The Genre of Deliberative Guidance: Rhetoric and Deliberation in Citizens’ Initiative Review Statements

References

• Abbott, J. Y. (2017). Tensions in the scholarship on participatory journalism and citizen journalism. Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(3–4), 278–297. doi:10.1080/23808985.2017.1350927
   Google Scholar
• Aristotle. (2018). The art of rhetoric. H. Yunis, (Ed.), (R. Waterfield Trans.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Asen, R. (2015). Democracy, deliberation, and education. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beauvais, E., & Warren, M. E. (2019). What can deliberative mini-publics contribute to democratic systems? European Journal of Political Research, 58(3), 893–914. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, K. K. (2009). Genre. In W. F. Eadie (Ed.), 21^st century communication: A reference handbook (pp. 256–265). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, K. K., & Jamieson, K. H. (1978). Form and genre in rhetorical criticism: An introduction. In K. K. Campbell & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), Form and genre: Shaping rhetorical action (pp. 9–32). Falls Church, VA: The Speech Communication Association.
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, S. (2009). Rhetoric and the public sphere: Has deliberative democracy abandoned mass democracy? Political Theory, 37(3), 323–350. doi:10.1177/0090591709332336
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christelle, A., Dillard, K. N., & Lindaman, K. (2018). Common ground for action software and professional development to support online deliberation in classrooms. Journal of Political Science Education, 14(1), 134–137. doi:10.1080/15512169.2017.1360188
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curato, N., & Böker, M. (2016). Linking mini-publics to the deliberative system: A research agenda. Policy Sciences, 49(2), 173–190. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9238-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curato, N., Vrydagh, J., & Bächtiger, A. (2020). Democracy without shortcuts: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 16(1), 1–9. doi:10.16997/jdd.413
   Google Scholar
• Dias, N. (Ed.). (2018). Hope for democracy: 30 years of participatory budgeting worldwide. Epopeia Records and Oficina. https://www.oficina.org.pt/uploads/7/0/6/1/70619115/hope_for_democracy_-_digital.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Drury, S. A. M., Andre, D., Goddard, S., & Wentzel, J. (2016). Assessing deliberative pedagogy: Using a learning outcomes rubric to assess tradeoffs and tensions. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 12(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.245
   Google Scholar
• Drury, S. A. M., Elstub, S., Escobar, O., & Roberts, J. J. (2021). Deliberative quality and expertise: Uses of evidence in citizens’ juries on wind farms. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 17(2), 31–41. doi:10.16997/jdd.986
   Google Scholar
• Ellwanger, A. (2017). Reinventing doxa: Public opinion polling as deliberative discourse. Argumentation and Advocacy, 53(3), 181–198. doi:10.1080/00028533.2017.1337330
   Google Scholar
• Elstub, S. (2014). Mini-publics: Issues and cases in deliberative democracy. In S. Elstub & P. McLaverty (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Issues and sases (pp. 166–188). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Felicetti, A., Niemeyer, S., & Curato, N. (2016). Improving deliberative participation: Connecting mini-publics to deliberative systems. European Political Science Review, 8(3), 427–448. doi:10.1017/S1755773915000119
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., Johnson, G. F., Han, S., & Rountree, J. (2016). Assessment of the 2016 Oregon citizens. Initiative Review on Measure 97. https://sites.psu.edu/citizensinitiativereview/files/2015/01/Assessment-of-the-2016-Oregon-CIR-zmzb9i.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., & Knobloch, K. R. (2010). Evaluation report to the Oregon State Legislature on the 2010 Oregon citizens’ Initiative Review. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Gastil/publication/267856311_Evaluation_Report_to_the_Oregon_State_Legislature_on_the_2010_Oregon_Citizens%27_Initiative_Review/links/574b7c4508ae2e0dd301a738/Evaluation-Report-to-the-Oregon-State-Legislature-on-the-2010-Oregon-Citizens-Initiative-Review.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., & Knobloch, K. R. (2020). Hope for democracy: How citizens can bring reason back into politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., Knobloch, K., Reedy, J., Henkels, M., & Cramer, K. (2017). Assessing the electoral impact of the 2010 Oregon citizens’ initiative review. American Politics Research, 46(3), 534–563. doi:10.1177/1532673X17715620
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., Richards, R., & Knobloch, K. (2014). Vicarious deliberation: How the Oregon citizens’ initiative review influenced deliberation in mass elections. International Journal of Communication, 8, 62–89. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/2235
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., Rosenzweig, E., Knobloch, K. R., & Brinker, D. (2016). Does the public want mini-publics? Voter responses to the citizens’ initiative review. Communication and the Public, 1(2), 174–192. doi:10.1177/2057047316648329
   Google Scholar
• Gilman, H. R. (2016). Democracy reinvented: Participatory budgeting and civic innovation in America. Washington, DC: Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation and Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodin, R. E. (2000). Democratic deliberation within. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 29(1), 81–109. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2000.00081.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodin, R. E., & Dryzek, J. S. (2006). Deliberative impacts: The macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Politics & Society, 34(2), 219–244. doi:10.1177/0032329206288152
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodnight, G. T. (1982). The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. The Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18(4), 214–227. doi:10.1080/00028533.1982.11951221
   Google Scholar
• H. 561, 189th Gen. Ct. Sess. ( Mass. 2015). https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/H561/
   Google Scholar
• Harris, C. (2019). Mini-publics: Design choices and legitimacy. In S. Elstub & O. Escobar (Eds.), Handbook of democratic innovation and governance (pp. 45–59). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• H.B. 2634, 76th Leg., Reg. Sess. ( Or. 2011). https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2011R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2634
   Google Scholar
• Jamieson, K. H., & Campbell, K. K. (1982). Rhetorical hybrids: Fusions of generic elements. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 68(2), 146–157. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638209383600
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jennings, F. J., Suzuki, V. P., & Hubbard, A. (2021). Social media and democracy: Fostering political deliberation and participation. Western Journal of Communication, 85(2), 147–167. doi:10.1080/10570314.2020.1728369
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, J., & Melville, K. (2019). The national issues forums: “Choicework” as an indispensable civic skill. In N. V. Longo & T. V. Shaffer (Eds.), Creating space for democracy: A primer on dialogue and deliberation in higher education (pp. 155–162). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, G. F., Morrell, M. E., & Black, L. W. (2019). Emotions and deliberation in the Citizens’ Initiative Review. Social Science Quarterly, 100(6), 2168–2187. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12707
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelley-Romano, S. (2008). Trust no one: The conspiracy genre on American television. The Southern Communication Journal, 73(2), 105–121. doi:10.1080/10417940802009509
   Google Scholar
• Knobloch, K. R., Barthel, M. L., & Gastil, J. (2019). Emanating effects: The impact of the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review on voters’ political efficacy. Political Studies, 68(2), 1–20. doi:10.1177/0032321719852254
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koesten, J., & Rowland, R. C. (2004). The rhetoric of atonement. Communication Studies, 55(1), 68–87. doi:10.1080/10510970409388606
   Google Scholar
• Lafont, C. (2015). Deliberation, participation, and democratic legitimacy: Should deliberative mini‐publics shape public policy? The Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(1), 40–63. doi:10.1111/jopp.12031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewiński, M. (2016). Shale gas debate in Europe: Pro-and-con dialectics and argumentative polylogues. Discourse & Communication, 10(6), 553–575. doi:10.1177/1750481316674773
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewiński, M., & Aakhus, M. (2014). Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation, 28(2), 161–185. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9307-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Már, K., & Gastil, J. (2020). Tracing the boundaries of motivated reasoning: How deliberative minipublics can improve voter knowledge. Political Psychology, 41(1), 107–127. doi:10.1111/pops.12591
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, C. R. (2015). Genre as social action (1984): Revisited 30 years later (2014). Letras & Letras, 31(4), 56–72. doi:10.14393/LL63-v31n3a2015-5
   Google Scholar
• Miller, C. R., Devitt, A. J., & Gallagher, V. J. (2018). Genre: Permanence and change. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 48(3), 269–277. doi:10.1080/02773945.2018.1454194
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neville-Shepard, R. (2016). Unconventional: The variant of third-party nomination acceptance addresses. Western Journal of Communication, 80(2), 121–139. doi:10.1080/10570314.2015.1128560
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niemeyer, S. (2014). Scaling up deliberation to mass publics: Harnessing mini-publics in a deliberative system. In K. Grönlund, A. Bächtiger, & M. Setälä (Eds.), Deliberative mini-publics: Involving citizens in the democratic process (pp. 177–202). Colchester: ECPR Press.
   Google Scholar
• Niemeyer, S., & Jennstål, J. (2018). Scaling up deliberative effects: Applying lessons of mini-publics. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge, & M. E. Warren (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy (pp. 329–347). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Olson, K. M. (1993). Completing the picture: Replacing generic embodiments in the historical flow. Communication Quarterly, 41(3), 299–317. doi:10.1080/01463379309369891
   Google Scholar
• Parry-Giles, T. (2010). Resisting a “Treacherous Piety”: Issues, images, and public policy deliberation in presidential campaigns. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 13(1), 37–64. doi:10.2307/41955590
   Google Scholar
• Richards, R. C. (2018). Making policy information relevant to citizens: A model of deliberative mini-publics, applied to the Citizens’ Initiative Review. Policy & Politics, 46(3), 445–465. doi:10.1332/030557317X15072086904223
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, J. J., Lightbody, R., Low, R., & Elstub, S. (2020). Experts and evidence in deliberation: Scrutinising the role of witnesses and evidence in mini-publics, a case study. Policy Sciences, 53(1), 3–32. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-019-09367-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rountree, J. (2021). Judging technical claims in democratic deliberation: A rhetorical analysis of two Citizens’ Initiative Review panels in Oregon. Western Journal of Communication, 85(5), 654–674. doi:10.1080/10570314.2021.1959048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowland, R. C. (1991). On generic categorization. Communication Theory, 1(2), 128–144. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1991.tb00009x
   Google Scholar
• Rowland, R. C. (2018). Implicit standards of public argument in presidential debates: What the 2016 debates reveal about public deliberation. Argumentation and Advocacy, 54(1–2), 76–94. doi:10.1080/00028533.2018.1446830
   Google Scholar
• Sprain, L., & Black, L. (2018). Deliberative moments: Understanding deliberation as an interactional accomplishment. Western Journal of Communication, 82(3), 336–355. doi:10.1080/10570314.2017.1347275
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steffensmeier, T., & Schenck-Hamlin, W. (2008). Argument quality in public deliberations. Argumentation and Advocacy, 45(1), 21–36. doi:10.1080/00028533.2008.11821693
   Google Scholar
• Suiter, J., Muradova, L., Gastil, J., & Farrell, D. M. (2020). Scaling up deliberation: Testing the potential of mini‐publics to enhance the deliberative capacity of citizens. Swiss Political Science Review, 26(3), 253–272. doi:10.1111/spsr.12405
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Townsend, R. M. (2021). ‘Eligible to be heard’ in transportation planning. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 49(1), 3–23. doi:10.1080/00909882.2020.1849768
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warner, M. (2002). Publics and counterpublics. Public Culture, 14(1), 49–90. doi:10.1215/08992363-14-1-49
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren, M. E., & Gastil, J. (2015). Can deliberative minipublics address the cognitive challenges of democratic citizenship? The Journal of Politics, 77(2), 562–574. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/680078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar