What does it take to make online deliberation happen?

-A comparative analysis of 28 online discussion forums

23-04-201

Martin Karlsson PhD Student in Political Science Örebro School of public affairs

23-04-20 2

Central idea of the paper

Aim:

• Investigating the occurrence/intensity of public deliberation online

• Identifying determinants (or favorable/unfavorable conditions) apart from design and institutional affiliation

Method:

• Comparing online discussion forums within the same participatory project (the 2009 European Citizens Consultations)

23-04-20 3

Outline of the presentation

• Background of the paper• The European Citizens Consultations

• Design of the analysis• Results• Conclusions

The European Citizens Consultations

23-04-20 4

Public online discussion forums in all national languages

Face-to-face citizen consultations in all member states

Common vote and a European citizens’ summit

Recommendations to the European parliament and European commission

23-04-20 5

The ECC online forums

• Agenda-setting event, open to the national public in all EU-member states

• 28 forums, each producing 10 recommendations

• Broad ”issue”: ”The social and economic future of Europe”

• Moderated threaded discussions

• Decisive vote

23-04-20 6

Participation in the ECC forums

• Visitors to the forums could register as participants and then:

1. Write discussion posts

2. Write proposals for policy recommendations to the EU-institutions

3. Vote for others proposals (each participant could vote once for every proposal)

23-04-20 7

Variation between the forums

• A:The share of activities on the forums made out of discussions

Data – “Patterns of participation”Votes Proposal

nr 1Votes Proposals Posts Participants Visitors

Austria 148 577 36 283 381 1877

Belgium - F 164 675 35 119 517 1751

Belgium - W 165 422 35 48 387 1428

Bulgaria 105 223 24 38 224 847

Cypress 24 175 15 54 124 376

Denmark 228 330 12 66 360 958

Estonia 139 176 7 34 238 1492

Finland 418 749 11 42 732 2202

France 3829 40087 257 1204 9400 26741

Germany 1400 2081 132 805 4296 12179

Greece 44 225 30 38 207 767

Hungary 248 1488 29 146 557 2795

Ireland 134 299 24 92 319 775

Italy 354 1614 84 305 1069 3986

Latvia 32 86 19 113 164 999

Lithuania 69 399 34 97 220 621

Luxemburg 87 324 35 43 196 712

Malta 12 37 8 25 82 327

Netherlands 164 343 21 82 339 730

Poland 384 1229 18 282 1020 4424

Portugal 147 614 63 499 595 2600

Romania 34 136 13 108 214 847

Slovakia 148 163 7 55 305 543

Slovenia 148 277 20 96 305 1102

Spain 3414 14376 115 868 5011 26425

Sweden 290 792 13 75 617 1624

Czech Republic 183 344 12 84 405 1384

United Kingdom 235 715 37 384 641 2236

23-04-20 9

Hypotheses

1. The higher number of participants registered on a discussion forum the less deliberation will occur between the participants... (Meirowitz 2007)

2. The more a forum is characterized by a diversity of opinion the more deliberation... (Stromer-Galley 2003 vs. Sunstein 2001)

3. The more the participants of a forum engage in voting the less deliberation... (Chambers 2001)

4. The higher the level of engagement among the participants in a forum the more deliberation... (Elstub 2008, Habermas 1996...)

23-04-20 10

Operationalization of deliberation

• Not only registering of preferences but also talk about those preferences (Wright & Street 2007)

- Voting for a proposal or posting of a proposal is seen as acts of aggregative participation

-The writing of a discussion post is seen as an act of deliberation

• The intensity of deliberation: the average number of discussion posts for each registered participant

23-04-20 11

Hypothesis 1: Size

• Hypothesis: The more participants registered on a discussion forum the less deliberation will occur between the participants

• Operationalization: Number of registered participants on the forums.

• Analysis: The correlations show no significant relationship (Pearsons r: -,251;sig. ,197).

• Results: Size does not seem to determine the variation in intensity of deliberation.

23-04-20 12

Hypothesis 2: Diversity of opinion

• Hypothesis: The more a forum is characterized by a diversity of opinion the more deliberation will occur between the participants

• Operationalization: The percentage of all participants voting for the most popular proposal (reversed).

• Analysis: The correlations show a significant positive relationship between diversity of opinion and intensity of deliberation (Pearsons r: +,349, sig. ,069)

• Results: Diversity of opinion seems to reinforce deliberation.

23-04-20 13

Hypothesis 3: Aggregative dynamic

• Hypothesis: The more the participants of a forum engage in voting the less deliberation will occur between the participants

• Operationalization: Average number of votes per participant.

• Analysis: No significant relationship is found (Pearsons r: -,158, sig. ,422)

• Results: The occurrence of an aggregative dynamic does not seem to determine the variation in intensity of deliberation.

23-04-20 14

Hypothesis 4: Engagement

• Hypothesis: The higher the level of engagement among the participants in a forum the more deliberation will occur between the participants

• Operationalization: The percentage of unique visitors to the forum registering as participants [the threshold for participation](reversed).

• Analysis: The correlations show a significant positive relationship (Pearsons r: +,338, sig. ,079)

• Results: Highly engaged participants does seem to reinforce deliberation.

23-04-20 15

Summary of the analysis

Relationship with intensity of deliberation

Size of the forum (number of participants)

0

Diversity of opinion +

Aggregative dynamic (intensity in voting)

0

Level of engagement

+

23-04-20 16

Summary of the analysis

Relationship with intensity of deliberation

Relationship with intensity of voting

Size of the forum (number of participants)

0 +++

Diversity of opinion + +++

Aggregative dynamic (intensity in voting)

0 -

Level of engagement

+ 0

23-04-20 17

Conclusion (1/2)

• An analysis with obvious weak spots:– Possibly stretching the concept of deliberation– Statistical data leaving the actual discussions as a black box– Statistical analysis with high uncertainty level

• But, offers a possibility to make comparative analyses of public deliberation when previously explored determinants are held constant.

23-04-20 18

Conclusions (2/2)

• What makes online deliberation happen?– We know that design and institutional affiliation have great

importance.• People deliberate online when the design of the environment is

supportive.

• And when there is a good chance that they will be listened to/ have an impact on established political institutions.

– But divergences in the intensity of deliberation within the same project framework indicate the need for exploration of additional determinants.

• This analysis suggests the importance of diversity of opinion and the level of engagement among participants might be of importance.

• Thank you!

23-04-20 19