Why Deliberative Polling? Reply to Gleason

Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 23 (3):393-403 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

ABSTRACT Contrary to Laurel Gleason's assertions, Deliberative Polling among random samples is not a process that is dominated by “experts” or by certain categories of deliberator; it produces genuine gains among the participants in knowledge of information that has been verified as true and relevant; it does not cause ideological polarization; and it is not intended as a substitute for, rather than a supplement to, deliberation on the part of the general public.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Deliberation's legitimation crisis: Reply to Gleason.Michael A. Neblo - 2011 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 23 (3):405-419.
How Bad Is Rape?H. E. Baber - 1987 - Hypatia 2 (2):125-138.
Shifting Frames: From Divided to Distributed Psychologies of Scientific Agents.Peter J. Taylor - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:304-310.
The Hiddenness Argument Revisited.J. L. Schellenberg - 2005 - Religious Studies 41 (3):287-303.
The Contemporary Significance of Confucianism.Tang Yijie & Yan Xin - 2008 - Frontiers of Philosophy in China 3 (4):477-501.
Quantum Chaos and Semiclassical Mechanics.Robert Batterman - 1992 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:50-65.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-01-04

Downloads
25 (#614,662)

6 months
5 (#652,053)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Against Deliberation.Lynn Sanders - 1997 - Political Theory 25 (3):347-376.
Deliberation day.Bruce Ackerman & James S. Fishkin - 2002 - Journal of Political Philosophy 10 (2):129–152.
The State of Democratic Theory: a reply to James Fishkin.Ian Shapiro - 2005 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 8 (1):79-83.

View all 7 references / Add more references