Deliberative communication goes to college: the ‘Deliberation Forum’ project as a democratic agent of empowerment for communication students

References

• Albrecht, S. 2006. “Whose Voice Is Heard in Online Deliberation? A Study of Participation and Representation in Political Debates on the Internet.” Information, Communication and Society 9 (1): 62–82. doi:10.1080/13691180500519274. doi: 10.1080/13691180500519548
   Google Scholar
• Barabas, J. 2004. “How Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions.” The American Political Science Review 98 (4): 687–701. doi: 10.1017/S0003055404041425
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barber, B. 1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bayne, S. 2015. “What's the Matter with Technology-Enhanced Learning?” Learning, Media and Technology 40 (1): 5–20. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2014.915851
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beak, Y. M., M. Wojcieszak, and M. X. Delli Carpini. 2012. “Online Versus Face-to-Face Deliberation: Who? Why? What? With What Effects?” New Media & Society 14 (3): 363–383. doi:10.1177/1461444811413191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benhabib, S. 1994. “Deliberative Rationality and Models of Constitutional Legitimacy.” [ In Hebrew.] Constellations 50–51: 67–79.
   Google Scholar
• Bimber, B., A. J. Flanagin, and C. Stohl. 2012. Collective Action in Organizations: Interaction and Engagement in an Era of Technological Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burkhalter, S., J. Gastil, and T. Kelshaw. 2002. “A Conceptual Definition and Theoretical Model of Public Deliberation in Small Face-to-Face Groups.” Communication Theory 12 (4): 398–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carcasson, M., L. W. Blacky, and E. S. Sinkz. 2010. “Communication Studies and Deliberative Democracy: Current Contributions and Future Possibilities.” Journal of Public Deliberation 6 (1): Article 8.
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, S. 2003. “Deliberative Democratic Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 6: 307–326. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Churchman, A., and E. Sadan. 2003. “Participation: A Second Look.” [ In Hebrew.] In Participation: Your Way to Make a Difference, edited by A. Churchman and E. Sadan, 273–289. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad.
   Google Scholar
• Colman, S. 2005. “The Lonely Citizen: Indirect Representation in an Age of Networks.” Political Communication 22 (2): 197–214. doi:10.1080/10584600590933197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlgren, P. 2005. “The Internet, Public Spheres and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation.” Political Communication 22 (2): 147–162. doi:10.1080/10584600590933160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delli Carpini, M. X., F. L. Cook, and L. R. Jacobs. 2004. “Public Deliberation, Discursive Participation, and Citizen Engagement: A Review of Empirical Literature.” Annual Review of Political Science 7: 315–344. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diaz, A., and S. H. Gilchristy. 2010. “Dialogue on Campus: An Overview of Promising Practices.” Journal of Public Deliberation 6 (1): 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Englund, T. 2008. “The University as an Encounter for Deliberative Communication: Creating Cultural Citizenship and Professional Responsibility.” Utbildning & Demokrati 17 (2): 97–114.
   Google Scholar
• Eveland, W. P.Jr., A. C. Morey, and M. J. Hutchens. 2011. “Beyond Deliberation: New Directions for the Study of Informal Political Conversation from a Communication Perspective.” Journal of Communication 61 (6): 1082–1103. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01598.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishkin, J. S. 2009. “Virtual Public Consultation: Prospects for Internet Deliberative.” In Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice, edited by T. Davies and S. T. Gangadharan, 23–36. Standford: University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Friesen, N. 2009. Re-thinking E-learning Research. New York: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Gamson, W. A. 1992. Talking Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J. 2008. Political Communication and Deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., and W. Blacky. 2008. “Public Deliberation as the Organizing Principle of Political Communication Research.” Journal of Public Deliberation 4 (1): 1–47.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, E., and E. Manosevitch. 2011. “Augmented Deliberation: Merging Physical and Virtual Interactions to Engage Communities in Urban Planning.” New Media and Society 13 (1): 75–95. doi:10.1177/1461444810365315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffin, M. 2011. “Developing Deliberative Minds – Piaget, Vygotsky and the Deliberative Democratic Citizen.” Journal of Public Deliberation 7 (1): Article 2.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 2006. “Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension?” Communication Theory 16 (4): 411–426. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamlett, P. W., and M. D. Cobb. 2006. “Potential Solutions to Public Deliberation Problems: Structured Deliberations and Polarization Cascades.” The Policy Studies Journal 34 (4): 629–648. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2006.00195.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haythornthwaite, C., and R. Andrews. 2011. E-learning Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Kearney, M. H., S. Murphy, and M. Rosenbaum. 1994. “Mothering on Crack Cocaine: A Grounded Theory Analysis.” Social Science and Medicine 38 (2): 351–361. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(94)90405-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkwood, A., and L. Price. 2014. “Technology-Enhanced Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: What Is ‘Enhanced’ and How Do We Know? A Critical Literature Review.” Learning, Media and Technology 39 (1): 6–36. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2013.770404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lev-On, A., and B. Manin. 2009. “Happy Accidents: Deliberation and Online Exposure to Opposing Views.” In Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice, edited by T. Davies and S. T. Gangadharan, 105–122. Standford: University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lindlof, T. R., and Taylor, B. C. 2002. Qualitative Communication Research Methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• van Manen, M. 1990. Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for Action Sensitive Pedagogy. New York: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Manosevitch, E. 2010. “ Mapping the Practice of Online Deliberation.” Paper presented at the OD2010 Fourth international conference on online deliberation, Leeds, UK, June 30–July 2. Resources for Higher Education. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Min, S. 2007. “Online vs. Face-to-Face Deliberation: Effects on Civic Engagement.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12 (4): 1369–1387. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00377.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mok, J. 2013. “Technology-Enhanced Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: What Is ‘Enhanced’ and How Do We Know? A Critical Literature Review.” Language Awareness 22 (2): 161–171. doi: 10.1080/09658416.2012.680467
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. 2006. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative vs. Participatory Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, J. 1989. “Phenomenology as Feminist Methodology: Explicating Interviews.” In Doing Research on Women's Communication: Perspectives on Theory and Method, edited by K. Carter and C. Spitzack, 221–241. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Oblak, T. 2002. “Dialogues and Representation: Communication in the Electronic Public Sphere.” Javnost: The Public 9 (2): 23–42. doi: 10.1080/13183222.2002.11008798
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orbe, M. P. 1998. Constructing Co-cultural Theory: An Explication of Culture, Power, and Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Price, V. 2009. “Citizens Deliberating Online: Theory and Some Evidence.” In Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice, edited by T. Davies and S. T. Gangadharan, 37–58. Standford: University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ryfe, D. 2002. “The Practice of Deliberative Democracy: A Study of 16 Deliberative Organizations.” Political Communication 19 (3): 359–377. doi:10.1080/01957470290055547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharpe, R., H. Beetham, S. De Freitas, and G. Conole. 2010. “An Introduction.” In Rethinking Learning for a Digital Age, edited by R. Sharpe, H. Beetha, and S. De Freitas, 1–12. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, G., P. John, P. Sturgis, and H. Nomura. 2009. “Deliberation and Internet Engagement.” Paper presented to the European Consortium of Political Research general conference, Potsdam, September 10–12.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1994. “Grounded Theory Methodology: An Overview.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, 273–285. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, J. 2002. “New Voices in the Public Sphere: A Comparative Analysis of Interpersonal and Online Political Talk.” Javnost: The Public 9 (2): 23–42. doi: 10.1080/13183222.2002.11008798
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, J., and P. Muhlberger. 2009. “Agreement and Disagreement in Group Deliberation: Effects on Deliberation Satisfaction, Future Engagement And Decision Legitimacy.” Political Communication 26 (2): 173–192. doi:10.1080/10584600902850775.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, N. L. 2010. “Why It Is Imperative to Strengthen American Democracy Through Study, Dialogue and Change in Higher Education.” Journal of Public Deliberation 6 (1): Article 10.
   Google Scholar
• Weiksner, M. G. 2005. “E-thePeople.org: Large-Scale Ongoing Deliberation.” In The Deliberative Democracy Handbook, edited by J. Gastil and P. Levine, 213–227. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Wyatt, R. O., J. Kim, and E. Katz. 2000. “How Feeling Free to Talk Affects Ordinary Political Conversation, Purposeful Argumentation, and Civic Participation.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 77 (1): 99–114. doi:10.1177/107769900007700108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar