Search

Theories of the public sphere—or more recently, of plural public spheres— are core elements of communication and media research. A lively and dynamic debate exists about the respective theories, and the approaches employed to do so have diversified in recent years. This special issue of Communication Theory aims to assess the role and future of public sphere(s) theory in digital societies: if, and where, are concepts of the public sphere(s) still useful and needed, which criticisms are (still) valid, which not, which new ones might be necessary, and which concepts need to be developed or elaborated to respond meaningfully to the digital transformation? This editorial introduces the topic of and contributions to the special issue as well as nine theses on the development of public sphere(s) theorizing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High-quality news is important, not only for its own sake but also for its political implications. However, defining, operationalizing, and measuring news media quality is difficult, because evaluative criteria depend upon beliefs about the ideal society, which are inherently contested. This conceptual and methodological paper outlines important considerations for defining news media quality before developing and applying a multimethod approach to measure it. We refer to Giddens' notion of double hermeneutics, which reveals that the ways social scientists understand constructs inevitably interact with the meanings of these constructs shared by people in society. Reflecting the two-way relationship between society and social sciences enables us to recognize news media quality as a dynamic, contingent, and contested construct and, at the same time, to reason our understanding of news media quality, which we derive from Habermas' ideal of deliberative democracy. Moreover, we investigate the Swiss media system to showcase our measurement approach in a repeated data collection from 2017 to 2020. We assess the content quality of fifty news media outlets using four criteria derived from the deliberative ideal (N = 20,931 and 18,559 news articles and broadcasting items, respectively) and compare the results with those from two representative online surveys (N = 2,169 and 2,159 respondents). The high correlations between both methods show that a deliberative understanding of news media quality is anchored in Swiss society and shared by audiences. This paper shall serve as a showcase to reflect and measure news media quality across other countries and media systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Brasileira de Ciencias Sociais is the property of Revista Brasileira de Ciencias Sociais and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article argues that deliberative theory provides an important contribution in the debate about the legitimacy of an Islamic influence within the British education system. The contribution is a timely one, in light of the tendency to view issues involving Islam and Muslims through the distorting prism of Islamophobia. The contribution of deliberative theory is developed and explained through a constructive comparison with two positions within debates about the legitimacy of religion and the accommodation of minority claims within education: ethical liberalism and ethical pluralism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper asks how the intensity of individual local eParticipation affects users' perception of democratically valuable effects. Drawing on participatory and deliberative theory literature we extract four participatory effects- internal political efficacy, common good orientation, tolerance, and legitimacy. Furthermore, the paper examines which cognitive factors may moderate the relationship between intensity of participation and perception of participatory effects. Drawing on online survey data from 670 citizens engaged in public budgeting online consultations on the local level, the conducted path analysis shows that intensity of participation seems to foster the perception of common good orientation and tolerance. The other perceptions of participatory effects were not influenced by participation intensity. Findings on moderating factors indicate that the beneficial effects of online participation were not distributed unequally among participants. In conclusion, the research presents evidence for an optimistic view on local eParticipation that is able to promote democratically valuable user experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this essay, I argue that we have a non‐inferential way of knowing particular explanations of our own actions and attitudes. I begin by explicating and evaluating Nisbett and Wilson's influential argument to the contrary. I argue that Nisbett and Wilson's claim that we arrive at such explanations of our own actions and attitudes by inference is not adequately supported by their findings because they overlook an important alternative explanation of those findings. I explicate and defend such an alternative explanation of how we can know such explanations in a non‐inferential way, drawing on recent work in the philosophy of self‐knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the scholarship on online deliberation has recently witnessed remarkable growth, most studies have focused on different parts of deliberation, thus neglecting other parts of the theorized process. This paper presents a case study of online deliberation in academia using a framework including three analytical parts: a design fostering deliberation (institutional inputs), the quality of the communication process (communicative throughput), and the expected benefits of deliberation (productive outcomes). Each level addressed in the framework is both rooted in deliberative theory and complemented by empirical findings. Applying the framework to a case study on online deliberation about new PhD guidelines in a German science faculty demonstrates that the framework is viable for empirical research. In analyzing 435 comments and an online survey completed by 230 participants, the case study reveals that if deliberative standards at the institutional input level are met there is considerable deliberative quality at the level of communicative throughput, and expected outcomes could thus emerge. This example makes a case for further online deliberation initiatives in similar contexts such as parties or organizations that must decide on important issues or legally binding norms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article investigates the theories of a deliberative approach to human rights protection and the struggle theory as propounded by Dembour in the first instance and also by Heyns. It contends that the protection of women against violence in Nigeria is experiencing a wave of challenges, especially in an effort to dismantle the strangleholds of culture and religion in its perception and interpretation. The article further examines the role an enhanced human rights education can play in achieving this aspiration. It notes that the Education for Justice initiative (E4J) of the United Nations Office on Crimes and Drugs represents a clear example of the role that both the deliberative and the struggle approaches can play in realising human rights towards creating lawfulness through education at all levels. Relying on a qualitative methodical approach, the authors have identified gaps and have made suggestions about bringing about the desired change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Opinião Pública is the property of Universidade Estadual de Campinas - Portal de Periodicos Eletronicos Cientificos and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article takes stock of the growing field of online deliberation research. Our review of the theoretical and empirical findings is guided by a framework encompassing the three relevant components of deliberation: the institutional design that enables and fosters deliberation (institutional input: 'design'), the quality of the communication process (communicative throughput: 'process'), and the expected results of deliberation (productive outcome: 'results'). Our findings show that scholarly attention is unevenly distributed across the different components of the framework. Most research has focused on the quality of the online discussion (process). A fair amount of research has focused on the institutional conditions fostering deliberation (design), while the outcomes of online deliberation processes (results) have mostly been neglected. This picture is repeated in terms of the causal relations between design, process, and results of deliberation: Most studies have dealt with the effects of the platform design on the degree of deliberation (design-process). Much less is known about how the process of deliberation shapes the outcomes of deliberation (process-results). Studies investigating all three aspects of deliberation and their causal links (design-process-results) are particularly rare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay engages Jacques Rancière's politics of speech. On one familiar story, the ideal of democratic inclusion is betrayed when groups are blocked from participation and thus are rendered voiceless. The normative task, then, is to eliminate these blockages, so as to open the broadest possibilities for unfettered critical dialogue. However, Rancière helps to reveal that deliberative approaches are not sufficiently attuned to democratic processes of marginality or the kind of agency necessary to contest them. The essay, accordingly, intervenes within ongoing debates on dialogue and democracy. By the end, however, I propose that Rancière's model is not fully sensitive to the range of difficulties at play, which means that his model of political agency must be expanded if it is to succeed in its own aims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agonist theorists have argued against deliberative democrats that democratic institutions should not seek to establish a rational consensus, but rather allow political disagreements to be expressed in an adversarial form. But democratic agonism is not antagonism: some restriction of the plurality of admissible expressions is not incompatible with a legitimate public sphere. However, is it generally possible to grant this distinction between antagonism and agonism without accepting normative standards in public discourse that saliently resemble those advocated by (some) deliberative democrats? In this paper we provide an analysis of one important aspect of political communication, the use of slippery-slope arguments, and show that the fact of pluralism weakens the agonists' case for contestation as a sufficient ingredient for appropriately democratic public discourse. We illustrate that contention by identifying two specific kinds of what we call pluralism slippery slopes, that is, mechanisms whereby pluralism reinforces the efficacy of slippery-slope arguments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Seqüência is the property of Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Programa de Pos-Graduacao Stricto Sensu em Direito and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Lua Nova is the property of CEDEC and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Gender scholars have found that democratization is rarely associated with advances in women’s rights and offer a range of reasons why. This article offers a new explanation that targets the quality of democracy in the leading institutions in the public sphere. The author argues that open and inclusive debate conditions, or women’s access, voice, and capacity for contestation in the legislature, civil society, and the media, enable them to shape debate content and pressure the state to respond with legislative reform. The author tests this claim through a structured, focused comparison of Chile and South Africa during the period prior to the transition to democracy, when the public sphere expanded and debate conditions were dynamic. The author finds that different levels of openness and inclusiveness coincide with different outcomes in women’s rights. This suggests that the quality of democracy in the public sphere shapes women’s rights and that it may shape the outcomes of rights for other marginalized groups and in long-standing democracies as well. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Deliberative theory has served two purposes in recent studies of education policymaking at the community level in the US: as a lens through which to examine existing practices, and as an ideal toward which to strive. These studies, though, overlook a prior and important theoretical question: should deliberative theory be applied to education policy-making? In this article, I explore this question from an egalitarian perspective. I criticize the prevailing assumption that deliberative decision-making is an egalitarian way to make education policy, by underscoring how it fails in this instance on its own terms. I argue that deliberating about education policy is especially problematic compared to deliberations about other social goods, owing to the unique relationship between education and political equality in public fora. I also highlight two features of American education - de facto segregation, and the availability of exit options - that further challenge the appropriateness of using deliberative processes for education policy-making. Given the current state of educational politics, I conclude by pointing to the benefits of school finance litigation and its rights-based approach, which establishes educational entitlements that apply across communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reviews the potential contribution of deliberative theory and actor-network theory to the practice of social impact assessment (SIA). With reference to a case study of the World Commission on Dams, it argues for an approach to SIA that goes beyond documenting social change and that (1) targets consensus building among those impacted by planned interventions as a basic starting point for social scientific investigation; (2) places greater emphasis on the ways in which peoples' values, aspirations, perceived interests, and political coalitions change throughout the life of a proposal and shape their experience of project outcomes; (3) seeks to unravel the often unstated assumptions about who and what is important that are built into social data and stakeholder representative structures; and (4) challenges the separation of the "social" and the "natural" by fostering a more productive engagement between scientific and lay knowledges about the processes and impacts of change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]