Ítem
Solo Metadatos
Favorable Conditions to Epistemic Validity in Deliberative Experiments: A Methodological Assessment
| dc.creator | Caluwaerts, Didier | spa |
| dc.creator | Ugarriza Uribe, Juan Esteban | spa |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2020-08-06T16:20:24Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2020-08-06T16:20:24Z | |
| dc.date.created | 2012-04-16 | spa |
| dc.description | Las evaluaciones metodológicas de los minipúblicos deliberativos generalmente se centran en la validez interna y externa de los diseños experimentales. Aunque este enfoque en la inferencia causal y la generalización es importante, es incompleto. Argumentamos que la validez epistémica de los diseños experimentales también debe tenerse en cuenta para garantizar la medición de un verdadero ejercicio deliberativo en lugar de solo una discusión regular. Al garantizar la inclusión y publicidad de todos los argumentos, se afirma teóricamente que el proceso de discusión de ida y vuelta entre múltiples posiciones genera mejores resultados y, por lo tanto, debe validarse a lo largo de líneas epistémicas. Aquí, sugerimos algunas técnicas metodológicas para permitir el supuesto de validez epistémica de diseños experimentales deliberativos. | spa |
| dc.description.abstract | Abstract Methodological evaluations of deliberative mini-publics usually focus on the internal and external validity of experimental designs. Even though such a focus on causal inference and generalization is important, it is incomplete. We argue that the epistemic validity of experimental designs should also be taken into account in order to ensure measuring truly a deliberative exercise rather than just a regular discussion. By ensuring the inclusion and publicity of all arguments, the process of arguing back-andforth between multiple positions is theoretically claimed to generate better outcomes and should therefore be validated along epistemic lines. Here, we suggest some methodological techniques for enabling the epistemic validity assumption of deliberative experimental designs. These techniques relate to the sampling of the groups and the treatments they receive. | spa |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
| dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.128 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | ISSN: 1937-2841 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/25989 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | spa |
| dc.publisher | University of Westminster Press | spa |
| dc.relation.citationEndPage | 20 | |
| dc.relation.citationIssue | No. 1 | |
| dc.relation.citationStartPage | 1 | |
| dc.relation.citationTitle | Journal of Public Deliberation | |
| dc.relation.citationVolume | Vol. 8 | |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Journal of Public Deliberation, ISSN:1937-2841, Vol.8, No.1 (2012-04-16); pp.1-20 | spa |
| dc.relation.uri | https://delibdemjournal.org/articles/abstract/10.16997/jdd.128/ | spa |
| dc.rights.accesRights | info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess | |
| dc.rights.acceso | Restringido (Acceso a grupos específicos) | spa |
| dc.source | Journal of Public Deliberation | spa |
| dc.source.instname | instname:Universidad del Rosario | |
| dc.source.reponame | reponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocUR | |
| dc.subject | Democracia deliberativa | spa |
| dc.subject | Procedimentalismo epistémico | spa |
| dc.subject | Metodología experimental | spa |
| dc.subject | Diversidad cognitiva. | spa |
| dc.subject.keyword | Political Science | spa |
| dc.subject.keyword | Studies in Human Society | spa |
| dc.title | Favorable Conditions to Epistemic Validity in Deliberative Experiments: A Methodological Assessment | spa |
| dc.title.TranslatedTitle | Condiciones favorables para la validez epistémica en experimentos deliberativos: una evaluación metodológica | spa |
| dc.type | article | eng |
| dc.type.hasVersion | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | |
| dc.type.spa | Artículo | spa |
