Online deliberation is a broad term used to describe various forms of online discussion, including non-institutional, institutional, and experimental deliberative practices. [1] The term also describes the emerging field of practice and research related to the design, implementation and study of deliberative processes that rely on the use of electronic information and communications technologies (ICT).
Although the Internet and social media have fostered discursive participation and deliberation online through computer-mediated communication, [2] the academic study of online deliberation started in the early 2000s. [3]
A range of studies have suggested that group size, volume of communication, interactivity between participants, message characteristics, and social media characteristics can impact online deliberation. [4] [2] and that democratic deliberation varies across platforms. For example, news forums have been shown to have the highest degree of deliberation followed by news websites, and then Facebook. [5] Differences in the effectiveness of platforms as supporting deliberation has been attributed based on numerous factors such as moderation, the availability of information, and focusing on a well defined topic. [5]
A limited number of studies have explored the extent to which online deliberation can produce similar results to traditional, face-to-face deliberation. A 2004 deliberative poll comparing face-to-face and online deliberation on U.S. foreign policy found similar results. [6] A similar study in 2012 in France found that, compared to the offline process, online deliberation was more likely to increase women’s participation and to promote the justification of arguments by participants. [7]
Research on online deliberation suggests that there are five key design considerations that will affect the quality of dialogue: asynchronous communication vs synchronous communication, post hoc moderation vs pre-moderation, empowering spaces vs un-empowering spaces, asking discrete questions vs broad questions, and the quality of information. [8] Other scholars have suggested that successful online deliberation follows four central rules: discussions must be inclusive, rational-critical, reciprocal and respectful. [1]
In general, online deliberation requires participants to be able to work together comfortably in order to support effective deliberative processes, which often depend on rules and structures that foster participant comfort and mutual respect. [9]
Researchers have questioned the utility of online deliberation as an extension of the public sphere, questioning the extent to which online deliberation can be as effective as face-to-face interaction. [2] Computer-mediated discourse is deemed impersonal, and is found to encourage online incivility. [10] Furthermore, some users who participate in online political discussions tend to engage primarily in groups that align with their existing views, [11] indicating the possibility that online deliberation mainly promotes motivated reasoning and reinforces preexisting attitudes.
Scholarly research into online deliberation is interdisciplinary and includes practices such as online consultation, e-participation, e-government, [12] [2] Citizen-to-Citizen (C2C), [12] [2] online deliberative polling, crowdsourcing, online facilitation, online research communities, interactive e-learning, civic dialogue in Internet forums and online chat, and group decision making that utilizes collaborative software and other forms of computer-mediated communication. Work in all these endeavors is tied together by the challenge of using electronic media in a way that deepens thinking and improves mutual understanding.
Online deliberation is a relatively new field. Although the concept of public deliberation via electronic means was discussed as early as the 1970s,25 and there was some early empirical work on deliberation online in the 1980s and 1990s,26 studies of structured or public online deliberation appear to have begun with work by Stephen Coleman and colleagues,27 Lincoln Dahlberg,28 and Vincent Price29 around a decade ago.