I came across a fairly succinct definition of the term e-participation today that I find useful with regard to the things we are working on:
In the context of current project, e-Participation means the use of ICT for enabling and strengthening citizen participation in democratic decision-making processes. Depending on the aspect of democracy being promoted it can employ different techniques (Trechsel et al, 2002):
- For increasing the transparency of the political process;
- For enhancing the direct involvement on participation of citizen;
- For improving the quality of opinion formation by opening new spaces of information and deliberation
Source: UNDP Europe & CIS, Preparation of e-Participation Guide: Searching for interesting case studies and lessons learned (Word document, 60 KB).
Sandra S. Hodge, Ph.D. and Program Director Discovering Common Ground: Missouri Communities Deliberate at University of Missouri has a nice comparison chart that looks at the differences between debate and deliberation: Deliberation and Your Community: How to Convene and Moderate Local Public Forums Using Deliberative Decision-Making (training manual) (PDF, 1.1MB). The training manual is part of a resource kit for deliberative decision-making projects.
Debate vs. Deliberation
| In debate, you search for weaknesses in another position |
In deliberation, you search for strength in another position. |
| In debate, you search for glaring differences. |
Deliberation involves concern for others. |
| Debate involves countering the other’s position at the expense of the relationship. |
Deliberation assumes that many people have pieces of an answer to a workable solution. |
| Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in your beliefs. |
In deliberation, you temporarily suspend your judgment of other’s beliefs. |
| Debate is oppositional and seeks to prove the other wrong. |
Deliberation is collaborative and seeks common understanding. |
| The goal of debate is winning – often only for a short-term advantage. |
The goal of deliberation is common ground for action, which is the basis for consistent policy. |
| In debate, you listen to find flaws and counter-arguments. |
In deliberation, you listen to understand and find meaning in agreement. |
| Debate defends assumptions as truth. |
Deliberation reveals assumptions for reevaluation. |
| Debate defends original solutions. |
Deliberation opens the possibility of better solutions. |
| In debate, you submit your best thinking and defend its rightness. |
In deliberation, you submit your best thinking in order to improve it. |
Interestingly enough, while there have recently been quite a few initiatives that focus on building better tools for online debate the same cannot be said for online deliberation (at least as far as I am aware of).
One reason for that, in my view, is the fact that both dialogue and deliberation require very good listening skills on the part of the participants. And as difficult as listening may seem in real life, it is generally that much harder to do online.
The National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD) provides a good definition of dialogue and deliberation, and describes how the two relate to each other:
So what are dialogue and deliberation anyway?
Dialogue is a process that allows people, usually in small groups, to share their perspectives and experiences with one another about difficult issues we tend to just debate about or avoid entirely. Issues like racial disparities, youth violence and gay marriage.
Dialogue is not about judging, weighing or making decisions, but about understanding and learning. Dialogue dispels stereotypes, builds trust and enables people to be open to perspectives that are very different from their own. Dialogue can, and often does, lead to both personal and collaborative action.
Deliberation is a closely related process with a different emphasis. Deliberation emphasizes the use of logic and reasoning to make better decisions. Decisions about important public issues like health care and immigration are too often made through the use of power or coercion rather than a sound decision-making process that involves all parties and explores all options.
Dialogue and deliberation processes tend to use skilled facilitators and carefully constructed ground rules or agreements to ensure that all participants are heard and are treated as equals. For groups that want to move from talk to a decision or action, NCDD recommends starting with dialogue and encouraging deliberation after people have had the chance to tell their personal story (in relation to the issue at hand) in a respectful environment.
Dialogue lays the groundwork for the vital work of deliberation. The trust, mutual understanding and relationships that are built during dialogue allow for participants to deliberate more effectively, and to make better decisions.
Dialogue and deliberation are used for a variety of reasons: to resolve conflicts and bridge divides; to build understanding about complex issues; to foster innovative solutions to problems and launch action; and to reach agreement on or recommendations about policy decisions.
At Intellitics, our goal is online dialogue and deliberation.
According to Wikipedia:
Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions. … Although the term is generally applied to behavior within governments, politics is observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions.
Politics consists of “social relations involving authority or power”. and refers to the regulation of a political unit, and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.
At Intellitics, we’re interested in exploring ways how the internet can better support this decision-making process.
