|This centre is a member of The LSE Research Laboratory [RLAB]: CASE | CVER | CEP | SERC | STICERD||Cookies?|
Paper No' CASE/159: | Full paper
Save Reference as: BibTeX File | EndNote Import File
Keywords: deliberative research; value judgements, capability approach, inequality, research design
JEL Classification: B50
Is hard copy/paper copy available? YES - Paper Copy Still In Print.
This Paper is published under the following series: CASE Papers
Share this page: Google Bookmarks | Facebook | Twitter
Abstract:The ‘deliberative turn’ in democratic theory has generated a wealth of deliberative experiments. The purpose of deliberation as a research technique (as opposed to policymaking or public consultation) is distinctive: to uncover the public’s informed, considered, and collective view on a normative question. In the social science context, this often arises in relation to research on poverty, well-being and inequality, where there is a need to define and justify the thresholds and concepts adopted on a deeper basis than convention alone can offer. This paper compares deliberative research to more traditional methods of studying the values of the general public, such as in-depth interviewing, attitudinal surveys, and participatory approaches, and reveals that deliberative designs involve a number of assumptions, including a strong fact/value distinction, an emphasis on ‘outsider’ expertise, and a view of participants as essentially similar to each other rather than defined by socio-demographic differences. Normative decisions permeate the design and implementation of deliberative research, so while it has the potential to provide uniquely considered, insightful and well-justified answers to the problem of defining a collective position on key questions in social science, transparency at all stages of the process is essential.
Copyright © RLAB & LSE 2003 - 2017 | LSE, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE | Contact: RLAB | Site updated 27 February 2017