 
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Facilitating Deliberation Online | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Introduction | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
> Matthias Trénel, Social
Science Research Center Berlin, Supervisors: ¬Prof. Wolfgang Scholl, (proposed: ¬Prof. Claus Leggewie, ¬Nicola Döring) Duration: 12/2001-04/2005 The idea of deliberative democracy is central to those who believe the internet bears potential for deepening (western) democracies: New media open up new opportunities for deliberation because they provide efficient means to host interactive communication and easier access for citizens to take part. Indeed, in recent years governments and parliaments have utilized internet discussion forums in order to gain evidence from citizens in the process of policy-making (online consultations). Rather than testing the assumption whether the internet fosters deliberation or not (a question often addressed too broadly), this study is looking at ways to improve the quality of those online discourses. Case reports have highlighted facilitation as an important success factor for fruitful discussion. However, so far no attempt has been made to classify different facilitation strategies and to put them to evaluation. This study defines facilitation as a behaviour by an outside party that provides procedural guidance in social interaction. Different facilitation strategies are distinguished from each other on two dimensions: First, there are different styles in facilitation (active/passive, directive/participatory). Second, different communicative procedures are implemented through facilitation (e.g. different ways of sequencing communication). Main research question and methodology If any, what is the impact of facilitation on group discussions? The Listening to the City Online Dialogues are almost a perfect case to explore this question since one half of the 26 groups were facilitated while the other half relied on self-organization. Independent variables: I. Facilitation yes/no II. Facilitator properties (e.g. experience) III. Type of facilitation (e.g. proactiveness) Dependent variables: I. Participant involvement (e.g. number of messages, continued involvement) II. Participant evaluation of dialogue (e.g. satisfaction) III. Participant opinions IV. Deliberativeness of discussion (e.g. interactivity, degree of argumentation, respectfullness) Values for some variables can be counted using the discussion archive (e.g. participant involvement), whereas other variables have to be analyzed though content analysis of messages in the dicussion forum (e.g. deliberativeness). Also, I plan to conduct a brief telephone interview with each of the facilitators. Finally, differences between facilitated and non-facilitated groups will be tested statistically for size and significance (using analysis of variance). This transdisciplinary study is rooted in social psychology as well as in behavioral political science. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Last change: 2005-03-22 13:36 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
