Citizens’ Deliberation Online as Will-Formation: The Impact of Media Identity on Policy Discourse Outcomes in Russia

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9821)

Abstract

The paper examines linkages between the type of the digital media resources that host internet discussions on publicly important issues and the outcomes of such debates viewed from the perspective of online deliberation theory and practice. The presented case-based study analyses seven online discourses that debated the destruction of western agricultural products imported to Russia after the embargo imposed by the Russian government on such food in August 2015. The study hypothesized that the digitally enabled discussions would be similar to face-to-face deliberation practices that tend to attract the like-minded people and thus reinforce the already established beliefs and worldviews among discourse participants. Specifically, it was assumed in this context that the attitude towards the policy of food destruction would differ across the media and depend on its public identity viewed from the perspective of political allegiance. The paper presents empirical evidence that supports – with some caution – the postulated assumption.

Keywords

Online deliberation e-Participation Media identity Policy discourse Validity claims Russia Food destruction e-Petitions Jürgen Habermas 

References

  1. 1.
    Chugunov, A., Filatova, O., Misnikov, Y.: Online discourse as a microdemocracy tool: towards new discursive epistemics for policy deliberation. In: Proceedings of the 9th ICEGOV2016 International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Uruguay, Montevideo, 1–3 March 2016. ACM Press, New York (2016, forthcoming)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bershadskaya, L., Chugunov, A., Golubtsova, E.: Measurement techniques for e-participation assessment: case of russian e-petitions portal. In: Proceedings of the 8th ICEGOV2014 International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Guimarães, Portugal, 27–30 October 2014, pp. 395 – 398. ACM Press, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bershadskaya, L., Chugunov, A., Filatova, O., Trutnev, D.: e-Governance and e-Participation services: an analysis of discussions in Russian social media. In: Parycek, P., Edelmann, N. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference for e-Democracy and Open Government, CeDEM 2014, pp. 573–578. Danube University, Krems (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Verba, S., Nie, N.: Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1987)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dryzek, J.S.: Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Almond, G., Verba, S. (eds.): The Civic Culture Revisited. Sage, Newbury Park (1989)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Habermas, J.: Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Polity Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Habermas, J.: Concluding remarks. In: Calhoun, C. (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere, pp. 462–479. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Habermas, J.: The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Polity Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Habermas, J.: The Theory of Communicative Action. Reason and the Rationalization of Society, vol. 1. Beacon, Boston (1984)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Richardson, K.: Specific debate formats of mass media. In: Ruth, W., Koller, V. (eds.) Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere, pp. 383–400. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dryzek, J.S.: Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gutmann, A., Thompson, D.: Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton University Press, Princeton (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gutmann, A., Thompson, D.: Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cohen, J.: Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy. In: Benhabib, S. (ed.) Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, pp. 95–119. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bohman, J.: Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity and Democracy. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fishkin, J.S.: Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. Yale University Press, New Haven (1991)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gastil, J.: Political Communication and Deliberation. Sage, Los Angeles (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mutz, D.: Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cohen, J.: Democracy and liberty. In: Elster, J. (ed.) Deliberative Democracy, pp. 185–231. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kelly, J., Fisher, D., Smith, M.: Debate, division, and diversity: political discourse networks in USENET newsgroups. Conference Paper. Second Conference on Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice, DIAC 2005, 20–22 May 2005. Stanford University (2005). http://www.online-deliberation.net/conf2005/viewabstract.php?id=27)
  22. 22.
    Fishkin, J.S.: When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Quail, D.: McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. Sage, London (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Norris, P.: A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Etling, B., Alexanyan, K., Kelly, J., Faris, R., Palfrey, J., Gasser, U.: Public Discourse in the Russian Blogosphere: Mapping RuNet Politics and Mobilization. The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2010–11. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Public_Discourse_in_the_Russian_Blogosphere_2010.pdf
  26. 26.
    Blumler, J., Gurevitch, M.: The Crisis of Public Communication. Routlege, London (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Entman, R.M., Bennett, W.L.: Communication in the future of democracy: a conclusion. In: Bennett, W.L., Entnam, R.M. (eds.) Mediated Politics: Communication in the Future of Democracy, pp. 468–480. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hallin, D.C., Mancini, P.: Americanization, globalization, and secularization: understanding the convergence of media systems and political communication. In: Pfetch, B., Esser, F. (eds.) Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases, and Challenges, pp. 25–44. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hallin, D.C., Mancini, P.: Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media And Politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Austin, J.L.: How to Do Things with Words. The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1962)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Searle, J.R.: Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Searle, J.R.: What is a speech act? In: Searle, J.R. (ed.) The Philosophy of Language, pp. 39–53. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1971)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fischer, F., Gottweis, H.: Introduction. In: Fischer, F., Gottweis, H. (eds.) The Argumentative Turn Revisited: Public Policy as Communicative Practice, pp. 1–30. Duke University Press, Durham (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Budzynska, K., Reed, C.: Speech acts of argumentation: inference anchors and peripheral cues in dialogue. In: Computational Models of Natural Argument: Papers from the 2011 AAAI Workshop (WS-11-10) (2011). https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/WS/AAAIW11/paper/viewFile/3940/4244
  35. 35.
    Snaith, M., Lawrence, J., Reed, C.: Mixed initiative argument in public deliberation. In: De Cindio, F., Macintosh, A., Peraboni, C. (eds.) From e-Participation to Online Deliberation, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Online Deliberation, OD 2010, pp. 2–13. University of Leeds and Universita Degli Studi Di Milano (2010)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Misnikov, Y.: How to read and treat online public discussions among ordinary citizens beyond political mobilisation: empirical evidence from the Russian-language online forums. Digit. Icons: Stud. Russ. Eurasian Central Eur. New Media 7, 1–37 (2012). http://www.digitalicons.org/issue07/yuri-misnikov
  37. 37.
    Noveck, B.: The rise of the citizen expert: how can data-rich technology drive better citizen engagement and make government more effective? Policy Netw. (2016). http://www.policy-network.net/pno_detail.aspx?ID=5056&title=The-rise-of-the-citizen-expert
  38. 38.
    Maccмeдиa poccийcкoгo мeгaпoлиca: типoлoгия пeчaтныx CMИ/пoд oбщ. peд. M.A. Шишкинoй. CПб: Poзa миpa (2009)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Coлoвьeв A.И. Пoлитoлoгия: Пoлитичecкaя тeopия, пoлитичecкиe тexнoлoгии. M. (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ITMO UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.Saint Petersburg State UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations