Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T01:50:44.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of deliberation style on the gender gap in deliberative participation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2020

Hiroko Ide Levy Open the ORCID record for Hiroko Ide Levy [Opens in a new window]  and
Shiro Sakaiya
Hiroko Ide Levy*
Affiliation:
School of Humanities and Social Sciences, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Asia Institute, University of Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Shiro Sakaiya
Affiliation:
Graduate Schools for Law and Politics, University of Tokyo, Japan
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: h.levy@latrobe.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The importance of citizen deliberation in democracy is widely recognized today and the current digitalized and more fragmented society may benefit from discussions among people with diverse opinions in a well-organized setting. At the same time, concerns have also been raised about inequality in deliberative participation. We narrowed our focus to gender equality and examined whether introducing an evidence-driven style of deliberation can mitigate gender inequality in policy deliberation. In our repeated measure (within-subjects) experiment, university students in Japan discussed divisive policy issues during two sessions. Half of the participants started the discussion by examining factual information about the topic (evidence-driven style) and the other half started the discussion by expressing opinions about the topic (verdict-driven style). In the second session, the two groups switched styles. We found a statistically significant gender gap in participatory contribution for the verdict-driven style, but no such gap existed for the evidence-driven style. Using causal mediation analysis, we also found that, compared with the verdict-driven style, the evidence-driven style of deliberation reduces the gender gap by lowering women's tendency to agree with men. One possible explanation from the viewpoint of gendered communication is that women were more confident in evidence-driven deliberations. This psychological effect is a factor that is harder for facilitators to control and thus the evidence-driven style can be effective even with the presence of facilitators. This paper demonstrates the importance of studying how deliberations are conducted and how deliberation styles can affect the content and the consequences of policy deliberations.

Keywords

Deliberation styleexperimentgender equality
Type
Research Article
Information
Japanese Journal of Political Science , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 158 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdullah, C, Karpowitz, CF and Raphael, C (2016) Equality and equity in deliberation [Special issue]. Journal of Public Deliberation 12(2).Google Scholar
Baccaro, L, Bächtiger, A and Deville, M (2016) Small differences that matter: the impact of discussion modalities on deliberative outcomes. British Journal of Political Science 46, 551–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bächtiger, A, Dryzek, JS, Mansbridge, J and Warren, ME (eds) (2018) The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198747369.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauvais, E and Andre Baechtiger, A (2016) Taking the goals of deliberation seriously: a differentiated view on equality and equity in deliberative designs and processes. Journal of Public Deliberation 12(2), Art. 2.Google Scholar
Carli, LL (2013) Gendered communication and social influence. In Ryan, MK and Branscombe, NR (eds), The Sage Handbook of Gender and Psychology. London: Sage Publications, pp. 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, CH, Bordwell, DT and Avery, PG (2015) Gender and public issues deliberations in named and anonymous online environments. Journal of Public Deliberation 11(2), Art. 2.Google Scholar
Cohen, J, Cohen, R, Adad, J, Cohen, JM, Cohen, JA, Mansfield, J and Cohen, JB (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edn.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cornwell, EY and Hans, VP (2011) Representation through participation: a multilevel analysis of jury deliberations. Law & Society Review 45, 667–698.Google Scholar
Dovidio, JF, Brown, CE, Heltman, K, Ellyson, SL and Keating, CF (1988) Power displays between women and men in discussions of gender-linked tasks: a multichannel study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55, 580–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutwin, D (2003) The character of deliberation: equality, argument, and the formation of public opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 15, 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, AH and Wood, W (2012) Social role theory. In Van Lange, PAM, Kruglanski, AW and Higgins, ET (eds), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. London: Sage Publications, pp. 458–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, M (2016) The Persistence of Gender Inequality. Available at http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.Google Scholar
Fung, A (2005) Deliberation before the revolution toward an ethics of deliberative democracy in an unjust world. Political Theory 33, 397–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastil, J and Levine, P (eds) (2005) The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century, 1st Edn.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Goodin, RE (2003) Democratic deliberation within. In Fishkin, JS and Laslett, P (eds), Deliberating Deliberative Democracy. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 54–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, KM (2010) The equality paradox of deliberative democracy: evidence from a national deliberative poll. In Wolf, MR, Morales, L and Ikeda, K (eds), Political Discussion in Modern Democracies: A Comparative Perspective. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 26–43.Google Scholar
Hastie, R, Penrod, S and Pennington, N (1983) Inside the Jury. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henley, N (1977) Body Politics: Power, Sex, and Nonverbal Communication. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Henley, NM (1995) Body politics revisited: what do we know today. In Kalbfleisch, P and Cody, M (eds), Gender, Power, and Communication in Human Relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 27–61.Google Scholar
Himmelroos, S (2017) Discourse quality in deliberative citizen forums –a comparison of four deliberative mini-publics. Journal of Public Deliberation 13(1), Art. 3.Google Scholar
Himmelroos, S, Rapeli, L and Grönlund, K (2017) Talking with like-minded people – equality and efficacy in enclave deliberation. The Social Science Journal 54, 148–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, K, Keele, L and Yamamoto, T (2010) Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Statistical Science 25, 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Justice, T and Jamieson, DW (2012) The Facilitator's Fieldbook. New York: AMACOM.Google Scholar
Kalbfleisch, PJ and Herold, AL (2006) Sex, power, and communication. In Dindia, K and Canary, DJ (eds), Sex Differences and Similarities in Communication, 2nd Edn.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 286–299.Google Scholar
Kameda, T (1991) Procedural influence in small-group decision-making: deliberation style and assigned decision rule. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61, 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karpowitz, CF and Mendelberg, T (2014) The Silent Sex: Gender, Deliberation, and Institutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kraska, M (2010) Repeated measures design. In Salkind, NJ (ed.), Encyclopedia of Research Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 1244–1248.Google Scholar
Kroska, A (2014) The social psychology of gender inequality. In McLeod, JD, Lawler, EJ and Schwalbe, M (eds), Handbook of the Social Psychology of Inequality. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 485–514.Google Scholar
Lupia, A, Krupnikov, Y and Levine, AS (2013) Beyond facts and norms: how psychological transparency threatens and restores deliberation's legitimating potential. Southern California Law Review 86, 459–493.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, J (1991) Democracy, deliberation, and the experience of women. In Murchland, B (ed.), Higher Education and the Practice of Democratic Politics. Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation, pp. 122–135.Google Scholar
Marder, NS (1987) Gender dynamics and jury deliberations. Yale Law Journal 96, 593–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mare, LD and Waldron, VR (2006) Researching gendered communication in Japan and the United States: current limitations and alternative approaches. In Dindia, K and Canary, DJ (eds), Sex Differences and Similarities in Communication, 2nd Edn.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 188–207.Google Scholar
Mendelberg, T (2002) The deliberative citizen: theory and evidence. In Delli Carpini, MX, Huddy, L, and Shapiro, RY (eds), Research in Micropolitics, Volume 6: Political Decision Making, Deliberation and Participation. Bingley: Emerald Group, pp. 151–193.Google Scholar
Morrell, ME (1999) Citizens’ evaluations of participatory democratic procedures: normative theory meets empirical science. Political Research Quarterly 52, 293–322.Google Scholar
Mouffe, C (2000) The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Niemeyer, S and Dryzek, JS (2007) The ends of deliberation: meta-consensus and inter-subjective rationality as ideal outcomes. Swiss Political Science Review 13, 497–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, JL, Neeley, G and Budziak, J (2008) Can deliberative democracy work in hierarchical organizations? Journal of Public Deliberation 4(1), Art. 14.Google Scholar
Polletta, F and Chen, PCB (2013) Gender and public talk accounting for women's variable participation in the public sphere. Sociological Theory 31, 291–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polletta, F and Lee, J (2006) Is telling stories good for democracy? Rhetoric in public deliberation after 9/11. American Sociological Review 71, 699–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, V (2009) Citizens deliberating online: theory and some evidence. In Davies, T and Gangadharan, SP (eds), Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice. San Francisco: CSLI Publications, pp. 37–58.Google Scholar
Quinlan, S, Shephard, M and Paterson, L (2015) Online discussion and the 2014 Scottish independence referendum: flaming keyboards or forums for deliberation? Electoral Studies 38, 192–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridgeway, CL (2001) Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social issues 57, 637–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridgeway, CL and Nakagawa, S (2014) Status. In McLeod, JD, Lawler, EJ and Schwalbe, M (eds), Handbook of the Social Psychology of Inequality. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 3–25.Google Scholar
Ridgeway, C and Smith-Lovin, L (1999) Gender and interaction. In Chafetz, JS (ed.), Handbook of the Sociology of Gender. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp. 247–274.Google Scholar
Ryfe, DM (2006) Narrative and deliberation in small group forums. Journal of Applied Communication Research 34, 72–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, LM (1997) Against deliberation. Political Theory 25, 347–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuman, S (2012) The IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation: Best Practices from the Leading Organization in Facilitation. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.Google Scholar
Showers, E, Tindall, N and Davies, T (2015) Equality of participation online versus face to face: condensed analysis of the community forum deliberative methods demonstration. Electronic Participation 9249, 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G and Setälä, M (2018) Mini-publics and deliberative democracy. In Bächtiger, A, Dryzek, JS, Mansbridge, J and Warren, ME (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198747369.013.27.Google Scholar
Spada, P and Vreeland, JR (2013) Who moderates the moderators? The effect of non-neutral moderators in deliberative decision making. Journal of Public Deliberation 9(2), Art. 3.Google Scholar
Steiner, J (2012) The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy: Empirical Research and Normative Implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tingley, D, Yamamoto, T, Hirose, K, Keele, L and Imai, K (2014) Mediation: r package for causal mediation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 59, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toosi, NR, Sommers, SR and Ambady, N (2012) Getting a word in group-wise: effects of racial diversity on gender dynamics. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48, 1150–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trénel, M (2009) Facilitation and inclusive deliberation. In Davies, T and Gangadharan, SP (eds), Online Deliberation: Design, Research and Practice. San Francisco: CSLI Publications, pp. 253–257.Google Scholar
Verma, J (2015) Repeated Measures Design for Empirical Researchers. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
York, E and Cornwell, B (2006) Status on trial: social characteristics and influence in the jury room. Social Forces 85, 455–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, IM (1996) Communication and the other: beyond deliberative democracy. In Benhabib, S (ed.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 120–136.Google Scholar
Young, IM (2000) Inclusion and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar