Within democratic theory, the deliberative variant has assumed pre-eminence. It represents for many the ideal of democracy, and in pursuit of this ideal, online discussion forums have been proposed as solutions to the practical limits to mass deliberation. Critics have pointed to evidence which suggests that online discussion has tended to undermine deliberation. This article argues that this claim, which generates a stand-off between the two camps, misses a key issue: the role played by design in facilitating or thwarting deliberation. It argues that political choices are made both about the format and operation of the online discussion, and that this affects the possibility of deliberation. Evidence for the impact of design (and the choices behind it) is drawn from analysis of European Union and UK discussion forums. This evidence suggests that we should view deliberation as dependent on design and choice, rather than a predetermined product of the technology.

Environmental analysis is a critical part of the strategic management planning process. The SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) framework is proposed by many as an analytical tool which should be used to categorize significant environmental factors both internal and external to the organization. SWOT analysis has been praised for its simplicity and practicality. As a framework it has been widely adopted but, generally, its use has been accepted uncritically. It is timely to reappraise its value as a strategic management tool. If used simplistically, the SWOT framework is a ‘naive’ tool which may lead to strategic errors. More detailed analysis using complementary frameworks can overcome SWOT's inherent shortfalls. SWOT should not be viewed as a static analytical tool with emphasis solely on its output. It should be used as a dynamic part of the management and business development process. Despite impressions often created by many authors on the subject who portray strategic planning as systematic, sequential and rational, the realities of planning reveal that strategy formulation is more likely to be somewhat more incremental, non‐rational and irregular; more ‘organic’ than ‘mechanic’. Use of the SWOT framework tends to be most closely associated with the ‘mechanistic’ approach and suffers as a consequence of this association. SWOT analysis does not have to be mechanistic; adoption of the approach proposed here with emphasis on its process values as well as its output is strongly recommended.

No abstract

Moderators are widely thought to be crucial to the facilitation of high-quality democratic debate, particularly in government-sponsored participatory exercises. There are, however, persistent fears that moderators censor rather than promote free speech, leading to a 'shadow of control'. This article analyses the relationship between moderation and censorship on two British central government online discussion fora: Downing Street's Speaker's Corner and Policy Forum, and Citizen Space's E-Democracy Forum. Two models of moderation are developed to help structure the analysis. The main conclusions are that moderation strategies must be clearly linked to the policy goals behind the forum, and that the moderator's roles should be separated to limit the so-called 'shadow'. The censorial role being conducted by an independent body, with facilitation activities conducted by civil servants linked to the policy being discussed.

The suggestion that new media might revolutionize politics persists as one of the most influential and popular discourses. There has been a burgeoning scholarly response, often framed through the polarising 'revolution ' and 'normalization' 'schools' (Davis, 2009;Margolis and Resnick, 2000). This article argues that the schism between revolution and normalization has negatively influenced subsequent empirical analyses of political conversation online (and of e-democracy studies more generally). First, it will argue that many scholars have failed to consider the nature of revolutionary change in any detail, tending to frame and interpret their research findings with the very technologically determinist accounts of revolutionary change of which they are so critical. Second, it will argue that the revolution/normalization frame has led researchers to disproportionately analyse existing political institutions and practices, often using narrow definitions of politics and normative underpinnings that simply may not be relevant in the context of new media. Finally, the article argues that the revolution/normalization frame may have led researchers to interpret their empirical data in an unduly negative way. Combined together the revolution/normalization frame can shape the selection of cases, the choice of research questions and how subsequent results are interpreted -with the danger that researchers are being unduly pessimistic about the prevalence and nature of political debate online. The critique will lead to a series of suggestions about how scholars can take online deliberation research forward.