Skip to main content

Mass Online Deliberation in Participatory Policy-Making—Part II

Mechanisms and Procedures

Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT,volume 25)


In this Part II of the present Chapter, we describe the stages (or phases), mechanisms and procedures of a MOD process, in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section “MOD Paradigm Versus Deliberative Polling” of Part I. Our task is to provide an MOD blueprint for an ICT-based MOD platform that almost immediately lends itself to system implementation. As in Part I, we use the neologism deliberandum to refer to a given instance of mass online deliberation, that is, to a process of deliberating online within a given community, on a given issue, and within a given period of time.


  • Quality Grade
  • Weighted Vote
  • Deliberation Process
  • Editing Group
  • Argumentative Structure

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-54142-6_14
  • Chapter length: 24 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-54142-6
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7


  1. 1.

    The latter consists in sending a passcode to a mobile phone registered with the user; entering this passcode is requested for validating authenticity of the contribution. Such algorithms may emulate mobile phone-based digital signatures, see

  2. 2.

    This will be our main option in the subsequent presentation. Depending on a given context, other options are also possible, e.g. registration of every user in the system under his/her real name, the system either showing the real name to all other users, or (another option) replacing it with a pseudonym.

  3. 3.

    The idea of applying the blind peer review method to participants’ contributions in a democratic online deliberation seems to have been first proposed by Stodolsky (2002).


  • Iandoli L, Klein M, Zollo G (2009) Enabling On-Line Deliberation and Collective Decision-Making through Large-Scale Argumentation: A New Approach to the Design of an Internet-Based Mass Collaboration Platform. International Journal of Decision Support System Technology 1(1): 69–91.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., Parsons, S. (2007). The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 22(1): 95–132.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Noble, D., & Rittel, H.W.J. (1988). Issue-Based Information Systems for Design. Proceedings of the ACADIA `88 Conference, Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture, University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speroni di Fenizio, P. and Velikanov, C. (2011). System Generated Requests for Rewriting Proposals. Presentation at the ePart 2011 conference, retreived at

  • Stodolsky D.S. (2002). Computer-network based democracy: Scientific communication as a basis for governance. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Knowledge Management in e-Government, 7, 127–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velikanov C. (2010a) Mutual Moderation and Appraisal of Contributions in eParticipation. Proceedings of the eDem 2010 Conference, Austrian Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velikanov C. (2010b) Requirements and tools for an efficient eParticipation. Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Online (DG.O 2010), Puebla, Mexico, ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Digital Government Society of North America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velikanov C. (2010c) Procedures and Methods for Cross-community Online Deliberation. JeDem, Vol.2 No.2. eJournal of eDemocracy & Open Government, Danube University Krems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velikanov C. (2010d). Weighted Voting in eParticipation. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Legal Information Systems (IRIS 2010). Salzburg. Austrian Computer Society, Vienna.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner, Kunz and Rittel, Horst, Issues as Elements of Information Systems. (1970). Working paper No. 131, Studiengruppe für Systemforschung, Heidelberg, Germany, 1970 (Reprinted May 1979).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cyril Velikanov .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Velikanov, C., Prosser, A. (2017). Mass Online Deliberation in Participatory Policy-Making—Part II. In: Paulin, A., Anthopoulos, L., Reddick, C. (eds) Beyond Bureaucracy. Public Administration and Information Technology, vol 25. Springer, Cham.

Download citation