Technology and the Quality of Public Deliberation. Comparing Online and Offline Participation

Laurence Monnoyer-SmithUniversity of Technology, Compiègne

Stéphanie WojcikUniversity of Paris Est Créteil

France

61st Annual ICA ConferenceBoston, MassachusettsWestin Boston Waterfront Hotel26-30 May 2011

ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 2

1. Objectives 2. Theoretical framework 3. Case study : a public debate on a

industrial plant devoted to waste treatment in Ivry (France)

4. Methodology5. Results

Outline

3

Discuss the academic literature on the evaluation of the quality of public deliberation

Make our own evaluation of a deliberative arrangement organized by a public authority, the French National Commission of Public Debate (CNDP).

Compare online and offline modalities of participation.

Highlight the uses and assets of each deliberative device (and show how they are linked)

1. Objectives

ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011

ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 4

Many attempts to operationalize the Habermas’ model of ideal speech situation using coding schemes for measuring the quality of online deliberation (e.g. Dahlberg, 2001, Trénel, 2004, Janssen & Kies, 2004; Stromer-Galley, 2007; Black, Burkhalter & Gastil, 2010, …)◦ Set of quite stable criteria (although discussions still open on

some of them, e.g. « sincerity  »). Following the re-reading of Steenbergen & al. (2003) and

Bächtiger & al. (2009),we propose to distinguish two types of deliberation through the deliberation quality index (DQI). ◦ Type I deliberation concerns the criteria related to the

rational dimension of discursive exchanges.◦ Type II deliberation is intended to grasp the alternative forms

of communication emerging in the course of deliberative exchanges.

2. Theoretical framework Evaluating the quality of deliberation

ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 5

Type I deliberation is essentially procedural and with a consensus-oriented goal. It has raised many criticisms in particular from :- The « difference democrats » who stress the need to take into account the

expression of personal interest, the role of emotions, and expression of conflicts ;

- The social choice theorists who highlight the reluctance of people to change their normative preferences during the course of discussions.

Thus, type II deliberation is thought to include various forms of talks (e.g. storytelling) in the deliberative process i.e. to extend the quite narrow idealistic conception of Habermassian deliberation.

2. Theoretical framework Evaluating the quality of deliberation

ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 6

Evaluative criteria Measurement

Equality GenderProfession

Justification rationality Presence of justificationType of justification (7 domains)

Common good orientation Presence of general justification vs. personal experience

Respect Sourcing (none, vague, precise; facts, authority, other participants, external sources)

Interactivity References to preceding argument/ expression of agreement and disagreement

Constructive politics Constructive nature of the message (proposition, opinion, facts, question, mobilization)

Sincerity Not evaluated

Alternative expression Reference to personal experience

Deliberative negociations Not evaluated

External impact factors Knowledge, skills (political), link to decision (qualitative data).

ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 7

A debate organized by the French National Commission of Public Debate (CNDP) between September and December 2009, involving the SYCTOM (public body owner of the plant).

◦ Nine public meetings discussed the possible transformation of the plant into a methanization unit producing gas and heat (with less waste incineration). 1000 participants.

◦ A website with information (filmed interviews, reports, …), also including : - a blog - a newsletter- a question & answer system - a platform entitled « Co-ment », allowing users to comment online the

proceedings of the F2F debates, which were written by the CNDP

The whole online device is intended to complement, precede and/or prolong the face-to-face discussions.

3. Case study : a public debate about the restructuration of a waste treatment plant in Ivry (France)

ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 8

The CPDP website : the blog

ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 9

4 out of the 9 public meetings coded

The entire online corpus coded :◦ 63 posts and 107 comments on the blog◦ 73 comments posted on the « co-ment » platform◦ 280 questions posted on the Q&A systemOnline and offline corpus = 1212 observations

80 questionnaires (relevant for the equality criteria)

15 semi-directed interviews Ethnographic observation

4. Methodology

ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 10

Justification None

General justification

Personal experience Total

Off-line 56.4 39.5 4.1 100Q&A 14.7 82.3 3.0 100BLOG 27 68.6 4.4 100CO-MENT 35.0 65.0 0.0 100

5. Results (justification)

ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 11

SourcingNo sources

Vaguesourcing

Precisesourcing Total

Off-Line 45.7 17.3 36.8 100Q&A 11.5 17.7 70.6 100BLOG 3.1 8.2 88.7 100CO-MENT 21.3 17.4 58.2 100

5. Results - RespectSourcing on and offline

ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 12

Expression of consideration

Agreement Disagreement None Both of themThread

breaking

Off-Line 7.5 12.8 75.9 1.3 2.1

Q&A 2.0 2.2 94.6 1.2 0.0

BLOG 1.3 10.1 74.8 13.8 0.0CO-MENT 2.5 32.5 62.5 2.5 0.0

5. Results - InteractivityExpression of agreement and disagreement

ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 13

Very few alternative expressions

Salience of rational rhetoric imposed by institutional actors and followed by associations.

Interactivity higher online with strong expression of conflict.

High sourcing and technical debate but low inclusion of lay citizens.

Discussion 1

ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 14

Specialization of arenas ◦Blog as a space of legitimization for associations◦Q&A : space for offline conflict resolution◦« Co-ment » platform : post-debate space for

negociation◦Off line (public meetings) : constructive elaboration

of shared proposals

Discussion 2General comparison between online and F2F

ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 15

Dynamic articulation between arenas of debate

Strategic distribution of expression

methodological consequences

Conclusion