622 research outputs found

    Argument-Based and Multi-faceted Rating to Support Large-Scale Deliberation

    Get PDF

    Textual indicators of deliberative dialogue: a systematic review of methods for studying the quality of online dialogues

    Get PDF
    High-quality online dialogues help sustain democracy. Deliberative theory, which predates the internet, provides the primary model for assessing the quality of online dialogues. It conceptualizes high-quality online dialogue as civil, rational, constructive, equal, interactive, and for the common good. More recently, advances in computation have driven an upsurge of empirical studies using automated methods for operationalizing online dialogue and measuring its quality. While related in their aims, deliberative theory and the wider empirical literature generally operate independently. To bridge the gap between the two literatures, we introduce Textual Indicators of Deliberative Dialogue (TIDDs). TIDDs are defined as text-based measures of online dialogue quality under a deliberative model (e.g., disagreement, incivility, justifications). In this study, we identified 123 TIDDs by systematically reviewing 67 empirical studies of online dialogue. We found them to have mid-low reliability, low criterion validity, and high construct validity for measuring two deliberative dimensions (civility and rationality). Our results highlight the limitations of deliberative theory for conceptualizing the variety of ways online dialogues can be operationalized. We report the most promising TIDDs for measuring the quality of online dialogue and suggest deliberative theory would benefit from altering its models in line with the broader empirical literature

    Software Support for Discourse-Based Textual Information Analysis: A Systematic Literature Review and Software Guidelines in Practice

    Get PDF
    [Abstract] The intrinsic characteristics of humanities research require technological support and software assistance that also necessarily goes through the analysis of textual narratives. When these narratives become increasingly complex, pragmatics analysis (i.e., at discourse or argumentation levels) assisted by software is a great ally in the digital humanities. In recent years, solutions have been developed from the information visualization domain to support discourse analysis or argumentation analysis of textual sources via software, with applications in political speeches, debates, online forums, but also in written narratives, literature or historical sources. This paper presents a wide and interdisciplinary systematic literature review (SLR), both in software-related areas and humanities areas, on the information visualization and the software solutions adopted to support pragmatics textual analysis. As a result of this review, this paper detects weaknesses in existing works on the field, especially related to solutions’ availability, pragmatic framework dependence and lack of information sharing and reuse software mechanisms. The paper also provides some software guidelines for improving the detected weaknesses, exemplifying some guidelines in practice through their implementation in a new web tool, Viscourse. Viscourse is conceived as a complementary tool to assist textual analysis and to facilitate the reuse of informational pieces from discourse and argumentation text analysis tasks.Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad; FJCI-2016-6 28032Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades; RTI2018-093336-B-C2

    Web 3.0 and Knowledge Management: Opportunities for Spatial Planning and Decision Making

    Get PDF
    The overabundance of information produced by new technologies, if on one side can be considered as a knowledge enrichment in planning process, on the other side it has not improved neither reality understanding nor possibilities of intervention. Old forms of citizens participation to planning process, generally based on assemblies, have been replaced by continuous discussions on social networks, blogs, etc.. The attempt to take into account the huge data flow produced everyday, it is not an easy task for planners. An ontologies based approach can represent an important support to such activities. "Comelicopedia" an European project between Italy and Austria, probably is one of the first experiences in applying ontologies to spatial planning process. All potentialities in planning and decision making fields will be analyzed and tools, such as "comelicopedia", can become usual in supporting a regulatory dialogue between decision makers and citizens

    Balancing Inclusion and “Enlightened Understanding” in Designing Online Civic Participation Systems: Experiences from Regulation Room

    Get PDF
    New forms of online citizen participation in government decision making have been fostered in the United States (U.S.) under the Obama Administration. Use of Web information technologies have been encouraged in an effort to create more back-and-forth communication between citizens and their government. These “Civic Participation 2.0” attempts to open the government up to broader public participation are based on three pillars of open government—transparency, participation, and collaboration. Thus far, the Administration has modeled Civic Participation 2.0 almost exclusively on the Web 2.0 ethos, in which users are enabled to shape the discussion and encouraged to assess the value of its content. We argue that strict adherence to the Web 2.0 model for citizen participation in public policymaking can produce “participation” that is unsatisfactory to both government decisionmakers and public participants. We believe that successful online civic participation design must balance inclusion and “enlightened understanding,” one of the core conditions for democratic deliberation. Based on our experience with Regulation Room, an experimental online participation platform trying to broaden meaningful public engagement in the process federal agencies use to make new regulations, we offer specific suggestions on how participation designers can strike the balance between ease of engagement and quality of engagement—and so bring new voices into the policymaking process through participating that counts

    Balancing Inclusion and “Enlightened Understanding” in Designing Online Civic Participation Systems: Experiences from Regulation Room

    Get PDF
    New forms of online citizen participation in government decision making have been fostered in the United States (U.S.) under the Obama Administration. Use of Web information technologies have been encouraged in an effort to create more back-and-forth communication between citizens and their government. These “Civic Participation 2.0” attempts to open the government up to broader public participation are based on three pillars of open government—transparency, participation, and collaboration. Thus far, the Administration has modeled Civic Participation 2.0 almost exclusively on the Web 2.0 ethos, in which users are enabled to shape the discussion and encouraged to assess the value of its content. We argue that strict adherence to the Web 2.0 model for citizen participation in public policymaking can produce “participation” that is unsatisfactory to both government decisionmakers and public participants. We believe that successful online civic participation design must balance inclusion and “enlightened understanding,” one of the core conditions for democratic deliberation. Based on our experience with Regulation Room, an experimental online participation platform trying to broaden meaningful public engagement in the process federal agencies use to make new regulations, we offer specific suggestions on how participation designers can strike the balance between ease of engagement and quality of engagement—and so bring new voices into the policymaking process through participating that counts

    The Magic Sauce: Practices of Facilitation in Online Policy Deliberation

    Get PDF
    Online engagement in policy deliberation is one of the more complex aspects of open government. Previous research on human facilitation of policy deliberation has focused primarily on the citizens who need facilitation. In this paper we unpack the facilitation practices from the perspective of the moderator. We present an interview study of facilitators in RegulationRoom – an online policy deliberation platform. Our findings reveal that facilitators focus primarily on two broad activities: managing the stream of comments and interacting with comments and commenters – both aimed at obtaining high quality public input into the particular policymaking process. Managing the immediate goals of online policy deliberations, however, might overshadow long-term goals pf public deliberation, i.e. helping individuals develop participatory literacy beyond a single policy engagement. Our contribution is twofold: we unpack the practice of human facilitation in online policy deliberation, and suggest both design and process implications for sustainable growth of civic engagement environments beyond the individual case we analyze

    Knowledge in the People: Rethinking Value in Public Rulemaking Participation

    Get PDF
    A companion piece to Rulemaking vs. Democracy: Judging and Nudging Public Participation that Counts, this Essay continues to examine the nature and value of broader public participation in rulemaking. Here, we argue that rulemaking is a “community of practice,” with distinctive forms of argumentation and methods of reasoning that both reflect and embody craft knowledge. Rulemaking newcomers are outside this community of practice: Even when they are reasonably informed about the legal and policy aspects of the agency’s proposal, their participation differs in kind and form from that of sophisticated commenters. From observing the actual behavior of rulemaking newcomers in the Regulation Room project, we suggest that new public participation is often, if not predominantly, experiential in nature and narrative in form. We argue that it is unrealistic to expect that rulemaking newcomers can be significantly inculcated into the norms and methods of the existing rulemaking community of practice. Yet, the potential policymaking value of the on-the-ground, situated knowledge they can bring to the discussion justifies efforts to expand our understanding of the kinds of comments that should “count” in the process. We take some first steps in that direction in this Essay
    • …
    corecore