What does it take to make online deliberation happen? -A comparative analysis of 28 online discussion forums Martin Karlsson PhD Student in Political Science Örebro School of public affairs

Central idea of the paper Aim: Investigating the occurrence/intensity of public deliberation online Identifying determinants (or favorable/unfavorable conditions) apart from design and institutional affiliation Method: Comparing online discussion forums within the same participatory project (the 2009 European Citizens Consultations)

Outline of the presentation Background of the paper The European Citizens Consultations Design of the analysis Results Conclusions

The European Citizens Consultations  Public online discussion forums in all national languages  Face-to-face citizen consultations in all member states  Common vote and a European citizens’ summit  Recommendations to the European parliament and European commission

The ECC online forums Agenda-setting event, open to the national public in all EU-member states 28 forums, each producing 10 recommendations Broad ”issue”: ”The social and economic future of Europe” Moderated threaded discussions Decisive vote

Participation in the ECC forums Visitors to the forums could register as participants and then: 1.Write discussion posts 2.Write proposals for policy recommendations to the EU- institutions 3.Vote for others proposals (each participant could vote once for every proposal)

Variation between the forums A:The share of activities on the forums made out of discussions

Data – “Patterns of participation” Votes Proposal nr 1 VotesProposalsPostsParticipantsVisitors Austria Belgium - F Belgium - W Bulgaria Cypress Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxemburg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Czech Republic United Kingdom

Hypotheses 1.The higher number of participants registered on a discussion forum the less deliberation will occur between the participants... (Meirowitz 2007) 2.The more a forum is characterized by a diversity of opinion the more deliberation... (Stromer-Galley 2003 vs. Sunstein 2001) 3.The more the participants of a forum engage in voting the less deliberation... (Chambers 2001) 4.The higher the level of engagement among the participants in a forum the more deliberation... (Elstub 2008, Habermas )

Operationalization of deliberation Not only registering of preferences but also talk about those preferences (Wright & Street 2007) -Voting for a proposal or posting of a proposal is seen as acts of aggregative participation -The writing of a discussion post is seen as an act of deliberation The intensity of deliberation: the average number of discussion posts for each registered participant

Hypothesis 1: Size Hypothesis: The more participants registered on a discussion forum the less deliberation will occur between the participants Operationalization: Number of registered participants on the forums. Analysis: The correlations show no significant relationship (Pearsons r: -,251;sig.,197). Results: Size does not seem to determine the variation in intensity of deliberation.

Hypothesis 2: Diversity of opinion Hypothesis: The more a forum is characterized by a diversity of opinion the more deliberation will occur between the participants Operationalization: The percentage of all participants voting for the most popular proposal (reversed). Analysis: The correlations show a significant positive relationship between diversity of opinion and intensity of deliberation (Pearsons r: +,349, sig.,069) Results: Diversity of opinion seems to reinforce deliberation.

Hypothesis 3: Aggregative dynamic Hypothesis: The more the participants of a forum engage in voting the less deliberation will occur between the participants Operationalization: Average number of votes per participant. Analysis: No significant relationship is found (Pearsons r: -,158, sig.,422) Results: The occurrence of an aggregative dynamic does not seem to determine the variation in intensity of deliberation.

Hypothesis 4: Engagement Hypothesis: The higher the level of engagement among the participants in a forum the more deliberation will occur between the participants Operationalization: The percentage of unique visitors to the forum registering as participants [the threshold for participation](reversed). Analysis: The correlations show a significant positive relationship (Pearsons r: +,338, sig.,079) Results: Highly engaged participants does seem to reinforce deliberation.

Summary of the analysis Relationship with intensity of deliberation Size of the forum (number of participants) 0 Diversity of opinion+ Aggregative dynamic (intensity in voting) 0 Level of engagement +

Summary of the analysis Relationship with intensity of deliberation Relationship with intensity of voting Size of the forum (number of participants) 0+++ Diversity of opinion++++ Aggregative dynamic (intensity in voting) 0- Level of engagement +0

Conclusion (1/2) An analysis with obvious weak spots: –Possibly stretching the concept of deliberation –Statistical data leaving the actual discussions as a black box –Statistical analysis with high uncertainty level But, offers a possibility to make comparative analyses of public deliberation when previously explored determinants are held constant.

Conclusions (2/2) What makes online deliberation happen? –We know that design and institutional affiliation have great importance. People deliberate online when the design of the environment is supportive. And when there is a good chance that they will be listened to/ have an impact on established political institutions. –But divergences in the intensity of deliberation within the same project framework indicate the need for exploration of additional determinants. This analysis suggests the importance of diversity of opinion and the level of engagement among participants might be of importance.

Thank you!