The structural features and the deliberative quality of online discussions

This paper examines the quality of online political discussions from the perspective of deliberative democracy. Reason-giving and mutual respect are two important principles of deliberative democracy and, therefore, deemed indicators of the deliberative quality of online discussions. A content analysis of discussion threads about the 2004 US presidential election randomly selected from eight online spaces during the last month of the election was conducted to assess the relationships between the structural features of the spaces-diversity and moderation-and the deliberative quality of the discussions. The results showed that the relationship between moderation and the discussion quality was conditioned on the diversity of the spaces. The finding indicates that the structural features of online spaces may shape the deliberative quality of political discussions and, thus, deserve further scholarly attention.

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

[2]  Jock Given,et al.  The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom , 2007, Inf. Econ. Policy.

[3]  J. Walther.  Relational Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication: Experimental Observations over Time , 1995 .

[4]  B. Noveck,et al.  Citizens Deliberating Online : Theory and Some Evidence , 2006 .

[5]  Eric S. Fredin.  The Web of Politics: The Internet's Impact on the American Political System , 1999 .

[6]  Kevin Wise,et al.  Moderation, Response Rate, and Message Interactivity: Features of Online Communities and Their Effects on Intent to Participate , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[7]  K. A. Hill,et al.  Computer-Mediated Political Communication: The USENET and Political Communities , 1997 .

[8]  J. Cappella,et al.  Argument Repertoire as a Reliable and Valid Measure of Opinion Quality: Electronic Dialogue During Campaign 2000 , 2002 .

[9]  S. Coleman,et al.  Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation , 2001 .

[10]  A. Chadwick.  Web 2.0: New Challenges for the Study of E-Democracy in an Era of Informational Exuberance , 2009 .

[11]  Colin Farrelly,et al.  Contemporary Political Theory: A Reader , 2003 .

[12]  Kristen D. Landreville,et al.  Evolution of Online Campaigning: Increasing Interactivity in Candidate Web Sites and Blogs Through Text and Technical Features , 2006 .

[13]  Ian Kearns,et al.  E-Participation in Local Government , 2002 .

[14]  J. Habermas.  Three Normative Models of Democracy , 1994, Democracy and Difference.

[15]  John R. Hibbing,et al.  Stealth Democracy: Americans' Beliefs About How Government Should Work , 2002 .

[16]  Alain Boyer.  Democracy and Disagreement , 1995 .

[17]  Diana C. Mutz.  Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy , 2006 .

[18]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: divided they blog , 2005, LinkKDD '05.

[19]  Alan Agresti,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis , 2003 .

[20]  Zizi Papacharissi,et al.  The virtual sphere 2.0: The internet, the public sphere, and beyond , 2008 .

[21]  Zizi Papacharissi,et al.  The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld , 2009, New Media Soc..

[22]  John B. Horrigan and R. Kelly Garrett and Paul Resnick,et al.  The internet and democratic debate , 2004 .

[23]  Bryan Pfaffenberger.  If I Want it, It's OK: Usenet and the (Outer) Limits of Free Speech , 1996, Inf. Soc..

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

[25]  Rita Felski,et al.  Beyond Feminist Aesthetics: Feminist Literature and Social Change , 1992 .

[26]  J. Habermas,et al.  The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society , 1986 .

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

[28]  Jennifer Stromer-Galley,et al.  Diversity of Political Conversation on the Internet: Users' Perspectives , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[29]  Stephen A. Rains,et al.  Leveling the Organizational Playing Field—Virtually , 2005, Commun. Res..

[30]  Weiyu Zhang,et al.  TECHNICAL CAPITAL AND PARTICIPATORY INEQUALITY IN EDELIBERATION , 2010 .

[31]  Shelly Schaefer Hinck,et al.  Politeness in Presidential Debates: Shaping Political Face in Campaign Debates from 1960 to 2004 , 2007 .

[32]  Joshua R. Smith,et al.  Debate, Division, and Diversity: Political Discourse Networks in USENET Newsgroups , 2005 .

[33]  A. Hollingshead.  Information Suppression and Status Persistence in Group Decision Making The Effects of Communication Media , 1996 .

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

[35]  Sheizaf Rafaeli,et al.  Time to Split, Virtually: 'Discourse Architecture' and 'Community Building' Create Vibrant Virtual Publics , 2000, Electron. Mark..

[36]  C. Sunstein.  Republic.com , 2001 .

[37]  R. Gibson,et al.  The Internet and Politics: Citizens, Voters and Activists , 2006 .

[38]  B. Barber.  Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age , 1985 .

[39]  danah boyd,et al.  Can social network sites enable political action , 2008 .

[40]  S. Schneider.  NEW MEDIA CAMPAIGNS AND THE MANAGED CITIZEN , 2007 .

[41]  Howard Rheingold,et al.  The Virtual Community: Finding Commection in a Computerized World , 1993 .

[42]  William Wresch,et al.  Democracy in the Digital Age: Challenges to Political Life in Cyberspace , 2001, Inf. Soc..

[43]  J. Habermas.  Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action , 1990 .

[44]  F. Gasparo,et al.  Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. and Its Procedural Shock Wave: The Markman Hearing , 1997 .

[45]  Scott Wright.  Design Matters: the political efficacy of government-run online discussion forums , 2005 .

[46]  Maria A. Simone.  Deliberative Democracy Online: Bridging Networks With Digital Technologies , 2010 .

[47]  Nancy Fraser,et al.  Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of democracy as it really is , 2001 .

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

[49]  Ananda Mitra,et al.  Virtual commonality: looking for India on the Internet , 1997 .

[50]  F. C. P. Motta.  The theory of communicative action , 1991 .

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

[52]  John Gastil,et al.  Future Directions for Public Deliberation , 2005 .

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

[54]  William H. Dutton,et al.  The Internet and the Public: Online and Offline Political Participation in the United Kingdom , 2006 .

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

[56]  P. Howard.  New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen , 2005 .

[57]  Mark Aakhus,et al.  Arguing in Internet Chat Rooms: Argumentative Adaptations to Chat Room Design and Some Consequences for Public Deliberation at a Distance , 2003 .

[58]  Simon Sheikh.  The Production of Space , 1996 .

[59]  Weiyu Zhang,et al.  Constructing and Disseminating Subaltern Public Discourses in China , 2006 .

[60]  Dirk R. Scheerhorn.  Politeness in decision‐making , 1991 .

[61]  Lincoln Dahlberg,et al.  Extending the Public Sphere Through Cyberspace: The Case of Minnesota E-Democracy , 2001, First Monday.

[62]  C. Hurrell,et al.  Civility in Online Discussion: The Case of the Foreign Policy Dialogue , 2006 .

[63]  J. Bohman,et al.  Survey Article: The Coming of Age of Deliberative Democracy , 1998 .

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

[65]  R. Rice.  Media Appropriateness Using Social Presence Theory to Compare Traditional and New Organizational Media , 1993 .