Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-j7khd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T06:35:18.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Designing for democracy?: an experimental study comparing the outcomes of citizen discussions in online forums with those of online discussions in a forum designed according to deliberative principles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2014

Kim Strandberg
Kim Strandberg*
Affiliation:
Department of Politics and Administration, Åbo Akademi University, Vasa, Finland
*
*E-mail: kistrand@abo.fi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Democratic theorists often envision public deliberation as being essential to the working of democracy. Several scholars have also highlighted a potential for realising such deliberations on the internet. Consequentially, an emerging array of experiments in online deliberation has now been developed to achieve online discussions, which would be beneficial for democracy. However, few studies have yet attempted to compare the outcomes of online mini-publics to online citizens’ discussions in general. This article, thus, concerns an online experiment carried out in 2013 with the purpose of examining whether, and under which conditions, forums designed according to deliberative principles produce better ‘democratic outcomes’ – such as coherence of opinions, increased efficacy, trust, and propensity for civic participation – than online citizens’ discussions, which are ‘left to their own devices’. The study applies a post-test only, 2×2 factorial design, with a control group. In total, N=70 participants taking part in the experiment. The findings indicate that the effects of designing for deliberation were generally positive, albeit not for all of the democratic outcomes. In addition, methodological issues of relevance for the internal and external validity of the current experiment, which could be of relevance for future studies, are also brought forth.

Keywords

online deliberationdemocratic outcomesexperimentsFinland

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 7 , Supplement 3 , August 2015 , pp. 451 - 474
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bächtiger, A. (2011), Deliberation in Swiss Direct Democracy: A Field Experiment on the Expulsion Initiative Report, Switzerland: National Center of Competence in Research.Google Scholar
Baek, Y.M., Wojcieszak, M. and Delli Carpini, M.X. (2011), ‘Online versus face-to-face deliberation: Who? Why? What? With what effects?’, New Media & Society 14(3): 1–21.Google Scholar
Barber, B.R. (1984), Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age, Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Budge, I. (1996), The New Challenge of Direct Democracy, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
Camerer, C.F. and Hogarth, R.M. (1999), ‘The effects of financial incentives in experiments: a review and capital-labor-production framework’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19(2–3): 7–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J.C. (1963), Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research, Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Coleman, S. and Goetze, J. (2001), Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation, London: Hansard Society.Google Scholar
Coleman, S. and Moss, G. (2012), ‘Under construction: the field of online deliberation research’, Journal of Information Technology & Politics 9: 1–15.Google Scholar
Dahl, R.A. (1989), Demokratin och dess Antagonister [Democracy and its Critics], New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahlberg, L. (2001), ‘The internet and democratic discourse – exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere’, Information, Communication & Society 4(4): 615–633.Google Scholar
Davies, T., O’Connor, B., Cochran, A., Effrat, J., Parker, A., Newman, B. and Tam, A. (2009), ‘An online environment for democratic deliberation: motivations, principles, and design’, in T. Davies and S.P. Gangadharan (eds), Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 275–292.Google Scholar
Davies, T. and Chandler, R. (2011), ‘Online deliberation design: choices, criteria, and evidence’, in T. Nabatchi, M. Weiksner, J. Gastil and M. Leighninger (eds), Democracy in Motion: Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 103–134.Google Scholar
Druckman, J.N. and Kam, C.D. (2011), ‘Students as experimental participants: a defense of the ‘narrow data base’’, in J.N. Druckman, D.P. Green, J.H. Kuklinski and A. Lupia (eds), Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 41–57.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J.S. and List, C. (2003), ‘Social choice theory and deliberative democracy: a reconciliation’, British Journal of Political Science 33: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esterling, K., Neblo, M. and Lazer, D. (2011), ‘Means, motive, an opportunity in becoming informed about politics: a deliberative field experiment with members of congress and their constituents’, Public Opinion Quarterly 75(3): 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishkin, J.S. (1995), The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fishkin, J.S. (2009), ‘Virtual public consultation: prospect for internet deliberative democracy’, in T. Davies and S.P Gangadharan (eds), Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 23–35.Google Scholar
Fishkin, J.S., Luskin, R.C. and Jowell, R. (2000), ‘Deliberative polling and public consultation’, Parliamentary Affairs 53: 657–666.Google Scholar
Fung, A. (2003), ‘Recipes for public spheres: eight institutional design choices and their consequences’, Journal of Political Philosophy 11: 338–367.Google Scholar
Gastil, J. (2000), ‘Is face-to-face deliberation a luxury or a necessity’, Political Communication 17: 357–361.Google Scholar
Gribbons, B. and Herman, J. (1997), ‘True and quasi-experimental designs’, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 5(14).Google Scholar
Grönlund, K., Strandberg, K. and 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.Google Scholar
Grönlund, K., Setälä, M. and Herne, K. (2010), ‘Deliberation and civic virtue lessons from a citizen deliberation experiment’, European Political Science Review 2: 95–117.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1996), Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hamlett, P.W. and Cobb, M.D. (2006), ‘Potential solutions to public deliberation problems: structured deliberations and polarization cascades’, The Policy Studies Journal 34: 629–648.Google Scholar
Hibbing, J.R. and Theiss-Morse, E. (2002), Stealth Democracy Americans’ Beliefs About How Government Should Work, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jankowski, N. and Van Os, R. (2004), ‘Internet-based political discourse: a case study of electronic democracy in Hoogeveen’, in P.M. Shane (ed.), Democracy Online: The Prospects for Political Renewal Through the Internet, New York: Routledge, pp. 181–195.Google Scholar
Janssen, D. and Kies, R. (2005), ‘Online forums and deliberative democracy’, Acta Politica 40(3): 317–335.Google Scholar
Jensen, J. (2003), ‘Public spheres on the Internet: anarchic or government-sponsored: a comparison’, Scandinavian Political Studies 26(4): 349--374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kies, R. (2010), Promises and Limits of Web-Deliberation, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraemer, H.C. and Thiemann, S. (1987), How Many Subjects? Statistical Power Analysis in Research, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Luskin, R.C., Fishkin, J.E. and Iyengar, S. (2006), Considered Opinions on U.S. Foreign Policy: Evidence from Online and Face-to-Face Deliberative Polling, California: The Center for Deliberative Democracy.Google Scholar
Manosevitch, E. (2010), ‘Mapping the practice of online deliberation’, in F. De Cincio, A. Machintosh and C. Peraboni (eds), Online Deliberation, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference , Leeds, UK: Leeds University, pp. 172–188 Google Scholar
Min, S.-J. (2007), ‘Online vs. face-to-face deliberation: effects on civic engagement’, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 12: 1369–1387.Google Scholar
Monnoyer-Smith, L. and Wojcik, S. (2012), ‘Technology and the quality of public deliberation: a comparison between on and offline participation’, International Journal of Electronic Governance 5(1): 24–49.Google Scholar
Morton, R.B. and Williams, K.C. (2010), Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Muhlberger, P. (2005), ‘The Virtual Agora project: a research design for studying democratic deliberation’, Journal of Public Deliberation 1(1).Google Scholar
Mutz, D.C. (2006), Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, B.S. (2004), ‘Unchat: democratic solution for a wired world’, in P. Shane (ed.), Democracy Online: The Prospects for Political Renewal through the Internet, New York: Routledge, pp. 21–34.Google Scholar
Papacharissi, Z. (2004), ‘Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups’, New Media & Society 6(2): 259–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, V. (2009), ‘Citizens deliberating online: theory and some evidence’, in T. Davies and S.P. Gangadharan (eds), Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 37–58.Google Scholar
Price, V. and Capella, J.N. (2002), ‘Online deliberation and its influence: the electronic dialogue project in campaign 2000’, IT & Society 1(1): 303–329.Google Scholar
Research Methods Knowledge Base (2006), ‘Factorial design variations’. Retrieved 29 November 2013 from <http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/expfact2.php>..>Google Scholar
Rhee, W.J. and Kim, E.-M. (2009), ‘Deliberation on the net: lessons from a field experiment’, in T. Davies and S.P Gangadharan (eds), Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 223–232.Google Scholar
Ryfe, D.M. (2005), ‘Does deliberative democracy work?’, Annual Review of Political Science 8: 49–71.Google Scholar
Smith, G., John, P. and Sturgis, P. (2013), ‘Taking political engagement online: an experimental analysis of asynchronous discussion forums’, Political Studies 61: 709–730.Google Scholar
Smith, G., John, P., Sturgis, P. and Nomura, H. (2009), ‘Deliberation and internet engagement: initial findings from a randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of facilitated internet forums’. Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference, 10–12th September, 2009, Potsdam, Germany.Google Scholar
Strandberg, K. (2008), ‘Public deliberation goes on-line? An analysis of citizens’ political discussions on the internet prior to the Finnish parliamentary elections in 2007’, Javnost – The Public 15(1): 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strandberg, K. and Grönlund, K. (2012), ‘Online deliberation and its outcome: evidence from the Virtual Polity deliberative experiment’, Journal of Information Technology and Politics 9(2): 167–184.Google Scholar
Strandberg, K. and Grönlund, K. (2014), ‘Online deliberation: theory and practice in virtual mini-publics’, in K. Grönlund, A. Bächtiger and M. Setälä (eds), Deliberative Mini-Publics: Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process Colchester: ECPR Press, pp. 93–114.Google Scholar
Stromer-Galley, J. (2002), ‘New voices in the public sphere: a comparative analysis of interpersonal and online political talk’, Javnost – The Public 9(2): 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C.R. (2009), Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
VanVoorhis, C.R. and Morgan, B.L. (2007), ‘Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes’, Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology 3(2): 43–50.Google Scholar
Wilhelm, A. (1999), ‘Virtual sounding boards: how deliberative is online political discussion?’, in B.N. Haugue and B. Loader (eds), Digital Democracy: Discourse and Decision Making in the Information Age, London: Routledge, pp. 153–178.Google Scholar
Witschge, T. (2004), ‘Online deliberation: possibilities of the internet for deliberative democracy’, in P. Shane (ed.), Democracy Online: The Prospects for Political Renewal through the Internet, New York: Routledge, pp. 109–122.Google Scholar
Wright, S. and Street, J. (2007), ‘Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online discussion forums’, New Media & Society 9: 849–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar