Working through disagreement in deliberative forums

Working through disagreement is a core deliberative activity, yet our knowledge of how disagreement exchanges unfold during deliberation is limited. This study analyzes this issue using eight National Issues Forums and a framework that identifies specific activities related to working through disagreement. Even though deliberators expressed opposing viewpoints during forums, there was minimal “working through” of these differences. Specific points of contention were not articulated clearly, causal logics were not critiqued, the accuracy and relevance of evidence went unexamined, and the relative costs and benefits of proposals were not compared. Even when disagreements were explored at length, the conversations often lacked explicit efforts at working through. These findings suggest that deliberative democracy scholars need to focus greater attention on factors that can promote or inhibit working through disagreements, as well as how participants’ approach to disagreement can influence whether desired deliberative outcomes are realized.