Doctoral Dissertation Research in Political Science: Processes of Democratic Choice: An Experimental Study

政治学博士论文研究：民主选择的过程：一项实验研究

• 批准号: 0615113
• 负责人: Elinor Ostrom
• 金额: $ 1.2万
• 依托单位: Indiana University
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2006
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2006-09-01 至 2008-08-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0615113&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Doctoral; Dissertation; Research; Political; Science

Many political scientists believe that people can resolve their political differences through discussion. However, they fear that if people do not follow certain rules, such as not interrupting one another, discussion will only perpetuate the status quo. At the same time, the literature on small group discussion suggests that following these rules will make it harder for people to resolve political problems where the interests of the group as a whole conflicts with the interests of the individual members. This research addresses the following question: when there is a conflict between individual and group interests, do groups that discuss this conflict using the discussion rules recommended by political science theory resolve this conflict better than groups that discuss the conflict without these rules?To answer this question, the researcher conducted a controlled experiment. First, groups of five people invested in a market designed to create a conflict between individual and group interests. Group members then discussed this conflict with one another, with some groups using discussion rules recommended by theory, and the remaining groups using no such rules. Following discussion, each group again invested in the market. By examining the investment decisions of group members, the researcher determines whether the participants were able to resolve the conflict between individual and group interests. Each subject answers several questions about the efficacy of their group's discussion. By examining these answers, the researcher determines why some groups failed to resolve the conflict.This research is of fundamental importance to political science. First, it provides vital new knowledge by experimentally testing whether discussion rules always lead to the resolution of political conflict. This claim is made by many political scientists; yet this research is the first to test it in a controlled fashion. Second, this research integrates several sub-fields of political science by using a controlled experiment directed by social psychology to test a claim made by political theorists. These sub-fields must communicate with one another if political scientists are to understand the benefits and complexities of group discussion.This research is also of broad social importance, because conflicts between group and individual interests are found in the political life of all societies. National health care, social security, and social welfare are examples of policies where individual and group interests are often in conflict. Learning whether discussion rules help or hinder the resolution of this conflict tells us whether they are worth the cost of implementation. In addition, research on developing nations shows that people must trust one another for democracy to take hold. Developing institutions to mediate the conflict between group and individual interests is crucial to developing this sense of trust. This research also provides insight into how groups mediate this conflict in a carefully controlled setting. This knowledge can be used to establish institutions in developing nations that are strong enough to support democracy while maintaining the individual freedom crucial to its flourishing.

许多政治学家认为，人们可以通过讨论来解决政治分歧。 然而，他们担心，如果人们不遵守某些规则，例如不互相打断，讨论只会维持现状。 与此同时，有关小组讨论的文献表明，遵守这些规则将使人们更难解决团体整体利益与个别成员利益发生冲突的政治问题。 本研究解决了以下问题：当个人与群体利益发生冲突时，使用政治学理论推荐的讨论规则讨论这种冲突的群体是否比不使用这些规则讨论冲突的群体更好地解决这种冲突？带着这个问题，研究人员进行了一项对照实验。 首先，五人小组投资于一个旨在造成个人和团体利益冲突的市场。 然后，小组成员相互讨论这一冲突，一些小组使用理论推荐的讨论规则，而其余小组则不使用此类规则。 经过讨论，各组再次投资市场。 通过检查团体成员的投资决策，研究人员确定参与者是否能够解决个人和团体利益之间的冲突。 每个受试者都回答几个有关小组讨论效果的问题。 通过检查这些答案，研究人员可以确定为什么某些群体未能解决冲突。这项研究对于政治学具有根本性的重要性。 首先，它通过实验测试讨论规则是否总能导致政治冲突的解决，提供了重要的新知识。 许多政治学家都提出了这一主张。然而，这项研究是第一个以受控方式对其进行测试的研究。 其次，这项研究通过使用社会心理学指导的对照实验来检验政治理论家的主张，整合了政治学的几个子领域。 如果政治学家要理解群体讨论的好处和复杂性，这些子领域就必须相互交流。这项研究还具有广泛的社会重要性，因为群体利益与个人利益之间的冲突存在于所有社会的政治生活中。 国家医疗保健、社会保障和社会福利是个人和群体利益经常发生冲突的政策的例子。 了解讨论规则是否有助于或阻碍解决这一冲突可以告诉我们它们是否值得付出实施成本。 此外，对发展中国家的研究表明，人们必须相互信任，民主才能站稳脚跟。 建立调解团体和个人利益之间冲突的机构对于培养这种信任感至关重要。 这项研究还深入了解了群体如何在精心控制的环境中调解这种冲突。 这些知识可用于在发展中国家建立足够强大的机构来支持民主，同时维护对其繁荣至关重要的个人自由。