Theory-Driven Collocated CMC: A Study of Collocated Mediated Interaction as a Public Sphere

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools are used to increase social interaction in collocated settings. Recent research has been primarily constructive (oriented to building of systems) or phenomenon-driven (serving attempts to understand interactions in collocated CMC). The paper contributes a theory-driven approach and examines collocated CMC as a Habermasean "public sphere": a space that supports inclusive, civil, and rational discussion. An in-the-wild experimental study comparing CMC with face-to-face (F2F) communication enabled ascertaining that CMC is more inclusive than F2F communication. Respectfulness levels did not differ but were established differently: via collective construction of a common narrative in F2F and through quick reactions in CMC. Similarly, while rationality figures were on a par, F2F communication allowed participants to justify their claims better. The article discusses how a theory-based approach can strengthen phenomenon-driven research with new conceptual frames and measurement tools, and steer constructive research with a normative framework.

[1]  M. Steenbergen,et al.  Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index , 2003 .

[2]  J. Dryzek.  Deliberative democracy and beyond : liberals, critics, contestations , 2000 .

[3]  Bryan T. Gervais.  Incivility Online: Affective and Behavioral Reactions to Uncivil Political Posts in a Web-based Experiment , 2015 .

[4]  Todd Graham,et al.  Needles in a Haystack , 2008 .

[5]  Batya Friedman,et al.  Value-sensitive design , 1996, INTR.

[6]  Hanspeter Kriesi,et al.  Models for democracy , 2013 .

[7]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Augmenting classroom participation through public digital backchannels , 2012, GROUP.

[8]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  I felt like a contributing member of the class: increasing class participation with classcommons , 2009, GROUP.

[9]  Alan Borning,et al.  Supporting reflective public thought with considerit , 2012, CSCW.

[10]  Pablo J. Boczkowski,et al.  The Relevance of Algorithms , 2013 .

[11]  Joshua M. Scacco,et al.  Changing Deliberative Norms on News Organizations' Facebook Sites , 2015, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[12]  Matti Nelimarkka,et al.  A Field Trial of an Anonymous Backchannel Among Primary School Pupils , 2014, GROUP '14.

[13]  Matti Nelimarkka,et al.  Threading and conversation in co-located chats , 2015, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[14]  Christopher A. Le Dantec,et al.  Illegitimate Civic Participation: Supporting Community Activists on the Ground , 2015, CSCW.

[15]  Anirban Dasgupta,et al.  Superposter behavior in MOOC forums , 2014, L@S.

[16]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Facilitating Group Creativity: Experience with a Group Decision Support System , 1987, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[17]  Todd Graham,et al.  Discursive Equality and Everyday Talk Online: The Impact of "Superparticipants" , 2014, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[18]  M. D. Carpini,et al.  Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature , 2004 .

[19]  Mark Klein,et al.  Enabling Large-Scale Deliberation Using Attention-Mediation Metrics , 2011, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[20]  Jennifer Stromer-Galley.  Measuring Deliberation’s Content: A Coding Scheme , 2007, Regular Issue.

[21]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Groupware Environments as Action Constitutive Resources: A Social Action Framework for Analyzing Groupware Technologies , 1997, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[22]  Anthony G. Wilhelm.  Virtual sounding boards: How deliberative is on‐line political discussion? , 1998 .

[23]  J. V. Deth.  Studying Political Participation : Towards a Theory of Everything? , 2001 .

[24]  Zizi Papacharissi,et al.  Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups , 2004, New Media Soc..

[25]  S. Albrecht.  Whose voice is heard in online deliberation?: A study of participation and representation in political debates on the internet , 2006 .

[26]  C. Mouffe.  Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism , 2000 .

[27]  Claudia Landwehr.  Democratic Meta-Deliberation: Towards Reflective Institutional Design , 2015 .

[28]  Alan Borning,et al.  Next steps for value sensitive design , 2012, CHI.

[29]  S. Gosling,et al.  A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains , 2003 .

[30]  C. Hendriks,et al.  Coupling citizens and elites in deliberative systems: The role of institutional design , 2016 .

[31]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Reflecting human values in the digital age , 2009, CACM.

[32]  Barry A. T. Brown,et al.  Into the wild: challenges and opportunities for field trial methods , 2011, CHI.

[33]  Eric Gordon,et al.  Setting the stage for interaction: a tablet application to augment group discussion in a seminar class , 2012, CSCW '12.

[34]  John Boswell.  Why and how Narrative Matters in Deliberative Systems , 2013 .

[35]  Bryan C. Semaan,et al.  Designing Political Deliberation Environments to Support Interactions in the Public Sphere , 2015, CHI.

[36]  Danah Boyd,et al.  Digital backchannels in shared physical spaces: experiences at an academic conference , 2005, CHI EA '05.

[37]  Diana C. Mutz.  Is Deliberative Democracy a Falsifiable Theory , 2008 .

[38]  Matti Nelimarkka,et al.  Live Participation: Augmenting Events with Audience-Performer Interaction Systems , 2016, Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.

[39]  Karrie Karahalios,et al.  Encouraging Initiative in the Classroom with Anonymous Feedback , 2011, INTERACT.

[40]  Graham Smith.  Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation - Theories of Institutional Design , 2009 .

[41]  Todd Graham.  Beyond “Political” Communicative Spaces: Talking Politics on the Wife Swap Discussion Forum , 2012 .

[42]  Phoebe Sengers,et al.  The Three Paradigms of HCI , 2007 .

[43]  Antti Oulasvirta,et al.  HCI Research as Problem-Solving , 2016, CHI.

[44]  Drew Harry,et al.  Backchan.nl: integrating backchannels with physical space , 2008, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[45]  Walter Bender,et al.  Influencing group participation with a shared display , 2004, CSCW.

[46]  Kaan Varnali,et al.  A social influence perspective on expressive political participation in Twitter: the case of #OccupyGezi , 2015 .

[47]  Nili Steinfeld,et al.  Promoting online deliberation quality: cognitive cues matter , 2014 .

[48]  Christopher A. Le Dantec,et al.  Participation and publics: supporting community engagement , 2012, CHI.

[49]  L. Monnoyer-Smith,et al.  Technology and the quality of public deliberation: a comparison between on and offline participation , 2012 .

[50]  Lincoln Dahlberg,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication and The Public Sphere: A Critical Analysis , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[51]  L. Winner.  DO ARTIFACTS HAVE (cid:1) POLITICS? , 2022 .

[52]  J. Habermas,et al.  The structural transformation of the public sphere : an inquiryinto a category of bourgeois society , 1991 .

[53]  K. Foot,et al.  Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society , 2014 .

[54]  Deborah G. Tatar,et al.  Lessons from thoughtswap-ing: increasing participants' coordinative agency in facilitated discussions , 2010, CSCW '10.

[55]  J. Dewey,et al.  The Public and Its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry , 2016 .

[56]  Bryan C. Semaan,et al.  Social media supporting political deliberation across multiple public spheres: towards depolarization , 2014, CSCW.

[57]  Clarence A. Ellis,et al.  Groupware: some issues and experiences , 1991, CACM.

[58]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Lessons from a Dozen Years of Group Support Systems Research: A Discussion of Lab and Field Findings , 1996, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[59]  Ian Rowe,et al.  Civility 2.0: a comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion , 2015 .

[60]  Alex Pentland,et al.  Meeting mediator: enhancing group collaboration with sociometric feedback , 2008, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[61]  Tanja Aitamurto,et al.  Crowdsourced Deliberation: The Case of the Law on Off-Road Traffic in Finland , 2016 .

[62]  Graham Smith,et al.  Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation - Theories of Institutional Design , 2009 .

[63]  Karrie Karahalios,et al.  Conversation Clock: Visualizing audio patterns in co-located groups , 2007, 2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07).

[64]  Jane E Caldwell,et al.  Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips. , 2007, CBE life sciences education.

[65]  Henrik Serup Christensen,et al.  Deliberation and Opinion Change: Evidence from a Deliberative Mini-public in Finland , 2014 .

[66]  S. Yitzhaki,et al.  A note on the calculation and interpretation of the Gini index , 1984 .

[67]  Susanne Bødker,et al.  When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges , 2006, NordiCHI '06.

[68]  Bruce M. Wilson,et al.  Spillover Effects in Online Discussions: Assessing the Effectiveness of Student Preceptors , 2014 .

[69]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Communication patterns for a classroom public digital backchannel , 2012, SIGDOC '12.

[70]  Richard M Buck,et al.  Why Deliberative Democracy? , 2007 .

[71]  E. Schegloff,et al.  A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation , 1974 .

[72]  Sarita Yardi.  The role of the backchannel in collaborative learning environments , 2006 .

[73]  Drew Harry,et al.  Backchan.nl: integrating backchannels with physical space , 2008, CHI 2008.

[74]  Peter John,et al.  Taking Political Engagement Online: An Experimental Analysis of Asynchronous Discussion Forums , 2011 .

[75]  C. DiSalvo,et al.  Design and the Construction of Publics , 2009, Design Issues.

[76]  Robin H. Kay,et al.  Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[77]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Normative influences on thoughtful online participation , 2011, CHI.

[78]  Lincoln Dahlberg,et al.  Re-constructing digital democracy: An outline of four ‘positions’ , 2011, New Media Soc..

[79]  Antti Oulasvirta.  Rethinking Experimental Designs for Field Evaluations , 2012, IEEE Pervasive Computing.

[80]  Grant Blank,et al.  WHO CREATES CONTENT? , 2013 .

[81]  Robert C. Richards,et al.  Inspiring and Informing Citizens Online: A Media Richness Analysis of Varied Civic Education Modalities , 2015, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..