Political Discussion Online

The Handbook of Internet Studies

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 168-187

  Stromer Galley, Jennifer ^a   Wichowski, Alexis ^a  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Channel characteristics of the Internet bridging vast distances; Lack of active participation in online discussions diminished civic engagement; Political conversation online exchange between any set of people, social and political; Political discourse, for democracy being John Dewey's "something that perpetuated itself automatically"; Political discussion online Thompson's "Freedom to... Online Political...Insult to Democracy"; Portrait of who engages in political discourse online, fairly consistent; Quality of online deliberation and Habermasian notions of deliberative democracy; Research on online political discussion discourse in the West; Scholars, and Internet channeled discussions for deliberation; Work, more of it design forums for promoting good discussion

Indexed keywords

EID: 84886043970     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9781444314861.ch8     Document Type: Chapter

References (85)

1. 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, 62-82.
2. Barber, B. (1984). Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
3. Beierle, T. C. (2004). Digital deliberation: Engaging the public through online policy dialogues. In P. M. Shane (ed.), Democracy Online: The Prospects for Political Renewal through the Internet (pp. 155-66). New York: Routledge.
4. Bers, M. U., & Chau, C. (2006). Fostering civic engagement by building a virtual city. Journal of Computer-Medicated Communication 11. http:/jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue3/bers.html.
5. Burkhalter, B. (1999). Reading race online: Discovering racial identity in Usenet discussions. In M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (eds.), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 60-75). London: Routledge.
6. Byrne, D. N. (2007). Public discourse, community concerns, and civic engagement: Exploring Black social networking traditions on BlackPlanet.com. Journal of Computer-Medicated Communication, 13. http:/jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/byrne.html.
7. Calenda, D., & Mosca, L. (2007). The political use of the Internet: Some insights from two surveys of Italian students. Information, Communication, & Society, 10, 29-47.
8. Coleman, S. (2004). Connecting parliament to the public via the Internet. Information, Communication & Society, 7, 1-22.
9. Dahlberg, L. (2001). The Internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication and Society, 4, 615-33.
10. Davis, R. (1999). The Web of Politics: The Internet's Impact on the American Political System. New York: Oxford University Press.
11. Davis, R. (2005). Politics Online: Blogs, Chatrooms, and Discussion Groups in American Democracy. New York: Routledge.
12. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13. Dewey, J. (1946). The Public and Its Problems: An Essay on Political Inquiry. Chicago: Gateway Books.
14. Dewey, J., Morris, D., & Shapiro, I. (1993). The Political Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett.
15. Doheny-Farina, S. (1996). The Wired Neighborhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
16. Donath, J., & boyd, d. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22, 71.
17. Douglas, K. M., & McGarty, C. (2001). Identifiability and self-presentation: Computermediated communication and intergroup interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 399-416.
18. Endres, D., & Warnick, B. (2004). Text-based interactivity in candidate campaign web sites: A case study from the 2002 elections. Western Journal of Communication, 68, 322-43.
19. Fung, A. (2002). One city, two systems: Democracy in an electronic chat room in Hong Kong. Javnost/The Public, 9, 77-94.
20. Garramone, G. M., Harris, A. C., & Anderson, R. (1986). Uses of political computer bulletin boards. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 30, 325-39.
21. Graham, T., & Witschge, T. (2003). In search of online deliberation: Towards a new method for examining the quality of online discussions. Communications, 28, 173-204.
22. Habermas, J. ([1962] 1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Hacker, K. L. (1996). Missing links in the evolution of electronic democratization. Media, Culture & Society, 18, 213-32.
24. Hagemann, C. (2002). Participation in and contents of two Dutch political party discussion lists on the internet. Javnost/The Public, 9, 61-76.
25. Harp, D., & Tremayne, M. (2006). The gendered blogosphere: Examining inequality using network and feminist theory. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83, 247-64.
26. Heeter, C. (1989). Implications of new interactive technologies for conceptualizing communication. In J. L. Salvaggio & J. Bryant (ed.), Media Use in the Information Age: Emerging Patterns of Adoption and Consumer Use (pp. 217-35). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27. Herring, S., Job-Sluder, K., Scheckler, R., & Barab, S. (2002). Searching for safety online: Managing "trolling" in a feminist forum. The Information Society, 18, 371-84.
28. Hill, D. T., & Sen, K. (2000). The Internet in Indonesia's new democracy. In P. Ferdinand (ed.), The Internet, Democracy And Democratization (pp. 119-136). London: Frank Cass Publishers.
29. Hill, K. A., & Hughes, J. E. (1998). Cyberpolitics: Citizen Activism in the Age of the Internet. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
30. Jankowski, N., & van Os, R. (2004). Internet-based political discourse: A case study of electronic democracy in Hoogeveen. In P. M. Shane (ed.), Democracy Online: The Prospects for Political Renewal through the Internet (pp. 181-93). New York: Routledge.
31. Jankowski, N., & van Selm, M. (2000). The promise and practice of public debate in cyberspace. In K. T. Hacker & J. van Dijk (ed.), Digital Democracy: Issues of Theory and Practice (pp. 149-65). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. Jensen, J. L. (2003a). Public spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or government-sponsored - A comparison. Scandinavian Political Studies, 26, 349-74.
33. Jensen, J. L. (2003b). Virtual democratic dialogue? Bringing together citizens and politicians. Information Polity, 8, 29-47.
34. Jensen, J. L. (2006). The Minnesota e-democracy project: Mobilising the mobilised? In S. Oates, D. Owen, & R. K. Gibson (eds.), The Internet and Politics: Citizens, Voters and Activists (pp. 39-58). London: Routledge.
35. Johnson, T. J., Kaye, B. K., Bichard, S. L., & Wong, W. J. (2007). Every blog has its day: Politically-interested Internet users' perceptions of blog credibility. Journal of Computer-Medicated Communication, 13. http:/jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/johnson.html.
36. Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (2002). Online and in the know: Uses and gratifications of the web for political information. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 46, 54-71.
37. Kelly, J., Fisher, D., & Smith, M. (2005). Debate, division, and diversity: Political discourse networks in Usenet newsgroups. Paper presented at the Stanford Online Deliberation Conference, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.
38. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. New York: Sage.
39. Kulikova, S. V., & Perlmutter, D. D. (2007). Blogging down the dictator? The Kyrgyz revolution and Samizdat websites. International Communication Gazette, 69, 29-50.
40. Matei, S. (2004). The impact of state-level social capital on the emergence of virtual communities. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48, 23-41.
41. McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Coming out in the age of the Internet: Identity "demarginalization" through virtual group participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 681-94.
42. McMillan, S. J., & Hwang, J. S. (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of the role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 31, 29-43.
43. Min, S. (2007). Online vs. face-to-face deliberation: Effects on civic engagements. Journal of Computer-Medicated Communication, 12. http:/jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/.
44. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45. Norris, P. (2002). The bridging and bonding role of online communities. Press/Politics, 7, 3-13.
46. Norris, P., & Jones, D. (1998). Virtual democracy. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 3, 1-4.
47. Noveck, B. S. (2004). Unchat: democratic solution for a wired world. In P. M. Shane (ed.), Democracy Online: The Prospects for Political Renewal through the Internet (pp. 21-34). New York: Routledge.
48. Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 175-96.
49. Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1. http:/jcmc.indiana.edu/vol1/issue4/parks.html.
50. Price, V., & Cappella, J. N. (2002). Online deliberation and its influence: the electronic dialogue project in campaign 2000. IT & Society, 1, 303-29.
51. Price, V., Cappella, J. N., & Nir, L. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion? Political Communication, 19, 95-112.
52. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
53. Reese, S. D., Rutigliano, L., Hyun, K., & Jeong, J. (2007). Mapping the blogosphere: Professional and citizen-based media in the global news arena. Journalism, 8, 235-61.
54. Robinson, L. (2005). Debating the events of September 11th: Discursive and interactional dynamics in three online fora. Journal of Computer-Medicated Communication, 10, http:/jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/robinson.html.
55. Savicki, V., Lingenfelter, D., & Kelley, M. (1996). Gender language style and group composition in Internet discussion groups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2. http:/jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol2/issue3/savicki.html.
56. Schneider, S. M. (1996). Creating a democratic public sphere through political discussion: A case study of abortion conversation on the Internet. Social Science Computer Review, 14, 373-93.
57. Shah, D. V., Kwak, N., & Holbert, R. L. (2001). "Connecting" and "disconnecting" with civic life: Patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication, 18, 141-62.
58. Stanley, J. W., Weare, C., & Musso, J. (2004). Participation, deliberative democracy, and the Internet: Lessons from a National Forum on Commercial Vehicle Safety. In P. M. Shane (ed.), Democracy Online: The Prospects for Political Renewal through the Internet (pp. 167-79). New York: Routledge.
59. Stromer-Galley, J. (2000). On-line interaction and why candidates avoid it. Journal of Communication, 50, 111-32.
60. Stromer-Galley, J. (2002a). Diversity and political conversations on the Internet: Users' perspectives. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8. http:/jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue3/stromergalley.html.
61. Stromer-Galley, J. (2002b). Motives for political talk online: Implications for political conversations and deliberation. Paper presented at the National Communication Association Annual Convention, New Orleans, LA.
62. Stromer-Galley, J. (2002c). New voices in the public sphere: A comparative analysis of interpersonal and online political talk. Javnost/The Public, 9, 23-42.
63. Stromer-Galley, J. (2002d). New Voices in the Public Sphere: Political Conversation in the Age of the Internet. Doctoral dissertation. Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
64. Stromer-Galley, J. (2004). Interactivity-as-product and interactivity-as-process. The Information Society, 20, 391-4.
65. Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation's content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3. http:/services.bepress.com/jpd/vol3/iss1/art12.
66. Stromer-Galley, J., & Baker, A. B. (2006). Joy and sorrow of interactivity on the campaign trail: Blogs in the primary campaign of Howard Dean. In A. P. Williams & J. C. Tedesco (eds.), The Internet Election: Perspectives on the Web in Campaign 2004 (pp. 111-131). Landham, MD: Rowman & Littelfield.
67. Stromer-Galley, J., & Foot, K. A. (2002). Citizens' perceptions of online interactivity and implications for political campaign communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8. http:/jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue1/stromerandfoot.html.
68. Stromer-Galley, J., & Martinson, A. (2005). Conceptualizing and measuring coherence in online chat. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Annual Meeting, May, New York, NY.
69. Sundar, S. S., Kalyanaraman, S., & Brown, J. (2003). Explicating web site interactivity: Impression formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research, 30, 30-59.
70. Sunstein, C. R. (2001). republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
71. Thompson, N. (2002). Freedom to flame. Online political chat is an insult to democracy. Can it be fixed? The Boston Globe, p. D1.
72. Trammell, K. D., & Keshelashvili, A. (2005). Examining the new influencers: A selfpresentation study of A-list blogs. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82, 968-82.
73. Trenel, M. (2004). Facilitating deliberation online: What difference does it make? Paper presented at the second Deliberation Online Conference, May, Palo Alto, CA.
74. Tsaliki, L. (2002). Online forums and the enlargement of public space: Research findings from a European project. Javnost/The Public, 9, 95-112.
75. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
76. Vrooman, S. S. (2002). The art of invective. New Media & Society, 4, 51-70.
77. Wang, H. (1996). Flaming: More than a necessary evil for academic mailing lists. Electronic Journal of Communication, 6, http:/p7979-shadow.cios.org.libproxy.albany.edu/journals%5CEJC%5C006%5C1%5C00612.html.
78. Warnick, B., Xenos, M., Endres, D., & Gastil, J. (2005). Effects of campaign-to-user and text-based interactivity in political candidate campaign web sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10. http:/jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/warnick.html.
79. Weger, H. J., & Aakhus, M. (2003). Arguing in Internet chat rooms: Argumentative adaptations to chat room design and some consequences for public deliberation at a distance. Argumentation and Advocacy, 40, 23-38.
80. Wellman, B., Haase, A. Q., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001). Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 437-65.
81. Wilhelm, A. G. (1998). Virtual sounding boards: How deliberative is on-line political discussion? Information, Communication & Society, 1, 313-38.
82. Wright, S. (2006). Design matters: The political efficacy of government-run discussion boards. In S. Oates, D. Owen, & R. K. Gibson (eds.), The Internet and Politics: Citizens, Voters and Activists (pp. 80-99). London: Routledge.
83. Wright, S., & Street, J. (2007). Democracy, deliberation and design: The case of online discussion forums. New Media & Society, 9, 849-69.
84. Wyatt, R. O., Katz, E., & Kim, J. (2000). Bridging the spheres: Political and personal conversation in public and private spaces. Journal of Communication, 50, 71-92.
85. Wynn, E., & Katz, J. E. (1997). Hyperbole over cyberspace: Self-presentation and social boundaries in Internet home pages and discourse. The Information Society, 13, 297-327.