Online versus face-to-face deliberation: Who? Why? What? With what effects?

Abstract

Although there has been much speculation regarding the strengths and weaknesses of face-to-face versus online deliberative settings, no studies have systematically compared the two. Drawing on a national sample of Americans who reported deliberating faceto-face and/or online, we examine these two deliberative settings with regard to the participants, the motivations, the process, and the effects. Our findings, although tentative, suggest that the two settings are distinct in several important ways. Relative to face-to-face deliberation, online deliberation over-represents young, male, and white users, attracts more ideological moderates, generates more negative emotions, and is less likely to result in consensus and political action. At the same time, online deliberators perceived online settings as more politically and racially diverse. Implications for understanding the democratic potential of different forms of deliberation are discussed.

Government-Driven Participation and Collective Intelligence: A Case of the Government 3.0 Initiative in Korea

“…Fans of the online public sphere believe in equalization in the socioeconomic status of participants [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51]. Empirical studies revealed that an increasing number of online participants belong to the lower level of household income and education.…”

Everyday political talk in the Internet-based public sphere

“…It now covers a variety of research agendas, which include comparisons between face-to-face and online deliberation (Wojcieszak, Baek & Delli Carpini, 2009;Baek, Wojcieszak, & Delli Carpini, 2012); the use of online consultations (Albrecht, 2006;Åström & Grönlund, 2012;Coleman, 2004;Fishkin, 2009;Karlsson, 2012;Kies, 2010;Winkler, 2005); moderation and the design of forums (Bendor, Lyons, & Robinson, 2012;Edwards, 2002;Wright, 2009;Wright & Street, 2007); the extent to which forums facilitate contact between opposing perspectives (Brundidge, 2010;Stromer-Galley, 2003;Wojcieszak & Mutz, 2009); and the effects of online deliberation on civic engagement (Price & Cappella, 2002). One of the most popular lines of research, however, has been the study of informal political talk through the lens of deliberative ideals.…”

‘Mr G is deffinately bringin’ Sexy back': characterizing Chris Lilley'sYouTubeaudience

“…views, the clip is one of the highest viewed of all Chris Lilley clips on YouTube, attracting language has spawned a flourishing area of study for communication scholars. While some have suggested the anonymity provided by an on-line environment can support negative interactions (Baek et al 2012), others argue against a media-determinant view that sees computer-mediated communication as the cause of flaming (Lange 2007;Vrooman 2002). 10 As Jenkins writes of fan activity, it is common for fans to appropriate media texts and to re-fashion them in forms to suit their purposes.…”