Different Arenas, Different Deliberative Quality? Using a Systemic Framework to Evaluate Online Deliberation on Immigration Policy in Germany

IF 4.1 1区文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION

Policy and Internet Pub Date : 2020-01-07 DOI:10.1002/poi3.232

Katharina Esau, Dannica Fleuss, Sarah-Michelle Nienhaus

{"title":"Different Arenas, Different Deliberative Quality? Using a Systemic Framework to Evaluate Online Deliberation on Immigration Policy in Germany","authors":"Katharina Esau, Dannica Fleuss, Sarah-Michelle Nienhaus","doi":"10.1002/poi3.232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One major strand of contemporary research on political participation addresses online deliberation. Over time, online deliberation has become increasingly pluralistic. Our study applies a framework derived from systemic deliberative theory to evaluate different online deliberation processes on German immigration policy. A crucial premise of the systemic deliberative theory is that the quality of deliberation varies systematically between different arenas within a political system. We differentiate between highly formal, semi ‐ formal, and informal deliberative arenas (arenas 1 – 3) and develop seven theory ‐ driven hypotheses concerning the quality of deliberative procedures in arenas 1 – 3 that we test through quantitative content analysis. Our study confirms the overarching expectation: processes ’ deliberative quality varies systematically between arenas. The highest level of (aggregated) deliberative quality is displayed in arena 1 — deliberations, that is, on the government ‐ run consultation platform. The more fine ‐ grained analysis of different dimensions of deliberative quality reveals that the patterns observed with regards to certain dimensions of deliberative quality (e.g., constructiveness and reciprocity) do not conform with our theory ‐ driven hypotheses. We discuss the theo retical and empirical implications of these findings. Future collaborations of theoretical and empirical scholars of deliberative democracy must address the specifics of online communication and the function of emotional communication in different deliberative arenas.","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/poi3.232","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Internet","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.232","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 16

Abstract

One major strand of contemporary research on political participation addresses online deliberation. Over time, online deliberation has become increasingly pluralistic. Our study applies a framework derived from systemic deliberative theory to evaluate different online deliberation processes on German immigration policy. A crucial premise of the systemic deliberative theory is that the quality of deliberation varies systematically between different arenas within a political system. We differentiate between highly formal, semi ‐ formal, and informal deliberative arenas (arenas 1 – 3) and develop seven theory ‐ driven hypotheses concerning the quality of deliberative procedures in arenas 1 – 3 that we test through quantitative content analysis. Our study confirms the overarching expectation: processes ’ deliberative quality varies systematically between arenas. The highest level of (aggregated) deliberative quality is displayed in arena 1 — deliberations, that is, on the government ‐ run consultation platform. The more fine ‐ grained analysis of different dimensions of deliberative quality reveals that the patterns observed with regards to certain dimensions of deliberative quality (e.g., constructiveness and reciprocity) do not conform with our theory ‐ driven hypotheses. We discuss the theo retical and empirical implications of these findings. Future collaborations of theoretical and empirical scholars of deliberative democracy must address the specifics of online communication and the function of emotional communication in different deliberative arenas.

查看原文本刊更多论文

不同的舞台，不同的审议质量?使用系统框架评估德国移民政策的在线审议

当代政治参与研究的一个主要方向是网络审议。随着时间的推移，网络讨论变得越来越多元化。我们的研究应用了一个源自系统审议理论的框架来评估德国移民政策的不同在线审议过程。系统协商理论的一个关键前提是，在一个政治制度的不同领域之间，协商的质量是系统地变化的。我们区分了高度正式、半正式和非正式的审议领域(领域1 - 3)，并通过定量内容分析对领域1 - 3中审议程序的质量提出了七个理论驱动的假设。我们的研究证实了首要的期望:过程的审议质量在不同领域之间有系统的变化。最高水平的(综合)协商质量表现在舞台1——协商，即政府管理的协商平台上。对协商质量不同维度的更细粒度的分析表明，在协商质量的某些维度(例如，建设性和互惠性)中观察到的模式与我们的理论驱动的假设不一致。我们讨论了这些发现的理论和实证意义。未来协商民主理论和实证学者的合作必须解决网络交流的特殊性和情感交流在不同协商领域的功能。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Policy and Internet Multiple-

CiteScore

8.40

自引率

10.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Understanding public policy in the age of the Internet requires understanding how individuals, organizations, governments and networks behave, and what motivates them in this new environment. Technological innovation and internet-mediated interaction raise both challenges and opportunities for public policy: whether in areas that have received much work already (e.g. digital divides, digital government, and privacy) or newer areas, like regulation of data-intensive technologies and platforms, the rise of precarious labour, and regulatory responses to misinformation and hate speech. We welcome innovative research in areas where the Internet already impacts public policy, where it raises new challenges or dilemmas, or provides opportunities for policy that is smart and equitable. While we welcome perspectives from any academic discipline, we look particularly for insight that can feed into social science disciplines like political science, public administration, economics, sociology, and communication. We welcome articles that introduce methodological innovation, theoretical development, or rigorous data analysis concerning a particular question or problem of public policy.