Search

This paper revisits the core concept of representation in light of democratic innovations and more specifically in the context of minipublics. We disentangle how representativeness is currently add...

Developing effective interventions to counter misinformation is an urgent goal, but it also presents conceptual, empirical, and practical difficulties, compounded by the fact that misinformation research is in its infancy. This paper provides researchers and policymakers with an overview of which individual-level interventions are likely to have an influence on the spread of, susceptibility to, or impact of misinformation. We review the evidence for the effectiveness of four categories of interventions: boosting (psychological inoculation, critical thinking, and media and information literacy); nudging (accuracy primes and social norms nudges); debunking (fact-checking); and automated content labelling. In each area, we assess the empirical evidence, key gaps in knowledge, and practical considerations. We conclude with a series of recommendations for policymakers and tech companies to ensure a comprehensive approach to tackling misinformation.

Bridging deliberative democracy and crisis management scholarship, we construct theoretical expectations about the role of deliberative minipublics in fostering public compliance with difficult political decisions. Our expectations are tested with a randomized cross-national survey experiment (United States and United Kingdom, N = 2088), in which respondents read a realistic news item depicting a political decision-making process leading to the extension of COVID-19 lockdown measures that follows either a (1) citizen deliberation, (2) public consultation, (3) politician deliberation, or (4) nothing. The findings show minipublics are unlikely to foster public compliance during a health crisis. On the contrary, reading about a minipublic could decrease compliance when individuals are distrustful of minipublics. This study has implications for citizen participation, deliberation, and leadership during future pandemics. This research was undertaken as part of the Provenance project, which is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (grant 825227) and by the DCU Covid-19 Research and Innovation Hub. Jane also wants to acknowledge the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under the Grant Agreement 959234.

This paper compares the debate quality in the plenary sessions of an Irish Citizens’ Assembly and an Irish parliamentary committee to assess the epistemic effects of public deliberation on a contentious subject: abortion. The unusual occurrence of a similar process of detailed discussion on the same topic in different institutions at around the same time (in 2016–2017) allows us to compare the deliberative capacities of these institutions and thus contribute to discussions on the appropriateness of an increasingly debated democratic reform: assigning political offices by lot. We suggest that the epistemic effect of deliberation on abortion should facilitate nuanced multi-layered discussion that is both ‘deeper’ in being based on multi-faceted arguments and ‘wider’ in terms of a more accommodative view. We anticipate that these effects should be more pronounced in the more deliberative, less polarized, environment of a citizens’ assembly rather than in a parliamentary committee. The analysis deploys the psychological concept of ‘cognitive complexity’. We find that members of the Citizens’ Assembly demonstrate a deeper cognitively complex grasp of the subject matter. In contrast, experts and parliamentarians tend to adjust their mode of delivery at a parliamentary committee reflecting the conflictual and strategic aspects of political debates in such a forum.

Ireland’s Convention on the Constitution (2012–2014) was a world-first process in mixing randomly selected private citizens and political representatives in a deliberative mini-public that made recommendations on a wide range of constitutional issues. Acknowledging the gender gap identified in studies of deliberative forums, the Convention made specific design choices in an effort to achieve gender inclusion. Using data collected during the course of the Convention, we explore the effects of contextual (institutional rules, procedures and topics discussed) and actor-related characteristics (gender, type of membership) on inclusion. We find that contextual issues such as the topic discussed and the gender composition of the small roundtable deliberations did not influence gender rates of participation. However, the forum of participation did, with women participating more than men in the facilitated small group sessions.

This paper tests the possibility of embedding the benefits of minipublic deliberation within a wider voting public. We test whether a statement such as those derived from a Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) can influence voters who did not participate in the pre-referendum minipublic deliberation. This experiment was implemented in advance of the 2018 Irish referendum on blasphemy, one of a series of social-moral referendums following the recommendations of a deliberative assembly. This is the first application of a CIR-style voting aid in a real world minipublic and referendum outside of the US and also the first application to what is principally a moral question. We found that survey respondents exposed to information about the minipublic and its findings significantly increased their policy knowledge. Further, exposing respondents to minipublic statements in favour and against the policy measure increased their empathy for the other side of the policy debate.

Some worry that increased partisanship is lowering trust in the news media, as people increasingly come into contact with cross-cutting news coverage. We use multilevel analysis of online survey data from 35 countries and find that left-right partisans (1) have slightly less trust in the news media in general, (2) slightly higher levels of trust in the news they consume and (3) perceive a larger ‘trust gap’ between the news they use and the rest of the news available within their country. However, we do not find evidence to support the idea that people in more politically polarized countries have less trust in the news, or that the association between partisanship and trust is strengthened in polarized political environments. Although in most cases the relationship between partisanship and trust is weak, it is noticeably stronger in the United States. However, the United States is home to a unique media system, and our analysis highlights the problems of assuming that the processes at work in one relatively well-understood country are playing out in the same way globally.

How can we define democracy today given the continuous changes that modern societies are undergoing?What is the role of a democratic theorist? This paper articulates a threefold argument in responding to these questions by analyzing the term of democracy in vitro, in vivo, and in actu. The first step is tosecure a democratic minimum and the core principles of democracy. The second step involves studying democracy as an ongoing project and examininghow the principles of this democratic minimum are encoded. In thethird stepwe deploy the basic premises of discourse theory of Laclau and Mouffe when evaluating a specific discourse of democracy, as this approachencompasses both discursive and non discursive practices.Utilizing this three-level evaluative framework for democratic theory will allow us to not only articulate normative principles but also evaluate them according to their mode of implementation. Keywords: democratic minimum, democratic theory, democracy, representation

Democratic crisis is a hot topic in political science at present, and for understandable reasons. But what is often missed in much of the commentary about democracies in peril is the fact that democracies can and do innovate. This chapter deals with one important case of such democratic innovation—the Irish deliberative mini-publics. We start with a discussion of the origins and design of the Irish cases. We then employ the Suiter and Reuchamps (2016) framework to analyse their democratic legitimacy in terms of input (the recruitment process), throughput, (the quality of the deliberative process), and output (the mini-public’s impact in terms of the uptake of its recommendations and acceptance of the process). The Irish processes are powerful real-world examples of the potential systemization of deliberation, showing how deliberative mini-publics can successfully supplement representative and direct forms of democracy.

This chapter summarizes the development of the Irish media system through the lens of mediation and mediatization. It outlines the early strong state control of the broadcasting sector and the relatively quiescent attitude of many print journalists in the early days of development. It follows with a description of the growing influence of political actors and consequences of mass media logics which was at the core of late twentieth-century Irish democracy. Next, it describes the rise of digital communication technologies and the advent of social media, and the emergence of a hybrid media system that instigated a shift in power relations between politicians and journalists. Finally, it concludes with a focus on the challenges related to regulation of the social media environment and those related to supporting a quality information environment.

Citizens are often accused of being disinterested and incapable of taking part in politics. This chapter demonstrates how deliberative mini-publics (DMPs) can be designed to address this issue, in a manner that conforms to norms of deliberative democracy. DMPs are, by design, venues that should facilitate balanced and critical deliberation among participants representing differing viewpoints. The design features of mini-publics, such as random selection and moderated small-group discussions, should thus at least to some extent correct potential biases in evidence. Mini-publics’ capacity for critical scrutiny can be further strengthened by specific design features that help participants to become more reflective in their own views.

This chapter discusses the procedure of selecting participants to DMPs. It underlines the importance of a representative sample in order to guarantee diversity of opinions and participants. In comparison with other possible methods – election through voting, a corporatist system where the participants are appointed by civil society organisations and other interest groups, and self-selection where all interested people can take part – random selection is the best way of guaranteeing the necessary diversity in a DMP. The chapter highlights key aspects in the implementation of random sampling, whether pure or stratified, and the strategies that can make a DMP sample as representative as possible.

This introductory chapter provides a definition of DMPs and identifies their core design features. The role of DMPs is situated in relation to the broader project of deliberative democratisation to make a measured case about the role of these processes in shaping the course of collective decision-making. To avoid accusations of participatory elitism, the chapter argues that DMPs are not the only tool citizens use to promote deliberative norms or institutions of democracy. Deliberative democracy can only flourish in broader transformations in political parties, media systems and political economy.

This chapter focuses on core design features concerned with the ‘deliberative experience.’ It starts by identifying the guiding principles in design – inclusiveness, equality in participation and integrity – and then discusses core design features relating to the deliberative experience. DMPs are dynamic processes. Flexibility and appropriateness of the design to the particular DMP’s purpose, size, and mandate are critical.

This chapter uses real-world examples to show how DMPs can be integrated into the wider democratic system, supplementing and reinforcing institutions of representative democracy and beyond, thus presenting the conceptual, actual and potential role of DMPs. The relationship of DMPs to the key arenas and practices of will formation and decision making are discussed, as well as how DMPs can be combined with other practices. Of course, DMPs are no panacea, but the examples presented suggest that DMPs can enhance democratic will-formation, decision making, and empowered inclusion. Much depends on how the DMPs are sequenced into a process.

This chapter examines the bases of deliberative mini-publics’ (DMPs) internal and external legitimacy and discusses how their outputs can influence collective decision-making. It addresses some of the most contentious issues in the field of democratic innovations today including: To what extent should deliberative mini-publics shape decision-making? Should DMPs be empowered to make binding decisions? Are they better off taking an advisory role? What is the basis of DMPs’ legitimacy in the first place?

Deliberative mini-publics (DMPs) are gaining popularity as a way to engage ordinary citizens in policymaking. From climate assemblies to online citizen panels on Covid19, these initiatives raise questions about effective approaches to democratic reform as well as the future of democracy itself. Bringing together ten leading scholars in the field of deliberative democracy, this important book examines the features of a Deliberative Mini-Public (DMP) and considers how DMPs link into democratic systems. It examines the core design features of DMPs and their role in the broader policy process and takes stock of the characteristics that distinguish them from other forms of citizen participation. The book offers valuable insights into the contributions that DMPs can make not only to the policy process, but also to the broader agenda of revitalising democracy in contemporary times.

The information landscape has undergone dramatic changes with the expansion of the internet and digital social media platforms. Information can be spread more rapidly and can reach more people than ever before. While this offers excellent possibilities to teach and educate and to disseminate information about research results and scientific evidence, it also comes with a downside: False information can be propagated with equal ease and speed. This discussion paper describes and discusses the problems and the consequences of science disinformation in three areas of concern, namely climate change, vaccines and pandemics, and what we can do to increase awareness and minimize harm caused by the spread of disinformation. It does so by highlighting the societal value of the scientific method, research integrity, open science communication and the resulting trust in science. The underlying question is how to protect the pillars of science from the severe consequences of disinformation while maintaining openness and democratic principles. This paper presents the central characteristics of science disinformation, its roots, its spread, and potential solutions. The mere existence of disinformation is hard to prevent in open societies with strong protection of individual rights and freedom of expression. The paper identifies underlying cognitive, social and economic mechanisms that amplify the spread of disinformation and evaluates potential solutions. Extensive research over the past several years has identified cognitive features of the human mind, as well as fast and efficient transmission channels, that contribute to the prevalence of science disinformation in our societies. Potential solutions cover a range of psychological, technical and political measures including inoculation, debunking, recommender systems, fact-checking, raising awareness, media literacy, and innovations in science communication and public engagement. Together, they contribute to tackling problems such as knowledge resistance, pseudoscience, undermining of trust, confirmation bias, filter bubbles, echo chambers, and other problems related to science disinformation.

Cet article analyse le fonctionnement de la premiere Convention constitutionnelle irlandaise qui s’est tenue en 2013. On avait argumente que recourir a une approche deliberative pour reformer la Constitution serait utile afin d’impliquer les citoyens dans les decisions tout en renforcant une legitimite democratique affaiblie et en reconfigurant potentiellement la pratique democratique. La Convention conduit a un referendum pour reconnaitre l’egalite du droit au mariage (pour les personnes de meme sexe) et l’Irlande devint le premier pays du monde a instituer ce droit par un vote populaire. Cet article examine toutes les facettes de la Convention a travers la grille d’analyse de la legitimite d’input, de throughput et d’output. Nos resultats montrent que deux des points qui furent initialement critiques, la composition de la Convention et son mandat, se sont reveles innovants et ont contribue a sa legitimite sur de multiples dimensions.

Deliberative democracy is for many the most significant development in democratic theory in the last 50 years and it has been used in some places to solve real-world policy problems. However, measuring the impact of deliberative methods is not clearly achievable because several independent variables are manipulated simultaneously. One of the main goals of deliberation is opinion change and thus it is important to understand why opinions change. This paper utilises comparison groups in order to isolate the impact of deliberation from information in the deliberative process. We outline the results of a quasi-experiment in which deliberation took place in a citizens’ assembly (CA) in Ireland. As part of this we measured the impact using pre- and post-test controls, including a group given the information the CA participants received, but without the deliberation. The results of the analysis provide evidence of a separate deliberation effect.

Anti-immigrant disinformation is strongly associated with the ideology of exclusion and nativist supremacy that underpin right-wing populism and far-right extremism. In many countries, high-profile political actors have normalised anti-immigrant disinformation, often in compliance with sympathetic media outlets. The infrastructure of platforms facilitates anti-immigrant disinformation in many ways. As with disinformation generally, automated bots and fake accounts are frequently used to inflate the popularity of anti-immigrant disinformation. Anti-immigrant attitudes and the appeal of anti-immigrant disinformation have been contextualised in relation to patterns of economic and social change and the decline of traditional party systems. In many respects, anti-immigrant disinformation is part of a culture war in which an ecosystem of actors (far right, alt-right, populist, and conservative) reinforces a common opposition to a pluralist worldview. Finally, the proliferation of anti-immigrant disinformation requires attention from mainstream media and politicians in terms of how immigration is discussed and reported.