Varierar samtalsbeteende med partipolitisk tillhörighet? En jämförande studie av Demokraters och Republikaners samtalsbeteende i kongressen.
(2010) STVK01 20102Department of Political Science
- Abstract
- The empirical study in this thesis is applying the method Dicourse Quality Index as presented in the research project published in the book Deliberative Politics in Action: Analysing Parliamentary Discourse by Steiner et Al, 2004. This method is meant to be measuring "discourse quality" as per some highlighted Habermasian definitions of deliberation through his theoretical work on "Discourse Ethics" and "Communicative Action". The aim of the empirical study is to test whether there seems to be any variance in speech behavior between Democrats and Republicans in some randome selected commitee hearings in the House of Representatives. A theoretical connection is being made to March and Olsens description of the relationship between the... (More)
- The empirical study in this thesis is applying the method Dicourse Quality Index as presented in the research project published in the book Deliberative Politics in Action: Analysing Parliamentary Discourse by Steiner et Al, 2004. This method is meant to be measuring "discourse quality" as per some highlighted Habermasian definitions of deliberation through his theoretical work on "Discourse Ethics" and "Communicative Action". The aim of the empirical study is to test whether there seems to be any variance in speech behavior between Democrats and Republicans in some randome selected commitee hearings in the House of Representatives. A theoretical connection is being made to March and Olsens description of the relationship between the political actor and the institutional structure. The research design is comparative and of a most-similar system design aimed at detecting potential variance in speech-behavior between the test groups "democrats" and "republicans" by compairing aggregated results expressed in percentage on DQI. The study is being made by classifying six individual congressmen's speechacts in eighteen different debates from randome selected commiteedebates from the American House of Representatives. The result of the analysis seems to indicate that there are some variance in certain dimensions of the DQI between the test groups. Democrats in the study seem slightly better at defending validity claims, make reference to the common good and include previous arguments more often than the republicans. Both study groups have had a large number of speechacts classified as respectful, which uncritically would indicate a good deliberative level of discourse, however, the author contends this assumption by arguing for a differentiation between "respect" and "fawning". (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/1758656
- author
- Hols, Maria LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- STVK01 20102
- year
- 2010
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Congress, House of Representatives, Discourse Quality Index, Deliberation
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 1758656
- date added to LUP
- 2011-02-28 10:23:42
- date last changed
- 2011-02-28 10:23:42
@misc{1758656,
abstract = {{The empirical study in this thesis is applying the method Dicourse Quality Index as presented in the research project published in the book Deliberative Politics in Action: Analysing Parliamentary Discourse by Steiner et Al, 2004. This method is meant to be measuring "discourse quality" as per some highlighted Habermasian definitions of deliberation through his theoretical work on "Discourse Ethics" and "Communicative Action". The aim of the empirical study is to test whether there seems to be any variance in speech behavior between Democrats and Republicans in some randome selected commitee hearings in the House of Representatives. A theoretical connection is being made to March and Olsens description of the relationship between the political actor and the institutional structure. The research design is comparative and of a most-similar system design aimed at detecting potential variance in speech-behavior between the test groups "democrats" and "republicans" by compairing aggregated results expressed in percentage on DQI. The study is being made by classifying six individual congressmen's speechacts in eighteen different debates from randome selected commiteedebates from the American House of Representatives. The result of the analysis seems to indicate that there are some variance in certain dimensions of the DQI between the test groups. Democrats in the study seem slightly better at defending validity claims, make reference to the common good and include previous arguments more often than the republicans. Both study groups have had a large number of speechacts classified as respectful, which uncritically would indicate a good deliberative level of discourse, however, the author contends this assumption by arguing for a differentiation between "respect" and "fawning".}},
author = {{Hols, Maria}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Varierar samtalsbeteende med partipolitisk tillhörighet? En jämförande studie av Demokraters och Republikaners samtalsbeteende i kongressen.}},
year = {{2010}},
}