BackHome
Refresh: OffView Personal Schedule
Session Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Recent Perspectives on Online Deliberation

Fri, May 26, 11:00 to 12:15, Hilton San Diego Bayfront, Floor: 2, Indigo Ballroom H

Session Submission Type: Panel

Abstract

The Internet provides infrastructure for the public sphere of which advocates of deliberative democracy have dreamed. Deliberative debate via online platforms has even been discussed as a potential cure for the malaise found in many western democracies. However, the range and popularity of deliberative democracy models have led to a research landscape that is diverse and fragmented (Mutz, 2008). By discussing recent perspectives in online deliberation research, this panel aims to compare different approaches and to explore new research directions in this growing field.

While the early empirical literature has mainly focused on the analysis of online communication on different platforms like Usenet newsgroups (e.g. Wilhelm, 1998), government forums (e.g. Coleman, Hall, & Howell, 2002), newspaper websites (e.g. Zhou, Chan, & Peng, 2008), more recent research also investigated the design features of the discussion spaces which support online deliberation (Davies & Chandler, 2012) and the outcomes of deliberation (Knobloch & Gastil, 2014). Therefore, research activities in the field of online deliberation may be grouped according to the different aspects of deliberation processes: (1) the institutional design that fosters deliberation (input); (2) the quality of the communicative process (throughput) and; (3) the results of deliberation (outcome) (Friess & Eilders, 2015). In addition, online deliberation research has moved beyond the ideal of Habermasian rational discourse towards more inclusive forms of communication (e.g. Black, 2008), also exceeding political contexts (e.g. Graham, Jackson & Wright, 2015).

The panel brings together scholars from five countries focusing on the input, throughput and outcomes of online deliberation, considering both traditional characteristics of deliberation and other types of communication (e.g. emotions, narratives, humor). The four papers address recent issues in the field of online deliberation from a variety of perspectives: While the first paper presents findings on how moderation and opinion heterogeneity affect different outcomes of deliberation on political issues, the second paper focuses on deliberation in non-political “third spaces” and its specific design configurations. The third paper aims to shed light on the question how emotional expressions, humor, and storytelling are related to more traditional characteristics of rational deliberation (e.g. reasoning, respect, reciprocity). Finally, the fourth paper presents a model which uses technology to make ordinary face to face dialogue more deliberative, through an ex post transfer to an online environment. Based on these four studies, the panel discusses recent perspectives in online deliberation research and explores promising directions for further research.


References

Black, L. (2008). Deliberation, Storytelling, and Dialogic Moments. Communication Theory, 18(1), 93-116.

Davies, T. & Chandler, R. (2012). Online Deliberation Design: Choices, Criteria, and Evidence. In T. Nabatchi, J. Gastil, G. M. Weiksner & M. Leighninger (Ed.). Democracy in Motion: Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement (pp. 103-131), Oxford University Press, November 2012, pp. 103-131

Coleman, S., Hall, N., & Howell, M. (2002). Hearing voices: The experience of online public consultations and discussions in UK governance. London: Hansard Society.

Friess, D., & Eilders, C. (2015). A Systematic Review of Online Deliberation Research. Policy & Internet, 7(3), 319–339.

Graham, T., Jackson, D. & Wright, S. (2015). We need to get together and make ourselves heard’: everyday online spaces as incubators of political action. Information, Communication & Society, 19(10),

Knobloch, K. K. & Gastil, J. (2014). Civic (Re) Socialisation: The Educative Effects of Deliberative Participation. Politics, 35(2), 183–200.

Mutz, D. C. (2008). Is Deliberative Democracy a Falsifiable Theory? Annual Review Political Science. 11(1), 521–38.

Wilhelm, A. G. (1998). Virtual sounding boards: How deliberative is on‐line political discussion? Information, Communication & Society, 1(3), 313–338.

Zhou, X.; Chan, Y.-Y. & Peng, Z.-M. (2008). Deliberativeness of Online Political Discussion: A Content Analysis of the Guangzhou Daily Website. Journalism Studies, 9(5), 759–770.

Sub Unit

Chair

Individual Presentations

Respondent