John Gastil - Faculty Colloquium - 21 Feb 2007

1. The Frontiers of Deliberative
Democratic Theory and Practice
John Gastil
Department of Communication
Presentation at the
University of
Washington
February 21, 2007

2. Research Program Overview
• Core theoretical focus: understanding
democracy and deliberation
• Large, networked research team
• Individual essays and studies
investigating specific questions
• Growing body of scholarship

3. Deliberative
Democratic Theory
Group
Decision
Making
Gover-
nance
Civic
Engage-
ment
Public
Opinion
& Atts.
Elec-
tions
Citizen
Initiative
Review
Election Day
Simulation
Kettering
Foundation
Projects
Community
Group
Consulting
Consulting
on Public
Participation
By Popular
Demand
Cultural
Cognition
Project
Issues Forums
and Civic
Engagement
Democracy in
Small Groups
Jury and
Democracy
Project
Deliberative
Democracy
Handbook
Small
Group
Process
Political Comm
and Deliberation
Mass
Opinion
ChangePolitical
Campaigns
Theoretical
Essays
Political
Consulting
Protest
Groups
Initiative and
Referenda

4. Deliberative
Democratic
Theory

5. Principal Collaborators
• UW graduate students
– Stephanie Burkhalter
– Todd Kelshaw
– Laura Black
– Mike Xenos
– Students in COM 417 & 555
• Other co-authors
– Bill Keith (U Wisc-Milwaukee)
– Jane Mansbridge (Harvard U)
– Patricia Moy (U Washington)

6. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1990 1995 2000 2006
“Deliberation” (with “Civic/Citizen/Political/Public”)
in Peer-Reviewed Articles in Expanded Academic Index
Deliberation Scholarship

7. Conceptions of Deliberation
Political
Communication
and Deliberation
John Gastil

8. Local/Global
Public Discourse
and ActionMedia
Informal
Networking
and Political
Conversation
Public
Meetings
Elections
Legislature
Judiciary
Juries
Public
Education
Cultural
Expression
Organizational
Meetings
International
Bodies
Social
Movements
Public Officials
& Institutions
Individual
Citizens Civil Society
Associations
Executive &
Agencies
Deliberative
Contexts

9. Broad Conception of Deliberation
Analytic
• Create a solid information base
• Prioritize the key values at stake
• Identify a broad range of solutions
• Weigh solution pros, cons, and tradeoffs
Social Process
• Adequately distribute speaking opportunities
• Ensure mutual comprehension
• Consider other ideas and experiences
• Respect other participants

10. Meanings Across Contexts
Create a solid information base
• Discussion/conversation: Discuss personal and emotional
experiences, as well as general information.
• Electoral process: Provide readily-accessible and relevant
information about issues and candidates.
• Government (agenda setting): Maintain a reliable and
broad research base that can identify emerging social,
economic, and environmental problems.
• Jury: Consider only the evidence/testimony provided
during the trial. Avoid adding personal experiences.

11. Meanings Across Contexts
Create a solid information base
• Discussion/conversation: Discuss personal and emotional
experiences, as well as general information.
• Electoral process: Provide readily-accessible and
relevant information about issues and candidates.
• Government (agenda setting): Maintain a reliable and
broad research base that can identify emerging social,
economic, and environmental problems.
• Jury: Consider only the evidence/testimony provided
during the trial. Avoid adding personal experiences.

12. Civic Impact of
Deliberation

13. Principal Collaborators
• Co-principal investigators
– Perry Deess, Institutional Research, NJIT
– Phil Weiser, School of Law, U Colorado-Boulder
• Graduate student co-authors
Jay Leighter, Laura Black, Stephanie Burkhalter, Mike
Xenos, Leah Sprain, Andrea Hickerson.
• Undergraduate co-authors
– Tina Gall (volunteer, employee, co-author)
– Jordan Larner (senior thesis)
• Other co-authors
– Hiroshi Fukurai, Kent Jennings, Mark Nolan,
Cynthia Simmons

14. Overivew
• Theoretical significance
of the research project
• National study of jury service
and voting
• King County panel survey
assessing effects beyond voting

15. Theoretical Background
• The participation hypothesis
– Democratic participation promotes
future civic engagement
– Focus on deliberative activities
• A taken-for-granted assumption
– Deliberative forums
– U.S. Supreme Court
– Japanese “lay assessor” system

16. Recommendations of the Justice System
Reform Council, June 12, 2001
“In Japanese society of the 21st century,
it is incumbent on the people to break out
of the excessive dependency of the state
that accompanies the traditional
consciousness of being governed objects,
develop public consciousness within
themselves, and become more actively
involved in public affairs.”
Theoretical Background

17. Research Sites

18. Sample List of Jury Trials

19. Sample List of Jurors for a Trial

20. County Voter Database

21. Merging Databases
JURORS VOTERS
65% match rate

22. Ideal Test
• Ideal study sample
– Large sample (N = 13,237)
– Reluctant participants (summons)
• Clear effects
– Long-term effects (5 yrs pre/post)
– Distinct behaviors (jury vs. voting)
• Valid and reliable measures
– Direct measures of behavior (jury/voting)
– Low measurement error (public records)

23. Jury Service Measures
• Deliberative experience on jury
– Comparison group: Mistrial before
beginning jury deliberation
– Other outcomes: Guilty plea, alternate,
hung, reached a verdict
• Additional trial features
– Number and nature of charges
– Duration of trial and jury deliberation

24. Results for Infrequent Voters
Serving on Criminal Juries
Predictors of
Post-Jury Voting B (SE)
Pre-Jury Voting Avg. .640 (.06) .273***
Verdict vs. Mistrial .043 (.03) .076*
Hung Jury vs. Mistrial .068 (.04) .063**
Alternate vs. Mistrial .022 (.04) .022
Guilty Plea vs. Mistrial .019 (.04) .021
Number of Charges .013 (.01) .061**
R2
df
Totals .128 1,390
b

25. King County Panel Survey
• Three-wave survey
– Wave 1: Before serving (baseline measures)
– Wave 2: After service (subjective experience)
– Wave 3: Follow-up (behavior changes)
• Replication of national survey
– Again finds deliberation-voting link
– Partial mediation by “subjective experience”
– Additional effects linked to experience

26. Correlations w/ Experience Partial* r p
Follow politics/public issues .118 < .001
Political volunteer work .096 .003
Talk politics (to learn) .096 .003
Discuss community issues .095 .003
Political group involvement .086 .006
Interest in local affairs .081 .010
Listen to news .066 .029
Talk politics (to persuade) .063 .036
Attend political events .060 .041
King County Survey:
Effects Beyond Voting
*Political knowledge, demographics, and other variables partialled out.

27. Broader Implications of Findings
• Beyond the jury
– Deliberative public meetings
– Importance of consequential deliberation
• Jury system in the U.S.
– Preserving the jury system
– Improving the service experience
• International implications
– South Africa, Eastern Europe, Mexico
– South Korea and Japan

28. Deliberation in
Initiative Elections

29. Principal Collaborators
• UW graduate students
– Justin Reedy
– Chris Wells
– Carolyn Lee
• Other UW co-authors
– Mark Forehand
– Mark Smith
– Cynthia Simmons

30. Signs of Low Voter Knowledge
• Confusion about the
initiative itself
• Failure to weigh key arguments
• Systematic misperception of
relevant facts

31. Confusion about the Initiative
Believed the
initiative would…
Voting
For
Voting
Against
Not
Sure
Enact the regulation 16% 2% 4%
Repeal the reg. 11% 18% 46%
Not sure 73% 81% 49%
Total 100% 100% 100%
I-841 (WA-2003) repealed a state regulation
that aimed to reduce the frequency of
ergonomics-related workplace injuries.

32. Confusion about the Initiative
Believed the
initiative would…
Voting
For
Voting
Against
Not
Sure
Enact the regulation 16% 2% 4%
Repeal the reg. 11% 18% 46%
Not sure 73% 81% 49%
Total 100% 100% 100%
I-841 (WA-2003) repealed a state regulation
that aimed to reduce the frequency of
ergonomics-related workplace injuries.

33. Voter recall of I-841 pros/cons
• Reinforcing existing bias
90% of proponents were able to
give a pro argument, and 90% of
opponents could offer a con
• Not hearing the other side
Fewer than 50% of either group were
able to name an argument advanced
by the other side
Failure to Weigh Key Arguments

34. Systematic Misperception
I-920 (WA-2006) would have
repealed the Washington
estate tax.
Did voters know who
was subject to the tax?

35. Unsure
Supporters
Opponents
nsure
Supporters
Opponents
Unsure
Supporters
Opponents
% believe
they are not
% who know
farms/ranches
are exempt
% unsure
Systematic Misperception

36. Directional Misperception
• Definition: holding empirical beliefs
consistent with preexisting policy attitudes
• Predictors: voters with endorsement
knowledge link attitudes with empirical
beliefs
• Effects: voters with endorsement
knowledge have independent effects for
both anti-regulation attitudes and
directional misperception
• Current research

37. Citizens
Initiative
Review

38. Citizens’ Assembly

39. www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca

40. http://www.cirwa.org

41. Principal Collaborators
• Champions of Citizens Initiative Review
– Ned Crosby (founder of Citizen Jury process)
– Pat Benn
– Paul Becker

42. Principal Collaborators
• Evaluation Research Team
– Don A. Dillman, Washington State
– Todd Donovan, Western Washington
– Laura Evans, U Washington
– Carolyn N. Long, Washington State
– Nicholas Lovrich, Washington State
– Matthew Manweller, Central Washington
– Patricia Moy, U Washington
– Travis Ridout, Washington State
– Todd Schaefer, Central Washington
– Mark Smith, U Washington
– Michael Treleaven, Gonzaga

43. Principal Collaborators
• Evaluation Research Team
– Don A. Dillman, Washington State
– Todd Donovan, Western Washington
– Laura Evans, U Washington
– Carolyn N. Long, Washington State
– Nicholas Lovrich, Washington State
– Matthew Manweller, Central Washington
– Patricia Moy, U Washington
– Travis Ridout, Washington State
– Todd Schaefer, Central Washington
– Mark Smith, U Washington
– Michael Treleaven, Gonzaga

44. The CIR Concept
“One proposal being considered for state law
would establish independent panels of
Washington citizens to provide voters with more
reliable information about initiatives. Each panel
would consist of a cross-section of Washington
citizens, who would spend a full week hearing
testimony and deliberating on the merits of each
initiative. The Secretary of State would publish
the citizens' final reports in the Voters Pamphlet,
and the panel proceedings would be made
available online.”

45. Do voters support the CIR?
SURVEY QUESTION:
If a vote to adopt this
measure were taken today,
would you support it or
oppose it?

46. Total Support
72% Dem.
69% GOP
70% Indep.
Strong
Yes
Yes No Strong
No
Don’t
Know
Do voters support the CIR?

47. Design of the CIR
• Independent Commission located
in the legislative branch
• 12-member oversight board
–6 former CIR panelists
–3 former CIR moderators
–3 appointments by Secretary of
State, Atty. General, and Governor
• Board appoints Executive Director

48. Design Structure of the CIR
• Review and Assessment
–Citizen and moderators evaluate
each year’s panels
–Annual evaluation measures the
impact and utility of CIR

49. Typical Review Panel Week
• Day 1: Orientation and
presentations by neutral witnesses
• Days 2-3: Pro and con testimony,
cross-examination, and deliberation
• Day 4: Panel deliberation and
critical feedback
• Day 5: Final panel statement

50. CIR Legislation

51. Political Context
• Democrats control both
legislative bodies in Washington
–House: 63D to 45R
–Senate: 32D to 17R
• Bi-partisan support
–Still mostly Democratic
–A few Republican supporters
lost their seats in 2006

54. Current Status of CIR Bill
• Prospects for 2007 Passage
–Must be sent out of committee
by the end of February
–Passage required in at least one body
by March 14
• If unsuccessful with legislature
–Return in 2008
–Oregon, Colorado, California

55. Potential Benefits of CIR
• Critical Goals
– Reaching Sound Judgments
[analysis of panel deliberations]
– Producing Influential Information
[election result analysis]
• Additional Potential Benefits
– Transforming Public Knowledge,
Attitudes, and Habits [survey research]
– Influencing Public Officials
[interviews with officials; legislative analysis]
– Altering Strategic Political Choices
[field research on campaign organizations]

57. Conclusions
• Broadened conception of deliberation
reveals new areas for theory/research
• Power of jury service within and beyond
the American context
• Limited deliberation in initiative elections
• Deliberative reforms with electoral relevance
• Invitation to students and faculty to
join the deliberation research team