Favorable conditions for epistemic validity in deliberative experiments : A methodological assesment
Methodological evaluations of deliberative mini-publics usually focus on the internal and external validity of experimental designs. Even though such a focus on causal inference and generalization is important, it is incomplete. We argue that the epistemic validity of experimental designs should als...
- Autores:
- Tipo de recurso:
- Fecha de publicación:
- 2012
- Institución:
- Universidad del Rosario
- Repositorio:
- Repositorio EdocUR - U. Rosario
- Idioma:
- spa
- OAI Identifier:
- oai:repository.urosario.edu.co:10336/18618
- Acceso en línea:
- http://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/18618
- Palabra clave:
- deliberative democracy
epistemic proceduralism
experimental methodology
cognitive diversity.
- Rights
- License
- Abierto (Texto Completo)
id |
EDOCUR2_199bb3c4c80a7450259337e8f7ee7712 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repository.urosario.edu.co:10336/18618 |
network_acronym_str |
EDOCUR2 |
network_name_str |
Repositorio EdocUR - U. Rosario |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Grupo de Investigación en Derechos HumanosUgarriza Uribe, Juan EstebanCaluwaerts, DidierUgarriza, Juan E.Caluwaerts, Didier71785570600421f5408-9192-44e4-bb9a-fb3dbb3604db-12018-10-05T16:58:07Z2018-10-05T16:58:07Z20122012Methodological evaluations of deliberative mini-publics usually focus on the internal and external validity of experimental designs. Even though such a focus on causal inference and generalization is important, it is incomplete. We argue that the epistemic validity of experimental designs should also be taken into account in order to ensure measuring truly a deliberative exercise rather than just a regular discussion. By ensuring the inclusion and publicity of all arguments, the process of arguing back-and-forth between multiple positions is theoretically claimed to generate better outcomes and should therefore be validated along epistemic lines. Here, we suggest some methodological techniques for enabling the epistemic validity assumption of deliberative experimental designs. These techniques relate to the sampling of the groups and the treatments they receive.application/pdfISSN 1937-2841http://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/18618spa20No. 11Journal of Public DeliberationVol. 8Journal of Public Deliberation, ISSN 1937-2841, Vol. 8 No.1, Art.6, (2012); pp. 1-20https://www.publicdeliberation.net/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1183&context=jpdAbierto (Texto Completo)http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/issn/1937-2841/es/http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2instname:Universidad del Rosarioreponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocURdeliberative democracyepistemic proceduralismexperimental methodologycognitive diversity.Favorable conditions for epistemic validity in deliberative experiments : A methodological assesmentarticleArtículohttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501ORIGINALPDF52.pdfapplication/pdf186479https://repository.urosario.edu.co/bitstreams/e67d78e5-9927-457b-a0bd-4153f37c1bae/downloadf20422cb706bc2f0aa31180e71fdf94bMD51TEXTPDF52.pdf.txtPDF52.pdf.txtExtracted texttext/plain53056https://repository.urosario.edu.co/bitstreams/55cdf4a3-1915-4ea5-8fae-423229e05f8a/downloadddff4c30e8d3c7c14d9e0c7dca669c7fMD52THUMBNAILPDF52.pdf.jpgPDF52.pdf.jpgGenerated Thumbnailimage/jpeg2775https://repository.urosario.edu.co/bitstreams/6f0746d0-1e94-4da0-b44c-af7a85820f0a/downloadeab0728ca759d049ebc0f962eb6321c1MD5310336/18618oai:repository.urosario.edu.co:10336/186182021-06-03 00:48:09.353http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/issn/1937-2841/es/https://repository.urosario.edu.coRepositorio institucional EdocURedocur@urosario.edu.co |
dc.title.spa.fl_str_mv |
Favorable conditions for epistemic validity in deliberative experiments : A methodological assesment |
title |
Favorable conditions for epistemic validity in deliberative experiments : A methodological assesment |
spellingShingle |
Favorable conditions for epistemic validity in deliberative experiments : A methodological assesment deliberative democracy epistemic proceduralism experimental methodology cognitive diversity. |
title_short |
Favorable conditions for epistemic validity in deliberative experiments : A methodological assesment |
title_full |
Favorable conditions for epistemic validity in deliberative experiments : A methodological assesment |
title_fullStr |
Favorable conditions for epistemic validity in deliberative experiments : A methodological assesment |
title_full_unstemmed |
Favorable conditions for epistemic validity in deliberative experiments : A methodological assesment |
title_sort |
Favorable conditions for epistemic validity in deliberative experiments : A methodological assesment |
dc.contributor.gruplac.spa.fl_str_mv |
Grupo de Investigación en Derechos Humanos |
dc.subject.keyword.spa.fl_str_mv |
deliberative democracy epistemic proceduralism experimental methodology cognitive diversity. |
topic |
deliberative democracy epistemic proceduralism experimental methodology cognitive diversity. |
description |
Methodological evaluations of deliberative mini-publics usually focus on the internal and external validity of experimental designs. Even though such a focus on causal inference and generalization is important, it is incomplete. We argue that the epistemic validity of experimental designs should also be taken into account in order to ensure measuring truly a deliberative exercise rather than just a regular discussion. By ensuring the inclusion and publicity of all arguments, the process of arguing back-and-forth between multiple positions is theoretically claimed to generate better outcomes and should therefore be validated along epistemic lines. Here, we suggest some methodological techniques for enabling the epistemic validity assumption of deliberative experimental designs. These techniques relate to the sampling of the groups and the treatments they receive. |
publishDate |
2012 |
dc.date.created.none.fl_str_mv |
2012 |
dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv |
2012 |
dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-10-05T16:58:07Z |
dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-10-05T16:58:07Z |
dc.type.eng.fl_str_mv |
article |
dc.type.coarversion.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 |
dc.type.coar.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 |
dc.type.spa.spa.fl_str_mv |
Artículo |
dc.identifier.issn.none.fl_str_mv |
ISSN 1937-2841 |
dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv |
http://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/18618 |
identifier_str_mv |
ISSN 1937-2841 |
url |
http://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/18618 |
dc.language.iso.spa.fl_str_mv |
spa |
language |
spa |
dc.relation.citationEndPage.none.fl_str_mv |
20 |
dc.relation.citationIssue.none.fl_str_mv |
No. 1 |
dc.relation.citationStartPage.none.fl_str_mv |
1 |
dc.relation.citationTitle.none.fl_str_mv |
Journal of Public Deliberation |
dc.relation.citationVolume.none.fl_str_mv |
Vol. 8 |
dc.relation.ispartof.spa.fl_str_mv |
Journal of Public Deliberation, ISSN 1937-2841, Vol. 8 No.1, Art.6, (2012); pp. 1-20 |
dc.relation.uri.spa.fl_str_mv |
https://www.publicdeliberation.net/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1183&context=jpd |
dc.rights.coar.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 |
dc.rights.acceso.spa.fl_str_mv |
Abierto (Texto Completo) |
dc.rights.uri.none.fl_str_mv |
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/issn/1937-2841/es/ |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Abierto (Texto Completo) http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/issn/1937-2841/es/ http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 |
dc.format.mimetype.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
institution |
Universidad del Rosario |
dc.source.instname.none.fl_str_mv |
instname:Universidad del Rosario |
dc.source.reponame.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocUR |
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv |
https://repository.urosario.edu.co/bitstreams/e67d78e5-9927-457b-a0bd-4153f37c1bae/download https://repository.urosario.edu.co/bitstreams/55cdf4a3-1915-4ea5-8fae-423229e05f8a/download https://repository.urosario.edu.co/bitstreams/6f0746d0-1e94-4da0-b44c-af7a85820f0a/download |
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv |
f20422cb706bc2f0aa31180e71fdf94b ddff4c30e8d3c7c14d9e0c7dca669c7f eab0728ca759d049ebc0f962eb6321c1 |
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv |
MD5 MD5 MD5 |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositorio institucional EdocUR |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
edocur@urosario.edu.co |
_version_ |
1814167711740067840 |