Cover of book: Kommunikationsformen und Deliberationsdynamik
Monograph 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
Monograph

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. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  2. Wessler, H. (2018). Habermas and the media. Theory and the media. Polity. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  3. Westwood, S. J. (2015). The Role of Persuasion in Deliberative Opinion Change. Political Communication, 32(4), 509–528. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  4. Wheelan, S. A. (1994). Group processes: A developmental perspective. Allyn and Bacon. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  5. Wheelan, S. A. & Mckeage, R. L. (1993). Developmental Patterns in Small and Large Groups. Small Group Research, 24(1), 60–83. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  6. Wilcox, D. (1994). The Guide to Effective Participation. Delta Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  7. Wilhelm, A. G. (1998). Virtual sounding boards: How deliberative is online political discussion? Information, Communication & Society, 1(3), 313–338. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  8. Wilker, N. (2019). Online-Bürgerbeteiligung und politische Repräsentation. Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  9. Wirth, W. & Lauf, E. (Hrsg.). (2001). Inhaltsanalyse: Perspektiven, Probleme, Potentiale. Herbert von Halem Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  10. Wojcieszak, M. (2011). Deliberation and Attitude Polarization. Journal of Communication, 61(4), 596–617. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  11. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  12. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  13. Wessler, H. (2013). Diskursanalyse. In G. Bentele, H.-B. Brosius & O. Jarren (Hrsg.), Lexikon Kommunikations- und Medienwissenschaft (S. 63). Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  14. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  15. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  16. Young, I. M. (1997). Asymmetrical Reciprocity: On Moral Respect, Wonder, and Enlarged Thought. Constellations, 3(3), 340–363. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  17. Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford political theory. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  18. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  19. Ziegele, M. (2016). Nutzerkommentare als Anschlusskommunikation: Theorie und qualitative Analyse des Diskussionswerts von Online-Nachrichten. Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  20. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  21. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  22. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  23. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  24. Voss, K. (Hrsg.). (2014b). Internet und Partizipation: Bottom-up oder Top-down? Politische Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten im Internet. Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  25. Tutz, G. (2010). Regression für Zählvariablen. In C. Wolf & H. Best (Hrsg.), Handbuch der sozialwissenschaftlichen Datenanalyse (S. 887–904). Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  26. van Dijck, J., Poell, T. & Waal, M. d. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  27. van Dijk, J. (2012). The network society (3. Aufl.). Sage. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  28. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  29. van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  30. van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  31. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  32. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  33. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  34. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  35. Tuomela, R. (2007). Social Institutions. In R. Tuomela (Hrsg.), The Philosophy of Sociality (S. 182–211). Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  36. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  37. Vromen, A. (2008). Building virtual spaces: Young people, participation and the Internet. Australian Journal of Political Science, 43(1), 79–97. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  38. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  39. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  40. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  41. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  42. Weinmann, C. (2018). Measuring Political Thinking: Development and Validation of a Scale for “Deliberation Within”. Political Psychology, 39(2), 365–380. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  43. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  44. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  45. Wessler, H. (2008). Investigating Deliberativeness Comparatively. Political Communication, 25(1), 1–22. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  46. Abbott, A. (1988). Transcending General Linear Reality. Sociological Theory, 6(2), 169–186. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  47. Abbott, A. (1990). A Primer on Sequence Methods. Organization Science, 1(4), 375–392. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  48. Abbott, A. (1995). Sequence Analysis: New Methods for Old Ideas. Annual Review of Sociology, 21(1), 93–113. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  49. Abbott, A. & Forrest, J. (1986). Optimal Matching Methods for Historical Sequences. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 16(3), 471–494. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  50. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  51. Adam, S. (2008). Medieninhalte aus der Netzwerkperspektive. Publizistik, 53(2), 180–199. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  52. Adler, A. (2017). Liquid Democracy in Deutschland [Dissertation]. GBV Gemeinsamer Bibliotheksverbund. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  53. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  54. Albert, R., Jeong, H. & Barabási, A.‑L. (1999). Diameter of the World-Wide Web. Nature, 401(6749), 130–131. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  55. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  56. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  57. Albrecht, S. (2010). Reflexionsspiele: Deliberative Demokratie und die Wirklichkeit politischer Diskurse im Internet. De Gruyter. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  58. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  59. Almond, G. A. & Verba, S. (1963). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  60. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  61. Anicker, F. (2019). Entwurf einer Soziologie der Deliberation. Velbrück Wissenschaft. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  62. Aragón, P., Gómez, V. & Kaltenbrunner, A. (2017). Detecting Platform Effects in Online Discussions. Policy & Internet, 9(4), 420–443. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  63. Arendt, H. (1967). Vita activa oder Vom tätigen Leben. Piper Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  64. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  65. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  66. Bächtiger, A., Dryzek, J. S., Mansbridge, J. & Warren, M. E. (Hrsg.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  67. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  68. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  69. Bächtiger, A. & Parkinson, J. (2019). Mapping and measuring deliberation: Towards a new deliberative quality. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  70. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  71. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  72. Bächtiger, A. & Wyss, D. (2013). Empirische Deliberationsforschung – eine systematische Übersicht. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 7(2), 155–181. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  73. Bakeman, R. & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (2. Aufl.). Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  74. Bakeman, R. & Quera, V. (1995). Analyzing interaction: Sequential analysis with SDIS & GSEQ. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  75. Bakeman, R. & Quera, V. (2011). Sequential Analysis and Observational Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  76. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  77. Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. University of California Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  78. Barber, B. R. (1998). A passion for democracy: American essays. Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  79. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  80. Barnes, S. H. & Kaase, M. (Hrsg.). (1979). Political action: Mass participation in five western democracies. Sage. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  81. Basu, S. (1999). Dialogic ethics and the virtue of humor. Journal of Political Philosophy, 7(4), 378–403. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  82. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  83. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  84. Bellamy, C. & Raab, C. D. (1999). Wiring-up the deck-chairs? Parliamentary Affairs, 52(3), 518–534. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  85. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  86. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  87. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  88. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  89. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  90. Bickford, S. (2011). Emotion Talk and Political Judgment. The Journal of Politics, 73(04), 1025–1037. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  91. Black, L. W. (2008a). Deliberation, Storytelling, and Dialogic Moments. Communication Theory, 18(1), 93–116. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  92. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  93. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  94. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  95. Blöbaum, B., Hanitzsch, T. & Badura, L. (2020). Medienskepsis in Deutschland. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  96. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  97. Blumler, J. G. & Gurevitch, M. (1995). The Crisis of Public Communication. Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  98. Bohman, J. (1996). Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. MIT Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  99. Bohman, J. & Rehg, W. (Hrsg.). (1997). Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics. MIT Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  100. Bormann, E. G. (1970). The paradox and promise of small group research. Speech Monographs, 37(3), 211–217. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  101. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  102. Boulianne, S. (2015). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 524–538. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  103. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  104. Boyte, H. C. (2005). Reframing Democracy: Governance, Civic Agency, and Politics. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 536–546. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  105. Braun, N. & Saam, N. J. (2015). Handbuch Modellbildung und Simulation in den Sozialwissenschaften. Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  106. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  107. Brinker, K. & Sager, S. F. (2006). Linguistische Gesprächsanalyse: Eine Einführung (4. Aufl., Bd. 30). Schmidt. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  108. Brosius, H.‑B. (2013). Kontext. In G. Bentele, H.-B. Brosius & O. Jarren (Hrsg.), Lexikon Kommunikations- und Medienwissenschaft (S. 169). Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  109. Brosius, H.‑B., Haas, A. & Koschel, F. (2012). Methoden der empirischen Kommunikationsforschung. Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  110. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  111. Bundeswahlleiter. (2018). Ergebnisse früherer Bundestagswahlen. https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/dam/jcr/397735e3-0585-46f6-a0b5-2c60c5b83de6/btw_ab49_gesamt.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  112. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  113. Bunge, M. (1997). Mechanism and Explanation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 27(4), 410–465. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  114. Cameron, A. C. & Trivedi, P. (2013). Regression Analysis of Count Data. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  115. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  116. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  117. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  118. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  119. Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society. Blackwell. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  120. Castells, M. (2007). Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society. International Journal of Communication, 1, 238–266. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  121. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  122. Chadwick, A. (2013). The Hybrid Media System. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  123. Chambers, S. (1996). Reasonable Democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. Cornell University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  124. Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative Democratic Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6(1), 307–326. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  125. Chambers, S. (2009). Rhetoric and the Public Sphere: Has Deliberative Democracy Abandoned Mass Democracy? Political Theory, 37(3), 323–350. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  126. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  127. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  128. Coleman, S. (2005). The Lonely Citizen: Indirect Representation in an Age of Networks. Political Communication, 22(2), 197–214. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  129. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  130. Coleman, S. & Shane, P. M. (Hrsg.). (2011). Connecting Democracy: Online Consultation and the Flow of Political Communication. MIT Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  131. Cornwell, B. (2015). Social sequence analysis: Methods and applications. Structural analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  132. Crouch, C. (2017). Postdemokratie. Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  133. Curato, N. (2012). A sequential analysis of democratic deliberation. Acta Politica, 47(4), 423–442. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  134. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  135. Dahl, R. A. (1972). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition (26. Aufl.). Yale University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  136. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  137. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  138. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  139. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  140. Dahlberg, L. (2004). Net-Public Sphere Research: Beyond The “First Phase”. Javnost – The Public, 11(1), 27–43. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  141. Dahrendorf, R. (1967). Aktive und passive Öffentlichkeit. MERKUR, 21(12), 1109–1122. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  142. Dalton, R. J. (2004). Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  143. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  144. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. Putnam. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  145. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  146. Davies, T. & Gangadharan, S. P. (Hrsg.). (2009). Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice. CSLI Publications. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  147. Davis, J. L. & Jurgenson, N. (2014). Context collapse: Theorizing context collusions and collisions. Information, Communication & Society, 17(4), 476–485. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  148. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  149. Davis, M. H. (1996). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Social psychology series. Westview Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  150. Delli Carpini, M. (Hrsg.). (2002). Research in micropolitics: Bd. 6. Political decision-making, deliberation and participation. JAI Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  151. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  152. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  153. Dervin, B. (1991). Comparative Theory Reconceptualized: From Entities and States to Processes and Dynamics. Communication Theory, 1(1), 59–69. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  154. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  155. Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and Nature. Open Court. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  156. Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Swallow Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  157. Diekmann, A. (2006). Empirische Sozialforschung: Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen (16. Aufl.). Rowohlt. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  158. Dobson, A. (2014). Listening for Democracy. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  159. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  160. Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford political theory. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  161. Dryzek, J. S. (2010). Rhetoric in Democracy: A Systemic Appreciation. Political Theory, 38(3), 319–339. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  162. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  163. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  164. Dubiel, H. (1999). Integration durch Konflikt? In J. Friedrichs & W. Jagodzinski (Hrsg.), Soziale Integration (S. 132–144). Westdeutscher Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  165. Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. Wiley. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  166. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  167. Eilders, C. (1997). Nachrichtenfaktoren und Rezeption: Eine empirische Analyse zur Auswahl und Verarbeitung politischer Information. Westdeutscher Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  168. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  169. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  170. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  171. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  172. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  173. Elster, J. (Hrsg.). (1998). Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  174. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  175. Emmer, M., Vowe, G. & Wolling, J. (2011). Bürger online: Die Entwicklung der politischen Online-Kommunikation in Deutschland. UVK. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  176. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  177. Engelmann, I., Legrand, M. & Marzinkowski, H. (Hrsg.). (2019). Politische Partizipation im Medienwandel. Digital Communication Research, 6. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  178. Engelmann, I. & Wendelin, M. (2015). Relevanzzuschreibung und Nachrichtenauswahl des Publikums im Internet. Publizistik, 60(2), 165–185. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  179. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  180. Ercan, S. A. & Gagnon, J.‑P. (2014). The Crisis of Democracy: Which Crisis? Which Democracy? Democratic Theory, 1(2), 1–10. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  181. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  182. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  183. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  184. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  185. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  186. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  187. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  188. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  189. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  190. Etzioni, A. (1968). The Active Society: A theory of societal and political processes. The Free Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  191. Etzioni, A. (1969). Elemente einer Makrosoziologie. In W. Zapf (Hrsg.), Theorien des sozialen Wandels (S. 147–176). Kiepenheuer & Witsch. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  192. Etzioni, A. (1993). The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities, and the Communitarian Agenda. Crown Publishers. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  193. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  194. Ferree, M. M. (2002). Shaping abortion discourse: Democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  195. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  196. Fishkin, J. S. (1995). The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. Yale University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  197. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  198. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  199. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  200. Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. Social Text(25/26), 56. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  201. Fraser, N. (2015). Legitimation Crisis? On the Political Contradictions of Financialized Capitalism. Critical Historical Studies, 2(2), 157–189. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  202. Freelon, D. G. (2010). Analyzing online political discussion using three models of democratic communication. New Media & Society, 12(7), 1172–1190. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  203. Friess, D. & Eilders, C. (2015). A Systematic Review of Online Deliberation Research. Policy & Internet, 7(3), 319–339. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  204. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  205. Frieß, D. & Porten-Cheé, P. (2018). What Do Participants Take Away from Local eParticipation? Analyse & Kritik, 40(1), 1–30. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  206. Fritz, G. & Hundsnurscher, F. (Hrsg.). (1994). Handbuch der Dialoganalyse. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  207. Früh, W. (2011). Inhaltsanalyse: Theorie und Praxis (7. Aufl.). UVK / UTB. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  208. Früh, W. & Frey, F. (2014). Narration und Storytelling: Theorie und empirische Befunde. Unterhaltungsforschung: Bd. 10. Herbert von Halem Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  209. Früh, W. & Schönbach, K. (1982). Der dynamisch-transaktionale Ansatz. Ein neues Paradigma der Medienwirkungen. Publizistik, 27, 74–88. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  210. Früh, W. & Schönbach, K. (2005). Der dynamisch-transaktionale Ansatz III: Eine Zwischenbilanz. Publizistik, 50(1), 4–20. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  211. Fuhse, J. (2009). Die kommunikative Konstruktion von Akteuren in Netzwerken. Soziale Systeme, 15(2), 288–316. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  212. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  213. Fung, A. & Wright, E. O. (2001). Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. Politics & Society, 29(1), 5–41. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  214. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  215. Galtung, J. & Ruge, M. H. (1965). The Structure of Foreign News. Journal of Peace Research, 2(1), 64–90. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  216. Gambetta, D. (1998). “Claro!”: An Essay on Discursive Machismo. In J. Elster (Hrsg.), Deliberative Democracy (S. 19–43). Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  217. Gastil, J. (1992). A Definition of Small Group Democracy. Small Group Research, 23(3), 278–301. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  218. Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Sage. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  219. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  220. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  221. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  222. Geissel, B. & Newton, K. (Hrsg.). (2012). Evaluating democratic innovations: Curing the democratic malaise? Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  223. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  224. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  225. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  226. Gerhards, J. & Neidhardt, F. (1990). Strukturen und Funktionen moderner Öffentlichkeit.: Fragestellungen und Ansätze [Discussion Paper]. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  227. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  228. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  229. GESIS. (2018). Allgemeine Bevölkerungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften ALLBUS – Kumulation 1980–2016. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  230. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  231. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  232. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  233. Goodin, R. E. (2000). Democratic Deliberation within. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 29(1), 81–109. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  234. Goodin, R. E. (2005). Sequencing Deliberative Moments. Acta Politica, 40(2), 182–196. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  235. Goodin, R. E. (2008). Deliberative Lies. European Political Science, 7(2), 194–198. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  236. Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital Interaction: Experimental Investigations. Academic Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  237. Gottman, J. M. & Roy, A. K. (1990). Sequential analysis: A guide for behavioral researchers. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  238. Gouran, D. S. (1973). Group communication: Perspectives and priorities for future research. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59(1), 22–29. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  239. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  240. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  241. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  242. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  243. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  244. Grice, P. (1993). Studies in the way of words (3. Aufl.). Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  245. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  246. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  247. Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. F. (1990). Moral Conflict and Political Consensus. Ethics, 101(1), 64–88. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  248. Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. F. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  249. Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. F. (2000). Why Deliberative Democracy is Different. Social Philosophy and Policy, 17(1), 161–180. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  250. Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. F. (2002). Deliberative Democracy Beyond Process. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 153–174. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  251. Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. F. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  252. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  253. Habermas, J. (1962). Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  254. Habermas, J. (1973). Legitimationsprobleme im Spätkapitalismus. Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  255. Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation Crisis. Beacon Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  256. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  257. Habermas, J. (1981a). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns: Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung (1. Aufl., Bd. 1). Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  258. Habermas, J. (1981b). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns: Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft (1. Aufl., Bd. 2). Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  259. Habermas, J. (1983). Moralbewusstsein und kommunikatives Handeln. Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  260. Habermas, J. (1992). Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  261. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. MIT Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  262. Habermas, J. (1999). Wahrheit und Rechtfertigung: Philosophische Aufsätze (1. Aufl.). Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  263. Habermas, J. (2005). Concluding Comments on Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics. Acta Politica, 40(3), 384–392. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  264. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  265. Habermas, J. (2008). Ach, Europa. Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  266. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  267. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  268. Hadjar, A. & Becker, R. (2007). Unkonventionelle Politische Partizipation Im Zeitverlauf. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 59(3), 410–439. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  269. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  270. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  271. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  272. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  273. Hartz-Karp, J. (2004). Harmonising Divergent Voices: Sharing the Challenge of Decision Making. Public Administration Today, 2, 14–19. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  274. Hedström, P. & Bearman, P. (Hrsg.). (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  275. Hedström, P. & Swedberg, R. (1996). Social Mechanisms. Acta Sociologica, 39(3), 281–308. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  276. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  277. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  278. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  279. Hendriks, C. M., Ercan, S. A. & Boswell, J. (2020). Mending Democracy: Democratic Repair in Disconnected Times. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  280. Henn, P. & Frieß, D. (Hrsg.). (2016). Politische Online-Kommunikation: Voraussetzungen und Folgen des strukturellen Wandels der politischen Kommunikation. Digital Communication Research. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  281. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  282. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  283. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  284. Hilbe, J. M. (2011). Negative Binomial Regression. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  285. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  286. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  287. Hirokawa, R. Y. & Poole, M. S. (1996). Communication and group decision making (2. Aufl.). Sage. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  288. Hirschman, A. O. (1994). Wieviel Gemeinsinn braucht die liberale Gesellschaft? Leviathan, 22(2), 293–304. www.jstor.org/stable/23983905 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  289. Höffe, O. (2018). Erlaubt eine Demokratie Geheimnisse? Zeitschrift für Politik, 65(2), 137–149. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  290. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  291. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  292. Hoggett, P. & Thompson, S. (2002). Toward a Democracy of the Emotions. Constellations, 9(1), 106–126. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  293. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  294. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  295. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  296. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  297. Isernia, P. & Fishkin, J. S. (2014). The EuroPolis deliberative poll. European Union Politics, 15(3), 311–327. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  298. Jäger, S. (2015). Kritische Diskursanalyse: Eine Einführung (6. Aufl.). Unrast. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  299. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  300. Jandura, O., Fahr, A. & Brosius, H.‑B. (Hrsg.). (2012). Reihe Rezeptionsforschung: Bd. 25. Theorieanpassungen in der digitalen Medienwelt. Nomos. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  301. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  302. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  303. Janssen, D. & Kies, R. (2005). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy. Acta Politica, 40(3), 317–335. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  304. Jaramillo, M. C. (2013). Transformative Deliberative Moments Among Ex-Combatants In Colombia [Dissertationsschrift], Universität Bern. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  305. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  306. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  307. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  308. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  309. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  310. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  311. Kaase, M. (1992). Partizipation. In D. Nohlen (Hrsg.), Wörterbuch zur Politik (S. 682–684). Piper. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  312. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  313. Karpf, D. (2017). Digital politics after Trump. Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(2), 198–207. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  314. Karpowitz, C. F. & Mendelberg, T. (2014). The silent sex: Gender, deliberation, and institutions. Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  315. Karpowitz, C. F., Mendelberg, T. & Shaker, L. (2012). Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation. American Political Science Review, 106(03), 533–547. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  316. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  317. Kenix, L. J. (2011). Alternative and Mainstream Media: The Converging Spectrum. Bloomsbury Academic. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  318. Kersting, N. (Hrsg.). (2008). Politische Beteiligung: Einführung in dialogorientierte Instrumente politischer und gesellschaftlicher Partizipation. Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  319. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  320. Kies, R. (2010). Promises and limits of Web-deliberation. Palgrave Macmillan. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10433703 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  321. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J. & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123–1134. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  322. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  323. Kleinhenz, T. (1995). Die Nichtwähler. Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  324. Klinger, U. (2018). Aufstieg der Semiöffentlichkeit: Eine relationale Perspektive. Publizistik, 63(2), 245–267. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  325. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  326. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  327. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  328. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  329. Knobloch, J. (2017). Demokratie und Geheimnis. In R. Voigt (Hrsg.), Staatsgeheimnisse (S. 205–224). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  330. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  331. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  332. Kolleck, A. (2017). Politische Diskurse online: Einflussfaktoren auf die Qualität der kollektiven Meinungsbildung in internetgestützten Beteiligungsverfahren. Nomos. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  333. Krause, S. R. (2002). Liberalism with honor. Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  334. Krause, S. R. (2008). Civil Passions: Moral Sentiment and Democratic Deliberation. Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  335. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  336. Krebs, D. & Menold, N. (2014). Gütekriterien quantitativer Sozialforschung. In N. Baur & J. Blasius (Hrsg.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  337. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4. Aufl.). Sage. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  338. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  339. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  340. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  341. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  342. Lave, C. A. & March, J. G. (1993). An Introduction to Models in the Social Sciences. University Press of America. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  343. LeDoux, J. (1996). The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings Of Emotional Life. Simon & Schuster. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  344. Leifeld, P. & Schneider, V. (2012). Information Exchange in Policy Networks. American Journal of Political Science, 56(3), 731–744. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  345. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  346. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  347. Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. Yale University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  348. List, C. (2002). Two Concepts of Agreement. The Good Society, 11(1), 72–79. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  349. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  350. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  351. Lusher, D., Koskinen, J. & Robins, G. (2012). Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  352. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  353. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  354. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  355. MacIntyre, A. (1981). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. University of Notre Dame Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  356. Maia, R. C. M. (2012). Deliberation, the Media and Political Talk. Hampton Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  357. Manin, B. (1987). On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation. Political Theory, 15(3), 338–368. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  358. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  359. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  360. March, J. G & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. Free Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  361. Marcus, G. E. (2000). Emotions in Politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 221–250. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  362. Margolis, M. & Resnik, D. (2000). Politics as Usual: The Cyberspace “Revolution”. Sage. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  363. Marti, J. L. & Besson, S. (2006). Deliberative Democracy and its Discontents. Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  364. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  365. Marzinkowski, H. & Engelmann, I. (2018). Die Wirkung „guter“ Argumente. Publizistik, 63(2), 269–287. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  366. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  367. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  368. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  369. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  370. Meier, A. (2017). Online Participation. HMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik, 54(4), 457–458. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  371. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  372. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  373. Merkel, W. (Hrsg.). (2015). Demokratie und Krise. Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  374. Merkel, W., Puhle, H.‑J., Croissant, A., Eicher, C. & Thiery, P. (2003). Defekte Demokratie: Band 1: Theorie. Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  375. Merkle, D. M. (1996). Review: The National Issues Convention Deliberative Poll. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(4), 588–619. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  376. Merten, K. (1995). Inhaltsanalyse. Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  377. Merten, K. (1999). Grundlagen der Kommunikationswissenschaft (3. Aufl.). Einführung in die Kommunikationswissenschaft: Bd. 1. LIT Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  378. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. Free Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  379. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  380. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  381. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  382. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  383. Möhring, W. & Schlütz, D. (Hrsg.). (2013). SpringerLink. Handbuch standardisierte Erhebungsverfahren in der Kommunikationswissenschaft. Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  384. Mokrosińska, D. (Hrsg.). (2021). Transparency and secrecy in European democracies: Contested trade-offs. Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  385. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  386. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  387. Morrell, M. E. (2010). Empathy and democracy: Feeling, thinking, and deliberation. Pennsylvania State University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  388. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  389. Mortensen, C. D. (1970). The status of small group research. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 56(3), 304–309. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  390. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  391. Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745–758. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40971349 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  392. Muradova, L. (2020). Seeing the Other Side? Perspective-Taking and Reflective Political Judgements in Interpersonal Deliberation. Political Studies, 10(4). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  393. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  394. Mutz, D. C. (2008). Is Deliberative Democracy a Falsifiable Theory? Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 521–538. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  395. Myers, D. G. & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83(4), 602–627. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  396. Myerson, G. (1994). Rhetoric, Reason and Society: Rationality as Dialogue. Sage. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  397. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  398. Neidhardt, F. (Hrsg.). (1994). Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie Sonderhefte: Bd. 34. Öffentlichkeit, öffentliche Meinung, soziale Bewegungen. Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  399. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  400. Neuberger, C. (2007). Interaktivität, Interaktion, Internet. Publizistik, 52(1), 33–50. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  401. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  402. Neuberger, C. (2014). Konflikt, Konkurrenz und Kooperation: Interaktionsmodi in einer Theorie der dynamischen Netzwerköffentlichkeit. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 62(4), 567–587. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  403. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  404. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  405. Niemeyer, S. (2004). Deliberation in the Wilderness: Displacing Symbolic Politics. Environmental Politics, 13(2), 347–372. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  406. Niemeyer, S. (2011). The Emancipatory Effect of Deliberation: Empirical Lessons from Mini-Publics. Politics & Society, 39(1), 103–140. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  407. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  408. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  409. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1980). Die Schweigespirale: Öffentliche Meinung – unsere soziale Haut. Ullstein. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  410. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  411. Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  412. North, D. C. (2012). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  413. Noveck, B. S. (2009). Wiki government: How technology can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. Brookings Institution Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  414. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  415. Nussbaum, M. C. (Hrsg.). (2014). Gerechtigkeit oder Das gute Leben (7. Aufl.). Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  416. Nussbaum, M. C. (2015). Political emotions: Why love matters for justice (First Harvard University Press paperback edition). Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  417. Offe, C. (1972). Strukturprobleme des kapitalistischen Staates. Campus Bibliothek. Surkamp. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  418. Offe, C. (2003). Demokratisierung der Demokratie: Diagnosen und Reformvorschläge. Campus. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  419. Offe, C. (2009). Governance: An “Empty Signifier”? Constellations, 16(4), 550–562. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  420. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  421. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  422. Page, B. I. (1996). Who deliberates? Mass media in modern democracy. American politics and political economy series. University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  423. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  424. Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford studies in digital politics. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  425. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  426. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  427. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  428. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  429. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  430. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  431. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  432. Peters, B. (2008). Public deliberation and public culture: The writings of Bernhard Peters, 1993 – 2005 (H. Wessler, Hg.). Palgrave Macmillan. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  433. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  434. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  435. Pfetsch, B., Löblich, M. & Eilders, C. (2018). Dissonante Öffentlichkeiten als Perspektive kommunikationswissenschaftlicher Theoriebildung. Publizistik, 63(4), 477–495. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  436. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  437. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  438. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  439. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  440. Porten-Cheé, P. (2017). Anschlusskommunikation als Medienwirkung: Der Einfluss von Relevanz und Qualität von Medieninhalten auf das Gesprächsverhalten. Nomos. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  441. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  442. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  443. Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. (Hrsg.). (2008). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  444. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  445. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  446. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  447. Quandt, T. & Scheufele, B. (Hrsg.). (2011). Ebenen der Kommunikation: Mikro-Meso-Makro-Links in der Kommunikationswissenschaft. Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  448. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  449. Rheingold, H. (2000 [1993]. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier (2. Aufl.). MIT Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  450. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  451. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  452. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  453. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  454. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  455. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  456. Ryfe, D. M. (2002). The Practice of Deliberative Democracy: A Study of 16 Deliberative Organizations. Political Communication, 19(3), 359–377. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  457. Ryfe, D. M. (2005). Does Deliberative Democracy Work? Annual Review of Political Science, 8(1), 49–71. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  458. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  459. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  460. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  461. Sandel, M. J. (1982). Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  462. Sanders, L. M. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25(3), 1–17. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  463. Sankoff, D. & Kruskal, J. (1983). Time Warps, String Edits, and Macromolecules: The Theory and Practice of Sequence Comparison. Longman Higher Education. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  464. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  465. Saward, M. (Hrsg.). (2000). Democratic Innovation: Deliberation, representation and association. Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  466. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  467. Scharkow, M. (2011). Zur Verknüpfung manueller und automatischer Inhaltsanalyse durch maschinelles Lernen. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 59(4), 545–562. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  468. Scherer, S. & Brüderl, J. (2010). Sequenzdatenanalyse. In C. Wolf & H. Best (Hrsg.), Handbuch der sozialwissenschaftlichen Datenanalyse (S. 1031–1051). Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  469. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  470. Schneider, S. M. (1996). Creating a Democratic Public Sphere Through Political Discussion. Social Science Computer Review, 14(4), 373–393. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  471. Schöttle, S. (2019). Politische Online-Partizipation und soziale Ungleichheit: Eine empirische Studie mit Gender-Fokus. Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  472. Schudson, M. (1997). Why conversation is not the soul of democracy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 14(4), 297–309. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  473. Schweitzer, E. J. (2004). Deliberative Polling®. Deutscher Universitätsverlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  474. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  475. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  476. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  477. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  478. Shapiro, I. (2002). Optimal Deliberation? Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 196–211. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  479. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  480. Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  481. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  482. Somin, I. (2010). Deliberative Democracy and Political Ignorance. Critical Review, 22(2–3), 253–279. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  483. Somin, I. (2013). Democracy and political ignorance: Why smaller government is smarter. Stanford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  484. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  485. Spitzmüller, J. & Warnke, I. H. O. (2011). Diskurslinguistik: Eine Einführung in Theorien und Methoden der transtextuellen Sprachanalyse. De Gruyter. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  486. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  487. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  488. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  489. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  490. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  491. Stegbauer, C. & Rausch, A. (2001). Die schweigende Mehrheit – „Lurker“ in internetbasierten Diskussionsforen. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 30(1), 48–64. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  492. Steiner, J., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M. & Steenbergen, M. R. (2004). Deliberative politics in action: Analyzing parliamentary discourse. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  493. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  494. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  495. Stewart, J. (1996). Innovation in Democratic Practice in Local Government. Policy & Politics, 24(1), 29–41. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  496. Stokes, S. C. (1998). Pathologies of Deliberation. In J. Elster (Hrsg.), Deliberative Democracy (S. 123–139). Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  497. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  498. Strandberg, K. & Berg, J. (2013). Online Newspapers’ Readers’ Comments – Democratic Conversation Platforms or Virtual Soapboxes? Comunicação e Sociedade, 23, 132–152. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  499. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  500. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  501. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  502. Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring Deliberation's Content: A Coding Scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), 1–35. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  503. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  504. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  505. Sunstein, C. R. (2002). The Law of Group Polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 175–195. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  506. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  507. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  508. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  509. Thom, R. (1983). Mathematical Models of Morphogenesis. Horwood. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  510. Thompson, S. & Hoggett, P. (2001). The emotional dynamics of deliberative democracy. Policy & Politics, 29(3), 351–364. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  511. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The Uses of Argument (aktualisierte Auflage). Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  512. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  513. Tranow, U. (2014). Kooperative Normsetzung im Internet: Partizipationsbedingungen aus handlungstheoretischer Perspektive. Momentum Quarterly, 3(2). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  514. Tranow, U., Beckers, T. & Becker, D. (2016). Social Mechanisms: Themenheft. Analyse & Kritik, 38(1). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  515. Troitzsch, K. G. (1990). Modellbildung und Simulation in den Sozialwissenschaften. Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226
  516. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748934226

Similar publications

from the series "Politische Kommunikation und demokratische Öffentlichkeit"
Cover of book: Politischer Journalismus
Edited Book Full access
Christian Nuernbergk, Nina Fabiola Schumacher, Jörg Haßler, Jonas Schützeneder
Politischer Journalismus
Cover of book: Propaganda on-Demand
Monograph No access
Lennart Hagemeyer
Propaganda on-Demand
Cover of book: Babylon oder Blase? Die Brüsseler EU-Kommunikationskultur
Monograph No access
Jan Georg Plavec
Babylon oder Blase? Die Brüsseler EU-Kommunikationskultur
Cover of book: Parteikommunikation im Zeitalter von Social Media
Monograph No access
Mario Datts
Parteikommunikation im Zeitalter von Social Media
Cover of book: Regierungskommunikation und politische Unterstützung
Monograph No access
Franco Delle Donne
Regierungskommunikation und politische Unterstützung

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 your Institution (SSO, Shibboleth, OpenAthens)
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex