=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3090/paper18
|storemode=property
|title=Experience of Applied Researches in Online Deliberation: An Analysis of Civility in American Online Discussions
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3090/spaper18.pdf
|volume=Vol-3090
|authors=Daniil Volkovskii
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ims2/Volkovskii21
}}
==Experience of Applied Researches in Online Deliberation: An Analysis of Civility in American Online Discussions==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3090/spaper18.pdf
Experience of Applied Researches in Online Deliberation:
An Analysis of Civility in American Online Discussions
Daniil Volkovskiia
a
St. Petersburg State University,7 Universitetskaya Emb., St. Petersburg, 199004, Russia
Abstract
In this study research focus is on the culture of speech in online discussions, therefore, the
purpose of the paper is to analyze the civility (culture of speech) in online deliberations on
political topics. Civility in American online discussions is analyzed according to the criteria of
the deliberative standard developed on the basis of the Habermas theory by Misnikov. It reveals
what criteria are used to describe the culture of online communication and what factors can
potentially influence it. To assess the level of communication culture it is necessary to analyze
how participants relate to each other, their positions and comments towards objects of
discussion. The author comes to conclusion that American discussions can be characterized
positively from the point of view of civility and called rational as small percentages of rude
attitude were recorded.
Keywords 1
Deliberative democracy, deliberation, online deliberation, social media, civility.
1. Introduction
In recent decades, the concepts of democratic deliberation have been intensively developed as they
are aimed at significantly expanding the opportunities for active inclusion of citizens in politics and
their participation in it [1]. As a result of democratization, individuals and communities were
empowered and became key figures in political decision-making. In the theory of deliberation politics
does not focus on state centrism and political representation but primarily concentrates on social power
associated with the ability of reflexive citizens to make responsible, reasoned decisions in everyday life
[2].
Since in a deliberative democracy citizens play the main role in socio-political processes it is
assumed that they should be both political actors and bearers of a certain set of abilities, namely, have
the qualities of a political leader. For instance, the ability to conduct a dialogue, articulate and take into
account interests, values of other citizens, to analyze, discuss and feel responsibility for the problems
of society as well as the desire to implement decisions reached in practice. Accordingly, high levels of
political and legal literacy of population, its desire to take part in a political process are one of the main
conditions for the viability of a deliberative democracy.
Thanks to the analysis of online discussions, it is possible to determine not only what participants
think on a particular issue, how they argue their positions, what format of communication they develop,
how the dialogue between them is constructed but also the culture of civic communication, the levels
of development of politeness, the tolerance of the participants in relation to each other and the
statements of other communicators. It is important to take these parameters into account as they allow
to assess the level of development of society, the mechanisms of communication that exist in it as well
as the quality of citizens' participation in politics.
The article will further reveal a research of American discussions on socio-political themes of
current interest on social media. As an example, discussions were on Facebook and dedicated to the
IMS 2021 - International Conference "Internet and Modern Society", June 24-26, 2021, St. Petersburg, Russia
EMAIL: daniil.volkovskii@yandex.com
ORCID: 0000-0001-9568-1002
© 2021 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
200 PART 2: Digital Transformation and Global Society
second impeachment of Donald Trump. The main purpose of the article is to show the civility (culture
of communication) between participants of online discussions on relevant political themes.
The main research questions to be answered:
Q1. What exact criteria allow to determine the culture of communication in online deliberations?
Q2. How can American discussions be characterized in terms of a culture of communication?
Q3. What factors determine the communication culture of participants in online discussions on
political topics?
2. Theoretical basis
To understand what role online deliberation on political issues plays in improving the quality of
citizen participation in politics and decision-making, turn to various foreign studies conducted by J.S.
Fishkin, V. Price, R. Cavalier., M. Kim, Z.S. Zaiss, J. Kelly, D. Fisher, M. Smith, A. Lev-On, B. Manin,
D. Schloss-berg, S. Zavenoski, S. Schulman, P. M. Shane, T. Ohlin, J. Wung Ri, Y. Mi Kim, S. Wright,
G. Leshed, M. Trenel, K.S. Ramsey, M.W. Wilson.
J. S. Fishkin [3, 4, 5] examines the historical background and theoretical foundations of "deliberative
polling", analyzes the results of polls conducted using the voice interface. The researcher notes that the
results of online survey are broadly similar to the “deliberative weekend” in which participants meet
face-to-face. We suppose that the author of this article came to approximately the same conclusion in
his studies devoted to the analysis of citizens' discussions on raising the retirement age in Russia in
which the results of online deliberation and a sociological survey were compared. We believe that online
deliberation is more convenient and flexible as well as low cost compared to opinion polls. Based on
this we optimistically assert that this method can be extended to longer periods of time, more issues
discussed which will ultimately lead to better political judgments.
V. Price [6, 7] demonstrates the results of two of his extended surveys of invited contributors to
online writing on presidential elections and health policy. He was able to establish a positive correlation
between the participation of individuals in these sessions and their political involvement. Based on the
results obtained, it can be assumed that online text chats contribute to a more even distribution of the
participation of individuals in the discussion than face-to-face format. Indeed, based on our analysis of
civic discussions on social networks, we can say that participants are approximately equally involved
in online deliberation.
R. Cavalier, M. Kim and Z.S. Zaiss [8] are conducting analysis in the field of structured online
deliberation and they used a multimedia environment where participants of discussion communicated
with the moderators via audio and video channels. Experiments have shown that there are no significant
differences in the values of the measured dependent variables compared to face-to-face discussions
constructed in a similar way.
J. Kelly, D. Fisher and M. Smith [9] analyzed the debates unfolding in the politicized newsgroups
of the Usenet network, which is part of the Internet. They found that such groups are usually
ideologically heterogeneous and that most commentators are more inclined to debate with opponents
than deliberate with like-minded people.
H. Lev-On and B. Manin [10] are considering whether the Internet is conducive to network
clustering of like-minded people. Based on their empirical data, they believe that communication on
the Internet generates mixed trends in the context of online deliberation. People are trying to filter out
content that is foreign to their views and with the help of various tools that help isolate opposing
opinions.
Another group of studies is devoted to the tools that the state uses to involve citizens in online
discussions of political decisions made by it and tries to establish how it can improve the effectiveness
of civic participation in decision-making and making both at the local and regional levels. For example,
D. Schlossberg, S. Zavenoski and S. Schulman [11] in their study did not find any fundamental
differences between the comments of citizens on bills submitted to government agencies in electronic
form and in the traditional (paper). At the same time, they tend to believe that the websites of authorities
have potential, though underestimated because they contribute to the receipt of suggestions, comments
from specific individuals who, in certain cases, can have a greater impact on politics than comments
IMS-2021. International Conference “Internet and Modern Society” 201
presented in format of letters by organizations whose ambitions and efforts are aimed at mobilizing
their voters.
P. M. Shane [12] believes that the potential of online public consultation allows the modification of
government work towards the cyber-democratic model of Empowered Participatory Governance
(EPG), which was proposed by A. Fang and E.O. Wright [13]. In their view, the model seeks to "broaden
the ways in which ordinary people can more effectively influence the policies that shape their lives."
P.M. Shane simultaneously analyzes the technological and inertial barriers to the development of both
“empowered government” and a more advanced form of online public consultation than the one
practiced by the US federal government and concludes that it is necessary to apply local efforts to push
the US federal government towards a new model that allows for more inclusive and wider citizen
participation in lawmaking and policy making. This point of view should be taken into account, since
it may be relevant at the present time for the Russian authorities both at the federal and local levels.
T. Ohlin [14] analyzes the outcomes of a public consultation using a combination of face-to-face
formats and networking, in which many senior citizens of one of Stockholm suburbs actively
participated in the discussion of priority areas of urban planning.
We will pay special attention to research devoted to various ways of promoting deliberative forums
and the introduction of factors on which their quantitative and qualitative characteristics depend. This
group of papers can answer questions about whether moderators influence the course of discussion,
what is the impact on the discussion of such variables as anonymity, the composition of the deliberation
group and the system of reward, reward of participants.
Joon Wung Ri and Yoon Mi Kim [12] analyzing the results of online field experiment with the
electorate who participated in the Korean general election in 2004 concluded that moderation reduced
the number of voter posts in the forum, anonymous participants were more active and the system
incentive points for participating in the discussion had a positive effect.
Scott Wright [15] touches upon the problem of moderating discussion forums initiated by the
authorities. He notes that such moderation can take many different forms and based on the results of
previous studies argues that the functions of filtering messages (censoring) and facilitating discussion
should be differentiated between different moderators, and the function of deleting messages in case
such a need must be fulfilled by independent body in accordance with publicly avail-able rules,
regulations.
Gilly Leshed [16] presents the results of a natural experiment in which the company's management
drew on the possibility of anonymous employee participation in the internal online community of the
organization after a series of inappropriate messages emerged. It can be noted that the results obtained
by Jun Wung Ri and Yoon Mi Kim are to some extent confirmed, and the author himself points out a
noticeable decrease in the number of posts and dialogues due to the removal of anonymous
commentators in the online community.
Matthias Trenel [12] based on an analysis of a field experiment conducted in an online forum where
the future of the territory (where the World Trade Center was located in New York) was discussed came
to the conclusion that a more pro-active approach, i.e. facilitating discussion may involve under-
represented categories of participants.
Kevin S. Ramsey and M.W. Wilson [12] criticize the current practice of online consultation and
offer recommendations on how to increase the ability of panelists to critically reflect on the information
provided to them during the discussion.
In our research an important role is played by the concept of deliberative democracy by J. Habermas,
his theory of communicative action and discursive ethics [17, 18]. We assess the quality of deliberative
discourse in order to identify characteristics, patterns, models thanks to which the process of
deliberation, in particular online deliberation, can be improved both between citizens and between civil
society and the state. In this study focus is on the culture of speech in online discussions, therefore, the
purpose of the paper is to analyze the civility (culture of speech) that develops in online deliberations
on political topics. The object of the research is the quality of online deliberation and the subject is the
culture of speech in online discussions. Accordingly, our main hypothesis (H1) is that American
discussions are civil, i.e. participants are polite, tolerant, neutral towards each other, statements of other
participants and objects of discussion. Accordingly, we assume that the main factor determining the
culture of communication in online discussions is the political development of the country, especially
the level of democracy.
202 PART 2: Digital Transformation and Global Society
3. Research data
The empirical material for the discourse analysis was online discussions on the second impeachment
of US President Donald Trump on Facebook pages of the leading American printed and TV media
distributed into three categories in dependence of affiliation to political parties (conservative and
liberal). We have selected two media sources for analysis: the conservative Washington Times and Fox
News, the liberal New York Times and MSNBC, as well as additionally we took a neutral Wall Street
Journal. In the Facebook accounts of these media, discussions were chosen on the topic of the second
impeachment of the American president in connection with the attempted capture of the Capitol on
January 6, 2021. A total of 2,931 comments were analyzed.
4. Research approach and findings
To achieve the goals of our investigation we used discourse analysis which is simultaneously a key
moment and a method of online deliberations’ research. Our analysis is based on a modification of the
methodology developed by UN expert Yu. Misnikov (in line with the ideas of Yu. Habermas), already
tested by us earlier and presented in previous publications [19, 20]. The scientist has generated
«deliberative standard to assess discourse quality» where thematically different discursive parameters
of the deliberative standard, corresponding to specific research issues and using for guiding the process
of encoding messages of Internet discussions, are described.
In Misnikov's methodology civility is a synonym for speech culture which is used to characterize
the qualitative nature of a public online discussion and is associated with demonstrating a tolerant
attitude towards the participant in the discussion, his position and the object of discussion. Data about
it are not so easy to interpret since there is no universal approach to its definition [16]. There are
situations when messages contain both polite and impolite speech aspects which causes difficulty in
post’s coding. In addition to the use of harsh language that clearly demonstrates willful impoliteness,
some messages may only imply unpleasant connotations, irony and sarcasm. If we talk about polite
messages, then they can have a special purpose and be addressed to certain participants in a more
personalized manner both with the mention of the name and with emphasis on some aspects of the topic
which contributes to more involvement of people in the discussion in dialogic form.
We analyzed the civility recorded in the discussions on the topic of pension reform from two
positions (see Table 1):
- interpersonal character = posts are directly addressed to another member with a mention of the
name or personal appeals:
(a) posts do not relate to issues, i.e. they are exclusively personalized;
(b) posts are clearly rude and offensive in relation to a person, his nationality, religion, ideology,
etc. (distinguish from irony, humor, sarcasm);
(c) posts are clearly rude and offensive in relation to the objects of discussion;
(d) posts are clearly polite and respectful towards a person (may contain irony, humor, sarcasm in a
positive aspect);
- posts do not include an explicit mention of the participant's name, can be directly or indirectly
addressed to a specific person, someone else or all people:
(e) posts contain rude, offensive language, vocabulary in relation to the participant (irony, humor
and sarcasm are excluded from this category);
(f) posts contain rude, offensive language, vocabulary in relation to the objects of discussion;
(g) posts are clearly polite and respectful (include deliberate politeness, irony, humor, non-offensive
sarcasm).
According to the results of the analysis of civility (see table 1), we can see that their percentages are
not high (they do not even exceed 10%), respectively, the general indicators of negative civility are low
which means that such discussions can be called rational. According to the aggregate calculations, users
on republican media were more polite than users on democratic media, however, the lowest percentage
of overall negative civility was recorded on a neutral platform, where, on the contrary, opinions
polarized in approximately equal proportions clashed. It is interesting that the participants practically
did not distract from the discussion of the topic, did not discuss each other and the percentages of rude
IMS-2021. International Conference “Internet and Modern Society” 203
attitude towards the participants were minimal while more negative and intolerant statements were
directed towards the objects of discussion (D. Trump, his supporters, Biden, the Democratic Party, N.
Pelosi and politicians in general).
Table 1
A civility analysis in American online discussions (in percentage)
Liberal Conservative Neutral
MSNBC The New The Fox News The Wall
York Washington Street
Times Times Journal
Thematically empty posts 0 0,1 0 0,8 0
with participant name’s
mention, only interpersonal
communication
Posts with participant name’s 0 0,8 0,75 0,2 0,5
mention, discussion on topic,
but rude towards participant
Posts with participant name’s 0,2 1,2 0,75 0,8 1,9
mention, discussion on topic,
but rude towards object of
discussion
Posts with participant name’s 0,6 0,1 0 0 0
mention, discussion on topic
in a polite, tolerant way
Posts without participant 0 0 0 0,2 0
name’s mention, with
discussion on topic, but rude
towards participant
Posts without participant 7,1 4,4 2,8 7,2 1,4
name’s mention, with
discussion on topic, but rude
towards object of discussion
Posts without participant 0 0,1 0 0 0,1
name’s mention, with
discussion on topic in a polite
way
Negative civility towards 0 0,8 0,75 0,4 0,5
participant
Negative civility towards 7,3 5,6 3,55 8 2,3
object of discussion
Average negative civility in 6,85 6,35 2,8
dependence of parties
Total civility 7,9 6,7 4,3 9,2 3,9
5. Conclusion
To sum up, we can confirm our main hypothesis and provide an answer to the first research question
(Q1). To assess the level of communication culture it is necessary to analyze how participants relate to
each other, positions and comments of other participants, objects of discussion. It is important to clearly
and specifically formulate the criteria in order to assess the diverse palette of cultural interaction which
has been demonstrated in this work. American discussions can be characterized positively from the
204 PART 2: Digital Transformation and Global Society
point of view of civility and called rational as small percentages of rude attitude were recorded,
moreover, in relation to the objects of discussion. In general, Americans are neutral and without
excessive respect for each other, insults to participants in online deliberation are kept to a minimum.
Mostly, abusive behavior was demonstrated in cases where the participant's position was different and
when the participant did not understand the other's point of view despite different forms of
argumentation. Then, instead of a rational force, an emotional one appeared, manifested in the form of
a non-rude or very rude insult towards another participant. It is significant that the participants focused
on the discussion of the problem and not on meaningless interpersonal communication distracting from
the topic for the sake of which people gathered (Q2).
It can be assumed that such indicators of civility and such a culture of communication, especially in
relation to the participants, are justified not by the heterogeneity of positions, indicators of the quantity
and quality of argumentation, dialogicity, the degree of dialogue but by factors correlating with the
mentality, socio-psychological attitudes, values, upbringing, education and culture in general, including
political, the level of political development, especially democracy. We cannot determine with 100%
accuracy which factors influence the level of civility but we can definitely understand the culture of
communication and interaction of participants based on the analysis of this parameter which is
important when studying online deliberation as a form of civil interaction (Q3). If the participants are
able to conduct a discussion based on respect for the positions and personality of each other, especially
if this is a format of discussion, polemics where participants are trying to win and not come to a
consensus and mutual understanding, then, no doubt, there are wide opportunities for genuine public
dialogue between representatives of civil society and government authorities in the development and
adoption of decisions on significant political issues.
In the future we will analyze Russian discussions on acute political topics in social networks
according to various parameters of the deliberative standard for assessing discourse including civility.
The results will be compared with the results of analysis of participants’ civility in American online
deliberation in order to determine the set of potential factors influencing the communication culture of
participants in the online environment, especially those related to the political development of the state
as well as criteria for assessing the quality of deliberation. Moreover, in addition to social networks, we
will take forums for analysis since there are discussions initiated not by the media as the discussions
taken for this study but by the citizens themselves. Consequently, the culture of communication and its
levels can differ significantly, as, for example, there are no moderators and other restrictive factors as
in the case of Facebook media pages.
6. Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Russian Science Foundation, project No. 21-18-00454.
7. References
[1] D. Held, Models of Democracy. Moscow, 2014.
[2] D. Chandler, Democracy unbound? Non-linear politics and the politicization of everyday life, in
European Journal of Social Theory, Vol. 17, N 1, 2014, pp. 42–59.
[3] J.S. Fishkin, The nation in a room: Turning public opinion into policy, in Boston review, 2006.
[4] J.S. Fishkin, The televised deliberative poll: An experiment in democracy, in Annals of the
American academy of political and social science, Vol. 546, July, 1996, pp. 132-140.
[5] J.S. Fishkin, Virtual public consultation: Prospects for internet deliberative democracy, in T.
Davis, S.P. Gangadadharan (Eds.), Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice, Stanford,
CA: Center for the study of language and information, 2009, pp. 23-35.
[6] V. Price, Citizens deliberating online: Theory and some evidence, in T. Davis, S.P. Gangadadharan
(Eds.), Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice, Stanford, CA: Center for the study of
language and information, 2009, pp. 37-58.
[7] V. Price, J.N. Capella, Online deliberation and Its Influence: The electronic dialog project in
campaign 2000, in IT & Society, 2002, Vol. 1 (1).
IMS-2021. International Conference “Internet and Modern Society” 205
[8] R. Cavalier, M. Kim, Z.S. Zaiss, Deliberative democracy, online discussion, and project PICOLA
Public informed citizen online assembly), in T. Davis, S.P. Gangadadharan (Eds.), Online
deliberation: Design, research, and practice, Stanford, CA: Center for the study of language and
information, 2009, pp. 71-79.
[9] J. Kelly, D. Fisher, M. Smith, Friends, Foes, and Fringe: Norms and Structure in Political
Discussion Networks, in T. Davis, S.P. Gangadadharan (Eds.), Online deliberation: Design,
research, and practice, Stanford, CA: Center for the study of language and information, 2009, pp.
83-93.
[10] A. Lev-On, B. Manin, Happy accidents: Deliberation and online exposure to opposing views, in
T. Davis, S.P. Gangadadharan (Eds.), Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice, Stanford,
CA: Center for the study of language and information, 2009, pp. 105-122.
[11] D. Schlosberg, S. Zavestoski, S. Shulman, Deliberation in ERulemaking? The problem of mass
participation, in T. Davis, S.P. Gangadadharan (Eds.), Online deliberation: Design, research, and
practice, Stanford, CA: Center for the study of language and information, 2009, pp. 133-148.
[12] T. Davies, R. Chandler, Online deliberation design: Choices, criteria, and evidence, in Nabatchi
T., Weiksner M., Gastil J., Leighninger M. (Eds.), Democracy in motion: Evaluating the practice
and impact of deliberative civic engagement, Oxford: Oxford univ. press, 2013, pp. 103-131.
[13] A. Fung, E.O. Wright. Thinking about empowered participatory governance, in A. Fung, E.O.
Wright (Eds.), Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory
governance, N.Y.: Routledge, 2003, pp. 3-45.
[14] T. Ohlin, Local democracy in the telecommunications age, in Svenska dagbladet, August, N. 1,
1971.
[15] S. Wright, The role of the moderator: Problems and possibilities for government-run online
discussion forums, in T. Davis, S.P. Gangadadharan (Eds.), Online deliberation: Design, research,
and practice, Stanford, CA: Center for the study of language and information, 2009, pp. 233-242.
[16] Y. Misnikov, Public Activism Online in Russia: Citizens’ Participation in Webbased Interactive
Political Debate in the Context of Civil Society. Development and Transition to Democracy: PhD
thesis … Ph. D. / Leeds, 2011.
[17] J. Habermas, Involvement of the other. Essays on political theory. SPb., 2001.
[18] J. Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Reason and the Rationalization of Society.
Beacon, Boston, 1984.
[19] O. Filatova, D. Volkoskii, Key Parameters of Internet Discussions: Testing the Methodology of
Discourse Analysis, in Alexandrov, D.A., Boukhanovsky, A.V., Chugunov, A.V., Kabanov,
Y., Koltsova, O., Musabirov, I. (Eds.), Digital Transformation and Global Society (DTGS 2020).
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference, St. Petersburg, 2021, pp. 32-46.
[20] O. Filatova, D. Volkoskii, The online discourse as a form of e-Participation: the experience of
internet discourse research, in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Theory and
Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV2020), Athens, Greece, April 1–3, 2020. ACM New
York, NY, USA, pp.326–333. doi: 10.1145/3428502.3428547