Open main menu

Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki β

Revision as of 12:09, 4 March 2015 by WinSysop (talk | contribs) (→‎Why do we need deliberation?)

Deliberative Democracy

Theories of Knowledge, Psychology, Deliberation and Government

By Tal Yaron

framless

This page is a stub. It is not ready for publication and is used to aggregate information about a subject. You can add further reading and add information to the page. If you want to prepare this page for publication please consults with the creator of this page.
Tal Yaron 10:26, 9 July 2014 (IDT)

framless

This site was written by a non-English speaking writer. Any help in improving the readbility will be much appreciated.Tal Yaron 02:19, 30 December 2012 (IST)

Join our Google+ Community

Contents

Why do we need a Framework for Deliberation

The theory of deliberation has so far defied a strong connection with empirical research. One of the reason for that is the complexty of this field. The Public Deliberation research field is not an easy field for research. It includes the fields of political science, social interactions, individual psychology, interpersonal communication, the processing of knowledge and much more. In each of it's subfields there are many areas of intradisciplnary and interdisciplinary questions, each making the field more complex. This makes the research of deliberation highly complex. In order to make deliberation empirical, falsifiable theories of deliberation must be produced. Such theories which describes measurable elements and interactions of between elemnts,were produced in the last decade by several groups: steenberger et al 2003[1], stormer-Galley 2005[2], bachtiger et al 2009[3] and black and Gastil 2008[4], yet these theories only answers partly to the phenomena we find in real world deliberation. Many aspects like the inadequaty of rationality, communication styles, storytelling, social interaction, communication methods, type of medium used and much more are not described by these theoris.

The current framework does not try to give a single description of deliberation, but rather aims at describing the building blocks of deliberation, and the ways to measure these building blocks. We will examine four areas that to our understanding construct the major elements of deliberation: knowledge, psychology, sociology and the structures and procedures which produce public decision making by deliberation. We then ask about the quality and democratic values of the decisions. We then examines several methods of deliberation used by practioners, and tries to describe the elements and the interactions the practitioners used. Based on these understanding, we hope to make measurements of deliberation more clear and to improve old practices and construct new advanced deliberation settings.


Values of Deliberation

Equal Participation

Deliberative theory underlies the notion of ‘strong democracy’ whereby representative institutions should be supplanted by more participatory ones in order to realise the principle of self-government[5][6][7][8]

Equal influance on Deliberation

in many cases of online discussions there is a tedency of domination by a minority of people which is bias for deliberation[9][10][11][12][13].

Levels of Participation

See Robert Dahal....

Better informed participents

There are situations in which some citizens are simply better informed that justify an extended participation.

Decision Makers

In the case where politicians participate it is normal that the discussion tends to revolve around them, since it is a rare opportunity for participants at the forum to discuss directly with their representatives. The survey realized by Jankowsky and van Selm on the participants indicate that “Although debate appeared to be dominated by the few, participants appreciated the debate…”[14].

Falsification

falsification

Ethic

Rawls' Justice

Mill's Public Sphare Without private Sphare

ROI

Private ROI

See Robert Dahal...

Government Following

following decisions

Janssen and Kien defined Deliberation that has impacto on the goverment as "Major" and a disccusion that do no followed by action by the govenment as "minor"[15]. For the forum to become major, Janssen and Kien suggest three mechanisms:

  1. visibility of the public space and therefore its potential political influence (i.e. the number of persons reading the messages). For example, one can think at the forum hosted by major newspapers such as the New York Times or Le Monde; ii)
  2. Aim: There are for instance an increasing number of web-based discussion spaces - the e-consultation procedures - aiming at providing feedback on special issues; iii)
  3. status and power: it can result from the status and the power of the people participating actively or even just passively (just reading) in the online debates. There are, for example, online discussion spaces where political representatives or high level civil servants participate. It is usually not a spontaneous participation, but a participation resulting from an explicit invitation of the organizers.

Massages in major deliberation, “citizenspace”, that was designed to enable citizens to enter into an interactive relationship with Government, had longer average massages then minor deliberation, e-consultation experience organized by the Hansard society on the Stem research. Coleman found that the major forum had an average of 345 words per massage, while the minor forum had average of 79 words per massage[16]. Janssen and Kies (2000), suggest that major spaces tend to be more respectful and constructive[17].

Gravitating toward the power of decision makers

In online discussion spaces where politicians are present, the discussion tends to revolve around them and much less around individual citizens[18]. In other words, the presence of politicians would have an impact on the flow of communication which could distract from the equilibrium and the fairness of the debate, and gravitate toward the power of decision makers.

In contexts where participants think that their voices can have an impact on decisions they are ready and willing to spend more time to elaborate and to justify their opinions.

learning and changing decisions

Procedures of Deliberation

Experts on dialogue processes argue that deliberative forums should have at least two phases: one characterized by “divergence,” in which opinions,perspectives, and options proliferate; and a second phase characterized by “convergence,” in which participants come to conclusions, shared insights, and next steps[19][20][21]. The first phase is important not only for giving participants a better sense of the range of problems and possible solutions but also for generating the creativity that leads to innovative answers and the sociability that gives people a stake in making the process work. But it the second phase is equally important and is in some ways more difficult, more likely to provoke feelings of frustration and antagonism among participants.

For another frame of analyzing the bulding blocks of deliberation see Gastil and Black 2008[22]. They present five bulding blocks:

  1. Creating an information base (SON).
  2. Prioritizing key values at stake (pre-Evaluation)
  3. Identifing wide range of possible solutions (Options)
  4. Weighing the solutions (Evaluation)
  5. Making the best decision possible (selecting)

They base their model of group decision making resesrch[23][24].

In my hypothesis I add the synthesis, cycle, doing, learning from doing, which help create more delicate and group-wise decisions, and learn from exprience.

The Question

How to fulfil the changing needs of the people, is the beginning of the serach for solutions. The search can go through deliberation.

SON

Why do We Need Social Knowledge in Deliberation

Common Ground is defined as a prerequisite for mutual understanding in communication processes and it consists of shared information, mutual knowledge, mutual beliefs, and mutual assumptions[25]. Building Common Ground is crucial for effective communication and collaborative work since it helps people converse and understand each other.

What is Social Knowledge

epistemology, SON

Methods for creating social knowledge.Moving from MONs to SON.

Methods for creating social knowledge in deliberation.

Falsification

falsifiability

Levels of Knowledge

Refinement

In emotional neutral deliberation, people added links to online discussion to contribute to an accurate picture of the choices[26].

Experts Knowledge
Integration of Experts Knowledge with Laymen Knowledge

Options

WHAT IS AN option?

Methods for creating options

In emotional neutral online deliberation people used links to other sites to create more options[27].

Evaluating

consequence

value

Synthesizing

synthesizing

The cycle of Creating SON, Creating Options, Evaluating and Synthsizing

The cycle should enahnce the ability of the group to solve problem wisely. See Wisdom of the Multitude.

Selecting

Doing

Learning From Experience

Psychology

Self-Control

From FFFF to PFC

Flaming

Defined by Alonzo and Aiken (2004: 205) as ‘hostile intentions characterized by words of profanity, obscenity, and insults that inflict harm to a person or an organization resulting from uninhibited behavior’[28]. Flaming as an object of academic inquiry traces its origins to the pre-world wide web bulletin-board systems of the 1980s[29].

Respect

Janssen and Kies (2000), suggest that major spaces (government forums) tend to be more respectful and constructive[30].

The Stupid-Evil Reaction

Sometimes when there is a deep misunderstanding between participants, a mistrust my result. many times, the parties will evaluate the other as either stupid or evil.

Exploration and Exploitation Moods

Motivation and Inhibition in Deliberation

Limited resources

When people strugle to gain access to limited resouces, naturly, their motivation will grow. And also, as the amount of limited resources is grrater, the motivation will become greater. This is the reason, Churchill suggested that the number of seats in parliament will be smaller then the number of PMs. Jank and Kiel found out that people tend to write longer massages and gravitate toward decision makers, when politicians are participating an online discussion[31].

On the other hand, if there is not enough space, the fight for the limited resources may become a fight and skirmishes may arise, making the deliberation void.

ROI

See Robert Dahal

Maslow's Pyramid of needs

For every need in Maslow's pyramid of needs, there is an influance in motivation to deliberate.

In the physiological needs, people will use deliberation to direct more basic resources toward themselves (like money).

In Safety needs, people will use deliberation to understand complex phenoemnon and to make the public more orderd and safe. Here curiosity and terror managment will play signficant role.

In love and honor needs, people will try to achieve commun undestanding, respect and friendship.

In Honor needs, people will try to gain more honor from others, by beeing more informed or more power over decision making.

In Self-Fulfilment, people will use their special skills in knowledge contribute to the group.

The Ego

The Ego in deliberation, is the need to control. When one have strong desires to control, without self-control or the understanding that in order to conrol, you first have to listen and synthesis other views, she will avoid listtening to others, by thinking of them as bad or as stupid.

In this respect, when one is in cometition with others for control, he will try to show all their mistakes, and will strength her ideas. This may be the cause of the failuer of Eli Zeria, the Chif intelegence branch in the IDF to see the comming war with Egypt in October 1973[32].

Trust

Mebers in online groups has to acive trust[33][34]. The medium will change the trust level, when high social-information will elevate the trust levels[35]

Group Interactions

Spread of Information

Gastil and Black framework gives four aspects of socilogy of deliberation:

  1. All participants should have equal and adequate speaking opportunities.
  2. All participants should attempt to comprehend one another’s views.
  3. All participants should make efforts to fully consider each other’s input.
  4. All participants should demonstrate respect for each other.

Social Capital

Research shows that virtuals teams need to establish relational variables early in their formation in FtF meetings[36]

Culture

Teams need to bulid bridges above diffrence in culture[37][38][39][40]

Managing Conflicts

group need to manage conflicts[41]

Homogeneity and Heterogeneity

Homophily

homophily

Groups Conflict

group polarization

Twitter and facebook are knowen to make debates more homophilies[42]. This a represntation of debate about the israeli(blue)-Palestinian (green) conflict in Gaza in 2014.

Produced by Gilad Lotan - source: Vox

Groupthink

groupthink

Social psychological research on group decisionmaking has shown that those with minority opinions are often pressured to agree with the majority opinion, no matter how illinformed[43]; that high-status participants tend to be perceived as more accurate in their judgments even when they are not[44]; and that people tend to credit information they already know rather thaninformation they do not, even when indications are that the latter may be more accurate[45][46]

Experts and Laymen

Medium

CMC

Settings that Effects Deliberation

Settings

Online Forum settings

Online political and discussion spaces design choices can powerfully influence the nature of its users’ engagement[47][48][49][50][51].

A better deliberation may be gained by Endorsing asynchronicity in online text-based discussions,Coleman and Gøtze[52], argue that ‘the best deliberative results are often achieved when messages are stored or archived and responded to after readers have had time to contemplate them’. Contrariwise, Fishkin et al.[53] contend that asynchronous forums tend to be relatively low in ‘affective bonding and mutual understanding’. Wright and Street (2007) associate several technical affordances of online forums, including prior review moderation and threaded messages, with increased deliberation.

Anonymity

Suler identifies anonymity and invisibility as key design features in the production of the ‘online disinhibition effect’, which is simply a tendency to speak and act with less restraint online than one would offline[54].

Topic

Hot vs. Cool

Hot topic will be one in which participents will have high stakes and the need for control will be high.

Participation

Communication

Ease of communication

Taken from Iandoli et al 2012[55]

Asynchronous vs. Real-time

It is fundamental to distinguish the real-time discussion spaces (chat-rooms) from the asynchronous online discussion spaces that do not have time constraints (email list; newsgroups; Bulletin boards; forums). It is generally recognized that the former are spaces that attract 'small talk' and jokes, while the latter constitute a more favourable place for the appearance of some form of rational-critical form of debate. We suspect the different types of asynchronous forums to also have an impact on the deliberativeness of the forum, however we are aware of no specific empirical research that could confirm this belief[56].

Identification

Some suggests that un-identification will make forum more open and therefore more reliable[57], while other think it will make the forums unreliable[58]

Restricted Participation

Some spaces are restricted, while others are open to every body. The participation can influance the outcome of the deliberation. For instance, open deliberation without restrictions can drive a way experts. It may be better to assambel groups acording to a commun interest and level of knowledg. On the other hand, limiting access can cause groupthink.

Moderation

Modration style may influance the forums in many ways.

Agenda setting

The agenda setting of the debate can be decentralized (defined by participants), centralized (defined by organisers) or partly centralized (defined by both)[59].

Topic-centerd vs People-centerd

Debates can also be organized around topics (eg. wikipedia) or around one or several political stakeholders(eg. blogs)[60]

Learning

Measuring the Qualety and Values of Decisions

See Woolley et al 2010[61].

How do We Build the Bulding Blocks?

In what order and how we should build the sequence of deliberation and the effects of discussion, such as being able to filter and choose the most legitimate option[62]

SON

How do we learn

The importance of story telling and curiosity for learning.

How do we Integrate Different levels and areas of Knowledge?

Experts-Laymen problem. Integrating Differnet areas of knowledge

How do we Falisify?

Options

We can use priming, or private investigation.

Evaluaiting

Synthesizing

Cycling

Selecting

Processes of Deliberation

Minangkabau Deliberation

Minangkabau Deliberation

NIF

NIF is an abbreviation for National Issues Forum

OST

Open Space Technology

dcCDM

Diverging Converging Collective Decision Making

NCTF

NCTF stand for "National Citizens’ Technology Forum" it is a kind of consensus forum derived from the consensus conference model which was orignated from Denemark, in the United States. For review see this article[63]

Consensus conferences

See wikipedia.

References

  1. ↑ Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring political deliberation: a discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics, 1(1), 21–48.
  2. ↑ Stromer-Galley, J., & Martinson, A. (2005). Conceptualizing and measuring coherence in online chat. In Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association.
  3. ↑ Bachtiger, A., Shikano, S., Pedrini, S., & Ryser, M. (2009). Measuring deliberation 2.0: standards, discourse types, and sequenzialization. In ECPR General Conference, Potsdam (pp. 5–12).
  4. ↑ Gastil, J., Black, L., & Moscovitz, K. (2008). Ideology, attitude change, and deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Political Communication, 25(1), 23–46.
  5. ↑ Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  6. ↑ Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberative Democracy and Democratic Legitimacy, in A. Hamlin and P. Pettit (eds.) The Good Polity, Oxford: Blackwell,pp. 17–34.
  7. ↑ Fishkin, J.S. (1991). Democracy and Deliberation, Yale: Yale University Press.
  8. ↑ Barber, B.R. (1998). Three Scenarios for the Future of Technology and Strong Democracy, Political Science Quarterly 113(4): 573–590.
  9. ↑ Beierle, T. C. (2002). Democracy Online: An Evaluation of the National Dialogue on Public Involvement in EPA decision. RFF Report, Washington.
  10. ↑ Davis R. (1999). The Web of Politics. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Dumoulin,
  11. ↑ Jankowski, N. & Van Selm M. (2000) The promise and Practice of Public Debate in Cyberspace. K. Hacker and J.A.G.M. Van Dijk, Eds. Digital Democracy: Issues of theory and practice. London: Sage.
  12. ↑ Jankowski, N. W. and R. van Os (2002). Internet-based Political Discourse: A Case Study of Electronic Democracy in the City of Hoogeveen. Euricom Colloquium: Electronic Networks & Democracy. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: 17.
  13. ↑ Jensen, J. L. (2003). Public Spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or Government- sponsored - A Comparison. Scandinavian Political Studies. 26: 349-374. Kies
  14. ↑ Jankowski, N. & Van Selm M. (2000) The promise and Practice of Public Debate in Cyberspace. K. Hacker and J.A.G.M. Van Dijk, Eds. Digital Democracy: Issues of theory and practice. London: Sage.
  15. ↑ Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.(p.6)
  16. ↑ Coleman, S., Hall, N., & Howell, M. (2002). Hearing voices: the experience of online public consultations and discussions in UK governance. Hansard Society.
  17. ↑ Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.
  18. ↑ Jankowski, N. & Van Selm M. (2000) The promise and Practice of Public Debate in Cyberspace. K. Hacker and J.A.G.M. Van Dijk, Eds. Digital Democracy: Issues of theory and practice. London: Sage.
  19. ↑ Pioneers of Change Associates. (2006). Mapping dialogue. Johannesburg, South Africa:Pioneers of change.
  20. ↑ Kaner 2007.pdf Kaner, S., Lind, L., Toldi, C., Fisk, S., & Berger, D. (2007). Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making (2nd ed., p. 363). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  21. ↑ McCoy, M.L., & P.L. Scully. (2002). Deliberative dialogue to expand civic engagement: What kind of talk does democracy need?” National Civic Review,92,117–35
  22. ↑ Gastil, J., & Black, L. W. (2008). Public deliberation as the organizing principle in political communication research. Journal of Public Deliberation, 4.
  23. ↑ Hirokawa, R. Y., & Salazar, A. J. (1999). Task-group communication and decisionmaking performance. In L. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole, (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 167-191). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  24. ↑ Hollingshead, A. N., Wittenbaum, G. M., Paulus, P. B., Hirowaka, R. Y., Ancona, D. G., Peterson, R. S., . . . Yoon, K. (2005). A look at groups from the functional perspective. In M. S. Poole & A. B Hollingshead (Eds.), Theories of small groups: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 21-62). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  25. ↑ Clark, H.H. and Carlson, T.B. (1982), “Hearers and speech acts”, Language, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 332-73
  26. ↑ Polletta, F., Chen, P. C. B., & Anderson, C. (2008). Is information good for deliberation? Link-posting in an online forum. Journal of Public Deliberation, 5(1), 2.
  27. ↑ Polletta, F., Chen, P. C. B., & Anderson, C. (2008). Is information good for deliberation? Link-posting in an online forum. Journal of Public Deliberation, 5(1), 2.
  28. ↑ Alonzo M, Aiken M (2004) Flaming in electronic communication. Decision Support Systems 36(3): 205–13 (p.208).
  29. ↑ Lea M, O’Shea T, Fung P, and Spears R (1992) ‘Flaming’ in computer-mediated communication: Observations, explanations, implications. In: Lea M (ed.) Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication. New York: Harvester-Wheatsheaf, 89–112.
  30. ↑ Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.
  31. ↑ Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.
  32. ↑ Zvi Zamir, In open eyes, 2011, Zmora-Bitan ("בעיניים פקוחות: ראש המוסד מתריע: האם ישראל מקשיבה?", בהוצאת כנרת זמורה-ביתן דביר.)
  33. ↑ Kuo, F., & Yu, C. (2009). An Exploratory Study of Trust Dynamics in Work-Oriented Virtual Teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 823–854.
  34. ↑ Rico, R., Alcover, C.-M., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., & Gil, F. (2009). The joint relationships of communication behaviors and task interdependence on trust building and change in virtual project teams. Social Science Information, 48(2), 229–255.
  35. ↑ Bicchieri, C., & Lev-On, A. (2007). Computer-mediated communication and cooperation in social dilemmas: an experimental analysis. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 6(2), 139–168.
  36. ↑ Poole, M. S., & Zhang, H. (2005). Virtual teams. The Handbook of Group Research and Practice, 363–385.
  37. ↑ Olaniran, B. (2004). Computer-mediated communication in cross-cultural virtual teams. International & Intercultural Communication Annual, 27, 142-166.
  38. ↑ Hardin, A. M., Fuller, M. A., & Davison, R. M. (2007). I know I can, but can we? Culture and efficacy beliefs in global virtual teams. Small Group Research, 38(1), 130–155.
  39. ↑ Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(4), 0.
  40. ↑ Rutkowski, A.-F., Saunders, C., Vogel, D., & Van Genuchten, M. (2007). �Is it already 4 am in your time zone?� Focus immersion and temporal dissociation in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 38(1), 98–129.
  41. ↑ Poole, M. S., & Zhang, H. (2005). Virtual teams. The Handbook of Group Research and Practice, 363–385.
  42. ↑ Himelboim, I., McCreery, S., & Smith, M. (2013). Birds of a Feather Tweet Together: Integrating Network and Content Analyses to Examine Cross-Ideology Exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(2), 40–60.
  43. ↑ Turner, J. C. (1991). Social Influence. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
  44. ↑ Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983).Inside the Jury. Cambridge: MA:Harvard University Press.
  45. ↑ Larson, J. R., Foster - Fishman, P. G., & Franz, T. M. (1998). Leadership style and the discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,24, 482-95.
  46. ↑ Mendelberg, T. (2002). The deliberative citizen: Theory and evidence. Political Decisionmaking, Deliberation and Participation, 6, 151-193. (Overview)
  47. ↑ Coleman S, Gøtze J (2001) Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation.London: Hansard Society.
  48. ↑ Sack W (2005) Discourse architecture and very large-scale conversation. In: Latham R, Sassen S (eds) Digital Formations: IT and New Architectures in the Global Realm. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 242–82.
  49. ↑ Suler J (2004) The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior7(3): 321–6.
  50. ↑ Wright S, Street J (2007) Democracy, deliberation and design: The case of online discussion forums. New Media & Society 9(5): 849–69.
  51. ↑ Liang, H. (2014). The Organizational Principles of Online Political Discussion: A Relational Event Stream Model for Analysis of Web Forum Deliberation. Human Communication Research.
  52. ↑ Coleman S, Gøtze J (2001) Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation.London: Hansard Society. (p.17)
  53. ↑ Fishkin JS, Iyengar S, and Luskin R (2005) Deliberative public opinion in presidential primaries: evidence from the online deliberative poll. Paper presented at the Voice and Citizenship conference, Seattle, WA, 22–24 April.(p.8)
  54. ↑ Suler J (2004) The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior7(3): 321–6.
  55. ↑ Iandoli, L., Quinto, I., De Liddo, A., & Shum, S. B. (2012). A debate dashboard to enhance online knowledge sharing. VINE, 42(1), 67–93.
  56. ↑ Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2005). Online forums and deliberative democracy. Acta Pol{í}tica, 40(3), 317–335.(p.4)
  57. ↑ Dutton, W. H. (1996). Networks rules of order: regulating speech in public electronic fora. Media, Culture & Society. 18: 269-290.
  58. ↑ Maldonado T. (1997) Critica della ragione informatica. Milano, Feltrinelli.Monnoyer-Smith,
  59. ↑ Janssen, B. D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.(p.5)
  60. ↑ Janssen, B. D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.(p.5)
  61. ↑ Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science (New York, N.Y.), 330(6004), 686–8. doi:10.1126/science.1193147
  62. ↑ Landa, D. and Meirowitz, A. (2009). Game Theory, Information, and Deliberative Democracy, American Journal of Political Science 53(2): 427–444.
  63. ↑ Delborne, J., & Schneider, J. (2011). Moving Forward with Citizen Deliberation: Lessons and Inspiration from the National Citizens’ Technology Forum.
Retrieved from "http://www.delib.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=2337"