Investigating incidence of common ground and alternative courses of action in an online forum

Online forums support civic discourses on local politics, but it is not clear whether they generate decision-relevant outcomes. Using deliberative democracy as a theoretical lens, this paper proposes a coding scheme for understanding the progress of citizens' deliberation through content analysis from a naturally occurring online discussion of a local planning project. By comparing patterns of this online discourse with normative views of deliberative dialogues, we found that important indicators of the deliberative ideal are missing. Our results show that citizens were not able to move towards advanced phases of deliberation as prescribed by deliberative democracy theory; and explain why it failed to develop common ground and joint assessment of alternative courses of action. We further explore possible causes of such patterns and identified a number of barriers that make online discussions less optimal to achieve common ground and collective judgment. Based on such findings, we suggest ways to improve deliberative outcomes by introducing active facilitation and advanced information support.

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

[2]  A. Sharif.  Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy , 2008 .

[3]  Angelique Chettiparamb,et al.  Interdisciplinarity: a literature review , 2007 .

[4]  Liza Tsaliki.  Online Forums and the Enlargement of Public Space: Research Findings from a European Project , 2002 .

[5]  Angi Voß,et al.  Evolution of a participatory GIS , 2004, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[6]  Christine E. Dunn,et al.  Geo-information tools for participatory spatial planning: Fulfilling the criteria for ‘good’ governance? , 2012 .

[7]  Lincoln Dahlberg.  The Internet and Democratic Discourse: Exploring The Prospects of Online Deliberative Forums Extending the Public Sphere , 2001 .

[8]  Terry Winograd,et al.  Understanding computers and cognition - a new foundation for design , 1987 .

[9]  Caroline W. Lee.  Is There a Place for Private Conversation in Public Dialogue? Comparing Stakeholder Assessments of Informal Communication in Collaborative Regional Planning1 , 2007, American Journal of Sociology.

[10]  C. Rinner.  Argumentation Mapping in Collaborative Spatial Decision Making , 2006 .

[11]  Ank Michels,et al.  Examining Citizen Participation: Local Participatory Policy Making and Democracy , 2010 .

[12]  L. Suchman.  Do categories have politics? The language/action perspective reconsidered , 1993 .

[13]  M. McCall,et al.  Assessing participatory GIS for community-based natural resource management: claiming community forests in Cameroon , 2005 .

[14]  S. Chambers,et al.  DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRATIC THEORY , 2003 .

[15]  M. McCoy,et al.  Deliberative Dialogue to Expand Civic Engagement: What Kind of Talk Does Democracy Need? , 2002 .

[16]  Karin Wahl-Jorgensen,et al.  Letters to the Editor as a Forum for public deliberation: modes of publicity and democratic debate , 2001 .

[17]  Claus Rinner,et al.  Evaluating Community Engagement through Argumentation Maps—A Public Participation GIS Case Study , 2009 .

[18]  M Tewdwr-Jones,et al.  Collaborative Action in Local Plan-Making: Planners' Perceptions of ‘Planning through Debate’ , 1998 .

[19]  R. Paterson,et al.  Local Government Efforts to Promote the “Three Es” of Sustainable Development , 2008 .

[20]  T. Sheldon,et al.  Increasing the visibility of coding decisions in team-based qualitative research in nursing. , 2004, International journal of nursing studies.

[21]  Tali Mendelberg.  THE DELIBERATIVE CITIZEN: THEORY AND EVIDENCE , 2009 .

[22]  Guoray Cai,et al.  Spatial Annotation Technology for Public Deliberation , 2009 .

[23]  Carla Norwood,et al.  Making Maps That Matter: Situating GIS within Community Conversations about Changing Landscapes , 2012, Cartogr. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Geovisualization.

[24]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Contributing to Discourse , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[25]  Judith E. Innes,et al.  Consensus Building: Clarifications for the Critics , 2004 .

[26]  Dale E. Brashers,et al.  Majority‐minority influence: identifying argumentative patterns and predicting argument‐outcome links , 2000 .

[27]  T. Campbell.  Beyond Smart Cities: How Cities Network, Learn and Innovate , 2012 .

[28]  Yutaka Yamauchi,et al.  Integrating local and remote worlds through channel blending , 2012, CSCW.

[29]  Noelle.,et al.  Making Choices Together: The Power of Public Deliberation , 2003 .

[30]  John Gastil,et al.  The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies For Effective Civic Engagement In The Twenty-First Century , 2005 .

[31]  John Gastil,et al.  Democracy in Small Groups: Participation, Decision Making, and Communication , 1993 .

[32]  Stephen L. Elkin.  Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform , 1991 .

[33]  Claus Rinner,et al.  Argumentation Maps: GIS-Based Discussion Support for On-Line Planning , 2001 .

[34]  Kimberly A. Neuendorf,et al.  The Content Analysis Guidebook , 2001 .

[35]  John Ripy,et al.  Planning, Technology, and Legitimacy: Structured Public Involvement in Integrated Transportation and Land-Use Planning in the United States , 2011 .

[36]  John Gastil,et al.  Public Deliberation as the Organizing Principle of Political Communication Research , 2007 .

[37]  D. Norris,et al.  e-participation in local governments: an empirical examination of impacts , 2013, DG.O.