Different Arenas, Different Deliberative Quality? Using a Systemic Framework to Evaluate Online Deliberation on Immigration Policy in Germany

Abstract

One major strand of contemporary research on political participation addresses online deliberation. Over time, online deliberation has become increasingly pluralistic. Our study applies a framework derived from systemic deliberative theory to evaluate different online deliberation processes on German immigration policy. A crucial premise of the systemic deliberative theory is that the quality of deliberation varies systematically between different arenas within a political system. We differentiate between highly formal, semi-formal, and informal deliberative arenas (arenas 1-3) and develop seven theory-driven hypotheses concerning the quality of deliberative procedures in arenas 1-3 that we test through quantitative content analysis. Our study confirms the overarching expectation: processes' deliberative quality varies systematically between arenas. The highest level of (aggregated) deliberative quality is displayed in arena 1-deliberations, that is, on the government-run consultation platform. The more fine-grained analysis of different dimensions of deliberative quality reveals that the patterns observed with regards to certain dimensions of deliberative quality (e.g., constructiveness and reciprocity) do not conform with our theory-driven hypotheses. We discuss the theoretical and empirical implications of these findings. Future collaborations of theoretical and empirical scholars of deliberative democracy must address the specifics of online communication and the function of emotional communication in different deliberative arenas.

Support for direct and deliberative models of democracy in the UK: understanding the difference

“…Direct democracy often aims at producing a change in society and is oriented towards reaching decisions. Deliberative procedures are set for a variety of different purposes and are highly heterogenous (Esau, Fleuß, and Nienhaus 2020). While they might fulfil different functions also for democratic-decision-making, they usually do not have the power to make final political decisions.…”

Assessment of Online Deliberative Quality: New Indicators Using Network Analysis and Time-Series Analysis

“…Traditionally, empirical studies select some of the theory-based criteria using coding schemes and then hire trained coders to assess deliberative quality [35][36][37][38][39][40][41]58,63,64]. For instance, Esau et al [35] developed eight quality measures, and five coders assessed the quality of textual contents by reading a sample of user comments on several online platforms. This method is considered a "gold standard," since human experts can extract sophisticated meanings from text [43].…”

“…Existing studies have proposed a wide range of normative criteria, such as respect and accessibility, to assess how public deliberation should be conducted [27]. Based on a set of theory-based criteria, most deliberative quality indicators require trained coders to read and assess the quality of the contents of the deliberation [35][36][37][38][39][40][41]. This method is useful for detailed assessment, but it requires significant resources in terms of coders and time [42,43].…”

The Integrative Complexity of Online User Comments Across Different Types of Democracy and Discussion Arenas

“…Around 40 percent to 80 percent of the user contributions in the issue-driven website comment sections and on the Facebook pages of mainstream news media contain justifications (Esau et al 2017(Esau et al , 2020Rowe 2015b;Ruiz et al 2011). User comments are more likely to quote evidence in such pluralistic forums than in more in-group-oriented Twitter debates (Freelon 2015).…”