Online deliberation design: Choice, criteria and evidence
Abstract
The survey of empirical researches bearing on the design of online forums for deliberative civic engagement is given in this article. The dimensions of design are defined for different aspects of deliberation: its purpose, target groups, disconnection of the participants by time and distance, communication environment and the organization of the deliberative process. After a brief overview of all these criteria empirical data connected with each of them is examined. The effectiveness of online deliberation depends on correlation between communicative conditions and deliberation tasks. Trade-offs, e.g. between anonymous and identifiable participation, presuppose different designs depending on participants and their purposes. The authors make their conclusions relying on existing technologies, so they could change as technologies and users co-evolve.
About the Authors
T. . Davies
Стэнфордский университет
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
R. . Chandler
Стэнфордский университет
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Adams S.J., Sylvia G.R., Ayman R. Communication Medium and member familiarity: The effects of decision time, accuracy, and satisfaction // Small Group Research. – 2005. – Vol. 36. – P. 321–353.
2. Albrecht S. Whose voice is heard in online deliberation? A study of participation and representation in political debates on the internet // Information, communication & society. – 2006. – Vol. 9 (February). – P. 62–82.
3. American institutes for research / Community forum deliberative methods literature review. – 2011. – Feb. 7. (Quoted with permission)
4. Anusuya M.A., Katti S.K. Speech recognition by machine: A review // International journal of computer science and information security. – 2009. – Vol. 6 (3). – P. 181–205.
5. Asteroff J.F. Electronic Bulletin Boards. A Case Study: The Columbia University Center for Computing Activities. – Columbia univ., 1982. – Spring. – Mode of access: http://www.columbia.edu/acis/history/bboard.html (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
6. Baym N. The emergence of community in computer-mediated communication // Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting computer-mediated communication and community / Jones S.G. (ed.). – Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998. – P. 35–68.
7. Becker-Beck U., Wintermantel M., Borg A. Principles of regulating interaction in teams practicing face-to-face communication versus teams practicing computer-mediated communication // Small group research. – 2005. – Vol. 36. – P. 499–536.
8. Beierle T. Digital deliberation: Engaging the public through online policy dialogs // Democracy Online: The prospects for political renewal through the internet / Ed. Shane P.M. – N.Y.: Routledge, 2004. – P. 155–166.
9. Blumler J.G., Coleman S. Realising Democracy Online: A Civic Commons in Cyberspace // IPPR/Citizens online research publication. – 2001. – N 2, March. – Mode of access: http://www.citizensonline.org.uk/site/media/documents/925_Realising%20Democracy%20 (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
10. Brannon R.F., Essex C. Synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in distance education: A Survey of Instructors // TechTrends. – 2001. – Vol. 45 (1). – P. 36–42.
11. Briand M.K. Response to «lessons from the virtual agora project» // Journal of public deliberation. – 2006. – Vol. 2 (10). – Mode of access: http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol2/iss1/art10 (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
12. Brown R. Group processes: dynamics within and between groups. – 2 nd ed. – Oxford: Blackwell, 2000. – 417 p.
13. Burkhalter S., Gastil J., Kelshaw T. A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups // Communication theory. – 2002. – Vol. 12, November. – P. 398–422.
14. Card S.K., Mackinlay J.D., Robertson G.G. A morphological analysis of the design space of input devices // ACM transactions on information systems. – 1991. – Vol. 9 (2). – P. 99–122.
15. Cavalier R., Kim M., Zaiss Z.S. Deliberative democracy, online discussion, and project PICOLA (Public informed citizen online assembly) // Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice / Eds. Davies T., Gangadharan S.P. – Stanford, CA: Center for the study of language and information, 2009. – P. 71–79. – Mode of access: http://odbook.stanford.edu/viewing/filedocument/43 (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
16. Clark H.H. Using language. – Cambridge, UK: Cambridge univ. press, 1996. – 432 p.
17. Clark H.H., Brennan S. Grounding in communication // Perspectives on socially shared cognition / Eds. L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine, S.D. Teasley. – Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1991. – P. 127–149.
18. Clark H.H., Wilkes-Gibbs D. Referring as a Collaborative Process // Cognition. – 1986. – Vol. 22. – P. 1–39.
19. Coleman S. Connecting parliament to the public via the internet: Two case studies of online consultations // Information, communication, and society. – 2004. – Vol. 7. – P. 1–22.
20. Coleman S., Hall N., Howell M. Hearing voices: The experience of online public consultations and discussions in UK governance. – London: Hansard Society, 2002. – 28 p.
21. Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis / Baltes B.B., Dickson M.W., Sherman M.P., Bauer C.C., LaGanke J.S. // Organizational behavior and human decision processes. – 2002. – Vol. 87 (January). – P. 156–179.
22. Daft R.L., Lengel R.H. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design // Management science. – 1986. – Vol. 32. – P. 554–571.
23. Dahlberg L. The internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere // Information, communication, & society. – 2001. – Vol. 4. – P. 615–633.
24. De Cindio F., Peraboni C. Design issues for building deliberative design habitats // Proceedings of the fourth international conference on online deliberation (OD2010) / Eds. F. De Cindio, A. Machintosh, C. Peraboni. – Univ. of Leeds and univ. Degli Studi Di Milano, 2010. – P. 41–52. – Mode of access: http://www.od2010.dico.unimi.it/docs/proceedings/Proceedings_OD2010.pdf (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
25. Dennis A.R., Kinney S.T. Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality // Information systems research. – 1998. – Vol. 9. – P. 256–274.
26. Derks D.A., Fischer H., Bos Arjan E.R. The role of emotion in computer-mediated communication: A review // Computers in Human Behavior. – 2008. – Vol. 24. – P. 766–785.
27. Eckles D., Ballagas R., Takayama L. The design space of computer-mediated communication: Dimensional analysis and actively mediated communication: (Presented at the Social mediating technologies workshop, CHI 2009, Boston). – 2009. – P. 1–25. – Mode of access: http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/vmgonz/documents/smt/31Eckles,%20Ballagas,%20Takayama%20-%20Design%20Space%20of%20CMC.pdf (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
28. Epley N., Kruger J. When what you type isn’t what they read: The perseverance of stereotypes and expectancies over e-mail // Journal of experimental social psychology. –2005. – Vol. 41, July. – P. 414–422.
29. Etzioni A. MINERVA: An electronic town hall // Policy sciences. – 1972. – Vol. 3. – P. 457–474.
30. Etzioni A. Participatory technology // Journal of communications. – 1975. – Spring. – P. 64–74.
31. Fishkin J.S. The nation in a room: Turning public opinion into policy // Boston review. – 2006. – March/April. – Mode of access: http://bostonreview.net/BR31.2/fishkin.php (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
32. Fishkin J.S. The televised deliberative poll: An experiment in democracy // Annals of the American academy of political and social science. – 1996. – Vol. 546, July. – P. 132–140.
33. Fishkin J.S. Virtual public consultation: Prospects for internet deliberative democracy // Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice / Eds. Davies T., Gangadharan S.P. – Stanford, CA: Center for the study of language and information, 2009. – P. 23–35. – Mode of access: http://odbook.stanford.edu/viewing/filedocument/40 (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
34. Fulk J., Schmitz J., Steinfield C.W. A Social influence model of technology use // Organizations and communication technology / Eds. J. Fulk, C.W. Steinfield. – Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990. – P. 117–140.
35. Fung A. One city, two systems: democracy in an electronic chat room in Hong Kong // Javnost / The Public. – 2002. – Vol. 9. – P. 77–94.
36. Gould J.D. An Experimental Study of Writing, Dictating, and Speaking // Attention and Performance VII / Ed. J. Requin. – Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1978. – P. 299–319.
37. Graham T., Witschge T. In search of online deliberation: Towards a new method for examining the quality of online discussions // Communications. – 2003. – Vol. 28. – P. 173–204.
38. Greene J.D. From neural «Is» to moral «Ought»: What are the moral implications of neuroscientific moral psychology? // Nature reviews neuroscience. – 2003. – Vol. 4. – P. 847–850. – Mode of access: http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/GreeneWJH/Greene-NRN-Is-Ought-03.pdf (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
39. GroupLens: An open architecture for collaborative filtering of netnews / Resnick P., Iacovou N., Suchak M., Bergstrom P., Riedl J. // Proceedings of ACM 1994 Conference on computer supported cooperative work. – Chapel Hill, NC, 1994. – P. 175–186.
40. Habermas J. Towards a United States of Europe. – 2006. – Mode of access: http://
41. www.signandsight.com/features/676.html (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
42. Henderson H. Computers: Hardware of democracy // Forum 70. – 1970. – Vol. 2, Feb. – P. 22–24, 46–51. – Mode of access: https://fp.auburn.edu/tann/hazel/Forum.html (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
43. Jankowski N.W., van Os R. Internet-based political discourse: a case study in online civic engagement // Democracy online: The prospects for political renewal through the internet / Ed. P.M. Shane. – N.Y.: Routledge, 2004. – P. 181–193.
44. Janssen D., Kies R. Online forums and deliberative democracy // Acta Politica. – 2005. – Vol. 40. – P. 317–335.
45. Jensen J.L. Public spheres on the internet: Anarchic or government-sponsored – a comparison // Scandinavian political studies. – 2003. – Vol. 26. – P. 349–374.
46. Kahai S.S., Cooper R.B. Exploring the core concepts of media richness theory: The impact of cue multiplicity and feedback immediacy on decision quality // Journal of management information systems. – 2003. – Vol. 20. – P. 263–299.
47. Kelly J., Fisher D., Smith M. Friends, Foes, and Fringe: Norms and Structura in Political Discussion Networks // Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice / Eds. Davies T., Gangadharan S.P. – Stanford, CA: Center for the study of language and information, 2009. – P. 83–93. – Mode of access: http://odbook.stanford.edu/viewing/filedocument/44 (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
48. Kroll B.M. Cognitive egocentrism and the problem of audience awareness in written discourse // Research in the teaching of English. – 1978. – Vol. 12. – P. 269–281.
49. Kulikova S.V., Perlmutter D.D. Blogging down the dictator? The Kyrgyz revolution and samizdat websites // International communication gazette. – 2007. – Vol. 69. – P. 29–50.
50. Lampe C., Johnston E., Resnick P. Follow the reader: Filtering comments on Slashdot // Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing (CHI 2007). – San Jose, California, 2007. – P. 1253–1262.
51. Lampe C., Resnick P. Slash (dot) and burn: Distributed moderation in a large online conversation space / Proceedings of the ACM conference on Human Factors in Computing (CHI 2004). – Vienna: ACM Press, 2004. – P. 543–550.
52. Le B.L., Rouet J.-F., Jamet E. Effects of speech- and text-based interaction modes in natural language human-computer dealog // Human factors. – 2007. – Vol. 49, Dec. – P. 1045–1053.
53. Lerner J.S., Tetlock P.E. Accounting for the effects of accountability // Psychological bulletin. – 1999. – Vol. 125 (2). – P. 255–275.
54. Leshed G. Silencing the Clatter: Removing Anonymity from a Corporate Online Community // Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice / Eds. Davies T., Gangadharan S.P. – Stanford, CA: Center for the study of language and information, 2009. – P. 243–251. – Mode of access: http://odbook.stanford.edu/viewing/filedocument/60 (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
55. Lev-On A., Manin B. Happy accidents: Deliberation and online exposure to opposing views // Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice / Eds. Davies T., Gangadharan S.P. – Stanford, CA: Center for the study of language and information, 2009. – P. 105–122. – Mode of access: http://odbook.stanford.edu/viewing/filedocument/60 (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
56. Li S.-C.S. Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A functional perspective // Small Group Research. – 2007. – Vol. 38. – P. 593–614.
57. Lightner C.J. Student perceptions of voice and their experiences in an asynchronous/synchronous voice/text environment: A descriptive study: Ph.D. Dissertation. – Minneapolis: Capella univ., 2007.
58. Lukensmeyer C.J., Goldman J, Brigham S. A town meeting for the twenty-first century // The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century / Eds. J. Gastil, P. Levine. – San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2005. – P. 154–163.
59. Luskin R.C., Fishkin J.S., Iyengar S. Considered opinions on U.S. foreign policy: Face-to-face versus online deliberative polling. – Stanford: Center for deliberative democracy, Stanford univ., 2006. – 45 p. – Mode of access: http://cdd.stanford.edu/research/papers/2006/foreign-policy.pdf (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
60. Mendelberg T. The deliberative citizen: Theory and evidence // Research in micropolitics. Vol. 6: Political decision making, deliberation and participation / Eds. M.D. Carpini, L. Huddy, R.Y. Shapiro. – N.Y.: Elsever press, 2002. – P. 151–193. – Mode of access: http://www.princeton.edu/~talim/DeliberativeCitizen.pdf (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
61. Michinov N., Primois C. Improving productivity and creativity in online groups through social comparison process: New evidence for asynchronous electronic brainstorming // Computers in human behavior. – 2005. – Vol. 21. – P. 11–28.
62. Min S.-J. Deliberation, east meets west: Exploring the cultural dimension of citizen deliberation // Acta politica. – 2009. – Vol. 44. – P. 439–458.
63. Min S.-J. Online vs. face-to-face deliberation: Effects on civic engagement // Journal of computer mediated communication. – 2007. – Vol. 1. – P. 1369–1387. – Mode of access: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/min.html (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
64. Muhlberger P. Attitude change in face-to-face and online political deliberation: Conformity, information, or perspective taking?: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American political science association. – Washington, DC, 2009. – September 1. – Mode of access: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p41612_index.html (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
65. Muhlberger P. Political values, political attitudes, and attitude polarization in internet political discussion: Political transformation or politics as usual? // Communications.–2003. – Vol. 28. – P. 107–133.
66. Muhlberger P., Stromer-Galley J. Automated and hand-coded measurement of deliberative quality in online policy discussions // Proceedings of the 10 th International digital government research conference. – Mexico, 2009. – P. 35–41.
67. Muhlberger P., Weber L.M. Lessons from the virtual agora project: The effects of agency, identity, information, and deliberation on political knowledge // Journal of Public deliberation. – 2006. – Vol. 2 (1). – Mode of access: http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol2/iss1/art13/ (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
68. Myers D.G. Social psychology. – 9 th ed. – San Francisco: McGraw Hill, 2008. – 593 p.
69. Nass C., Mason L. On the study of technology and task: Variable-based approach // Organizations and communication technology / Eds. J. Fulk, C.W. Steinfeld. – Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990. – P. 46–67.
70. Noveck B.S. Unchat: Democratic solution for a wired world // Democracy online: The prospects for political renewal through the internet / Ed. P.M. Shane. – N.Y.: Routledge, 2004. – P. 21–34.
71. Ohlin T. Local democracy in the telecommunications age // Svenska dagbladet. – 1971. – August. – P. 1.
72. Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice / Eds. Davies T., Gangadharan S.P. – Stanford, CA: Center for the study of language and information, 2009. – 387 p. – Mode of access: http://odbook.stanford.edu/static/filedocument/2009/11/10/ODBook.Full.11.3.09.pdf (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
73. Osborn A.F. Applied imagination: principles and procedures of creative thinking. – N.Y.: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1957. – 2 nd ed. – 379 p.
74. Poor N. Mechanisms of an online public sphere: The website slashdot // Journal of computer-mediated communication. – 2005. – Vol. 10 (2). – Mode of access: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/poor.html (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
75. Price V. Citizens deliberating online: Theory and some evidence // Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice / Eds. Davies T., Gangadharan S.P. – Stanford, CA: Center for the study of language and information, 2009. – P. 37–58. – Mode of access: http://odbook.stanford.edu/viewing/filedocument/41 (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
76. Price V., Capella J.N. Online deliberation and Its Influence: The electronic dialog project in campaign 2000 // IT & Society. – 2002. – Vol. 1 (1). – Mode of access: http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/itandsociety/v01i01/v01i01a20.pdf (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
77. Reconstructing Technologies as Social Practice / Suchman L., Blomberg J., Orr J.E., Trigg R. // American behavioral scientist. – 1999. – Vol. 43. – P. 392–408.
78. Rhee J.W., Kim E.-m. Deliberation on the net: Lessons from a field experiment // Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice / Eds. Davies T., Gangadharan S.P. – Stanford, CA: Center for the study of language and information, 2009. – P. 223–232. – Mode of access: http://odbook.stanford.edu/viewing/filedocument/58 (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
79. Rivera K, Cooke N.J., Bauhs J.A. The effects of emotional icons on remote communication // CHI ’96 Companion. – Vancouver, BC, 1996. – P. 99–100.
80. Robinson L. Debating the events of September 11th: Discursive and interactional dynamics in three online fora // Journal of computer-mediated communication. – 2005. – Vol. 10. – Mode of access: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/robinson.html (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
81. Roch S.G., Ayman R. Group decision making and perceived decision success: The role of communication medium // Group dynamics: theory, research, and practice. – 2005. – Vol. 9. – P. 15–31.
82. Rose J., Sæbø Ø. Designing deliberation systems // The information society. – 2010. – Vol. 26. – P. 228–240.
83. Ryfe D.M. Does deliberative democracy work? // Annual review of political science. – 2005. – Vol. 8. – P. 49–71.
84. Sack W., Kelly J., Dale M. Searching the Net for differences of opinion // Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice / Eds. Davies T., Gangadharan S.P. – Stanford, CA: Center for the study of language and information, 2009. – P. 95–104. – Mode of access: http://odbook.stanford.edu/viewing/filedocument/45 (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
85. Salustri F.A. Brainstorming. – 2005. – Mode of access: http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/t/brainstorm.html (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
86. Schlosberg D., Zavestoski S., Shulman S. Deliberation in ERulemaking? The problem of mass participation // Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice / Eds. Davies T., Gangadharan S.P. – Stanford, CA: Center for the study of language and information, 2009. – P. 133–148. – Mode of access: http://odbook.stanford.edu/viewing/filedocument/48 (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
87. Schneider S.M. Expanding the public sphere through computer-mediated communication: Political discussion about abortion in a usenet newsgroup / Ph.D. dissertation, department of political science. – Massachusetts: Massachusetts institute of technology, 1997. –June. – Mode of access: http://www.sunyit.edu/~steve/main.pdf (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
88. Schober M.F., Clark H.H. Understanding by addressees and overhearers // Cognitive Psychology. – 1989. – Vol. 21, April. – P. 211–232.
89. Schuler D. Online civic deliberation with e-liberate // Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice / Eds. Davies T., Gangadharan S.P. – Stanford, CA: Center for the study of language and information, 2009. – P. 293–302. – Mode of access: http://odbook.stanford.edu/viewing/filedocument/65 (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
90. Siu A. The moderation effect of argument quality on polarization in deliberative polls / American political science association annual meeting. – Boston, MA, 2008. – August.
91. Social responsibility and stakeholder influence: Does technology matter during stakeholder deloberation with high impact decisions? / King R.C., Hartzel K.S., Schilhavy R.A.M., Melone N.P., McGuire T.W. // Decision Support Systems. – 2010. – Vol. 48. – P. 536–547.
92. Stanley J.W., Weare C., Musso J. Participation, deliberative democracy, and the internet: Lessons from a national forum on commercial vehicle safety // Democracy online: The prospects for political renewal through the internet / Ed. Peter M. Shane. – N.Y.: Routledge, 2004. – P. 167–179.
93. Stasavage D. Public versus private deliberation in a representative democracy. – L.: School of economics, 2004. – March 26. – 36 p. – Mode of access: http://www.polarizationandconflict.org/oslopub/Stasavage-private8.pdf (Дата посещения: 26.11.2012.)
94. Stromer-Galley J. Measuring deliberalisation’s content: A coding scheme // Journal of Public deliberalisation. – 2007. – Vol. 3 (1). – P. 1–37.
95. Stromer-Galley J., Muhlberger P. Agreement and disagreement in group deliberalisation: Effects on deliberalisation satisfaction, future engagement, and decision legitimacy // Political communication. – 2009. – Vol. 26 (2). – P. 173–192.
96. Stromer-Galley J., Wichowski A. Political Discussion Online // The handbook of internet studies / Eds. M. Consalvo, R. Burnett, C. Ess. – Chichester, UK: Blackwell, 2010. – P. 168–187.
97. Sunstein C.R. Infotopia: How many minds produce knowledge. – N.Y.: Oxford univ. press, 2006. – 288 p.
98. Sutton R.I., Hargadon A. Brainstorming Groups in Context: Effectiveness in a Product Design Firm // Administrative Science Quarterly. – 1996. – Vol. 41, Dec. – P. 685–718.
99. Task requirements and media choice in collaborative writing / Kraut R., Galegher J., Fish R., Chalfonte B. // Human-computer interaction. – 1992. – Vol. 7. – P. 375–407.
100. The design and implementation of socially-intelligent agents providing emotional support and cognitive support / Yamada R., Nakajima H., Lee J.-E.R., Brave S.B., Maldonado H., Nass C., Morishima Y. // Journal of Japan society for fuzzy theory and intelligent informatics. – 2008. – Vol. 20 (4). – P. 473–486.
101. Transformed social interaction, augmented gaze, and social influence in immersive virtual environments / Bailenson J.N., Beall A.C., Loomis J., Blascovich J., Turk M. // Human communication research. – 2005. – Vol. 31 (October). – P. 511–537. – Mode of access: http://vhil.stanford.edu/pubs/2005/bailenson-augmented-gaze.pdf (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
102. Transformed social interaction: Decoupling representation from behavior and form in collaborative virtual environments / Bailenson J.N., Beall A.C., Loomis J., Blascovich J., Turk M. // Presence: Teleoperators & virtual environments. – Cambridge, MA, 2004. – Vol. 13, N 4. – P. 428–441. – Mode of access: http://vhil.stanford.edu/pubs/2004/bailenson-TSI.pdf (Дата посещения: 10.11.2012.)
103. Trénel M. Facilitation and inclusive deliberation // Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice / Eds. Davies T., Gangadharan S.P. – Stanford, CA: Center for the study of language and information, 2009. – P. 253–257. – Mode of access: http://odbook.stanford.edu/viewing/filedocument/61 (Дата посещения: 26.11.2012.)
104. Trénel M. Measuring the quality of online deliberation. Coding scheme 2.4. – Berlin: Social science research center, 2004. – Mode of access: http://www.wzberlin.de/~trenel/tools/quod_2_4.pdf (Дата посещения: 26.11.2012.)
105. Tucey C.B. Online vs. face-to-face delibiration on the global warming and stem cell issues // Annual meeting of the Western Political science association. – San Francisco, 2010. – April. – Mode of access: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstractid=1580573 (Дата посещения: 26.11.2012.)
106. Tyler T.R., Lind E.A. Procedural justice // Handbook of justice research in law / Eds. J. Sanders, V.L. Hamilton. – N.Y.: Springer, 2001. – P. 65–92.
107. Who wants to deliberate – and why? / Neblo M.A., Esterling K.M., Kennedy R.P., Lazer D.M.J., Sokhey A.E. // American political science review. – 2010. – Vol. 104. – P. 566–583.
108. Whyte G. Escalating commitment in individual and group decision making: A prospect theory approach // Organizational behavior and human decision processes. – 1993. – Vol. 54. – P. 430–455.
109. Whyte G., Levi A.S. The origins and function of the reference point in risky group decision making the case of the Cuban missile crisis // Journal of behavioral decision making. – 1994. – Vol. 7 (4). – P. 243–260.
110. Wilhelm A.G. Virtual sounding boards: How deliberative is online political discussion? // Digital democracy: Discourse and decision making in the information age / Eds. B.N. Hague, B. Loader. – N.Y.: Routledge, 1999. – P. 153–178.
111. Wright S. The role of the moderator: Problems and possibilities for government-run online discussion forums // Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice / Eds. Davies T., Gangadharan S.P. – Stanford, CA: Center for the study of language and information, 2009. – P. 233–242. – Mode of access: http://odbook.stanford.edu/viewing/filedocument/59 (Дата посещения: 26.11.2012.)
112. Wright S., Street J. Democracy, deliberation, and design: The case of online discussion forums // New media & society. – 2007. –Vol. 9. – P. 849–869.
113. Zhang W. Are online discussions deliberate? A case study of a chinese online discussion board // III international conference on communication and reality. Digital utopia in the media: From discourses to facts. A balance / Eds. P. Masip, J. Rom. – Barcelona: Blanquerna tecnologia i serveis. – 15 p. – Mode of access: http://www.weebly.com/uploads/2/2/2/7/222747/cicr_2005.pdf (Дата посещения: 21.11.2012.)
114. Zwicky F. The mophological approach to discovery, invention, research and construction // New methods of thought and procedure / Eds. F. Zwicky, A.G. Wilson. – N.Y.: Springer-Verlag, 1967. – P. 78–297.
Review
Views:
117
Email this article 
Post a Comment 