Editing Science and technology studies (section)

===Deliberative democracy===
[[Deliberative democracy]] is a reform of [[representative democracy|representative]] or [[direct democracy|direct]] democracies which mandates discussion and debate of popular topics which affect society.  Deliberative democracy is a tool for making decisions.  Deliberative democracy can be traced back all the way to [[Corpus Aristotelicum|Aristotle's writings]]. More recently, the term was coined by Joseph Bessette in his 1980 work ''Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government'', where he uses the idea in opposition to the elitist interpretations of the [[United States Constitution]] with emphasis on public discussion.<ref name="Bohman">{{cite journal|last1=Bohman|first1=James|title=The Coming of Age of Deliberative Democracy|journal=[[The Journal of Political Philosophy]]|date=1998|volume=6|issue=4|pages=400–425|doi=10.1111/1467-9760.00061}}</ref>

Deliberative democracy can lead to more legitimate, credible, and trustworthy outcomes. Deliberative democracy allows for "a wider range of public knowledge", and it has been argued that this can lead to "more socially intelligent and robust" science. One major shortcoming of deliberative democracy is that many models insufficiently ensure critical interaction.<ref name="Chilvers">{{cite journal|last1=Chilvers|first1=Jason|title=Deliberating Competence, Theoretical and Practitioners Perspectives on Effective Participatory Appraisal Practice|journal=[[Science, Technology, & Human Values]]|date=March 2008|volume=33|issue=2|doi=10.1177/01622439073075941|s2cid=220724507|url=http://sth.sagepub.com|access-date=April 21, 2015|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

According to Ryfe, there are five mechanisms that stand out as critical to the successful design of deliberative democracy:
*Rules of equality, civility, and inclusivity may prompt deliberation even when our first impulse is to avoid it.
*Stories anchor reality by organizing experience and instilling a normative commitment to civic identities and values, and function as a medium for framing discussions.
*Leadership provides important cues to individuals in deliberative settings and can keep groups on a deliberative track when their members slip into routine and habit.
*Individuals are more likely to sustain deliberative reasoning when they have a stake in the outcomes.
*Apprenticeship teaches citizens to deliberate well. We might do well to imagine education as a form of apprenticeship learning, in which individuals learn to deliberate by doing it in concert with others more skilled in the activity.<ref name="Ryfe">{{cite journal|last1=Ryfe|first1=David M.|title=Does Deliberative Democracy Work?|journal=[[Annual Review of Political Science]]|date=March 4, 2005|volume=8|pages=63–64|doi=10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.032904.154633 |s2cid=55726761|doi-access=free}}</ref>

==== Importance ====
Recently,{{when|date=January 2018}} there has been a movement towards greater transparency in the fields of policy and technology. Jasanoff comes to the conclusion that there is no longer a question of if there needs to be increased public participation in making decisions about science and technology, but now there need to be ways to make a more meaningful conversation between the public and those developing the technology.<ref name="Jasanoff">{{cite journal|last1=Jasanoff|first1=Sheila|title=Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science|journal=Minerva|date=2003|volume=41|issue=3|pages=223–244 |doi=10.1023/A:1025557512320|s2cid=14370392}}</ref>

==== In practice ====
[[Bruce Ackerman]] and [[James S. Fishkin]] offered an example of a reform in their paper "Deliberation Day." The deliberation is to enhance public understanding of popular, complex and controversial issues through devices such as Fishkin's [[deliberative polling]],<ref>{{cite web|last1=Ackerman|first1=Bruce|last2=Fishkin|first2=James S.|title=Deliberation Day|url=https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/media/news/2004/03/10/586/deliberation-day/|website=Center for American Progress|access-date=April 21, 2015|date=2004-03-10}}</ref> though implementation of these reforms is unlikely in a large government such as that of the United States. However, things similar to this have been implemented in small, local governments like [[New England]] towns and villages. New England town hall meetings are a good example of [[deliberative democracy]] in a realistic setting.<ref name="Bohman"/>

An ideal deliberative democracy balances the voice and influence of all participants. While the main aim is to reach consensus, deliberative democracy should encourage the voices of those with opposing viewpoints, concerns due to uncertainties, and questions about assumptions made by other participants. It should take its time and ensure that those participating understand the topics on which they debate. Independent managers of debates should also have a substantial grasp of the concepts discussed, but must "[remain] independent and impartial as to the outcomes of the process."<ref name="Chilvers"/>