Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
Research Articles
Published: 2018-03-30

Deliberative Democracy in Action: A Case Study of Animal Protection

University of Leicester
deliberative democracy animal protection animal experimentation public policy


This article provides a case study of deliberative forums concerned with animal protection issues. It is argued that, whilst the deliberative exercises reviewed had relatively little impact on policy makers, there was some evidence of an attitude shift amongst the participants, and these tended to be in the direction of support for greater protection for animals. However, there are three important caveats to this conclusion. First, the opinion shifts documented all came about as a result of the provision of information which, strictly speaking, can be separated from deliberation. Secondly, there was no evidence of a shift in values; thirdly, and perhaps not surprisingly, shifts of opinion were less likely to occur when partisans were involved.  


  1. Abels, G. (2007). Citizen involvement in public policy making: Does it improve democratic legitimacy and accountability? The case of pTA. Interdisciplinary Information Sciences, 13(1), 103 - 116.
  2. Barabas, J. (2004). How deliberation affects policy opinions. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 687 - 701.
  3. Benhabib, S. (Ed.). (1996). Democracy and Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  4. Besson, J., & Marti, J. (Eds.). (2006). Deliberative Democracy and its Discontents. Aldershot: Ashgate.
  5. Bohman, J. (1998). Survey article: The coming of age of deliberative democracy. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 6(4), 400 - 425.
  6. Bohman, J., & Rehg, W. (Eds.) (1997) Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  7. Boyd, K. (1999) Bringing both sides together. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 8(1), 43 - 5.
  8. Boyd Group. (1995). Ethical review of research involving animals: A role for institutional ethics committees. (Made available to me by Dr. Jane Smith.)
  9. Boyd Group. (1998). The use of animals for testing cosmetics - A discussion paper from the Boyd Group. (Made available to me by Dr. Jane Smith.)
  10. Boyd Group. (1999). Genetic engineering: Animal welfare and ethics. A discussion paper from the Boyd Group. (Made available to me by Dr. Jane Smith.)
  11. Boyd Group. (2001). Review of the ethical review process: Comments from the Boyd Group. (Made available to me by Dr. Jane Smith.)
  12. Boyd Group. (2002a). Boyd Group papers on the use of nonhuman primates in research and testing. (Made available to me by Dr. Jane Smith.)
  13. Boyd Group. (2002b). The use of animals in testing household products: A discussion paper and statement of principle. (Made available to me by Dr. Jane Smith.)
  14. Boyd Group. (2002c). A national centre for alternatives: Comments from the Boyd Group on the House of Lords Select Committee's proposals for a centre for the three Rs. (Made available to me by Dr. Jane Smith.)
  15. Boyd Group. (2010). Consultation on options for the transposition of European Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes: Response from the Boyd Group. (Made available to me by Dr. Jane Smith.)
  16. Boyd Group & RSPCA. (2004). Categorising the severity of scientific procedures on animals. RSPCA Research Animals Department. (made available to me by Dr. Jane Smith.)
  17. Button, M., & Mattson, K. (1999). Deliberative democracy in practice: Challenges and prospects for civic deliberation. Polity, 31(4), 609 - 637.
  18. Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307 - 326.
  19. D'Arcy, S. (2007). Deliberative democracy, direct action and animal advocacy. Journal
  20. for Critical Animal Studies, 5(2), 48 - 63.
  21. Davidson, S., & Elstub, S. (2014). Deliberative and participatory democracy in the UK. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 16(3), 367 - 385.
  22. D'Entreves, M. (Ed.) (2002). Democracy as public deliberation: New perspectives. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  23. Donaldson, S., & Kymlicka, W. (2011). Zoopolis: A Political theory of animal rights. New York: Oxford University Press.
  24. Dryzek, J. (1987). Rational ecology: Ecology and political economy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  25. Dryzek, J. (1990). Discursive democracy: Politics, policy and political science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  26. Dryzek, J. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics and contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  27. Dryzek, J. (2010). Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  28. Dryzek, J., & Niemeyer, S. (2006). Reconciling pluralism and consensus as political ideals. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 634 - 649.
  29. Dryzek, J., Goodin, R., Tucker, A., & Reber, B. (2009). Promethean elites encounter precautionary publics. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 34(3), 263 - 288.
  30. Eckersley, R. (1995). Liberal democracy and the rights of nature: The struggle for inclusion. Environmental Politics, 4(4), 169 - 198.
  31. Eckersley, R. (1999). The discourse ethic and the problem of representing nature. Environmental Politics, 8(2), 24 - 49.
  32. Eckersley, R. (2000). Deliberative democracy, ecological representation and risk: Towards a
  33. democracy of the affected. In M. Saward (Ed.), Democratic innovation: Deliberation, representation and association (pp. 117 - 132). London: Routledge.
  34. Elster, J. (Ed.). (1998). Deliberative democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  35. Elstub, S. (2014). Mini-publics: Issues and cases. In S. Elstub & P. McLaverty (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Issues and cases (pp. 166 - 188). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  36. Elstub, S., & McLaverty, P. (Eds.). (2014). Deliberative democracy: Issues and cases. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  37. Eames, M., Burgess, J., Davies, G., Mayer, S., Staley, K., Stirling, A., & Williamson, S. (2004). Xenotransplantation and its alternatives for addressing the 'kidney gap': A case study report from the deliberative mapping project. Retrieved from
  38. Einsiedel, E., & Ross, H. (2002). Animal spare parts? A Canadian public consultation on xenotransplantation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(4), 579 - 91.
  39. Estland, D. (1997). Beyond fairness and deliberation: The epistemic dimension of democratic authority. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy:
  40. Essays on reason and politics (pp. 173 - 204). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  41. Fishkin, J. (2009). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  42. Fishkin, J., & Luskin, R. (2000). Bringing deliberation to the democratic dialogue. In M. McCombs (Ed.), A poll with human face. the national issues convention experiment in political communication (pp. 3 - 38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elbaum.
  43. Fishkin, J., & Laslett, P. (Eds.). (2003). Debating deliberative democracy. Oxford: Blackwell.
  44. Freeman, S. (2000). Deliberative democracy: A sympathetic comment. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 29(4), 371 - 418.
  45. Friberg-Fernos, H., & Karlsson, S. (2014). The consensus paradox: Does deliberative agreement impede rational discourse? Political Studies, 62(1 supp.), 99 - 116.
  46. Fung, A., & Wright, E. (2001). Deepening democracy: Innovations in empowered participatory governance. Politics and Society, 29(1), 5 - 42.
  47. Garner, R. (2016a). Animal rights and the deliberative turn in democratic theory. European Journal of Political Theory. doi: 10.1177/1474885116630937
  48. Garner, R. (2016b). Animals and democratic theory: Beyond an anthropocentric approach. Contemporary Political Theory, 16(4), 459 - 467. doi: 10.1057/s41296-016-0072-0
  49. Gaus, G. (1997). Reason, justification, and consensus: Why democracy can't have it all. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (pp. 205 - 242). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  50. Gerber, M., Baechtiger, A., Fiket, I., Steenbergen, M., & Steiner, J. (2014). Deliberative and non-deliberative persuasion: Mechanisms of opinion formation in EuroPolis. European Union Politics, 15(3), 410 - 429.
  51. Goodin, R. (2000). Deliberation within. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 29(1), 81 - 109.
  52. Goodin, R. (2003). Reflective democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  53. Goodin, R. (2008). Innovating democracy: Democratic theory and practice after the deliberative turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  54. Goodin, R., & Dryzek, J. (2006). Deliberative impacts: The macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Political Science, 34(2), 219 - 44.
  55. Griessler, R. (2011). Xenotransplantation policy and participatory technology assessment in Switzerland. Institute for Advanced Studies, Sociologial Series 95, Vienna.
  56. Griessler, E., Biegelbauer, P., & Hansen, J. (2011). Citizens' impact on knowledge-intensive policy: introduction to a special issue. Science and Public Policy, 38(8), 583 - 88.
  57. Griessler, E., Biegelbauer, P., Hansen, J., & Loeber, A. (2012). Citizen participation in decision-making on complex and sensitive issues? Experiences with xenotransplantation: report of the project "Impact of Citizen Participation on Decision-Making in a Knowledge Intensive Policy Field." Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies. Retrieved from
  58. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  59. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  60. Hadley, J. (2015). Animal rights advocacy and legitimate public deliberation. Political Studies, 63(3), 696 - 712.
  61. Hendriks, C., Dryzek, J., & Hunold, C. (2007). Turning up the heat: Partisanship in deliberative innovation. Political Studies, 55(2), 362 - 83.
  62. House of Lords. (2002). Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures, Oral Evidence. Retrieved from ldanimal.htm.
  63. Humphrey, M., & Stears, M. (2006). Animal rights protest and the challenge to deliberative democracy. Economy and Society, 35(3), 400 - 422.
  64. Ipsos MORI. (2013). Openess in animal research: The public's views on openness and transparency in animal research. Retrieved from https://www.ipsos-
  66. Johnson, J. (1998). Arguing for deliberation: Some sceptical considerations. In J. Elster (Ed.),
  67. Deliberative democracy (pp. 161 - 184). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  68. Kuper, R. (1997). Deliberating waste: The Hertfordshire Citizens' Jury. Local Environment, 2(2), 139 - 153.
  69. Lafont, C. (2006). Is the ideal of deliberative democracy coherent? In J. Besson & J. Marti (Eds.), Deliberative democracy and its discontents (pp. 3 - 25). Aldershot: Ashgate.
  70. Lafont, C. (2015). Deliberation, participation and democratic legitimacy: Should
  71. deliberative mini-publics shape public policy? The Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(1), 40 - 63.
  72. Lang, A., & Griessler, E. (2013). Decision-making on complex and sensitive issues - a case for citizen participation? Experiences with Xenotransplantation CIT-PART, Documentation of the Final Workshop, 12 June 2012. Wein-Haus, Brussels.
  73. Luskin, R., Fishkin, J., & Jowell, R. (2002). Considered opinions: Deliberative polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 32(3), 455 - 487.
  74. Macedo, S. (Ed.). (1999). Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  75. Mackie, G. (2006). Does democratic deliberation change minds? Politics, Philosophy and Economics, 5(3), 279 - 304.
  76. Marti, J. (2006). The epistemic conception of deliberative democracy defended: Reasons, rightness and equal political autonomy. In J. Besson & J. Marti (Eds.), Deliberative democracy and its discontents (pp. 27 - 56). Aldershot: Ashgate.
  77. Miele, M., Evans, A., & Higgin, M. (2010). Dialogue between citizens and experts regarding farm animal welfare: Citizen juries in the UK, Norway and Italy. (Welfare Quality Reports No. 16.) Cardiff: School of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University.
  78. Miele, M., Veissier, I., Evans, A., & Botreau, R. (2011). Animal welfare: Establishing a dialogue between science and society. Animal Welfare, 20(1), 103 - 117.
  79. Niemeyer, S. (2004). Deliberation in the wilderness: Displacing symbolic politics. Environmental Politics, 13(2), 347 - 372.
  80. Parkinson, J. (2006). Deliberating in the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  81. Parry, L. (2016). Deliberative democracy and animals: Not such strange bedfellows. In R. Garner and S. O'Sullivan (Eds.), The Political Turn in Animal Ethics (pp. 137 - 153). London: Rowman & Littlefield.
  82. Petts, J. (2001). Evaluating the effectiveness of deliberative processes: Waste management
  83. case studies. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(2), 207 - 26.
  84. Sanders, D. (2012). The effects of deliberative polling in an EU-wide experiment: Five mechanisms in search of an explanation. British Journal of Political Science,
  85. (3), 617 - 640.
  86. Saward, M. (Ed.). (2000). Democratic innovation: Deliberation, representation and association. London: Routledge.
  87. Smith, G. (2003). Deliberative democracy and the environment. London: Routledge.
  88. Smith, G., & Wales, C. (2000). Citizens' juries and deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 48(1), 51 - 65.
  89. Squires, J. (2002). Deliberation and decision making: Discontinuity in the two-track model. In M. D'Entreves (Ed.), Democracy as public deliberation: New perspectives. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 133 - 56.
  90. Steiner, J. (2008). Concept stretching: The case of deliberation. European Political Science, 7(2), 186 - 190.
  91. Steiner, J., Baechtiger, A., Spoerndli, M., & Steenbergen, M. (Eds.). (2004). Deliberative politics in action: Analyzing parliamentary discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  92. Sunstein, C. (2005). Laws of Fears. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  93. Sunstein, C. (2008). The Law of Group Polarization. In J. Fishkin & P. Laslett (Eds.), Debating deliberative democracy (pp. 80 - 101). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
  94. Versteeg, W., & Loeber, A. (2011.) CIT-PART: Report case study Netherlands. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Retrieved from
  95. Weale, A. (2001). Can we democratize decisions on risk and the environment? Government and Opposition, 36(3): 355 - 78.