![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
While the scholarship on online deliberation has recently witnessed remarkable growth, most studies have focused on different parts of deliberation, thus neglecting other parts of the theorized process. This paper presents a case study of online deliberation in academia using a framework including three analytical parts: a design fostering deliberation (institutional inputs), the quality of the communication process (communicative throughput), and the expected benefits of deliberation (productive outcomes). Each level addressed in the framework is both rooted in deliberative theory and complemented by empirical findings. Applying the framework to a case study on online deliberation about new PhD guidelines in a German science faculty demonstrates that the framework is viable for empirical research. In analyzing 435 comments and an online survey completed by 230 participants, the case study reveals that if deliberative standards at the institutional input level are met there is considerable deliberative quality at the level of communicative throughput, and expected outcomes could thus emerge. This example makes a case for further online deliberation initiatives in similar contexts such as parties or organizations that must decide on important issues or legally binding norms.
Notes
1. Several authors have presented theoretical considerations that shift deliberation away from its critical roots in the Frankfurt School tradition. This strand of literature argues that deliberation research should move away from the idea of purely critical-rational discourse and incorporate alternative forms of communication such as emotional expressions, humor, and storytelling (e.g., Bickford, Citation2011; Black, Citation2008; Dryzek, Citation2000; Graham, Citation2010; Young, Citation2001).
2. Even though all these outcomes are empirically measured on the level of individual perception, they describe qualities of decisions that emerge from deliberative processes and are therefore different from individual effects on a participant’s political cognitions, as described in the first subcategory.
3. Deliberation does not always lead to normative desirable outcomes. There is empirical evidence that deliberation could increase polarization and reinforce existing viewpoints and attitudes (e.g., Hafer & Landa, Citation2005; Wojcieszak, Citation2011a, Citation2011b). However, those negative effects are not included in the framework in this paper; they should be considered in the empirical analysis of outcomes of deliberation.
4. Cooperative norm setting defines a collective process of drafting, discussing, and deciding on norms that are binding for the respective group. The participation of all group members does not preclude a differentiation of duties, expertise, and rights among them. Our interest is to understand how groups of individuals develop norms and how the Internet can help facilitate the norm-setting process.
5. The final draft of the PhD guidelines is the responsibility of the Faculty Council by law.
6. The share of voice among users within one discussion forum was calculated; it was operationalized as the percentage of messages contributed by the most active participants (10% of users → < 30% of text = egalitarian; 10% of users → 30–50% of text = slight dominance; 10% users → >50% of text = strong dominance).
7. Bächtiger et al. (Citation2010) distinguish between two types of deliberation. While Type I deliberation is characterized primarily by the Habermasian logic of communicative action, Type II deliberation moves away from this ideal of purely rational discourse to welcome alternative forms of discourse: emotional talk, storytelling, rhetoric, humor, testimony, etc. (see Graham, Citation2010).
8. The survey has been translated into English for this paper.