Recognition and the Media

Rezende

2016

J Comput-Mediat Comm

Self Cite

There is extensive research dedicated to civility in online deliberationIn a healthy democracy, deliberative scholars expect that citizens engage in reasonable discussion and try to understand each other by recognizing basic principles such as pluralism and mutual respect (Gutmann & Thompson, 2004; Habermas, 1996;Mansbridge et al., 2012;Steiner, 2012). In practice, of course,We have discussed some of the ideas in this article with Jürg Steiner, Patricia Rossini, Rafael C. Sampaio and participants of Group EME/UFMG and we thank them for their valuable comments. We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers of JCMC for their suggestions. We thank the undergraduate students -Bárbara Lana, Larissa Arreguy, Rodrigo Miranda and Thais Chouchair, who helped us with the methodological procedures of this work. Finally, we thank Capes, CNPq and Fapemig for the financial support that allowed us to conduct this research.

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Respect and Disrespect in Deliberation Across the Networked Media Environment: Examining Multiple Paths of Political Talk

Rezende

2016

J Comput-Mediat Comm

Self Cite

“…While these types of speakers are usually invested with the authority to analyze, synthesize, and recommend remedies for social conflicts in forums (Karpowitz and Raphael, 2014;Quirk et al, 2018), ordinary citizens respond with their own reasons, often making references on their values, interests, and subjective experiences to explain problems and possible solutions (Karpowitz and Mansbridge, 2005;Carson et al, 2013;Gerber et al, 2016). Ordinary citizens invoke their own stories and experiences to make sense of the problem and how they see it affecting them (Polletta and Lee, 2006;Black and Lubensky, 2013;Maia, 2014;Gerber et al, 2016;Sprain and Black, 2017;Polletta and Gardner, 2018). In the face of these considerations, we hypothesize that:…”

Section: Contexts Of Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Underprivileged people frequently narrate personal experiences to politicize their situation, making different forms of domination visible (discrimination, exclusion, exploitation, etc.) as to facilitate consciousness-raising (Young, 2000;Maia, 2012Maia, , 2014Maia and Garcêz, 2014;Johnson et al, 2017). When searching for solutions, people can also vocalize stories as to identify otherwise obscure causal mechanisms or reveal the moral complexity of certain problems, particularly when rights are not assured or specific policies are unavailable (Steiner, 2012;Maia, 2014;Polletta and Gardner, 2018).…”

Section: Functions Of Reasons and Storiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Which types of reason-giving and storytelling are good for deliberation? Assessing the discussion dynamics in legislative and citizen forums

Cal

Bargas

et al. 2020

Eur. Pol. Sci. Rev.

Self Cite

Real-world political discussions usually mix reason-giving and storytelling in complex ways, but the interplay between these practices remains essentially unexamined. This article builds a theoretical argument based on a systemic approach for investigating such forms of communication in institutionally organized forums and informal settings alike. It contends that generalizations should not be made about the role of giving reasons and telling stories for good deliberation. A distinctive analytical framework is developed for examining these practices when deliberation is high quality, low quality, or changing (high to low or low to high). Drawing on data about discussions on reducing the criminal responsibility age in Brazil in legislative public hearings and face-to-face groups, the analysis uncovers variations in the structure of reasons and stories and shifts in their functions in optimal and suboptimal moments of deliberation. By incorporating the pragmatic dimension of interactions into the analysis, this paper contributes to advancing comparative analyses in different contexts.

“…Este episódio apresenta-se como um caso relevante para o propósito deste estudo por, pelo menos, duas razões. Primeiro, o caso permite explorar a chamada "ecologia complexa" da Web 2.0 (PAPACHARISSI, 2010;WALTHER et al, 2011;MAIA, 2014), a fim de dar a ver a especificidade de diferentes plataformas, com recursos e dispositivos próprios; com expectativas de interação distintas entre os usuários e com públicos específicos. De modo geral, os estudos sobre conversação ou debates em fóruns ou em redes sociais online são conduzidos em uma plataforma isolada ou em um único ambiente.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Democracia e a ecologia complexa das redes sociais online: um estudo sobre discussões acerca do racismo e da homofobia

Rezende

2015