Favorable Conditions for Epistemic Validity in Deliberative Experiments: A Methodological Assesment

Didier Caluwaerts, Juan Esteban Ugarriza Uribe

Resultado de la investigación: Contribución a RevistaArtículo

Resumen

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.
Idioma originalEnglish
Número de artículo6
Páginas (desde-hasta)1 - 19
Número de páginas19
PublicaciónJournal of Public Deliberation
Volumen8
N.º1
EstadoPublished - abr 16 2012

Concepts

  • Concepto

Citar esto

@article{dc1e5a823cca438e88836af3c130d1c0,
title = "Favorable Conditions for Epistemic Validity in Deliberative Experiments: A Methodological Assesment",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Didier Caluwaerts and {Ugarriza Uribe}, {Juan Esteban}",
year = "2012",
month = "4",
day = "16",
language = "Ingl{\'e}s",
volume = "8",
pages = "1 -- 19",
journal = "Journal of Public Deliberation",
issn = "1937-2841",
publisher = "Berkeley Electronic Press",
number = "1",

}

Favorable Conditions for Epistemic Validity in Deliberative Experiments: A Methodological Assesment. / Caluwaerts, Didier; Ugarriza Uribe, Juan Esteban.

En: Journal of Public Deliberation, Vol. 8, N.º 1, 6, 16.04.2012, p. 1 - 19.

Resultado de la investigación: Contribución a RevistaArtículo

TY - JOUR

T1 - Favorable Conditions for Epistemic Validity in Deliberative Experiments: A Methodological Assesment

AU - Caluwaerts, Didier

AU - Ugarriza Uribe, Juan Esteban

PY - 2012/4/16

Y1 - 2012/4/16

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

M3 - Artículo

VL - 8

SP - 1

EP - 19

JO - Journal of Public Deliberation

JF - Journal of Public Deliberation

SN - 1937-2841

IS - 1

M1 - 6

ER -