The sociodemographics of political public deliberation: Measuring deliberative quality in different user groups

Klinger, Ulrike; Rußmann, Uta

doi:10.1515/commun-2015-0017

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Media and internet use, especially that of SNSs, were found to mediate this relationship (Gil de Zúñiga, Jung, and Valenzuela, 2012;Xenos and Moy, 2007). This is not surprising as recent studies on internet use refer to a general shift from a first-level digital divide on physical internet access to a second-level or participation divide based on socio-demographic variables (e.g., age, sex, educational attainment; e.g., Klinger and Russmann, 2015) as well as internet skills and use (Brake, 2014;Min, 2010;van Deursen and van Dijk, 2011). Hence, one might expect users with a high interest in and knowledge about climate change as well as more frequent (online) media use to be more likely to engage in the online discourse.…”

Section: Online Engagementmentioning

confidence: 83%

Who participates in the climate change online discourse? A typology of Germans’ online engagement

Taddicken

Reif

2016

Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues the relevance of the internet for scientific communication. It is not only an immense source of information, it also empowers laypeople to interact by commenting, rating, and sharing online content. Previous studies have found that users' contributions to online content affect the reception processes. However, research on who actually uses these participatory possibilities is scarce. This paper characterizes engaged (and non-engaged) online users by analyzing online engagement (using search engines and different participatory forms) with a representative German online survey (n = 1,463). Different groups of climate change perceptions (such as uncertainty of scientific evidence), attitudes, knowledge, and online engagement are identified with hierarchical cluster analyses. Interest and knowledge are main drivers of online engagement, although a group of uninterested, unknowing and doubtful users participates in SNSs. The most active group, participating experts, knows most about scientific processes in climate sciences. No distinct group of skeptical participants was identified.

show abstract

Section: Online Engagementmentioning

confidence: 83%

Who participates in the climate change online discourse? A typology of Germans’ online engagement

Taddicken

Reif

2016

Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Turning to potential differences in deliberative discussion quality according to gender, previous findings are mixed. Several studies have found no gender gap in terms of deliberative quality (Klinger and Russmann 2015;Grunenfelder and Bächtiger 2007;Himmelroos 2017;. Nevertheless, a study by Afsahi (2020) indicates that women can display a higher capacity to engage in deliberative behavior compared to men.…”

Section: Deliberative Quality In Mixed Deliberation According To Status and Gendermentioning

confidence: 99%

When citizens met politicians – the process and outcomes of mixed deliberation according to participant status and gender

Berg

Strandberg

Karv

et al. 2021

Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With deliberative democracy becoming increasingly incorporated into political processes, the instances of citizens and politicians meeting in deliberation, so-called mixed deliberations, is increasing too. While these are important steps towards more deliberative systems, the mixed deliberation setting nonetheless introduces certain risks regarding equality. Citizens and politicians have different deliberative capacities, which could affect the process of deliberation. Moreover, political inequalities such as gender gaps may be more evident in deliberations where politicians are present. This study focuses on a series of mixed deliberations in 2018 about a proposed municipal merger in Finland. Using content analysis of speech acts (N = 3404) as well as pre-and post-deliberation surveys (N = 225), we analyze patterns according to participant status (politician/citizen) and gender regarding dominance, deliberative discussion quality, and impact on internal and external efficacy. The findings show that politicians dominated the discussions and achieved a higher deliberative quality than citizens. The findings also revealed that women achieved higher deliberative quality in their speech acts.

show abstract

“…Other indices and frameworks have been proposed, but they still rely on (a subset of) similar dimensions. For instance, Klinger and Russmann (2015) have investigated citizens' participation in deliberation processes by proposing an index of the quality of understanding that includes dimensions about statements of reasons, proposals for solutions, respect, doubts and reciprocity. Other studies have developed a more comprehensive framework that accounts for the multifaceted concept of deliberation.…”

Section: Existing Measures Of Debate Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing and mapping difference indices of debate quality on Twitter

Reveilhac¹

2023

Methodological Innovations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Albeit the measurement of debate quality is not a new endeavour, this paper raises two research questions for which we still have limited knowledge: What are important and reliable indicators of debate quality on social media? How does debate quality relate to individual factors on social media? First, we empirically analysed how two well-established discourse’ quality indices (the DQI and CC index) correlate to each other using a random sample of 1000 tweets selected from the full history of tweets written by Swiss elected politicians between 2011 and 2021. While the sample was automatically coded for CC using LIWC, we manually annotated the tweets according to an adapted version of the DQI for social media texts. Second, we conducted a correspondence analysis to investigate the relations between these dimensions, additional debate quality features, as well as individual political factors. Results show a good correlation between both indices ( r up to 0.46), while also highlighting their respective weaknesses. Furthermore, the results highlight the necessity to include alternative dimensions of debate quality (such as emotion and inclusive or exclusive views) to enhance future measurements of debate quality in the realm of social media.

show abstract

The sociodemographics of political public deliberation: Measuring deliberative quality in different user groups

Cited by 8 publications

References 13 publications

Who participates in the climate change online discourse? A typology of Germans’ online engagement

Who participates in the climate change online discourse? A typology of Germans’ online engagement

When citizens met politicians – the process and outcomes of mixed deliberation according to participant status and gender

Comparing and mapping difference indices of debate quality on Twitter

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About