The Deliberative Democracy Consortium

Mar 30th
Text size
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Home Workshops Sydney 2011 Criteria added today

Criteria added today

E-mail Print PDF

Here are some more criteria, generated at the meeting today, that you might want to consider when voting - these emerged from a lively brainstorming session - we did not address overlaps or redundancies, or try to come to consensus:

- Does the project have the capacity to establish and promote the potential of deliberative democracy?

- Are there partners (NGO, government, university) involved in the project?

- Does it "push the field along?"

- Does it apply to multiple levels of government/governance?

- Does it have "general public appeal?"

- Does it address a gap in current research or practice?

- Does it have the potential to be transferable?

- Is there a clear sense of the potential audience for the findings that will emerge?

- Will the project lead to equitable outcomes?

- Does it have a reasonable chance of affecting or supporting systemic change?

- Will it affect the philanthropic sector?

- Will it stimulate future research and/or practice?

- Is it interesting to researchers and applicable to partners and practitioners?

- Does it seem durable enough to withstand the various risks involved in conducting these sorts of projects?

Comments (1) (sent to twitter)

Subscribe to this comment's feed
another piece of the jigsaw
When participants are able-supported to have an authentic experience of the 'social whole' through the DD (or like) process, the effects are palpable for the individuals and the larger community. People want these kind of experiences again - and release energy to take action. Not all left brain stuff.

It is a crossover of 'resonance with larger audiences' and 'pushing the field along' with 'general public appeal' imo

I hope this helps (if not, think about Ricardo Blaug's 1999 description of a 'democratic break out '):
* noise--speech becomes animated, the debate heated; people are keen to be heard;
* silence--listen to others with interest; concern is expressed to elicit all views; all salient facts are actively explored;
* exchange--the group pools its cognitive resources; confronts the matter in its full complexity; reacts-becomes highly suspicious of existing forms of authority;
* outcomes--friendship develops, vitality and rapid learning draws all people in; the cost of participation is immediately swamped by the benefits;
* conflict works--it generates cohesion & causes people to re-evaluate their preferences & needs-brings about consensus;
* justice--participants seek ways to deliberate that are seen to be right and fair;
* leadership is fluid--functions are shared--individual abilities are seen in terms of group benefit.
Simon dOrsogna , 04 Feb 2011 04:26 PM

Write comment

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.


Picture Gallery


Created by SopanTech Solutions