Advertisement

Converting the Outcomes of Citizens’ Discourses in the Cyberspace into Policy Inputs for More Democratic and Effective Government

  • Yuri MisnikovEmail author
  • Olga Filatova
  • Andrei Chugunov
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 25)

Abstract

Using a real-life and imagined case studies, we demonstrate how a casual, informal political conversation on social media among ordinary citizens could be transformed into a policy discourse. It is done by deconstructing the logic of discursive interactivity of online discussions. In doing so, we apply Jurgen Habermas’ validity claims to normative rightness to reveal citizens’ attitudinal positions ‘For’ and ‘Against’ certain social effects of food destruction policy of the Russian government. We measure citizens’ attitudes in the form of the discursively constructed solidarities behind each position and show the interactive process of their formation. We also build a range of interactivity models that could exploit the potential of artificial neural networks for creating new tools of discourse analytics that can capture citizens’ policy inputs in an easily understood format. The goal of such tools is seen in helping reduce deliberative disagreements by encouraging acceptance of other points of view—the core principle and ideal of deliberative democracy.

Keywords

Online Discourse Collective Intelligence Deliberative Democracy Moral Disagreement Validity Claim 
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.

References

  1. Austin, John. 1962. How to do things with words. The William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baym, Nancy. 1996. Agreement and disagreement in a computer-mediated group. Research on language and social interaction 29: 315–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baym, Nancy. 2006. Finding the Quality in Qualitative Internet Research. In: Critical Cyberculture Studies: Current Terrains, Future Directions, eds. Silver D and Massanari A. New York University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baym, Nancy. 2006. Interpersonal ‘Life Online’. In: Sonia Livingstone and Leah. A. Lievrouw, eds. The handbook of new media: social shaping and consequences of ICTs. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage, pp.35–54Google Scholar
  5. Borning, Alan, Batya Friedman, Janet Davis, and Peyina Lin. 2005. Informing Public Deliberation: Value Sensitive Design of Indicators for a Large-Scale Urban Simulation. In: Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW 2005), 18–22 September 2005, Paris, France. Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Briggs, Xavier de Souza. 2008. Democracy as problem solving: civic capacity in communities across the globe. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: The MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262524858_sch_0001.pdf. Accessed 15 December 2016.
  7. Brown, B. and M. Cousins. 1986. The linguistic fault: the cases of Foucault’s archeology., Towards a Critique of Foucault, ed. Mike Gane, 33–60). London and New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  8. Budzynska, Katarzyna and Chris Reed. 2011. Speech Acts of Argumentation: Inference Anchors and Peripheral Cues in Dialogue. Computational Models of Natural Argument. Second 2011 AAAI Workshop, (WS-11-10). Retrieved from https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/WS/AAAIW11/paper/viewFile/3940/4244
  9. Cho, Vincent and, E.W.T Ngai. 2003. Data mining for selection of insurance sales agents. Expert Systems: International Journal of Knowledge Engineering and Neural Networks 20(3): 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Chrissafis, Thanassis, and Mechthild Rohen. 2010. European eParticipation developments: from ad hoc experiences towards mass engagement. JeDEM 2(2): 89–98. www.jedem.org/article/view/44/35.
  12. Chugunov, Andrei, Olga Filatova, and Yuri Misnikov. 2016a. Citizens’ Deliberation Online as Will-Formation: The Impact of Media Identity on Policy Discourse Outcomes in Russia. In: Electronic Participation. Volume 9821 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 8th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, ePart 2016, Guimarães, Portugal, September 5–8, 2016, Proceedings, 67–82.Google Scholar
  13. Chugunov Andrey, Olga Filatova and Yuri Misnikov. 2016b. 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 – March 1–3. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, Joshua. 1996. Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy. In: Democracy and difference: contesting the boundaries of the political, ed. Seyla Benhabib, 95–119. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, Joshua. 1998. Democracy and liberty. In: Deliberative democracy, ed. John Elster, 185–231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen, Jean L., and Andrew Arato, A. 1997. Civil society and political theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Coleman, Stephen., and Jay G. Blumler. 2009. The Internet and democratic citizenship: theory, practice and policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coleman, Stephen. 2012. The Internet as a Space for Policy Deliberation. In: The Argumentative Turn Revisited: Public Policy as Communicative Practice, ed. Frank Fischer and Herbert Gottweis, 149–179. Durham and London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. van Dijk, Teun A. 1998. Ideology and discourse: a multidisciplinary introduction. Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  20. Etling, Bruce, Karina Alexanyan, John Kelly, Robert Faris, John Palfrey, and Urs Gasser. 2010. 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. Accessed 20 December 2016.
  21. Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing discourse: textual analysis for social research. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Fischer, Frank. 2009. Democracy and expertise: reorienting policy inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischer, Frank and Herbert Gottweis. 2012. Introduction. In: The Argumentative Turn Revisited: Public Policy as Communicative Practice, eds. Frank Fischer and Herbert Gottweis, 1–30. Durham and London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gibson, Rachel, Weiner Lusoli, Andrea Rommele, and Stephen J. Ward, eds. 2004. Electronic democracy: mobilisation, organisation and participation via new ICTs. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Granovetter, Mark. (1982). The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. In P. Mardsen, & N. Lin, Social structure and network analysis. (pp. 105–130). New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
  26. Guimaraes, Mario J.L. 2005. Doing anthropology in cyberspace: fieldwork boundaries and social environments. In: Virtual methods: issues in social research on the Internet, ed. Christine Hine, 141–156. Oxford, New York: Berg.Google Scholar
  27. Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 1996. Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 2004. Why deliberative democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Habermas, Jurgen. 1984. The theory of communicative action. Reason and the rationalization of society (volume 1). Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  30. Habermas, Jurgen. 1987. The philosophical discourse of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  31. Habermas, Jurgen. 1992. Further reflections on the public sphere. In: Habermas and the public sphere, ed. Craig Calhoun, 421–461. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hague, Barry., and Brian Loader, eds. 1999. Digital democracy: discourse and decision making in the information age. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Halliday, Michael. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar (2nd edition). London: Edward Arnold. Google Scholar
  34. Herring, Susan C. 2011. Computer-mediated conversation. Part II: Introduction and overview. Language@Internet; 8, article 2. http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2011/Herring.
  35. Hill, K. A., and J. E. Hughes. 1997. Computer-mediated political communication: the USENET and political communities. Political communication 14: 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hoff, Jens. 2003. e-Democracy in Denmark. Black clouds on a blue sky? Paper presented at a workshop on Internet, governance and democracy in Denmark and Asia. Images of Asia festival. Aalborg University, 24 September. http://www.modinet.dk/pdf/WorkingPapers/No5_E_democracy_in_Denmark_paper.pdf. Accessed 25 September 2016.
  37. Ikeda, Kenichi, and Robert Huckfeldt 2001. Political communication and disagreement among citizens in Japan and the United States. Political behavior 21(1): 23–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jorgensen, Marianne and Louise Philips. 2002. Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kelly, John, Danyel Fisher, and Marc Smith. 2005. Debate, division, and diversity: political discourse networks in USENET newsgroups. Paper presented at the second conference on online deliberation: design, research, and practice DIAC’05, Stanford University, May 20–22, 2005. http://www.columbia-coi.com/media/papers/kelly_fisher_smith_ddd.pdf. Accessed 15 December 2016.
  40. Koussouris, Sotirios, Yannis Charalabidis, and Dimitrios Askounis. 2011. A review of the European Union eParticipation action pilot projects. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 5 (1): 8–19. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506161111114617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kriplean, Travis, Ivan Beschastnikh, Alan Borning, David McDonald, and Mark Zachry. 2009. Designing Mediating Spaces Between Citizens and Government. Presented at the “Socially Mediating Technologies” Workshop at the ACM 2009 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’09). http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~bestchai/papers/chi-smt09-2.pdf.
  42. Leitner, Christine. 2007. e-Participation. European eGovernment 2005–2007. In: Taking stock of good practice and progress towards implementation of the i2010 eGovernment Action Plan. Vilnius, Lithuania.Google Scholar
  43. Malone, T. W., and M. Klein. 2007. Harnessing Collective Intelligence to Address Global Climate Change. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization 2 (3).Google Scholar
  44. Martin, Jim. R. 2003. Voicing the ‘other’: reading and writing. In: Critical discourse analysis: theory and interdisciplinarity, eds. Gilbert Weiss and Ruth Wodak, 199–222. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  45. Misnikov, Yuri. 2012. How to read and treat online public discussions among ordinary citizens beyond political mobilisation: empirical evidence from the Russian-language online forums. Digital Icons: Studies in Russian, Eurasian and Central European New Media 7: 1–37. http://www.digitalicons.org/issue07/yuri-misnikov.
  46. Misnikov, Yuri. 2013. You Say ‘Yes’, I Say ‘No’: Capturing and measuring public opinion through citizens’ conversation online. In: Electronic participation. Volume 8075 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 5th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference ePart 2013, Koblenz, Germany, September 17–19, Proceedings, 134–146.Google Scholar
  47. Mutz, Diana. 2006. Hearing the other side: deliberative versus participatory democracy? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nikitinsky, Nikita, Polina Kachurina, Sergey Shashev, and Evgeniya Shamis. 2016. Generation theory in HR practice: text mining for talent management case. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia (EGOSE ‘16), St. Petersburg, Russia, November 22–23. ACM New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1145/3014087.3014126. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3014087.
  49. Noveck, Beth. 2016. The rise of the citizen expert: how can data-rich technology drive better citizen engagement and make government more effective? Policy Network, 4 February 2016. http://www.policy-network.net/pno_detail.aspx?ID=5056&title=The-rise-of-the-citizen-expert). Accessed 15 December 2016.
  50. Panopoulou Eleni, Efthimios Tambouris, and Konstantinos Tarabanis. 2009. eParticipation initiatives: How is Europe progressing? European Journal of ePractice 7, March 2009. http://www.epractice.eu/files/7.2.pdf.
  51. Riveret, Régis, Dimitrios Korkinof, Moez Draief and Jeremy Pitt. 2015. Probabilistic abstract argumentation: an investigation with Boltzmann machines. Argument & Computation 6 (2): 178–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rheingold, Howard. 2000. The virtual community: homesteading on the electronic frontier (revised edition). Cambridge, MA and London, England: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. Rezende, D., Mohamed, S., Danihelka, I., Gregor, K., & Wierstra, D. (2016, March 16). One-Shot Generalization in Deep Generative Models. arXiv, 1603.05106v1 [stat.ML]. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.05106.pdf.
  54. Richardson, Kay. 2008. Specific debate formats of mass media. In: Handbook of communication in the public sphere, eds. Ruth, Wodak and Veronika Koller, 383–400. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. Sack, Warren. 2000. Conversation Map: An Interface for Very Large-Scale Conversations. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 17 (3): 73–92. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schuler, Douglas. 2001. Cultivating society’s civic intelligence: patterns for a new ‘world brain’. Information, Communication & Society 4(2): 157–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schuler, Douglas. 2013. Creating the world citizen parliament: seven challenges for interaction designers. Interactions 20(3): 38–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schuler, Douglas. 2014. Improving Civic intelligence: repairing the engine on a moving car. EGOSE ‘14. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia: 114–120. St. Petersburg, Russian Federation — November 18–20, 2014. New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2729104.2747955.
  59. Schuler, Douglas. 2016. How civic intelligence can teach what it means to be a citizen. The Conversation, September 2. https://theconversation.com/how-civic-intelligence-can-teach-what-it-means-to-be-a-citizen-63170. Accessed 15 December 2016.
  60. Snaith, Marc, John Lawrence, and Chris Reed. 2010. Mixed Initiative Argument in Public Deliberation. In: From e-participation to Online Deliberation, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Online Deliberation, eds. Fiorella De Cindio, Ann Macintosh and Cristian Peraboni: 2–13. Leeds, UK: University of Leeds and Universita Degli Studi Di Milano.Google Scholar
  61. Sudweeks, Fay, and Sheizaf Rafaeli. 1996. How do you get a hundred strangers to agree: computer mediated communication and collaboration. In: Computer networking and scholarship in the 21st century university, ed. T. M. Stephen, 115–136. SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  62. Sudweeks, Fay, Margaret McLaughlin, and Sheizaf Rafaeli, eds. 1998. Network and netplay: virtual groups on the Internet. Menlo Park CA, Cambridge MA, London: AAA Press/ The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  63. Talantsev, Anton, Osama Ibrahim, and Aron Larsson, A. 2016. Multi-stakeholder Preference Analysis in Ex-ante Evaluation of Policy Options - Use Case: Ultra Low Emission Vehicles in UK. In: In: Electronic Participation. Volume 9821 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 8th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, ePart 2016, Guimarães, Portugal, September 5–8, 2016, Proceedings, 176–188.Google Scholar
  64. Tolmie, Peter., Alan Chamberlain, and Steve Benford. 2014. Designing for reportability: sustainable gamification, public engagement, and promoting environmental debate. Pers Ubiquit Comput 18 (7): 1763–1774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wodak, Ruth and Michael Meyer. 2001. Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations