Critics of deliberative democracy have worried that deliberation may mirror (or even exacerbate) inequalities in participation across categories such as gender, race, and age. Accordingly, we investigate the potential for technology and design to ameliorate these concerns, looking at the extent to which online deliberative sessions facilitate inclusive participation. In a large study of online deliberation (over 1600 participants nested in hundreds of online sessions), we examine differences in the amount and nature of participation across demographic categories, as well as the effect of forum characteristics on such differences. Though our results are mixed, we read them with cautious optimism: the online format is not immune to inequalities in participation and satisfaction, but we do not observe differences across some demographics, and most observed differences are substantively minor. Moreover, features of online deliberation environments show promise for addressing some of the problems plaguing in-person designs.
AschSEEbenholtzSM (1962) The Principle of Associative Symmetry. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society106 (2): 135–163.
2.
AsenbaumH (2016) Facilitating Inclusion: Austrian Wisdom Councils as Democratic Innovation between Consensus and Diversity. Journal of Public Deliberation12 (2): 7.
3.
BaekYMWojcieszakMCarpiniMXD (2011) Online Versus Face-to-Deliberation: Who? Why? What? with What Effects?New Media & Society14 (3): 363–383.
4.
BarabasJ (2004) How Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions. American Political Science Review98 (4): 687–701.
5.
BeauvaisEBaechtigerA (2016) Taking the Goals of Deliberation Seriously: A Differentiated View on Equality and Equity in Deliberative Designs and Processes. Journal of Public Deliberation12 (2): 2.
6.
BenoitKMungerKSpirlingA (2019) Measuring and Explaining Political Sophistication through Textual Complexity. American Journal of Political Science63 (2): 491–508.
7.
BradleyPH (1981) The Folk-Linguistics of Women’s Speech: An Empirical Examination. Communication Monographs48 (1): 73–90.
8.
ChambersS (1996) Reasonable Democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
9.
ColemanSMossG (2012) Under Construction: The Field of Online Deliberation Research. Journal of Information Technology & Politics9 (1): 1–15.
10.
CurranTDoyleJ (2011) Picture Superiority Doubly Dissociates the ERP Correlates of Recollection and Familiarity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience23 (5): 1247–1262.
11.
DillardKN (2013) Envisioning the Role of Facilitation in Public Deliberation. Journal of Applied Communication Research41 (3): 217–235.
12.
DiMaggioPHargittaiENeumanWR, et al. (2001) Social Implications of the Internet. Annual Review of Sociology27 (1): 307–336.
13.
EllisDGMaozI (2007) Online Argument between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Human Communication Research33 (3): 291–309.
14.
ErisenCRedlawskDPErisenE (2018) Complex Thinking as a Result of Incongruent Information Exposure. American Politics Research46 (2): 217–245.
15.
EsterlingKNebloMLazerD (2011) Means, Motive, and Opportunity in Becoming Informed about Politics: A Deliberative Field Experiment with Members of Congress and Their Constituents. Public Opinion Quarterly75: 483–503.
16.
EsterlingKMFungALeeT (2015) How Much Disagreement Is Good for Democratic Deliberation?Political Communication32 (4): 529–551.
17.
FishkinJS (1995) The Voice of the People. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18.
FriessDEildersC (2015) A Systematic Review of Online Deliberation Research. Policy & Internet7 (3): 319–339.
GelmanAHillJ (2006) Applied Regression and Multilevel/hierarchical Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
GrahamTWrightS (2014) Discursive Equality and Everyday Talk Online: The Impact of “superparticipants.” Journal of Computer Mediated Communication19 (3): 625–642.
22.
GutmannAGThompsonDF (1996) Democracy and Disagreement: Why Moral Conflict Cannot Be Avoided in Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
HabermasJ (1984) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
HagemannC (2002) Participation in and Contents of Two Dutch Political Party Discussion Lists on the Internet. Javnost—the Public9 (2): 61–76.
25.
HainmuellerJHazlettC (2014) Kernel Regularized Least Squares: Reducing Misspecification Bias with a Flexible and Interpretable Machine Learning Approach. Political Analysis22 (2): 143–168.
26.
HarpDTremayneM (2006) The Gendered Blogosphere: Examining Inequality Using Network and Feminist Theory. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly83 (2): 247–264.
27.
HoSSMcLeodDM (2008) Social-Psychological Influences on Opinion Expression in Face-To and Computer-Mediated Communication. Communication Research35 (2): 190–207.
28.
KarpowitzCMendelbergTShakerL (2012) Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation. American Political Science Review106: 533–547.
29.
KarpowitzCFMendelbergT (2014) The Silent Sex: Gender, Deliberation, and Institutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30.
KimJY (2006) The Impact of Internet Use Patterns on Political Engagement: A Focus on Online Deliberation and Virtual Social Capital. Information Polity11 (1): 35–49.
31.
KoopRJansenHJ (2009) Political Blogs and Blogrolls in Canada: Forums for Democratic Deliberation?Social Science Computer Review27 (2): 155–173.
32.
KuhnM (2008) Building Predictive Models in R Using the Caret Package. Journal of Statistical Software28 (5): 1–26.
33.
LatuIMMastMSLammersJ, et al. (2013) Successful Female Leaders Empower Women’s Behavior in Leadership Tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology49 (3): 444–448.
34.
McBrideDMDosherBA (2002) A Comparison of Conscious and Automatic Memory Processes for Picture and Word Stimuli: A Process Dissociation Analysis. Consciousness and Cognition11 (3): 423–460.
35.
ManosevitchI (2014) The Design of Online Deliberation: Implications for Practice, Theory and Democratic Citizenship. Journal of Public Deliberation10 (1): 9.
36.
MansbridgeJJ (1983) Beyond Adversary Democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
37.
MendelbergTKarpowitzCFOliphantJB (2014) Gender Inequality in Deliberation: Unpacking the Black Box of Interaction. Perspectives on Politics12 (1): 18–44.
38.
MinSJ (2007) Online Vs. Face-To Deliberation: Effects on Civic Engagement. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication12 (4): 1369–1387.
39.
MyersCD (2017) Interests, Information, and Minority Influence in Deliberation. The Journal of Politics79 (3): 804–822.
40.
NebloMA (2005) Thinking through Democracy: Between the Theory and Practice of Deliberative Politics. Acta Politica40 (2): 169–181.
41.
NebloMA (2015) Deliberative Democracy between Theory and Practice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
42.
NebloMAEsterlingKMLazerDM (2018) Politics with the People: Building a Directly Representative Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
43.
NewmanMLGroomCJHandelmanLD, et al. (2008) Gender Differences in Language Use: An Analysis of 14,000 Text Samples. Discourse Processes45: 211–236.
44.
OlssonTSandströmHDahlgrenP (2003) An Information Society for Everyone?Gazette65 (4–5): 347–363.
45.
PapacharissiZ (2002) The Virtual Sphere: The Internet as a Public Sphere. New Media & Society4 (1): 9–27.
46.
PriceV (2006) Citizens Deliberating Online: Theory and Some Evidence. In: DaviesTGangadharanSP (Eds) Online Deliberation: Design, Research and Practice. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp.1–22.
47.
RoseJSæbøØ (2010) Designing Deliberation Systems. The Information Society26 (3): 228–240.
48.
SandersLM (1997) Against Deliberation. Political Theory25 (3): 347–376.
49.
SarahCMonaLK (2008) Critical Mass Theory and Women’s Political Representation. Political Studies56 (3): 725–736.
50.
SmithGJohnPSturgisP (2013) Taking Political Engagement Online: An Experimental Analysis of Asynchronous Discussion Forums. Political Studies61 (4): 709–730.
51.
StrandbergK (2015) Designing for Democracy? An Experimental Study Comparing the Outcomes of Citizen Discussions in Online Forums with Those of Online Discussions in a Forum Designed According to Deliberative Principles. European Political Science Review7 (3): 451–474.
52.
Stromer-GalleyJ (2017) Political Discussion and Deliberation Online. In: KenskiKJamiesonKH (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.837–850.
53.
Stromer-GalleyJBryantLBimberB (2015) Context and Medium Matter: Expressing Disagreements Online and Face-To in Political Deliberations. Journal of Public Deliberation11 (1): 1.
54.
SunsteinCR (2006) Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
55.
ThompsonD (2008) Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science. Annual Reviews of Political Science11: 497–520.
56.
TowneWBHerbslebJD (2012) Design Considerations for Online Deliberation Systems. Journal of Information Technology & Politics9 (1): 97–115.
57.
VerbaSBradyHSchlozmanK (1995) Voice and Equality: Civic Volunteerism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58.
VerbaSBurnsNSchlozmanKL (1997) Knowing and Caring about Politics: Gender and Political Engagement. Journal of Politics59 (4): 1051–1072.
WeatherallA (2002) Gender, Language, and Discourse. London: Routledge.
61.
WegerHAakhusM (2003) Arguing in Internet Chat Rooms: Argumentative Adaptations to Chat Room Design and Some Consequences for Public Deliberation at a Distance. Argumentation and Advocacy40 (1): 23–38.
62.
WrightSStreetJ (2007) Democracy, Deliberation and Design: the Case of Online Discussion Forums. New Media & Society9 (5): 849–869.
63.
YoungI (2001) Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy. Political Theory29 (5): 670–690.
64.
ZhangK (2019) Encountering Dissimilar Views in Deliberation: Political Knowledge, Attitude Strength, and Opinion Change. Political Psychology40 (2): 315–333.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
