A Critical Assessment of Steenbergen’s Discourse Quality Index
Blaug, R (1997) “Between fear and disappointment; critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas” in Political Studies (1997), XLV, 100-117.
Chambers, S (1996) Reasonable democracy New York: Cornell University Press.
Dryzek, J S (1987) “Discursive Designs: Critical Theory and Political Institutions” in American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Aug., 1987), pp. 656-679.
Dryzek, J.S (1995) “Critical theory as a research program” in The Cambridge companion to Habermas edited by Stephen K White, Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Habermas, J (1996) “Moral consciousness and communicative action” in Discourse ethics, The Habermas Reader (1996) ed. William Outhwaite, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, J (1996b) “Theory of communicative action vol 1” in Four sociological concepts of actions, The Habermas Reader (1996) ed. William Outhwaite, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, J (2005) “Concluding comments on Empirical approaches to deliberative politics” in Ataca Politica (2005) 40, (384-392).
Steenbergen et al et al (2003) “Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index” in Comparative European Politics 2003, 1 (21-48).
 “Coherence” refers to the presence of appropriate logical and semantic conventions. For example, in communication interlocutors presuppose they are speaking the same language. “Truthfulness” requires that the utterance conforms to a state of affairs in the objective world. For example, the utterance “Snow is white” is true only on the occasion that snow is white. A claim of truth in communication presupposes this relation between the utterance and the objective world. “Rightness” requires that an utterance accurately express an intersubjectively accepted social norm. “Sincerity” requires that an utterance accurately express the subjective world of the speaker.