What does it take to make online deliberation happen?

1. What does it take to make online deliberation happen? -A comparative analysis of 28 online discussion forums Martin Karlsson PhD Student in Political Science Örebro School of public affairs

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)

3. Outline of the presentation • Background of the paper • The European Citizens Consultations • Design of the analysis • Results • Conclusions

4. The European Citizens Consultations • 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

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

6. Participation in the ECC forums • Visitors to the forums could register as participants and then: • Write discussion posts • Write proposals for policy recommendations to the EU-institutions • Vote for others proposals (each participant could vote once for every proposal)

7. Variation between the forums • A:The share of activities on the forums made out of discussions

8. Data – “Patterns of participation”

9. Hypotheses • The higher number of participants registered on a discussion forum the less deliberation will occur between the participants... (Meirowitz 2007) • The more a forum is characterized by a diversity of opinion the more deliberation... (Stromer-Galley 2003 vs. Sunstein 2001) • The more the participants of a forum engage in voting the less deliberation... (Chambers 2001) • The higher the level of engagement among the participants in a forum the more deliberation... (Elstub 2008, Habermas 1996...)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

15. Summary of the analysis

16. Summary of the analysis

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.

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.

19. Thank you!