CONVERSATION, CONVERGENCE, CONSENSUS: TEMPERING DISAGREEMENT WITH DELIBERATION

Eric “Harry” Brisson

December 20th, 2010

At the core of all democratic problems is the concept of disagreement. Without

disagreement, governance would be as simple and straightforward as could be; it then

follows that being able to build consensus among disparate opinions is desirable to improve

the a government’s ability to serve the will of its people. One widely practiced method of

addressing disagreement and building consensus is deliberation.

It is critical to effectively deal with disagreement in order to incorporate the voices of

individuals into the design of policy. Deliberation grants individuals the opportunity to

better understand policies and convey their own thoughts to others. This provides the

opportunity, in particular, for individuals to heighten their perspective, to increase their

appreciation for democratic ideals, and to build a consensus upon which popular policy can

be adopted.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Disagreement has long been acknowledged as an unfortunate presence in American

politics. Madison, in his Federalist 10, observes that they are impossible to eliminate without

infringing on either personal liberties (undesirable) or diversities of thought and perspective

(unfeasible); therefore, he proposes that instead a government should aim to manage the

effects of factions in government (Madison). One government style that political scientists

Brisson 2

examine for its ability to comfortably maintain, and even address, disagreement is the

deliberative democracy.

In order to be considered a deliberative democracy, a government must meet four

criteria: (1.) representatives use a moral rationale to guide their legislative actions; (2.)

rationale is public, transparent, and comprehensible to the represented; (3.) decisions are

“binding,” affecting discourse participants; and (4.) reflection and continued dialogue allow

for reversal of policy (Gutmann and Thomson 3-6).

Advocates of the deliberative democracy point to its strengths: increasing the

perceived legitimacy of decisions out of sync with personal beliefs, promoting a broader

public interest in ideology, fostering tolerance of opposing ideas through exposure to more

merit-based arguments, and permitting arguments to be tested, analyzed, and modified in an

open forum (10-13). They also speak to the power of deliberation to educate citizens and

building a common identity among otherwise diverse groups (Sanders 350-351). Further,

they point to the weaknesses of a rival aggregate democratic system: lacks of capacities to

revise opinions, challenging distribution of power, or reviewing the decisive process, as well

as a inherent bias toward economic indicators (Gutmann and Thomson 13-20).

Critics of deliberative democracy, though, point out “a clear tendency for political

discussions to be carried out intra- rather than inter-social groups [about] what is congenial

to their own point of view” (Berelson 323). This is problematic because groups of like-

minded individuals are more susceptible to extreme shifts, due to asymmetrical exposure to

pro-con arguments, maintenance of overall relative position in smaller groups, and

reiteration of positions building confidence (Sunstein 121). Other critics emphasize that the

democratic quality of a deliberative democracy is dependent on unfulfilled assumptions, such

as the absence of prejudices and the equal distribution of time, money, education, and

Brisson 3

rhetorical savvy (Sanders). With these assumptions unfulfilled, deliberative democracy

becomes undemocratic and reinforces existing power structures -- harming the very people

its proponents intend to help.

Ultimately, deliberation is only positive if its participants are not only reasoned but

also willing to engage opposition with an open mind (and willing to look past inequities in

ability to communicate ideas, seeing merit). Voters have been seen to behave rationally in

presidential elections (Key 8), but they have also been observed to discuss politics with

primarily self-affirming parties. Institutionalizing discourse among diverse groups may serve

to improve citizens’ ability to represent themselves with their ballots.

The Participants

One approach to political participation emphasizes factors somewhat within an

American citizen’s civic skills and awareness, such as political knowledge (Cook et al), media

attentiveness (Goidel and Nisbet) or organizational involvement (Brady et al; Cook et al;

Goidel and Nisbet). A model that relies on factors that can be altered through the agency of

individuals suggests that individuals choose to or not to participate, rather than being

constrained from participating. There are also factors that are beyond the control of

individuals, most commonly time and money (Cook et al). These factors can bar certain

groups from adequate participation in deliberations, leading to an inherently undemocratic

democracy.

Another approach examines the channels of discourse themselves, determining their

effect on participation in elections. Heterogeneous pools of individuals can have the effect

of not only postponing decision-making but also decreasing voting behaviors (Mutz). These

correlations, however weak, are concerning when diversity in discussions is prescribed to

fight extremism.

Brisson 4

Policy decisions and the manner in which they are presented can affect the

participation of individuals. For example, when senior citizens felt that their social security

was threatened, they increased their participation through increased meeting attendance and

contacting of representatives (Campbell).

The Process

While deliberation is seen by many to be an inherent positive force in democracy, the

effects of interactions and exchanges among citizens are consistently judged. Scholars have

approached this issue with different perspectives and drawn different conclusions. Various

benefits have been observed to take place in deliberative settings. Studies have found to

improve citizen understanding of issues by exposing deliberators to varied perspectives

(Button and Mattson; Fishkin and Farrar). Deliberation also decreases the influence of elites

when the deliberation takes place before exposure to elite opinions (Druckman and Nelson).

Another observed effect was increased moderation and nuance of understanding under

certain deliberative settings (Barabas).

Other studies have found the exact opposite, that deliberation instead creates

increased extremism (Sussman). This contradiction can be explained by varying definitions

of “deliberation,” and whether participants held an open mind during their participation.

Deliberation has been observed to increase inequities related to race (Mendelberg and

Oleske). The effects of deliberation, then, cannot be taken to be intrinsically positive;

indeed, in contexts, outcomes are negative.

Clearly there are multitudinous effects of deliberation, but some of these effects are

not clear. When citizens group and discuss issues of relevance, the construction of the

deliberation seems to significantly impact outcomes.

Brisson 5

Our Question

The questions that we intend to explore in this paper are as follows: First, under

what conditions is deliberation most effective in crafting consensus? Second, to what degree

is the success dependent on the structure of the deliberation and to what degree is it

dependent on the participants? Finally, can everyone benefit from deliberation?

RESEARCH DESIGN

As is displayed in Table 1, the research design we conducted was a panel in which

there were three stages: a first campus-wide poll, a deliberative forum, and a second campus-

wide poll. Overall, 1,259 students (61.7% of the student body) participated in the design in

some capacity. The first and third stages reached out to the entire campus as a whole, while

the second stage reached out only to those who had responded to the first survey. Almost

all (658 of 682) participants in the first cross-sectional survey were invited to participate in

the deliberative forum. An ID number was used to track participants across the range of

their participation.

The first campus-wide survey -- Big Red Poll -- was a series of questions submitted

to the entire Denison student body, and it includes 902 cases. The survey had over 100

questions, and it was sent to students on September 15, 20, and 23 in 2010. Data was

collected up through Monday, September 27. The sample for the Big Red Poll was intended

to represent Denison’s campus as accurately as possible, particularly by using different

subject lines to appeal to different demographic audiences. In the end, this survey yielded

681 complete responses and 221 partial responses for a response rate of 44.2%.

Brisson 6

The second stage was a forum held in the evening for an hour on November 9 and

10; 658 were invited, 316 RSVPd (48%), 159 indicated a willingness to attend (50.3% of

those who RSVPd, 24.2% of those invited), and 116 (73%) did in fact show up on one of

those nights. In the forum, willing participants were randomly assigned to groups, though

modifications were made by hand to ensure a balance across groups in the gender majority

and in the starting level of opinion on the issue to be deliberated. Groups were designed

intending to maintain a group average opinion that remained within 1.5 points of the scale

midpoint of 5 using a 0-10 scale. In the end, not everyone who had RSPVed for the forum

actually attended the forum, and some groups were merged at the last minute to ensure

enough people to deliberate. Forum participants were asked a short series of questions

before the forum and a more extensive set after the forum. Using the responses of

deliberation participants before and after, the effects of the deliberation on the individuals

can be considered. This constitutes a "within-groups" experimental design.

The final stage was a second survey, first administered Nov 19 and open for two

weeks with three reminders sent to the entire campus. Of the 1384 invitations sent to those

who did not complete the first survey, we received 344 complete and partial responses

(24.9%). Of the 656 invitations to those who completed the first survey, 323 also completed

the second campus-wide survey as well (49.2%; and 357 completed some part of it for a

54.4% response rate). Of the 116 forum participants, 90 (77.6%) completed the final survey.

The total response rate for wave 3 was 34.4% (701/2040).

HYPOTHESES

There are nine hypotheses that I look to explore in this paper. The first five deal

with who benefits most from deliberations in terms of opinion convergence, perspective

Brisson 7

enhancement, and increased appreciation of the process. These hypotheses are

operationalized in variables found in Table 2 and ultimately explored through the use of

OLS regression, found in Table 3. This technique is used to determine how the different

variables are able to effect the success of deliberations when each of the other variables are

held constant.

H1: Student personality characteristics predispose them to deliberation benefits.

H2: Students from open networks will be more likely to benefit from deliberation.

H3: Students who are more attentive to campus affairs will have less to gain from deliberation.

H4: Participants who value democratic norms will get the most out of deliberations.

H5: Diversely involved students will gain more from deliberative settings.

The final hypotheses relate to deliberation’s effects on disagreement. Most of the

prior studies done on deliberation have dealt with multiple people on one side becoming

more extreme, but less has been explored regarding the reactions of deliberators in a more

heterogeneous deliberative group. Figure 1 shows how not all deliberations met ideal

conditions.

H6: Deliberation will temper disagreement and lead to opinion convergence.

H7: Deliberation will reinforce support for democratic norms.

H8: Deliberation will lead to a broadening of perspective for participants.

H9: Deliberation in disagreeing groups will lead to great moderation of opinion.

ANALYSIS

Table 3 tests hypotheses one through five, and none of these hypotheses are strongly

supported by our data. This is not necessarily because these hypotheses are false, though;

the relationships between the independent variables and the dependent variables could

Brisson 8

simply be too subtle to detect with an N of merely 116. To account for this possibility,

coefficients significant at even under the 20% level are marked with an asterisk.

H1: Student personality characteristics predispose them to deliberation benefits.

As can be seen in Table 3, personality is relatively significant in the cases of opinion

convergence and increased appreciation of process. It seems very expected that

agreeableness would increase an individual’s propensity to soften their opinion in a

deliberative setting. This relationship is almost equivocal, and it is surprising that it is not

stronger in our data; part of what could explain this is that agreeable respondents also start

off with moderate opinions, so they end up not moving significantly toward the mean simply

because they start there.

More interesting and unexpected, though, is that openness to experience actually

decreases an individual’s propensity to improve their appreciation for democratic norms

after participating in a deliberative forum. This is surprising, as openness to experience

seems to suggest that an individual might be more willing to reassess the value of

deliberation after taking part in one. This could be explained by respondents with high

openness to experience also having higher initial appreciations for democratic norms, which

make it more difficult for them strengthen their position.

H2: Students from open, heterogeneous networks will be more likely to benefit from deliberation.

In Table 3, we see no significant correlation between any of the three dependent

variables and either of the network variables. This is optimistic news, as it means that even

those who have little background engaging in disagreement still can get all the same benefits

from deliberation, particularly gaining a higher appreciation for activities like deliberative

forums. If only those who already were in groups where they were exposed to new ideas

Brisson 9

benefited from deliberations, then it would be easy for those who aren’t exposed to diverse

thought to be alienated from the process.

H3: Students who are more attentive to campus affairs will have less to gain from deliberation.

We see a relatively significant connection between Table 3, but in the reverse

direction of what we anticipated. Those who are attentive to campus affairs were less likely

to improve their appreciation of democratic norms. This could be explained because those

who are more keenly aware of campus affairs perhaps were even disappointed by the forum

and how uninformed their peers were, and this could have reduced their faith in the

usefulness of a deliberative model in addressing policy problems.

H4: Participants who value democratic norms will get the most out of deliberations.

This hypothesis is supported by a relatively significant relationship between a

respondent’s appreciation for democratic norms and their likelihood of having a converging

opinion. This seems very reasonable as those who appreciate the importance of different

opinions are also more likely to soften their opinions to accommodate the mean.

Deliberators who acknowledge the validity and usefulness of different positions should be

expected to work themselves toward the consensus or mean point.

H5: Diversely involved students will gain more from deliberative settings.

Our model suggests that this could actually be the opposite of what is true. Table 3

shows organizational experience (which is the simple number of organizations in which a

respondent participates) as a factor that decreases their likelihood of moving closer toward

the mean and converging their opinion. This means that those who are heavily involved are

more resistant to the mean opinion. It is perhaps true that being involved with a wide

variety of extracurricular activities gives them confidence to hold an opinion that deviates

significantly from the mean even after a deliberation.

Brisson 10

H6: Deliberation will temper disagreement and moderate perspectives.

In Figure 2, we see a slight tendency for deliberations to lead to opinion

convergence; however, this difference between variances (.1285) is not significant with the

number of observations we have available to us. With a larger sample size, it is possible that

we would be able to accurately detect significance to this slight difference in variance.

This observation is important, as it shows that all deliberations do not necessarily

bring people closer to each other; indeed, we see in Figure 1 that nearly a third of

deliberations conducted did not result in opinion convergence, with eight deliberations

actually resulting in the variance of opinions increasing. The idea that all deliberations

automatically bring people closer together clearly is not one grounded in reality. It is

important to make sure that we are designing our deliberations to this end if this is what we

would like to achieve.

H7: Deliberation will reinforce support for democratic norms.

We find support for this hypothesis in Figure 3, where we see that the difference in

means between pre-forum appreciation for democratic norms and post-forum appreciation

for democratic norms is a statistically significant .1856. This is good news. This means that

when respondents were confronted with disagreement, they generally left with a better

appreciation for disagreement rather than being upset by it.

It is also important to note, though, that this increase in appreciation of democratic

norms is very slight. Even though discussions were for less than one hour total, it is still

important to recognize that participating in a deliberation does not infuse respondents with

complete faith in the process – it only nudges them along and helps them appreciate new

ideas and disagreement. We should also recognize, though, that not every group

experienced an increase in mean appreciation for democratic norms; eight groups did not do

Brisson 11

so. Seeing this, it is important do what is possible to create a deliberative environment that

fosters an appreciation for diversity of thought.

H8: Deliberation will lead to a broadening of perspective for participants.

This hypothesis is most strongly confirmed by the data we collected. Significant at

less than 0.1%, the mean difference between the pre-forum surveys and the post-forum

surveys was a whopping 2.1715. Figure 4 demonstrates this shift clearly. In a way, even this

number still seems low. With all the new arguments one must hear within a deliberation, it

would seem that respondents would pull out more than just a couple of new arguments

afterwards. This is optimistic, though, and it taps into one of the key and critical strengths

of deliberations as educational tools. Deliberations help people understand other’s

perspectives and ideas, and this function of them is quite reassuring.

H9: Deliberation in disagreeing groups will lead to great moderation of opinion.

Figure 5 shows interesting details regarding the moderation of opinion throughout

the panel. We see the most moderation right before deliberations start, perhaps influenced

by the deliberate two-sidedness of the briefing materials (attached); we see the most

extremism in the final survey of the panel.

In the first poll, approximately 40.8% of students held a moderate opinion regarding

the policy proposal of reverting to a residential Greek system. This increased to one-and-a-

half times that much immediately before the forum. There a several possible explanations

for this: respondents had thought about the issue more unraveling some of the nuance and

complexity, respondents had read the briefing materials and thought about new elements of

the question, or the pre-deliberation mindset is particularly open to new ideas.

Brisson 12

After the forum, moderate positions fell by nearly 10% to about 50.9%. It seems

that even among disagreement-laden groups, there is a tendency for members to become

more extreme in their beliefs.

The most frightening result, though, is that in the second campus-wide poll we see

just as strong a divide between those who oppose and support the policy, but we see a

heightened extremism. Less than half of the percentage holding moderate positions prior to

the forum continue to do so, having decreased from 60.4% to 29.9%. Deliberation may

have strengthened individual’s confidence in their own positions, leading to a more heavily

polarized and even more divisive political battleground. If bringing students together to talk

about policy ultimately drives them apart, then deliberation may not be a desirable means of

approaching the development of policy solutions.

CONCLUSION

These findings are especially concerning when considered in the context of Denison

specifically. Figure 6 demonstrates how pervasive disagreement is on Denison’s campus.

On many issues, our student body is divided nearly into perfect halves. If we cannot bring

students together to share their own thoughts and have opinions converge, then it is

impossible to craft policy that serves more than half of the campus. It seems that even a one

hour deliberation on a policy does not significantly cause the convergence opinion, and this

sheds a lot of doubt on whether deliberation is an effective tool that will help Denison build

a consensus as to its own student identity.

These themes ring true on a larger political scale as well. When a policy is supported

by just over half of the populace, the other half lose their power to have policy that they

Brisson 13

support. By working towards government that can establish consensus, the country also

works toward a government that effectively represents more of its citizens.

APPENDIX A: TABLES

TABLE 1 Survey Respondents by Treatments

Poll #1 Forum Poll #2 N

Attended Forum …Poll #1 and #2 O D O 90 …Poll #1 Only O D -- 26 Did Not Attend Forum …Poll #1 Only O -- -- 473 …Poll #2 Only -- -- O 344 …Poll #1 and #2 O -- O 357 Total N 902 116 701 1,259

Source: The Big Red Poll 2010. Note: Not all respondents completed every question, resulting in a lower respondent numbers for some questions.

TABLE 2 Variable Descriptives

Variable N Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.

Opinion Convergence 116 -3 3.25 .085 1.225 Perspective Enhancement 115 -4 14 2.165 2.896 Appreciation of Process 116 -3 4 -.155 .947 Race (Black) 660 0 1 .07 .255 Gender (Female) 663 1 2 1.61 .488 Democratic Values 787 3 12 5.507 1.540 Civic Skills 668 0 4 2.078 1.486 Campus Attentiveness 802 0 8 3.291 2.071 Network Heterogeneity 802 0 12 7.089 2.791 Network Openness 802 0 3 1.201 1.142 Time: Academics 671 0 48 7.44 4.384 Time: Extracurriculars 671 0 20 3.19 2.175 Organizational Experience 656 0 10 3.360 1.721

Source: The Big Red Poll 2010. See Appendix B for full coding of variables.

Brisson 15

TABLE 3 Factors Influencing Susceptibility to Benefits of Deliberation

Opinion

Convergence Perspective

Enhancement Appreciation of

Process

Constant -.614 -1.222 .433

Biographical Factors

Race (Black) -.124 .097 -.067 Gender (Female) -.046 .060 .044

Behavioral Factors

Democratic Values .148 * .061 -.092 Civic Skills .068 .100 .132 Campus Attentiveness -.032 .008 -.165 * Network Heterogeneity -.045 .116 -.026 Network Openness -.095 -.070 .118 Time: Academic -.052 .049 -.073 Time: Extracurricular .099 -.134 .043 Organizational Experience -.152 * .107 .104

Personality Factors

Openness to Experience .047 -.035 -.155 * Agreeableness .151 * .035 .042 Source: The Big Red Poll 2010 (R2=.111, .060, .112) Significance: * < .20, ** < .10, and *** < .01. All coefficients provided with Beta weights

Brisson 16 APPENDIX B: FIGURES

FIGURE 1 Success of Deliberations in Achieving Group-Level Deliberation Ideals

Source: The Big Red Poll 2010 See Appendix C for coding details of group-level ideals.

FIGURE 2 Opinion Convergence Before and After Deliberations

Source: The Big Red Poll 2010 Note: Mean difference (.1285) lacks statistical significance (p=.461)

15

17

25

5

3

1

8

8

2

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Appreciation of Process

Opinion Convergence

Perspective Enhancement

Improvement No Change Deterioration

y = -0.1285x + 2.7093

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Op

inio

n V

ari

an

ce

Pre-Forum (1) Post-Forum (2)

Brisson 17

FIGURE 3 Appreciation of Democratic Norms Before and After Deliberations

Source: The Big Red Poll 2010 Note: Mean difference (.1856) significant at p<.10 See Appendix C for full coding of Appreciation of Democratic Norms Index

FIGURE 4 Number of Arguments Before and After Deliberations

Source: The Big Red Poll 2010 Note: Mean difference (2.1715) significant at p<.001

y = 0.1856x + 6.473

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

Ap

pre

cia

tio

n o

f D

em

ocr

ati

c N

orm

s In

de

x

Pre-Forum (1) Post-Forum (2)

y = 2.1715x + 6.3774

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Nu

mb

er

of

Arg

um

en

ts

Pre-Forum (1) Post-Forum (2)

Brisson 18

FIGURE 5 Changes in Stated Opinion Regarding Residential Greek Life

Source: The Big Red Poll 2010. Moderate positions bracketed for emphasis.

112

10

4

87

28

9

10

30

59

10

9

54

32

13

18

36

30

11

15

26

53

11

19

101

17

9

4

68

47

15

14

71

43

10

13

65

31

11

5

45

146

7

5

157

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Campus-Wide Poll #2

Post-Forum

Pre-Forum

Campus-Wide Poll #1

Support Oppose

40.8%

60.4%

50.9%

29.9%

Brisson 19

FIGURE 6 Disagreement at Denison: A Public Opinion Snapshot

Source: The Big Red Poll 2010.

72

68

38

89

117

85

94

96

126

156

172

125

121

113

161

150

93

137

82

102

74

44

54

39

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

"Denison Faculty should be required to report the names of

sexual assault victims to law enforcement."

"Students at Denison drink too much."

"Racial diversity should be a higher priority in

admissions."

"Denison Security should be less present in the residence halls."

Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree

Brisson 20

APPENDIX C: VARIABLE CODING AND SYNTAX

Perspective Enhancement

Respondents were asked to estimate the number of arguments that they could come up with

in support of and in opposition of the adoption of the following policy: “Fraternities and sororities

should be returned to residential status, meaning that Greek members would reclaim and occupy

houses on the North Quad beginning fall 2011.” To determine the degree of “Perspective

Enhancement,” the mean scores of pro and con arguments listed for each deliberative group were

calculated separately, and these scores were then aggregated to create one variable providing the

mean number of combined pro and con arguments. Finally, the pre-survey mean score was

subtracted from the post-survey mean to determine the change.

In Table 3, this is simply calculated on an individual level.

Opinion Variance, Opinion Convergence, Opinion Divergence

Respondents were asked to state their position regarding the following policy on an 11-point

scale: “Fraternities and sororities should be returned to residential status, meaning that Greek

members would reclaim and occupy houses on the North Quad beginning fall 2011.” For each

deliberative group, the variance (standard deviation) of opinions was calculated for both the pre- and

post-survey opinions. Opinion divergence/convergence is calculated by subtracting the pre-survey

variance from the post-survey variance; positive numbers indicate divergence, while negative

numbers indicate convergence.

On the individual level (Table 3), opinion convergence is calculated by determining the pre-

survey distance from the discussion group’s mean opinion and comparing it to the post-survey

distance from the group’s mean.

Appreciation of Democratic Norms Index, Appreciation of Process

Respondents stated their position on a scale of one to four on the following statements:

“Unless many points of view are presented, there is little chance that the truth can ever be known”;

“You really can't be sure whether an opinion is correct or not unless people are free to argue against

it”; and “You can't have a democracy without political opposition.” Responses were aggregated to

create a ten-point scale, with higher scores signifying great appreciation of democratic norms.

In Table 3, this is simply calculated on an individual level.

Brisson 21

Civic Skills Index

Respondents were asked if they had done the following: organized a meeting, given a formal

presentation, written a paper or article read by a group or the public, or been involved in a decision-

making meeting. Respondents were given one point for each activity, resulting in a five-point scale

from zero to four. Higher scores signify greater development of civic skills.

Campus Attentiveness Index

Respondents were asked which of the following activities they did to learn about campus

affairs: reading the Denisonian, reading the Bullsheet, attending student organization meetings,

talking with student organization leaders, talking with student senators, talking with involved

students, visiting the Denison website, or listening to WDUB. Respondents were given one point

for each activity they completed, creating a nine-point index that scaled from zero to eight.

Network Heterogeneity Index

This index is aggregated of five sub-scores: organizational homogeneity, racial homogeneity,

ideological homogeneity, gender homogeneity, and class year homogeneity. Respondents were

asked to name three peers with whom they discuss campus affairs, after which they were asked a

series of questions regarding these three discussion partners.

Organizational Homogeneity:

One point for each discussion partner in a common organization. (range 0 - 3)

Racial Homogeneity:

One point for each discussion partner of the same race. (range: 0 - 3)

Ideological Homogeneity:

Aggregate of “How often do you disagree about campus affairs?” (range: 3 - 9)

Gender Homogeneity:

One point for each discussion partner of the same gender. (range: 0 - 3)

Class Year Homogeneity:

One point for each discussion partner of the same class year. (range 0 - 3)

Brisson 22

The resulting index ranges from three to twenty-one, with higher numbers indicating a more

homogenous group. To reverse this, the index is subtracted from twenty-two to create an index that

ranges from one to nineteen with higher numbers indicating great heterogeneity within the

respondent’s discussion group.

Network Openness

Respondents were asked if the students they listed knew the others listed. Respondent

receives one point for each discussion partner who does not others listed.

Time: Academics

Respondents answered the following question: “Changing subjects, thinking about an

average day, please tell us how many hours a day do you spend doing the following at Denison:

attending courses and doing work related to classes?”

Time: Extracurricular Activities

Respondents answered the following question: “Changing subjects, thinking about an

average day, please tell us how many hours a day do you spend doing the following at Denison:

extracurricular activities, groups, and teams?”

Organizational Experience

Respondents answered the following question: “How many campus organizations (including

Greeks), teams, and activities are you involved in currently?”

Brisson 23

APPENDIX D: WORKS CITED

Barabas, Jason. 2004. “Virtual Deliberation: Knowledge from Online Interaction versus Ordinary

Discussion.” In Democracy Online: The Prospects for Democratic Renewal Through the Internet, ed.

Peter Shane. New York: Routledge, 239-52.

Barabas, Jason. 2004. “How Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions.” American Political Science Review 98

(4): 687–702.

Brady, Henry, Sidney Verba, and Kay Lehman Schlozman. 1995. “Beyond SES: A Resource Model

of Political Participation.” American Political Science Review 89 (2): 271–94.

Campbell, Andrea L. 2003. “Participatory reactions to policy threats: Senior citizens and the defense

of Social Security and Medicare.” Political Behavior 25(1): 29-49.

Cohen, Johua. 1989. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.” In The Good Policy, ed. Alan

Hamlin and Philip Pettit. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 17-34.

Cohen, Joshua. 1996. “Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy.” In Ideology and

Discontent, ed. David Apter. New York: Free Press.

Cook, Fay L., Michael X. Delli-Carpini, and Lawrence R. Jacobs. 2008. “Who Deliberates?

Discursive Participation in America.” IPR Working Paper WP-05-08.

Cook, Fay Lomax, and Lawrence R. Jacobs. 1998. Deliberative Democracy in Action: Evaluation of

Americans Discuss Social Security. Report to the few Charitable Trusts. Evanston, IL:

Northwestern University Institute for Policy Research.

Druckman, James N., and Kjersten R. Nelson. 2003. “Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens’

Conversations Limit Elite Influence.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (October): 729-

45.

Dryzek, John. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press.

Brisson 24

Gastil, John, and James P. Dillard. 1999. “Increasing Political Sophistication through Public

Deliberation.” Political Communication 16 (February): 3-23.

Gibson, James L. 1992. “The Political Consequences of Intolerance: Cultural Conformity and

Political Freedom.” American Political Science Review 86(2): 338-356.

Goidel, Kirby and Matthew Nisbet. 2006. “Exploring the Roots of Public Participation in the

Controversy Over Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Cloning.” Political Behavior 28(2):

175-192.

Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson, Democracy and Disagreement (Cambridge: Harvard

University Press, 1996)

Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson, Why Deliberative Democracy (Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 2004)

Manin, Bernard. 1987. “On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation.” Political Theory 15 (August):

339-68.

Tali Mendelberg, "The Deliberative Citizen: Theory and Evidence," in Political Decision-Making,

Deliberation and Participation, ed. Michael Delli Carpini (San Diego: Elsevier, 2002).

Mendelberg, Tali, and John Oleske. 2000. “Race and Public Deliberation” Political Communication 17

(April):169-91.

Mutz, Diana C. 2002. “The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation.”

American Journal of Political Science 46 (4): 838–55.

Myers, David G. and H. Lamm, "The Group Polarization Phenomenon," Psychological Bulletin 83

(1976): 602-62.

Page, Benjamin I. 1996. Who Deliberates? Mass Media in Modern Democracy. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Sanders, Lynn M. 1997. “Against Deliberation.” Political Theory 25 (June): 347-77.

Brisson 25

Vinokur, Amiram, and Eugene Burnstein. 1978. “Depolarization of Attitudes in Groups.” Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology 36 (August): 872-85.

Wilson, Thomas, D., and John Schooler. 1991. “Thinking too Much: Introspection Can Reduce the

Quality of Preferences and Decisions.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60 (February):

181-92.

Young, Iris Marion. 1996. “Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy.” In

Democracy and Difference, ed. S. Benhabib

Brisson 26

APPENDIX E: DELIBERATION BRIEFING MATERIALS

Dear Discussant,

First of all, thank you for taking the time to participate in today’s deliberation. Below you will find

information regarding the issue you will be asked to discuss. After everyone has viewed the briefing

materials, the discussion will begin. Discussion groups are encouraged to draft a policy for the university

regarding this issue. This policy can be consistent with the current policy if the group so decides. The

structure of the discussion will be left to your group to establish. After 45 minutes of deliberation, we will

ask you to take a quick survey regarding the discussions and any consensus established.

The Question:

Should Denison adopt a policy that would permit residential Greek life on campus? If so, what would this policy look like?

What strengths and weaknesses would this policy bear?

Background:

Fraternities were permitted to live in their houses at Denison up until 1994, when then-President Michelle

Myers lead the administration in removing Denison Greeks from their houses. The decision was made

because, at the time, the Greek system was seen by the administration and faculty as interfering with

Denison’s academic mission, exposing the university to legal liability problems, and leaving fraternities

struggling to financially maintain their houses.

However, some students argue that the nature of Greek life on campus has changed, resulting in a new call to

bring Greeks back to residential status. There are many questions to consider when evaluating such a policy,

including, but not limited to:

How could residential Greek life contribute to social space on campus?

Would residential Greek life again interfere with Denison’s academic goals?

How would residential Greek life affect relations with Denison alumni?

How would residential Greek life affect organizations not owning houses?

Would Greek organizations again struggle with financing their houses?

How would residential Greek life contribute to interactions among Denison’s increasing diverse

student body?

How would residential Greek life impact gender issues on Denison’s campus?

In what ways would adopting residential Greek life be consistent or inconsistent with the

Denison University Mission Statement (see attached)?

At the end of the discussion, each member will be asked to provide their position on the deliberated question.

These responses will be made available to both student media and relevant campus administrators.

Happy Deliberating,

The Students in the Political Science Senior Seminar

Brisson 27

RELEVANT TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLE 1 Statistics Regarding Denison Fraternities, Spring 2010

Fraternity Name A

ver

age

GP

A*

Ser

vic

e H

rs

per

Mem

ber

Mem

ber

ship

Ow

ns

Ho

use

Alpha Phi Alpha ** - 4

Beta Theta Pi 3.43 20.3 54 ✓

Delta Chi 3.09 18 44

Kappa Sigma 2.96 - 37 ✓

Lambda Chi Alpha 2.95 8 46

Phi Beta Sigma ** - 3

Phi Delta Theta 2.87 6 43

Sigma Chi 2.88 12 47 ✓

Sigma Phi Epsilon 2.92 - 49 Source: Denison University Office of Greek Life Materials * Avg Men’s GPA: 2.96 ** Average GPAs of organizations with less than five members omitted. - Data not reported to Office of Greek Life

TABLE 2 Statistics Regarding Denison Sororities, Spring 2010

Sorority Name A

ver

age

GP

A*

Ser

vic

e H

rs

per

Mem

ber

Mem

ber

ship

Ow

ns

Ho

use

Alpha Kappa Alpha ** - 4

Delta Delta Delta 3.13 - 78 ✓

Delta Gamma 3.32 8 89 ✓

Kappa Alpha Theta 3.30 5 100 ✓

Kappa Kappa Gamma 3.29 28 100 ✓

Pi Beta Phi 3.16 9.6 97 ✓ Source: Denison University Office of Greek Life Materials * Avg Women’s GPA: 3.268 ** Average GPAs of organizations with less than five members omitted. - Data not reported to Office of Greek Life

Brisson 28

FIGURE 1 Percentage of Greek Affiliated Students at Denison University, 1968-2010

FIGURE 2 Number of Greek Affiliated Men and Women, 1968-2010

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

1968 1974 1980 1986 1992 1998 2004 2010

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1968 1974 1980 1986 1992 1998 2004 2010

Men Women

Brisson 29

DENISON UNIVERSITY MISSION STATEMENT

Our purpose is to inspire and educate our students to become autonomous thinkers, discerning

moral agents and active citizens of a democratic society. Through an emphasis on active

learning, we engage students in the liberal arts which fosters self-determination and

demonstrates the transformative power of education. We envision our students' lives as based

upon rational choice, a firm belief in human dignity and compassion unlimited by cultural,

racial, sexual, religious or economic barriers, and directed toward an engagement with the

central issues of our time.

Our curriculum balances breadth with depth, building academic specialization upon a liberal

arts foundation in the arts, the sciences, the social sciences and the humanities. Responsive to

new ways of learning, we continue to develop interdisciplinary integration of the many forms of

knowledge. While our students pursue specialized learning in their chosen majors, they also

develop the framework for an integrated intellectual life, spiritually and morally informed.

Our faculty is committed to undergraduate education. As teacher-scholar-advisors, their

principal responsibility is effective teaching informed by the best scholarship. Faculty members

place a priority on close interaction with students, interactive learning, and partnerships with

students in original research. Our low student/faculty ratio allows for close supervision of

independent research and collaborative work in small groups and classes.

We seek to ensure an ever-broader range of racial, ethnic, international and socioeconomic

backgrounds in a student body of about 2,000 students. We offer different kinds of financial aid

to meet the different needs of our students.

The focus of student life at Denison is a concern for the whole person. The University provides a

living-learning environment sensitive to individual needs yet grounded in a concern for

community, in which the principles of human dignity and ethical integrity are paramount.

Students engage in a wide range of co-curricular activities that address the multidimensional

character of their intellectual and personal journey.

Denison is a community in which individuals respect one another and their environment. Each

member of the community possesses a full range of rights and responsibilities. Foremost among

these is a commitment to treat each other and the environment with mutual respect, tolerance,

and civility.

Brisson 30

APPENDIX F: DELIBERATION MODERATOR SCRIPT

Notes: Please follow the following script to minimize discrepancy among groups. In moderating, try to remain as uninvolved as is possible. Only if intervention is necessary for the safety of participants should you intervene. “Hello. Thank you for your attendance here. I have been designated to moderate your group’s discussion this evening. First, I would like to inform you that your dialog will be recorded during this session, though the recordings will be confidential. Also please, turn off all cell phones. You have received a packet containing three documents. I will draw your attention to the white packet of briefing materials, which will help orient you with regard to this issue. Please take a couple minutes to look over the information presented in this packet.” wait 2 minutes (or until all have reviewed), then ask: “Are there any questions?” (See FAQs for standardized responses) “Tonight, you will be discussing a potential policy relevant to student life on campus. The first document I will ask you to pull out of your envelop is the Big Red Forum Pre Poll, a short survey on lavender paper. Please take a few minutes to fill this out now.” wait until all have completed, then say: “Thank you for filling out that survey. As is written in the briefing materials, your discussion group will be provided 45 minutes to explore the issue and come to a conclusion about the policy you have been presented. During deliberation, please respect one another: try not to interrupt, and do not make personal attacks. I will write on the board when 15 minutes, 30 minutes, and 40 minutes have elapsed. Please keep in mind that, as a moderator, I cannot participate in the deliberation. I can answer some questions about the general format and structure of the forum, but I will not be able to provide additional information, insight, or opinions about the issue beyond what is provided in the packet.” “After the discussion, you will be asked to state your position on the deliberated question in the post survey provided. Your written responses to this survey will be anonymously made available to both student media and relevant campus administrators. Thanks again for your attendance here, and we look forward to your perspective on the campus issue at hand.” Start timer At 15 minutes, write “30 min left” on the white board. At 30 minutes, write “15 min left” on the white board. At 35 minutes: “There are now 10 minutes left. If you would like to come to a consensus and craft a proposal together regarding Greek life on Denison’s campus, feel free to do so now.” At 40 minutes, write “5 min left” on the white board At 45 minutes: “The 45 minutes of deliberation has elapsed. At this time, please take out the green Big Red Forum Post Survey. First, please turn to the second page and fill in the names of your

Brisson 31

fellow participants. (wait) Take a few a minutes to answer the questions. When you are finished, please place all your materials back into the folder, at which point you are free to leave. Thank you once again for your participation in this deliberative forum.” Wait until participants have put all materials back in the packets, then individually thank them and let them know that they can get their Whit’s without pressuring other students to rush their survey. FAQs Why was this issue picked? In the Big Red Survey, the 800 students responding were most divided in stating their position on this issue. It is also an issue that encompasses within it many other issues facing the campus, allowing for many directions for discussion. Who will be able to access the recordings of the conversation? Only the Dr. Djupe and students of POSC-401 will have access to these recordings. The recordings will not be labeled with the names of participants. Who will see the responses to our surveys? Responses to the post survey will be processed and presented to both student media and administrators of the University’s Student Affairs division. Why/How was I selected for this forum? You were selected because you filled out the initial survey where you stated your opinion on various campus issues, and because you were deemed to have a perspective important to this conversation. Why should I participate? What’s in it for me? In addition to free Whit’s after the deliberations, your opinion will be provided to both student media and university administration, allowing your voice to be heard. Can I see the results? We can provide access to the findings of these deliberations. For more information, please contact Dr. Djupe. Question about Policy I’m sorry. While I can address questions regarding process and procedure, I cannot provide information regarding the policy or the issue outside of what is provided within the white packet of briefing materials.