Institutionalizing Citizen Participation

Institutionalizing Citizen Participation The Deliberation in Deliberative Polling Kristina Horn Sheeler, PhD Department of Communication Studies IUPUI Kristina Sheeler, IUPUI, ksheeler@iupui.edu

Public Opinion • Citizens are not informed on important public issues; as a result, opinion polls only represent “surface impressions” taken from television or news headlines, not “considered judgment” of citizens who invest the time or critical thinking necessary to consider the alternatives. James Fishkin, Stanford University For more about Deliberative Polling and the work of James Fishkin, visit the Center for Deliberative Democracy, Stanford University, http://cdd.stanford.edu/polls/docs/summary/ Kristina Sheeler, IUPUI, ksheeler@iupui.edu

My Purpose: Assess the Talk • To assess whether students can engage in civil deliberations around a common set of issues: • What communication problems do students encounter during deliberations? • To what extent are students able to work through those communication problems? • To what extent do they become derailed by those communication problems? • What is the relationship between the talk during deliberations and the polling results? Kristina Sheeler, IUPUI, ksheeler@iupui.edu

Communication Problems • Groupthink • Inability to actually engage one another • Talking over one another or individual conversations • Difficulties weighing alternatives • Forgetting the bigger issue under discussion • Need to “defend” one’s positions Kristina Sheeler, IUPUI, ksheeler@iupui.edu

Group One: Groupthink • Overall positive and supportive environment, but many “yeah” or “yes” responses suggesting agreement before stating a related idea; few true alternatives were shared. • Second night joked about “groupthinking” • Moderate statistical change • 3/11 Becoming Informed items from first night deliberations • 3/19 Exercising Choice items from second night of deliberations • Overall 6/64 Kristina Sheeler, IUPUI, ksheeler@iupui.edu

Group Two: Derailed by Problems • Attempts by two participants to bring the discussion back to bigger issues, but ignored or silence • Stating and defending opinions • Contentious environment • No items demonstrated statistical significance • Participants became more entrenched in opinions • Our current political culture? Kristina Sheeler, IUPUI, ksheeler@iupui.edu

Group Three: Work Through Problems • Devil’s Advocate, Counter-Arguments (not opinions) • Bird’s eye view environment • Had most items which demonstrated statistical significance • Overall 10/64 • Exercising Choice, second night, 5/19 Kristina Sheeler, IUPUI, ksheeler@iupui.edu

What about the Talk? • Complements statistical results • Reinforces need for communication education • To create a more robust democracy • To nurture citizens with participation skills • Civil deliberations in which participants weigh alternatives must be nurtured • Skilled moderators are necessary but not sufficient to create high-information environment Kristina Sheeler, IUPUI, ksheeler@iupui.edu

Assess Student Learning and Participation: Background Materials • Background materials • Materials are graded • How helpful were the background materials in “helping you clarify your positions” • 8.7 on 10-pt scale (10 = extremely helpful) • A majority of students (11 of 17 responses) indicated the background material was “mostly balanced” Kristina Sheeler, IUPUI, ksheeler@iupui.edu

Assess Student Learning and Participation: Voting Kristina Sheeler, IUPUI, ksheeler@iupui.edu

Assess Student Learning and Participation: Deliberation (N=20) • How valuable was ___ in helping you clarify your positions: • Deliberation: 8.8 on 10-pt scale (9 marked extremely valuable) • The entire activity: 9.1 (11 marked extremely valuable) • How important is it to increase political participation: • 9.2 on 10-point scale (14 marked extremely important) • How important is it to be informed about politics and political issues: • 8.3 (10 extremely important) • I felt free to express myself in my group: • 1.35 on a 5-point scale; 1 = strongly agree (14 strongly agree) • I learned a lot about people different than me: • 1.4 on a 5-point scale; 1 = strongly agree (12 strongly agree) Kristina Sheeler, IUPUI, ksheeler@iupui.edu

Assess Student Learning and Participation: Reflection Essays • “Fortunately, we have been given the raw materials for social and political life and we must utilize these components thoughtfully” (Member of Group 1). • “The deliberative democracy research was of the most benefit to me; I discovered that even though I had my political biases for particular issues, I was still able to research the opposing viewpoint and thus gather materials supporting why an individual would reason with it. I would consider my deliberation group as a compatible opposition” (Member of Group 3). Kristina Sheeler, IUPUI, ksheeler@iupui.edu

Assess Student Learning and Participation: Reflection Essays • “I believe a select few, outside of the classroom, are capable of wanting to see the other side. The way that we dealt with this problem was by having Dr. Sheeler re-frame how we were to approach our discussions. With a few instructions, we each took turns playing the devil’s advocate, and presenting an alternative side that was not thought of before” (Member of Group 1). • “While Deliberative democracy is not the sole answer to America’s problems, it can be the key. Learning issues before opinions are formed is key to understanding fellow citizens” (Member of Group 1). Kristina Sheeler, IUPUI, ksheeler@iupui.edu

Assess Student Learning and Participation: Reflection Essays • Though not satisfied with her group’s deliberations, a member of Group 2 stated: “Ultimately, I believe that this process would allow for further, deeper engagement of citizens within the campaign and voting process. I mean, think about it, citizens engaging in deliberation that could directly influence how a candidate campaigns—which in turn would, presumably, influence the larger process of public policy because that candidate’s further actions have been directly influenced by what the citizens have deliberated—how empowering!” Kristina Sheeler, IUPUI, ksheeler@iupui.edu

Limitations • Run ANOVA in addition to t-test • Small deliberation group size • Ask more post deliberation questions such as: • How often do you read or watch political news • As a result of this activity will you be more likely to • Seek out political discussions • Participate in politics • Volunteer • Vote • Read or watch political news • Do you consider yourself a good citizen Kristina Sheeler, IUPUI, ksheeler@iupui.edu

Conclusions • Our coursework has the potential to impact our students’ abilities to become engaged citizens (ADP Goal) • Embed opportunities for deliberation in our classes to teach citizenship skills, problems, and opportunities (ADP Goal) • Embed opportunities for reflection in our classes to allow students to “own” the experience (ADP Goal) Kristina Sheeler, IUPUI, ksheeler@iupui.edu

Institutionalizing Citizen Participation