1. What does it take to make online deliberation happen? -A comparative analysis of 28 online discussion forums 2015-06-12 1 Martin Karlsson PhD Student in Political Science Örebro School of public affairs

2. 2015-06-122 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)

3. 2015-06-123 Outline of the presentation Background of the paper The European Citizens Consultations Design of the analysis Results Conclusions

4. The European Citizens Consultations 2015-06-124  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

5. 2015-06-125 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

6. 2015-06-126 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)

7. 2015-06-127 Variation between the forums A:The share of activities on the forums made out of discussions

8. Data – “Patterns of participation” Votes Proposal nr 1 VotesProposalsPostsParticipantsVisitors Austria148577362833811877 Belgium - F164675351195171751 Belgium - W16542235483871428 Bulgaria1052232438224847 Cypress241751554124376 Denmark2283301266360958 Estonia1391767342381492 Finland41874911427322202 France3829400872571204940026741 Germany14002081132805429612179 Greece442253038207767 Hungary2481488291465572795 Ireland1342992492319775 Italy35416148430510693986 Latvia328619113164999 Lithuania693993497220621 Luxemburg873243543196712 Malta123782582327 Netherlands1643432182339730 Poland38412291828210204424 Portugal147614634995952600 Romania3413613108214847 Slovakia148163755305543 Slovenia14827720963051102 Spain341414376115868501126425 Sweden29079213756171624 Czech Republic18334412844051384 United Kingdom235715373846412236

9. 2015-06-129 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 1996...)

10. 2015-06-1210 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

11. 2015-06-1211 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.

12. 2015-06-1212 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.

13. 2015-06-1213 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.

14. 2015-06-1214 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.

15. 2015-06-1215 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 +

16. 2015-06-1216 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

17. 2015-06-1217 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.

18. 2015-06-1218 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.

19. Thank you! 2015-06-1219