公民審議之內容分析--以奇岩公民陪審團為例

Abstract

自2002年的審議民主公民會議開始以來，審議民主的理論與實踐在台灣蓬勃發展，迄今台灣已有過許多審議民主的實踐經驗，但卻少有人探討民眾參與審議的過程與對話內容。因此本研究的目的，在於探討審議民主實際執行過程中公民審議的實際樣貌。 Stromer-Galley（2007）基於Habermas式審議民主理論強調理性論證之觀點，歸納出「合理性(Reasoned Opinion Expression)」、「證據性(Sourcing)」、「平等性(Equality)」、「歧異性(Disagreement)」、「互惠性(Engagement)」、「切題性(Topic)」等六項觀察公民審議的概念性指標；並自小團體、線上政治討論和對話分析的經驗研究發展出一套內容分析計畫，將概念性的指標轉為可操作分析的評量方法，本研究即以Stromer- Galley（2007）所設計的公民審議內容分析計畫，觀察「2007奇岩新社區開發計畫公民陪審團」的公民如何進行審議。 本研究發現，奇岩公民陪審團的公民審議在合理性、證據性、切題性三項指標上顯示，奇岩公民高度聚焦會議主題表達意見，而且能夠提出理由強化自己的論述，但偏好使用個人經驗做為論理的證據等現象；在平等性、互惠性、歧見性等三項指標則發現，奇岩公民雖然有平等的發言機會，但事實上有少數的公民發言次數較多，而且公民審議過程常圍繞著少數公民所提出的話題進行討論，此外，公民間的立場差異不大，因此少有歧見。 本研究操作公民審議內容分析計畫的經驗，有助於公眾瞭解公民審議的結論是如何產出。盼可茲學界應用以檢視其他公民審議經驗，可作為比較不同審議個案的基礎，或為日後優化審議個案設計與操作之參考。

Thriving from 2002, the theories and practices of deliberative democracy in Taiwan have caused many applications, but less discussion have been made to investigate how citizens’ involvement in tasks when deliberating and the content of negotiations in the processes. This paper presents a content analysis and a coding scheme to measure the quality of political deliberation in face-to-face and online groups. After reviewing the concepts from Habermas, Stromer-Galley (2007) offered six indexes which can be used to observe public deliberation as follows: Reasoned Opinion Expression, Sourcing, Equality, Disagreement, Engagement, and Topic. She also developed a coding scheme of content analysis out of the studies on small groups, deliberation, online-based political talks and conversation analysis. This study, based on Stromer-Galley’s theories, was to observe and explore the processes and procedures of the Citizens Jury on Chiyan New Community Development Project. The study results can be presented in two angles. From the aspect of Reseaoned Opinion Expression, Sourcing, and Topic, the citizens in paid high attention on the topics and expressed themselves actively during the jury sessions. While they were giving their opinions, they were able to supporting themselves by reasoning, although they did so simply in accordance with their personal experiences. From the aspect of Equality, Disagreement, and Engagement, though the citizens had equal opportunities to express their points of view, a limited number of them spoke more often than the others and offered more topics that drew the others’ attraction to discuss during the jury processes. The disagreement among the citizens was not clearly observable. The study aimed to help the public to understand how conclusions given by the public deliberation were produced and support the future researchers with a scheme to inspect other types of public deliberation by comparison among one another. The study can be applied for the references while optimization is needed.