The role for deliberative processes in informing and engaging women on
the EU: a case study of a deliberative conference on Irish women’s voices
on Europe.
Dr. Clodagh Harris, Department of Government, UCC
Dr. Emmanuelle Schön-Quinlivan, Department of Government, UCC
Paper presented at the 2010 PSAI annual conference. This is a work in progress. If
you wish to cite this paper you are recommended to contact the authors to obtain a
copy of the most recent version: clodagh.harris@ucc.ie
1
INTRODUCTION
It is argued that the traditional institutions of democratic decision-making are less and
less successful in involving citizens in political processes, despite higher levels of
education (Fishkin, 1991: Dryzek, 1990). Deliberative democratic innovations can
provide answers to some of the most perennial problems of democratic theory, such as
informing and educating the public, creating opportunities for citizens to shape policy
and the restoration of citizen trust and engagement in politics.
Using mechanisms such as citizens’ juries, consensus conferences and deliberative
polls, deliberative democratic approaches can bring affected citizens into partnership
as decision-makers through dialogue-based processes of policy-development that
include agenda setting, policy design, and implementation.
Emphasising refined and reflective preferences deliberative theorists such as
Habermas, Barber, Elster, Fishkin, Young and Dryzek argue that democratic
processes and institutions should be built around ‘reasonable’ political judgement. As
Iris Marion Young states;
‘Through the process of public discussion with a plurality of differently opinionated
and situated others, people often gain new information, learn of different experiences
of their collective problems, or find that their own initial opinions are founded on
prejudice or ignorance, or that they have misunderstood the relation of their own
interests to others’ (2000:26).
The challenges of informing and educating the public and restoring citizen trust and
engagement have been evident in Ireland’s difficulties in successfully ratifying the
Nice and Lisbon treaties.
Academic research has shown that after the farming community, Irish women have
benefitted most from EU membership. Yet it also shows that Irish women are more
likely than their male counterparts to reject EU treaties. With this in mind a one day
public deliberative conference on Irish women’s voices in Europe was held in
University College Cork, one month before the second referendum on the Lisbon
Treaty which was held on 2nd October 2009. Bringing academic and community
2
perspectives together it assessed how Irish women have benefitted from EU
membership and their concerns on the possible impact of the EU on issues of Irish
neutrality and family/ethical matters.
This conference endeavoured to take a
deliberative approach through the use of a deliberative poll and expert ‘empty chair’
working group sessions.
This paper evaluates the deliberative processes and outcomes of this conference. It
takes a multi-dimensional approach by examining data gathered from polls conducted
on the day and semi structured interviews with participants, facilitators and expert
witnesses.
DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY
There is ‘considerable consensus’ among deliberative democrats on many of its
‘regulative ideals’ (Mansbridge et al, 2010:65).Theorists such as Habermas, Barber,
Elster, Fishkin, Young and Dryzek emphasise refined and reflective preferences,
arguing that democratic processes and institutions should be built around ‘reasonable’
political judgement. They argue that it is not majoritarian support that renders a
political decision legitimate. But that it can be deemed legitimate if it can be agreed to
after withstanding scrutiny by those that are bound by it. Under the deliberative
model collective decisions are made through reflective public reasoning which its
proponents believe encourage more informed rational decisions, fairer and more
publicly oriented outcomes and improved civic skills (Hendriks, 2006:491). For them
to succeed, deliberative practices need to be open, inclusive and ‘reasonable’ (also
known as recognition and respect). They also need to be public, include on equal
terms all affected members of a community, and they must be justified to all in a free,
tolerant, respectful debate.
First articulated as theory of democratic legitimacy, deliberative democracy contends
that ‘decisions are seen as legitimate to the degree that the individuals subject to them
(or their representatives) have the right, capacity, or opportunity to participate in
deliberation about their content, and as a result grant their reflective assent to the
outcome’ (Dryzek, 2007: 242).
3
Deliberative theorists recognise that many political problems necessitate the creation
of public fora in which ‘private preferences are treated not as fixed but, rather as
amenable to transformation in the light of ‘the discovery of generalizable interests’
through argument and justification’ (Dryzek cited in Held, 2006:236) and call for an
‘imaginative rethinking of democracy offering a new kind of participation, one that
not only gives citizens more power, but also allows them more opportunities to
exercise this power thoughtfully (Fishkin cited in Held, 2006:235).’
Deliberative forms of democratic governance can have substantive and procedural
benefits. It is argued that they improve the quality of decision making by: sharing
information and pooling knowledge, revealing the connection between certain
preference formations and sectional interests (Held, 2006: 237-238), promoting
legitimacy, encouraging ‘public spirited perspectives on public issues’, promoting
mutually respectful processes of decision-making and ‘correcting previous mistakes’
(Gutmann and Thompson, 2004: 11-12).
Thus theorists broadly agree that deliberative democracy emphasises inclusion,
equality and reasonableness and that it is public. To the extent that it is open to all
citizens affected by a decision it is inclusive (Mansbridge at al, 2010: Steiner, 2010:
Held, 2006). It is also argued that the participants have equal opportunities and
resources to influence the process (Mansbridge et al, 2010:65). Another defining
feature of deliberative processes is the focus on ‘reasonableness’, where participants
give reasons/justify their positions in a truthful and respectful manner from the
perspective of the common good and where the force of the better argument prevails.
Finally the process should be conducted publicly.
Yet as Steiner notes there has been controversy in recent years about the exact
definition of deliberative democracy (2010). Furthermore as research in the area
grows there is the ‘danger of concept stretching’ (Bachtiger et al, 2010:33). Bachtiger
et al note that ‘this dual tendency to construe deliberation both too broadly and too
narrowly can lead to serious confusion’ (ibid). This is captured to an extent in the
debate that has emerged between the ‘impartialists’ and their critics which highlights
competing views of the theory and in Bachtiger et al’s typology of deliberative theory.
4
Impartialists contend that deliberation must be open to all points of view before
coming to a decision. And that a political decision is right in terms of impartiality if it
is defensible to ‘all significantly affect groups and parties if they had participated as
parties in public debate’ (Held, 2006:239). It can be found in Habermas’s ideal
speech situation and Barry’s formulation of impartialist reasoning (ibid).
It is similar to Bachtiger et al’s type 1 of deliberative democracy which focuses on
rational discourse and process and is ‘rooted in the Habermasian logic of
communicative action’ (2010:33). It emphasises rational discourse, deliberative intent
and ‘the related distinction between communicative and strategic action, and has a
strong procedural component’ (ibid).
Both impartialism and Bachtiger et al’s type 1 are criticised for their emphasis on
consensus (Gutmann and Thompson, 2004) and for being too ‘abstract and narrow’
in their conception of the good argument (Held, 2006:241). Recognising that it is not
always possible to achieve consensus on public choice, particularly on ethical/moral
issues, Gutmann and Thompson refer to the principle of reciprocity which argues that
citizens develop a form of reasoning that is ‘mutually justifiable and mutually
accommodating’ (cited in Held, 2006:242).
Bachtiger et al’s second type of deliberative democracy emphasises deliberative
institutions and outcomes and involves more flexible forms of discourse. More
attention is paid to overcoming ‘real world constraints on realizing normative ideals’
(2010:33). It incorporates Gutmann and Thompson’s concerns around ‘ moral
disagreement’ as well as including Tully (2002) and Youngs’ (2000) critiques of the
impartialist focus on a single form of reasoning that at best overlooks particular
cultural, social and linguistic practises and ‘represses difference’ in its goal to achieve
consensus. To overcome this they (Tully, 2002: Young, 2000) add storytelling,
rhetoric and other forms of communication to their definitions of deliberative
discourse. For Bachtiger et al (2010:34) this definition to the extent that it relaxes the
‘sincerity criterion’ risks ‘overstretching’ the concept of deliberation.
5
For their part Bachtiger et al propose a half way house between types I and II. They
favour a ‘‘sequential’ but direct approach where alternative forms of communication
could occur in earlier stages of communicative processes to counteract power
inequalities and to further ‘deliberative capacity building’. (2010:59)
This paper is informed by their typology and bears their concluding question ‘how
much and in what ways should alternative forms of communication be incorporated
into the theory?’ (2010: 59) in mind.
THE CONFERENCE – PROCESS
The conference was held on 8th September 2009 a few weeks before the second Irish
referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. The first referendum which had been held in June
2008 was rejected by 53.4% of those who turned out on the day (Laffan and
O’Mahony, 2009:119). Research conducted after the event revealed that 42% of those
who voted No did so due to lack of information (Sinnott et al, 2009:14). Sinnott et al’s
research showed that there were 2 dimensions of knowledge at play (2009). The first
related to people’s perceptions of what was in the treaty that was in the treaty, the
second concerned perceptions of what they thought was in the treaty but was not in
treaty, e.g. conscription and abortion. The No voters were far more likely to believe
that erosion of Irish neutrality, end of control over abortion and conscription to a
European army were part of the Lisbon Treaty.
Their research revealed that the main demographic groups that opposed the Treaty
were: 25-34 year olds (59%), the C2 and DE socio-economic groups (63% and 65%)
and women (56%) (Sinnott et al, 2009:15-16). It also found that low levels of
information were not confined to the No voters alone and that this was cited as the
main reason for abstaining from the referendum. With this in mind a deliberative
conference on Irish women’s voices in Europe was organised with support from the
Communicating Europe initiative from the Department of Foreign Affairs.
At the start of the conference the participants answered a survey that included
questions based on their knowledge of and attitudes to European issues. After the poll
was completed and collected the participants engaged in dialogue with the academic
6
experts, Professor Yvonne Galligan (Queen’s University Belfast) and Dr. Gavin
Barrett (University College Dublin) who made presentations on ‘Women shaping a
gender-equal democracy: Europe and Ireland’ and ‘The Irish Guarantees – what is
their value?’ respectively. Following a wider plenary question and answer session, the
participants were broken into small roundtable groups where they discussed in greater
detail the two key topics: the Lisbon Treaty and the Irish guarantees and the future of
Europe and the role for Irish women within it. A chair was kept free at each table for
the experts who moved from one group to another to answer any questions, engage in
discussion etc. The roundtable sessions were chaired by impartial facilitators who
recorded the issues discussed on flip charts. The issues discussed and
recommendations suggested were fedback at the end of the day in a wider plenary
session. After the debates, the participants were asked to answer the original questions
again, to ascertain if there had been a shift in their levels of awareness and their
opinions on the EU as a consequence of the day’s deliberations.
The questionnaire1 used drew upon the academic literature on deliberative democracy
and on survey methods. It was also informed by surveys used by Eurobarometer and
the European Citizens’ Consultation exercise. The survey gathered data on the
participants’: profile, voting behaviour, knowledge of the EU and perceptions of and
attitudes to the distribution of EU/member state competences.
In keeping with other deliberative processes this conference invited participants to
complete surveys at the beginning and end of the day’s proceedings. Although the
total number of participants on the day was over 30, the number who attended the full
proceedings and completed both surveys was 14. With such a small n it is not possible
to draw firm conclusions about the impact of the day’s deliberations on participants’
knowledge and attitudes of the EU. However it is possible using an analysis of the
results to note trends and make observations.
The vast majority of the people who participated in the full day and completed both
surveys were aged 45 plus (10 out of the 14), while those aged 55 and over accounted
1
Please contact the authors at clodagh.harris@ucc.ie or e.schon@ucc.ie for a copy of the questionnaire.
7
for almost half (6 out of 14) of the participants. Also of the 14 who participated in all
of the day’s events only 1 was male.
Less than half of the participants (6 out of 14) had voted Yes in the 2008 Lisbon
Referendum, and one person indicated that she was out of the country that day. All of
those who participated in the full day’s events were on the electoral register and 12 of
them had voted in the 2009 European Parliament elections.
When asked how informed participants considered themselves to be at the time of the
referendum which took place on 12 June 2008, two thirds of them answered that they
were very well or well informed. Among the people who rejected the treaty, this
proportion was reversed with two thirds considering that they were only ‘somewhat’
or ‘not at all’ informed.
The one day nature of the conference meant that the participants had little input into
the agenda setting in advance of the event. However they were free to add topics to
the debate through the plenary question and answer sessions held after each expert
presentation. They also had the opportunity to do so during the roundtable sessions
which contained 4 participants, a facilitator and a rotating expert (each group has an
empty chair in it for the expert to ‘slip in’ and join them). The session on the Lisbon
Treaty and the Irish guarantees focused mostly on the sharing of information and
opinions on the impact of the treaty on the EU institutions and policies as well as the
legality of the Irish guarantees.
Interestingly the overwhelming majority of those who had voted No in the first
Lisbon referendum agreed that the information provided in the presentations as well
as the more in-depth small group discussions with the experts changed their views on
the treaty and many admitted that they were going to vote Yes in the October 2nd
referendum.
The second roundtable session took a more brainstorming approach as the participants
shared their visions for the future of the EU and for the role of Irish women within it.
It produced concrete suggestions and recommendations that could be incorporated
into existing policies or form part of a new policy in this area
8
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
In the spirit of deliberation the conference endeavoured to be inclusive, equal, public
and reasonable.
INCLUSIVE
Invitations and information was circulated and re-circulated to targeted groups such as
the National Women’s Council of Ireland, the Irish Countrywomens’ Association,
Women for Europe and the Soroptomists, as this event specifically targeted Irish
women. Yet it was not exclusively for Irish women. Schools and local council
representatives and officials were also sent letters of invitation. Information was
placed in the regional newspapers and freesheets to reach people of all ages, socioeconomic status and educational background.
It was a free event that offered
refreshment and lunch to those who participated on the day. However it did not have
the funding to offer childminding facilities or to pay participant expenses.
EQUAL
The vast majority of the people who participated in the full day and completed both
surveys were aged 45 plus (10 out of the 14), while those aged 55 and over accounted
for almost half (6 out of 14) of the participants. Also of the 14 who participated in all
of the day’s events only 1 was male. In terms of education half of those surveyed had
completed second level schooling, the remainder having graduated from third level.
Interestingly 6 of the 14 had completed postgraduate studies.
Every effort was made to include all in the working group/roundtable discussions.
Feedback from the facilitators noted that they didn’t face any challenges in
stimulating debate. The groups were by and large very willing to participate. However
as some of the participants held very strong opinions on the issue, it was a challenge
to ensure that all could engage and to prevent one or two people from dominating the
discussion. For example, in one of the groups there was one participant (a local
county councillor) who tried to monopolise the group. This group’s facilitator noticed
that two of the participants retreated when the politician interrupted. She tried to
9
overcome this by going around the circle and giving everyone a chance to voice their
opinion/make their suggestion but later admitted that it was difficult to do so.
Such challenges notwithstanding, the format did facilitate participant engagement on
the treaty. In particular the more reserved/shy participants liked the opportunity to ask
questions in smaller groups. In one of the working groups some of the participants
had taken the Centre for Adult Continuing Education’s women’s studies course and
were used to small groups. In conversation with their facilitator they remarked that
they were not comfortable with big/plenary group questions and that they were less
worried about asking what they referred to as ‘embarrassing questions’ in a small
group.
Certainly, in the plenary question and answer sessions those with the greater levels of
education and familiarity with the university spoke up more than those who did not. A
participant, familiar with the university noted that ‘for some the University and
roundtable sessions might be intimidating’. Yet this was not mentioned in the
interviews with the participants after the event, many of whom were not that familiar
with the University. It appears that many took the opportunity to ask their questions in
the afternoon workshops. As one participant observed ‘it was possible to ask
questions in the informal workshops’. Another participant noted ‘the groups were
small and at least in my group, it was very balanced. Everybody spoke and nobody
was intimidated’.
Feedback from the facilitators and the participants found that empty chair for the socalled expert hugely contributed to the discussion. According to the facilitators, the
participants enjoyed engaging directly and informally (on a first name basis) with the
experts. This was helped by the experts’ open and facilitating approach. One
facilitator noted that they were ‘very down to earth’ and ‘the group felt like they had
contributed to something’. Another facilitator stated that the experts ‘genuinely
listened’ to the participants concerns and queries. As one participant remarked they
‘didn’t make people feel small’. Another commented ‘the fact that there was no
jargon and everything was explained in plain language also made it easier’.
REASONABLE
10
A defining feature of deliberative democracy is that ‘individuals participating in
democratic processes are amenable to changing their minds and their preferences as
a result of the reflection induced by deliberation’ (Dryzek cited in Cohen,2007: 221).
For their part, Offe and Preuss define a rational judgement as one that is fact, future
and other regarding (1991)
The tone set by the conference chairs, the expert speakers and the facilitators ensured
free debate, respect for diversity of opinion and a disposition to understand others’
opinions and interests through debate, argument and deliberation. We were aware in
advance that their could be ‘moral disagreement’ among the participants on some
aspects of the Lisbon Treaty and the Irish Guarantees as the research conducted by
Sinnott et al (2009) revealed concerns around ethical issues such as abortion and
euthanasia. The conference adopted Gutmann and Thompson’s principle of
reciprocity. The fact that the participants were not asked to come to a decision on the
Treaty on the day facilitated this. However they were asked to make
recommendations/suggestions on the future of Irish women in Europe.
The pooling of information/sharing of knowledge had an impact on the participants’
opinions/decisions. The event led to an improved understanding of and information on
the EU as measured by the greater numbers of participants answering question 15 (a
series of statements on the EU which participants were asked to mark as true or false)
correctly. This was particularly the case for those who had voted No in the 2008
referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
When asked to judge whether a series of statements on the European Union were true
or false the majority of the participants answered all statements correctly. This figure
increased slightly when they retook the survey at the end of the day. The differences
in levels of knowledge of the EU between those who voted yes and no in the 2008
referendum were reflected in their responses to this question. All of those who had
voted Yes answered the questions correctly in period 1 (P1 – the first time the
participants answered the survey), while the majority of those who had voted No got
the answers incorrect. However by the end of the day (P2 – the participants answered
11
the same survey again in the afternoon) the majority of the No voters answered the
questions correctly.
In three of the roundtable sessions there was feedback that the information provided
on the guarantees had an impact on how they were going to vote. In particular some
of those who had voted No in the first referendum indicated that having learned more
about the Treaty and the guarantees they were going to vote Yes. Statements from the
participants included:

‘I am quite confident to support the Treaty now that the guarantees have been
explained’;

‘I am satisfied that every fear has been counteracted by a guarantee’ and

‘the guarantees offer reassurance’.
The participants were keen to get information on the Lisbon Treaty the facilitators
noticed that many within their groups changed their views on the EU and their
positions on the Lisbon Treaty during the course of the day. In particular their
perceptions on the loss of the Irish Commissioner, control over abortion and erosion
of Irish neutrality changed. Two participants indicated that they were No voters but
that they were going to read more about the treaty after the event as they felt they
hadn’t had enough information. After the event, another participant revealed that she
had rung her brother and told him to vote Yes. She explained that she was already a
Yes voter but that she had been worried about the protection of Irish neutrality. She
had voted Yes the first time because she had ‘nieces and nephews (living) abroad but
when it (the referendum) didn’t go through she was happy’. After the conference she
was comfortable voting Yes and told others to do so.
The survey analysis showed greater levels of awareness of Ireland’s weaker position
after the rejection of the first Lisbon referendum by the end of the event. This was
true of both the Yes and No voters, however, it was more marked amongst the Yes
voters.
Responding to the question on impact of the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty on
Ireland’s influence in the EU, half of the participants indicated that Ireland influence
12
was fairly weak. Although none of the participants described Ireland’s position as
very weak in P1, three of the respondents did so in the second survey. Similarly the
numbers of those who indicated that Ireland’s position was fairly strong dropped from
P1 to P2. Different perceptions were noted amongst those who had voted Yes and No
in 2008 Lisbon referendum. Those who had voted No saw Ireland’s influence in the
EU post the 2008 referendum as fairly strong or the same. This changed slightly by
the end of the day where the majority of this group described Ireland’s influence as
the same or fairly weak. By comparison the Yes voters overwhelmingly defined
Ireland’s influence as fairly weak in P1. When surveyed at the end of the day’s event
they saw it as even weaker describing it as fairly or very weak.
Some of the participants referred to gaining an understanding of certain sectional
interests and how this influenced their opinions/decisions by the end of the day. One
participant noted that the expert presentation on the Lisbon guarantees ‘punctured the
misinformation that had been circulated about the Lisbon Treaty in a relatively
balanced way’. Another participant stated that there had been ‘a lot of misinformation
on the treaty’ with one contributor stating ‘some groups play on fears, for example
abortion’. Concerns were also expressed on the power of money and resources in the
Lisbon campaigns. Both of the above were critical of certain ‘No groups’, however
another participant was annoyed that the second referendum was ‘being presented as
a contest on whether we want to be part of the EU or not’.
It was a mutually respectful process. One facilitator specifically noted that all in his
group were ‘respectful of each other’s viewpoints’. Comments from the participants
included:

‘People were asking questions and in the smaller groups they were listening to
one another’;

‘Certainly teasing things out in the workshops helped me to better understand
the Irish Guarantees’

‘I learned (more about the Treaty and guarantees) from comments from
participants and the experts’ responses in the small group sessions.’

‘Everyone was talking to one another in the end.’
13

‘There were no barriers. I felt that I could talk to everyone, including
presenters.’

‘They (the presenters) were very friendly. I didn’t feel intimidated and I didn’t
worry about jargon.’

‘The group dynamic was good because other people asked questions you
mightn’t have thought of and it got you thinking’
There was some ‘moral disagreement’ as a participant in one of the groups clearly
saw the Lisbon Treaty as anti Christian with negative implications for Irish abortion
law and family values. She was not supported in this view by the rest of the group but
in keeping with the principle of reciprocity her opinions were listened to and treated
with respect.
The event did encourage some public spirited perspectives on public issues. The
recommendations were ‘other’ and ‘future’ regarding to the extent that the
participants argued that working mothers should have more options and more support.
Better and more affordable childcare as well as increased social benefits were
discussed. Participants also called for more wide-spread flexible working hours. It
was also argued that financial support should be increased for mothers who would
like to give up work to look after their children but cannot do so because of economic
necessity. To the extent that they sought further detail from the experts, the
recommendations were also fact regarding.
PUBLIC
It was an open, free event and all members of the public were invited to attend.
National and local broadcast and print media coverage (the Irish Times, the Cork
Independent, the evening echo, TV3, Newstalk and Red FM) ensured publicity before
and after the event. Also participants were informed that the information gathered on
the day would be made available to them in hard or electronic copy.
DELIBERATIVE?
14
Yet to what extent was the event deliberative? It was inclusive, equal, reasonable and
public, even though budgetary constraints limited the amount of publicity for the
event. However as Dryzek argues ‘participation, even discursive participation is not
the same as deliberation. So we need to know whether discursive participants are
reasoning and whether that reasoning has any impact on the exercise of power’ (cited
in Cohen, 2007: 223).
While the participants did not have to come to a joint decision on the day on the
Treaty and did not have any direct ‘impact on the exercise of power’ (Dryzek cited in
Cohen, 2007: 223), they did as registered voters have the power to influence the
outcome of the second referendum. Moreover as indicated by at least one of the
participants they did influence others among their friends and family. This was also
noticed by one of the experts who mentioned that the event probably had ‘a greater
radiated effect’. In addition the participants did make suggestions and
recommendations on the future of the EU and Irish women within as a group and
these were forwarded to the Department of Foreign Affairs.
The event as a process contained elements of Bachtiger et al’s first and second types
of deliberative democracy as storytelling was used by some participants in the
working groups. Also it incorporated the principle of reciprocity to overcome ‘moral
disagreement’. Yet it did not relax the ‘sincerity criterion’. As one of the experts
observed the people involved were ‘honestly trying to inform themselves’ and
expressed ‘genuine fears’.
Conclusion
Although over 50 people had pre-registered for the conference, a little over 30
participants were present on the day. The extremely heavy rain that day undoubtedly
contributed to this low turnout. Those who did attend included students, UCC staff
(academic and administrative), city and county councillors and members of the
public. The majority of the participants were from the greater Cork city area and Cork
county.
15
The greatest challenge faced was ensuring that as many people as possible stayed for
the full proceedings. In the end 14 of the participants managed to do so and filled in
both of the day’s surveys. This group was primarily a mixture of students and retired
members of the general public.
With such a small n this report presents observations rather than findings. This
deliberative conference could be classified as a pilot study. Nonetheless it reveals the
potential of deliberative processes in informing the public on a policy area and
increasing levels of public awareness and understanding of the nuances and
complexities of political decisions as well as the possibility of facilitating considered
public input into the policy agenda.
References:
Bachtiger, Andre, Niemeyer, Simon, Neblo, Michael, Steenbergen, Marco R. and
Steiner Jurg (2010) ‘Disentangling Diversity in Deliberative Democracy: Competing
Theories, Their Blind Spots and Complementarities’. The Journal of Political
Philosophy 18(1):32-63
Cohen, Joshua (2007) ‘Deliberative Democracy’, pp. 219-236 in Rosenberg, Shawn
W. ed. Deliberation, participation and democracy, can the people govern?
Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan
Dryzek, John S. (2007) ‘Theory, Evidence and the Tasks of Deliberation’, pp.236-250
in Rosenberg, Shawn W. ed. Deliberation, participation and democracy, can the
people govern? Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan
Dryzek, John S.(1990) Discursive Democracy: Politics Policy and Science.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Fishkin, James (1991) Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic
Reform. New Haven: Yale University Press
16
Gutmann, Amy and Thompson, Dennis (2004) Why Deliberative Democracy.
Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press
Held, David (2006) Models of Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press
Hendricks, Carolyn M. (2006) ‘Integrating Deliberation: Reconciling Civil Society’s
Dual Role in a Deliberative Democracy’. Political Studies 54:486-508
Laffan, Brigid and O’Mahony, Jane (2009) Ireland and the European Union.
Basingtoke: Palgrave MacMillan
Mansbridge, Jane with Bohman, James, Chambers, Simone, Estlund, David,
Follesdal, Andreas, Fung, Archon, Lafont Cristina, Manin, Bernard and Marti, Jose
Luis (2010) ‘The place of self-interest and the role of power in deliberative
democracy’. The Journal of Political Philosophy 18(1):64-100.
Offe, Claus and Preuss, Ulrich K. (1991) ‘Democracy institutions and moral
resources’ in Held, David ed. Political Theory Today. Cambridge:Polity
Sinnott, Richard, Elnik, Johan A., O’Rourke, Kevin and McBride James (2009)
Attitudes and behaviour in the Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon. Report prepared
for the Department of Foreign Affairs. Dublin: UCD Geary Institute
Steiner, Jurg (forthcoming 2010) ‘Review essay on deliberative democracy’.
Perspectives on Politics
Tully, James (2002) ‘The unfreedom of movements in comparison to their ideals of
constitutional democracy’. Modern Law Review 65(2): ?-?
Young, Iris Marion (2000) Inclusion and Democracy. New York: Oxford University
Press
17
18