Reviewing+the+Research+Agenda+session

Type in the content of your page here.

The session was moderated by Jim Fishkin, Archon Fung, Peter Levine. There were at least 30 other participants.

Peter shared a DDC report (with more than 40 authors) called Where is Democracy Headed? (http://www.thataway.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/where_is_democracy_headed_report.pdf) as a starting point.

Archon and Jim presented their own views of the research agenda for the field.

For Archon, the starting point is diagnosis: saying exactly where and why our traditional representative institutions are inadequate and gaps must be fill with new, deliberative forms. Then there is a craft to developing good new forms. The craft can be informed with case studies and other forms of resarch. Arhon is working on a public database of cases called "participedia."

For Jim, a series of formal experiments (with random assignment of participants) can reveal what works and when and begin to open the "black box" of explanation--i.e., why does something work? He argued that we need to take seriously some of the criticisms of deliberation, e.g., that groups move to extremes. This can happen or not happen--depending on the design of discussions. So we can improve designs experimentally.

Types of research that emerged: (Etc)
 * Normative (what is just and right?)
 * Diagnostic (what's wrong with our institutions now?)
 * Experimental, evaluative
 * Maps of practice
 * Studies of how institutions can evolve to collaborate better with citizens
 * Case studies of deliberation in social context
 * Surveys of populations to identify attitudes toward deliberation
 * Studies of the field of deliberation--is it going in a good direction?
 * Studies of personal transformation for people who enter the field.