Cover of book: Kommunikationsformen und Deliberationsdynamik
Book Titles Open Access Full access

Kommunikationsformen und Deliberationsdynamik

Eine relationale Inhalts- und Sequenzanalyse politischer Online-Diskussionen auf Beteiligungsplattformen
Authors:
Publisher:
 2022

Summary

This book is dedicated to the dynamics of public deliberation online. Based on a critical examination of the traditional concept of deliberation, it discusses narration, expressions of emotion and humour as deliberative forms of communication in addition to argumentation. In addition to classic counter-argumentation, it considers empathy, constructiveness, reflection and genuine questions to be components of deliberative reciprocity. Empirically, relational content analysis and sequence analysis of two online participation platforms are used to investigate to what extent different forms of communication influence subsequent traditional and inclusive deliberative reciprocity.

Keywords

Bibliographic data

Copyright year
2022
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-8856-9
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-3422-6
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series
Politische Kommunikation und demokratische Öffentlichkeit
Volume
21
Language
German
Pages
293
Product type
Book Titles

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 - 18 Download chapter (PDF)
  2. Download chapter (PDF)
    1. 1.1 Einstieg und Ausgangslage
    2. 1.2 Forschungsinteresse
    3. 1.3 Aufbau der Arbeit
  3. Download chapter (PDF)
    1. 2.1 Normative Demokratie- und Öffentlichkeitstheorien
    2. 2.2 Potenziale und Probleme digitaler Öffentlichkeit
    3. 2.3 Formen politischer (Online-)Partizipation im Wandel
  4. Download chapter (PDF)
    1. 3.1 Modelle und Systematisierungen der Deliberationsforschung
    2. 3.2 Phase 1: Input-Output-Studien und Deliberation als Blackbox
        1. 3.3.1.1 Strukturelle und diskursive Gleichheit
        2. 3.3.1.2 Argumentative Rationalität
        3. 3.3.1.3 Analytische Dimension deliberativer Reziprozität
        4. 3.3.1.4 Respekt und Zivilität
        5. 3.3.1.5 Konstruktivität
        1. 3.3.2.1 Diskursive Inklusivität
        2. 3.3.2.2 Kommunikationsformen und dialogische Rationalität
        3. 3.3.2.3 Weitere Dimensionen deliberativer Reziprozität
    4. 3.4 Phase 3: Einflussfaktoren der Throughput-Qualität und Outputs
      1. 3.5.1 Prozessverläufe: Prozesstypen, Teilprozesse, Phasen und Sequenzen
      2. 3.5.2 Prozessveränderungen: Dynamik und Mechanismen
    6. 3.6 Zusammenfassung und Forschungslücken
  5. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 4.1.1 Kontext: Institutionen, Kultur, Design und Thema
      2. 4.1.2 Input: Inhalte und Akteure
        1. 4.1.3.1 Klassische deliberative Qualität im Throughput
        2. 4.1.3.2 Inklusive Merkmale deliberativer Qualität im Throughput
          1. 4.1.3.3.1 Klassische deliberative Reziprozität
          2. 4.1.3.3.2 Inklusive deliberative Reziprozität
      4. 4.1.4 Output: kollektive Meinung
      1. 4.2.1 Klassische Deliberationsmerkmale und deliberative Reziprozität
      2. 4.2.2 Inklusive Deliberationsmerkmale und deliberative Reziprozität
      3. 4.2.3 Weitere Einflussfaktoren auf Kommentar- und Nutzerebene
      4. 4.2.4 Einflussfaktoren auf Thread-Ebene
  6. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 5.1.1 Vorbereitung der relationalen Inhaltsanalyse
        1. 5.1.2.1 Verfahren 1: Tempelhofer Feld in Berlin (THF)
        2. 5.1.2.2 Verfahren 2: Online-Konsultation zur Leitentscheidung Braunkohle (LE BK)
      3. 5.1.3 Datenzugang und -sicherung
        1. 5.1.4.1 Computergestützte Codierung mit BRAT
        2. 5.1.4.2 Automatisierte Erhebung von Variablen
      5. 5.1.5 Operationalisierung
        1. 5.1.6.1 Gütekriterien
        2. 5.1.6.2 Intercoder-Reliabilität
      1. 5.2.1 Begriffe, Verfahren und Tools der Sequenzanalyse
      2. 5.2.2 Vorbereitung der Daten für die Sequenzanalyse
  7. Download chapter (PDF)
    1. 6.1 Deskriptiver Überblick
    2. 6.2 Unterschiede zwischen den Plattformen
    3. 6.3 Strukturelle und diskursive (Un-)Gleichheit bei der Teilnahme
    4. 6.4 Kommunikationsformen als Prädiktoren deliberativer Reziprozität
    5. 6.5 Sequenzanalyse auf der Ebene von Dyaden
    6. 6.6 Zusammenfassung
  8. Download chapter (PDF)
    1. 7.1 Zusammenfassung und Implikationen der Ergebnisse
    2. 7.2 Kritische Reflexion und Ausblick
    3. 7.3 Empfehlungen für die Online-Partizipationspraxis
  9. Literatur 261 - 292 Download chapter (PDF)
  10. Elektronischer Anhang 293 - 293 Download chapter (PDF)

Bibliography (516)

  1. Abbott, A. (1988). Transcending General Linear Reality. Sociological Theory, 6(2), 169–186. Open Google Scholar
  2. Abbott, A. (1990). A Primer on Sequence Methods. Organization Science, 1(4), 375–392. Open Google Scholar
  3. Abbott, A. (1995). Sequence Analysis: New Methods for Old Ideas. Annual Review of Sociology, 21(1), 93–113. Open Google Scholar
  4. Abbott, A. & Forrest, J. (1986). Optimal Matching Methods for Historical Sequences. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 16(3), 471–494. Open Google Scholar
  5. Adam, S. (2007). Symbolische Netzwerke in Europa: Der Einfluss der nationalen Ebene auf europäische Öffentlichkeit; Deutschland und Frankreich im Vergleich. Herbert von Halem Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  6. Adam, S. (2008). Medieninhalte aus der Netzwerkperspektive. Publizistik, 53(2), 180–199. Open Google Scholar
  7. Adler, A. (2017). Liquid Democracy in Deutschland [Dissertation]. GBV Gemeinsamer Bibliotheksverbund. Open Google Scholar
  8. Aisenbrey, S. & Fasang, A. E. (2010). New Life for Old Ideas: The "Second Wave" of Sequence Analysis Bringing the "Course" Back Into the Life Course. Sociological Methods & Research, 38(3), 420–462. Open Google Scholar
  9. Albert, R., Jeong, H. & Barabási, A.‑L. (1999). Diameter of the World-Wide Web. Nature, 401(6749), 130–131. Open Google Scholar
  10. Albrecht, S. (2006). Whose voice is heard in online deliberation? A study of participation and representation in political debates on the internet. Information, Communication & Society, 9(1), 62–82. Open Google Scholar
  11. Albrecht, S. (2008). Netzwerke und Kommunikation. Zum Verhältnis zweier sozialwissenschaftlicher Paradigmen. In C. Stegbauer (Hrsg.), Netzwerkforschung. Netzwerkanalyse und Netzwerktheorie: Ein neues Paradigma in den Sozialwissenschaften (S. 165–178). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  12. Albrecht, S. (2010). Reflexionsspiele: Deliberative Demokratie und die Wirklichkeit politischer Diskurse im Internet. De Gruyter. Open Google Scholar
  13. Albrecht, S. (2013). Kommunikation als soziales Netzwerk? Anreize und Herausforderungen der Netzwerkanalyse von Kommunikationsprozessen. In B. Frank-Job, A. Mehler & T. Sutter (Hrsg.), Die Dynamik sozialer und sprachlicher Netzwerke (S. 23–46). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  14. Almond, G. A. & Verba, S. (1963). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar
  15. Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A. & Ladwig, P. (2014). The “Nasty Effect": Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 373–387. Open Google Scholar
  16. Anicker, F. (2019). Entwurf einer Soziologie der Deliberation. Velbrück Wissenschaft. Open Google Scholar
  17. Aragón, P., Gómez, V. & Kaltenbrunner, A. (2017). Detecting Platform Effects in Online Discussions. Policy & Internet, 9(4), 420–443. Open Google Scholar
  18. Arendt, H. (1967). Vita activa oder Vom tätigen Leben. Piper Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  19. Arguello, J., Butler, B. S., Joyce, L., Kraut, R., Ling, K. S. & Wang, X. (2006). Talk to me: Foundations for Successful Individual-Group Interactions in Online Communities. In G. Olson & R. Jeffries (Vorsitz), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors. Open Google Scholar
  20. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. Open Google Scholar
  21. Bächtiger, A., Dryzek, J. S., Mansbridge, J. & Warren, M. E. (Hrsg.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  22. Bächtiger, A. & Hangartner, D. (2010). When Deliberative Theory Meets Empirical Political Science: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Political Deliberation. Political Studies, 58(4), 609–629. Open Google Scholar
  23. Bächtiger, A., Niemeyer, S., Neblo, M., Steenbergen, M. R. & Steiner, J. (2010). Disentangling Diversity in Deliberative Democracy: Competing Theories, Their Blind Spots and Complementarities. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 32–63. Open Google Scholar
  24. Bächtiger, A. & Parkinson, J. (2019). Mapping and measuring deliberation: Towards a new deliberative quality. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  25. Bächtiger, A., Pedrini, S. & Ryser, M. (2010). Prozessanalyse politischer Entscheidungen: Deliberative Standards, Diskurstypen und Sequenzialisierung. In J. Behnke, T. Bräuninger & S. Shikano (Hrsg.), Jahrbuch für Handlungs- und Entscheidungstheorie (S. 193–226). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  26. Bächtiger, A., Shikano, S., Pedrini, S. & Ryser, M. (2009). Measuring Deliberation 2.0: Standards, Discourse Types, and Sequenzialization. Conference Paper. ECPR – Studies in European Political Science, Potsdam. Open Google Scholar
  27. Bächtiger, A. & Wyss, D. (2013). Empirische Deliberationsforschung – eine systematische Übersicht. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 7(2), 155–181. Open Google Scholar
  28. Bakeman, R. & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (2. Aufl.). Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  29. Bakeman, R. & Quera, V. (1995). Analyzing interaction: Sequential analysis with SDIS & GSEQ. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  30. Bakeman, R. & Quera, V. (2011). Sequential Analysis and Observational Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  31. Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis; a method for the study of small groups. Addison-Wesely Press. https://archive.org/details/interactionproce00bale Open Google Scholar
  32. Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. University of California Press. Open Google Scholar
  33. Barber, B. R. (1998). A passion for democracy: American essays. Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar
  34. Baringhorst, S. (2019). Partizipation in invited und invented spaces des Internet – unpolitisch und postdemokratisch? In I. Engelmann, M. Legrand & H. Marzinkowski (Hrsg.), Politische Partizipation im Medienwandel (S. 29–51). Digital Communication Research, 6. Open Google Scholar
  35. Barnes, S. H. & Kaase, M. (Hrsg.). (1979). Political action: Mass participation in five western democracies. Sage. Open Google Scholar
  36. Basu, S. (1999). Dialogic ethics and the virtue of humor. Journal of Political Philosophy, 7(4), 378–403. Open Google Scholar
  37. Baumeister, R. F. & Newman, L. S. (1994). How Stories Make Sense of Personal Experiences: Motives that Shape Autobiographical Narratives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(6), 676–690. Open Google Scholar
  38. Beauvais, E. & Bächtiger, A. (2016). Taking the Goals of Deliberation Seriously: A Differentiated View on Equality and Equity in Deliberative Designs and Processes. Journal of Public Deliberation, 12(2), 1–18. https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol12/iss2/art2/ Open Google Scholar
  39. Bellamy, C. & Raab, C. D. (1999). Wiring-up the deck-chairs? Parliamentary Affairs, 52(3), 518–534. Open Google Scholar
  40. Bene, M. (2016). Go viral on the Facebook! Interactions between candidates and followers on Facebook during the Hungarian general election campaign of 2014. Information, Communication & Society, 20(4), 513–529. Open Google Scholar
  41. Bennett, W. L. & Pfetsch, B. (2018). Rethinking Political Communication in a Time of Disrupted Public Spheres. Journal of Communication, 68(2), 243–253. Open Google Scholar
  42. Berg, J. (2016). The Impact of Anonymity and Issue Controversiality on the Quality of Online Discussion. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(1), 37–51. Open Google Scholar
  43. Bertelsmann Stiftung. (2011). Bürger fordern direkte Beteiligung. Umfrage bestätigt Wunsch nach Volks- und Bürgerentscheiden. https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/en/press/press-releases/press-release/pid/buerger-fordern-direkte-beteiligung/ Open Google Scholar
  44. Bessette, J. M. (1980). Deliberative Democracy. The Majoritarian Principle in Republican Government. In R. A. Goldwin & W. A. Schambra (Hrsg.), AEI studies: Bd. 294. How democratic is the constitution? (S. 102–116). American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Open Google Scholar
  45. Bickford, S. (2011). Emotion Talk and Political Judgment. The Journal of Politics, 73(04), 1025–1037. Open Google Scholar
  46. Black, L. W. (2008a). Deliberation, Storytelling, and Dialogic Moments. Communication Theory, 18(1), 93–116. Open Google Scholar
  47. Black, L. W. (2008b). Listening to the City: Difference, Identity, and Storytelling in Online Deliberative Groups. Journal of Public Deliberation, 5(1). Open Google Scholar
  48. Black, L. W., Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J. & Stromer-Galley, J. (2011). Methods for Analyzing and Measuring Group Deliberation. In E. P. Bucy & R. L. Holbert (Hrsg.), Communication series. The sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (S. 323–345). Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  49. Black, L. W., Welser, H. T., Cosley, D. & DeGroot, J. M. (2011). Self-Governance Through Group Discussion in Wikipedia: Measuring Deliberation in Online Groups. Small Group Research, 42(5), 595–634. Open Google Scholar
  50. Blöbaum, B., Hanitzsch, T. & Badura, L. (2020). Medienskepsis in Deutschland. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Open Google Scholar
  51. Blumenthal, J. von. (2014). Governance im und durch den Staat: Politikwissenschaftliche Perspektiven der Governance-Forschung. In K. Maag Merki, R. Langer & H. Altrichter (Hrsg.), Educational Governance als Forschungsperspektive (S. 87–110). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  52. Blumler, J. G. & Gurevitch, M. (1995). The Crisis of Public Communication. Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  53. Bohman, J. (1996). Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. MIT Press. Open Google Scholar
  54. Bohman, J. & Rehg, W. (Hrsg.). (1997). Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics. MIT Press. Open Google Scholar
  55. Bormann, E. G. (1970). The paradox and promise of small group research. Speech Monographs, 37(3), 211–217. Open Google Scholar
  56. Bossetta, M. (2018). The Digital Architectures of Social Media: Comparing Political Campaigning on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat in the 2016 U.S. Election. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(2), 471–496. Open Google Scholar
  57. Boulianne, S. (2015). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 524–538. Open Google Scholar
  58. boyd, d. (2011). Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Hrsg.), Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites (S. 39–58). Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  59. Boyte, H. C. (2005). Reframing Democracy: Governance, Civic Agency, and Politics. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 536–546. Open Google Scholar
  60. Braun, N. & Saam, N. J. (2015). Handbuch Modellbildung und Simulation in den Sozialwissenschaften. Springer. Open Google Scholar
  61. Bright, J., Bermudez, S., Pilet, J.‑B. & Soubiran, T. (2020). Power users in online democracy: their origins and impact. Information, Communication & Society, 23(13), 1838–1853. Open Google Scholar
  62. Brinker, K. & Sager, S. F. (2006). Linguistische Gesprächsanalyse: Eine Einführung (4. Aufl., Bd. 30). Schmidt. Open Google Scholar
  63. Brosius, H.‑B. (2013). Kontext. In G. Bentele, H.-B. Brosius & O. Jarren (Hrsg.), Lexikon Kommunikations- und Medienwissenschaft (S. 169). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  64. Brosius, H.‑B., Haas, A. & Koschel, F. (2012). Methoden der empirischen Kommunikationsforschung. Springer. Open Google Scholar
  65. Bruns, A. (2012). How Long is a Tweet? Mapping Dynamic Conversation Networks on Twitter Using GAWK and GEPHI. Information, Communication & Society, 15(9), 1323–1351. Open Google Scholar
  66. Bundeswahlleiter. (2018). Ergebnisse früherer Bundestagswahlen. https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/dam/jcr/397735e3-0585-46f6-a0b5-2c60c5b83de6/btw_ab49_gesamt.pdf Open Google Scholar
  67. Bundeswahlleiter. (2019). Ergebnisse früherer Europawahlen. Wiesbaden. Der Bundeswahlleiter. https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/dam/jcr/0872e1f8-935a-45d6-a0f1-a3352fb4bc69/ew_ergebnisse_gesamt.pdf Open Google Scholar
  68. Bunge, M. (1997). Mechanism and Explanation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 27(4), 410–465. Open Google Scholar
  69. Cameron, A. C. & Trivedi, P. (2013). Regression Analysis of Count Data. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  70. Cao, X. (2010). Hearing it From Jon Stewart: The Impact of the Daily Show on Public Attentiveness to Politics. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22(1), 26–46. Open Google Scholar
  71. Cappella, J. N., Price, V. & Nir, L. (2002). Argument Repertoire as a Reliable and Valid Measure of Opinion Quality: Electronic Dialogue During Campaign 2000. Political Communication, 19(1), 73–93. Open Google Scholar
  72. Carcasson, M. (2012). The Cycle of Deliberative Inquiry: Re-conceptualizing the Work of Public Deliberation. In J. Goodwin (Hrsg.), Between Scientists & Citizens: Proceedings of a Conference at lowa State University (S. 85–97). Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation. Open Google Scholar
  73. Carcasson, M. & Sprain, L. (2016). Beyond Problem Solving: Reconceptualizing the Work of Public Deliberation as Deliberative Inquiry. Communication Theory, 26(1), 41–63. Open Google Scholar
  74. Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society. Blackwell. Open Google Scholar
  75. Castells, M. (2007). Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society. International Journal of Communication, 1, 238–266. Open Google Scholar
  76. Chadwick, A. (2009). Web 2.0: New Challenges for the Study of E-Democracy in an Era of Informational Exuberance. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 5(1), 9–41. Open Google Scholar
  77. Chadwick, A. (2013). The Hybrid Media System. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  78. Chambers, S. (1996). Reasonable Democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. Cornell University Press. Open Google Scholar
  79. Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative Democratic Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6(1), 307–326. Open Google Scholar
  80. Chambers, S. (2009). Rhetoric and the Public Sphere: Has Deliberative Democracy Abandoned Mass Democracy? Political Theory, 37(3), 323–350. Open Google Scholar
  81. Coe, K., Kenski, K. & Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and Uncivil? Patterns and Determinants of Incivility in Newspaper Website Comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658–679. Open Google Scholar
  82. Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy. In A. Hamlin (Hrsg.), The good polity: Normative analysis of the state (S. 17–34). Wiley-Blackwell. Open Google Scholar
  83. Coleman, S. (2005). The Lonely Citizen: Indirect Representation in an Age of Networks. Political Communication, 22(2), 197–214. Open Google Scholar
  84. Coleman, S. & Moss, G. (2012). Under Construction: The Field of Online Deliberation Research. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(1), 1–15. Open Google Scholar
  85. Coleman, S. & Shane, P. M. (Hrsg.). (2011). Connecting Democracy: Online Consultation and the Flow of Political Communication. MIT Press. Open Google Scholar
  86. Cornwell, B. (2015). Social sequence analysis: Methods and applications. Structural analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  87. Crouch, C. (2017). Postdemokratie. Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar
  88. Curato, N. (2012). A sequential analysis of democratic deliberation. Acta Politica, 47(4), 423–442. Open Google Scholar
  89. Curato, N., Niemeyer, S. & Dryzek, J. S. (2013). Appreciative and contestatory inquiry in deliberative forums: Can group hugs be dangerous? Critical Policy Studies, 7(1), 1–17. Open Google Scholar
  90. Dahl, R. A. (1972). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition (26. Aufl.). Yale University Press. Open Google Scholar
  91. Dahlberg, L. (1998). Cyberspace and the Public Sphere: Exploring the Democratic Potential of the Net. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 4(1), 70–84. Open Google Scholar
  92. Dahlberg, L. (2001a). Democracy via Cyberspace: Mapping the Rhetorics and Practices of Three Prominent Camps. New Media & Society, 3(2), 157–177. Open Google Scholar
  93. Dahlberg, L. (2001b). The Habermasian Public Sphere Encounters Cyber-Reality. The Public: Journal of the European Institute for Communication and Culture, 8(3), 83–96. Open Google Scholar
  94. Dahlberg, L. (2001c). The Internet and Democratic Discourse: Exploring The Prospects of Online Deliberative Forums Extending the Public Sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 4(4), 615–633. Open Google Scholar
  95. Dahlberg, L. (2004). Net-Public Sphere Research: Beyond The “First Phase”. Javnost – The Public, 11(1), 27–43. Open Google Scholar
  96. Dahrendorf, R. (1967). Aktive und passive Öffentlichkeit. MERKUR, 21(12), 1109–1122. Open Google Scholar
  97. Dalton, R. J. (2004). Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  98. Dalton, R. J., Scarrow, S. E. & Cain, B. E. (2003). New Forms of Democracy? In B. E. Cain, R. J. Dalton & S. E. Scarrow (Hrsg.), Democracy Transformed? (S. 1–22). Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  99. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. Putnam. Open Google Scholar
  100. Dathe, D., Priller, E. & Thürling, M. (2010). Mitgliedschaften und Engagement in Deutschland. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/60047/1/634173936.pdf Open Google Scholar
  101. Davies, T. & Gangadharan, S. P. (Hrsg.). (2009). Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice. CSLI Publications. Open Google Scholar
  102. Davis, J. L. & Jurgenson, N. (2014). Context collapse: Theorizing context collusions and collisions. Information, Communication & Society, 17(4), 476–485. Open Google Scholar
  103. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of personality and social psychology, 44(1), 113–126. Open Google Scholar
  104. Davis, M. H. (1996). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Social psychology series. Westview Press. Open Google Scholar
  105. Delli Carpini, M. (Hrsg.). (2002). Research in micropolitics: Bd. 6. Political decision-making, deliberation and participation. JAI Press. Open Google Scholar
  106. Delli Carpini, M., Cook, F. L. & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public Deliberation, Discursive Participation, and Citizen Engagement: A Review of the Empirical Literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7(1), 315–344. Open Google Scholar
  107. Delli Carpini, M. & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/j.ctt1cc2kv1 Open Google Scholar
  108. Dervin, B. (1991). Comparative Theory Reconceptualized: From Entities and States to Processes and Dynamics. Communication Theory, 1(1), 59–69. Open Google Scholar
  109. Deutsch, M. & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629–636. Open Google Scholar
  110. Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and Nature. Open Court. Open Google Scholar
  111. Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Swallow Press. Open Google Scholar
  112. Diekmann, A. (2006). Empirische Sozialforschung: Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen (16. Aufl.). Rowohlt. Open Google Scholar
  113. Dobson, A. (2014). Listening for Democracy. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  114. Dryzek, J. S. (1992). How Far is it from Virginia and Rochester to Frankfurt? Public Choice as Critical Theory. British Journal of Political Science, 22(4), 397–417. Open Google Scholar
  115. Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford political theory. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  116. Dryzek, J. S. (2010). Rhetoric in Democracy: A Systemic Appreciation. Political Theory, 38(3), 319–339. Open Google Scholar
  117. Dryzek, J. S. & Braithwaite, V. (2000). On the Prospects for Democratic Deliberation: Values Analysis Applied to Australian Politics. Political Psychology, 21(2), 241–266. Open Google Scholar
  118. Dryzek, J. S. & Niemeyer, S. (2006). Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 634–649. Open Google Scholar
  119. Dubiel, H. (1999). Integration durch Konflikt? In J. Friedrichs & W. Jagodzinski (Hrsg.), Soziale Integration (S. 132–144). Westdeutscher Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  120. Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. Wiley. Open Google Scholar
  121. Egbert, M. M. (1997). Schisming: The Collaborative Transformation From a Single Conversation to Multiple Conversations. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 30(1), 1–51. Open Google Scholar
  122. Eilders, C. (1997). Nachrichtenfaktoren und Rezeption: Eine empirische Analyse zur Auswahl und Verarbeitung politischer Information. Westdeutscher Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  123. Eilders, C. (2004). Von Links bis Rechts – Deutung und Meinung. In C. Eilders, F. Neidhardt & B. Pfetsch (Hrsg.), Die Stimme der Medien (S. 129–166). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  124. Eilders, C. (2008). Massenmedien als Produzenten öffentlicher Meinungen — Pressekommentare als Manifestation der politischen Akteursrolle. In B. Pfetsch & S. Adam (Hrsg.), Massenmedien als politische Akteure: Konzepte und Analysen (S. 27–51). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  125. Eilders, C. (2011). Der Einzelne, das Publikum und die Öffentlichkeit. Wie die Mikroperspektive in der Wirkungsforschung und die Makroansätze zur Öffentlichkeit zueinander kommen können. In T. Quandt & B. Scheufele (Hrsg.), Ebenen der Kommunikation: Mikro-Meso-Makro-Links in der Kommunikationswissenschaft (S. 143–161). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  126. Eilders, C. (2013). Öffentliche Meinungsbildung in Online-Umgebungen: Zur Zentralität der normativen Perspektive in der politischen Kommunikationsforschung. In M. Karmasin, M. Rath & B. Thomaß (Hrsg.), Normativität in der Kommunikationswissenschaft (S. 329–351). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  127. Eilders, C. & Esau, K. (2022). Partizipation, Deliberation und Hochaktive – eine vergleichende Analyse der Beteiligungsquantität und -qualität unterschiedlicher Nutzergruppen. In F. Gerlach & C. Eilders (Hrsg.), #meinfernsehen2021: Bürgerbeteiligung: Wahrnehmungen, Erwartungen und Vorschläge zur Zukunft öffentlich-rechtlicher Medienangebote. Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  128. Elster, J. (Hrsg.). (1998). Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  129. Elwyn, G., Lloyd, A., May, C., van der Weijden, T., Stiggelbout, A., Edwards, A., Frosch, D. L., Rapley, T., Barr, P., Walsh, T., Grande, S. W., Montori, V. & Epstein, R. (2014). Collaborative deliberation: a model for patient care. Patient education and counseling, 97(2), 158–164. Open Google Scholar
  130. Emmer, M., Vowe, G. & Wolling, J. (2011). Bürger online: Die Entwicklung der politischen Online-Kommunikation in Deutschland. UVK. Open Google Scholar
  131. Emmer, M. & Wolling, J. (2010). Online-Kommunikation und politische Öffentlichkeit. In W. Schweiger & K. Beck (Hrsg.), Handbuch Online-Kommunikation (S. 36–58). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  132. Engelmann, I., Legrand, M. & Marzinkowski, H. (Hrsg.). (2019). Politische Partizipation im Medienwandel. Digital Communication Research, 6. Open Google Scholar
  133. Engelmann, I. & Wendelin, M. (2015). Relevanzzuschreibung und Nachrichtenauswahl des Publikums im Internet. Publizistik, 60(2), 165–185. Open Google Scholar
  134. Engesser, S. (2013). Barrieren medialer Partizipation: Ergebnisse eines explorativen Feldexperiments. In M. Emmer, M. Seifert & J. Wolling (Hrsg.), Politik 2.0? Die Wirkung computervermittelter Kommunikation auf den politischen Prozess (1. Aufl., S. 151–169). Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  135. Ercan, S. A. & Gagnon, J.‑P. (2014). The Crisis of Democracy: Which Crisis? Which Democracy? Democratic Theory, 1(2), 1–10. Open Google Scholar
  136. Ercan, S. A., Hendriks, C. M. & Dryzek, J. S. (2019). Public deliberation in an era of communicative plenty. Policy & Politics, 47(1), 19–36. Open Google Scholar
  137. Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M. & Persson, M. (2012). Which decision-making arrangements generate the strongest legitimacy beliefs? Evidence from a randomised field experiment. European Journal of Political Research, 51(6), 785–808. Open Google Scholar
  138. Esau, K. (2018). Capturing Citizens’ Values: On the Role of Narratives and Emotions in Digital Participation. Analyse & Kritik, 40(1), 55–72. Open Google Scholar
  139. Esau, K., Fleuß, D. & Nienhaus, S.‑M. (2021). Different Arenas, Different Deliberative Quality? Using a Systemic Framework to Evaluate Online Deliberation on Immigration Policy in Germany. Policy & Internet, 4(1), 86–112. Open Google Scholar
  140. Esau, K. & Friess, D. (2022). What Creates Listening Online? Exploring Reciprocity in Online Political Discussions with Relational Content Analysis. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 18(1), 1–16. Open Google Scholar
  141. Esau, K., Friess, D. & Eilders, C. (2017). Design Matters! An Empirical Analysis of Online Deliberation on Different News Platforms. Policy & Internet, 9(3), 321–342. Open Google Scholar
  142. Esau, K., Frieß, D. & Eilders, C. (2019). Online-Partizipation jenseits klassischer Deliberation: Eine Analyse zum Verhältnis unterschiedlicher Deliberationskonzepte in Nutzerkommentaren auf Facebook-Nachrichtenseiten und Beteiligungsplattformen. In I. Engelmann, M. Legrand & H. Marzinkowski (Hrsg.), Politische Partizipation im Medienwandel (S. 221–245). Digital Communication Research, 6. Open Google Scholar
  143. Escher, T., Friess, D., Esau, K., Sieweke, J., Tranow, U., Dischner, S., Hagemeister, P. & Mauve, M. (2017). Online Deliberation in Academia: Evaluating the Quality and Legitimacy of Cooperatively Developed University Regulations. Policy & Internet, 9(1), 133–164. Open Google Scholar
  144. ESS. (2018). Round 9: European Social Survey Data: Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC. Norway. https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/data/download.html?r=9 Open Google Scholar
  145. Etzioni, A. (1968). The Active Society: A theory of societal and political processes. The Free Press. Open Google Scholar
  146. Etzioni, A. (1969). Elemente einer Makrosoziologie. In W. Zapf (Hrsg.), Theorien des sozialen Wandels (S. 147–176). Kiepenheuer & Witsch. Open Google Scholar
  147. Etzioni, A. (1993). The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities, and the Communitarian Agenda. Crown Publishers. Open Google Scholar
  148. Fahr, A. & Früh, H. (2011). Prozessbetrachtungen in der Kommunikationswissenschaft. In M. Suckfüll, H. Schramm & C. Wünsch (Hrsg.), Rezeption und Wirkung in zeitlicher Perspektive (S. 19–36). Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  149. Ferree, M. M. (2002). Shaping abortion discourse: Democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  150. Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. Yale University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/j.ctt1dt006v Open Google Scholar
  151. Fishkin, J. S. (1995). The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. Yale University Press. Open Google Scholar
  152. Fishkin, J. S. & Luskin, R. C. (2005). Experimenting With a Democratic Ideal: Deliberative Polling and Public Opinion. Acta Politica, 50(3), 284–298. Open Google Scholar
  153. Fishkin, J. S., Siu, A., Diamond, L. & Bradburn, N. (2021). Is Deliberation an Antidote to Extreme Partisan Polarization? Reflections on “America in One Room”. American Political Science Review, 115(4), 1464–1481. Open Google Scholar
  154. Forsa. (2015). Mehrheit der Deutschen wünscht mehr Einfluss in ihrer Stadt. https://www.bmbf.de/de/mehrheit-der-deutschen-wuenscht-mehr-einfluss-in-ihrer-stadt-978.html Open Google Scholar
  155. Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. Social Text(25/26), 56. Open Google Scholar
  156. Fraser, N. (2015). Legitimation Crisis? On the Political Contradictions of Financialized Capitalism. Critical Historical Studies, 2(2), 157–189. Open Google Scholar
  157. Freelon, D. G. (2010). Analyzing online political discussion using three models of democratic communication. New Media & Society, 12(7), 1172–1190. Open Google Scholar
  158. Friess, D. & Eilders, C. (2015). A Systematic Review of Online Deliberation Research. Policy & Internet, 7(3), 319–339. Open Google Scholar
  159. Frieß, D. & Eilders, C. (2016). Deliberation: zwischen normativer Theorie und empirischen Zugängen. Ein forschungsleitendes Modell. In P. Werner, L. Rinsdorf, T. Pleil & K.-D. Altmeppen (Hrsg.), Schriftenreihe der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft. Verantwortung – Gerechtigkeit – Öffentlichkeit: Normative Perspektiven auf Kommunikation (S. 63–78). UVK. Open Google Scholar
  160. Frieß, D. & Porten-Cheé, P. (2018). What Do Participants Take Away from Local eParticipation? Analyse & Kritik, 40(1), 1–30. Open Google Scholar
  161. Fritz, G. & Hundsnurscher, F. (Hrsg.). (1994). Handbuch der Dialoganalyse. Open Google Scholar
  162. Früh, W. (2011). Inhaltsanalyse: Theorie und Praxis (7. Aufl.). UVK / UTB. Open Google Scholar
  163. Früh, W. & Frey, F. (2014). Narration und Storytelling: Theorie und empirische Befunde. Unterhaltungsforschung: Bd. 10. Herbert von Halem Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  164. Früh, W. & Schönbach, K. (1982). Der dynamisch-transaktionale Ansatz. Ein neues Paradigma der Medienwirkungen. Publizistik, 27, 74–88. Open Google Scholar
  165. Früh, W. & Schönbach, K. (2005). Der dynamisch-transaktionale Ansatz III: Eine Zwischenbilanz. Publizistik, 50(1), 4–20. Open Google Scholar
  166. Fuhse, J. (2009). Die kommunikative Konstruktion von Akteuren in Netzwerken. Soziale Systeme, 15(2), 288–316. Open Google Scholar
  167. Fung, A. (2004). Deliberation's darker side: Six questions for Iris Marion Young and Jane Mansbridge. National Civic Review, 93(4), 47–54. Open Google Scholar
  168. Fung, A. & Wright, E. O. (2001). Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. Politics & Society, 29(1), 5–41. Open Google Scholar
  169. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Rust, M. C., Nier, J. A., Banker, B. S., Ward, C. M., Mottola, G. R. & Houlette, M. (1999). Reducing Intergroup Bias: Elements of Intergroup Cooperation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 76(3), 388–402. Open Google Scholar
  170. Galtung, J. & Ruge, M. H. (1965). The Structure of Foreign News. Journal of Peace Research, 2(1), 64–90. Open Google Scholar
  171. Gambetta, D. (1998). “Claro!”: An Essay on Discursive Machismo. In J. Elster (Hrsg.), Deliberative Democracy (S. 19–43). Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  172. Gastil, J. (1992). A Definition of Small Group Democracy. Small Group Research, 23(3), 278–301. Open Google Scholar
  173. Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Sage. Open Google Scholar
  174. Gastil, J. & Black, L. W. (2008). Public Deliberation as the Organizing Principle of Political Communication Research. Journal of Public Deliberation, 4(1), 1–47. http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol4/iss1/art3/ Open Google Scholar
  175. Gastil, J., Richards, R. C., Ryan, M. & Smith, G. (2017). Testing Assumptions in Deliberative Democratic Design: A Preliminary Assessment of the Efficacy of the Participedia Data Archive as an Analytic Tool. Journal of Public Deliberation, 13(2), 1–28. https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol13/iss2/art1 Open Google Scholar
  176. Geißel, B. (2008). Zur Evaluation demokratischer Innovationen — die lokale Ebene. In H. Heinelt & A. Vetter (Hrsg.), Lokale Politikforschung heute (S. 227–248). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  177. Geissel, B. & Newton, K. (Hrsg.). (2012). Evaluating democratic innovations: Curing the democratic malaise? Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  178. Geißel, B. & Sauer, B. (2001). Transformationsprozess und Geschlechterverhältnisse in den neuen Bundesländern: Auswirkungen auf der lokalen politischen Ebene. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte(B 39), 32–38. Open Google Scholar
  179. Gerhards, J. (1997). Diskursive versus liberale Oeffentlichkeit. Eine empirische Auseinandersetzung mit Juergen Habermas. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 49(1), 1–34. Open Google Scholar
  180. Gerhards, J. (1998). Konzeptionen von Öffentlichkeit unter heutigen Medienbedingungen. In O. Jarren & F. Krotz (Hrsg.), Symposien des Hans-Bredow-Instituts: Bd. 18. Öffentlichkeit unter Viel-Kanal-Bedingungen (S. 25–48). Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  181. Gerhards, J. & Neidhardt, F. (1990). Strukturen und Funktionen moderner Öffentlichkeit.: Fragestellungen und Ansätze [Discussion Paper]. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung. Open Google Scholar
  182. Gerhards, J. & Neidhardt, F. (1991). Strukturen und Funktionen moderner Öffentlichkeit. Fragestellungen und Ansätze. In S. Müller-Doohm (Hrsg.), Öffentlichkeit, Kultur, Massenkommunikation: Beiträge zur Medien- und Kommunikationssoziologie (S. 31–89). Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg. Open Google Scholar
  183. Gerhards, J. & Schäfer, M. S. (2010). Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the USA and Germany. New Media & Society, 12(1), 143–160. Open Google Scholar
  184. GESIS. (2018). Allgemeine Bevölkerungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften ALLBUS – Kumulation 1980–2016. Open Google Scholar
  185. Gil de Zúñiga, H., Molyneux, L. & Zheng, P. (2014). Social Media, Political Expression, and Political Participation: Panel Analysis of Lagged and Concurrent Relationships. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 612–634. Open Google Scholar
  186. Gladitz, P., Schöttle, S., Steinbach, M., Wilker, N. & Witt, T. (2017). DIID Monitor Online Partizipation – Zum Stand von Online-Bürgerbeteiligung in den Kommunen Nordrhein-Westfalens. Kommunalpraxis Wahlen, 8(1), 30–34. Open Google Scholar
  187. Gonzalez-Bailon, S., Kaltenbrunner, A. & Banchs, R. E. (2010). The structure of political discussion networks: a model for the analysis of online deliberation. Journal of Information Technology, 25(2), 230–243. Open Google Scholar
  188. Goodin, R. E. (2000). Democratic Deliberation within. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 29(1), 81–109. Open Google Scholar
  189. Goodin, R. E. (2005). Sequencing Deliberative Moments. Acta Politica, 40(2), 182–196. Open Google Scholar
  190. Goodin, R. E. (2008). Deliberative Lies. European Political Science, 7(2), 194–198. Open Google Scholar
  191. Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital Interaction: Experimental Investigations. Academic Press. Open Google Scholar
  192. Gottman, J. M. & Roy, A. K. (1990). Sequential analysis: A guide for behavioral researchers. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  193. Gouran, D. S. (1973). Group communication: Perspectives and priorities for future research. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59(1), 22–29. Open Google Scholar
  194. Graham, T. (2008). Needles in a haystack: A new approach for identifying and assessing political talk in nonpolitical discussion forums. Javnost-The Public, 15(2), 17–36. Open Google Scholar
  195. Graham, T. (2009). What's Wife Swap Got to Do with It? Talking Politics in the Net-Based Public Sphere: PhD Dissertation. University of Amsterdam: Amsterdam. http://dare.uva.nl/search?arno.record.id=314852 Open Google Scholar
  196. Graham, T. (2010). The Use of Expressives in Online Political Talk: Impeding or Facilitating the Normative Goals of Deliberation? In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh & O. Glassey (Hrsg.), Electronic participation: Second IFIP WG 8.5 international conference, ePart 2010, Lausanne, Switzerland, August 29 – September 2, 2010; proceedings (Bd. 6229, S. 26–41). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  197. Graham, T. & Witschge, T. (2003). In Search of Online Deliberation: Towards a New Method for Examining the Quality of Online Discussions. Communications, 28(2), 173–204. Open Google Scholar
  198. Graham, T. & Wright, S. (2014). Discursive Equality and Everyday Talk Online: The Impact of “Superparticipants”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 625–642. Open Google Scholar
  199. Grice, P. (1993). Studies in the way of words (3. Aufl.). Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar
  200. Gudowsky, N. & Bechtold, U. (2013). The Role of Information in Public Participation. Journal of Public Deliberation, 9(1), 1–35. http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol9/iss1/art3 Open Google Scholar
  201. Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A. & Anderson, T. (1998). Analysis of a Global Online Debate and the Development of an Interaction Analysis Model for Examining Social Construction of Knowledge in Computer Conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431. Open Google Scholar
  202. Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. F. (1990). Moral Conflict and Political Consensus. Ethics, 101(1), 64–88. Open Google Scholar
  203. Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. F. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar
  204. Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. F. (2000). Why Deliberative Democracy is Different. Social Philosophy and Policy, 17(1), 161–180. Open Google Scholar
  205. Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. F. (2002). Deliberative Democracy Beyond Process. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 153–174. Open Google Scholar
  206. Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. F. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar
  207. Habel, P. D. (2012). Following the Opinion Leaders? The Dynamics of Influence Among Media Opinion, the Public, and Politicians. Political Communication, 29(3), 257–277. Open Google Scholar
  208. Habermas, J. (1962). Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar
  209. Habermas, J. (1973). Legitimationsprobleme im Spätkapitalismus. Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar
  210. Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation Crisis. Beacon Press. Open Google Scholar
  211. Habermas, J. (1976). Legitimationsprobleme im modernen Staat. In P. G. Kielmansegg (Hrsg.), Politische Vierteljahresschrift Sonderhefte: Bd. 7. Legitimationsprobleme politischer Systeme: Tagung der Deutschen Vereinigung für Politische Wissenschaft (S. 39–61). Westdeutscher Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  212. Habermas, J. (1981a). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns: Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung (1. Aufl., Bd. 1). Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar
  213. Habermas, J. (1981b). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns: Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft (1. Aufl., Bd. 2). Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar
  214. Habermas, J. (1983). Moralbewusstsein und kommunikatives Handeln. Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar
  215. Habermas, J. (1992). Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar
  216. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. MIT Press. Open Google Scholar
  217. Habermas, J. (1999). Wahrheit und Rechtfertigung: Philosophische Aufsätze (1. Aufl.). Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar
  218. Habermas, J. (2005). Concluding Comments on Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics. Acta Politica, 40(3), 384–392. Open Google Scholar
  219. Habermas, J. (2006). Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411–426. Open Google Scholar
  220. Habermas, J. (2008). Ach, Europa. Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar
  221. Habermas, J. (2020). Moralischer Universalismus in Zeiten politischer Regression: Jürgen Habermas im Gespräch über die Gegenwart und sein Lebenswerk. Leviathan, 48(1), 7–28. Open Google Scholar
  222. Hackman, J. & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group Tasks, Group Interaction Process, and Group Performance Effectiveness: A Review and Proposed Integration. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Volume 8 (Bd. 8, S. 45–99). Elsevier. Open Google Scholar
  223. Hadjar, A. & Becker, R. (2007). Unkonventionelle Politische Partizipation Im Zeitverlauf. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 59(3), 410–439. Open Google Scholar
  224. Halpern, D. & Gibbs, J. (2013). Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1159–1168. Open Google Scholar
  225. Hanitzsch, T., van Dalen, A. & Steindl, N. (2018). Caught in the Nexus: A Comparative and Longitudinal Analysis of Public Trust in the Press. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 23(1), 3–23. Open Google Scholar
  226. Hardy, B. W. & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). Presidential Campaign Dynamics and the Ebb and Flow of Talk as a Moderator: Media Exposure, Knowledge, and Political Discussion. Communication Theory, 19(1), 89–101. Open Google Scholar
  227. Hargittai, E. & Walejko, G. (2008). The Participation Divide: Content creation and sharing in the digital age. Information, Communication & Society, 11(2), 239–256. Open Google Scholar
  228. Hartz-Karp, J. (2004). Harmonising Divergent Voices: Sharing the Challenge of Decision Making. Public Administration Today, 2, 14–19. Open Google Scholar
  229. Hedström, P. & Bearman, P. (Hrsg.). (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  230. Hedström, P. & Swedberg, R. (1996). Social Mechanisms. Acta Sociologica, 39(3), 281–308. Open Google Scholar
  231. Heilsberger, L., Mauve, M. & Möltgen-Sicking, K. (2017). Online-Partizipation auf kommunaler Ebene in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Deutsche Verwaltungspraxis, 68(8), 311–315. Open Google Scholar
  232. Heiss, R. & Matthes, J. (2019). Funny Cats and Politics: Do Humorous Context Posts Impede or Foster the Elaboration of News Posts on Social Media? Communication Research, 009365021982600. Open Google Scholar
  233. Heiss, R., Schmuck, D. & Matthes, J. (2019). What drives interaction in political actors’ Facebook posts? Profile and content predictors of user engagement and political actors’ reactions. Information, Communication & Society, 22(10), 1497–1513. Open Google Scholar
  234. Hendriks, C. M., Ercan, S. A. & Boswell, J. (2020). Mending Democracy: Democratic Repair in Disconnected Times. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  235. Henn, P. & Frieß, D. (Hrsg.). (2016). Politische Online-Kommunikation: Voraussetzungen und Folgen des strukturellen Wandels der politischen Kommunikation. Digital Communication Research. Open Google Scholar
  236. Hennis, W. (1976). Legitimität: Zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. In P. G. Kielmansegg (Hrsg.), Politische Vierteljahresschrift Sonderhefte: Bd. 7. Legitimationsprobleme politischer Systeme: Tagung der Deutschen Vereinigung für Politische Wissenschaft (S. 9–38). Westdeutscher Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  237. Hermida, A. & Thurman, N. (2008). A Clash of Cultures: The integration of user-generated content within professional journalistic frameworks at British newspaper websites. Journalism Practice, 2(3), 343–356. Open Google Scholar
  238. Herring, S. C. & Stoerger, S. (2014). Gender and (A)nonymity in Computer-Mediated Communication. In S. Ehrlich, M. Meyerhoff & J. Holmes (Hrsg.), The Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality (S. 567–586). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Open Google Scholar
  239. Hilbe, J. M. (2011). Negative Binomial Regression. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  240. Himelboim, I. (2008). Reply distribution in online discussions: A comparative network analysis of political and health newsgroups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(1), 156–177. Open Google Scholar
  241. Himelboim, I., Gleave, E. & Smith, M. (2009). Discussion catalysts in online political discussions: Content importers and conversation starters. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 771–789. Open Google Scholar
  242. Hirokawa, R. Y. & Poole, M. S. (1996). Communication and group decision making (2. Aufl.). Sage. Open Google Scholar
  243. Hirschman, A. O. (1994). Wieviel Gemeinsinn braucht die liberale Gesellschaft? Leviathan, 22(2), 293–304. www.jstor.org/stable/23983905 Open Google Scholar
  244. Höffe, O. (2018). Erlaubt eine Demokratie Geheimnisse? Zeitschrift für Politik, 65(2), 137–149. Open Google Scholar
  245. Hoffmann, C. P., Lutz, C. & Meckel, M. (2014). Content creation on the Internet: A social cognitive perspective on the participation divide. Information, Communication & Society, 18(6), 696–716. Open Google Scholar
  246. Höflich, J. R. (1997). Zwischen massenmedialer und technisch vermittelter interpersonaler Kommunikation – der Computer als Hybridmedium und was Menschen damit machen. In K. Beck & G. Vowe (Hrsg.), Computernetze – ein Medium öffentlicher Kommunikation? (S. 85–104). Spiess. Open Google Scholar
  247. Hoggett, P. & Thompson, S. (2002). Toward a Democracy of the Emotions. Constellations, 9(1), 106–126. Open Google Scholar
  248. Holtkamp, L., Wiechmann, E. & Buß, M. (2017). Genderranking deutscher Großstädte 2017: Nur 8,2 Prozent der Oberbürgermeister/innen sind weiblich (böll.brief Demokratiereform). Berlin. https://www.boell.de/de/2017/04/28/genderranking-deutscher-grossstaedte-2017-boellbrief-demokratiereform-3?dimension1=ds_genderranking17 Open Google Scholar
  249. Humprecht, E., Hellmueller, L. & Lischka, J. A. (2020). Hostile Emotions in News Comments: A Cross-National Analysis of Facebook Discussions. Social Media + Society, 6(1), 205630512091248. Open Google Scholar
  250. Infratest dimap. (2012). Was Bürger können – Ergebnisse einer Repräsentativstudie. https://www.infratest-dimap.de/de/umfragen-analysen/bundesweit/umfragen/aktuell/buerger-wollen-mehr-mitsprache-bei-energie-steuer-und-verkehrspolitik/ Open Google Scholar
  251. Iosub, D., Laniado, D., Castillo, C., Fuster Morell, M. & Kaltenbrunner, A. (2014). Emotions under discussion: gender, status and communication in online collaboration. PloS one, 9(8), 1–23. Open Google Scholar
  252. Isernia, P. & Fishkin, J. S. (2014). The EuroPolis deliberative poll. European Union Politics, 15(3), 311–327. Open Google Scholar
  253. Jäger, S. (2015). Kritische Diskursanalyse: Eine Einführung (6. Aufl.). Unrast. Open Google Scholar
  254. Jakob, J., Dobbrick, T. & Wessler, H. (2021). The Integrative Complexity of Online User Comments Across Different Types of Democracy and Discussion Arenas. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 194016122110440. Open Google Scholar
  255. Jandura, O., Fahr, A. & Brosius, H.‑B. (Hrsg.). (2012). Reihe Rezeptionsforschung: Bd. 25. Theorieanpassungen in der digitalen Medienwelt. Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  256. Jankowski, N. W. & van Os, R. (2004). Internet-Based Political Discourse: A Case Study of Electronic Democracy in the City of Hoogeveen. In P. M. Shane (Hrsg.), Democracy online: The prospects for political renewal through the Internet (S. 181–193). Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  257. Janning, F., Leifeld, P., Malang, T. & Schneider, V. (2009). Diskursnetzwerkanalyse: Überlegungen zur Theoriebildung und Methodik. In V. Schneider, F. Janning, P. Leifeld & T. Malang (Hrsg.), Politiknetzwerke (S. 59–92). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  258. Janssen, D. & Kies, R. (2005). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy. Acta Politica, 40(3), 317–335. Open Google Scholar
  259. Jaramillo, M. C. (2013). Transformative Deliberative Moments Among Ex-Combatants In Colombia [Dissertationsschrift], Universität Bern. Open Google Scholar
  260. Jaramillo, M. C. & Steiner, J. (2014). Deliberative Transformative Moments: A New Concept as Amendment to the Discourse Quality Index. Journal of Public Deliberation, 10(2), 1–22. https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol10/iss2/art8/ Open Google Scholar
  261. Jensen, J. L. (2003). Public Spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or Government-Sponsored – A Comparison. Scandinavian Political Studies, 26(4), 349–374. Open Google Scholar
  262. Jensen, M. J., Jorba, L. & Anduiza, E. (2012). Introduction. In E. Anduiza, M. J. Jensen & L. Jorba (Hrsg.), Digital Media and Political Engagement Worldwide (S. 1–15). Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  263. Jeong, A. (2003). The Sequential Analysis of Group Interaction and Critical Thinking in Online. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 25–43. Open Google Scholar
  264. Jeong, A. (2005a). The Effects of Communication Style and Message Function in Triggering Responses and Critical Discussion in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation. Proceedings of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 394–403. Open Google Scholar
  265. Jeong, A. (2005b). A Guide to Analyzing Message–Response Sequences and Group Interaction Patterns in Computer‐mediated Communication. Distance Education, 26(3), 367–383. Open Google Scholar
  266. Kaase, M. (1992). Partizipation. In D. Nohlen (Hrsg.), Wörterbuch zur Politik (S. 682–684). Piper. Open Google Scholar
  267. Kaase, M. & Marsh, A. (1979). Political Action. A Theoretical Perspective. In S. H. Barnes & M. Kaase (Hrsg.), Political action: Mass participation in five western democracies (S. 27–56). Sage. Open Google Scholar
  268. Karpf, D. (2017). Digital politics after Trump. Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(2), 198–207. Open Google Scholar
  269. Karpowitz, C. F. & Mendelberg, T. (2014). The silent sex: Gender, deliberation, and institutions. Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar
  270. Karpowitz, C. F., Mendelberg, T. & Shaker, L. (2012). Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation. American Political Science Review, 106(03), 533–547. Open Google Scholar
  271. Karpowitz, C. F. & Raphael, C. (2016). Ideals of Inclusion in Deliberation. Journal of Public Deliberation, 12(2), 1–21. https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol12/iss2/art3 Open Google Scholar
  272. Kenix, L. J. (2011). Alternative and Mainstream Media: The Converging Spectrum. Bloomsbury Academic. Open Google Scholar
  273. Kersting, N. (Hrsg.). (2008). Politische Beteiligung: Einführung in dialogorientierte Instrumente politischer und gesellschaftlicher Partizipation. Springer. Open Google Scholar
  274. Kersting, N. (2014). Online Beteiligung – Elektronische Partizipation – Qualitätskriterien aus Sicht der Politik. In K. Voss (Hrsg.), Internet und Partizipation: Bottom-up oder Top-down? Politische Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten im Internet (S. 53–87). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  275. Kies, R. (2010). Promises and limits of Web-deliberation. Palgrave Macmillan. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10433703 Open Google Scholar
  276. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J. & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123–1134. Open Google Scholar
  277. Klaus, E. (2001). Das Öffentliche im Privaten – Das Private im Öffentlichen. In F. Herrmann & M. Lünenborg (Hrsg.), Tabubruch als Programm (S. 15–35). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  278. Kleinhenz, T. (1995). Die Nichtwähler. Springer. Open Google Scholar
  279. Klinger, U. (2018). Aufstieg der Semiöffentlichkeit: Eine relationale Perspektive. Publizistik, 63(2), 245–267. Open Google Scholar
  280. Klinger, U., Rösli, S. & Jarren, O. (2015). To Implement or Not to Implement? Participatory Online Communication in Swiss Cities. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1926–1946. Open Google Scholar
  281. Klinger, U. & Russmann, U. (2014). Measuring Online Deliberation in Local Politics: An Empirical Analysis of the 2011 Zurich City Debate. International Journal of E-Politics, 5(1), 61–77. Open Google Scholar
  282. Klinger, U. & Russmann, U. (2015). The sociodemographics of political public deliberation: Measuring deliberative quality in different user groups. Communications, 40(4), 23. Open Google Scholar
  283. Kloß, A. (2020). Deliberative Offenheit durch Empathie? Eine experimentelle Untersuchung zur Aktivierung von deliberativer Offenheit durch Transformation Stories. Eingereichte Dissertationsschrift an der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. Open Google Scholar
  284. Knobloch, J. (2017). Demokratie und Geheimnis. In R. Voigt (Hrsg.), Staatsgeheimnisse (S. 205–224). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Open Google Scholar
  285. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Sharma, N., Hansen, D. L. & Alter, S. (2005). Impact of Popularity Indications on Readers' Selective Exposure to Online News. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49(3), 296–313. Open Google Scholar
  286. Knoll, J., Matthes, J. & Heiss, R. (2018). The social media political participation model. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 22(4), 135485651775036. Open Google Scholar
  287. Kolleck, A. (2017). Politische Diskurse online: Einflussfaktoren auf die Qualität der kollektiven Meinungsbildung in internetgestützten Beteiligungsverfahren. Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  288. Krause, S. R. (2002). Liberalism with honor. Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar
  289. Krause, S. R. (2008). Civil Passions: Moral Sentiment and Democratic Deliberation. Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar
  290. Krauthoff, T., Baurmann, M., Betz, G. & Mauve, M. (2016). Dialog-Based Online Argumentation. In P. Baroni, T. F. Gordon & T. Scheffler (Hrsg.), Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications: volume 287. Computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2016 (S. 33–40). IOS Press. Open Google Scholar
  291. Krebs, D. & Menold, N. (2014). Gütekriterien quantitativer Sozialforschung. In N. Baur & J. Blasius (Hrsg.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Springer. Open Google Scholar
  292. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4. Aufl.). Sage. Open Google Scholar
  293. Kubicek, H. & Aichholzer, G. (2016). Closing the Evaluation Gap in e-Participation Research and Practice. In G. Aichholzer, H. Kubicek & L. Torres (Hrsg.), Public Administration and Information Technology. Evaluating e-Participation: Frameworks, Practice, Evidence (S. 11–45). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  294. Kubicek, H., Lippa, B. & Westholm, H. (2009). Medienmix in der Bürgerbeteiligung: Die Integration von Online-Elementen in Beteiligungsverfahren auf lokaler Ebene. Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  295. Labov, W. & Waletzky, J. (1997). Narrative Analysis: Oral Versions of Personal Experience. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7(1–4), 3–38. Open Google Scholar
  296. Landemore, H. (2013). Democratic reason: Politics, collective intelligence, and the rule of the many. Princeton University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/j.ctt1r2gf0 Open Google Scholar
  297. Lave, C. A. & March, J. G. (1993). An Introduction to Models in the Social Sciences. University Press of America. Open Google Scholar
  298. LeDoux, J. (1996). The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings Of Emotional Life. Simon & Schuster. Open Google Scholar
  299. Leifeld, P. & Schneider, V. (2012). Information Exchange in Policy Networks. American Journal of Political Science, 56(3), 731–744. Open Google Scholar
  300. Liebeck, M., Esau, K. & Conrad, S. (2016). What to Do with an Airport? Mining Arguments in the German Online Participation Project Tempelhofer Feld. Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Argument Mining. Open Google Scholar
  301. Liebeck, M., Esau, K. & Conrad, S. (2017). Text Mining für Online-Partizipationsverfahren: Die Notwendigkeit einer maschinell unterstützten Auswertung. HMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik, 54(4), 544–562. Open Google Scholar
  302. Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. Yale University Press. Open Google Scholar
  303. List, C. (2002). Two Concepts of Agreement. The Good Society, 11(1), 72–79. Open Google Scholar
  304. List, C. (2018). Democratic Deliberation and Social Choice: A Review. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge & M. E. Warren (Hrsg.), The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy (S. 1–31). Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  305. List, C., Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S. & McLean, I. (2013). Deliberation, Single-Peakedness, and the Possibility of Meaningful Democracy: Evidence from Deliberative Polls. The Journal of Politics, 75(1), 80–95. Open Google Scholar
  306. Lusher, D., Koskinen, J. & Robins, G. (2012). Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  307. Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S. & Jowell, R. (2002). Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 32(3), 455–487. Open Google Scholar
  308. Lutz, C., Hoffmann, C. P. & Meckel, M. (2014). Beyond just politics: A systematic literature review of online participation. First Monday, 19(7). Open Google Scholar
  309. Mabry, E. A. (1999). The Systems Metaphor in Group Communication. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran & M. S. Poole (Hrsg.), The Handbook of Group Communication Theory & Research (S. 71–91). Sage. Open Google Scholar
  310. MacIntyre, A. (1981). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. University of Notre Dame Press. Open Google Scholar
  311. Maia, R. C. M. (2012). Deliberation, the Media and Political Talk. Hampton Press. Open Google Scholar
  312. Manin, B. (1987). On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation. Political Theory, 15(3), 338–368. Open Google Scholar
  313. Manosevitch, E., Steinfeld, N. & Lev-On, A. (2014). Promoting online deliberation quality: Cognitive cues matter. Information, Communication & Society, 17(10), 1177–1195. Open Google Scholar
  314. Mansbridge, J. (1999). Everyday Talk in the Deliberative System. In S. Macedo (Hrsg.), Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement (S. 211–242). Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  315. March, J. G & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. Free Press. Open Google Scholar
  316. Marcus, G. E. (2000). Emotions in Politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 221–250. Open Google Scholar
  317. Margolis, M. & Resnik, D. (2000). Politics as Usual: The Cyberspace “Revolution”. Sage. Open Google Scholar
  318. Marti, J. L. & Besson, S. (2006). Deliberative Democracy and its Discontents. Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  319. Marwick, A. E. & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133. Open Google Scholar
  320. Marzinkowski, H. & Engelmann, I. (2018). Die Wirkung „guter“ Argumente. Publizistik, 63(2), 269–287. Open Google Scholar
  321. Marzinkowski, H. & Engelmann, I. (2022). Rational-Critical User Discussions: How Argument Strength and the Conditions Set by News Organizations Are Linked to (Reasoned) Disagreement. Digital Journalism, 10(3), 433–451. Open Google Scholar
  322. Matamoros-Fernández, A., Rodriguez, A. & Wikström, P. (2022). Humor That Harms? Examining Racist Audio-Visual Memetic Media on TikTok During Covid-19. Media and Communication, 10(2), 180–191. Open Google Scholar
  323. Matthes, J. (2013). Elaboration or Distraction? Knowledge Acquisition From Thematically Related and Unrelated Humor in Political Speeches. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(3), 291–302. Open Google Scholar
  324. McLaughlin, M. L., Cody, M. J., Kane, M. L. & Robey, C. S. (1981). Sex Differences in Story Receipt and Story Sequencing Behaviors in Dyadic Conversations. Human Communication Research, 7(2), 99–116. Open Google Scholar
  325. Meier, A. (2017). Online Participation. HMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik, 54(4), 457–458. Open Google Scholar
  326. Mendelberg, T. (2002). The Deliberative Citizen: Theory and Evidence. In M. Delli Carpini (Hrsg.), Research in micropolitics: Bd. 6. Political decision-making, deliberation and participation (S. 151–193). JAI Press. Open Google Scholar
  327. Mendelberg, T., Karpowitz, C. F. & Oliphant, J. B. (2014). Gender Inequality in Deliberation: Unpacking the Black Box of Interaction. Perspectives on Politics, 12(1), 18–44. Open Google Scholar
  328. Merkel, W. (Hrsg.). (2015). Demokratie und Krise. Springer. Open Google Scholar
  329. Merkel, W., Puhle, H.‑J., Croissant, A., Eicher, C. & Thiery, P. (2003). Defekte Demokratie: Band 1: Theorie. Springer. Open Google Scholar
  330. Merkle, D. M. (1996). Review: The National Issues Convention Deliberative Poll. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(4), 588–619. Open Google Scholar
  331. Merten, K. (1995). Inhaltsanalyse. Springer. Open Google Scholar
  332. Merten, K. (1999). Grundlagen der Kommunikationswissenschaft (3. Aufl.). Einführung in die Kommunikationswissenschaft: Bd. 1. LIT Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  333. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. Free Press. Open Google Scholar
  334. Meyer, J. C. (2000). Humor as a Double-Edged Sword: Four Functions of Humor in Communication. Communication Theory, 10(3), 310–331. Open Google Scholar
  335. Mill, J. S. (1962 [1835]. De Tocqueville on Democracy in America. In G. Himmelfarb (Hrsg.), Essays on politics and culture (S. 173–213). Doubleday. Open Google Scholar
  336. Millard, J., Meyerhoff Nielsen, M., Warren, R., Smith, S., Macintosh, A., Tarabanis, K., Tambouris, E., Panopoulou, E., Efpraxia, D. & Parisopoulos, K. (2009). European eParticipation: Summary Report. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/2014-12/European%20eParticipation%20Summary%20Report%20-%20November%2C%202009.pdf Open Google Scholar
  337. Mitozo, I. & Marques, F. P. J. (2019). Context Matters! Looking Beyond Platform Structure to Understand Citizen Deliberation on Brazil's Portal e-Democracia. Policy & Internet, 11(3), 370–390. Open Google Scholar
  338. Möhring, W. & Schlütz, D. (Hrsg.). (2013). SpringerLink. Handbuch standardisierte Erhebungsverfahren in der Kommunikationswissenschaft. Springer. Open Google Scholar
  339. Mokrosińska, D. (Hrsg.). (2021). Transparency and secrecy in European democracies: Contested trade-offs. Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  340. Monnoyer-Smith, L. & Wojcik, S. (2012). Technology and the quality of public deliberation: a comparison between on and offline participation. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 5(1), 24–49. Open Google Scholar
  341. Moody, J. (2011). Network Dynamics. In P. Hedström & P. Bearman (Hrsg.), The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology (S. 447–474). Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  342. Morrell, M. E. (2010). Empathy and democracy: Feeling, thinking, and deliberation. Pennsylvania State University Press. Open Google Scholar
  343. Morrell, M. E. (2018). Listening and Deliberation. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge & M. E. Warren (Hrsg.), The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  344. Mortensen, C. D. (1970). The status of small group research. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 56(3), 304–309. Open Google Scholar
  345. Moscovici, S. & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 12(2), 125–135. Open Google Scholar
  346. Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745–758. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40971349 Open Google Scholar
  347. Muradova, L. (2020). Seeing the Other Side? Perspective-Taking and Reflective Political Judgements in Interpersonal Deliberation. Political Studies, 10(4). Open Google Scholar
  348. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  349. Mutz, D. C. (2008). Is Deliberative Democracy a Falsifiable Theory? Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 521–538. Open Google Scholar
  350. Myers, D. G. & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83(4), 602–627. Open Google Scholar
  351. Myerson, G. (1994). Rhetoric, Reason and Society: Rationality as Dialogue. Sage. Open Google Scholar
  352. Nanz, P. & Steffek, J. (2005). Assessing the Democratic Quality of Deliberation in International Governance: Criteria and Research Strategies. Acta Politica, 40(3), 368–383. Open Google Scholar
  353. Neidhardt, F. (Hrsg.). (1994). Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie Sonderhefte: Bd. 34. Öffentlichkeit, öffentliche Meinung, soziale Bewegungen. Springer. Open Google Scholar
  354. Neidhardt, F. (2004). Kommentarthemen – die mediale Policy-Agenda. In C. Eilders, F. Neidhardt & B. Pfetsch (Hrsg.), Die Stimme der Medien (S. 106–128). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  355. Neuberger, C. (2007). Interaktivität, Interaktion, Internet. Publizistik, 52(1), 33–50. Open Google Scholar
  356. Neuberger, C. (2009). Internet, Journalismus und Öffentlichkeit: Analyse des Medienumbruchs. In C. Neuberger, C. Nuernbergk & M. Rischke (Hrsg.), Journalismus im Internet (S. 19–105). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  357. Neuberger, C. (2014). Konflikt, Konkurrenz und Kooperation: Interaktionsmodi in einer Theorie der dynamischen Netzwerköffentlichkeit. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 62(4), 567–587. Open Google Scholar
  358. Neuberger, C. (2017). Die Rückkehr der Masse: Interaktive Massenphänomene im Internet aus Sicht der Massen- und Komplexitätstheorie. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 65(3), 550–572. Open Google Scholar
  359. Neuman, W. R., Marcus, G. E., Crigler, A. N. & MacKuen, M. (2007). The Affect Effect: Dynamics of Emotion in Political Thinking and Behavior. University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar
  360. Niemeyer, S. (2004). Deliberation in the Wilderness: Displacing Symbolic Politics. Environmental Politics, 13(2), 347–372. Open Google Scholar
  361. Niemeyer, S. (2011). The Emancipatory Effect of Deliberation: Empirical Lessons from Mini-Publics. Politics & Society, 39(1), 103–140. Open Google Scholar
  362. Niemeyer, S. & Dryzek, J. S. (2007). The Ends of Deliberation: Meta-consensus and Inter-subjective Rationality as Ideal Outcomes. Swiss Political Science Review, 13(4), 497–526. Open Google Scholar
  363. Nishiyama, K. (2018). Enabling children’s deliberation in deliberative systems: Schools as a mediating space. Journal of Youth Studies, 22(4), 473–488. Open Google Scholar
  364. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1980). Die Schweigespirale: Öffentliche Meinung – unsere soziale Haut. Ullstein. Open Google Scholar
  365. Nooy, W. de & Kleinnijenhuis, J. (2013). Polarization in the Media During an Election Campaign: A Dynamic Network Model Predicting Support and Attack Among Political Actors. Political Communication, 30(1), 117–138. Open Google Scholar
  366. Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  367. North, D. C. (2012). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  368. Noveck, B. S. (2009). Wiki government: How technology can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. Brookings Institution Press. Open Google Scholar
  369. Nuernbergk, C. (2013). Anschlusskommunikation in der Netzwerköffentlichkeit: Ein inhalts- und netzwerkanalytischer Vergleich der Kommunikation im "Social Web" zum G8-Gipfel von Heiligendamm. Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  370. Nussbaum, M. C. (Hrsg.). (2014). Gerechtigkeit oder Das gute Leben (7. Aufl.). Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar
  371. Nussbaum, M. C. (2015). Political emotions: Why love matters for justice (First Harvard University Press paperback edition). Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar
  372. Offe, C. (1972). Strukturprobleme des kapitalistischen Staates. Campus Bibliothek. Surkamp. Open Google Scholar
  373. Offe, C. (2003). Demokratisierung der Demokratie: Diagnosen und Reformvorschläge. Campus. Open Google Scholar
  374. Offe, C. (2009). Governance: An “Empty Signifier”? Constellations, 16(4), 550–562. Open Google Scholar
  375. Overgaard, C. S. B., Dudo, A., Lease, M., Masullo, G. M., Stroud, N. J., Stroud, S. R. & Woolley, S. C. (2021). Building connective democracy: Interdisciplinary solutions to the problem of polarisation. In H. Tumber & S. Waisbord (Hrsg.), Routledge media and cultural studies companions series. The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism (S. 559–568). Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  376. Oz, M., Zheng, P. & Chen, G. M. (2017). Twitter versus Facebook: Comparing incivility, impoliteness, and deliberative attributes. New Media & Society, 20(9), 3400–3419. Open Google Scholar
  377. Page, B. I. (1996). Who deliberates? Mass media in modern democracy. American politics and political economy series. University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar
  378. Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259–283. Open Google Scholar
  379. Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford studies in digital politics. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  380. Parsons, J., Gokey, C. & Thornton, M. (2013). Indicators of Activities, Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts in Security and Justice Programming. Vera Institute of Justice. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/304626/Indicators.pdf Open Google Scholar
  381. Pavitt, C. (1999). Theorizing About the Group Communication-Leadership Relationship: Input-Process-Output and Functional Models. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran & M. S. Poole (Hrsg.), The Handbook of Group Communication Theory & Research (S. 313–334). Sage. Open Google Scholar
  382. Pavitt, C. (2014). An Interactive Input–Process–Output Model of Social Influence in Decision-Making Groups. Small Group Research, 45(6), 704–730. Open Google Scholar
  383. Pavitt, C. & Broomell, L. (2016). Group Communication During Resource Dilemmas: The Effect of Group Size. Human Communication Research, 42(1), 1–20. Open Google Scholar
  384. Pedrini, S., Bächtiger, A. & Steenbergen, M. R. (2013). Deliberative inclusion of minorities: Patterns of reciprocity among linguistic groups in Switzerland. European Political Science Review, 5(03), 483–512. Open Google Scholar
  385. Pentzold, C. & Bischof, A. (2019). Making Affordances Real: Socio-Material Prefiguration, Performed Agency, and Coordinated Activities in Human-Robot Communication. Social Media + Society, 1–11. Open Google Scholar
  386. Peters, B. (1994). Der Sinn von Öffentlichkeit. In F. Neidhardt (Hrsg.), Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie Sonderhefte: Bd. 34. Öffentlichkeit, öffentliche Meinung, soziale Bewegungen (S. 42–76). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  387. Peters, B. (2008). Public deliberation and public culture: The writings of Bernhard Peters, 1993 – 2005 (H. Wessler, Hg.). Palgrave Macmillan. Open Google Scholar
  388. Peters, B., Schulz, T. & Wimmel, A. (2004). Publizistische Beiträge zu einer diskursiven Öffentlichkeit: Eine themenübergreifende Inhaltsanalyse deutscher Zeitungen und Zeitschriften (InIIS-Arbeitspapier Nr. 30). Bremen. Institut für Interkulturelle und Internationale Studien (InIIS). http://edoc.vifapol.de/opus/volltexte/2008/505/ Open Google Scholar
  389. Pew Research Center. (2017). Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy. But many also endorse nondemocratic alternatives. http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/10/16/globally-broad-support-for-representative-and-direct-democracy/ Open Google Scholar
  390. Pfetsch, B., Löblich, M. & Eilders, C. (2018). Dissonante Öffentlichkeiten als Perspektive kommunikationswissenschaftlicher Theoriebildung. Publizistik, 63(4), 477–495. Open Google Scholar
  391. Pogrebinschi, T. (2015). Mehr Partizipation – ein Heilmittel gegen die ‚Krise der Demokratie‘? In W. Merkel (Hrsg.), Demokratie und Krise (S. 127–154). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  392. Polletta, F. & Lee, J. (2006). Is Telling Stories Good for Democracy? Rhetoric in Public Deliberation after 9/11. American Sociological Review, 71(5), 699–721. Open Google Scholar
  393. Poole, M. S. (1983). Decision development in small groups II: A study of multiple sequences in decision making. Communication Monographs, 50(3), 206–232. Open Google Scholar
  394. Poole, M. S. & Roth, J. (1989). Decision Development in Small Groups IV A Typology of Group Decision Paths. Human Communication Research, 15(3), 323–356. Open Google Scholar
  395. Porten-Cheé, P. (2017). Anschlusskommunikation als Medienwirkung: Der Einfluss von Relevanz und Qualität von Medieninhalten auf das Gesprächsverhalten. Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  396. Porten-Cheé, P., Haßler, J., Jost, P., Eilders, C. & Maurer, M. (2018). Popularity cues in online media: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. Studies in Communication | Media, 7(2), 208–230. Open Google Scholar
  397. Postmes, T., Spears, R., Sakhel, K. & Groot, D. de (2001). Social Influence in Computer-Mediated Communication: The Effects of Anonymity on Group Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 1243–1254. Open Google Scholar
  398. Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. (Hrsg.). (2008). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar
  399. Price, V., Nir, L. & Cappella, J. N. (2006). Normative and Informational Influences in Online Political Discussions. Communication Theory, 16(1), 47–74. Open Google Scholar
  400. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. In L. Crothers & C. Lockhart (Hrsg.), Culture and Politics (S. 223–234). Palgrave Macmillan. Open Google Scholar
  401. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster. Open Google Scholar
  402. Quandt, T. & Scheufele, B. (Hrsg.). (2011). Ebenen der Kommunikation: Mikro-Meso-Makro-Links in der Kommunikationswissenschaft. Springer. Open Google Scholar
  403. Rhee, J. W. & Kim, E.‑M. (2009). Deliberation on the Net: Lessons from a Field Experiment. In T. Davies & S. P. Gangadharan (Hrsg.), Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice (S. 223–232). CSLI Publications. Open Google Scholar
  404. Rheingold, H. (2000 [1993]. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier (2. Aufl.). MIT Press. Open Google Scholar
  405. Roald, V. & Sangolt, L. (2011). Deliberation, rhetoric, and emotion in the discourse on climate change in the European Parliament. Eburon Academic Publishers. Open Google Scholar
  406. Rojo, A. & Ragsdale, R. G. (1997). Participation in electronic forums: Implications for the design and implementation of collaborative distributed multimedia. Telematics and Informatics, 14(1), 83–96. Open Google Scholar
  407. Rosenberg, S. W. (2007). Types of Discourse and the Democracy of Deliberation. In S. W. Rosenberg (Hrsg.), Deliberation, participation and democracy: Can the people govern? (S. 130–158). Palgrave Macmillan. Open Google Scholar
  408. Rössler, P. & Geise, S. (2013). Standardisierte Inhaltsanalyse: Grundprinzipien, Einsatz und Anwendung. In W. Möhring & D. Schlütz (Hrsg.), Handbuch standardisierte Erhebungsverfahren in der Kommunikationswissenschaft (S. 269–287). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  409. Rowe, I. (2015). Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the Deliberative Quality of Online News User Comments Across Platforms. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(4), 539–555. Open Google Scholar
  410. Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Micó, J. L., Díaz-Noci, J., Meso, K. & Masip, P. (2011). Public Sphere 2.0? The Democratic Qualities of Citizen Debates in Online Newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(4), 463–487. Open Google Scholar
  411. Ryfe, D. M. (2002). The Practice of Deliberative Democracy: A Study of 16 Deliberative Organizations. Political Communication, 19(3), 359–377. Open Google Scholar
  412. Ryfe, D. M. (2005). Does Deliberative Democracy Work? Annual Review of Political Science, 8(1), 49–71. Open Google Scholar
  413. Saam, N. J. (2018). Recognizing the Emotion Work in Deliberation. Why Emotions Do Not Make Deliberative Democracy More Democratic. Political Psychology, 39(4), 755–774. Open Google Scholar
  414. Sally, D. (1995). Conversation and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Meta-Analysis of Experiments from 1958 to 1992. Rationality and Society, 7(1), 58–92. Open Google Scholar
  415. Sampaio, R. C., Barros, S. A. R. & Morais, R. (2015). Como avaliar a deliberação online? Um mapeamento de critérios relevantes. Opinião Pública, 18(2), 470–489. https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/op/article/view/8641430 Open Google Scholar
  416. Sandel, M. J. (1982). Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  417. Sanders, L. M. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25(3), 1–17. Open Google Scholar
  418. Sankoff, D. & Kruskal, J. (1983). Time Warps, String Edits, and Macromolecules: The Theory and Practice of Sequence Comparison. Longman Higher Education. Open Google Scholar
  419. Santana, A. D. (2014). Virtuous or Vitriolic: The Effect of Anonymity on Civility in Online Newspaper Reader Comment Boards. Journalism Practice, 8(1), 18–33. Open Google Scholar
  420. Saward, M. (Hrsg.). (2000). Democratic Innovation: Deliberation, representation and association. Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  421. Schafer, J. B., Frankowski, D., Herlocker, J. & Sen, S. (2007). Collaborative Filtering Recommender Systems. In D. Hutchison, T. Kanade, J. Kittler, J. M. Kleinberg, F. Mattern, J. C. Mitchell, M. Naor, O. Nierstrasz, C. P. Rangan, B. Steffen, M. Sudan, D. Terzopoulos, D. Tygar, M. Y. Vardi, G. Weikum, P. Brusilovsky, A. Kobsa & W. Nejdl (Hrsg.), The Adaptive Web (S. 291–324). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  422. Scharkow, M. (2011). Zur Verknüpfung manueller und automatischer Inhaltsanalyse durch maschinelles Lernen. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 59(4), 545–562. Open Google Scholar
  423. Scherer, S. & Brüderl, J. (2010). Sequenzdatenanalyse. In C. Wolf & H. Best (Hrsg.), Handbuch der sozialwissenschaftlichen Datenanalyse (S. 1031–1051). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  424. Scheufele, D. A. (2016). Talk or Conversation? Dimensions of Interpersonal Discussion and Their Implications for Participatory Democracy. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(4), 727–743. Open Google Scholar
  425. Schneider, S. M. (1996). Creating a Democratic Public Sphere Through Political Discussion. Social Science Computer Review, 14(4), 373–393. Open Google Scholar
  426. Schöttle, S. (2019). Politische Online-Partizipation und soziale Ungleichheit: Eine empirische Studie mit Gender-Fokus. Springer. Open Google Scholar
  427. Schudson, M. (1997). Why conversation is not the soul of democracy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 14(4), 297–309. Open Google Scholar
  428. Schweitzer, E. J. (2004). Deliberative Polling®. Deutscher Universitätsverlag. Open Google Scholar
  429. Sears, D. O. (2011). The Role of Affect in Symbolic Politics. In J. H. Kuklinski (Hrsg.), Citizens and Politics (S. 14–40). Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  430. Serrano-Contreras, I.‑J., García-Marín, J. & Luengo, Ó. G. (2020). Measuring Online Political Dialogue: Does Polarization Trigger More Deliberation? Media and Communication, 8(4), 63–72. Open Google Scholar
  431. Shane, P. M. (2011). Online Consultation and Political Communication in the Era of Obama: An Introduction. In S. Coleman & P. M. Shane (Hrsg.), Connecting Democracy: Online Consultation and the Flow of Political Communication (S. 1–20). MIT Press. Open Google Scholar
  432. Shapiro, I. (1999). Enough of deliberation: Politics is about interests and power. In S. Macedo (Hrsg.), Practical and professional ethics series. Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement (S. 28–38). Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  433. Shapiro, I. (2002). Optimal Deliberation? Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 196–211. Open Google Scholar
  434. Smith, G. (2005). Power Beyond the Ballot: 57 Democratic Innovations from Around the World. A report for the Power Inquiry. London. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/34527/ Open Google Scholar
  435. Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  436. Smith, S., Macintosh, A. & Millard, J. (2011). A three-layered framework for evaluating e-participation. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 4(4), Artikel 46013, 304. Open Google Scholar
  437. Somin, I. (2010). Deliberative Democracy and Political Ignorance. Critical Review, 22(2–3), 253–279. Open Google Scholar
  438. Somin, I. (2013). Democracy and political ignorance: Why smaller government is smarter. Stanford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  439. Song, H. & Boomgaarden, H. G. (2017). Dynamic Spirals Put to Test: An Agent-Based Model of Reinforcing Spirals Between Selective Exposure, Interpersonal Networks, and Attitude Polarization. Journal of Communication, 67(2), 256–281. Open Google Scholar
  440. Spitzmüller, J. & Warnke, I. H. O. (2011). Diskurslinguistik: Eine Einführung in Theorien und Methoden der transtextuellen Sprachanalyse. De Gruyter. Open Google Scholar
  441. Springall, D., Finkenauer, T., Durumeric, Z., Kitcat, J., Hursti, H., MacAlpine, M. & Halderman, J. A. Security Analysis of the Estonian Internet Voting System. In G.-J. Ahn, M. Yung & N. Li (Vorsitz), the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA. Open Google Scholar
  442. Springer, N. (2014). Beschmutzte Öffentlichkeit? Warum Menschen die Kommentarfunktion auf Online-Nachrichtenseiten als öffentliche Toilettenwand benutzen, warum Besucher ihre Hinterlassenschaften trotzdem lesen, und wie die Wände im Anschluss aussehen. Zugl.: München, Univ., Diss., 2012. Mediennutzung: Bd. 20. LIT Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  443. Springer, N., Engelmann, I. & Pfaffinger, C. (2015). User comments: motives and inhibitors to write and read. Information, Communication & Society, 18(7), 798–815. Open Google Scholar
  444. Sproull, L. & Faraj, S. (1995). Atheism, Sex and Databases: The Net as a Social Technology. In B. Kahin & J. H. Keller (Hrsg.), Public access to the Internet: A publication of the Harvard Information Infrastructure Project. MIT Press. Open Google Scholar
  445. Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M. & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index. Comparative European Politics, 1(1), 21–48. Open Google Scholar
  446. Stegbauer, C. & Rausch, A. (2001). Die schweigende Mehrheit – „Lurker“ in internetbasierten Diskussionsforen. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 30(1), 48–64. Open Google Scholar
  447. Steiner, J., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M. & Steenbergen, M. R. (2004). Deliberative politics in action: Analyzing parliamentary discourse. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  448. Steiner, J., Jaramillo, M. C., Maia, C. M. R. & Mameli, S. (2017). Deliberation across Deeply Divided Societies: Transformative Moments. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  449. Stenetorp, P., Pyysalo, S., Topic, G., Ohta, T., Ananiadou, S. & Tsujii, J. (2012). BRAT: a Web-based Tool for NLP-Assisted Text Annotation. In Proceedings of the Demonstrations at the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Open Google Scholar
  450. Stewart, J. (1996). Innovation in Democratic Practice in Local Government. Policy & Politics, 24(1), 29–41. Open Google Scholar
  451. Stokes, S. C. (1998). Pathologies of Deliberation. In J. Elster (Hrsg.), Deliberative Democracy (S. 123–139). Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  452. Stoltenberg, D. & Maier, D. (2019). Descriptive Methods for Investigating Dynamics in Online Networks. In P. Müller, S. Geiß, C. Schemer, T. K. Naab & C. Peter (Hrsg.), Methoden und Forschungslogik der Kommunikationswissenschaft. Dynamische Prozesse der öffentlichen Kommunikation: Methodische Herausforderungen (S. 147–176). Open Google Scholar
  453. Strandberg, K. & Berg, J. (2013). Online Newspapers’ Readers’ Comments – Democratic Conversation Platforms or Virtual Soapboxes? Comunicação e Sociedade, 23, 132–152. Open Google Scholar
  454. Strandberg, K. & Berg, J. (2015). Impact of Temporality and Identifiability in Online Deliberations on Discussion Quality: An Experimental Study. Javnost – The Public: Journal of the European Institute for Communication and Culture, 22(2), 164–180. Open Google Scholar
  455. Strandberg, K. & Grönlund, K. (2018). Online Deliberation. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge, M. Warren, K. Strandberg & K. Grönlund (Hrsg.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy (S. 364–377). Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  456. Strebel, M. A., Kübler, D. & Marcinkowski, F. (2019). The importance of input and output legitimacy in democratic governance: Evidence from a population‐based survey experiment in four West European countries. European Journal of Political Research, 58(2), 488–513. Open Google Scholar
  457. Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring Deliberation's Content: A Coding Scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), 1–35. Open Google Scholar
  458. Stromer-Galley, J. & Martinson, A. M. (2009). Coherence in political computer-mediated communication: Analyzing topic relevance and drift in chat. Discourse & Communication, 3(2), 195–216. Open Google Scholar
  459. Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., Muddiman, A. & Curry, A. L. (2015). Changing Deliberative Norms on News Organizations' Facebook Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 188–203. Open Google Scholar
  460. Sunstein, C. R. (2002). The Law of Group Polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 175–195. Open Google Scholar
  461. Taddicken, M. & Bund, K. (2010). Ich kommentiere, also bin ich: Community research am Beispiel des Diskussionsforums der Zeit online. In M. Welker & C. Wünsch (Hrsg.), Neue Schriften zur Online-Forschung: Bd. 8. Die Online-Inhaltsanalyse: Forschungsobjekt Internet (S. 187–190). Herbert von Halem Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  462. Tambouris, E., Macintosh, A., Smith, S., Panopoulou, E., Tarabanis, K. & Millard, J. (2012). Understanding eParticipation State of Play in Europe. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 321–330. Open Google Scholar
  463. Theocharis, Y. & van Deth, J. W. (2017). Political Participation in a Changing World: Conceptual and Empirical Challenges in the Study of Citizen Engagement. Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  464. Thom, R. (1983). Mathematical Models of Morphogenesis. Horwood. Open Google Scholar
  465. Thompson, S. & Hoggett, P. (2001). The emotional dynamics of deliberative democracy. Policy & Politics, 29(3), 351–364. Open Google Scholar
  466. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The Uses of Argument (aktualisierte Auflage). Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  467. Towne, W. B. & Herbsleb, J. D. (2012). Design Considerations for Online Deliberation Systems. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(1), 97–115. Open Google Scholar
  468. Tranow, U. (2014). Kooperative Normsetzung im Internet: Partizipationsbedingungen aus handlungstheoretischer Perspektive. Momentum Quarterly, 3(2). Open Google Scholar
  469. Tranow, U., Beckers, T. & Becker, D. (2016). Social Mechanisms: Themenheft. Analyse & Kritik, 38(1). Open Google Scholar
  470. Troitzsch, K. G. (1990). Modellbildung und Simulation in den Sozialwissenschaften. Springer. Open Google Scholar
  471. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399. Open Google Scholar
  472. Tuomela, R. (2007). Social Institutions. In R. Tuomela (Hrsg.), The Philosophy of Sociality (S. 182–211). Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  473. Tutz, G. (2010). Regression für Zählvariablen. In C. Wolf & H. Best (Hrsg.), Handbuch der sozialwissenschaftlichen Datenanalyse (S. 887–904). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  474. van Dijck, J., Poell, T. & Waal, M. d. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  475. van Dijk, J. (2012). The network society (3. Aufl.). Sage. Open Google Scholar
  476. van Dijk, J. (2013). Inequalities in the Network Society. In K. Orton-Johnson & N. Prior (Hrsg.), Digital Sociology: Ciritcal Perspectives (S. 105–124). Palgrave Macmillan. Open Google Scholar
  477. van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283. Open Google Scholar
  478. van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  479. V-Dem Institute. (2019). Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Annual Democracy Report: Democracy Facing Global Challenges. Göteborg, Schweden. V-Dem Institute. https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/99/de/99dedd73-f8bc-484c-8b91-44ba601b6e6b/v-dem_democracy_report_2019.pdf Open Google Scholar
  480. Vittengl, J. R. & Holt, C. S. (1998). A Time-Series Diary Study of Mood and Social Interaction. Motivation and Emotion, 22(3), 255–275. Open Google Scholar
  481. Voltmer, K. (1998). Medienqualität und Demokratie: Eine empirische Analyse publizistischer Informations- und Orientierungsleistungen in der Wahlkampfkommunikation. Nomos-Universitätsschriften Politik: Bd. 94. Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  482. Voss, K. (2014a). Internet & Partizipation – Einleitung. In K. Voss (Hrsg.), Internet und Partizipation: Bottom-up oder Top-down? Politische Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten im Internet (S. 9–23). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  483. Voss, K. (Hrsg.). (2014b). Internet und Partizipation: Bottom-up oder Top-down? Politische Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten im Internet. Springer. Open Google Scholar
  484. Vowe, G. & Henn, P. (Hrsg.). (2016). Routledge research in political communication: Bd. 13. Political communication in the online world: Theoretical approaches and research designs. Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  485. Vromen, A. (2008). Building virtual spaces: Young people, participation and the Internet. Australian Journal of Political Science, 43(1), 79–97. Open Google Scholar
  486. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43. Open Google Scholar
  487. Weber, P. (2012). Nachrichtenfaktoren & User Generated Content. Die Bedeutung von Nachrichtenfaktoren für Kommentierungen der politischen Berichterstattung auf Nachrichtenwebsites. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 60(2), 218–239. Open Google Scholar
  488. Weber, P. (2014). Discussions in the comments section: Factors influencing participation and interactivity in online newspapers' reader comments. New Media & Society, 16(6), 941–957. Open Google Scholar
  489. Weber, P. & Kühne, R. (2013). Zähldaten und ihre Analyse in der kommunikationswissenschaftlichen Forschung. In T. K. Naab (Hrsg.), Methoden und Forschungslogik der Kommunikationswissenschaft: Bd. 9. Standardisierung und Flexibilisierung als Herausforderungen der kommunikations- und publizistikwissenschaftlichen Forschung (S. 285–312). Herbert von Halem Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  490. Weinmann, C. (2018). Measuring Political Thinking: Development and Validation of a Scale for “Deliberation Within”. Political Psychology, 39(2), 365–380. Open Google Scholar
  491. Weiß, J. & Bonk, A. (2019). Kommunale Beteiligungskonzepte – Einschätzungen aktueller Entwicklungen zur Förderung der Partizipation von Bürgerinnen und Bürgern in Kommunen (Schriftenreihe Local Government Transformation 8). Halberstadt. Hochschule Harz. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-62478-8 Open Google Scholar
  492. Welker, M. & Wünsch, C. (Hrsg.). (2010). Neue Schriften zur Online-Forschung: Bd. 8. Die Online-Inhaltsanalyse: Forschungsobjekt Internet. Herbert von Halem Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  493. Wessler, H. (2008). Investigating Deliberativeness Comparatively. Political Communication, 25(1), 1–22. Open Google Scholar
  494. Wessler, H. (2013). Diskursanalyse. In G. Bentele, H.-B. Brosius & O. Jarren (Hrsg.), Lexikon Kommunikations- und Medienwissenschaft (S. 63). Springer. Open Google Scholar
  495. Wessler, H. (2018). Habermas and the media. Theory and the media. Polity. Open Google Scholar
  496. Westwood, S. J. (2015). The Role of Persuasion in Deliberative Opinion Change. Political Communication, 32(4), 509–528. Open Google Scholar
  497. Wheelan, S. A. (1994). Group processes: A developmental perspective. Allyn and Bacon. Open Google Scholar
  498. Wheelan, S. A. & Mckeage, R. L. (1993). Developmental Patterns in Small and Large Groups. Small Group Research, 24(1), 60–83. Open Google Scholar
  499. Wilcox, D. (1994). The Guide to Effective Participation. Delta Press. Open Google Scholar
  500. Wilhelm, A. G. (1998). Virtual sounding boards: How deliberative is online political discussion? Information, Communication & Society, 1(3), 313–338. Open Google Scholar
  501. Wilker, N. (2019). Online-Bürgerbeteiligung und politische Repräsentation. Springer. Open Google Scholar
  502. Wirth, W. & Lauf, E. (Hrsg.). (2001). Inhaltsanalyse: Perspektiven, Probleme, Potentiale. Herbert von Halem Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  503. Wojcieszak, M. (2011). Deliberation and Attitude Polarization. Journal of Communication, 61(4), 596–617. Open Google Scholar
  504. Wojcieszak, M. & Mutz, D. C. (2009). Online Groups and Political Discourse: Do Online Discussion Spaces Facilitate Exposure to Political Disagreement? Journal of Communication, 59(1), 40–56. Open Google Scholar
  505. Wright, S. (2006). Government-run Online Discussion Fora: Moderation, Censorship and the Shadow of Control. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 8(4), 550–568. Open Google Scholar
  506. Wright, S. & Street, J. (2007). Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online discussion forums. New Media & Society, 9(5), 849–869. Open Google Scholar
  507. Wyss, D., Beste, S. & Bächtiger, A. (2015). A Decline in the Quality of Debate? The Evolution of Cognitive Complexity in Swiss Parliamentary Debates on Immigration (1968–2014). Swiss Political Science Review, 21(4), 636–653. Open Google Scholar
  508. Young, I. M. (1996). Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy. In S. Benhabib (Hrsg.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (S. 120–136). Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar
  509. Young, I. M. (1997). Asymmetrical Reciprocity: On Moral Respect, Wonder, and Enlarged Thought. Constellations, 3(3), 340–363. Open Google Scholar
  510. Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford political theory. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  511. Zhou, X., Chan, Y.‑Y. & Peng, Z.‑M. (2008). Deliberativeness of Online Political Discussion: A Content Analysis of the Guangzhou Daily Website. Journalism Studies, 9(5), 759–770. Open Google Scholar
  512. Ziegele, M. (2016). Nutzerkommentare als Anschlusskommunikation: Theorie und qualitative Analyse des Diskussionswerts von Online-Nachrichten. Springer. Open Google Scholar
  513. Ziegele, M., Breiner, T. & Quiring, O. (2014). What Creates Interactivity in Online News Discussions? An Exploratory Analysis of Discussion Factors in User Comments on News Items. Journal of Communication, 64(6), 1111–1138. Open Google Scholar
  514. Ziegele, M. & Quiring, O. (2013). Conceptualizing Online Discussion Value: A Multidimensional Framework for Analyzing User Comments on Mass-Media Websites. Annals of the International Communication Association, 37(1), 125–153. Open Google Scholar
  515. Ziegele, M., Quiring, O., Esau, K. & Friess, D. (2018). Linking News Value Theory with Online Deliberation: How News Factors and Illustration Factors in News Articles Affect the Deliberative Quality of User Discussions in SNS’ Comment Sections. Communication Research, 12(2), 1–31. Open Google Scholar
  516. Ziegele, M., Springer, N., Jost, P. & Wright, S. (2017). Online user comments across news and other content formats: Multidisciplinary perspectives, new directions. Studies in Communication | Media, 6(4), 315–332. Open Google Scholar

Similar publications

from the topics "Computer and Internet", "Media Policy & Media Ethics", "Media Effects Research & Media Usage Research", "Media Science, Communication Research"
Cover of book: Law & Critique | Recht & Kritik
Edited Book Full access
Greta Olson, Christian Schmidt, Benno Zabel, Jochen Bung, Franziska Martinsen, Hanna Meißner
Law & Critique | Recht & Kritik
Cover of book: Ethik der Kryptographie
Book Titles Full access
Laurence Lerch
Ethik der Kryptographie
Cover of book: Israel in deutschen Medien
Book Titles No access
Jonas Hessenauer, Lukas Uwira
Israel in deutschen Medien
Cover of book: Konstruktiver Journalismus
Book Titles Full access
Julia Faltermeier
Konstruktiver Journalismus
Cover of book: Politischer Journalismus
Edited Book Full access
Christian Nuernbergk, Nina Fabiola Schumacher, Jörg Haßler, Jonas Schützeneder
Politischer Journalismus

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via Open Athens
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex