Under Construction: The Field of Online Deliberation Research

Coleman, Stephen; Moss, Giles

doi:10.1080/19331681.2011.635957

Cited by 105 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As Coleman and Moss (2012) have argued, "for most online deliberation researchers it seems as if the political process ends when civic talk stops" (p. 11).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…As Coleman and Moss (2012) have argued, "for most online deliberation researchers it seems as if the political process ends when civic talk stops" (p. 11).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Everyday political talk in the Internet-based public sphere

Graham

2015

Handbook of Digital Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While some studies show that anonymity might have a negative impact on civility (Coleman and Moss 2012;Santana 2014), others indicate that the topic discussed also plays an important part (Berg 2016). The ideals for online debate differ within particular traditions.…”

Section: Editorial Control In Online Comment Fields 365mentioning

confidence: 99%

User Experiences with Editorial Control in Online Newspaper Comment Fields

Løvlie

Ihlebæk

Larsson

2017

Journalism Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates user experiences with editorial control in online newspaper comment fields following the public backlash against online comments after the 2011 terror attacks in Norway. We analyze data from a survey of online news consumers focusing on experiences and attitudes towards editorial control set against a spectrum between "interventionist" and "noninterventionist" positions. Results indicate that interventionist respondents rate the quality of online comments as poor, whereas noninterventionist respondents have most often experienced being the target of editorial control measures and feel that editorial control has intensified after the terror attacks. We conclude that newspapers should pay attention to the different needs of participants when devising strategies for editorial control. Media professionals should also consider changes to increase the transparency of moderation practices.

show abstract

“…Online forums may function as arenas that play a role in broader discursive processes, thus nurturing public deliberation (COLEMAN and MOSS, 2012 Graham and Witschge (2003) is also significant in these early stages of online deliberation research. The investigators focused on a British governmental website (UK Online), which, at the time, had around 20,000 posts.…”

Section: Online Deliberation and Its Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on the Habermasian theory, this idea was developed 3 See, for instance, Dryzek, (2000); Eslter (1998); Gutmann and Thompson (2004);Macedo (1999); Mansbridge et al (2010);Mendonça (2011Mendonça ( , 2013aMiguel (2014); Mouffe (2005); Mutz (2006); Owen and Smith (2015); Rancière (2001);Sanders (1997); Simon (1999) and Young (1996Young ( , 2003. 4 For some examples, see Bächtiger et al (2009);Bohman (2004); Coleman and Moss (2012); Davies and Grangadharan (2009);Graham and Witschge (2003); Gimmler (2001); Janssen and Kies (2005); Kies (2010); Marques (2011);Mutz (2006);Pedrini, (2012); Sampaio et al (2011);Wales et al (2010);Wilhelm (2000); Wojcieszak and Mutz (2009) and Mendonça and Pereira (2012).…”

Section: Online Deliberation and Its Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing some measures of online deliberation

Mendonça

2015

Bras. Political Sci. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The empirical turn in deliberative democracy has fostered the development of different methodological procedures. Within this literature, studies focusing on the internet have gained increasing attention. The belief that the internet may help solve some of the deliberative deficits of democracies has propelled an interest in the potential benefits and problems of online discourse. This article seeks to discuss some of the methods that have been advocated for the study of online deliberation to point out three of their weaknesses: (01) the establishment of misleading distinctions; (02) the neglect of the implications of the deliberative system; and (03) the disregard of some specificities of the internet. This turn has fostered the development of methods applicable to different types of discursive arenas aimed at tackling diverse problems (BLACK et al., 2009;DRYZEK, 2008). Most studies seek to assess either the deliberativeness of specific types of interaction (KELLY, 2008;STEINER et al., 2004;WESSLER, 2008) Keywords T Ricardo Fabrino Mendonça 90(2015) 9 (3) 88 -115 in the empirical literature on deliberative democracy in general, while other issues are specific to texts related to the online phenomena.This article begins with a very brief review of online deliberation, followed by the presentation of some analytical approaches utilized to study this topic. The following sections provide a discussion of three weaknesses of the previous approaches to online deliberation: (01) the establishment of misleading distinctions, (02) the neglect of the implications of the deliberative system, and (03) the disregard of some specificities of the internet. It must be clear that it is not my aim, in this article, to advocate deliberative democracy against its critics or to deal with the many relevant criticisms raised against this democratic perspective. There is an extensive literature covering this debate 3 . My goal is to foster the advancement of a debate within the deliberative approach, contributing to the development of this literature in its own grounds. Online deliberation and its measuresOnline deliberation is one of the main areas of interest among the most innovative research on deliberative democracy . Following the excitement evident in studies from the early 1990s that anticipated the emergence of a new public sphere on the internet, and on a more critical perspective, several scholars have tried to understand online practices by examining them through the lens of deliberation 4 .Briefly, deliberation has been understood as a process reflecting a publicgive-and-take of reasons marked by the equality of its participants. Deliberation is a dialogical practice during which social actors seek to convince each other through a discursive exchange. Based on the Habermasian theory, this idea was developed

show abstract

Under Construction: The Field of Online Deliberation Research

Cited by 105 publications

References 50 publications

Everyday political talk in the Internet-based public sphere

Everyday political talk in the Internet-based public sphere

User Experiences with Editorial Control in Online Newspaper Comment Fields

Assessing some measures of online deliberation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About