Equality of Participation Online Versus Face to Face: Condensed Analysis of the Community Forum Deliberative Methods Demonstration

Online deliberation may provide a more cost-effective and/or less inhibiting environment for public participation than face to face (F2F). But do online methods bias participation toward certain individuals or groups? We compare F2F versus online participation in an experiment affording within-participants and cross-modal comparisons. For English speakers required to have Internet access as a condition of participation, we find no negative effects of online modes on equality of participation (EoP) related to gender, age, or educational level. Asynchronous online discussion appears to improve EoP for gender relative to F2F. Data suggest a dampening effect of online environments on black participants, as well as amplification for whites. Synchronous online voice communication EoP is on par with F2F across individuals. But individual-level EoP is much lower in the online forum, and greater online forum participation predicts greater F2F participation for individuals. Measured rates of participation are compared to self-reported experiences, and other findings are discussed.Comment: 14 pages, 10 tables, to appear in Efthimios Tambouris, Panos Panagiotopoulos, {\O}ystein S{\ae}b{\o}, Konstantinos Tarabanis, Michela Milano, Theresa Pardo, and Maria Wimmer (Editors), Electronic Participation: Proceedings of the 7th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, ePart 2015 (Thessaloniki, August 30-September 2), Springer LNCS Vol. 9249, 201

Client Participation in Moral Case Deliberation: A Precarious Relational Balance

Moral case deliberation (MCD) is a form of clinical ethics support in which the ethicist as facilitator aims at supporting professionals with a structured moral inquiry into their moral issues from practice. Cases often affect clients, however, their inclusion in MCD is not common. Client participation often raises questions concerning conditions for equal collaboration and good dialogue. Despite these questions, there is little empirical research regarding client participation in clinical ethics support in general and in MCD in particular. This article aims at describing the experiences and processes of two MCD groups with client participation in a mental healthcare institution. A responsive evaluation was conducted examining stakeholders’ issues concerning client participation. Findings demonstrate that participation initially creates uneasiness. As routine builds up and client participants meet certain criteria, both clients and professionals start thinking beyond ‘us-them’ distinctions, and become more equal partners in dialogue. Still, sentiments of distrust and feelings of not being safe may reoccur. Client participation in MCD thus requires continuous reflection and alertness on relational dynamics and the quality of and conditions for dialogue. Participation puts the essentials of MCD (i.e., dialogue) to the test. Yet, the methodology and features of MCD offer an appropriate platform to introduce client participation in healthcare institutions

The Deliberative Influence of Comment Section Structure

Online news comment sections are a ubiquitous presence across media outlets. Although research has assessed both the content and effects of these comment spaces, little is known about how the structure of comment spaces influences news users’ online commentary. As democratic theorists argue, the structure of a communicative space can influence its deliberative quality. We conducted two separate experiments to determine how news comment section structure affects online commentary. We found that both comment section structure and the structure of pre-comment information enhanced both the quantity of comment engagement and its deliberative quality