Experimental Political Theory: Behavioural, Careful, Radical

Abstract On one level, the idea here is simple: organise people into small groups and see how they react to different ways of doing politics. On another, it is more challenging: evaluate different political principles by seeing how people behave when they have to work with them. Do they, for example, become more or less engaged as we alter the number of chairing roles, debates, and votes? Do they stick around longer in-person or online? Do they come back more or less often when key powers are distributed by lottery? There is then a focus here, not on the decisions participants make, as found in ‘X-Phi’ and deliberative-democracy experiments, but rather on the process by which they came to make those decisions. We want to know how they found that process as a way of doing politics. Or, more precisely, how they reacted to the institutions and in turn principles those processes represent, because, if we know that, we also know something fundamental about the value of those principles.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Res Publica
Published
2025-02-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-025-09703-4
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Political Philosophy and Ethics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
17.04

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Experimental Political Theory: Behavioural, Careful, Radical

Jonathan Floyd
2 citations
Res Publica
Political Philosophy and Ethics
17.04
article

Experimental Political Theory: Behavioural, Careful, Radical

Jonathan Floyd
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Abstract On one level, the idea here is simple: organise people into small groups and see how they react to different ways of doing politics. On another, it is more challenging: evaluate different political principles by seeing how people behave when they have to work with them. Do they, for example, become more or less engaged as we alter the number of chairing roles, debates, and votes? Do they stick around longer in-person or online? Do they come back more or less often when key powers are distributed by lottery? There is then a focus here, not on the decisions participants make, as found in ‘X-Phi’ and deliberative-democracy experiments, but rather on the process by which they came to make those decisions. We want to know how they found that process as a way of doing politics. Or, more precisely, how they reacted to the institutions and in turn principles those processes represent, because, if we know that, we also know something fundamental about the value of those principles.

Res PublicaVol. 32(1)
University of Bristol (GB)
Arts and Humanities Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Political Philosophy and Ethics
17.04
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.