Impact of Temporality and Identifiability in Online Deliberations on Discussion Quality: An Experimental Study

Strandberg, Kim; Berg, Janne

doi:10.1080/13183222.2015.1041230

Cited by 16 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They conclude that short messages lead to underdeveloped arguments, display a lack of coherence, and show a high level of personal attack (Stromer‐Galley & Martinson, , p. 197). Strandberg and Berg () provide evidence from an online experiment that suggests that asynchronous discussion is a crucial design factor for online deliberation.…”

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design Matters! An Empirical Analysis of Online Deliberation on Different News Platforms

Esau¹,

Frieß²,

Eilders³

2017

Policy & Internet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ever since the Internet has provided easy access to online discussion, advocates of deliberative democracy have hoped for an improved public sphere. This article investigates which particular platform features promote deliberative debate online. We assume that moderation, asynchronous discussion, a well‐defined topic, and the availability of information enhance the level of deliberative quality of user comments. A comparison between different types of news platforms that differ in terms of design (a news forum, news websites, and Facebook news pages) shows that deliberation (measured as rationality, reciprocity, respect, and constructiveness) differs significantly between platforms. We find that the news forum yields the most rational and respectful debate. While user comments on news websites are only slightly less deliberative, Facebook comments perform poorly in terms of deliberative quality. However, comments left on news websites and on Facebook show particularly high levels of reciprocity among users.

show abstract

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design Matters! An Empirical Analysis of Online Deliberation on Different News Platforms

Esau¹,

Frieß²,

Eilders³

2017

Policy & Internet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This variable may affect how resources are allocated in physical-location-based public engagement events. We know from the existing literature that the quality of discussion in such events differs depending on whether participants were present at the event itself as-it-happened or some time later (Strandberg and Berg, 2015). It should be noted that the source of the difference may be that people who watch the event in delay are of a different type such that measured differences cannot be attributed to synchronicity.…”

Section: Variables That Can Influence the Outcomes Of Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Watching participatory budgeting events or attending them produce different distributive outcomes

Lev‐On

2021

OIR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe study examines the impact of presence, synchronicity of exposure and other variables on allocative decisions reached following a participatory budgeting event.Design/methodology/approachThe study analyzes the distributive decisions reached following a participatory budgeting event, which took place in an academic institution, and students were asked to determine the distribution of a portion of the student union budget. Some students viewed the event live (physically or remotely), while others watched it in delay.FindingsThe main variable affecting allocative decisions was whether decision-makers were exposed to the event physically or remotely. There was a significant and large difference between allocation decisions of participants who were physically present at the event and those who were exposed to it remotely.Practical implicationsThe discussion elaborates on the implications of the findings for the importance of presence and media selection in public engagement events.Originality/valuePublic engagement events are becoming widespread, with the Internet being a major tool in their administration. This study demonstrates that using the Internet to make such events accessible to the non-physically present can create significant changes in decisions reached by participants.

show abstract

“…In the throughput phase, special emphasis is put on the substance and quality of user discourses. In this context, research has not only traced the content characteristics of comments in different issue fields; primarily, numerous studies have, with thoroughly contradicting results, analyzed how far user comments live up to the normative ideals of deliberative discourses (Rowe, 2015; Ruiz et al , 2011; Strandberg and Berg, 2015; Coe et al , 2014). Here, one of the relevant questions concerns the aims media users pursue when writing online comments (Diakopoulos and Naaman, 2011; Springer et al , 2015; Ziegele et al , 2013).…”

Section: State Of Research and Open Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Trolls” or “warriors of faith”?

Eberwein

2019

JICES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The idea that user comments on journalistic articles would help to increase the quality of the media has long been greeted with enthusiasm. By now, however, these high hopes have mostly evaporated. Practical experience has shown that user participation does not automatically lead to better journalism but may also result in hate speech and systematic trolling – thus having a dysfunctional impact on journalistic actors. Although empirical journalism research has made it possible to describe various kinds of disruptive follow-up communication on journalistic platforms, it has not yet succeeded in explaining what exactly drives certain users to indulge in flaming and trolling. This paper intends to fill this gap. Design/methodology/approach It does so on the basis of problem-centered interviews with media users who regularly publish negative comments on news websites. Findings The evaluation allows for a nuanced view on current phenomena of dysfunctional follow-up communication on journalistic news sites. It shows that the typical “troll” does not exist. Instead, it seems to be more appropriate to differentiate disruptive commenters according to their varying backgrounds and motives. Quite often, the interviewed users display a distinct political (or other) devotion to a certain cause that rather makes them appear as “warriors of faith.” However, they are united in their dissatisfaction with the quality of the (mass) media, which they attack critically and often with a harsh tone. Originality/value The study reflects these differences by developing a typology of dysfunctional online commenters. By helping to understand their aims and intentions, it contributes to the development of sustainable strategies for stimulating constructive user participation in a post-truth age.

show abstract

Impact of Temporality and Identifiability in Online Deliberations on Discussion Quality: An Experimental Study

Cited by 16 publications

References 31 publications

Design Matters! An Empirical Analysis of Online Deliberation on Different News Platforms

Design Matters! An Empirical Analysis of Online Deliberation on Different News Platforms

Watching participatory budgeting events or attending them produce different distributive outcomes

“Trolls” or “warriors of faith”?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About