首页> 外文学位 >Deliberative democracy: How dialogue structures policy preferences for health system reform.
【24h】

Deliberative democracy: How dialogue structures policy preferences for health system reform.

机译:协商民主:对话如何构成卫生系统改革的政策偏好。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Despite normative theoretical claims of the virtues of deliberative democracy, increasing adoption of deliberative designs and growing attention from researchers, there remains a significant gap between theory, practice and empirical understanding of public deliberation. This research addresses how deliberative forums effect changes in policy preferences for health system reform by considering the context and processes of deliberation. Building on a rudimentary conceptual framework based in normative theories of deliberative democracy, quantitative and qualitative analysis of three facilitated dialogues provides insight into the meanings and values that underlie preference shifts as participants are exposed to new information and diverse perspectives.;Devolution of health policy and discretionary spending decisions to states requires that citizens be engaged in decision-making to gain both a better understanding of public preferences and greater stability in public judgment. This research makes a modest contribution to understanding the communicative mechanisms that underlie deliberative outcomes, and suggests how facilitated dialogue among citizens may provide a basis for anticipating how the general public will resolve health policy issues. More broadly, the conceptual framework it advances proposes the efficacy of deliberative forums to broaden civic participation and generate solutions to other policy problems. Insights derived from the analysis and the conceptual framework contribute to an expanded understanding of deliberative democracy that is salient for researchers, public administrators, and health policy analysts and suggest areas for further research.;The findings confirm the significance of deliberative process and content, and add a third distinct dimension which focuses on participants. Within each dimension, key elements salient to the generation of deliberative outcomes were identified. Elements of process included creation of the deliberative environment; facilitators' role; relationship between identity, experience and narratives; and, relative influence of engagement and participation. Elements of content included linkages between facts and values; influence of background information; the nature of participant narratives; reconciliation of divergent perspectives; the nature of reasoned arguments and their contestation. Participant-related elements included individual and shared identity; the relationship between identity and privileged knowledge; and, personal experience of both the health care system and government.
机译:尽管规范性理论主张审议性民主的优点,对审议性设计的采用日益增加以及研究人员的关注度不断提高,但在理论,实践和对公共审议的实证理解之间仍然存在巨大差距。这项研究通过考虑审议的背景和过程,探讨了讨论论坛如何影响卫生系统改革的政策偏好变化。在基于协商民主规范性理论的基本概念框架的基础上,对三种便利对话的定量和定性分析提供了对含义和价值的洞察,这些含义和价值是随着参与者接触新信息和新观点而导致偏好转变的基础。对各州的自由支配支出决策要求公民参与决策,以更好地理解公共偏好并提高公共判断的稳定性。这项研究为理解作为审议结果基础的沟通机制做出了适度的贡献,并提出了公民之间的便利对话如何为预期公众将如何解决卫生政策问题提供基础。更广泛地说,它提出的概念框架提出了协商论坛的作用,以扩大公民的参与并为其他政策问题提供解决方案。从分析和概念框架中得出的见解有助于加深对审议民主的理解,这对于研究人员,公共行政人员和卫生政策分析师来说是重要的,并为进一步研究提出了建议。这些发现证实了审议过程和内容的重要性,以及添加第三个不同维度,重点关注参与者。在每个维度内,确定了产生协商结果的重要要素。过程的要素包括创造商议环境;促进者的作用;身份,经验和叙述之间的关系;以及参与和参与的相对影响。内容的要素包括事实与价值之间的联系;背景信息的影响;参与者叙述的性质;调和不同观点;合理论证的性质及其争论。与参与者有关的要素包括个人身份和共同身份;身份与特权知识之间的关系;以及卫生保健系统和政府的个人经验。

著录项

  • 作者

    Rissi, Jill Jamison.;

  • 作者单位

    Arizona State University.;

  • 授予单位 Arizona State University.;
  • 学科 Political Science General.;Education Health.;Political Science Public Administration.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2008
  • 页码 288 p.
  • 总页数 288
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-17 11:39:11

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号