Measuring the deliberative quality of an online experimental mini-public: methodology and early results

This paper reports the evolving analysis strategy and some early results from a large-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) that aims to explore the deliberative quality of internet engagement. The RCT divided 6009 participants into deliberation, information-only and control groups allowing us to investigate significant aspects of online democratic engagement. First it allows us to explore the extent to which moderated asynchronous discussion of policy issues (in this case youth anti-social behaviour and social cohesion) leads to reasoned shifts in policy preferences. Second, the design of the experiment provides an occasion to judge the relative impact of informed interaction between citizens as compared to individual reflection on information. Finally, a combination of quantitative analysis of the changes in policy preferences and use of the site and qualitative analysis of contributions to threads allows us to assess the extent to which interactions between citizens in this online environment can be understood as a form of democratic deliberation. More broadly, the experiment provides empirical insights that can inform contemporary debates on the desirability and effectiveness of internet-based participation in political decision making.

[1]  L. Cederman,et al.  Transnational Communication and the European Demos , 2009 .

[2]  S. Tefft.  Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide , 2002 .

[3]  J. Cappella,et al.  Does Disagreement Contribute to More Deliberative Opinion? , 2002 .

[4]  R. Kies,et al.  Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy , 2005 .

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

[6]  Thorsten Hüller.  John Gastil, Peter Levine (eds.): The deliberative democracy handbook. Strategies for effective civic engagement in the 21st century , 2007 .

[7]  ON DEMOCRACY , 1944 .

[8]  J. H. Snider,et al.  Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly , 2008 .

[9]  Xing Li.  Democracy and Human Rights , 2020, Selling War and Peace.

[10]  David Dutwin,et al.  The Character of Deliberation: Equality, Argument, and the Formation of Public Opinion , 2003 .

[11]  S. Coleman.  Connecting Parliament to the Public via the Internet , 2004 .

[12]  Warren Sack.  Discourse Architecture and Very Large-scale Conversation , 2009 .

[13]  Zhong Zhao,et al.  Using Matching to Estimate Treatment Effects: Data Requirements, Matching Metrics, and Monte Carlo Evidence , 2004, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[14]  Cass R. Sunstein,et al.  Deliberative Trouble - Why Groups Go to Extremes , 2000 .

[15]  Archon Fung,et al.  Survey Article: Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Design Choices and Their Consequences* , 2003 .

[16]  Joshua D. Angrist,et al.  Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables , 1993 .

[17]  Scott Wright,et al.  Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online discussion forums , 2007, New Media Soc..

[18]  Dennis F. Thompson.  Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science , 2008 .

[19]  J. Klein.  Deliberation Day , 2005 .

[20]  Bengt Muthén,et al.  Modeling of Intervention Effects With Noncompliance: A Latent Variable Approach for Randomized Trials , 2001 .

[21]  B. Barber.  Three Scenarios for the Future of Technology and Strong Democracy , 1998 .