The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Norms of Deliberation: An Inductive Study
Open accessAbstract
Writers on the practice of deliberation usually take their cues about what deliberation ought to be from the theoretical literature, sometimes adding elements from their own experience. Until recently, that theoretical literature deductively derived its ideal conception of deliberation from the abstract principles of rationality, liberty, and equality. Then critics of the early stream of theorizing drew from experience and past work on the position of minorities and oppressed groups to fault the early theorists for proposing ideals that, when put into practice, were likely to exclude or marginalize members of disadvantaged groups. More recently, in response to these critiques, contemporary deliberative theorists have broadened and reframed some of these principles. Deliberative theory, however, remains relatively unleavened by the direct experience of deliberation practitioners. To address this problem, we have adopted the explicitly inductive method of mining the observations of facilitators of small-group deliberation on public issues for explicit and implicit deliberative norms. The results differ in several ways from the results of theory derived from abstract principles or the generalized experiences of marginalized groups.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Consensus-oriented deliberation suppresses expression of conflicting interests and minority perspectives.
“consensus-oriented deliberation is known to suppress expression of conflicting interests and minority perspectives [40, 41]”
From Reimagining Open Source and Openness in AI: Co-Creating Responsible Technological Futures (2026) · cites this paper as [40]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reimagining Open Source and Openness in AI: Co-Creating Responsible Technological Futures
Smith, G., Patel, H., Luo, S., Bobra, M., Brewer, J., Carson, C., Cruxen, I., Doshi, S., Gahntz, M., Garcia, N., et al. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3805689.3806719
Metadata
- Authors
- Mansbridge, J., Hartz-Karp, J., Amengual, M., & Gastil, J.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Deliberative Democracy
- Publisher
- University of Westminster Press
- Published
- 2006-06-09
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 1937-2841 (ISSN-L)
- 2634-0488
- OpenAlex
- W176224014
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 34.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Deliberative Democracy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Philosophy and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Pragmatism in Philosophy and Education
- Keywords
- deliberative democracy, public problems, marginalized communities, minority participation, deliberative theory
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review