CONVERSATION, CONVERGENCE, CONSENSUS: TEMPERING DISAGREEMENT WITH DELIBERATION Eric “Harry” Brisson December 20th, 2010
At the core of all democratic problems is the concept of disagreement. Without disagreement, governance would be as simple and straightforward as could be; it then follows that being able to build consensus among disparate opinions is desirable to improve the a government’s ability to serve the will of its people. One widely practiced method of addressing disagreement and building consensus is deliberation. It is critical to effectively deal with disagreement in order to incorporate the voices of individuals into the design of policy. Deliberation grants individuals the opportunity to better understand policies and convey their own thoughts to others. This provides the opportunity, in particular, for individuals to heighten their perspective, to increase their appreciation for democratic ideals, and to build a consensus upon which popular policy can be adopted.
LITERATURE REVIEW Disagreement has long been acknowledged as an unfortunate presence in American politics. Madison, in his Federalist 10, observes that they are impossible to eliminate without infringing on either personal liberties (undesirable) or diversities of thought and perspective (unfeasible); therefore, he proposes that instead a government should aim to manage the effects of factions in government (Madison). One government style that political scientists
Brisson 2 examine for its ability to comfortably maintain, and even address, disagreement is the deliberative democracy. In order to be considered a deliberative democracy, a government must meet four criteria: (1.) representatives use a moral rationale to guide their legislative actions; (2.) rationale is public, transparent, and comprehensible to the represented; (3.) decisions are “binding,” affecting discourse participants; and (4.) reflection and continued dialogue allow for reversal of policy (Gutmann and Thomson 3-6). Advocates of the deliberative democracy point to its strengths: increasing the perceived legitimacy of decisions out of sync with personal beliefs, promoting a broader public interest in ideology, fostering tolerance of opposing ideas through exposure to more merit-based arguments, and permitting arguments to be tested, analyzed, and modified in an open forum (10-13). They also speak to the power of deliberation to educate citizens and building a common identity among otherwise diverse groups (Sanders 350-351). Further, they point to the weaknesses of a rival aggregate democratic system: lacks of capacities to revise opinions, challenging distribution of power, or reviewing the decisive process, as well as a inherent bias toward economic indicators (Gutmann and Thomson 13-20). Critics of deliberative democracy, though, point out “a clear tendency for political discussions to be carried out intra- rather than inter-social groups [about] what is congenial to their own point of view” (Berelson 323). This is problematic because groups of likeminded individuals are more susceptible to extreme shifts, due to asymmetrical exposure to pro-con arguments, maintenance of overall relative position in smaller groups, and reiteration of positions building confidence (Sunstein 121). Other critics emphasize that the democratic quality of a deliberative democracy is dependent on unfulfilled assumptions, such as the absence of prejudices and the equal distribution of time, money, education, and
Brisson 3 rhetorical savvy (Sanders). With these assumptions unfulfilled, deliberative democracy becomes undemocratic and reinforces existing power structures -- harming the very people its proponents intend to help. Ultimately, deliberation is only positive if its participants are not only reasoned but also willing to engage opposition with an open mind (and willing to look past inequities in ability to communicate ideas, seeing merit). Voters have been seen to behave rationally in presidential elections (Key 8), but they have also been observed to discuss politics with primarily self-affirming parties. Institutionalizing discourse among diverse groups may serve to improve citizens’ ability to represent themselves with their ballots. The Participants One approach to political participation emphasizes factors somewhat within an American citizen’s civic skills and awareness, such as political knowledge (Cook et al), media attentiveness (Goidel and Nisbet) or organizational involvement (Brady et al; Cook et al; Goidel and Nisbet). A model that relies on factors that can be altered through the agency of individuals suggests that individuals choose to or not to participate, rather than being constrained from participating. There are also factors that are beyond the control of individuals, most commonly time and money (Cook et al). These factors can bar certain groups from adequate participation in deliberations, leading to an inherently undemocratic democracy. Another approach examines the channels of discourse themselves, determining their effect on participation in elections. Heterogeneous pools of individuals can have the effect of not only postponing decision-making but also decreasing voting behaviors (Mutz). These correlations, however weak, are concerning when diversity in discussions is prescribed to fight extremism.
Brisson 4 Policy decisions and the manner in which they are presented can affect the participation of individuals. For example, when senior citizens felt that their social security was threatened, they increased their participation through increased meeting attendance and contacting of representatives (Campbell).
The Process While deliberation is seen by many to be an inherent positive force in democracy, the effects of interactions and exchanges among citizens are consistently judged. Scholars have approached this issue with different perspectives and drawn different conclusions. Various benefits have been observed to take place in deliberative settings. Studies have found to improve citizen understanding of issues by exposing deliberators to varied perspectives (Button and Mattson; Fishkin and Farrar). Deliberation also decreases the influence of elites when the deliberation takes place before exposure to elite opinions (Druckman and Nelson). Another observed effect was increased moderation and nuance of understanding under certain deliberative settings (Barabas). Other studies have found the exact opposite, that deliberation instead creates increased extremism (Sussman). This contradiction can be explained by varying definitions of “deliberation,� and whether participants held an open mind during their participation. Deliberation has been observed to increase inequities related to race (Mendelberg and Oleske). The effects of deliberation, then, cannot be taken to be intrinsically positive; indeed, in contexts, outcomes are negative. Clearly there are multitudinous effects of deliberation, but some of these effects are not clear. When citizens group and discuss issues of relevance, the construction of the deliberation seems to significantly impact outcomes.
Brisson 5
Our Question The questions that we intend to explore in this paper are as follows: First, under what conditions is deliberation most effective in crafting consensus? Second, to what degree is the success dependent on the structure of the deliberation and to what degree is it dependent on the participants? Finally, can everyone benefit from deliberation?
RESEARCH DESIGN As is displayed in Table 1, the research design we conducted was a panel in which there were three stages: a first campus-wide poll, a deliberative forum, and a second campuswide poll. Overall, 1,259 students (61.7% of the student body) participated in the design in some capacity. The first and third stages reached out to the entire campus as a whole, while the second stage reached out only to those who had responded to the first survey. Almost all (658 of 682) participants in the first cross-sectional survey were invited to participate in the deliberative forum. An ID number was used to track participants across the range of their participation. The first campus-wide survey -- Big Red Poll -- was a series of questions submitted to the entire Denison student body, and it includes 902 cases. The survey had over 100 questions, and it was sent to students on September 15, 20, and 23 in 2010. Data was collected up through Monday, September 27. The sample for the Big Red Poll was intended to represent Denison’s campus as accurately as possible, particularly by using different subject lines to appeal to different demographic audiences. In the end, this survey yielded 681 complete responses and 221 partial responses for a response rate of 44.2%.
Brisson 6 The second stage was a forum held in the evening for an hour on November 9 and 10; 658 were invited, 316 RSVPd (48%), 159 indicated a willingness to attend (50.3% of those who RSVPd, 24.2% of those invited), and 116 (73%) did in fact show up on one of those nights. In the forum, willing participants were randomly assigned to groups, though modifications were made by hand to ensure a balance across groups in the gender majority and in the starting level of opinion on the issue to be deliberated. Groups were designed intending to maintain a group average opinion that remained within 1.5 points of the scale midpoint of 5 using a 0-10 scale. In the end, not everyone who had RSPVed for the forum actually attended the forum, and some groups were merged at the last minute to ensure enough people to deliberate. Forum participants were asked a short series of questions before the forum and a more extensive set after the forum. Using the responses of deliberation participants before and after, the effects of the deliberation on the individuals can be considered. This constitutes a "within-groups" experimental design. The final stage was a second survey, first administered Nov 19 and open for two weeks with three reminders sent to the entire campus. Of the 1384 invitations sent to those who did not complete the first survey, we received 344 complete and partial responses (24.9%). Of the 656 invitations to those who completed the first survey, 323 also completed the second campus-wide survey as well (49.2%; and 357 completed some part of it for a 54.4% response rate). Of the 116 forum participants, 90 (77.6%) completed the final survey. The total response rate for wave 3 was 34.4% (701/2040).
HYPOTHESES There are nine hypotheses that I look to explore in this paper. The first five deal with who benefits most from deliberations in terms of opinion convergence, perspective
Brisson 7 enhancement, and increased appreciation of the process. These hypotheses are operationalized in variables found in Table 2 and ultimately explored through the use of OLS regression, found in Table 3. This technique is used to determine how the different variables are able to effect the success of deliberations when each of the other variables are held constant. H1: Student personality characteristics predispose them to deliberation benefits. H2: Students from open networks will be more likely to benefit from deliberation. H3: Students who are more attentive to campus affairs will have less to gain from deliberation. H4: Participants who value democratic norms will get the most out of deliberations. H5: Diversely involved students will gain more from deliberative settings. The final hypotheses relate to deliberation’s effects on disagreement. Most of the prior studies done on deliberation have dealt with multiple people on one side becoming more extreme, but less has been explored regarding the reactions of deliberators in a more heterogeneous deliberative group. Figure 1 shows how not all deliberations met ideal conditions. H6: Deliberation will temper disagreement and lead to opinion convergence. H7: Deliberation will reinforce support for democratic norms. H8: Deliberation will lead to a broadening of perspective for participants. H9: Deliberation in disagreeing groups will lead to great moderation of opinion.
ANALYSIS Table 3 tests hypotheses one through five, and none of these hypotheses are strongly supported by our data. This is not necessarily because these hypotheses are false, though; the relationships between the independent variables and the dependent variables could
Brisson 8 simply be too subtle to detect with an N of merely 116. To account for this possibility, coefficients significant at even under the 20% level are marked with an asterisk. H1: Student personality characteristics predispose them to deliberation benefits. As can be seen in Table 3, personality is relatively significant in the cases of opinion convergence and increased appreciation of process. It seems very expected that agreeableness would increase an individual’s propensity to soften their opinion in a deliberative setting. This relationship is almost equivocal, and it is surprising that it is not stronger in our data; part of what could explain this is that agreeable respondents also start off with moderate opinions, so they end up not moving significantly toward the mean simply because they start there. More interesting and unexpected, though, is that openness to experience actually decreases an individual’s propensity to improve their appreciation for democratic norms after participating in a deliberative forum. This is surprising, as openness to experience seems to suggest that an individual might be more willing to reassess the value of deliberation after taking part in one. This could be explained by respondents with high openness to experience also having higher initial appreciations for democratic norms, which make it more difficult for them strengthen their position. H2: Students from open, heterogeneous networks will be more likely to benefit from deliberation. In Table 3, we see no significant correlation between any of the three dependent variables and either of the network variables. This is optimistic news, as it means that even those who have little background engaging in disagreement still can get all the same benefits from deliberation, particularly gaining a higher appreciation for activities like deliberative forums. If only those who already were in groups where they were exposed to new ideas
Brisson 9 benefited from deliberations, then it would be easy for those who aren’t exposed to diverse thought to be alienated from the process. H3: Students who are more attentive to campus affairs will have less to gain from deliberation. We see a relatively significant connection between Table 3, but in the reverse direction of what we anticipated. Those who are attentive to campus affairs were less likely to improve their appreciation of democratic norms. This could be explained because those who are more keenly aware of campus affairs perhaps were even disappointed by the forum and how uninformed their peers were, and this could have reduced their faith in the usefulness of a deliberative model in addressing policy problems. H4: Participants who value democratic norms will get the most out of deliberations. This hypothesis is supported by a relatively significant relationship between a respondent’s appreciation for democratic norms and their likelihood of having a converging opinion. This seems very reasonable as those who appreciate the importance of different opinions are also more likely to soften their opinions to accommodate the mean. Deliberators who acknowledge the validity and usefulness of different positions should be expected to work themselves toward the consensus or mean point. H5: Diversely involved students will gain more from deliberative settings. Our model suggests that this could actually be the opposite of what is true. Table 3 shows organizational experience (which is the simple number of organizations in which a respondent participates) as a factor that decreases their likelihood of moving closer toward the mean and converging their opinion. This means that those who are heavily involved are more resistant to the mean opinion. It is perhaps true that being involved with a wide variety of extracurricular activities gives them confidence to hold an opinion that deviates significantly from the mean even after a deliberation.
Brisson 10 H6: Deliberation will temper disagreement and moderate perspectives. In Figure 2, we see a slight tendency for deliberations to lead to opinion convergence; however, this difference between variances (.1285) is not significant with the number of observations we have available to us. With a larger sample size, it is possible that we would be able to accurately detect significance to this slight difference in variance. This observation is important, as it shows that all deliberations do not necessarily bring people closer to each other; indeed, we see in Figure 1 that nearly a third of deliberations conducted did not result in opinion convergence, with eight deliberations actually resulting in the variance of opinions increasing. The idea that all deliberations automatically bring people closer together clearly is not one grounded in reality. It is important to make sure that we are designing our deliberations to this end if this is what we would like to achieve. H7: Deliberation will reinforce support for democratic norms. We find support for this hypothesis in Figure 3, where we see that the difference in means between pre-forum appreciation for democratic norms and post-forum appreciation for democratic norms is a statistically significant .1856. This is good news. This means that when respondents were confronted with disagreement, they generally left with a better appreciation for disagreement rather than being upset by it. It is also important to note, though, that this increase in appreciation of democratic norms is very slight. Even though discussions were for less than one hour total, it is still important to recognize that participating in a deliberation does not infuse respondents with complete faith in the process – it only nudges them along and helps them appreciate new ideas and disagreement. We should also recognize, though, that not every group experienced an increase in mean appreciation for democratic norms; eight groups did not do
Brisson 11 so. Seeing this, it is important do what is possible to create a deliberative environment that fosters an appreciation for diversity of thought. H8: Deliberation will lead to a broadening of perspective for participants. This hypothesis is most strongly confirmed by the data we collected. Significant at less than 0.1%, the mean difference between the pre-forum surveys and the post-forum surveys was a whopping 2.1715. Figure 4 demonstrates this shift clearly. In a way, even this number still seems low. With all the new arguments one must hear within a deliberation, it would seem that respondents would pull out more than just a couple of new arguments afterwards. This is optimistic, though, and it taps into one of the key and critical strengths of deliberations as educational tools. Deliberations help people understand other’s perspectives and ideas, and this function of them is quite reassuring. H9: Deliberation in disagreeing groups will lead to great moderation of opinion. Figure 5 shows interesting details regarding the moderation of opinion throughout the panel. We see the most moderation right before deliberations start, perhaps influenced by the deliberate two-sidedness of the briefing materials (attached); we see the most extremism in the final survey of the panel. In the first poll, approximately 40.8% of students held a moderate opinion regarding the policy proposal of reverting to a residential Greek system. This increased to one-and-ahalf times that much immediately before the forum. There a several possible explanations for this: respondents had thought about the issue more unraveling some of the nuance and complexity, respondents had read the briefing materials and thought about new elements of the question, or the pre-deliberation mindset is particularly open to new ideas.
Brisson 12 After the forum, moderate positions fell by nearly 10% to about 50.9%. It seems that even among disagreement-laden groups, there is a tendency for members to become more extreme in their beliefs. The most frightening result, though, is that in the second campus-wide poll we see just as strong a divide between those who oppose and support the policy, but we see a heightened extremism. Less than half of the percentage holding moderate positions prior to the forum continue to do so, having decreased from 60.4% to 29.9%. Deliberation may have strengthened individual’s confidence in their own positions, leading to a more heavily polarized and even more divisive political battleground. If bringing students together to talk about policy ultimately drives them apart, then deliberation may not be a desirable means of approaching the development of policy solutions.
CONCLUSION These findings are especially concerning when considered in the context of Denison specifically. Figure 6 demonstrates how pervasive disagreement is on Denison’s campus. On many issues, our student body is divided nearly into perfect halves. If we cannot bring students together to share their own thoughts and have opinions converge, then it is impossible to craft policy that serves more than half of the campus. It seems that even a one hour deliberation on a policy does not significantly cause the convergence opinion, and this sheds a lot of doubt on whether deliberation is an effective tool that will help Denison build a consensus as to its own student identity. These themes ring true on a larger political scale as well. When a policy is supported by just over half of the populace, the other half lose their power to have policy that they
Brisson 13 support. By working towards government that can establish consensus, the country also works toward a government that effectively represents more of its citizens.
APPENDIX A: TABLES TABLE 1 Survey Respondents by Treatments Poll #1
Forum
Poll #2
N
Attended Forum …Poll #1 and #2 …Poll #1 Only
O O
D D
O --
90 26
Did Not Attend Forum …Poll #1 Only …Poll #2 Only …Poll #1 and #2
O -O
----
-O O
473 344 357
902
116
701
1,259
Total N
Source: The Big Red Poll 2010. Note: Not all respondents completed every question, resulting in a lower respondent numbers for some questions.
TABLE 2 Variable Descriptives Variable Opinion Convergence Perspective Enhancement Appreciation of Process Race (Black) Gender (Female) Democratic Values Civic Skills Campus Attentiveness Network Heterogeneity Network Openness Time: Academics Time: Extracurriculars Organizational Experience
N Min. 116 -3 115 -4 116 -3 660 0 663 1 787 3 668 0 802 0 802 0 802 0 671 0 671 0 656 0
Source: The Big Red Poll 2010. See Appendix B for full coding of variables.
Max. Mean Std. Dev. 3.25 .085 1.225 14 2.165 2.896 4 -.155 .947 1 .07 .255 2 1.61 .488 12 5.507 1.540 4 2.078 1.486 8 3.291 2.071 12 7.089 2.791 3 1.201 1.142 48 7.44 4.384 20 3.19 2.175 10 3.360 1.721
Brisson 15
TABLE 3 Factors Influencing Susceptibility to Benefits of Deliberation Opinion Convergence
Perspective Enhancement
Appreciation of Process
Constant
-.614
-1.222
.433
Biographical Factors Race (Black) Gender (Female)
-.124 -.046
.097 .060
-.067 .044
Behavioral Factors Democratic Values Civic Skills Campus Attentiveness Network Heterogeneity Network Openness Time: Academic Time: Extracurricular Organizational Experience
.148 * .068 -.032 -.045 -.095 -.052 .099 -.152 *
.061 .100 .008 .116 -.070 .049 -.134 .107
-.092 .132 -.165 * -.026 .118 -.073 .043 .104
Personality Factors Openness to Experience Agreeableness
.047 .151 *
-.035 .035
-.155 * .042
Source: The Big Red Poll 2010 (R2=.111, .060, .112) Significance: * < .20, ** < .10, and *** < .01. All coefficients provided with Beta weights
Brisson 16
APPENDIX B: FIGURES
FIGURE 1 Success of Deliberations in Achieving Group-Level Deliberation Ideals
Improvement
No Change
Perspective Enhancement
Deterioration
25
Opinion Convergence
1
17
Appreciation of Process
3
15
0%
20%
8
5
40%
60%
2
8
80%
100%
Source: The Big Red Poll 2010 See Appendix C for coding details of group-level ideals.
FIGURE 2 Opinion Convergence Before and After Deliberations 6 y = -0.1285x + 2.7093
Opinion Variance
5 4 3 2 1 0
Pre-Forum (1)
Post-Forum (2)
Source: The Big Red Poll 2010 Note: Mean difference (.1285) lacks statistical significance (p=.461)
Brisson 17 FIGURE 3 Appreciation of Democratic Norms Before and After Deliberations Appreciation of Democratic Norms Index
9 y = 0.1856x + 6.473 8.5 8 7.5 7 6.5 6 5.5 5
Pre-Forum (1)
Post-Forum (2)
Source: The Big Red Poll 2010 Note: Mean difference (.1856) significant at p<.10 See Appendix C for full coding of Appreciation of Democratic Norms Index
FIGURE 4 Number of Arguments Before and After Deliberations 18
y = 2.1715x + 6.3774
Number of Arguments
16 14 12 10 8 6
Pre-Forum (1) Source: The Big Red Poll 2010 Note: Mean difference (2.1715) significant at p<.001
Post-Forum (2)
Brisson 18
FIGURE 5 Changes in Stated Opinion Regarding Residential Greek Life
Support
Oppose
40.8% Campus-Wide Poll #1
87
30
54
36
26
101
68
71
65
45
157
60.4% Pre-Forum
4
10
9
18
15
19
4
14
13
5
5
50.9%
Post-Forum
10
9
10
13
11
11
9
15
10
11
7
29.9% Campus-Wide Poll #2
112
0%
10%
28
20%
59
30%
32
30
40%
Source: The Big Red Poll 2010. Moderate positions bracketed for emphasis.
53
50%
17
47
60%
43
31
70%
146
80%
90%
100%
Brisson 19 FIGURE 6 Disagreement at Denison: A Public Opinion Snapshot
Strongly Agree
"Denison Security should be less present in the residence halls."
Agree
Somewhat Agree
89
"Racial diversity should be a higher priority in admissions."
96
38
68
"Denison Faculty should be required to report the names of sexual assault victims to law enforcement."
72
0%
172
85
156
117
10%
Disagree
125
94
"Students at Denison drink too much."
Somewhat Disagree
20%
30%
Source: The Big Red Poll 2010.
150
102
161
82
113
126
40%
60%
39
54
137
121
50%
Strongly Disagree
44
93
70%
80%
74
90%
100%
Brisson 20
APPENDIX C: VARIABLE CODING AND SYNTAX Perspective Enhancement Respondents were asked to estimate the number of arguments that they could come up with in support of and in opposition of the adoption of the following policy: “Fraternities and sororities should be returned to residential status, meaning that Greek members would reclaim and occupy houses on the North Quad beginning fall 2011.” To determine the degree of “Perspective Enhancement,” the mean scores of pro and con arguments listed for each deliberative group were calculated separately, and these scores were then aggregated to create one variable providing the mean number of combined pro and con arguments. Finally, the pre-survey mean score was subtracted from the post-survey mean to determine the change. In Table 3, this is simply calculated on an individual level. Opinion Variance, Opinion Convergence, Opinion Divergence Respondents were asked to state their position regarding the following policy on an 11-point scale: “Fraternities and sororities should be returned to residential status, meaning that Greek members would reclaim and occupy houses on the North Quad beginning fall 2011.” For each deliberative group, the variance (standard deviation) of opinions was calculated for both the pre- and post-survey opinions. Opinion divergence/convergence is calculated by subtracting the pre-survey variance from the post-survey variance; positive numbers indicate divergence, while negative numbers indicate convergence. On the individual level (Table 3), opinion convergence is calculated by determining the presurvey distance from the discussion group’s mean opinion and comparing it to the post-survey distance from the group’s mean. Appreciation of Democratic Norms Index, Appreciation of Process Respondents stated their position on a scale of one to four on the following statements: “Unless many points of view are presented, there is little chance that the truth can ever be known”; “You really can't be sure whether an opinion is correct or not unless people are free to argue against it”; and “You can't have a democracy without political opposition.” Responses were aggregated to create a ten-point scale, with higher scores signifying great appreciation of democratic norms. In Table 3, this is simply calculated on an individual level.
Brisson 21
Civic Skills Index Respondents were asked if they had done the following: organized a meeting, given a formal presentation, written a paper or article read by a group or the public, or been involved in a decisionmaking meeting. Respondents were given one point for each activity, resulting in a five-point scale from zero to four. Higher scores signify greater development of civic skills. Campus Attentiveness Index Respondents were asked which of the following activities they did to learn about campus affairs: reading the Denisonian, reading the Bullsheet, attending student organization meetings, talking with student organization leaders, talking with student senators, talking with involved students, visiting the Denison website, or listening to WDUB. Respondents were given one point for each activity they completed, creating a nine-point index that scaled from zero to eight. Network Heterogeneity Index This index is aggregated of five sub-scores: organizational homogeneity, racial homogeneity, ideological homogeneity, gender homogeneity, and class year homogeneity. Respondents were asked to name three peers with whom they discuss campus affairs, after which they were asked a series of questions regarding these three discussion partners. Organizational Homogeneity: One point for each discussion partner in a common organization. (range 0 - 3) Racial Homogeneity: One point for each discussion partner of the same race. (range: 0 - 3) Ideological Homogeneity: Aggregate of â&#x20AC;&#x153;How often do you disagree about campus affairs?â&#x20AC;? (range: 3 - 9) Gender Homogeneity: One point for each discussion partner of the same gender. (range: 0 - 3) Class Year Homogeneity: One point for each discussion partner of the same class year. (range 0 - 3)
Brisson 22 The resulting index ranges from three to twenty-one, with higher numbers indicating a more homogenous group. To reverse this, the index is subtracted from twenty-two to create an index that ranges from one to nineteen with higher numbers indicating great heterogeneity within the respondent’s discussion group. Network Openness Respondents were asked if the students they listed knew the others listed. Respondent receives one point for each discussion partner who does not others listed. Time: Academics Respondents answered the following question: “Changing subjects, thinking about an average day, please tell us how many hours a day do you spend doing the following at Denison: attending courses and doing work related to classes?” Time: Extracurricular Activities Respondents answered the following question: “Changing subjects, thinking about an average day, please tell us how many hours a day do you spend doing the following at Denison: extracurricular activities, groups, and teams?” Organizational Experience Respondents answered the following question: “How many campus organizations (including Greeks), teams, and activities are you involved in currently?”
Brisson 23
APPENDIX D: WORKS CITED Barabas, Jason. 2004. “Virtual Deliberation: Knowledge from Online Interaction versus Ordinary Discussion.” In Democracy Online: The Prospects for Democratic Renewal Through the Internet, ed. Peter Shane. New York: Routledge, 239-52. Barabas, Jason. 2004. “How Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions.” American Political Science Review 98 (4): 687–702. Brady, Henry, Sidney Verba, and Kay Lehman Schlozman. 1995. “Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation.” American Political Science Review 89 (2): 271–94. Campbell, Andrea L. 2003. “Participatory reactions to policy threats: Senior citizens and the defense of Social Security and Medicare.” Political Behavior 25(1): 29-49. Cohen, Johua. 1989. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.” In The Good Policy, ed. Alan Hamlin and Philip Pettit. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 17-34. Cohen, Joshua. 1996. “Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy.” In Ideology and Discontent, ed. David Apter. New York: Free Press. Cook, Fay L., Michael X. Delli-Carpini, and Lawrence R. Jacobs. 2008. “Who Deliberates? Discursive Participation in America.” IPR Working Paper WP-05-08. Cook, Fay Lomax, and Lawrence R. Jacobs. 1998. Deliberative Democracy in Action: Evaluation of Americans Discuss Social Security. Report to the few Charitable Trusts. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Institute for Policy Research. Druckman, James N., and Kjersten R. Nelson. 2003. “Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens’ Conversations Limit Elite Influence.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (October): 72945. Dryzek, John. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Brisson 24 Gastil, John, and James P. Dillard. 1999. “Increasing Political Sophistication through Public Deliberation.” Political Communication 16 (February): 3-23. Gibson, James L. 1992. “The Political Consequences of Intolerance: Cultural Conformity and Political Freedom.” American Political Science Review 86(2): 338-356. Goidel, Kirby and Matthew Nisbet. 2006. “Exploring the Roots of Public Participation in the Controversy Over Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Cloning.” Political Behavior 28(2): 175-192. Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson, Democracy and Disagreement (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996) Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson, Why Deliberative Democracy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004) Manin, Bernard. 1987. “On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation.” Political Theory 15 (August): 339-68. Tali Mendelberg, "The Deliberative Citizen: Theory and Evidence," in Political Decision-Making, Deliberation and Participation, ed. Michael Delli Carpini (San Diego: Elsevier, 2002). Mendelberg, Tali, and John Oleske. 2000. “Race and Public Deliberation” Political Communication 17 (April):169-91. Mutz, Diana C. 2002. “The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (4): 838–55. Myers, David G. and H. Lamm, "The Group Polarization Phenomenon," Psychological Bulletin 83 (1976): 602-62. Page, Benjamin I. 1996. Who Deliberates? Mass Media in Modern Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sanders, Lynn M. 1997. “Against Deliberation.” Political Theory 25 (June): 347-77.
Brisson 25 Vinokur, Amiram, and Eugene Burnstein. 1978. “Depolarization of Attitudes in Groups.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36 (August): 872-85. Wilson, Thomas, D., and John Schooler. 1991. “Thinking too Much: Introspection Can Reduce the Quality of Preferences and Decisions.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60 (February): 181-92. Young, Iris Marion. 1996. “Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy.” In Democracy and Difference, ed. S. Benhabib
Brisson 26
APPENDIX E: DELIBERATION BRIEFING MATERIALS Dear Discussant, First of all, thank you for taking the time to participate in today’s deliberation. Below you will find information regarding the issue you will be asked to discuss. After everyone has viewed the briefing materials, the discussion will begin. Discussion groups are encouraged to draft a policy for the university regarding this issue. This policy can be consistent with the current policy if the group so decides. The structure of the discussion will be left to your group to establish. After 45 minutes of deliberation, we will ask you to take a quick survey regarding the discussions and any consensus established. The Question: Should Denison adopt a policy that would permit residential Greek life on campus? If so, what would this policy look like? What strengths and weaknesses would this policy bear? Background: Fraternities were permitted to live in their houses at Denison up until 1994, when then-President Michelle Myers lead the administration in removing Denison Greeks from their houses. The decision was made because, at the time, the Greek system was seen by the administration and faculty as interfering with Denison’s academic mission, exposing the university to legal liability problems, and leaving fraternities struggling to financially maintain their houses. However, some students argue that the nature of Greek life on campus has changed, resulting in a new call to bring Greeks back to residential status. There are many questions to consider when evaluating such a policy, including, but not limited to: How could residential Greek life contribute to social space on campus? Would residential Greek life again interfere with Denison’s academic goals? How would residential Greek life affect relations with Denison alumni? How would residential Greek life affect organizations not owning houses? Would Greek organizations again struggle with financing their houses? How would residential Greek life contribute to interactions among Denison’s increasing diverse student body? How would residential Greek life impact gender issues on Denison’s campus? In what ways would adopting residential Greek life be consistent or inconsistent with the Denison University Mission Statement (see attached)? At the end of the discussion, each member will be asked to provide their position on the deliberated question. These responses will be made available to both student media and relevant campus administrators. Happy Deliberating, The Students in the Political Science Senior Seminar
Brisson 27
RELEVANT TABLES AND FIGURES
** 3.43 3.09 2.96 2.95 ** 2.87 2.88 2.92
20.3 18 8 6 12 -
4 54 44 37 46 3 43 47 49
Owns House
Membership
Alpha Phi Alpha Beta Theta Pi Delta Chi Kappa Sigma Lambda Chi Alpha Phi Beta Sigma Phi Delta Theta Sigma Chi Sigma Phi Epsilon
Service Hrs per Member
Fraternity Name
Average GPA*
TABLE 1 Statistics Regarding Denison Fraternities, Spring 2010
✓ ✓
✓
Source: Denison University Office of Greek Life Materials * Avg Men’s GPA: 2.96 ** Average GPAs of organizations with less than five members omitted. - Data not reported to Office of Greek Life
Membership
Owns House
Alpha Kappa Alpha Delta Delta Delta Delta Gamma Kappa Alpha Theta Kappa Kappa Gamma Pi Beta Phi
Service Hrs per Member
Sorority Name
Average GPA*
TABLE 2 Statistics Regarding Denison Sororities, Spring 2010
** 3.13 3.32 3.30 3.29 3.16
8 5 28 9.6
4 78 89 100 100 97
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Source: Denison University Office of Greek Life Materials * Avg Women’s GPA: 3.268 ** Average GPAs of organizations with less than five members omitted. - Data not reported to Office of Greek Life
Brisson 28
FIGURE 1 Percentage of Greek Affiliated Students at Denison University, 1968-2010 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 1968
1974
1980
1986
1992
1998
2004
2010
FIGURE 2 Number of Greek Affiliated Men and Women, 1968-2010 900
Men
800
Women
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1968
1974
1980
1986
1992
1998
2004
2010
Brisson 29
DENISON UNIVERSITY MISSION STATEMENT Our purpose is to inspire and educate our students to become autonomous thinkers, discerning moral agents and active citizens of a democratic society. Through an emphasis on active learning, we engage students in the liberal arts which fosters self-determination and demonstrates the transformative power of education. We envision our students' lives as based upon rational choice, a firm belief in human dignity and compassion unlimited by cultural, racial, sexual, religious or economic barriers, and directed toward an engagement with the central issues of our time. Our curriculum balances breadth with depth, building academic specialization upon a liberal arts foundation in the arts, the sciences, the social sciences and the humanities. Responsive to new ways of learning, we continue to develop interdisciplinary integration of the many forms of knowledge. While our students pursue specialized learning in their chosen majors, they also develop the framework for an integrated intellectual life, spiritually and morally informed. Our faculty is committed to undergraduate education. As teacher-scholar-advisors, their principal responsibility is effective teaching informed by the best scholarship. Faculty members place a priority on close interaction with students, interactive learning, and partnerships with students in original research. Our low student/faculty ratio allows for close supervision of independent research and collaborative work in small groups and classes. We seek to ensure an ever-broader range of racial, ethnic, international and socioeconomic backgrounds in a student body of about 2,000 students. We offer different kinds of financial aid to meet the different needs of our students. The focus of student life at Denison is a concern for the whole person. The University provides a living-learning environment sensitive to individual needs yet grounded in a concern for community, in which the principles of human dignity and ethical integrity are paramount. Students engage in a wide range of co-curricular activities that address the multidimensional character of their intellectual and personal journey. Denison is a community in which individuals respect one another and their environment. Each member of the community possesses a full range of rights and responsibilities. Foremost among these is a commitment to treat each other and the environment with mutual respect, tolerance, and civility.
Brisson 30
APPENDIX F: DELIBERATION MODERATOR SCRIPT Notes: Please follow the following script to minimize discrepancy among groups. In moderating, try to remain as uninvolved as is possible. Only if intervention is necessary for the safety of participants should you intervene. “Hello. Thank you for your attendance here. I have been designated to moderate your group’s discussion this evening. First, I would like to inform you that your dialog will be recorded during this session, though the recordings will be confidential. Also please, turn off all cell phones. You have received a packet containing three documents. I will draw your attention to the white packet of briefing materials, which will help orient you with regard to this issue. Please take a couple minutes to look over the information presented in this packet.” wait 2 minutes (or until all have reviewed), then ask: “Are there any questions?” (See FAQs for standardized responses) “Tonight, you will be discussing a potential policy relevant to student life on campus. The first document I will ask you to pull out of your envelop is the Big Red Forum Pre Poll, a short survey on lavender paper. Please take a few minutes to fill this out now.” wait until all have completed, then say: “Thank you for filling out that survey. As is written in the briefing materials, your discussion group will be provided 45 minutes to explore the issue and come to a conclusion about the policy you have been presented. During deliberation, please respect one another: try not to interrupt, and do not make personal attacks. I will write on the board when 15 minutes, 30 minutes, and 40 minutes have elapsed. Please keep in mind that, as a moderator, I cannot participate in the deliberation. I can answer some questions about the general format and structure of the forum, but I will not be able to provide additional information, insight, or opinions about the issue beyond what is provided in the packet.” “After the discussion, you will be asked to state your position on the deliberated question in the post survey provided. Your written responses to this survey will be anonymously made available to both student media and relevant campus administrators. Thanks again for your attendance here, and we look forward to your perspective on the campus issue at hand.” Start timer At 15 minutes, write “30 min left” on the white board. At 30 minutes, write “15 min left” on the white board. At 35 minutes: “There are now 10 minutes left. If you would like to come to a consensus and craft a proposal together regarding Greek life on Denison’s campus, feel free to do so now.” At 40 minutes, write “5 min left” on the white board At 45 minutes: “The 45 minutes of deliberation has elapsed. At this time, please take out the green Big Red Forum Post Survey. First, please turn to the second page and fill in the names of your
Brisson 31 fellow participants. (wait) Take a few a minutes to answer the questions. When you are finished, please place all your materials back into the folder, at which point you are free to leave. Thank you once again for your participation in this deliberative forum.” Wait until participants have put all materials back in the packets, then individually thank them and let them know that they can get their Whit’s without pressuring other students to rush their survey. FAQs Why was this issue picked? In the Big Red Survey, the 800 students responding were most divided in stating their position on this issue. It is also an issue that encompasses within it many other issues facing the campus, allowing for many directions for discussion. Who will be able to access the recordings of the conversation? Only the Dr. Djupe and students of POSC-401 will have access to these recordings. The recordings will not be labeled with the names of participants. Who will see the responses to our surveys? Responses to the post survey will be processed and presented to both student media and administrators of the University’s Student Affairs division. Why/How was I selected for this forum? You were selected because you filled out the initial survey where you stated your opinion on various campus issues, and because you were deemed to have a perspective important to this conversation. Why should I participate? What’s in it for me? In addition to free Whit’s after the deliberations, your opinion will be provided to both student media and university administration, allowing your voice to be heard. Can I see the results? We can provide access to the findings of these deliberations. For more information, please contact Dr. Djupe. Question about Policy I’m sorry. While I can address questions regarding process and procedure, I cannot provide information regarding the policy or the issue outside of what is provided within the white packet of briefing materials.