ДИЗАЙН ОНЛАЙН-ДЕЛИБЕРАЦИИ: ВЫБОР, КРИТЕРИИ И ЭМПИРИЧЕСКИЕ ДАННЫЕ
Аннотация
Вниманию читателей предлагается обзор эмпирических исследований в области дизайна онлайн-форумов, предназначенных для вовлечения граждан в делиберацию. Размерности дизайна определены для различных характеристик делиберации: назначения, целевой аудитории, разобщенности участников в пространстве и во времени, среды коммуникации и организации делиберативного процесса. После краткого обзора критериев оценки вариантов дизайна рассматриваются эмпирические данные, соотносящиеся с каждым из вариантов. Эффективность онлайн-делиберации зависит от того, насколько условия коммуникации соотносятся с заданиями делиберации. Компромиссы, как, например, между анонимным или идентифицируемым участием, предполагают различные дизайны в зависимости от цели делиберации и состава участников. Выводы исследования получены на материале существующих технологий и могут измениться по мере коэволюции технологий и пользователей.
Ключевые слова
онлайн-делиберация,
дизайн форума,
участие,
среда коммуникации,
online deliberation,
forum design,
media,
participation
Список литературы
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.
Рецензия
Просмотров:
118
Послать статью по эл. почте 
Оставить комментарий 