Context and Medium Matter: Expressing Disagreements Online and Face-to-Face in Political Deliberations

Abstract

Processes of disagreement are important to public deliberation, but research has not examined the dynamics of disagreement in deliberation of political topics with respect to effects of the channel of interaction. This study analyzes the discussions generated via an experiment in which discussants were randomly assigned either to deliberate online via synchronous chat or face-to-face. The study compares the initiation of disagreement, its qualities, and how long it is sustained in the two environments. Discourse analysis suggests that in the online environment initial expressions of disagreement were less frequent, less bold, and were not sustained as compared with the face-to-face discussions. Reasons include the lack of coherence in synchronous chat, which may challenge interlocutors and prevent them from pursuing a disagreement over multiple turns. Implications of these findings for scholars and practitioners are discussed.

One moment, please: Can the speed and quality of political contact affect democratic health?

“…We intuit this may say something specific about the experience of meeting an MP in person, particularly the heightened expectations and connectedness that may occur as a result. This supplements previous research that shows face-to-face interactions, as opposed to online communication methods, can yield bolder and more sustained political discussions and deliberations (Stromer-Galley et al, 2015). Unlike other forms of detached communication, citizens may expect their MPs to take more immediate action following direct political contact.…”

“…Although not a primary focus of this article, we also explored the effects of political contact across different media. Here, we build on analyses by Bimber (1999), Dahlberg (2001) and Stromer-Galley et al (2015), who have all demonstrated that the channels of interaction and the different affordances of tools can impact upon civic engagement. By contrast, we find very little variation across remote forms of media (email, letter and social media), with aggregate levels of satisfaction and anticipated engagement no different across these media regardless of our treatment conditions.…”

The Role of Experts across Two Different Arenas in a Deliberative System

“…We admit that the environments do not fully shape the actor's behaviour, since ideologies, life situations, functional roles and other factors contribute to staking out the social subjects' discursive actions. Yet, we do not discard the idea that the environmentincluding institutional organizations, set of actors, norms and publicsexerts a relevant influence on the speaker's communication, as theoretical and empirical studies on deliberation have proposed (Chambers, 2005(Chambers, , 2009(Chambers, , 2012Elstub & Mclaverty, 2014;Grönlund, Bachtiger, & Setälä, 2014;Niemeyer, 2014;Stromer-Galley, Bryant, & Bimber, 2015). In the next section, we explain our research questions.…”

Demographics and (Equal?) Voice: Assessing Participation in Online Deliberative Sessions

“…And, by extending the reach of deliberative opportunities, online deliberation may introduce participants to a more diverse range of views (Baek et al, 2011). In turn, this exposure to disagreement and differing opinions may meet important deliberative goals, challenging participants’ assumptions and increasing their ability to articulate arguments in support of both their own views and opposing positions (Stromer-Galley, 2017; Stromer-Galley et al, 2015).…”