Measuring Deliberation’s Content: A Coding Scheme

Stromer‐Galley, Jennifer

doi:10.16997/jdd.50

Cited by 152 publications

(137 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

110

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Diversity refers to the diversity of speakers and to the heterogeneity of positions (content diversity). The legitimation of deliberated processes depends on the variety of interests that are expressed 64 . Potential conflicts and the possibility to disagree are fundamental for the aim of deliberation to solve social and political problems inside a pluralistic society 65 66 67 .…”

Section: Deliberative Quality Principles For Online Discoursesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberative Democracy in the Age of Social Media | Democracia deliberativa na Era das Redes Sociais

Völker¹

2019

Publicum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The potential of the social media to foster democracy and to strengthen grassroots participation has been widely and controversially discussed. This paper contributes to empirical as well as theoretical research by providing an in-depth analysis of political deliberation on social media. I will explore new paths to improve the quality of political deliberation and to apply and further develop deliberative democratic theory in the age of social media. My vision for a democratic internet is inspired by Fishkin's (2011; 2018) proposal that large-scale deliberative democracy could solve the democratic trilemma which is the pattern of conflict to realise all three key premises of democracy-political equality, deliberation and mass participation. My research goal is to explore which factors influence the quality of political discourses and large-scale deliberation on social media platforms. Based on Habermas and other deliberative democratic scholars, I adapt the deliberative democratic theory to the digital context and propose a set of normative standards (rationality, reciprocity, diversity, respect and inclusion) to evaluate the current quality and shape of online discussions. The findings highlight that online deliberation is embedded in a multi-layered context and the quality of deliberation is determined by the interplay of the socio-technical infrastructure, the political context, the legal framework and the participants of discourses. The analysis of social media platforms, such as Facebook, indicates that deliberation could be better implemented on publicly administered (new) platforms.

show abstract

Section: Deliberative Quality Principles For Online Discoursesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberative Democracy in the Age of Social Media | Democracia deliberativa na Era das Redes Sociais

Völker¹

2019

Publicum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Investigações mais recentes evidenciam a riqueza desse campo de estudos com uma profusão de objetos investigados. Stromer-Galley (2007), em artigo já clássico para pesquisadores de deliberação online, voltou-se ao desenvolvimento de uma grade analítica que foi aplicada a um processo deliberativo digital (The Virtual Agora Project), envolvendo 568 residentes de Pittsburgh,sobre o futuro de escolas públicas subutilizadas. Kies (2010), por sua vez, debruçouse sobre o fórum de um partido italiano (o Radicali Italiani) e sobre uma experiência eleitoral francesa, bem como sobre dados de diversos surveys europeus e americanos.…”

Section: Deliberação Onlineunclassified

“…5 Fishkin (2009), Hendriks (2011), Hendriks e Carson (2008), Warren (2007), Gastil e Levine (2005), Fung (2004), Coelho e Nobre 2004, Fung e Wright (2003), Ackerman e Fishkin (2003), Fishkin e Luskin (2000;, Wampler e Avritzer (2004), Avritzer (2002;, Baiocchi (2005), Abers e Keck (2006), Coelho, Pozzoni e Montoya (2005) e Cornwall e Coelho (2009). 6 Steenbergen et alii (2003), Bächtiger et alii (2009), Black et alii (2009), Stromer-Galley (2007), Kies (2010), Wales, Cotterill e Smith (2010), Graham e Witschge (2003), Wessler (2008), Maia (2008), Marques (2011), Sampaio, Maia e Marques (2010) e Mendonça e Pereira (2012).…”

Section: Deliberação Onlinementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Outra dificuldade ocorreu com uma tentativa de aplicação do operador sourcing no interior da variável "provimento de razões". Desenvolvido por Stromer-Galley (2007), tal operador busca avaliar as fontes mobilizadas por participantes na sustentação de seus argumentos. Como a grande maioria dos participantes não explicita suas fontes, o operador só poderia ser adotado com uma série de inferências que não julgamos confiáveis.…”

Section: Metodologiaunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Online deliberation in public consultations? The case of the state legislature of Minas Gerais

Mendonça¹,

Amaral²

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Title in Portuguese: Deliberação online em consultas públicas? O caso da assembleia legislativa de Minas GeraisAbstract: This paper utilizes deliberative democratic theory to analyze an online public consultation forum about political reform implemented by Minas Gerais State Legislature (ALMG), Brazil. Six topics guided the discussion of the 752 posts from this forum: (1) inclusiveness; (2) provisions of reasons; (3) reciprocity; (4) mutual respect; (5) orientation as it relates to the common good; and (6) articulation between arenas. The results point to (1) an over-representation of male participants and of dwellers of the Metropolitan Region of Belo Horizonte, although no participant monopolized the discussion; (2) the prevalence of on topic posts that present some form of justification for positions advocated; (3) very low levels of reciprocity between posts and of interactivity markers; (4) extremely high levels of respect; (5) different forms of articulating the common good; and (6) low impact in decision-making but interesting connections with the broader public sphere, specially through a story published by a newspaper.The findings of this study indicate a low probability of internal dialogue, which is contrary to the outcome desired by the supporters of deliberation. However, the potential for deliberative debates still exist if broader lenses are adopted. Tabulations between variables suggest that people tend to provide more reasons when commenting on more controversial discussions, although they tend to be less reciprocal in these situations. Thus, the hypothesis that suggests a preference for participation in conversations among like-minded discussants is supported by the analyzed data.Resumo: Este artigo busca analisar uma consulta pública online sobre reforma política promovida em 2011 pela Assembleia Legislativa de Minas Gerais. Embasado pela teoria deliberacionista, o estudo de 752 posts guiou-se pela discussão de seis tópicos: (1) inclusividade; (2) provimento de razões; (3) reciprocidade; (4) respeito mútuo; (5) orientação para o bem comum; e (6) articulação entre arenas. Os resultados indicam: (1) uma sobrerepresentação de participantes masculinos e oriundos da Região Metropolitana de Belo Horizonte, embora não tenha havido concentração de posts em alguns comentadores; (2) o predomínio de posts on topic e que apresentam justificativas para as posições advogadas; (3) índices muito baixos de reciprocidade entre posts e de uso de marcadores de interatividade; (4) graus muito elevados de respeito; (5) diferentes formas de ligação das justificativas a ideias de bem comum; (6) o baixo impacto decisório e a conexão com outras arenas da esfera pública, destacando-se a relação com uma matéria publicada em jornal de grande circulação. Os achados são ambivalentes para os defensores da deliberação, indicando baixa probabilidade de deliberação interna ao fórum, mas algum potencial deliberativo quando se adotam lentes mais amplas. Os cruzamentos entre variáveis sugerem que as pessoas tendem a prover mais justificativas em discussões mais controversas, embora tendam a dialogar menos nesses casos. Assim, a hipótese da preferência por conversas entre like-minded encontra respaldo nos dados analisados.

show abstract

“…Some specific phenomena receive coverage: flaming is a deliberate violation of the standards of communication on the Internet with the purpose of causing a negative reaction [26], cyberbullying is harassment common among adolescents [27], and others. Attempts are being made to describe and develop conditions for the implementation of standards of cooperative communication [15,28,29]. Compared with anonymous unregulated communication, the presence of conditions such as mandatory non-anonymity as well as pre-moderation of messages was shown to contribute to the implementation of standards of courtesy and mutual respect [15,16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Study of Network Community Capacity to be a Subject: Digital Discursive Footprints

Воронин

Grebenschikova

Kubrak

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article is devoted to the assessment of the network community as a collective subject, as a group of interconnected and interdependent persons performing joint activities. According to the main research hypothesis, various forms of group subjectness, which determine its readiness for joint activities, are manifested in the discourse of the network community. Discourse constitutes a network community, mediates the interaction of its participants, represents ideas about the world, values, relationships, attitudes, sets patterns of behavior. A procedure is proposed for identifying discernible traces of the subjectness of a network community at various levels (lexical, semantic, content-analytical scales, etc.). The subjective structure of the network community is described based on experts’ implicit representations. The revealed components of the subjectness of network communities are compared with the characteristics of the subjectness of offline social groups. It is shown that the structure of the subjectness of network communities for some components is similar to the structure of the characteristics of the subjectness of offline social groups: the discourse of the network community represents a discussion of joint activities, group norms and values, problems of civic identity. The specificity of network communities’ subjectness is revealed, which is manifested in the positive support of communication within the community, the identification and support of distinction between “us” and “them”. Two models of the relationship between discursive features and the construct “subjectness” are compared: additive-cumulative and additive. The equivalence of models is established based on the discriminativeness and the level of consistency with expert evaluation by external criteria.

show abstract

Measuring Deliberation’s Content: A Coding Scheme

Cited by 152 publications

References 27 publications

Deliberative Democracy in the Age of Social Media | Democracia deliberativa na Era das Redes Sociais

Deliberative Democracy in the Age of Social Media | Democracia deliberativa na Era das Redes Sociais

Online deliberation in public consultations? The case of the state legislature of Minas Gerais

The Study of Network Community Capacity to be a Subject: Digital Discursive Footprints

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About