Favorable Conditions to Epistemic Validity in Deliberative Experiments: A Methodological Assessment

Didier Caluwaerts, Juan Esteban Ugarriza Uribe

Resultado de la investigación: Contribución a RevistaArtículo

10 Downloads (Pure)

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 (US)
Número de artículo16
Páginas (desde-hasta)1
Número de páginas19
PublicaciónJournal of Public Deliberation
Volumen8
N.º1
EstadoPublished - abr 20 2012

Huella dactilar

experiment
publicity
inclusion
evaluation
Group

Citar esto

Caluwaerts, Didier ; Ugarriza Uribe, Juan Esteban. / Favorable Conditions to Epistemic Validity in Deliberative Experiments: A Methodological Assessment. En: Journal of Public Deliberation. 2012 ; Vol. 8, N.º 1. pp. 1.
@article{7afa67daddfb4b089220d84410cdad44,
title = "Favorable Conditions to Epistemic Validity in Deliberative Experiments: A Methodological Assessment",
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 generatebetter 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 = "20",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
pages = "1",
number = "1",

}

Caluwaerts, D & Ugarriza Uribe, JE 2012, 'Favorable Conditions to Epistemic Validity in Deliberative Experiments: A Methodological Assessment', Journal of Public Deliberation, vol. 8, n.º 1, 16, pp. 1.

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

En: Journal of Public Deliberation, Vol. 8, N.º 1, 16, 20.04.2012, p. 1.

Resultado de la investigación: Contribución a RevistaArtículo

TY - JOUR

T1 - Favorable Conditions to Epistemic Validity in Deliberative Experiments: A Methodological Assessment

AU - Caluwaerts, Didier

AU - Ugarriza Uribe, Juan Esteban

PY - 2012/4/20

Y1 - 2012/4/20

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 generatebetter 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 generatebetter 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.

UR - http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol8/iss1/

M3 - Article

VL - 8

SP - 1

IS - 1

M1 - 16

ER -