No description available.

This study focuses on civics in Japanese upper secondary education. A new curriculum reform was implemented in 2022, and a new subject named Public [kokyo] became a subject on civics, which aims to nurture students to actively contribute to a peaceful and democratic society. The aims of this study are to examine textbook descriptions of democracy and the potential incorporation of deliberative communication, before and after curriculum reform. Ultimately, this comparative study over a curriculum reform seeks to identify the similarities and differences between the previous subject, Contemporary Society, and the new subject of Public. Employing qualitative content analysis, descriptions of democracy in the textbooks, moreover, the composition and the additional contents of the textbooks are analyzed, in order to examine the potential incorporations of deliberative communication. This study reveals that democracy is often conceptualized in textbooks as a limited idea of a government and political system, and the content includes less extended descriptions in relation to how the concept of democracy should be exercised in everyday life. That tendency can be seen in textbooks both in Public and Contemporary Society. On the other hand, in contrast to Contemporary Society textbooks whose composition is explanatory-oriented emphasizing understanding rather than practice in everyday life situations, Public textbooks incorporate more content that proposes deliberative communication. In Japan, which has been struggling with low social participation among the youth and knowledge-centered learning, it is significant to transform an understanding of the concept of democracy to root in daily life. Therefore, the promotion of deliberative communication in education has great potential to foster democratic values in individuals and society through daily mutual communication.

Abstract  The following essay will discuss conflict- ridden situations in the classroom and how the teachers’ leadership can strengthen the pupils’ democratic development to resolve these situations. Furthermore, we analyzed how deliberative dialogue could be of use to the teacher when these situations occur, as well as how, through civics education, the pupils could learn how to resolve conflicts in a controlled and peaceful environment. This study will, in particular, discuss several concepts concerning, among others, intersubjectivity, agonism and phronesis and how these takes place in the classroom. We will explore the teachers’ leadership ability and approach to the resolvement of conflicts through deliberative conversations. Our method when searching for relevant scientific articles was a systematic use of several databases and scientific journals, including ERIC, ERC, and Taylor & Francis online, where we found a vast variety of articles. Most of the articles show the difficulties the teacher might encounter when teaching, and we strove to examine if deliberative conversations are a useful method when facing sudden conflict-ridden situations in the classroom. We found a lack of knowledge in reference to deliberative conversations as a method in these situations, as well as, the teacher’s insecurity facing sudden conflict-ridden situations.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Objectives: The use of interactive public engagement methods to elicit public values is becoming routine practice in health system planning, policy and evaluation; however, little systematic attention has been given to the analysis of how these values are articulated. This process will be examined with the use of deliberative discourse methods in the context of health technologies. Approach: The deliberations of a 14-person Citizens’ Reference Panel on Health Technologies were audiotaped and transcribed. The panel provided input to the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee in developing its recommendations. Discussion transcripts were analyzed using Gee’s (2005) ‘building tasks’ framework with a focus on identities, relationships, and politics. In depth language-context analysis was then used to study ‘situated meanings’ of social and ethical citizen values. Both levels of discourse analysis were then used to elicit the meso-level dynamics within the citizen panel deliberations. Results: Panel members used the provided materials, personal experience and other sources of information to express their values toward the technologies under review. In the group, members used their occupational, personal and cultural identities and adopted in-group citizen panel roles that involved summarizing small group discussions, challenging other members, providing information, providing expertise, interpreting information and facilitating. These individual roles were similar across meetings and members began to form relationships with their fellow citizens and make connections between the values involved in similar technologies. Conclusion: Discourse analysis methods can be used to draw in-depth insights from public engagement deliberations which contribute important new knowledge to the field of public deliberation and health policy. Further use and refinement of deliberative discourse methods will allow public values to be better understood and more adequately portrayed in the health technology assessment process. / Master of Science (MSc)

This thesis considers the possibilities of urban space for lived democratic practice. Taking up the debate on ‘the good way’ of involving citizens in urban planning, I employ theories of deliberative democracy and agonistic pluralism to examine participatory planning around the case of Tempelhofer Feld in Berlin, Germany. After its closure, the former airport Berlin Tempelhof turned into a public open space in 2010. Although there were plans of a partial development, an initiative-led bottom-up participation introduced a prohibition of permanent building development on Tempelhofer Feld in 2014. As one condition of the initiative, a combination of institutionalised and bottom-up participation has been established. The current conservative government of Berlin considers abolishing the prohibition of real-estate development. It thus disregards the importance of Tempelhofer Feld as a space for recreational and leisure activities, its importance for biodiversity and urban climate regulation and as a symbol of democratic achievements. Through a lens of deliberative democracy and agonistic pluralism, this thesis focuses on the participation process since the referendum in 2014, from the perspective of urban planners, activists and those in-between. The two guiding research questions are: Which aspects of deliberative democracy and agonistic pluralism can be found in statements by relevant actors during the participation process on Tempelhofer Feld since the referendum in 2014? How does the Senate’s plan to adjust the Tempelhofer Feld law affect the current participation in light of these theories? In line with the theoretical framework of deliberative democracy and agonistic pluralism, I developed four themes that can be divided into a deliberative or agonistic understanding of participatory planning: “role of the planning administration”, “understanding of conflict”, “goals in dealing with conflict”, and “understanding of participation”. To investigate the different actors’ perspectives, semi-structured interviews were conducted with key actors, in addition to a document analysis, and participant observation. The main findings hold that the current Senate department for urban planning does not allow for productive conflict by shifting the understanding of conflict in a way that denies its own biased role. Additionally, I consider the current bottom-up participation model as an agonistic alternative to participatory planning introduced by the Senate department. Due to its abundance of different participation approaches, Tempelhofer Feld can be considered a significant case for urban planning scholars interested in participatory planning, also beyond Germany and Berlin.

This dissertation presents the case for a normative vision of the relationship between technical experts and other non-expert members of a democratic citizenry. This vision is grounded in two key insights that have emerged from the field of science and technology studies. First, is the "third wave" science studies movement that identifies problems of expertise as the "pressing intellectual problem of the age." Characterized by the problems of legitimacy and extension, Collins and Evans build the case for the extension of the category of expertise to include those who have the relevant experience but lack relevant accreditation. Alongside this extension of the category of expertise is the extension of those who participate in the framing of techno-scientific issues. This dissertation builds a case for the inclusion of all democratic citizens in the problem framing process. What we are left with from the current "third wave" literature is a multi-tiered prescription for the role of non-experts in public decision-making about science and technology. On the ground floor, when the issue is being framed there is a need to include non-expert stakeholders (in theory, any concerned democratic citizen). Once a framing of the problem has been constructed, there is a need to recognize a larger category of people who count as "expert." Together, these constitute the two most powerful prescriptive elements of expertise developed in the recent science studies literature. The dissertation then explores claims that it is specifically "deliberative" theories of democracy that are best suited to make sense out of this democratization of expertise. After presenting a typology of deliberative theories of democracy that clears up a serious problem of equivocation found in appeals to deliberative democracy in current STS literature, this dissertation argues that only a specific set of deliberative theories of democracy, "discursive" deliberative theories of democracy, are capable of fulfilling the role theories of deliberative democracy are assigned in current STS literature. The dissertation then goes on to suggest how these new insights into the democratization of expertise might affect future instantiations of technology assessment mechanisms (such as the office of Technology Assessment) in the U.S. / Ph. D.