This study attempts to address the gap between theory and practice in the deliberative democratic literature. Namely, while many scholars have theorized that more deliberation or discussion in democratic decision-making would be considered normatively desirable, fewer studies have measured whether the benefits gained from deliberation are plausible. Almost all of the major empirical studies in the literature involve either quasi-experimental designs or fieldwork. As such, it becomes difficult to tell whether deliberation produces benefits for individuals and, if so, how durable are these gains. This doctoral dissertation project explores the plausibility of typical individual-level benefits of deliberation by comparing a control group and three different treatment groups that participate in some form of deliberation. The treatment groups include: a group that only watches deliberation, a group that participates in a non-hierarchical and informal discussion, and a group that participates in a rigorously moderated and highly structured deliberation. The hypotheses indicate that different treatment conditions will have different effects on the existence of the two types of individual benefits: civic and educative. It is expected that more tightly organized deliberation will cultivate educative benefits for the participating individuals, whereas it may inhibit the formation of civic benefits.
This experiment has important implications not only within deliberative democratic theory, but also in relation to mainstream versions of democratic theory, as well. First, the experimental situation provides a rigorous testing of primary assumptions in the deliberative literature. Namely, is deliberation superior to other forms of communication in democratic decision making, such as bargaining or simply voting on preferences? Does deliberation produce benefits at the individual level, a group level, both, or neither? If so, what benefits are there, and are they worth a reexamination of democratic process? These questions may not be fully testable in quasi-experimental designs or fieldwork. Second, positive findings (i.e., that deliberation does produce positive individual benefits) could bolster the deliberative project in the face of claims that the deliberative project is utopian. Many critics acknowledge the desirability of deliberation in an abstract sense, but doubt that these touted benefits would emerge in real-life settings. If this experiment can prove that the benefits of deliberative democracy are both desirable and plausible, then the deliberative project will become more attractive to academics and deliberative theorists. However, the project goes beyond the intellectual impacts mentioned above by having the possibility of broader implications, as well. Namely, deliberative theorists push for deliberative reforms that try to include the active voice of the citizenry in the decision making process. If deliberation can be proven to have good benefits for both the deliberators and their society, then deliberative reforms could be viewed as more desirable by politicians and the public. It could lead to a more truly democratic decision-making process.
