Measuring Online Deliberation in Local Politics: An Empirical Analysis of the 2011 Zurich City Debate

U. Klinger, U. Russmann
{"title":"Measuring Online Deliberation in Local Politics: An Empirical Analysis of the 2011 Zurich City Debate","authors":"U. Klinger, U. Russmann","doi":"10.4018/ijep.2014010104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Administrations increasingly use the internet to improve citizens' participation in political processes. While research on online political communication and e-democracy is growing, we still have little empirical evidence on the quality of online participation and deliberation processes. This paper focuses on an online local deliberation process, the 2011 Zurich City Debate, and seeks to investigate the specific quality of such online public communication. By building an index of a quality of understanding (IQU), the authors analyse 1.991 postings that participants have contributed in five thematic debates on local political issues. Five indicators were defined: statement of reasons, proposals for solutions, respect, doubts, and reciprocity. The authors conclude that participants have respectfully voiced opinions, that in two fora half of the postings were reciprocal, i.e. people exchanged views and commented on each other. However, the data gives the impression of a polite and reciprocal debate, but without much argumentation, propositions or doubts.","PeriodicalId":13695,"journal":{"name":"Int. J. E Politics","volume":"166 1","pages":"61-77"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Int. J. E Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4018/ijep.2014010104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Administrations increasingly use the internet to improve citizens' participation in political processes. While research on online political communication and e-democracy is growing, we still have little empirical evidence on the quality of online participation and deliberation processes. This paper focuses on an online local deliberation process, the 2011 Zurich City Debate, and seeks to investigate the specific quality of such online public communication. By building an index of a quality of understanding (IQU), the authors analyse 1.991 postings that participants have contributed in five thematic debates on local political issues. Five indicators were defined: statement of reasons, proposals for solutions, respect, doubts, and reciprocity. The authors conclude that participants have respectfully voiced opinions, that in two fora half of the postings were reciprocal, i.e. people exchanged views and commented on each other. However, the data gives the impression of a polite and reciprocal debate, but without much argumentation, propositions or doubts.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
衡量地方政治中的网络审议:2011年苏黎世城市辩论的实证分析
政府越来越多地利用互联网来提高公民对政治进程的参与。虽然对在线政治交流和电子民主的研究正在增长,但我们仍然很少有关于在线参与和审议过程质量的经验证据。本文关注的是2011年苏黎世城市辩论这一在线地方审议过程,并试图调查这种在线公共传播的具体质量。通过建立理解质量指数(IQU),作者分析了参与者在五场关于当地政治问题的专题辩论中发表的1.991篇文章。定义了五个指标:理由陈述、解决方案建议、尊重、怀疑和互惠。作者得出的结论是,参与者表达了尊重的意见,在两个论坛中,一半的帖子是互惠的,即人们交换意见并相互评论。然而,这些数据给人的印象是一场礼貌而互惠的辩论,但没有太多的争论、主张或怀疑。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Theorizing the Journalism Model of Disinformation and Hate Speech Propagation in a Nigerian Democratic Context Farming on Facebook, Camera-less Food Photography and a New Indian Pastoral A Possible Framework for Attention-Based Politics: A Field for Research The Potential of Interactive Negotiated Narratives in Rebuilding and Reimagining Northern Irish Society Citizen Engagement and Social Media: The Case of Mexican Presidential Candidacies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1