The purpose of this study is to investigate the deliberation effect of deliberative polling with the case of "Public Deliberation on the Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Policy". Based on the James Fishkin's theory, the founder of the deliberative polling, the framework of this research analysis was constructed. The present study tested the hypotheses using statistical methods such as T-test and regression analysis with raw data conducted by the Reexamination Committee on the Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Policy.
As a result of the analysis, the opinions of the civic participation group were changed before and after the deliberative polling was conducted. In Research Question 1, the pros and cons groups were intensively analyzed, and statistical differences occurred between the two groups except for individual characteristics. In Research Question 2, the knowledge scores of the civic participation group were analyzed, and the learning effect of the participants who changed their opinions was remarkable. In Research Question 3, statistically significant variables that affect the satisfaction of the public deliberation process were found.
In short, deliberation can be said to be a process of changing opinions through mutual discussion in the public sphere. If we improve the quality of deliberative decision-making on some social issues today, we will be able to contribute to the development of democracy better than now. On the other hand, the evaluation of the fairness of the entire public deliberation process should be carried out by separate verification.