Public Deliberation on Policy Issues Normative Stipulations and Practical Resolutions

References

• Aakhus, M. (2001). Technocratic and design stances toward communication expertise: How GDSS facilitators understand their work. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29(4), 341–371.
   Google Scholar
• Abelson, J., Eyles, J., Forest, P., Smith, P., Martin, E., & Gauvin, F. (2003). Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science and Medicine, 57(2), 239–251.
   Google Scholar
• Andersen , I. E., & J®ger, B. (1999). Danish participatory models, scenario workshops and consensus conferences: Towards more democratic decision-making. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 331–340.
   Google Scholar
• Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planning, 35, 216–224.
   Google Scholar
• Ashcraft, K. L. (2001). Feminist organizing and the construction of “alternative” community. In G. J. Shepherd & E. W. Rothenbuhler (Eds.), Communication and community (pp. 79–110). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barnes, M. (2005). The same old process? Older people, participation and deliberation. Ageing and Society, 25(2), 245–259.
   Google Scholar
• Bates, B. R., Lynch, J. A., Bevan, J. L., & Condit, C. M. (2005). Warranted concerns, warranted outlooks: A focus group study of public understandings of genetic research. Social Science and Medicine, 60(2), 331–344.
   Google Scholar
• Benhabib, S. (1992). Situating the self: Gender, community, and postmodernism in contemporary ethics. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C., Kramer, V. L., Yao, Q., & Toumey, C. (2008). Interpersonal discussion following citizen engagement about nanotechnology: What, if anything, do they say? Science Communication, 30(2), 209–235.
   Google Scholar
• Black, L. W. (2009). Listening to the city: Difference, identity, and storytelling in online deliberative groups. Journal of Public Deliberation, 5(1), Article 4. Retrieved September 5, 2009, from http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol5/iss1/art4
   Google Scholar
• Bohman, J. (1996). Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity, and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bracci, S. L. (2001). Managing health care in Oregon: The search for a civic bioethics. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29(2), 171–194.
   Google Scholar
• Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J., & Kelshaw T. (2002). A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Communication Theory, 12(4), 398–422.
   Google Scholar
• Buttom, M., & Mattson, K. (1999). Deliberative democracy in practice: Challenges and prospects for civic deliberation. Polity, 31, 609–637.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, A. V. (1995). Defining core health services: The New Zealand experience. Bioethics, 9(3–4), 252–258.
   Google Scholar
• Cappella, J. N., Price, V., & Nir, L. (2002). Argument quality as a reliable and valid measure of opinion quality: Electronic dialogue during campaign 2000. Political Communication, 19, 73–93.
   Google Scholar
• Carson, L., & Hartz-Karp, J. (2005). Adapting and combining deliberative designs: Juries, polls, and forums. In J. Gastil (Ed.), The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century (pp. 120–138). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307–326.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1997). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In J. F. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (pp. 67–91). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cooke, M. (2000). Five arguments for deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 48(5), 947–969.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, G., & Burgess, J. (2004). Challenging the ‘view from nowhere’: Citizen reflections on specialist expertise in a deliberative process. Health and Place, 10(4), 349–361.
   Google Scholar
• Delli Carpini, M. X., Lomax Cook, F., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315–344.
   Google Scholar
• Dienel, P. C., & Renn, O. (1995). Planning cells: A gate to ‘fractal’ mediation. In O. Renn, T. Webler, & P. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation (pp. 117–140). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S., Goodin, R. E., Tucker, A., & Reber, B. (2009). Promethean elites encounter precautionary publics: The case of GM foods. Science, Technology & Human Values, 34(3), 263–288.
   Google Scholar
• Einsiedel, E. F. (2002). Assessing a controversial medical technology: Canadian public consultations on xenotransplantation. Public Understanding of Science, 11(4), 315–331.
   Google Scholar
• Einsiedel, E. F., Jels0e, E., & Breck, T. (2001). Publics at the technology table: The Australian, Canadian and Danish consensus conferences on food biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 83–98.
   Google Scholar
• Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 15, 226–243.
   Google Scholar
• Fishkin, J. (1991). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fishkin, J. S. (1999). Toward a deliberative democracy: Experimenting with an ideal. In S. Elkin & K. E. Soltan (Eds.), Citizen competence and democratic institutions (pp. 279–290). State College, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fishkin, J. S., Luskin, R. C., & Jowell, R. (2000). Deliberative polling and public consultation. Parliamentary Affairs, 53(4), 657–666.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fung, A. (2003). Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design choices and their consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(3), 338–367.
   Google Scholar
• Gantwerk, H. (2005). Fly into the future: An on-line dialogue about the future of San Diego’s airport. A report to the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from Viewpoint Learning http://www.viewpoint learning.com/publications/reports/fly_future_0805.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J. (2000). Is face-to-face citizen deliberation a luxury or a necessity? Political Communication, 17(4), 357–361.
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., & Levine, P. (Eds.). (2005). The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the 21st century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., & Dillard, J. P. (1999). Increasing political sophistication through public deliberation. Political Communication, 16(1), 3–23.
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., Reedy, J., Braman, D., & Kahan, D. M. (2008). Deliberation across the cultural divide: Assessing the potential for reconciling conflicting cultural orientations to reproductive technology. The George Washington Law Review, 76, 1772–1794.
   Google Scholar
• Guston, D. H. (1998). Evaluating the first U.S. consensus conference: The impact of the citizens’ panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 24(4), 451–482.
   Google Scholar
• Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard, Belknap Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guttman, N. (2007). Dilemmas and contradictions in the practices and procedures of public deliberation initiatives that aim to get “ordinary citizens” to deliberate policy issues. Communication Theory, 17(4), 411–438.
   Google Scholar
• Guttman, N., Shalev, C., Kaplan, G., Abulafia, A., Bin-Nun, G., Goffer, R., et al. (2008). What should be given a priority — costly medications for relatively few people or inexpensive ones for many? The health parliament public consultation initiative in Israel. Health Expectations, 11(2), 177–188.
   Google Scholar
• Haas, T. (2004). The public sphere as a sphere of publics: Rethinking Habermas’s theory of the public sphere. Journal of Communication, 54(1), 178–184.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, Vol.1: Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McGarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action, Vol. 2: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reasoning (T. McGarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere (T. Burger, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1992). Further reflections on the public sphere (T. Burger, Trans.). In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 421–460). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hadron, D., & Holmes, A. C. (1997). The New Zealand priority criteria project. Part 1: Overview. British Medical Journal, 314, 131–134.
   Google Scholar
• Hendriks, C. M. (2006). When the forum meets interest politics: Strategic uses of public deliberation. Politics & Society, 34(4), 571–602.
   Google Scholar
• Herbst, S. (1991). Classical democracy, polls, and public opinion: Theoretical frameworks for studying the development of public sentiment. Communication Theory, 1(3), 225–238.
   Google Scholar
• Howard, T., & Gaborit, N. (2007). Using virtual environment technology to improve public participation in urban planning process. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 133(4), 233–241.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, C. B. (2005). Citizen projects and consensus-building at the Danish Board of Technology. Acta Sociologica, 48(3), 221–235.
   Google Scholar
• Kashefi, E., & Mort, M. (2004). Grounded citizens’ juries: A tool for health activism? Health Expectations, 7(4), 290–302.
   Google Scholar
• Lenagham J., New, B., & Mitchell, E. (1996). Setting priorities: Is there a role for citizens’ juries? British Medical Journal, 312, 1591–1593.
   Google Scholar
• Levine, P. (2001). Civic renewal and the commons of cyberspace. National Civic Review, 90(3), 205–212.
   Google Scholar
• Levine, P., Fung, A., & Gastil, J. (2005). Future directions for public deliberations. Journal of Public Deliberation, 1(1), Article 3.
   Google Scholar
• Lukensmeyer, C. J., & Brigha, S. (2002). Taking democracy to scale: Creating a town hall meeting for the twenty-first century. National Civic Review, 91(4), 351–366.
   Google Scholar
• Luskin, R., Fishkin, J. S., & Jowell, R. (2002). Considered opinions: Deliberative polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 32, 455–487.
   Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J. (1999). Everyday talk in the deliberative system. In S. Macedo (Ed.), Deliberative politics: Essays in democracy and disagreement (pp. 211–239). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maxwell, J., Rosell, S., & Forest, P. (2003). Giving citizens a voice in healthcare policy in Canada. British Medical Journal, 326, 1031–1033.
   Google Scholar
• Milner, H. (2002). Civic literacy: How informed citizens make democracy work. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison, J., & Newman, D. (2001). On-line citizenship: Consultation and participation in new labour’s Britain and beyond. International Review of Law, 15(2), 171–194.
   Google Scholar
• Mullen, P. (2000). Public involvement in health care priority setting: Are the methods appropriate and valid? In C. Ham & A. Coulter (Eds.), The global challenge of health care rationing (pp. 163–174). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 602–662.
   Google Scholar
• Nolte, J., Maxwell, J., & MacKinnon, M. P. (2004). “Trust and Balance”: Citizens’ dialogue on the Ontario budget strategy 2004–2008. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Policy Research Networks.
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, M. C. (1995). Emotions and women’s capabilities. In M. C. Nussbaum & J. Glover (Eds.), Women, culture, and development (pp. 360–395). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Parkinson, J. (2004a). Hearing voices: Negotiating representation claims in public deliberation. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 6, 370–388.
   Google Scholar
• Parkinson, J. (2004b). Why deliberate? The encounter between deliberation and new public managers. Public Administration, 82(2), 377–395.
   Google Scholar
• Pidgeon, N., & Rogers-Hayden, T. (2007). Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? Health, Risk & Society, 9(2), 191–210.
   Google Scholar
• Pimbert, M., Wakeford, T., & Satheesh, P. V. (2001, December). Citizens’ juries on GMOs and farming futures in India. LEISA Magazine, 27–29. Retrieved September 5, 2009, from http://www.leisa.info/index.php?url=getblob.php&o_id=12549&a_ id=211&a_seq=0
   Google Scholar
• Pimbert, M. P., & Wakeford, T. (2002). Prajateerpu: A citizens jury/scenario workshop on food and farming futures for Andhra Pradesh, India. London: IIED.
   Google Scholar
• Polletta, F., Ching, P., Chen, B., & Anderson, C. (2009). Is information good for deliberation? Link-posting in an online forum. Journal of Public Deliberation, 5(1), Article 2. Retrieved Septemeber 5, 2009, from http://services.bepress.com/jpd/ vol5/iss1/art2
   Google Scholar
• Price, V., Cappella, J. N., & Nir, L. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion? Political Communication, 19(1), 95–112.
   Google Scholar
• Price, V., Nir, L., & Cappella, J. N. (2006). Normative and informational influences in online political discussions. Communication Theory, 16(1), 47–74.
   Google Scholar
• Priest, S. H. (1995). Information equity, public understanding of science and the biotechnology debate. Journal of Communication, 45(1), 39–54.
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, J. (1997). The idea of public reason. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reasons and politics (pp. 93–141). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, N. (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. The American Review of Public Administration, 34(4), 315–353.
   Google Scholar
• Ryfe, D. M. (2002). The practice of deliberative democracy: A study of 16 deliberative organizations. Political Communication, 19(3), 359–377.
   Google Scholar
• Ryfe, D. M. (2006). Narratives and deliberation in small group forums. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34(1), 72–93.
   Google Scholar
• Salmon, C. T., & Glasser, T. L. (1995). The politics of polling and the limits of consent. In T. L. Glasser & C. T. Salmon (Eds.), Public opinion and the communication of consent (pp. 437–458). New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, L. M. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25(3), 347–376.
   Google Scholar
• Sclove, R. E. (2000). Town meetings on technology: Consensus conferences as democratic participation. In D. L. Kleinman (Ed.), Science, technology & democracy (pp. 33–48). Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Skorupinski, B., Baranzke, H., Ingensiep, H. W., & Meinhardt, M. (2007). Consensus conferences — A case study: Publiforum in Switzerland with special respect to the role of lay persons and ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20(1), 37–52.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, G., & Wales, C. (2000). Citizen juries and deliberative democracy, Political Studies, 48(1), 51–65.
   Google Scholar
• Walmsley, H. L. (2009). Mad scientists bend the frame of biobank governance in British Columbia. Journal of Public Deliberation, 5(1), Article 6. Retrieved September 5, 2009, from http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol5/iss1/art6
   Google Scholar
• Webler, T. (1995). “Right” discourse in citizen participation. In O. Renn, T. Webler, & P. Wiedmann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse (pp. 35–86). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Webler, T., & Tuler, S. (2000). Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Theoretical reflections from a case study. Administration and Society, 32(5), 566–595.
   Google Scholar
• Webler, T., & Tuler, S. (2002). Unlocking the puzzle of public participation. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 22(2), 179–189.
   Google Scholar
• Webler, T., Tuler, S., & Kreuger, R. (2001). What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management, 27(3), 435–450.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, S., & Street, J. (2007). Democracy, deliberation and design: The case of online discussion forums. New Media & Society, 9(5), 849–869.
   Google Scholar
• Wyatt, R. O., Katz, E., & Kim, J. (2000). Bridging the spheres: Political and personal conversation in public and private spaces. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 71–92.
   Google Scholar
• Yankelovich, D. (1991). Coming to public judgment: Making democracy work in a complex world. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Young, M. (1996). Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 120–135). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Young, I. M. (2001). Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 29, 670–690.
   Google Scholar