Artificial facilitation: Promoting collective reasoning within asynchronous discussions

References

• Albrecht, S. (2006). Whose voice is heard in online deliberation? A study of participation and representation in political debates on the Internet. Information, Communication & Society, 9, 62–82. doi:10.1080/13691180500519548
   Google Scholar
• Andersen, V. N., & Hansen, K. M. (2007). How deliberation makes better citizens: The Danish deliberative poll on the Euro introduction. European Journal of Political Research, 46, 531–556. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00699.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barabas, J. (2004). How deliberation affects policy opinions. The American Political Science Review, 98(4), 687–701. doi:10.1017/S0003055404041425
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bicchieri, C., & Lev-On, A. (2007). Computer-mediated communication and cooperation in social dilemmas: An experimental analysis. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 6(2), 139–168. doi:10.1177/1470594X07077267
   Google Scholar
• Bizer, G. Y., Krosnick, J. a, Petty, R. E., Rucker, D. D., & Wheeler, S. C. (2000). Need for Cognition and Need to Evaluate in the 1998 National Election Survey Pilot Study, 1–60.
   Google Scholar
• Bizer, G. Y., Tormala, Z. L., Rucker, D. D., & Petty, R. E. (2006). Memory-based versus on-line processing: Implications for attitude strength. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(5), 646–653. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, L. W., & Kettering, F. (2011). The promise and problems of online deliberation (Kettering Foundation Working Paper 2011–2). Retrieved from https://www.kettering.org/wp-content/uploads/Black-Online-Delib-KFWP-2011-2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Black, L. W., Welser, H. T., Cosley, D., & DeGroot, J. M. (2011). Self-governance through group discussion in Wikipedia: Measuring deliberation in online groups. Small Group Research, 42(5), 595–634. doi:10.1177/1046496411406137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bosio, A. C., Graffigna, G., & Lozza, E. (2008). Toward theory and technique for online focus groups. In T. Hansson (Ed.), Handbook of research on digital information technologies: Innovations, methods, and ethical issues (pp. 191–212). New York, NY: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-970-0.ch014
   Google Scholar
• Brundidge, J., Reid, S. A., Choi, S., & Muddiman, A. (2014). The “deliberative digital divide”: Opinion leadership and integrative complexity in the U.S. political blogosphere. Political Psychology, 35(6), 741–755. doi:10.1111/pops.12201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J., & Kelshaw, T. (2002). A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Communication Theory, 12(4), 398–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Kao, C. F., & Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1032–1043. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.5.1032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, S. (2012). Deliberation and mass democracy. Deliberative systems, 52–71.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1997). Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Changing boundaries of the political (pp. 95–119). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, S., & Moss, G. (2012). Under construction: The field of online deliberation research. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(1), 1–15. doi:10.1080/19331681.2011.635957
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, Robert A. (1989): Democracy and Its Critics. Yale University Press. New Haven.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, L. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis. Journal of Information Technology, 4(4), 615–633. doi:10.1080/13691180110097030
   Google Scholar
• Davies, T. R., & Chandler, R. (2012). Online deliberation design: Choices, criteria, and evidence. In T. Nabatchi, J. Gastil, G. M. Weiksner, & M. Leighninger (Eds.), Democracy in motion: Evaluating the practice and impact of deliberative civic engagement (pp. 1–336). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199899265.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• De Liddo, A., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2013, June). Improving online deliberation with argument network visualization. Paper presented at Digital Cities, Munich, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S. (1994). Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, A. R. (2002). The moderator as an emerging democratic intermediary: The role of the moderator in Internet discussions about public issues. Information Polity: the International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, 7, 3–20.
   Google Scholar
• Elliman, T., Macintosh, A., & Irani, Z. (2009, July). Argument maps as policy memories for informed deliberation: A research note. European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Federico, C. M. (2004). Predicting attitude extremity: the interactive effects of schema development and the need to evaluate and their mediation by evaluative integration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(10),1281–1294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204263787
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fishkin, J. S. (1995). The voice of the people: Public opinion and democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fulwider, J. (2005, September). Do moderators matter? Answering a jury deliberation challenge to deliberative democracy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Garnham, N. (1993). The mass media, cultural identity, and the public sphere in the modern world. Public Culture, 5(2), 251–265. doi:10.1215/08992363-5-2-251
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J. (1993). Democracy in small groups: Participation, decision making, and communication. Philadelphia, PA: New Society.
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., & Levine, P. (2005). The deliberative democracy handbook. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Goodin, R. E. (2000). Democratic deliberation within. Philosophy Public Affairs, 29(1), 81–109. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2000.00081.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grönlund, K., Strandberg, K., & Himmelroos, S. (2009). The challenge of deliberative democracy online—A comparison of face-to-face and virtual experiments in citizen deliberation. Information Polity, 14(3), 187–201. doi:10.3233/IP-2009-0182
   Google Scholar
• Gunawardena, C. (1995). Social presence theory and implications of interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferencing. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2–3), 147–166.
   Google Scholar
• Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. F. (1996). Democracy and disagreement (Vol. 121, 2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1998). Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
   Google Scholar
• Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2005). Online forums and deliberative democracy. Acta Politica, 40(3), 317–335. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500115
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarvis, W. B. G., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The need to evaluate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 172–194. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.172
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jennstål, J., & Niemeyer, S. J. (2015). The deliberative citizen: Exploring who is willing to deliberate, when and how through the lens of personality ( Working Paper No 1). Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Karpowitz, C. F., & Mendelberg, T. (2007). Groups and deliberation. Swiss Political Science Review, 13(4), 645–662. doi:10.1002/spsr.2007.13.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kies, R. (2012). Promises and limits of web-deliberation. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230106376
   Google Scholar
• Klein, M. (2012). Enabling large-scale deliberation using attention-mediation metrics. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 21(4–5), 449–473. doi:10.1007/s10606-012-9156-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, M., & Iandoli, L. (2008). Supporting collaborative deliberation using a large-scale argumentation system: The MIT collaboratorium. Directions and Implications of Advanced Computing; Conference on Online Deliberation (DIAC-2008/OD2008). University Berkeley, CA. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1099082
   Google Scholar
• Kuntz, W. and H. Rittel (1972). Issues as Elements of Information Systems, Working Paper No. 131, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California at Berkeley.
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, H., & Mercier, H. (2012). Talking it out with others vs. deliberation within and the law of group polarization: Some implications of the argumentative theory of reasoning for deliberative democracy. Análise Social, 47(205), 910.
   Google Scholar
• Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43(6), 332–360. doi:10.1159/000022695
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lev-On, A., & Manin, B. (2009). Happy accidents: Deliberation and on-line exposure to opposing views. In T. Davies & S. P. Gangadharan (Eds.), Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice (pp. 105–122). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Luskin, R., Fishkin, J., & Jowell, R. (2002). Considered opinions: Deliberative polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 32(3), 455–487. doi:10.1017/S0007123402000194
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S., & Iyengar, S. (2006). Considered Opinions on U.S. Foreign Policy: Evidence from Online and Face-to-Face Deliberative Polling. The Center for Deliberative Democracy. Research Papers, 455–487.
   Google Scholar
• Mendelberg, T. (2002). The deliberative citizen: Theory and evidence. In M. X. Delli Carpini, L. Huddy, & R. Y. Shapiro (Eds.), Political decision-making, deliberation and participation, research in micropolitics (pp. 151–193). New York, NY: Elsevier Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Landemore, H. (2012). Reasoning is for arguing: Understanding the successes and failures of deliberation. Political Psychology, 33(2), 243–258. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00873.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74. doi:10.1017/S0140525X10000968
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutz, D., & Martin, P. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 97–114. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2011.577391
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neblo, M. A., Esterling, K. M., Kennedy, R. P., Lazer, D. M. J., & Sokhey, A. E. (2010). Who wants to deliberate—And why? American Political Science Review, 104(3), 566–583. doi:10.1017/S0003055410000298
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
   Google Scholar
• Pingree, R. J. (2006). Decision structure and the problem of scale in deliberation. Communication Theory, 16(2), 198–222. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00268.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renton, A., & Macintosh, A. (2007). Computer-Supported Argument Maps as a Policy Memory. Information Society, 23(2),125–133. http://doi.org/10.1080/01972240701209300
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhee, J. W. J., & Kim, E. (2006, June). The effect of online deliberation on political discussion efficacy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Ryfe, D. M. (2002). The practice of deliberative democracy: A study of 16 deliberative organizations. Political Communication, 19(3), 359–377. doi:10.1080/01957470290055547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryfe, D. M. (2006). Narrative and deliberation in small group forums. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34(1), 72–93. doi:10.1080/00909880500420226
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultz, T. (2000). Mass media and the concept of interactivity: An exploratory study of online forums and reader email. Media, Culture & Society, 22, 205–221. doi:10.1177/016344300022002005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shum, S. B. (2008). Cohere: Towards web 2.0 argumentation. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 172, 97.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, G., John, P., & Sturgis, P. (2012). Taking political engagement online: An experimental analysis of asynchronous discussion forums. Political Studies. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00989.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streck, J. M. (2013). Usenet & democracy. In C. Toulouse & T. W. Luke (Eds.), The politics of cyberspace (pp. 208). London, England: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, J., Webb, N., & Muhlberger, P. (2012). Deliberative e-rulemaking project: Challenges to enacting real world deliberation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(1), 82–96. doi:10.1080/19331681.2012.635971
   Google Scholar
• Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., Muddiman, A., & Curry, A. L. (2015). Changing deliberative norms on news organizations’ Facebook sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 188–203. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3),755–769. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2001). On-line versus memory-based processing: The role of “need to evaluate” in person perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(12), 1599–1612. doi:10.1177/01461672012712004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trénel, M. (2009). Facilitation and inclusive deliberation. In T. Davies & S. P. Gangadharan (Eds.), Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice (pp. 253–258). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Tucey, C. B. (2010, April). Online vs. face-to-face deliberation on the global warming and stem cell issues. Paper presented at the Western Political Science Association 2010 Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=1580573
   Google Scholar
• William, A. G. (2000). Democracy in the digital age: Challenges to political life in cyberspace. The Information Society, 17(2), 145–146. doi:10.1080/019722401750175720
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wise, K., Hamman, B., & Thorson, K. (2006). Moderation, response rate, and message interactivity: Features of online communities and their effects on intent to participate. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(1),24–41. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00313.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witschge, T. (2004). Online deliberation: Possibilities of the Internet for deliberative democracy. In P. M. Shane (Ed.), Democracy online. Prospects for electronic democracy community connections (pp. 109–145). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203485415
   Google Scholar
• Wright, S. (2009). The role of the moderator: Problems and possibilities for government-run online discussion forums. Online deliberation: Design, research and practice. In T. Davies & S. P. Gangadharan (Eds.), Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice (pp. 105–122). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Wyss, D., Beste, S., & Bächtiger, A. (2015). A decline in the quality of debate? The evolution of cognitive complexity in Swiss parliamentary debates on immigration (1968–2014). Swiss Political Science Review, 21(4), 636–653. doi:10.1111/spsr.12179
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar