This dissertation seeks to understand how issue publics contribute to citizen competence and the functioning of democracy. In the first part of the dissertation, a new measurement was constructed by theoretically and empirically analyzing the attributes of issue public members. Through the hypotheses testing, the new measure was more reliable in identifying issue public members compared to previous measurement strategies. Employing the new measure, results show that issue public members with concern about a specific issue, exercised their issue-specificity in seeking information (i.e., issue-based selectivity) with exposure to both attitude-consistent and counter-attitudinal perspectives. Issue public membership also had significant effects on issue-specific knowledge, and generating rationales for their own and other's oppositional viewpoints. These direct effects were mediated by issue-based selectivity. The relationships highlight the importance of issue publics in contributing to the deliberative democracy. In addition, issue publics play a significant role in contributing to the participatory democracy in that issue public members have greater intentions to participate in issue-related activities than nonmembers. However, while issue publics come close to solve the deliberative-participatory paradox, it was found that their information selectivity and argument generation were unbalanced in a way of favoring pro-attitudinal perspectives over counter-attitudinal perspectives. The second part of the dissertation examined conditional factors--accuracy and directional goals in affecting information selectivity and processing. The findings show that directional goals influenced participants to apply either the strategies of selective approach or selective avoidance to seek information depending on the issue. Accuracy goals exerted a main effect on the issue that is relatively less controversial and less obtrusive. They also interacted with issue public membership in influencing the less controversial and less obtrusive issue. Argument generation was not affected by accuracy or directional goals. Overall, through conceptualizing citizens as members of different issue publics, individuals are more competent then we thought. Their intrinsic interest in an issue serves as a strong factor affecting their information selectivity, information processing, and political actions. Despite finding an optimistic role for issue publics in the democratic process, their limitations also should be recognized. The implications for the deliberative and participatory democracy are discussed.

In the 20th century, Critical Theory has been very influential on every discipline of social sciences including international relations. According to Critical IR Theory, traditional theories are problem solving and try to explain repetition and recurrence, rather than change / however, the main subject matter of an IR theory should be the change itself. The idea of change is also constitutive of Habermasian political thought. J&uuml / rgen Habermas, as a critical theorist, has developed the model of Deliberative Democracy to provoke a change in the political life of the Western countries towards a more ethical politics. According to Habermas, such a change will eliminate the legitimacy crisis occurred in Western democracies. Therefore, Habermas aims at strengthening the moral basis of democratic understanding in order to make masses participate actively in decision making processes. According to him, rational consensus must be at the centre of democracy, and it can be reached, only if every part of the deliberation has the opportunity to express their arguments equally. Once the idea of rational consensus becomes a regulative rule of democracy, it is possible to change the nature of politics, including international politics

本文從理論的基礎出發，試圖要反駁當下審議民主實踐，忽略了審議民主所「應該」強調的，並不是將審議民主視為是取得決策的一種工具或方法，而是必須將審議民主視為是一套有別於自由民主的思想。審議民主「應該」關注的，不是決策的正當性，而是如何深化民主。為此，本文回頭去找尋審議民主被提出的起點，並重新描繪審議民主轉向的核心價值是深化民主，而不是作出決策。這迫使理論必須從重新思考，如何從藉由「審議」取得決策正當性，往深化民主的方向移動，而且也同時讓審議民主理論所觸及的範圍，從「審議」形式的決策本身，擴及到一個完整不間斷的民主過程。 　　一旦確認審議民主是「深化民主」的「過程」，那麼充當實踐的配套措施（即本文所稱的「中介畛域」的適當運作），也應該由此理論基礎所引導。為此，本文從深化民主過程所需的理論概念中，推導出可進一步落實中介畛域的實踐要件，分別是開放性、連貫性、互為主體性和累積性。另一方面，為了防堵民主實踐上可能出現的困境，所以也針對「網路的巴爾幹化」、「論述失敗」與「易受主流意識操弄」三個困境，提出相對應的「有效性」、「簡易性」及「動態的脈絡化」三個要件。事實上，本文所提的七個要件，「共同」構成了本文所理解的審議民主在實踐時，其「理論」面向上所應具備的內涵，這些內涵非專屬於本文所檢視的辯論百科，而是適用於各種形式的審議民主程序。 　　最後，本文更進一步將上述七個要件細分成十四個細項。這十四個細項是試圖對應理論所指引的七個要件，並進而回應理論上所要求的「深化民主過程」的核心價值。或者說，這些細項可被當成是審議民主實踐機制設置上的最基本要求，雖然確保這十四個細項的審議民主實踐機制，無法保證最後的結果一定能達到理想境界，但我們至少可以相信，依循這些細項的機制，是試圖往深化民主──而不是取得決策正當性──的方向前進。當然，這十四個細項不是為了窮盡可能性或成為標準答案，而是在筆者能力範圍內所能提出的具體檢視方式，而提出這些具體的檢視方式，也分別有著實踐與理論上的各別意涵。 　　在實踐上，這十四個細項的提出是為了要指出，審議民主「理論」不應該一直停留在理論的層次，我們探索審議民主理論的最終目的之一，就是要實踐它，因此，從實踐層次來進行探究，並指出可能的實踐方式確有其必要性。另一方面，從理論上來看，本文所提的檢視細項不僅是為了要提供未來研究參考，更重要的是，這種實踐層次的闡明是為了凸顯出，未來的審議民主理論必須在理論與實踐之間找到明確的連結。換言之，應如何在實務的層次上施作審議民主是重要的，讓施作結果得以對理論進行回饋與修正也是重要的，但唯有理論與實踐之間能夠不斷地互相進行補充、修正，審議民主理論才有可能為民主作出真正貢獻，而本文正是試圖經由審議民主，與已被實作的辯論百科，為這種連結作出描繪。 / This paper tries to illustrate that deliberative democracy is not a decision-making method but a kind of thoughts. The core element of deliberative democracy is not about the legitimacy of policies but the process of deepening democracy. It means that deliberative democracy theory should widen its possible contribution from only a decision-making method to a complete process of deepening democracy. When we regard deliberative democracy as a process, then we should develop accompanying measures (so-called “intermediate realm” in this paper) for the real-life practice. For achieving this purpose, this paper infers four elements, that is, openness, coherence, inter-subjectiveness and cumulativeness, from theoretical foundations on the one side. For avoiding three another predicaments of democratic practice, that is , cyberbalkanization, discourse failure and the dominating ideology, this paper also proposes three accompanying elements, that is, effectiveness, simpleness and dynamic contextualization on the other hand. All these seven elements, applying to all kinds of deliberative democracy practice apart from Debatepedia which we take as an example in this paper, constitute the content of intermediate realm for deliberative democracy practice. This paper in a further step divides these seven elements into fourteen items in order to respond to the core value of deliberative democracy, i.e. deepening democracy. In other words, these items are the basic requirement for real-life deliberative democracy practice. These fourteen items have no intention to include all possibilities of democratic practice but merely to provide some concrete examination methods in my sphere. These examination methods have their practical and theoretical meaning at the same time. In practice, these fourteen items means deliberative democracy theory should not stay as a theory is. If democracy theory is an ideal for our better life, we then should realize it and, that is more important, develop some methods to realize it. In terms of theory, this paper reveals the close relationship between deliberative democracy theory and its practice. That means it is important to know how to realize deliberative democracy, it is also important to know how to improve democracy theory. But these two situations can only be done when we can find a valid connection between them. This paper takes Debatepedia as an example to describe how this kind of connection could be possible.

The overarching theme of this thesis concerns the possibility of balancing the values of unity and pluralism in education in developed nation states characterized by an increasing pluralism when it comes to the beliefs and values of its citizens. The author suggests that democracy has a normative basis in the principle of reciprocity which can be supported in an overlapping consensus by reasonable persons who differ in their moral, religious and philosophical beliefs. It is argued that this basis mandates a deliberative kind of democracy and that certain implications follow for how to understand the relation between democracy and individual rights, between democracy and religious belief and speech, and between rationality and deliberation, among other things. The author proceeds to discuss three educational issues in relation to the principle of reciprocity and its implications: 1. The legitimacy and content of a mandatory citizenship education, 2. Children’s rights to develop personal autonomy, 3. The opportunity for parents and children to choose which school children attend. These issues are important in relation to the question of how to balance unity and pluralism in education in that they concern the promotion of certain common beliefs, values and dispositions among citizens or the creation of a system of choice between schools with different profiles. The purpose of the discussion is to construct a theoretical position which balances the values of unity and pluralism in education, by giving diversity its due (contra communitarianism) while upholding a measure of unity (contra libertarianism and radical multiculturalism) which is located in the democratic and autonomy- promoting purposes of education rather than (exclusively) in its economic/vocational purposes (contra neo-liberalism). The discussions make use of political philosophy, educational philosophy and empirical research carried out by other researchers.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--UCLA, 2008. / Vita. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 141-170).

xiv, 310 p. : ill. A print copy of this thesis is available through the UO Libraries. Search the library catalog for the location and call number. / Considerable interest has emerged recently within U.S. policy scholarship toward deliberative democracy and its potential viability as a form of alternative democratic governance in resolving persistent policy dilemmas. Despite these claims, the deliberative scholarship is an empirically understudied field. Instead, deliberative theory is usually normatively articulated as an alternative and preferable form of governance. Secondly and to a lesser extent, deliberative scholars assert that deliberative governance can work and does exist. In these cases, often extensive deliberative claims are made but not carefully tested according to explicitly identified deliberative criteria and measures. This dissertation contributes to the systematic testing of deliberative theory that has only recently begun. Theoretically, this dissertation fits within the gulf between ideal and non-ideal deliberative scholarship. This dissertation draws from multiple sources, such as interviews, direct observation, meeting minutes, and secondary sources, to systematically evaluate and then comparatively assesses the evidence in four untested exemplar deliberative cases that took place within seemingly intractable policy issues. These cases are Oregon health care reform (OHCR) surrounding the Health Services Commission (HSC), watershed restoration and management in Oregon surrounding the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), and the New Community Meetings in Lane County and the greater Eugene-Springfield metro area surrounding the issues of "gay rights" and sustainable development (NCMI/II). These cases exhibit significant variation along explanatory and outcomes variables. Overall, the findings in this dissertation suggest that at times ideal deliberative scholars establish criteria and measures that are impractical or even unnecessary for robust deliberation. The evidence in these cases suggests that non-ideal deliberative standards appear capable of yielding deliberative outcomes that are perceived by participant stakeholders in adequate terms. / Committee in charge: Gerald Berk, Chairperson, Political Science; Ronald Mitchell, Member, Political Science; Priscilla Southwell, Member, Political Science; Richard Margerum, Outside Member, Planning Public Policy & Mgmt

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.

Submitted by Jamile Barbosa da Cruz (jamile.cruz@ucsal.br) on 2016-10-25T13:20:29Z No. of bitstreams: 1 SILVA GBS-2015.pdf: 11659827 bytes, checksum: d8200f41be72692fac428a0003155f86 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Maria Emília Carvalho Ribeiro (maria.ribeiro@ucsal.br) on 2016-11-21T19:51:14Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 SILVA GBS-2015.pdf: 11659827 bytes, checksum: d8200f41be72692fac428a0003155f86 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-11-21T19:51:14Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 SILVA GBS-2015.pdf: 11659827 bytes, checksum: d8200f41be72692fac428a0003155f86 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-02-26 / A primeira década deste século foi marcada, entre outros aspectos, pela emergência do discurso de direitos em favor das comunidades tradicionais e em especial das remanescentes de Quilombolas, com isso exsurge um forte debate sobre tais direitos, inclusive quanto à educação nessas comunidades. O estudo analisou como ocorre o controle social da política social pública de educação, através dos Conselhos Nacionais e Estaduais de Educação, tomando como referência a interface com as políticas de educação na cidade de Cachoeira, neste Estado. Para levar a efeito a pesquisa, empregou-se a metodologia de análise de conteúdo com a técnica de pesquisa documental com análise quali-quantitativa e o estudo das Resoluções desses Conselhos no período de 2001 a 2013, além da pesquisa de dados, usando como fontes órgãos oficiais do Estado brasileiro, verificando a existência ou omissão de nomes e expressões previamente estabelecidos nessas resoluções, bem como sua periodicidade, que denotavam as contradições no ensino. Sob a premissa de que o Conselho de Políticas Sociais Públicas é um órgão que encerra uma série de contradições, todo o estudo foi realizado sob uma perspectiva do método dialético histórico, usando como categorias a contradição e a totalidade. Foi usado como perspectiva de análise crítica da ontologia do Estado, bem como de sua formação, da sociedade civil e movimentos sociais, situando-se esta pesquisa na noção de Democracia Deliberativa, reconhecendo o Conselho Quilombola do Vale do Iguape como um elemento fundamental para o controle social da política social de educação em Cachoeira. / The first decade of this century was marked among other things by the emergence of rights discourse in favor of traditional communities and especially the remnants of Quilombo with this, comes a tough debate on such rights, including the right to education in these communities. The study examined how is the social control of public social education policy, through the National Councils, State of Education, with reference to the interface with the education policies in the city of Cachoeira, in this state. To take effect the research used content analysis methodology with documentary research technique with qualitative and quantitative analysis to the study of these Councils resolutions from 2001 to 2013, in addition to data search, using as sources of organs official Brazilian state, verifying the existence or omission of names and expressions previously established in these resolutions as well as its frequency denoting the contradictions in teaching. Under the premise that the Board of Public Social Policy is an organ that contains a series of contradictions, all the study was conducted from the perspective of the historical dialectic method, using as categories the contradiction and all. It was used as a perspective of critical analysis of the state of ontology, as well as their training, civil society and social movements, reaching this research on the notion of participatory democracy. acknowledging the Quilombo Council Iguape Valley as a fundamental element for social control of social policy education in Cachoeira.

No description available.

Um dos principais problemas apresentados pela concepção tradicional de democracia, caracterizada pela mera competição política entre interesses ou preferências, é sua insuficiência na avaliação dos resultados políticos. Em contraposição, a idéia de uma democracia deliberativa pretende, dentre outros objetivos, fornecer uma reflexão epistêmica, na medida em que se propõe a ir além do mérito dos procedimentos democráticos, com vistas a apresentar boas razões para as escolhas públicas. Ela requer uma justificação pública que se faça por meio da argumentação pública de todos os concernidos. Essa abordagem, contudo, é comprometida por falhas relacionadas a sua postura excessivamente idealista caso entendamos os procedimentos deliberativos como discussões políticas efetivas voltadas para o consenso ou à eventual vagueza de seus parâmetros epistêmicos. Procuro defender, em sentido contrário, que critérios adequados à justificação pública podem ser encontrados na concepção política de justiça presente no liberalismo político de John Rawls. Sua proposta deve ser interpretada, em discordância com críticas correntes, como defensora da democracia e plenamente compatível com a deliberação democrática. / One of the major problems that beset the traditional conception of democracy, marked by a mere political contention of interests or preferences, is the absence of a due appraisal of political outcomes. Contrarily, the idea of deliberative democracy intends inter alia to provide an epistemic account so far as it goes beyond procedural values in order to find good reasons for a public choice. It claims a public justification by way of a public reasoning among all those concerned. This account reveals, however, shortcomings for being either too idealist if its deliberative procedures mean a public discussion whose aim is consensus or too vague whether one considers those procedures as epistemic standards. I sustain otherwise that appropriate criteria for public justification can be found in a political conception of justice supported by John Rawls political liberalism. This account is to be shown in opposition to common objections - as encouraging democracy and not inimical to democratic deliberation.