which are traced to instrumentality: strong sense of accountability, overly purposive atmosphere, overemphasis on decision as final outcome and perceived inability on the part of the delegates to influence decision-making, which is found by and large to still be ruled by scientists. Through these findings, it suggests that such barriers cause delegates to censor their own discursive attempts and to act with strategic rather than with communicative rationality toward the decision-making process. Finally, the paper concludes that the effect of instrumentality in these delegations is currently leading to (1) a crisis of legitimacy for the wolf project, as according to Habermas’ theory and (2) reduced individual freedom under the pursuit of sustainable development, as freedom has been confined to the dimension of the protection and promotion of private interests.

Nyligen gjord forskning på området demokratiundervisning har visat att den undervisning som ges idag inte lever upp till målet om att fostra demokratiskt tänkande och agerande medborgare och vi behöver därför se över vad som kan göras för att ändra på detta. Syftet med min undersökning är därför att genom intervjuer med fyra samhällskunskapslärare på gymnasiet få inblick i deras syn på diskussioners möjlighet att fostra mer demokratiskt aktiva medborgare. Jag vill även veta i vilka sammanhang de använder sig av diskussioner och till vilket syfte. Då omfattande forskning visat att deliberativa samtal är den diskussionsform som främjar demokratiska idéer bäst vill jag veta om diskussionerna som hålls i klassrummen kan sägas vara deliberativa. Jag vill även veta om det finns några skillnader emellan könen när det kommer till viljan och förmågan att utrycka sig i diskussioner. Detta för att få större kunskap om hur diskussioner kan användas i demokratiundervisningen för att nå målet om att fostra demokratiska medborgare. Resultatet visar att de fyra lärarna anser att diskussioner kan verka demokratifostrande, men de ser också flera hinder för att kunna använda diskussioner i klassrummet, såsom tidsbrist och bristande intresse från eleverna. Tre av de fyra lärarna anser dock att möjligheterna är större än hindren och jobbar därför aktivt med att överbrygga dem. Diskussionerna omfattar främst nyheter men även elevernas egna intressefrågor och syftet är att få dem att reflektera över svåra frågor och att lära dem argumentera för sin sak, de kan därför ses som deliberativa i vissa avseenden. När det kommer till könsskillnader i förmågan och intresset för att diskutera skilde sig lärarnas berättelser åt men det verkar som att flickor tycker om att diskutera då de är endast flickor i klassen eller åtminstone i majoritet medan pojkarna i blandade klasser har ett litet övertag. Rena pojkklasser på yrkesförberedandeprogram har enligt en lärare stora problem medan de i en annan lärares liknande klasser tycker om diskussioner och är duktiga på att engagera sig. Här finns utrymme för fortsatt forskning. / Recent research in democratic education has found that the education as it is today does not reach the goals of educating actively democratic citizens and we need to do something about this soon. Therefore, the purpose of this examination project is to learn more about the possibilities of discussions to make students more democratic and to do so by interviewing four social studies teachers at two high schools. I also want to know for what topics and purposes discussions are used. Since extensive research shows that deliberative discussions are especially beneficial for purposes of educating students to act democratically I will examine if the discussions held in the teachers classrooms according to teachers can be said to be deliberative. Finally, I aim to find if there are any differences between the genders when it comes to the will and ability to expressing themselves in structured discussions. The result shows that all of the four teachers find discussions to be a good method for making the students more democratically equipped. Nevertheless, there are obstacles according to all of them, such as lack of time and interest from the students but three of the four teachers consider the possibilities of discussions to be greater than the obstacles and therefore actively work to overcome them. The most common topic to take up for discussion is large news or the special interests of the students and the purposes are to make them reflect over dilemmas and educate them in making good arguments for their causes. These aspects can be said to be deliberative in some manners. When it comes to gender differences there are some but the results differ between the four teachers but it seems as if girls enjoy discussions as long as they do not have a boy in the classroom while boys have the upper hand in the mixed classes. One teacher expresses that his pure boy classes have large problems discussing while another teacher with similar classes do not have any great problems discussing democratic matters. These issues may make good ideas for further research.

<p>In this dissertation, I advance a new interpretation of the meaning and political implications of Isaiah Berlin's theory of value pluralism. My argument focuses on two puzzles within the literature on value pluralism: first, value pluralist political theorists advance a variety of differing political views on an ostensibly value pluralist basis; second, and more deeply, their writings betray significant ambiguity on what value pluralism means in the first place. I identify two central sources of these problems. First, two distinct sets of ideas in Berlin's work, which I label the "moral-practical" and "societal groupings" versions of value pluralism, are persistently conflated by both Berlin and more recent value pluralist theorists. Second, attempts to justify a political view on the basis of value pluralism run aground on a "priority problem" stemming from the central value pluralist concept of incommensurability. In my approach, I maintain the distinction between the moral-practical and societal groupings theories, focusing on the moral-practical version as a more original and less well-understood contribution of Berlin's thought. I also develop a strategy, which I call "giving incommensurability its due," that avoids the priority problem by focusing on metaethical (or second-order), epistemic, and procedural considerations. This strategy supports two major sets of political implications: a liberal-constitutional framework of basic rights and liberties, and a robust, vibrant form of participatory and deliberative democratic politics. This turn to democracy constitutes an important shift vis-à-vis the current literature, which has, up to now, been preoccupied with value pluralism's relationship to liberalism.</p> / Dissertation

This paper will use political discussion programs in Taiwan as an example and use the research method of experimentation to attempt to establish a way of research that is both quantitative and qualitative. By using a correlation analysis of audience evaluation and ratings, an investigation will be carried out as to whether Taiwan¡¦s political discussion programs are in fact public forums that are a paradigm of a deliberative democracy. In order to test the hypothesis that states there is a correlation between audience evaluation and ratings, this paper made audience evaluation (in other words the topics discussed on the programs, their hosts, guests, producers and their negative effects) an independent variable and made the AGB Nielsen television rating numbers a dependent variable. It was discovered that audience evaluation does in fact affect ratings and that there is a positive correlation between audience evaluation and ratings. For example, the higher an audience¡¦s evaluation of the topics discussed on a certain program and its hosts, guests and producers were, the higher that particular program¡¦s ratings were. If on the other hand, audiences believe that a certain political discussion program has negative effects such as encouraging opposition within society or defaming a certain person or group, the lower the ratings of that particular program were. From the results of the correlation analysis of audience evaluation and ratings, it can be seen that there is a huge difference between what viewers expect from political discussion programs and what our current political discussion programs are like. It was also discovered that whilst today¡¦s political discussion programs claim they are public forums; they are in reality primarily aimed at making commercial profit. This means that these programs are still a long way away from becoming a paradigm for a deliberative democracy and making Taiwan a more democratic society.