Search

For the last five years, we have had the honor of serving as editors of the Journal of Public Deliberation. This issue marks the end of our editorial tenure, and we take this opportunity to both look back and think ahead. In this brief essay, we reflect on what we’ve seen during our time as editors. We begin by describing three important special issues that reflect the state of our field, then provide some details about how we have facilitated JPD’s growth over the past five years, including publication statistics and article download rates. We conclude by discussing where the journal is now and what we anticipate for its future.

This article introduces the special issue on Deliberative Democracy in an Era of Authoritarianism. The essay highlights the relationship between authoritarianism and democracy, and discusses concerns about the current rise in authoritarianism in political systems. It poses questions about how deliberative scholars and practitioners should respond to authoritarian political contexts and how deliberation should relate to more activist forms of civic engagement. Finally, it previews the articles in the special issue and urges future work in the field to take up ideas, questions, and challenges posed by these essays.

This “Afterword” essay was written several months after the Frontiers of Democracy 2014 conference. It offers the Journal of Public Deliberation’s editors’ reflections on the conference and connections to the articles published in this special issue.

This article introduces the special “State of the Field” issue. The essay highlights some of the key tensions that our field is wrestling with at the moment, and advocates that we think carefully about the terms we use to describe our work. It previews the articles in this special issue and urges future work in the field to take up the ideas, questions, and challenges posed by these essays.

Disagreement is a fundamental part of deliberative discussion, but how group members understand their disagreement can profoundly influence their actions. These conflict frames have implications for members’ perception of both the issue and as their relationships. Drawing on Putnam’s (1990, Brummans et al., 2008) work on conflict frames, this study examines how members of an online deliberative group framed and reframed their conflicts through personal storytelling. Members drew on different models of democracy in their stories. Some managed their disagreements through reframing their conflicts and relationships as collaborative, even in response to adversarially-framed stories. This study advances research in conflict, group discussion, and deliberative discussion and offers practical suggestions for facilitators on how to recognize, interrogate, and help groups develop productive conflict frames.

This essay provides an overview of what is currently being done in the discipline of communication studies that can advance deliberative democracy, particularly in terms of student learning, and explores how those connections could be strengthened and extended. The essay is divided into three main sections. First, a brief history of the field of communication studies is provided. Next, four questions relevant to deliberative theory and practice are introduced and the teaching and research of communication scholars that provides significant responses are examined: (1) how do we improve how citizens process information and exercise judgment?, (2) how do we best deal the differences in our increasingly diverse communities?, (3) how can we better understand the processes and outcomes of deliberation?, and (4) what are the key future directions for deliberative theory and practice? Within this section, a number of the sub-fields within communication studies that connect directly or indirectly to deliberative work are introduced. The essay concludes with a review of the limitations to these connections and a “call to action” for increased public engagement.

This concluding essay reflects on how the essays included in this special issue can help address some prevailing issues in public participation scholarship. We see three themes running through the contributions to this special issue that are particularly important for public participation scholars and practitioners to consider. These issues are: citizens’ distrust of public officials, concerns about who counts as a legitimate member of the community, and challenges related to the framing the process and goals of the meeting. In this concluding essay we summarize and reflect on the insights provided by the special issue contributions. We also look ahead to assess how these contributions can inform future public participation research and practice by illuminating the importance of communication practices and public meeting formats.

This special issue of IJP2 attempts to build linkages between public participation scholarship and communication research that emphasizes close attention to naturally-occurring interaction. The essays all investigate different aspects of the communication that occurs during one public meeting: a public forum that focused on issues of economic development in Omaha, Nebraska. Through their investigation of this common case, the essays in this issue provide detailed description of some communication processes common to public meetings such as nonverbal communication, question and answer behavior, storytelling, the use of the term “community,” and the terms people use to talk about their own communication. These studies highlight how such interactive practices function in important ways to build or challenge notions of community, frame the purpose and outcome of the meeting, display power differences among participants, and clarify key community values. This collection of essays highlights how close attention to what happens during public meetings can have important implications for both the theory and practice of public participation. A full video of the meeting is available online.

This study uses discourse analysis from a Language and Social Interaction (LSI) perspective to analyze the personal stories that were told during the North Omaha Development Project (NODP) public meeting. Personal stories may not intuitively seem to be important in public meetings because they center on individual, personal experience, rather than discussing issues in public terms. However, stories help people to create and negotiate their identities, demonstrate their values, and indicate what actions ought to be taken to enact those values in meaningful ways. In the NODP public meeting, presenters and audience members told stories that demonstrated the important distinction between community members and outsiders, and offered competing notions of the community values and appropriate actions that should be taken to address neighborhood poverty. This analysis offers insights into how public participation scholars can view stories told in public meetings as well as practical implications for officials convening public meetings.

This study examines how members of deliberative groups tell and respond to personal stories during their disagreements. The study provides an in-depth qualitative analysis of some online discussions hosted by AmericaSpeaks in which New Yorkers discussed how to redevelop the site of the former World Trade Center after its destruction on September 11, 2001. Participants’ stories fell into four distinct types: adversarial argument, unitary argument, introduction, and transformation. These stories helped group members build arguments, maintain or challenge their group’s collective identity, display community values, and manage their conflicts. The findings of this study indicate that deliberative theory ought to more explicitly recognize storytelling as a legitimate form of deliberative discourse. Moreover, the study of storytelling during deliberative discussion can hold implications for group facilitators and others who wish to further deliberative ideals.

During the past fifteen years, public deliberation has become an important focus of research, theory, and public practice. This has sometimes led to a variety of narrow conceptualizations that limit deliberation to particular forms of interaction, such as small group discussion, or to divergent conceptualizations deployed in different contexts, such as for media systems versus face-to-face discussions. To address this problem, we advance a flexible yet precise definition of deliberation that has the power to organize not only deliberation theory and research but also much of the larger body of work in political communication. As defined herein, deliberation includes both analytic and social processes and provides a unifying conceptual and critical framework for studying nearly the full range of political communication topics, including informal conversation, media and public opinion, elections, government institutional behavior, jury decision making, public meetings, and civic and community life. Using our flexible conceptualization, each of these research contexts amounts to a kind of deliberative critique and empirical analysis of public life.