Opening the Black Box of Deliberation: What are Arguments (Really) Based On? A theory-driven and exploratory analysis of the role of knowledge in the process of deliberation

Abstract

How much knowledge do you need to form opinions and talk about them? Located within a broader body of work on the relation between knowledge and attitude formation, this research explores the role of knowledge in the process of deliberation by taking an in-depth look at a real-world deliberation exercise on social welfare in Germany. Deliberative theory is based on the assumption that while deliberating, informed citizens weigh information in order to form 'ideal' opinions. Yet, empirical findings suggest rather low levels of political knowledge among the population. Taking a real-world case of deliberation on social welfare in Germany, this article has two goals: first, it draws on data collected on the level of knowledge regarding the German welfare system to get an initial insight into the distribution of political knowledge, which has been scarce to non-existent to date. Second, it applies a qualitative content analysis to explore the kind of information people in real-world deliberation exercises use as the basis for their arguments and ends with a discussion of the role of knowledge in group attitude-formation processes. While the results confirm previous findings on relatively low levels of political knowledge among the participants, this study raises three further issues that are relevant for understanding the role of knowledge in transferring theoretical deliberative norms and ideals to reality. These issues, which relate to the weighing of arguments, the handling of false or missing information, and the issue of procedural knowledge, are highlighted, and implications for further research and possible procedures for the transfer of normative deliberative goals to real-world deliberations are outlined.