[Air-L] Call for papers Online platforms for institutional deliberation: new practices, new approaches?

[Stephanie Wojcik]

Call for papers
Online platforms for institutional deliberation: new practices, new approaches?
Recherches en Communication
Coordinators: Stéphanie Wojcik (Université Paris Est Créteil-CEDITEC) and Rocío Annunziata (University of Buenos Aires-CONICET)
https://ojs.uclouvain.be/index.php/rec/announcement/view/1003


Overview

For several years, digital methods of communication have been the subject of numerous studies following an ideal model of deliberation, most often associated with the established approach of Jürgen Habermas (Greffet and Wojcik, 2008; Graham, 2010; Coleman and Moss, 2012; Hartz-Karp and Sullivan, 2020). Other more recent approaches tend to consider how ever-changing technologies have brought about the diversification of modes of expression (Monnoyer-Smith and Wojcik, 2014); particularly how they enable the emergence of civic engagement based not on rationality but on affect (Papacharissi, 2015). Others have critically engaged with concepts developed in the West, claiming they do not go far enough to consider participation phenomena in societies in other geographical areas (Frenkiel and Wang, 2017).

Building on these few ideas, or against them, can we develop other conceptualizations to attempt to capture the richness and plurality of digital deliberative exchanges?

By forcing the digitization of many deliberative processes that had previously taken place only face-to-face, and by fostering the emergence of new experiences, has the COVID-19 pandemic led to a revival of empirical, methodological, and theoretical approaches to online deliberation? Although many in the past have dismissed online deliberation methods citing their numerous shortcomings that are particularly evident in digital social networks (extreme polarization of opinions, inability to produce consensus, etc.), should the advantages of online deliberation be re-evaluated in this new era? Some authors who have championed face-to-face deliberation now argue that an online deliberative system could improve democratic legitimacy (Gastil, 2021). It seems now is an opportune time to revisit this topic.

Indeed, the pandemic has accelerated two distinct phenomena in the field of deliberative processes.

The first phenomenon is the increased digitization of tools that were previously developed offline, due to the impossibility of meeting in the traditional public space. To be sure, this digital turn was already a visible trend in the participatory tools offered by various governments. In recent years, many of the world's largest metropolises (like Madrid, Barcelona, Paris, Buenos Aires, Montevideo, New York, and Helsinki) have adopted new and emerging digital platforms for citizen participation, while at the same time, the "open government" paradigm has spread, most notably led by the U.S. government. But the pandemic has intensified this trend, forcing public administrations to quickly adjust or reassess their deliberative processes. Thus, in some European countries, important mini-public processes such as the citizens' assemblies on climate change that were planned for 2021 had to be held online; in Latin American countries, participatory budgets at the local level had to choose between going online or disappearing.

The second phenomenon is the drastic change in the focus of studies on online deliberation. Until now, such studies have tended to focus on forum experiences or platforms designed to present, comment, or vote on bills and legislation[1] (Barandiaran, et al., 2017; Annunziata, 2020; Shin and Rask, 2021) in an asynchronous way, as this modality is considered more conducive to the expression of deliberative potential (Strandberg and Grönlund, 2018; De Brasi and Gutierrez, 2020). However, the massive and daily use of Zoom, Meet, Webex and other tools to hold synchronous meetings during the last two years has opened up new opportunities of exploration (Elstub et al., 2021).

This special issue aims to revisit the topic of online political deliberation, when initiated by a governmental authority at the national or local level, and around the four thematic axes described below. In recent years, with the pandemic as an accelerating factor, new issues have emerged in the field of online deliberation: Devices and designs have diversified and shaped novel deliberative possibilities; logics of inclusion and exclusion of participants have changed; new tools such as artificial intelligence have transformed the moderation of exchanges and the processing of results; and finally, emotions, conflict, polarization, and testimonies have gained space in the public sphere. This issue seeks to identify, describe and conceptualize these new practices, as well as to assess the extent to which theoretical approaches accompany these changes.

We invite proposals for articles based on field analyses and experiences that are not limited to the Anglophone world, but concern a variety of countries from the African, Asian, European, and Latin American regions. Special attention will be paid to methodological issues. Comparative papers on different geographical contexts or on online/offline dynamics are especially welcome.


1.        Platforms and designs

The question of the design of procedures and platforms from which discussions materialize has become central to the more general work on online participation (Manosevitch, 2014), and has expanded to include forms of "civic technologies" (Zhang, Davies and Przybylska, 2021). The quality and content of deliberation can thus vary widely according to the structure of the platforms and the practices of the participants. Mini-publics, participatory budgets and other participatory and deliberative forums are usually organized face-to-face—so how can we understand their digitalization? What designs can be used to engage in discussions while acknowledging the stages of the usually highly codified forms of participation? Can we adopt the same theoretical and methodological approaches to capture synchronous and asynchronous modalities of online discussions?

Several studies have indeed investigated the influence of disparate characteristics of online deliberation devices on their operationalization, whether it be a matter of enabling the expression of disagreement (Rossini and Maia, 2021) and plurality of perspectives (Annunziata, 2016; van der Does and Bos, 2021) including minority or unpopular opinions (Stromer-Galley et al., 2015), or even their orientation toward the common good (Monnoyer-Smith and Wojcik, 2012).

At the same time, the generalization of online/offline device hybridization necessitates revisiting issues that have previously been addressed by way of observation of experimental designs (Min, 2007; Stromer-Galley, Bryant, and Bimber, 2015). For example, at the individual level, we must ask: To what extent does such a combination increase participants' knowledge, sense of political efficacy, or willingness to engage in politics?
Thus, participants' engagement is systematically affected by the design of deliberative procedures. But what about the action of the authorities who implement them? Do the different and necessary hybridizations—online/offline, synchronous/asynchronous—lead to increased integration of deliberation in the decision-making process?


2.        Sociology of participants

From the largely anonymous nature of online discussion spaces, whether institutional or experimentally constructed, it can be argued that the public sphere has been expanded to incorporate new participants, including those often marginalized by traditional deliberative mechanisms. However, the question of the "digital divide"—referring as much to material inequalities of access as to disparities in skills and usages (van Dijk, 2020) necessary for information retrieval and political expression online—was quickly raised by empirical studies. Research findings via observations in the field of political participation on long-term perpetuation of inequalities are varied. For some, digital deliberative devices such as informal online discussions prove powerless in mitigating access and public voice inequalities (Hartz-Karp and Sullivan, 2020; Abendschön and García-Albacete, 2021): The young and urban middle-class audience is overrepresented online, while older participants and those from more disadvantaged backgrounds remain underrepresented (Baek, Wojcieszak, & Delli Carpini, 2012; Touchton, Wampler, & Spada, 2019). Others, however, claim that this pattern becomes increasingly complicated when considering the institutional form of digital participation. For example, Kennedy et al.'s (2021) recent study shows that gender inequalities typically observed in face-to-face debates do not recur in online sessions. More specifically, according to the authors, although women tend to intervene less often, their written comments are more developed than those of men. The dynamics of online deliberation could therefore reduce the phenomena of "internal exclusion," that is, situations in which all participants are formally included in the discussion but some shy away from speaking (Young, 2002; Annunziata, 2016).

Has the generalization of digital devices led to a revival of the sociology of their participants? Are there some strategies to increase inclusion in deliberation of people who are usually absent from this type of forum?


3.        Algorithms, moderation, and AI

Face-to-face deliberative devices have generated diverse works on the actors who organize and structure them, and contribute to their unfolding within a defined temporal frame, paving the way for a sociology of the participation market (Mazeaud and Nonjon, 2018). Studies on the instigators and moderators of online discussions have emphasized their crucial role in managing information flows and interactions between participants in a way that produces ideas that can influence the process of public policy making (Epstein and Leshed, 2016). Other studies of informal policy discussions taking place in online comment spaces (Stroud et al. 2015) also note the dependence of certain deliberative norms—for example, interaction among participants, justification of views, or, conversely, incivility of speech—on both the choice of topic and the presence of human or non-human moderation. How does the action of moderators contribute to shaping online deliberations, whether synchronous or asynchronous? More specifically, does it lead to an improvement in the quality of exchanges, to the inclusion of more participants, or to the expression of marginal points of view?

More recently, online political expression is being moderated algorithmically through various artificial intelligence-based processes, particularly in the case of debates organized by political authorities at the national level. Their technological efficiency as well as their ability to uphold their democratic responsibilities must be questioned (Alnemr, 2020) since algorithms can be used both to moderate contents and to synthesize contributions en masse. How do platform design algorithms affect deliberation? What is the influence of artificial intelligence on deliberation results and how do authorities take them into account?


4.        Types of discourse and the role of emotions

Habermas’ paradigm of deliberation has previously been challenged by the more rhetorical trends of deliberation (Young, 2002; Urfalino, 2013), which highlight the role of affect and emotions through narrative forms such as storytelling and testimonies as a proposition for an alternative and more inclusive model of deliberation. Other works have emphasized the importance of conflict and the recognition of antagonisms in contrast to the search for consensus promoted by Habermas' original model. This possible diversification of the forms and purposes of deliberation has received little attention when it comes to examining online discussions. On the contrary, their deliberative potential has been dismissed due to the often-heated nature of exchanges, and the controversies and polemics that are particularly observable in digital environments characterized by participant anonymity or pseudonymity.

If it is true that "hate speech" has spread online (Monnier et al. 2021), it is also possible to consider that the proliferation of deliberative experiences born from the diversity of digital spaces and devices constitutes an opportunity to put rhetorical theories to the test. What is the place of narratives, testimonies, and storytelling mechanisms in online deliberation practices? What place does emotions hold? Does rationality take forms other than argumentative text online? What are the forms of conflict and antagonism in online deliberation?

On the other hand, while the polarization of opinions (Waisbord, 2020; Strandberg, Himmelroos and Grönlund, 2019; Yarchi, Baden and Kligler-Vilenchik, 2021; Serrano-Contreras, García-Marín and Luengo, 2020) and the anti-deliberative effects of misinformation (McKay and Tenove, 2021) have been studied in-depth in the context of social networks, they have done little to address online deliberation platforms put in place by public authorities. How can misinformation or fake news affect the opinions of participants and the results of debates in this latter context?


Terms of submission

Kindly send your paper via email to stephanie.wojcik at u-pec.fr<mailto:stephanie.wojcik at u-pec.fr> and to rocio.annunziata at gmail.com<mailto:rocio.annunziata at gmail.com>, and submit it on the journal's website by May 30, 2023.

The articles will be verified by the author to ensure anonymity (see "Identification of Authors in the Manuscript" in the instructions for the authors<https://ojs.uclouvain.be/index.php/rec/about/submissions> section of the journal) and submitted for evaluation in a "double-blind" process by the reading committee of the journal.

The response will be given no later than September 1, 2023.

The articles submitted and accepted for publication in this issue will be published one by one on the site as they are finalized, without waiting for the entirety of the issue to be ready for publication. The file will be opened on the journal's website no later than November 30, 2023.

Instructions for writing the final version of the article: 40,000 characters maximum per article (including spaces and references, not including the abstract and keywords). The complete formatting guide is available on the website<https://ojs.uclouvain.be/index.php/rec/about/submissions>.


Schedule outline:

- May 30, 2023: Deadline to submit articles (40000 characters max.)
- September 1, 2023: Notification of the review committee's response
- November 30, 2023: Publication of the articles on the journal's website


For further information, please contact:
stephanie.wojcik at u-pec.fr<mailto:stephanie.wojcik at u-pec.fr>; rocio.annunziata at gmail.com<mailto:rocio.annunziata at gmail.com>



________________________________

[1] Such as Consul, Decidim, Democracy OS, etc.