As the academic debate over the Tomorrow's Europe deliberative poll begins to take off, Professor Arthur Lupia of the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research presents the first in a four-part series on some of his concerns about the methods and theories behind deliberative polling:
There are many contested and unresolved issues relevant to the effectiveness of deliberative polls (DP) and related deliberative mechanisms. I happen to believe that deliberative ventures such as DPs can have beneficial effects, but only under specific conditions and with rather limited goals in mind.
I am concerned with the basic credibility of a number of the claims made about the Tomorrow's Europe poll on its website. Part of this problem is caused by the fact that the leading DP advocates do not share their data (even in common privacy-protected forms), so to the best of my knowledge no independent third party has ever been able to verify their causal claims.
This lack of transparency has led to broad and deep skepticism about this endeavor within the social sciences. As such, I would caution you and your readers about a very large scientific literature about the consequences of DP-like communications. (For example, the January/February 2004 edition of Legal Affairs magazine alone featured three alternative takes - one from deliberation advocates Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin, one by Judge Richard Posner of the University of Chicago, and another by me.)
While deliberation can lead citizens to more refined opinions, it can also lead to enflamed stereotypes and an amplification of social inequalities. Gender and class, for example, often correspond to important patterns of interruption and deference which lead to outcomes that are very unlike those that many deliberation advocates hope for in theory. In fact, it is arguable that these negative outcomes are just as likely, if not more likely, than the ones espoused by DP advocates.
There is a fast-growing literature on actual experiences with deliberation - so your readers should not fall prey to the illusion of consensus on this topic. Right now, the presentation of the Tomorrow's Europe poll is extraordinarily one-sided and, I think, misleading.
Update: Professors Fishkin and Luskin respond , looking at the transparency issue- and part two of the response, looking at methodology
