Suchergebnisse

Der Beitrag untersucht die Konsequenzen der Nutzung digitaler Algorithmen von Suchmaschinen und sozialen Medien für demokratische Deliberation. Er beleuchtet zunächst, wie diese Algorithmen Informationen für bestimmte Nutzer(-gruppen) personalisieren: Er zeigt, wie Daten gesammelt, Datenbanken aufgebaut, Nutzerdaten und Webinhalte kategorisiert und schließlich nach bestimmten Aspekten miteinander verbunden werden. Darauf aufbauend zeichnet der Artikel nach, wie politische Kommunikation durch diese Algorithmen beeinflusst wird und welche Implikationen das für demokratische Deliberation hat. Es wird gezeigt, dass sowohl die Informationsbasis der Nutzer als auch die Kommunikation selbst durch Algorithmen beeinflusst und geformt werden und dass dies den normativen Anforderungen an demokratische Deliberation zuwiderläuft. Denn unter anderem entsteht dabei eine »informationelle Pfadabhängigkeit«, die die Möglichkeit einer gesellschaftsweiten Deliberation untergräbt.

A theoretically reflected and empirically valid measurement of nation states' democratic quality must include an assessment of polities' deliberativeness. This article examines the assessment of deliberativeness suggested by two sophisticated contemporary measurements of democratic quality, that is, the Democracy Barometer and the Varieties of Democracy-project. We feature two sets of challenges, each measurement of deliberativeness must meet: First, it must address the methodological challenges arising in the course of conceptualizing, operationalizing, and aggregating complex concepts (see Munck and Verkuilen, 2002). Second, attempts to measure nation states' deliberativeness are confronted with specific conceptual and systematic challenges which we derive from recent deliberative democracy scholarship. We argue that both Democracy Barometer and Varieties of Democracy-project provide highly sophisticated assessments of democratic quality, but ultimately fail to capture nation states "deliberativeness" in a theoretically reflected and methodologically sound manner. We examine the methodological, pragmatic, and systematic reasons for these shortcomings. The crucial task for measurements of nation states' deliberativeness consists in providing a conceptual approach and methodological framework for "upscaling" existing meso-level measurements (such as the DQI). The concluding section presents conceptual and methodological strategies that can enable researchers to meet these challenges and to provide a theoretically grounded and empirically valid measurement of nation states' deliberativeness.

A theoretically reflected and empirically valid measurement of nation states' democratic quality must include an assessment of polities' deliberativeness. This article examines the assessment of deliberativeness suggested by two sophisticated contemporary measurements of democratic quality, that is, the Democracy Barometer and the Varieties of Democracy-project. We feature two sets of challenges, each measurement of deliberativeness must meet: First, it must address the methodological challenges arising in the course of conceptualizing, operationalizing, and aggregating complex concepts (see Munck and Verkuilen, 2002). Second, attempts to measure nation states' deliberativeness are confronted with specific conceptual and systematic challenges which we derive from recent deliberative democracy scholarship. We argue that both Democracy Barometer and Varieties of Democracy-project provide highly sophisticated assessments of democratic quality, but ultimately fail to capture nation states "deliberativeness" in a theoretically reflected and methodologically sound manner. We examine the methodological, pragmatic, and systematic reasons for these shortcomings. The crucial task for measurements of nation states' deliberativeness consists in providing a conceptual approach and methodological framework for "upscaling" existing meso-level measurements (such as the DQI). The concluding section presents conceptual and methodological strategies that can enable researchers to meet these challenges and to provide a theoretically grounded and empirically valid measurement of nation states' deliberativeness.

Although measuring democratic deliberation is necessary for a valid measurement of the performance of democracies, it poses serious theoretical and methodological challenges. The most serious problem in the context of research on democratic performance is the need for a theoretical and methodological approach for "upscaling" the measurement of deliberation from the micro and meso level to the macro level. The systemic approach offers a useful framework for this purpose. Building on this framework, this article offers a modular approach consisting of four parameters for conceptualization, measurement, and aggregation which can be adjusted to make the measurement of democratic deliberation compatible with the various general measurement approaches adopted by different scholars.

Although measuring democratic deliberation is necessary for a valid measurement of the performance of democracies, it poses serious theoretical and methodological challenges. The most serious problem in the context of research on democratic performance is the need for a theoretical and methodological approach for "upscaling" the measurement of deliberation from the micro and meso level to the macro level. The systemic approach offers a useful framework for this purpose. Building on this framework, this article offers a modular approach consisting of four parameters for conceptualization, measurement, and aggregation which can be adjusted to make the measurement of democratic deliberation compatible with the various general measurement approaches adopted by different scholars. ; This article is part of the issue "Why Choice Matters: Revisiting and Comparing Measures of Democracy", edited by Heiko Giebler (WZB Berlin Social Science Center, Germany), Saskia P. Ruth (German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Germany), and Dag Tanneberg (University of Potsdam, Germany).

Although measuring democratic deliberation is necessary for a valid measurement of the performance of democracies, it poses serious theoretical and methodological challenges. The most serious problem in the context of research on democratic performance is the need for a theoretical and methodological approach for "upscaling" the measurement of deliberation from the micro and meso level to the macro level. The systemic approach offers a useful framework for this purpose. Building on this framework, this article offers a modular approach consisting of four parameters for conceptualization, measurement, and aggregation which can be adjusted to make the measurement of democratic deliberation compatible with the various general measurement approaches adopted by different scholars.

Der Beitrag untersucht die Konsequenzen der Nutzung digitaler Algorithmen von Suchmaschinen und sozialen Medien für demokratische Deliberation. Er beleuchtet zunächst, wie diese Algorithmen Informationen für bestimmte Nutzer(-gruppen) personalisieren: Er zeigt, wie Daten gesammelt, Datenbanken aufgebaut, Nutzerdaten und Webinhalte kategorisiert und schließlich nach bestimmten Aspekten miteinander verbunden werden. Darauf aufbauend zeichnet der Artikel nach, wie politische Kommunikation durch diese Algorithmen beeinflusst wird und welche Implikationen das für demokratische Deliberation hat. Es wird gezeigt, dass sowohl die Informationsbasis der Nutzer als auch die Kommunikation selbst durch Algorithmen beeinflusst und geformt werden und dass dies den normativen Anforderungen an demokratische Deliberation zuwiderläuft. Denn unter anderem entsteht dabei eine »informationelle Pfadabhängigkeit«, die die Möglichkeit einer gesellschaftsweiten Deliberation untergräbt.