Houston Euler Postulates

I’m picking up where left off in my previous post on this paper, at the section titled “Basic Framework for Analyzing Online Deliberation.”

The paper describes three models that have been developed. I’ve split the paragraph into the parts to delineate between the models:

Wessler (2008) developed a normative model of deliberation for comparative empirical analysis of political media content. He distinguishes between three dimensions. The input dimension focuses on equal opportunities for topics, ideas, and arguments. The throughput dimension approaches the “questions of how public deliberation should be conducted” (Wessler, 2008, p. 4) and discusses justification, rebuttal, and civility as modes of conduct. The last dimension considers the outcomes of deliberation.

Wessler draws on an analytical heuristic introduced by Ferree, Gerhards, and Rucht (2002a, 2002b) in their comparative study of the U.S. and German discourses on abortion. They discuss normative criteria of public sphere concepts from different theoretical traditions by asking who should speak, in what sort of process, how ideas should be presented, and what the relationship is between discourse and decision-making outcomes (Ferree et al. 2002a, p. 316)

…Bächtiger and Wyss (2013) introduced a similar differentiation, focusing on the conditions for deliberation, the process of deliberation, and the normatively desirable outcomes. As they also outlined empirical indicators for each level, this model promises to be particularly useful for empirical research. However, it has to be adapted to online deliberation.

A Systematic Review of Online Deliberation Research (pdf) – Dennis Friess and Christiane Eilders (p.5-6)

The paper then condenses these models into a single framework, shown in the figure below.

It then describes these components in greater detail:

Institutional Input Design

Some of the different aspects covered are:

Mode of Communication – “Therefore, online discussion space should be asynchronous in order to allow participants to spend more time reflecting and justifying their contributions (Janssen & Kies, 2005, p. 321). Stromer-Galley and Martinson (2009) confirm that synchronized communication has a negative influence on different dimensions of deliberation.”

Anonymity Versus Identification – “…empirical evidence suggests that identification of users fosters deliberation in terms of civility, rationality, and sincerity (Coleman & Moss, 2012, p. 8). Janssen and Kies (2005, p. 321) conclude that “the identification of the participants is a fundamental element for explaining the quality and the persistency of a political debate.” Towne and Herbsleb (2012) stress that the decision regarding identification or anonymity has to be balanced between discussion quality and quantity. Although anonymity is able to increase the quantity of participation, it simultaneously lowers the quality of the content (Towne & Herbsleb, 2012, p. 108). Accordingly, identification seems to affect the deliberative dimension of inclusion negatively, while rationality, sincerity, and civility seem to be supported.”

Moderation – “Towne and Herbsleb (2012, p. 102) acknowledged that user content should appear immediately in order to motivate contributions and lower perceived entry barriers. In contrast, subsequent visibility after moderator approval reduces posting activity and participation (Rhee & Kim, 2009).”

Empowerment – “A public space (e.g., an online forum) is considered strong if participants view their contribution as meaningful to other users or the final outcome. On the contrary, online public spaces are weak if participants do not believe that their participation has any impact (Jansen & Kies, 2005, p. 324). Drawing on empirical findings, Jansen and Kies (2005) conclude that strong discussion spaces tend to be more deliberative than weak discussion spaces”

Division of Labor – “The division of large tasks into smaller units is one of the key lessons from crowdsourcing projects like Linux or Wikipedia and should be adapted for online deliberation. Towne and Herbsleb (2012) suggest that giving participants the opportunity to choose a task related to their personal interest or competence could increase participation and involvement. This makes it likely to have qualitative spillover effects on the final outcomes. In the same vein, Noveck (2009, p. 171) points out that “the more specific the question, the better targeted and more relevant the response will be.””

Information – “since deliberation rests upon the rational weighing of different arguments and aims to produce reasonable, well-informed decisions, online spaces for deliberation should provide sound information, and encourage people to post relevant information (Towne & Herbsleb, 2012). Gudowsky and Bechthold (2013) emphasize the important role that different types of information play in participatory processes.”

Most of these findings align with my current beliefs, except in the case of anonymity vs. identification.

I feel like there’s a value to allowing users to post anonymously, as sometimes information that can be personally damaging is also vital to the public interest. I’ve wondered whether a dual system could exist, where anonymous posters with a track-record of accuracy can be trusted, without opening the deliberation to being side-tracked with anonymously posted nonsense.

It’s possible that such a system might not work, but I believe it’s at least worth trying to allow anonymous posts.

I’ve had a busy week, and need to catch up on some things, so I’ll share their findings on throughput and outcomes in my next post.