VOLUME 1 (2005), ISSUE 1, Advances	Next Advances>
Disagreement and Consensus: The Need for Dynamic Updating in Public Deliberation Christopher F. Karpowitz, Princeton University Jane Mansbridge, Harvard University SUGGESTED CITATION: Christopher F. Karpowitz and Jane Mansbridge (2005) "Disagreement and Consensus: The Need for Dynamic Updating in Public Deliberation," Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 1: No. 1, Article 2. http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol1/iss1/art2	Download this article (289 K, PDF) Tell a Colleague Get Acrobat Reader Printing Tip: Select the option to 'print as image' in the Acrobat print dialog to ensure the article prints as it appears on screen. Learn more...
This analysis compares a consensus-oriented procedure, Princeton Future, with a more adversarial procedure, the public meetings of the Princeton, N.J. borough council, organized as public hearings. It finds that the consensus-oriented procedure failed to pick up significant conflicting interests among the citizens and as a consequence failed to provide venues for discussing and possibly negotiating those interests. It advises that deliberative democratic procedures provide for dynamic updating on the underlying and changing interest structure before and during deliberation, with particular attention to the important lines of conflict. Thus facilitators should help participants in deliberation not only forge common interests but also clarify their conflicting interests.
Readers' Reactions No readers' reactions have been posted for this article. To submit one, copy the URL for this article (http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol1/iss1/art2) and click here.