Why and how to compare deliberative systems

Article Properties
  • Language
    English
  • DOI (url)
    10.1111/1475-6765.12205
  • Publication Date
    2017/03/15
  • Journal
    European Journal of Political Research
  • Indian UGC (journal)
  • Refrences
    51
  • Citations
    13
  • JOHN BOSWELL Department of Politics and International Relations University of Southampton UK
  • JACK CORBETT Department of Politics and International Relations University of Southampton UK
Abstract
Cite
BOSWELL, JOHN, and JACK CORBETT. “Why and How to Compare Deliberative Systems”. European Journal of Political Research, vol. 56, no. 4, 2017, pp. 801-19, https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12205.
BOSWELL, J., & CORBETT, J. (2017). Why and how to compare deliberative systems. European Journal of Political Research, 56(4), 801-819. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12205
BOSWELL, JOHN, and JACK CORBETT. “Why and How to Compare Deliberative Systems”. European Journal of Political Research 56, no. 4 (2017): 801-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12205.
BOSWELL J, CORBETT J. Why and how to compare deliberative systems. European Journal of Political Research. 2017;56(4):801-19.
Journal Categories
Political science
Political science
Political institutions and public administration (General)
Social Sciences
You May Also Like
Refrences
Title Journal Journal Categories Citations Publication Date
Frameworks of comparison 2015
Assessing the Diversity of Deliberative Capacity of Democratic Polities and the Factors that Contribute to It 2016
Rethinking the Systemic Turn in Deliberative Democratic Theory 2016
Studying deliberative practice after the systemic turn: The crucial role of interpretive research 2015
Should Deliberative Democrats Eschew Modernist Social Science? 2012
Citations
Title Journal Journal Categories Citations Publication Date
Multi-stakeholder Initiatives and Legitimacy: A Deliberative Systems Perspective

 Business Ethics Quarterly
  • Social Sciences: Commerce: Business
  • Philosophy. Psychology. Religion: Ethics
  • Social Sciences: Economic theory. Demography: Economics as a science
  • Social Sciences: Commerce: Business
  • Social Sciences: Economic theory. Demography: Economics as a science
 2023
Exploring Methodological Challenges in Deliberative Democracy

 2022
Temporalidades em disputa: uma leitura deliberacionista de conflitos ambientais

 Opinião Pública 3 2022
Co-production: fostering greater inclusion or reproducing existing exclusion? An analysis of co-commissioning and resident participation on a South London housing estate SN Social Sciences 1 2021
Learning from Democratic Practices: New Perspectives in Institutional Design The Journal of Politics
  • Political science: Political institutions and public administration (General)
  • Political science
  • Social Sciences
 10 2021
Citations Analysis
Category Category Repetition
Political science: Political institutions and public administration (General)7
Political science7
Social Sciences7
Social Sciences: Commerce: Business1
Philosophy. Psychology. Religion: Ethics1
Social Sciences: Economic theory. Demography: Economics as a science1
Political science: International relations1
Language and Literature: Philology. Linguistics: Communication. Mass media1
The category Political science: Political institutions and public administration (General) 7 is the most commonly referenced area in studies that cite this article. The first research to cite this article was titled Meta-deliberation: everyday acts of critical reflection in deliberative systems and was published in 2019. The most recent citation comes from a 2023 study titled Multi-stakeholder Initiatives and Legitimacy: A Deliberative Systems Perspective. This article reached its peak citation in 2021, with 4 citations. It has been cited in 12 different journals. Among related journals, the Business Ethics Quarterly cited this research the most, with 1 citations. The chart below illustrates the annual citation trends for this article.
Citations used this article by year