Abstract

Deliberative democracy aims at reaching consensus by changing preferences. But do deliberative processes really induce opinions and preferences change? Scholars usually answer to such questions relying on quantitative analysis of opinion polls data before and after the process. This paper deals with a qualitative analysis of the collective decision-making process in a Citizens' Jury. A qualitative analysis can help us to understand if participants actually entered the Jury without clear preferences and formed their opinions during the deliberative process; how different points of view merged into a shared position; if individual actors based their discussion upon particularistic or universalistic arguments.