IPMZ – Institut für Publizistikwissenschaft und Medienforschung

Dr. Ulrike Klinger

IPMZ - Institute for Mass Communication and Media Research,

Abteilung «Media & Politics», University of Zurich

FH-Prof. Mag. Dr. Uta Rußmann Endowed Professorship for Strategic Communication Management & New Media,

FHWien University of Applied Sciences of WKW

An empirical analysis of the Zurich Online Debate of 2011 CeDEM13, 22./23. May 2013, Danube University Krems

Objectives

Examining online deliberation in local politics

• Administrations increasingly use the internet to improve citizens’ participation in political processes.

• Online communication is expected to deliver a more inclusive, richer and more dialogue-oriented form of political representation.

• Possibility to strengthen the legitimacy of democratic decision-making.

• Specific quality of public online communication?

Seite 2

Zurich City Debate 2011

Zurich City Debate • September, 15-17 2011 • «heart rate monitor»

w/out representative claim

• open, self-selected participation (Karlsson 2012)

• 1‘246 participants (unique logins)

• 3954 visits • 1‘991 postings (N)

Source: Data Report, www.stadt-zuerich.ch/stadtdebatte

373

217

492

660

249

0 200 400 600 800

Live Together

Borders

Constructions

Traffic

2000 Watt

Amounts of postings in thematic fora

Research Question

Whether and to what extent do participants follow the principles of a quality of understanding in the

five analysed online deliberation fora?

Seite 4

Measuring deliberation: IQU

Indicators of a Quality of Understanding

• generalised statement of reasons • simple statement of reasons • specific statement of reasons

Brosda (2008), Gerhards et al. (1998), Kuhlmann (1999), Meyer/Schicha/Brosda (2001), Saxer/Tschopp (1995), Steenbergen et al. (2003), Spörndli (2004)

• partial proposals of solutions • precise proposals of solutions

Steenbergen et al. (2003)

• disrespectful expressions • respectful expressions • explicitly respectful expressions

Gerhards et al. (1998), Steenbergen et al. (2003)

(Type of) Doubts

• Intelligibility • Truth • Truthfulness • Legitimacy

Habermas (1984)

Index of a Quality of Understanding (IQU)

Source: Burkart/Rußmann 2010; adapted version

• monologue • initiation • response

Kies (2010)

IQU: Operationalization

Seite 6

Variable Level

V10/11/12 – level of statement of reasons

0 - no statement of reasons 1 - generalised statement of reasons 2 - simple statement of reasons 3 - specific statement of reasons

V13/14/15 – level of proposals of solutions

0 - no proposals of solutions 1 - partial proposals of solutions 2 - precise proposals of solutions

V16/17/18 – level of respect

0 - disrespectful expressions 3 - respectful expressions 4 - explicitly respectful expressions

V19/20/21 – types of doubts

1 - Intelligibility 1 - Truth 1 - Truthfulness 1 - Legitimacy

V23 – reciprocity

1 - monologue 2 - initiation 2 - response

Results: IQU Online for the five discussion fora

0102030405060708090

100

Conclusion & Discussion

Quality of Understanding: Differences between the five fora are small.

Statement of reasons: Participants hardy justified their positions with specific arguments.

Proposals of Solutions: Participants tended to voice simple ideas without any specifications on implementation or time frame. Mostly lay people participated in the forum, i.e. they had little expert

knowledge on formal implementation procedures or the status of public projects.

Respect: Only a few postings contained disrespectful expressions. The debate was moderated and all participants had to register with

their full names, which also appeared in the debate. None of the 1991 postings had to be cautioned or censored by the moderators.

Seite 8

Conclusion & Discussion

Doubts: The share of the sub-index doubts in IQU Online is the smallest of all the sub-indices & the level of doubts varies significantly among the thematic sub-fora.

Discussing the borders of Zurich, participants voiced almost twice as many doubts as they did when debating traffic policies. Zurich’s growth is a topic with conflict and polarisation potential: as the city growth rapidly, conflicts with neighbouring municipalities are increasing.

Reciprocity: Although most postings do not refer to a previous posting or start a new discussion, the data show that in three sub-fora, the online political discourse is based on interaction between participants.

Seite 9

Discussion

• Remaining question: Do these results suggest low deliberation levels? Where are the thresholds between low, medium or high deliberation?

Future research is needed to have comparable data.

• With deliberation being an inherently normative concept, it is also debatable how much deliberation can be realistically expected.

Future research is needed to find out whether deliberation needs a spark of conflict, a topic that polarises and challenges participants into reasoning.

Seite 10

Thank you!

Seite 11

Literatur Brosda, C. (2008). Diskursiver Journalismus. Journalistisches Handeln zwischen kommunikativer Vernunft und mediensystemischem Zwang. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.

Burkart, R. & Rußmann, U. (2010). Qualität des öffentlichen politischen Diskurses in der österreichischen Wahlkampfkommunikation. Codebuch: Codieranweisungen und Codierschema (FWF-Projekt 21147-G14). Wien: Universität Wien.

Gerhards, J., Neidhardt, F., & Rucht, D. (1998). Zwischen Palaver und Diskurs: Strukturen öffentlicher Meinungsbildung am Beispiel des Abtreibungsdiskurses in der Bundesrepublik. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action Vol. 1. Reason and the Rationalization of Socie-ty. Boston: Beacon Press.

Kies, R. (2010). Promises and Limits of Web-Deliberation. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kuhlmann, C. (1999). Die öffentliche Begründung politischen Handelns. Opladen/Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Meyer, T., Schicha, C., & Brosda, C. (2001). Diskurs-Inszenierungen, Zur Struktur politischer Vermittlungsprozes-se am Beispiel der Debatte zur Ökologischen Steuerreform. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Saxer, U. & Tschopp, C. (1995). Politik und Medienrealität: Die schweizerische Presse zur Abstimmung über den EWR. Zürich: Seminar für Publizisitkwissenschaft.

Spörndli, M. (2004). Diskurs und Entscheidung. Eine empirische Analyse kommunikativen Handelns im deutschen Vermittlungsausschuss. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.

Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring Political Delibera-tion: A Discourse Quality Index. Comparative European Politics, 1, 21-48. doi:10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002

Seite 12