#CeDEM13 day 2, Track: Bottom-­Up Movements, Main Hall, Chair: Rosanna De Rosa Relations of power within a field of contemporary

1. IPMZ – Institut für Publizistikwissenschaft und Medienforschung
Dr. Ulrike Klinger
IPMZ - Institute for Mass Communication and Media Research,
Abteilung «Media & Politics», University of Zurich
FH-Prof. Mag. Dr. Uta Rußmann
Endowed Professorship for Strategic Communication Management & New Media,
FHWien University of Applied Sciences of WKW
An empirical analysis of the
Zurich Online Debate of 2011
CeDEM13, 22./23. May 2013, Danube University Krems

2. Objectives
Examining online deliberation in local politics
• Administrations increasingly use the internet to improve
citizens’ participation in political processes.
• Online communication is expected to deliver a more
inclusive, richer and more dialogue-oriented form of
political representation.
• Possibility to strengthen the legitimacy of democratic
decision-making.
• Specific quality of public online communication?
Seite 2

3. Zurich City Debate 2011
Zurich City Debate
• September, 15-17 2011
• «heart rate monitor»
w/out representative
claim
• open, self-selected
participation (Karlsson
2012)
• 1‘246 participants
(unique logins)
• 3954 visits
• 1‘991 postings (N)
Source: Data Report, www.stadt-zuerich.ch/stadtdebatte
373
217
492
660
249
0 200 400 600 800
Live Together
Borders
Constructions
Traffic
2000 Watt
Amounts of postings in thematic fora

4. Research Question
Whether and to what extent do participants follow
the principles of a quality of understanding in the
five analysed online deliberation fora?
Seite 4

5. Measuring deliberation: IQU
Indicators of a Quality of Understanding
• generalised statement of reasons
• simple statement of reasons
• specific statement of reasons
Brosda (2008), Gerhards et al. (1998), Kuhlmann (1999),
Meyer/Schicha/Brosda (2001), Saxer/Tschopp (1995),
Steenbergen et al. (2003), Spörndli (2004)
• partial proposals of solutions
• precise proposals of solutions
Steenbergen et al. (2003)
• disrespectful expressions
• respectful expressions
• explicitly respectful expressions
Gerhards et al. (1998), Steenbergen et al. (2003)
(Type of) Doubts
• Intelligibility
• Truth
• Truthfulness
• Legitimacy
Habermas (1984)
Index of a Quality of Understanding (IQU)
Source: Burkart/Rußmann 2010; adapted version
• monologue
• initiation
• response
Kies (2010)

6. IQU: Operationalization
Seite 6
Variable Level
V10/11/12 –
level of statement of
reasons
0 - no statement of reasons
1 - generalised statement of reasons
2 - simple statement of reasons
3 - specific statement of reasons
V13/14/15 –
level of proposals of
solutions
0 - no proposals of solutions
1 - partial proposals of solutions
2 - precise proposals of solutions
V16/17/18 –
level of respect
0 - disrespectful expressions
3 - respectful expressions
4 - explicitly respectful expressions
V19/20/21 –
types of doubts
1 - Intelligibility
1 - Truth
1 - Truthfulness
1 - Legitimacy
V23 –
reciprocity
1 - monologue
2 - initiation
2 - response

7. Results: IQU Online for the five discussion fora
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100

8. Conclusion & Discussion
Quality of Understanding: Differences between the five fora are small.
Statement of reasons: Participants hardy justified their positions with
specific arguments.
Proposals of Solutions: Participants tended to voice simple ideas
without any specifications on implementation or time frame.
 Mostly lay people participated in the forum, i.e. they had little expert
knowledge on formal implementation procedures or the status of
public projects.
Respect: Only a few postings contained disrespectful expressions.
 The debate was moderated and all participants had to register with
their full names, which also appeared in the debate. None of the
1991 postings had to be cautioned or censored by the moderators.
Seite 8

9. Conclusion & Discussion
Doubts: The share of the sub-index doubts in IQU Online is the smallest
of all the sub-indices & the level of doubts varies significantly among the
thematic sub-fora.
 Discussing the borders of Zurich, participants voiced almost twice as
many doubts as they did when debating traffic policies. Zurich’s
growth is a topic with conflict and polarisation potential: as the city
growth rapidly, conflicts with neighbouring municipalities are
increasing.
Reciprocity: Although most postings do not refer to a previous posting
or start a new discussion, the data show that in three sub-fora, the
online political discourse is based on interaction between participants.
Seite 9

10. Discussion
• Remaining question: Do these results suggest low deliberation
levels? Where are the thresholds between low, medium or high
deliberation?
 Future research is needed to have comparable data.
• With deliberation being an inherently normative concept, it is also
debatable how much deliberation can be realistically expected.
 Future research is needed to find out whether deliberation needs a
spark of conflict, a topic that polarises and challenges participants
into reasoning.
Seite 10

11. Thank you!
Seite 11

12. Literatur
Brosda, C. (2008). Diskursiver Journalismus. Journalistisches Handeln zwischen kommunikativer Vernunft
und mediensystemischem Zwang. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
Burkart, R. & Rußmann, U. (2010). Qualität des öffentlichen politischen Diskurses in der österreichischen
Wahlkampfkommunikation. Codebuch: Codieranweisungen und Codierschema (FWF-Projekt 21147-G14).
Wien: Universität Wien.
Gerhards, J., Neidhardt, F., & Rucht, D. (1998). Zwischen Palaver und Diskurs: Strukturen öffentlicher
Meinungsbildung am Beispiel des Abtreibungsdiskurses in der Bundesrepublik. Opladen: Westdeutscher
Verlag.
Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action Vol. 1. Reason and the Rationalization of Socie-
ty. Boston: Beacon Press.
Kies, R. (2010). Promises and Limits of Web-Deliberation. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kuhlmann, C. (1999). Die öffentliche Begründung politischen Handelns. Opladen/Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher
Verlag.
Meyer, T., Schicha, C., & Brosda, C. (2001). Diskurs-Inszenierungen, Zur Struktur politischer
Vermittlungsprozes-se am Beispiel der Debatte zur Ökologischen Steuerreform. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher
Verlag.
Saxer, U. & Tschopp, C. (1995). Politik und Medienrealität: Die schweizerische Presse zur Abstimmung über
den EWR. Zürich: Seminar für Publizisitkwissenschaft.
Spörndli, M. (2004). Diskurs und Entscheidung. Eine empirische Analyse kommunikativen Handelns im
deutschen Vermittlungsausschuss. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring Political Delibera-tion: A
Discourse Quality Index. Comparative European Politics, 1, 21-48. doi:10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002
Seite 12