FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2046807862> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2046807862 endingPage "97" @default.
• W2046807862 startingPage "64" @default.
• W2046807862 abstract "Climate Ethics:Structuring Deliberation by Means of Logical Argument Mapping Michael H. G. Hoffmann One of the first things President Obama did after coming to office was the establishment of the Office of Public Engagement. As described on its Web site, this office is the embodiment of the President's goal of making government inclusive, transparent, accountable and responsible. The Office of Public Engagement is supposed to create and coordinate opportunities for direct dialogue between the Obama Administration and the American public, while bringing new voices to the table and ensuring that everyone can participate and inform the work of the President.1 As the president explained in his memorandum on transparency and open government, Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge.2 Indeed, knowledge is widely dispersed in modern societies. We find it not only in a growing number of scientific disciplines but also outside of academia in highly educated and skilled individuals and in local communities that know how policy decisions materialize on the ground. For the scientific debate on deliberative or participatory democracy, President Obama's initiatives are exciting news. Finally, so it seems, after [End Page 64] Jürgen Habermas (1989) complained nearly fifty years ago that in capitalist societies the critical discourse of the public as the foundation of democratic decision making tends to be marginalized by the politicking of lobbies, private interests, and administrations, we see an attempt to establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration, as the president writes.3 From a theoretical point of view, the central idea of deliberative democracy can be summarized by a definition formulated by Andrew Smith: Theories of deliberative democracy offer a vision of political decision making in which citizens are able to consider relevant matters from multiple points of view, critically converse with one another about options before them, and seek to enlarge their understanding of whatever matters are under scrutiny. These decisions are intended to be procedurally fair and, in the case of epistemic theories of deliberative democracy, to meet with widespread and uncoerced agreement precisely because they are improved in their epistemic quality. Under the best of circumstances, deliberation converges on the best available ideas on offer: on a presumably correct political decision. (2007, 259)4 However, it is far from clear how large-scale deliberation and participation might be possible. There are at least two problems, one of quantity and the other of quality. Regarding the first one, Peter P. Swire, who was involved in the New Media team that operated the Web site change.gov during the Obama/Biden transition and developed whitehouse.gov, describes the challenge the administration is facing regarding the use of participatory Web 2.0 technologies as follows: the Obama/Biden campaign learned how to cope with a motivated group of just over 10 million individuals. After Election Day, the transition and later the administration had to respond to the concerns of over 300 million Americans, as well as interested persons in other countries.5 There is no question that participation poses an enormous challenge. How can it be possible to structure a huge amount of input without frustrating both overwhelmed politicians and potentially millions of engaged citizens? The problem of the quality of deliberation becomes visible in case studies that looked at projects that are already well established. In one of these, Coelho, Pozzoni, and Montoya (2005) analyze the working and [End Page 65] efficacy of a management council in the municipal health system of São Paolo. The council has been set up according to the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, which established mechanisms for citizens to participate in the formulation, management, and monitoring of social policies (Coelho et al. 2005, 174). Half of the councilors in this study represented organizations from civil society, and the other half comprised health professionals and representatives of governmental institutions and of public and private providers of health services. Based on an analysis of the council minutes and interviews with councilors, the authors show that positions in the council deliberations were perceived as being more important..." @default.
• W2046807862 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2046807862 creator A5039838227 @default.
• W2046807862 date "2011-01-01" @default.
• W2046807862 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W2046807862 title "Climate Ethics: Structuring Deliberation by Means of Logical Argument Mapping" @default.
• W2046807862 cites W117898138 @default.
• W2046807862 cites W118967160 @default.
• W2046807862 cites W1487155075 @default.
• W2046807862 cites W1968149473 @default.
• W2046807862 cites W1971959487 @default.
• W2046807862 cites W2029665446 @default.
• W2046807862 cites W2030959474 @default.
• W2046807862 cites W2037995722 @default.
• W2046807862 cites W2060176945 @default.
• W2046807862 cites W2074555489 @default.
• W2046807862 cites W2126416729 @default.
• W2046807862 cites W2133391912 @default.
• W2046807862 cites W2163958157 @default.
• W2046807862 cites W2167984044 @default.
• W2046807862 cites W2970113970 @default.
• W2046807862 cites W310703101 @default.
• W2046807862 cites W3145364531 @default.
• W2046807862 cites W56186213 @default.
• W2046807862 cites W565180888 @default.
• W2046807862 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/jsp.2011.0007" @default.
• W2046807862 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W2046807862 type Work @default.
• W2046807862 sameAs 2046807862 @default.
• W2046807862 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2046807862 countsByYear W20468078622013 @default.
• W2046807862 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2046807862 hasAuthorship W2046807862A5039838227 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConcept C203663800 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConcept C205112559 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConcept C2776791371 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConcept C2776946740 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConcept C2778137410 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConcept C2779610281 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConcept C2780233690 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConcept C2781093426 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConcept C3116431 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConcept C555826173 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConcept C98184364 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConceptScore W2046807862C138885662 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConceptScore W2046807862C144024400 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConceptScore W2046807862C17744445 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConceptScore W2046807862C185592680 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConceptScore W2046807862C199539241 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConceptScore W2046807862C203663800 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConceptScore W2046807862C205112559 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConceptScore W2046807862C2776791371 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConceptScore W2046807862C2776946740 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConceptScore W2046807862C2778137410 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConceptScore W2046807862C2779610281 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConceptScore W2046807862C2780233690 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConceptScore W2046807862C2781093426 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConceptScore W2046807862C3116431 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConceptScore W2046807862C39549134 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConceptScore W2046807862C41895202 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConceptScore W2046807862C55493867 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConceptScore W2046807862C555826173 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConceptScore W2046807862C94625758 @default.
• W2046807862 hasConceptScore W2046807862C98184364 @default.
• W2046807862 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2046807862 hasLocation W20468078621 @default.
• W2046807862 hasOpenAccess W2046807862 @default.
• W2046807862 hasPrimaryLocation W20468078621 @default.
• W2046807862 hasRelatedWork W2014402632 @default.
• W2046807862 hasRelatedWork W2020598257 @default.
• W2046807862 hasRelatedWork W2095052295 @default.
• W2046807862 hasRelatedWork W2143673228 @default.
• W2046807862 hasRelatedWork W2479361956 @default.
• W2046807862 hasRelatedWork W2529434984 @default.
• W2046807862 hasRelatedWork W2886451041 @default.
• W2046807862 hasRelatedWork W2907638939 @default.
• W2046807862 hasRelatedWork W3205611881 @default.
• W2046807862 hasRelatedWork W4213204499 @default.
• W2046807862 hasVolume "25" @default.
• W2046807862 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2046807862 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2046807862 magId "2046807862" @default.
• W2046807862 workType "article" @default.