Nick Caggiano

Online Deliberation: Many Thoughts, Few Conclusions

Our experiment with online deliberation highlighted that the medium in which a
deliberation is conducted has a great effect on its nature. There did not seem to be any intentional
change of the deliberations goals: to approach mutual understanding of all thoughts and
opinions, to find possible solutions, and to be civil and respectful of all participants throughout
the deliberation, to name a few. But, compared to our small group deliberations, what did change
was the manner in which these goals were approached. In his book The Myth of Digital
Democracy, Matthew Hindman notes one crucial aspect of Internet dialogue: speaking is by no
means equivalent to being heard. In essence, this fundamental distinction, coupled with the large
number of participants, resulted in a deliberation in which many viewpoints were shared, but not
all were heard or considered. Additionally, the format in which the deliberation was conducted
in a Yammer groupfacilitated a large number of smaller, isolated sub-deliberations instead
of a single large one. However, this vastly expanded the available information base, which, for
those ideas that were heard by the group, did result in some deliberations that were more
informed and in-depth than what could be accomplished by the in-class deliberations.
Perhaps the greatest challenge in this online format of deliberation was getting your ideas
heard. Whereas our in-class deliberations of about a dozen participants allowed only one person
to talk at a time, on the Internet many people can post simultaneously or in rapid succession.
This sometimes resulted in a bit of information overload. This overload occurred most notably in
the beginning of the deliberation, when each participant was asked to read a document
containing the three options for Penn States general education requirements and post his or her
personal stake and other pertinent background information. As a result, the Yammer group was
1
inundated with posts describing various personal experiences and opinions regarding general
education requirements. But the question was would anyone take the time to read these posts,
which were often of considerable length. At first I highly doubted people would read or respond
to the multitude of posts on the group. I posted my own personal stake on March 2nd, and
several days without a single
comment or likeand witnessing
other posts likewise sit stagnant on
the group pageseemed to support
my belief. I tried to present a
different viewpoint than what had
already been posted: what about
students entering Penn State with
high school IB or AP credits for
some or all general education classes? I thought it would be applicable to many people in the
group, yet no one seemed to be acknowledging my post. Did I offend someone? Did others see
the expand button on my post and automatically disregard it as too long to read? Had I
overestimated the reach of my topic? But then, four days later, my post finally received some
attentionits first comment. Then, just six minutes later, another. Finally, my post had sparked a
conversation that grew to involve thirteen participants and seventeen comments over the course
of two days. People were actually reading my post and engaging in civil dialogue about the topic
of AP credits. Perhaps with the sheer volume of information in the Yammer group, it had taken
time for the right people to sift through all the posts to find one that related to them. But that is
2
also the beauty of online deliberationall conversations are preserved indefinitely and can be
accessed by anyone at any time. Whereas in a vocal deliberation, it can sometimes be difficult to
backtrack to a previously discussed topic and remember each participants opinion, online
deliberation enables anyone to reinitiate dialogue on any post, regardless of many hours or days
ago it was posted. This can often result in more in-depth conversation than vocal deliberation
because participants have a much longer time period in which to collect their thoughts and then
construct and edit their response. In that regard, the vast majority of the posts and comments I
read online tended to be well-thought-out and well-phrased, as compared to the more rapid-fire
responses that occurred in our in-class deliberations.
But back to my first post. While I was elated that it had attracted a fair amount of
readership, it was evidence of both a major benefit and a major drawback of online deliberation:
out of the 125 participants in the group, only thirteen were actively engaged in my post;
however, the large number of people in the group and the open nature of online deliberation had
attracted only those with an interest in my post, which resulted in a more wholesome and
engaging sub-deliberation within my posts comments section. This is the fractionalized nature
of online deliberation in such a large group. Sure, all 125 participants could read through every
post and comment, but that is highly unlikely. People chose to comment on the starting posts
they were most interested in, which meant that the entire group was never involved in the same
discussion. But at the same time, everyone was engaged in the sub-deliberations that were
relevant to them. I admit that I did not read every post on the Yammer group, but when I found
one that pertained to meone that I could add value toI chose to comment. For example,
Abby posted her personal stakethat it was difficult to fit in all of the general education
3
requirements around her coursework for majors and minorsas well as her favor of Option 3. I
chose to comment because I held the same view and wanted to express my support of her post
while adding my personal opinion. Likewise, it was equally as easy to express disagreement
within the context of the
Yammer group. I had a
different opinion than Sounder
on this particular topic, and
therefore I decided to share it
in the most constructive way I
could so that the discussion
could consider both
viewpoints and go from there.
While some might contend
that the Internet may act as a
shield that facilitates the
expression of mean-spirited thoughts, I think that was curbed due to the use of full names in the
4
Yammer group and also by the settinga private group of peers that is also monitored by
professors. Or perhaps everyone in the group was just nicer than the general Internet commenter.
Either way, all expression of disagreement that I saw was conducted in a civil and constructive
manner than lead to further discussion of the matter instead of the more destructive hate-mail for
which some Internet forums have built a reputation.
In the end, the online deliberation through the Yammer group proved effective at some
aspects of deliberation but ineffective at othersthe online deliberation had more breadth and
depth due to the lack of time constraint, but the in-class deliberations seemed more focused.
Online deliberation made it much easier to build a vast information base, which was preserved in
writing and could be accessed by anyone at any time. This could have taken almost the entire
fifty minute class period to accomplish vocally. Additionally, the large setting, although not as
intimate as the smaller in-class deliberation, enabled the creation of a multitude of sub-
deliberations. There was bound to be at least one thread within the group that was relevant to
each of the 125 participants. Again, this was much different than the in-class deliberation, where
only one part of the topic was discussed at a timeif you didnt hold a personal stake in that
particular part, you were essentially out of the dialogue until it moved to a different part. Yet the
large online group was not at all conducive to
approaching a general solution. The many
sub-deliberationssome parallel and some
divergentsimply could not be reconciled
together in such a large context. The poll
results evidence this lack of consensus.
5
Mutual understanding could only be accomplished completely if everyone read every post and
comment in the group, which was highly unlikely. In this aspect, the in-class deliberations were
more effective because everyone was forced to listen to everything that was said during the
deliberation. It was therefore much easier to reconcile thoughts and opinions at the conclusion.
Ultimately, the experience deliberating both online and in class evidenced that the medium of
deliberation has a large impact on its nature. Each format cannot be labelled good or bad, but
this experience has revealed some of the benefits and drawbacks of each that should be
considered when constructing and organizing a deliberation.
6