Leino Mikko, Kulha Katariina, Setälä Maija, Ylisalo Juha
Department of Philosophy, Contemporary History and Political Science, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Policy Sci. 2022;55(3):429-450. doi: 10.1007/s11077-022-09465-3. Epub 2022 Aug 6.
One of key goals of deliberative mini-publics is to counteract expert domination in policymaking. Mini-publics can be expected to democratize expertise by providing citizens with good opportunities for weighing expert information. Yet, there are concerns about undue influence of experts even within mini-publics. We test these expectations by analysing data from an online mini-public organized in Finland in March 2021. The topic of deliberation was measures taken to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. We examine whether experts' field of specialization and the order of expert hearings had an impact on how participants' views developed. We find that neither the field of expertise nor the order of hearings had systematic effects on participants' perceptions on containment measures. The results suggest that interactive modes of expert hearings in mini-publics seem not to be prone to domination by experts.
协商性小型公众群体的关键目标之一是抵制决策过程中的专家主导。小型公众群体有望通过为公民提供权衡专家信息的良好机会来实现专业知识的民主化。然而，即使在小型公众群体内部，人们也担心专家的不当影响。我们通过分析2021年3月在芬兰组织的一次在线小型公众群体的数据来检验这些预期。审议的主题是为遏制新冠疫情所采取的措施。我们研究专家的专业领域和专家听证会的顺序是否对参与者观点的形成产生影响。我们发现，专业领域和听证会顺序都没有对参与者对遏制措施的看法产生系统性影响。结果表明，小型公众群体中专家听证会的互动模式似乎不易受到专家的主导。
