Suchergebnisse

The variable hate speech is an indicator used to describe communication that expresses and/or promotes hatred towards others (Erjavec & Kovačič, 2012; Rosenfeld, 2012; Ziegele, Koehler, & Weber, 2018). A second element is that hate speech is directed against others on the basis of their ethnic or national origin, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation or political conviction (Erjavec & Kovačič, 2012; Rosenfeld, 2012; Waseem & Hovy, 2016) and typically uses terms to denigrate, degrade and threaten others (Döring & Mohseni, 2020; Gagliardone, Gal, Alves, & Martínez, 2015). Hate speech and incivility are often used synonymously as hateful speech is considered part of incivility (Ziegele et al., 2018). Field of application/theoretical foundation: Hate speech (see also incivility) has become an issue of growing concern both in public and academic discourses on user-generated online communication. References/combination with other methods of data collection: Hate speech is examined through content analysis and can be combined with comparative or experimental designs (Muddiman, 2017; Oz, Zheng, & Chen, 2017; Rowe, 2015). In addition, content analyses can be accompanied by interviews or surveys, for example to validate the results of the content analysis (Erjavec & Kovačič, 2012). Example studies: Research question/research interest: Previous studies have been interested in the extent of hate speech in online communication (e.g. in one specific online discussion, in discussions on a specific topic or discussions on a specific platform or different platforms in comparatively) (Döring & Mohseni, 2020; Poole, Giraud, & Quincey, 2020; Waseem & Hovy, 2016). Object of analysis: Previous studies have investigated hate speech in user comments for example on news websites, social media platforms (e.g. Twitter) and social live streaming services (e.g. YouTube, YouNow). Level of analysis: Most manual content analysis studies measure hate speech on the level of a message, for ...

The variable incivility is an indicator used to describe violations of communication norms. These norms can be social norms established within a society, a culture or parts of a society (e.g. a social class, milieu or group) or democratic norms established within a democratic society. In this sense incivility is associated with behaviors that threaten a collective face or a democratic society, deny people their personal freedoms, and stereotype individuals or social groups. Furthermore, some scholars include impoliteness into the concept of incivility and argue that the two concepts have no clear boundaries (e.g. Seely, 2017). They therefore describe incivility as aggressive, offensive or derogatory communication expressed directly or indirectly to other individuals or parties. In many studies a message is classified as uncivil if the message contains at least one instance of incivility (e.g. one violent threat). The direction of an uncivil statement is coded as 'interpersonal'/'personal' or 'other-oriented'/'impersonal' or sometimes also as 'neutral', meaning it is not directed at any group or individual. Field of application/theoretical foundation: One unifying element to communication that is labelled as incivility is that it has to be a violation of an existing norm. Which norms are seen as violated depends on the theoretical tradition. Incivility research is related to theories on social norms of communication and conversation: conversational-maxims (Grice, 1975), face-saving concepts (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Goffman, 1989) or conversational-contract theories (Fraser, 1990). Further, incivility research has ties to theories that view public communication as part of democratic opinion formation and decision-making processes, e.g. theories on deliberative democracy and deliberation (Dryzek, 2000; Gutmann & Thompson, 1996; Habermas, 1994). References/combination with other methods of data collection: Incivility is examined through content analysis and sometimes combined with comparative designs (e.g., ...

Abstract
This paper argues that social and political problems currently addressed by local governments through new forms of digital participation can be considered wicked problems, because they cannot be tackled through factual information alone. Addressing such problems means connecting diverse citizens' values to empirically based and logically based arguments. The paper addresses the question of which role citizens' personal narratives and emotions play in digital participation and how narratives and emotions articulate personal and social values. This line of inquiry is illustrated by two examples of digital participation on the local and regional level of democracy. The examples show that citizens' narratives and emotional expressions articulate diverse values and value conflicts (e.g., security vs. universalism). Finally, the paper develops some preliminary ideas about how online argument mapping tools could be combined with value mapping.

Democratic governments frequently use online tools to include large numbers of citizens in participation processes. Against the backdrop of deliberative theories, such initiatives are subject to normative needs. This article examines the equality of participation. Previous research has mainly focused on equality in terms of access to, and voice within, deliberation processes. However, much less is known about the factors that influence the distribution of reciprocity in online political discussions. Proposing a theoretical distinction between simple replying and deliberative reciprocity, this study addresses the question: What obstructs or promotes deliberative reciprocity online? Drawing on previous online communication research, we assume that communication style, gender and users' activity are important predictors of simple replying and deliberative reciprocity. Results of a relational quantitative content analysis indicate that in order to receive deliberative reciprocity users should ask questions, propose arguments, be humorous, have a critical attitude and use a male user name. Storytelling and expressions of emotions show no significant associations with deliberative reciprocity.

Die Arbeit widmet sich der Dynamik öffentlicher Online-Deliberation. Basierend auf einer kritischen Auseinandersetzung mit dem klassischen Deliberationskonzept werden neben der Argumentation ausserdem Narration, Emotionsäusserungen und Humor als deliberative Kommunikationsformen diskutiert. Neben der Gegenargumentation werden Empathie, Konstruktivität, Reflexivität und echte Fragen als Bestandteile deliberativer Reziprozität betrachtet. Empirisch wird mittels relationaler Inhalts- und Sequenzanalyse zweier Online-Beteiligungsverfahren untersucht, inwiefern unterschiedliche Kommunikationsformen nachfolgende klassische und inklusive deliberative Reziprozität beeinflussen

Die Arbeit widmet sich der Dynamik öffentlicher Online-Deliberation. Basierend auf einer kritischen Auseinandersetzung mit dem klassischen Deliberationskonzept werden neben der Argumentation ausserdem Narration, Emotionsäusserungen und Humor als deliberative Kommunikationsformen diskutiert. Neben der Gegenargumentation werden Empathie, Konstruktivität, Reflexivität und echte Fragen als Bestandteile deliberativer Reziprozität betrachtet. Empirisch wird mittels relationaler Inhalts- und Sequenzanalyse zweier Online-Beteiligungsverfahren untersucht, inwiefern unterschiedliche Kommunikationsformen nachfolgende klassische und inklusive deliberative Reziprozität beeinflussen

Ever since the Internet has provided easy access to online discussion, advocates of deliberative democracy have hoped for an improved public sphere. This article investigates which particular platform features promote deliberative debate online. We assume that moderation, asynchronous discussion, a well‐defined topic, and the availability of information enhance the level of deliberative quality of user comments. A comparison between different types of news platforms that differ in terms of design (a news forum, news websites, and Facebook news pages) shows that deliberation (measured as rationality, reciprocity, respect, and constructiveness) differs significantly between platforms. We find that the news forum yields the most rational and respectful debate. While user comments on news websites are only slightly less deliberative, Facebook comments perform poorly in terms of deliberative quality. However, comments left on news websites and on Facebook show particularly high levels of reciprocity among users.

One major strand of contemporary research on political participation addresses online deliberation. Over time, online deliberation has become increasingly pluralistic. Our study applies a framework derived from systemic deliberative theory to evaluate different online deliberation processes on German immigration policy. A crucial premise of the systemic deliberative theory is that the quality of deliberation varies systematically between different arenas within a political system. We differentiate between highly formal, semi‐formal, and informal deliberative arenas (arenas 1–3) and develop seven theory‐driven hypotheses concerning the quality of deliberative procedures in arenas 1–3 that we test through quantitative content analysis. Our study confirms the overarching expectation: processes' deliberative quality varies systematically between arenas. The highest level of (aggregated) deliberative quality is displayed in arena 1—deliberations, that is, on the government‐run consultation platform. The more fine‐grained analysis of different dimensions of deliberative quality reveals that the patterns observed with regards to certain dimensions of deliberative quality (e.g., constructiveness and reciprocity) do not conform with our theory‐driven hypotheses. We discuss the theoretical and empirical implications of these findings. Future collaborations of theoretical and empirical scholars of deliberative democracy must address the specifics of online communication and the function of emotional communication in different deliberative arenas.

Previous research suggests that distinct characteristics of news articles, such as their news factors, account for the different participation rates in comment sections as well as the degree of interactivity among the discussants. In this study, this assumption is tested in the Facebook environment and extended to the analysis of how news factors (i.e., event characteristics) and illustration factors (i.e., characteristics resulting from a specific journalistic editing) of news articles predict the inclusiveness of discussions, as well as the occurrence of civility, rationality, and deliberative interactivity in user comments. A content analysis of 619 news articles and 11,218 related user comments on nine nation-wide Facebook news pages reveals that the news factors controversy, latent conflict, contravention, obtrusiveness, and impact particularly account for specific discussion qualities. The results also show that the illustration factors emotional language/ visualizations, slant, and conversational prompts affect the deliberative quality of the discussions.

Deliberation setzt klassischerweise voraus, dass Positionen argumentativ und in respektvoller Weise aufeinander bezogen und verteidigt werden. Andere Konzepte von Deliberation schließen außerdem Narrationen, Emotionen und Humor ein. Während beide, klassische und inklusive Konzepte, gute Argumente für ihre Sichtweise vorgestellt haben, bleiben die Beziehungen zwischen den unterschiedlichen Deliberationsmerkmalen unklar. Der Beitrag untersucht, inwieweit sich einzelne Merkmale klassischer und inklusiver Deliberationskonzepte gegenseitig ausschließen oder ergänzen. Eine quantitative Inhaltsanalyse von Nutzerkommentaren auf Facebook und Beteiligungsplattformen zeigt, dass Humor nicht mit Begründungen und Respekt einhergeht, negative Emotionen ebenfalls zusammen mit Respektlosigkeiten auftreten, wogegen positive Emotionen und Narration mit Reziprozität und Respekt einhergehen. Der Vergleich zwischen verschiedenen Plattformen zeigt, dass Merkmale klassischer und inklusiver Deliberationskonzepte vor allem in den Beteiligungsplattformen zusammen auftreten.

This article focuses on the potential of online participation to enable the cooperative development of norms by affected stakeholders, investigating whether such processes can produce norms of both high quality and legitimacy. To answer this question, we designed, implemented, and evaluated an online norm setting process that goes beyond the scope of those usually described in the literature. Taking as a case study a process to redraft the examination regulations for doctoral degrees at a science faculty of a German university, we show that such instances of online deliberation can integrate the diversity of opinions of all affected stakeholders. The result was a norm that implemented previously controversial external recommendations for doctoral dissertation procedures and that was met with high satisfaction from both those who participated as well as those who remained passive. While we believe that the university context in which this process was conducted is particularly promising for such efforts because of its organization, its members, and the issue that was at stake, we argue that similar conducive conditions exist, for example, for political parties. As such, the findings can be instructive for understanding the potential and limits of successful online participation in other contexts.

This article focuses on the potential of online participation to enable the cooperative development of norms by affected stakeholders, investigating whether such processes can produce norms of both high quality and legitimacy. To answer this question, we designed, implemented, and evaluated an online norm setting process that goes beyond the scope of those usually described in the literature. Taking as a case study a process to redraft the examination regulations for doctoral degrees at a science faculty of a German university, we show that such instances of online deliberation can integrate the diversity of opinions of all affected stakeholders. The result was a norm that implemented previously controversial external recommendations for doctoral dissertation procedures and that was met with high satisfaction from both those who participated as well as those who remained passive. While we believe that the university context in which this process was conducted is particularly promising for such efforts because of its organization, its members, and the issue that was at stake, we argue that similar conducive conditions exist, for example, for political parties. As such, the findings can be instructive for understanding the potential and limits of successful online participation in other contexts.