A Systematic Review of Online Deliberation Research

Abstract

This article takes stock of the growing field of online deliberation research. Our review of the theoretical and empirical findings is guided by a framework encompassing the three relevant components of deliberation: the institutional design that enables and fosters deliberation (institutional input: "design"), the quality of the communication process (communicative throughput: "process"), and the expected results of deliberation (productive outcome: "results"). Our findings show that scholarly attention is unevenly distributed across the different components of the framework. Most research has focused on the quality of the online discussion (process). A fair amount of research has focused on the institutional conditions fostering deliberation (design), while the outcomes of online deliberation processes (results) have mostly been neglected. This picture is repeated in terms of the causal relations between design, process, and results of deliberation: Most studies have dealt with the effects of the platform design on the degree of deliberation (designprocess). Much less is known about how the process of deliberation shapes the outcomes of deliberation (process-results). Studies investigating all three aspects of deliberation and their causal links (design-process-results) are particularly rare.

Detecting Platform Effects in Online Discussions

“…In general, the increase of the depth of discussion threads (associated with higher argumentation) is induced by the long chains of reciprocal interaction between users, as shown in Figure . Since reciprocity, sometimes referred to as interactivity or mutuality, is one of the most common features when measuring online deliberation (Black et al, ; Dahlberg, ; Friess & Eilders, ; Trénel, ), future work will focus on whether reciprocity is also affected by these technical changes of the conversation view. In this context our results may prove useful to understand how design of online platforms—in terms of what social information they present—may shape our decision‐making environment (Margetts, ).…”

Design Matters! An Empirical Analysis of Online Deliberation on Different News Platforms

“…Among others, these characteristics include topic relevance, reasoning, reciprocity, mutual respect, and constructiveness. However, the empirical operationalization of the level of deliberative quality varies heavily among different studies (Friess & Eilders, ), making it difficult to compare findings.…”

The Big Picture

“…Experimental studies of public engagement that use random assignment and control groups, especially those that connect features-processes-outcomes, are increasing but still relatively rare (Carman et al, 2013;Friess & Eilders, 2015). Such studies can, however, be very fruitful and enlightening.…”