IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/polstu/v62y2014i1p116-135.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deliberating across Deep Divides

Author

Listed:
  • Robert C. Luskin
  • Ian O'Flynn
  • James S. Fishkin
  • David Russell

Abstract

type="main"> Deeply divided societies would seem to be infertile ground for mass deliberation. ‘Enclave deliberation’, among people on the same side, may well occur. But people on opposing sides may not trust one another, they may not listen with an open mind, or they may regard the other side's arguments as insincere cover for sectional interests. Perhaps, though, we underestimate their deliberative capacities? This article examines a deliberative poll (DP) in the Omagh area of Northern Ireland, a society having only recently emerged from protracted violence, reflecting and reinforcing the deep divide between Catholics and Protestants. The topic – the future of the local schools – was one on which many of the issues were heavily impinged by the Catholic–Protestant divide. We examine the extent to which a representative sample, including both Catholics and Protestants, was able to deliberate constructively and how the experience changed their policy attitudes and their opinions of one another.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert C. Luskin & Ian O'Flynn & James S. Fishkin & David Russell, 2014. "Deliberating across Deep Divides," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 62(1), pages 116-135, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:62:y:2014:i:1:p:116-135
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.01005.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rousiley C. M. Maia & Gabriella Hauber, 2020. "The emotional dimensions of reason-giving in deliberative forums," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(1), pages 33-59, March.
    2. Sangbum Shin & Taedong Lee, 2021. "Credible Empowerment and Deliberative Participation: A Comparative Study of Two Nuclear Energy Policy Deliberation Cases in Korea," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(1), pages 97-112, January.
    3. Tasneem Siddiqui & Lucy Szaboova & W. Neil Adger & Ricardo Safra de Campos & Mohammad Rashed Alam Bhuiyan & Tamim Billah, 2021. "Policy Opportunities and Constraints for Addressing Urban Precarity of Migrant Populations," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S2), pages 91-105, April.
    4. Claus Offe, 2014. "The Europolis experiment and its lessons for deliberation on Europe," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(3), pages 430-441, September.
    5. Katariina Kulha & Mikko Leino & Maija Setälä & Maija Jäske & Staffan Himmelroos, 2021. "For the Sake of the Future: Can Democratic Deliberation Help Thinking and Caring about Future Generations?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-13, May.
    6. Michel P. Pimbert & Boukary Barry, 2021. "Let the people decide: citizen deliberation on the role of GMOs in Mali’s agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 1097-1122, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:62:y:2014:i:1:p:116-135. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0032-3217 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.