In Search of Online Deliberation: Towards a New Method for Examining the Quality of Online Discussions

Graham, Todd; Witschge, Tamara

doi:10.1515/comm.2003.012

Cited by 103 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, once we move away from partisan-based newsgroups, a somewhat different picture emerges. For example, my own research of reader comment sections and reality TV, news media and government sponsored forums found that in all cases degrading exchanges -to lower in character, quality, esteem or rank another participant and/or participant's positionrepresented less than 15% of posts (Graham, 2010a(Graham, , 2010b(Graham, , 2012a(Graham, , 2012bGraham & Witschge, 2003;Graham & Wright, 2013). These findings are supported by other studies of various forum types (Hagemann, 2002;Halpern & Gibbs, 2013;Jensen, 2003;Papacharissi, 2004;Ruiz et al, 2011;Winkler, 2005).…”

Section: Discursive Equalitymentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Researchers have investigated informal political talk in a variety of online forums, which include (Usenet) newsgroups (Davis, 2005;Hill & Hughes, 1998;Papacharissi, 2004;Schneider, 1997;Wilhelm, 1999;Zhang, Cao, & Tran, 2013); news media sponsored forums -newspapers (Graham, 2010b;Schutz, 2000;Strandberg, 2008;Tanner, 2001;Tsaliki, 2002); forums hosted by political parties and governments -excluding e-consultations (Dunne, 2009;Graham & Witschge, 2003;Hagemann, 2002;Jankowski & Van Os, 2004;Winkler, 2005); online deliberative initiatives (Dahlberg, 2001b); comparisons between different types (Brants, 2002;Graham, 2011;Jensen, 2003); third spaces -non-political forums (Graham, , 2010a(Graham, , 2012a; other platforms such as chat (Stromer-Galley & Martinson, 2009), blogs (Koop & Jansen, 2009) and readers' comments (Graham, 2012b;Ruiz, Domingo, Micó, & Díaz-Noci, 2011); and social media network sites such as Facebook and YouTube (Halpern & Gibbs, 2013;Robertson, Vatrapu, & Medina, 2010). 4 Studies here focus on measuring the deliberativeness of political talk as a means of determining the extent to which the Internet is conducive to (particular) conditions of deliberation.…”

Section: Analysing and Assessing Online Political Talkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 First, scholars have been consumed by measuring the quality of rational-critical debate (see e.g. Graham & Witschge, 2003;Jensen, 2003;Kies, 2010;Stromer-Galley, 2007;Wilhelm, 1999). Researchers have focused on various elements such as gauging the level and quality of rationality, critical reflection, types of argumentation and the use of supporting evidence.…”

Section: Analysing and Assessing Online Political Talkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…My own research, which has covered a variety of forum types from news media message boards to political talk in third spaces, has revealed that participants tend to engage with each other rather than talk past one another (Graham, 2010a(Graham, , 2010b(Graham, , 2011(Graham, , 2012aGraham & Witschge, 2003;Graham & Wright, 2013). For example, my analysis of over 3000 posts from the reader comment sections of the Guardian found that more than half of the posts were engaged in reciprocal exchange, which was typically rational and critical in nature (Graham, 2012b).…”

Section: Reciprocitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Everyday political talk in the Internet-based public sphere

Graham

2015

Handbook of Digital Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

). In a time of growing cynicism and disillusionment towards politics, we have seen across Western democracies erosions of trust and engagement in political and media systems (see e.g. Brants, 2012;Coleman, 2012;Coleman & Blumler, 2009). As Blumler and Coleman (2001) argue, the current political communication structures that make up the public sphere are poorly serving certain democratic values, such as "opportunities for committed advocacy, rounded dialogue, sustained deliberation, and especially the provision of incentives for citizens to learn, choose, and become involved in, rather than merely to follow and kibbitz over,

show abstract

Section: Discursive Equalitymentioning

confidence: 73%

Section: Analysing and Assessing Online Political Talkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analysing and Assessing Online Political Talkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reciprocitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Everyday political talk in the Internet-based public sphere

Graham

2015

Handbook of Digital Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evidently, those factors are shaped by political culture, the ongoing digitisation of information and communication and contemporary phenomena such as the globalisation of socioeconomic, political and cultural values, standards and beliefs and (vice versa) their influence on concepts of citizenship and the nation state. Moreover, deliberation is closely related to the (Habermasian) political public sphere involving complex concepts such as equality, freedom, reflexivity, empathy and sincerity (Graham;Witschge 2003).…”

Section: Deliberation: Core Element Of Gender-focused Conceptions Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

Europeans have a Say: Online Debates and Consultations in the EU. Final report of a study carried out in the framework of the NODE programme of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. Institute of Technology Assessment and Centre for Social Innovation

Kozeluh¹,

Winkler²

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Political Discussion Online

Stromer‐Galley

Wichowski

2011

The Handbook of Internet Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2002, soon after the US and its allies went to war in Iraq, Nicholas Thompson wrote an opinion column for the Boston Globe on the then current state of online political conversation. The headline of Thompson's article spoke volumes about his opinion of online talk: "Freedom to Flame. Online Political Chat is an Insult to Democracy." He argued that online political conversation is "sophomoric," ranting, full of insults, and "an insult to democracy."Thompson's views likely resonate with many who have spent time engaged in online discussions of a political, social, or policy issue. In the US, as in Europe, it is a common view that online talk is far from the ideals of what political conversation should be. Instead of carefully thought out and reasonably argued positions, we see hastily written, irrational, or poorly argued posts. Instead of a willingness to hear the other side, we see a willingness to attack the other side.Why then do academics bother studying online political conversation? In the early days of Internet studies, as the Internet was diffusing, there was great optimism about what this new communication technology could offer. Specifically, the channel characteristics of the Internet -the ability to bridge vast distances, to connect diverse people together, to bring together the like-minded, and to do so quickly and relatively easy -seemed to promise a new means for people to hash through the tough problems facing communities, nation-states, and the globe.The reality, as is usually the case, is starkly different from the hope and the hype. Several studies have been conducted over the years, including some from the first author of this chapter, to help paint a picture of who spends time talking politics online, why they do it, and whether or not such conversations are any good for those who participate and for their societies. The studies provide a complex portrait of people, motives, and quality of conversation. Sometimes it looks exactly as Thompson described in his editorial piece. Sometimes, though, it is better.This chapter details that research and its significance. Before that, however, it is necessary to step back and consider why scholars should even contemplate online political conversation in the first place, and, specifically, why political talk The Handbook of Internet Studies Edited by Mia Consalvo and Charles Ess

show abstract

In Search of Online Deliberation: Towards a New Method for Examining the Quality of Online Discussions

Cited by 103 publications

References 14 publications

Everyday political talk in the Internet-based public sphere

Everyday political talk in the Internet-based public sphere

Europeans have a Say: Online Debates and Consultations in the EU. Final report of a study carried out in the framework of the NODE programme of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. Institute of Technology Assessment and Centre for Social Innovation

Political Discussion Online

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About