International Journal of E-Politics, 5(1), 1-15, January-March 2014 1

The Challenges for Online

Deliberation Research:
A Literature Review
Magnus E. Jonsson, Department of Political Science, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden
Joachim Åström, Department of Political Science, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden

ABSTRACT
While pure deliberation has still not been found online, the field of online deliberation research is blossom-
ing. Born out of the “frustrations and possibilities” of the 1990s, a current theme in the field is to re-link
deliberative theory with empirical political science. The aim of this systematic literature review is to sort out
and examine important features of this development; to identify and categorise important research themes
and issues as well as to pinpoint some research gaps. Using citation analysis as a method for article selection,
788 abstracts were retrieved and out of these, 130 items were chosen for further analysis. First the review
shows that researchers from several different disciplines are involved in the field and that these researchers
are studying online deliberation in a variety of arenas aided by a wide range of methods. Second the review
reveals that the field struggles with a highly diversified concept of deliberation; that newer theoretical devel-
opments are underutilised in the operationalisation of theoretical concepts for empirical analyses, and that
it there is a rather low degree of cumulativity in the field. Finally, more attention is paid on deliberation per
se, rather than the political and democratic consequences of deliberation.

Keywords: Deliberation, Deliberative Democracy, Internet, Literature Review, Online Deliberation

INTRODUCTION (e.g. Koop & Jansen, 2009; Xenos, 2008),

While pure deliberation has still not been
found online (Chadwick, 2009), the field of
online deliberation research is blossoming
(Davies, 2009). Born out of the “frustrations
and possibilities” (Davies, 2009) of the 1990s,
a current theme in the field is about re-linking
deliberative theory with empirical political
science (Bächtiger & Hangartner, 2010). From
the second half of the 2000s a new wave of
studies has swept over the field, focusing on
a greater variety of platforms, such as blogs
comments in newspapers (e.g. Berdal 2004;
Zhou et al., 2008) and other innovations, one
of which is augmented deliberation in urban
planning (Gordon & Manosevitch, 2010). At
the same time new concepts and ideas are being
developed and discussed in the literature of de-
liberative democracy, suggesting the inclusion
of story-telling (Polletta & Lee, 2006; Black,
2008), humour (Basu, 1999; Coleman & Moss,
2012), emotions and rhetoric (Dryzek, 2000),
passion (Hall, 2007), and power (Mansbridge et
al., 2010) in the analysis of citizen deliberation.

DOI: 10.4018/ijep.2014010101

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
2 International Journal of E-Politics, 5(1), 1-15, January-March 2014
The aim of this systematic literature review
is to sort out and examine important features
of this development, to identify and categorise
significant research themes and issues as well
as to pinpoint some research gaps. The review
will take its point of departure in three aspects
that divide the field: the discipline to which the
researcher belongs, the arena that the study is
focusing, and the methods used to measure or
understand the different aspects of online de-
liberation. Utilising the method of descriptive
statistics, we will analyse how these aspects
influence choices regarding research themes
and issues.
The article is structured as follows. We start
by describing the method used for choosing and
analysing the items (articles, books, reports and
conference proceedings) in the field. Secondly,
we examine how the concept of online delibera-
tion is defined and made sense of, by discussing
the theoretical items in the sample in relation to
literature on deliberative democracy in general.
In the third part, we conduct a structured ex-
amination of the empirical items in the sample,
in which we (a) analyse how the arenas relate
to discipline and the methods applied, and (b)
analyse the research themes and issues. In the
final part of the article we discuss and suggest
ways to move the field forward.
METHOD
To conduct this structured literature review,
citation analysis was applied to find the most
relevant and important studies in the field. A
main problem, however, with this method is the
semantic fragmentation of the concept of online
deliberation, and since a “literature review is
concept-centric” (Webster & Watson, 2002),
there is a necessity to be modest and honest about
the problem with stringency in the reviewed
material. To solve this problem, we applied an
inductive approach to the semantic varieties of
the concept, i.e. we added terms along the way
as we found other terms related to the main
concept, and then searched these new terms
in the same manner as the original term. The
different terms that were found in the literature
Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
were computer-mediated deliberation (Gastil,
2000), digital deliberation (Bierle, 2004), E-
deliberation (Cindio, 2008; Hands, 2005; Kim,
2006), eDeliberation (Wojcik, 2007), virtual
deliberation (Barabas, 2003; Delborne et al.,
2011) and web-deliberation (Kies, 2010). Our
interpretation is that there is no specific nor-
mative meaning or substance to these different
concepts, but that they are simply semantically
different from each other. Departing from these
findings, we used online deliberation†2 as the
head term, and then added: Internet delibera-
tion‡, e-deliberation‡, eDeliberation‡, web de-
liberation‡, digital deliberation‡, online political
deliberation‡, on-line deliberation‡, computer-
mediated deliberation‡, and computer-mediated
political discussion‡.
The items examined for this article are a mix
of articles, books, reports, chapters in antholo-
gies, and various conference proceedings. All
items were retrieved from the databases Publish
and Perish and ISI-Web of Knowledge. The
timespan for the retrieved items was 1990 to
April 2012. The total number of items retrieved
in the first gathering was 788. All items were
analysed, using abstracts and keywords as guid-
ance for relevance. From these, a total of 130
were considered to be relevant, and thus selected
for further analysis. The criteria for being con-
sidered relevant were a specific focus on some
aspect of online deliberation and furthermore,
the item was cited at least once. Including only
cited items was a way of delimiting the analy-
sis to contributions that has had at least some
impact in the field. The analyses consisted of
reading all items, then categorising and coding
all of the content. Eighty-seven dichotomised
variables were used to analyse each item. Prior
to reviewing the literature, two main categories
were established for each study: empirical and
theoretical. To be categorised as an empirical
item, the study had to, in some way, be based on
data collected by the authors, or for that specific
study. To be categorised as a theoretical item, the
study must in some way theorise about online
deliberation, develop or discuss methodologi-
cal aspects of online deliberation, or generally
discuss the potential of online deliberation
 International Journal of E-Politics, 5(1), 1-15, January-March 2014 3

using already published data. The result was 2001a; Jansen & Kies, 2005; Jensen, 2003a;
that 67% (N=87) were considered empirical Kies, 2010; Sampaio et al., 2011; Strandberg,
items, while 33% (N=43) were considered as 2008; Stromer-Galley, 2007; Trénel, 2004;
theoretical items. In this review, there will be Wilhelm, 2000; Wright, 2007; Wright & Street,
slightly more focus on the empirical studies. 2007). Thus, despite the theoretical develop-
ment in the field of deliberative democracy
with story-telling (Polletta & Lee, 2006; Black,
THE CONCEPT OF ONLINE 2008), humour (Basu, 1999; Coleman & Moss,
DELIBERATION 2012), emotions and rhetoric (Dryzek, 2000),
passion (Hall, 2007), and power (Mansbridge
What is online deliberation? An initial answer
et al., 2010), the Habermasian framework still
to that question is that early on there is no
dominates.
consensus in the literature on how to define
When narrowing the scope and starting
deliberation (Bächtiger et al., 2010; Coleman
to scrutinise the definitions used in the litera-
& Moss, 2012; Stromer-Galley, 2007). Drawing
ture it becomes obvious that not only are the
upon different theoretical schools of what delib-
definitions of deliberation different from each
eration is, and ought to be, scholars within the
other, but there is seldom a specific theoretical
field constantly come up with new, or modified
connection to the definition (and if there is, as
versions of older definitions and operationalisa-
we noted above, the Habermasian framework
tions of what deliberation is and how it should
dominates). We will here discuss a few examples
be researched empirically. In this section, we
found in the literature to paint a picture of how
will discuss three problems connected to the
diverse the definitions in the field can be. As
conceptualisation of online deliberation: the
a starting point, we reference Stromer-Galley
theoretical foundations of online deliberation,
(2007) and Kim (2006). When Stromer-Galley
the diversified definitions of deliberations in
define deliberation, it is “as a process whereby
the literature, and the diversity of operation-
groups of people, often ordinary citizens, engage
alisations of the concept in empirical studies.
in reasoned opinion expression on a social or
In the early stages of the field, most
political issue in an attempt to identify solu-
theoretical studies on online deliberation fo-
tions to a common problem and to evaluate
cused upon the possibilities of the Internet as
those solutions” (2007, p. 3). Departing from
a public sphere for deliberation (e.g. Fishkin,
the very same concept, Kim (2006) aims “[t]
2000; Gimmler, 2001; Witschge, 2002), or
o measure the involvement in online delibera-
discussed online deliberation as an alternative
tion”, by posing “a [survey] question asking
model among others (e.g. Dahlberg, 2001b;
if the respondents had participated in online
Åström, 2001). The heritage of deliberative
discussions” (p. 41). These definitions should
theory is however always strongly present, and
not be seen as representing some major ten-
“[t]he most popular starting point for Internet-
dencies within the field, but rather function as
deliberative researchers” Dahlberg (2007)
examples of the variety of depth and scope on
argues, “has been Habermas […] Barber […],
how the concept of deliberation is defined and
Bohman […], Fishkin […], and Gutman and
operationalised.
Thompson” (p. 49). Other popular theoretical
Despite these differences Dahlberg (2007)
frameworks that are departures include Sunstein
argues that “a general public sphere norm can
(2001) and Gastil (2008). When analysing the
be identified [in the literature]”, and that “[t]
material in this review, however, it becomes
his norm involves rational-critical deliberation
clear that the Habermasian (1984; 1989; 1990;
over disputed validity claims, aimed at reach-
1997) framework dominates the field, based on
ing understanding and agreement” (pp. 49), a
the large number of studies that explicitly or
comment that complements the argumenta-
implicitly3 refer to the framework as the theo-
tion of Kies (2010). On the other hand, these
retical foundation (e.g. Berdal, 2004; Dahlberg,

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
4 International Journal of E-Politics, 5(1), 1-15, January-March 2014
differences in definitions certainly open up for
comment such statements as that of Bächtiger
et al. (2010), “[i]n many cases it is not clear
whether some commentators on deliberative
democracy merely refer to any kind of com-
munication, or to deliberation in the sense of
systematically weighing rational arguments”
(p. 33).
Climbing down the ladder from different
theoretical approaches within the deliberative
literature, through the diversity of defini-
tions, the problem of finding a unitary path of
operationalisations of the concept within the
literature becomes obvious. There are currently
a number of operationalisation schemes avail-
able for the online deliberation researcher. In
our review, we have identified two categories
of studies that in some way operationalise
deliberation; one purely focuses on develop-
ing coding schemes, which are usually studies
drawing their knowledge from theoretical
works and other coding schemes studies (e.g.
Dahlberg, 2001a; Graham & Witschge, 2003;
Jansen & Kies, 2005; Steenbergen et al., 2003;
Stromer-Galley, 2007; Trénel, 2004; Wilhelm,
1998), and one category that consists of single
studies that develops smaller schemes that are
more instrumental for that particular study (e.g.
Berdal, 2004; Jensen, 2003a, 2003b; Sampio et
al., 2011; Schneider, 1997; Strandberg, 2008;
Tsaliki, 2002; Wright, 2007; Wright & Street,
2007). A dual understanding can be applied to
this sprawling feature of the field. On the one
hand, the field is vital and healthy in the sense
that there is a struggle on how to view and
understand the concept of deliberation. On the
other hand, the operationalisation development
is seldom connected to the theoretical develop-
ments in the field of deliberative democracy, but
rather alternative versions or interpretations of
older (mostly Habermasian) notions of delibera-
tive democracy.
To summarise, it is easy to echo the mantra
that there is no consensus on how to define the
concept in the literature and, as Kies laconically
notes, “there are as many views concerning the
preferential choice of deliberative criteria as
there are deliberative theorists” (2010, p. 41).
Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
THE ARENAS, DISCIPLINES,
AND METHODS IN ONLINE
DELIBERATION RESEARCH
What arenas does online deliberation research
focus upon? And are there differences in how
disciplines approach these arenas? And, what
methods are applied to study online delibera-
tion?
Since online deliberation can exist ‘natu-
rally’ in the wild, in controlled institutional
settings, in experimental environments, but also
be researched through surveys, it is important to
conceptually distinguish these ‘arenas’. Conse-
quently, we categorised four: the institutional,
non-institutional, experimental, and general
arena. We then categorised each empirical item
in these arenas to get an overview of the field.
The institutional arena consists of all forms
of online platforms where politicians, civil ser-
vants, and citizens can meet and discuss, and
decide, upon political issues. Examples of plat-
forms are institutional online forums (Hands,
2005; Sampaio et al., 2011), policy consultation
forums (Coleman, 2004), institutional websites,
political party blogs (Koop & Jansen, 2009),
official social media platforms, e-petitioning
forums, and official e-mail lists. These plat-
forms can be applied on local (Ranerup, 2000;
Jankowski & van Os, 2004), national (Stanley
et al., 2004), regional (Wright, 2007; Karlsson,
2010; Kies & Wojcik, 2010) and, theoretically,
global levels.
The non-institutional arena can be seen as
negation to the institutional arena. We define
the non-institutional arena as all online delib-
erative platforms and/or activities that are not
sponsored or in any way connected to national,
regional or local governmental institutions. In
the literature, we distinguish six subcategories
to the non-institutional arena; USENET groups
(Wilhelm, 1999; Papacharissi, 2004), anarchic
forums (Jensen, 2003b), organizational forums
(Berdal, 2004; Milioni, 2009; Tanner, 2006),
blogs (Koop & Jansen, 2009), e-mail lists
(Dahlberg, 2001a) and chat rooms (Weger &
Aakhus, 2003).
 International Journal of E-Politics, 5(1), 1-15, January-March 2014 5

The experimental arena is the arena in
which the researchers conduct controlled experi-
ments (Hamlett & Cobb, 2006; Stromer-Galley
& Muhlberger, 2009; Ho & McLeod, 2008;
Grönlund et al., 2009). These experiments are
usually conducted in a pre-survey / information
/ deliberation / post-survey manner.
With the general arena we refer to studies
that conduct research on online deliberation
by targeting a random sample of citizens with
a survey as the only method (Wojcieszak et
al., 2009; Scheufele & Nisbet, 2007; Stromer-
Galley, 2002). This arena is hard to distinguish,
since a lot of studies in the field use surveys
as research method. So, to clarify, the general
arena consists of studies that do not in any way
conduct research in existing online forums,
but only conduct research based on random
sample surveys.
The field of online deliberation is a
genuinely multidisciplinary field (see Table 1
below). Since deliberative theory has its roots
in political philosophy and is mostly associated
with political science and perhaps sociology, it
is interesting to see how widespread the empiri-
cal research on online deliberation really is. To
get an overview we categorised the disciplines
as ‘media and communication’, ‘political sci-
ence’ and ‘other’ (in which sociology, journal-
ism, technical sciences, and philosophy are
included).
The field is also characterised by the use of
multiple methods. To create a comprehensive
overview, we categorised the methods as ‘quan-
titative’, ‘qualitative’, and ‘content analysis’.
By ’quantitative methods’ we refer to studies
based on surveys and descriptive statistics, by
‘qualitative methods’ we refer to interviews,
observation, conversations analysis, and with
‘content analysis’ we refer to both quantitative
and qualitative content analysis.
As shown in Table 1, the field is genuinely
multidisciplinary, despite the bias towards me-
dia and communication and political science.
The arenas are also widely spread, though with
a slight overrepresentation on research on the
non-institutional and the institutional arena.
The same can be said about methods applied,

Table 1. Disciplines and methods in relation to arena in the field of online deliberation

Non- Institutional General Experiment Mixed Total

institutional
Media and 34 16 28 19 3 100
communication (n=11) (n=5) (n=9) (n=19) (n=1) (n=32)
Political Science 31 35 11 19 4 100
(n=8) (n=9) (n=3) (n=5) (n=1) (n=26)
Other disciplines 41 38 3 11 7 100
(n=12) (n=11) (n=1) (n=3) (n=2) (n=29)
Total 35 29 15 16 5 100
(n=31) (n=25) (n=13 (n=14) (n=4) (n=87)
Quantitative 18 13 33 28 8 100
methods (n=7) (n=5) (n=13) (n=11) (n=3) (n=39)
Qualitative 55 45 0 0 0 100
methods (n=6) (n=5) (n=0) (n=0) (n=0) (n=11)
Content analysis 49 40 0 8 3 100
(n=18) (n=15) (n=0) (n=3) (n=1) (n=37)
Total 35 29 15 16 5 100
(n=31) (n=25) (n=13) (n=14) (n=4) (n=87)
Comment: The categories presented in Table 1 are mutually exclusive, placing each empirical study in the data set
in a specific category.

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
6 International Journal of E-Politics, 5(1), 1-15, January-March 2014
where a wide range of methods are applied,
however in that case with a rather dominant
position of quantitative methods and content
analysis (which also tends to be quantitative),
compared to qualitative approaches
THE MOST IMPORTANT
RESEARCH THEMES
AND ISSUES
What are the most important research themes
and issues in the field right now? When answer-
ing that question, we found three major themes
in which we could place the issues of the lit-
erature; the quality of deliberation, individual
gains, and external policy effects.
One of the most important observations
in the literature, as can be seen below in Table
2, is that almost half of the empirical studies
focus on the quality of deliberation per se, while
less than one-fourth of the studies focus on the
possible individual gains or policy effects as a
consequence of deliberation. In this part we will
present and discuss these themes and issues and
discuss how the field handles these.
Table 2. Research themes and issues
Theme
Quality of deliberation Quality of discussion
Anonymity
Moderation
F-t-f vs. online
Individual gains Policy attitude and Opinion change
Knowledge
Efficacy and Experience
External policy effects Policy connection
Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Table 2 shows that almost half (46%, N=40)
of the empirical studies do in some way study
the quality of discussion in relation to delibera-
tion, i.e. deliberation per se. When adding to
this that 45% (N=39) of the studies do, in some
way, discuss the issue of online anonymity (or
use anonymous samples), that 40% (N=35) of
the studies, in some way, discuss the role of
the moderator, and that 15% (N=13) of studies
discuss how face-to-face (f-t-f) deliberation
differs in quality from online deliberation,
it becomes clear that the theme of quality of
deliberation is outstanding compared to other
themes in the literature.
When studying the quality of deliberative
discussions, many scholars turn to the design
of case studies and conduct content analysis
(Jensen, 2003; Koop & Jansen, 2009; Papacha-
rissi, 2004; Sampaio et al., 2011; Strandberg,
2008; Tsaliki, 2002; Wilhelm, 1998). These
studies tend to focus on whether deliberation
exists or not, and if it does exist, what kind of
quality of deliberation is there? The answer to
the question of whether deliberation does exist
or not in the public sphere so far echoes from
the negative conclusions of Wilhelm (1998) on
virtual political forums to Strandberg’s (2008)
Issue Percent / (n)
46
(n = 40)
45
(n=39)
40
(n=35)
15
(n=13)
23
(n=20)
17
(n=15)
13
(n=10)
23
(n=20)
 International Journal of E-Politics, 5(1), 1-15, January-March 2014 7
conclusion that “the study has demonstrated
that public deliberation is generally not found
on-line, at least not in Finland”. It should be
mentioned that some attempts to develop more
inclusive tools, i.e. tools that not only answer
the question “is there/is there not deliberation?”
can be found in the literature (e.g. the discourse
quality index of Steenbergen et al., 2003). But
the main bulk of studies does not apply these
frameworks.
The role of the moderator (or facilitator) is
an important question in studies focusing on the
quality of deliberation (Edwards, 2002; Wright,
2006). The results and discussions on the topic
vary, with scholars such as Jensen (2003b) ar-
guing that institutional forums function better
due to the role of the moderator, while Tucey
(2010) found in her study that “participants were
fully capable of thinking about and discussing
political and scientific issues for themselves […]
without a moderator being necessary to control
the flow and tenor of the discussion” (pp. 32).
Anonymous participants are used in many
of the samples, yet the principal discussion on
anonymity is rather shallow. The debate that
does exist, however, usually focuses on the
question of whether anonymity contributes or
not to the quality of deliberation. On the one
side there are scholars arguing that anonymity
“frees interaction participants from potentially
feeling socially inferior to their counterparts
and, thus, facilitates expression for everyone”
(June Woong Rhee & Eun-Mee Kim, 2009), and
that it “obliterates real-life identity boundaries
and enhances free and open communication,
thus promoting a more enlightened exchange of
ideas” (Papacharissi, 2004). On the other side,
discussions usually focus on the concerns raised
over the representativeness of the participants
in the process (Wright, 2007), that anonymity
raises the level of extremist and hate speech
(Rose & Saebo, 2010), and also the possible
increase in conformity toward group norms
(Baek et al., 2011).
In 2000 Gastil noticed that there was “no
research [that] has systematically compared
face-to-face and computer-mediated political
deliberation” (p. 359). Now, a decade later, the
Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
study of face-to-face (f-t-f) and online delibera-
tion is an established genre in the field. In the
literature reviewed, 15% (N=13) are conducting
such studies. There is however a major prob-
lem haunting the genre; almost all studies are
comparing different forms of f-t-f and online
deliberation. When looking at the approaches
used in the genre we find: written online delib-
eration vs. f-t-f deliberation (Baek et al., 2011;
Delborne et al., 2011; Min, 2007; Muhlberger,
2005; Muhlbeger & Weber, 2006; Stromer-
Galley, 2002; Stromer-Galley, 2007; Talpin &
Wojcik, 2010; Tucey, 2010; Wojcieszak et al.,
2009), voice-based online deliberation vs. f-t-f
deliberation (Iyengar et al., 2003; Luskin et al.,
2004) and web camera-based online deliberation
and f-t-f talk (Grönlund et al., 2009). As a part
of the quality of deliberation, f-t-f vs. online
deliberation is a crucial part of the field.
Turning away from the theme of quality
in deliberation, we will now discuss how the
assumed individual gains of deliberation are
treated in the literature. To begin with, there
is a widespread theoretical assumption that
citizen deliberation generates political knowl-
edge. In our data, 17% (n=15) of the empirical
studies touch upon the issue of knowledge. A
common approach to research gains in politi-
cal knowledge is to conduct pre-/post- survey
studies in which general and particular political
knowledge is measured before and after delib-
erations (e.g. Price & Cappaella, 2002; Ieyngar
et al., 2003; Luskin et al., 2004; Barabas, 2004).
This research design has, however, been criti-
cised, since with “information and discussion
sandwiched between pre- and post-tests, it is
impossible to determine whether learning oc-
curred because of discussion, because of reading
materials or other information exposure, or some
combination of these factors” (Muhlberger &
Weber, 2006). Other designs applied are qualita-
tive (Talpin & Wojcik, 2010) and experimental
studies (Min, 2007; Tucey, 2010; Grönlund et
al., 2009). The results of these studies have so
far been mixed, and it is suggested that differ-
ent circumstances generate different results. It
can, however, according to Talpin and Wojcik
(2010) be stated that, despite different outcomes
8 International Journal of E-Politics, 5(1), 1-15, January-March 2014
in different studies, it is possible “[t]o summa-
rize” that “in deliberative contexts, citizens do
learn” (p. 64).
Another core assumption in deliberative
theory is that political and moral preferences are
not prefixed, but on the contrary shaped within
a discourse and possible to change through de-
liberation. The assumption is founded upon the
claim that citizens are able to have opinion and
attitude changes when faced with the “unforced
force of the better argument” (Habermas, 1996).
The issue of policy attitude and policy change
is, in some way, explored in 23% of the stud-
ies. Most studies of opinion change and policy
attitude change are designed as survey studies
(Ho & McLeod, 2008; Wojcieszak & Price,
2010; Schlosberg et al., 2007; Iyengar et al.,
2003; Barabas, 2003), or experimental studies
(Grönlund et al., 2010; Tucey, 2010). There are
fewer content analyses (Talpin & Wojcik, 2010;
Wright, 2007). Another approach present in the
literature is “consensus conferences” in which
smaller sets of citizens go through pre-/post-
surveys, face-to-face interaction, keyboard-to-
keyboard interaction, and then deliver a final
report that is presented to the press, public, and
authorities (Hamlett & Cobb, 2006).
When reviewing the results of the studies,
it is probably possible to summarise them with
a discussion by Price and Cappaella (2002)
about their own results: “[d]id these discussions
produce any changes of opinion? The answer
appears to be ‘yes’” (p. 315). Despite there being
evidence of opinion and policy attitude change
in several studies (e.g. Grönlund et al., 2009;
Luskin et al., 2004), there is still a profound
modesty within the field towards the results
produced so far.
There is relatively little researched on what
effects deliberation has on political efficacy
and what experiences citizens have of online
deliberative processes. In the empirical material
reviewed here, about 10% of the studies do in
some way study political efficacy or citizens’
experiences of deliberative practises. Political
efficacy and citizen experience are mostly
studied through surveys (Scheufele & Nisbet,
2007; Baek et al., 2010; Neblo et al., 2010) and
Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
less often through experiments (Min, 2007) or
interviews (Stromer-Galley, 2003).
We now turn to the last theme we found in
the literature, namely deliberation in connection
to the policy-making process. The connection to
policy and decision making is one of the most
contested aspects of deliberation. “[C]itizens
deliberate – and then what?” Dryzek (2000)
sums up the critique usually pointed toward
the deliberative framework from critics that
miss the aggregative function in the delibera-
tive model. Departing from the understanding
that the connection to the policy process is a
rather crucial issue, it is interesting to find that
relatively few, around 23%, of the studies do,
in some way, research this aspect.
The studies in our material focused on
different aspects of the connection to the policy-
making process. Some of the issues found in
the literature are online consultations (Cole-
man, 2004; Lührs et al., 2003), whose voice
is heard in online consultations? (Albrecht,
2006), can local government forums support
deliberation? (Dunne, 2009; Hands, 2005), how
can augmented deliberation be used in urban
planning? (Gordon & Monesevitch, 2010), and
how should the design of deliberative systems
in a representative context look (Rose & Sæbø,
2010)?
When analyzing these themes and issues in
relation to the arenas, disciplines, and applied
methods, some interesting patterns emerge. As
we can see in Table 3 below, the dominant theme
of quality in deliberation is heavily focused
on the non-institutional and the institutional
arena (with f-t-f vs. online deliberation as the
exception), divided between quantitative and
content analysis, and rather spread among the
disciplines. One interesting finding is that there
are no studies in this material on policy attitude
and opinion change, nor individual knowledge
gains in the non-institutional arena. Another
interesting finding is the dominant use of quan-
titative methods in the study of these individual
gains, such as opinion change, knowledge, and
efficacy. Also no studies in the material focus on
deliberation in connection to the policy-making
process using an experimental approach.
 International Journal of E-Politics, 5(1), 1-15, January-March 2014 9
DISCUSSION: RESEARCH
GAPS AND WAYS FORWARD
In this review, we have explored three aspects
of the field of online deliberation. First, the
review shows that researchers from several
different disciplines are involved in the field
and that these researchers are studying online
deliberation in a variety of arenas with the help
of a wide range of methods. Second the review
reveals that the field struggles with a highly
diversified concept of deliberation; that newer
theoretical developments are underutilised in
the operationalisation of theoretical concepts for
empirical analyses, and that it there is a rather
low degree of cumulativity in the field. Finally,
we have discovered that more attention is paid
on deliberation per se, rather than the political
and democratic consequences of deliberation.
The great richness of the field is the sense
of multidisciplinary approaches, with the wide
range of arenas and methods applied being at
the same time the great strength and a minor
weakness. The weakness lays in the possibili-
ties to produce results that can be said to hold
general results. That knowledge gains can be
produced in experimental deliberative settings
does not necessarily mean that deliberation in
wild non-institutional settings produces knowl-
edge gains. This is not a problem, as long as
the scholars in the field take adequate notice of
the studies conducted within the specific branch
of the field, or specific sub-field. A suggested
way forward is thus for scholars to be more
precise and more cumulative in their approach
when researching the different aspects of the
field in relation to their choice of arena, issue,
and method.
The review also shows that the field lacks
common definitions and operationalisations and
has weak connections to the recent develop-
ments in the theoretical literature on deliberative
democracy. One of the major problems is that
few scholars clearly define their theoretical
positions, but rather rely on a general discussion
and from these draw some, for that particular
study, useful conceptual claims. Now, this
might be an inherent problem within the social
sciences, yet there is a need to better address
Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
these problems. Another problem in the field
is the lack of “own” theoretical development.
The field is still dominated by the theoretical
frameworks focused on ‘offline’ deliberation,
especially the Habermasian framework. Yet,
there is little focus on the more recent theoretical
developments in the literature on deliberative
democracy. A suggested way forward is thus
that the field would benefit from having a bet-
ter ‘internal’ communication, i.e. for reasons of
cumulativity, scholars should pay more atten-
tion to the existing literature within the field,
but also, when/if, developing new theoretical
frameworks for online deliberation research,
pay greater attention to the more recent theo-
retical developments in the field of deliberative
democracy.
Our last point for discussion concerns the
overwhelming focus on the quality of delibera-
tion per se, rather than the political and demo-
cratic consequences of deliberative practices.
With the strong focus within the field on the
quality of deliberation, crucial questions such as
knowledge gains, policy attitudes, and opinion
change, gains in political efficacy and connec-
tion to the policy-making process is, however
present, largely neglected. Since the research
on individual gains is mostly conducted through
experiments, a suggested way forward is to step
out in the non-institutional and institutional
arena and research how citizens benefit from
‘real’ online deliberative settings. Concerning
online deliberation in relation to the policy mak-
ing process, the field would benefit from better
connecting with the literature on democratic in-
novations and institutional change. As participa-
tory practices change in democratic institutions,
so do the possibilities for deliberative forums.
One of the most prominent democratic innova-
tions is the e-petitioning system, traditionally
viewed as a mechanism for aggregating support
for a single cause rather than a mechanism for
deliberation. Recent examples show, however,
that deliberative features are rather easy to build
into the e-petitioning systems. One case being
the local system in Reykjavik, called ‘Bet-
ter Reykjavik’, in which citizens can contest
and refine posted initiatives, contrary to just
aggregating signatures (Jonsson et al., 2013).
10 International Journal of E-Politics, 5(1), 1-15, January-March 2014

Table 3. Issues and themes in relation to arenas, disciplines and methods

Theme 1: Theme 2: Theme 3:

External
policy
connection

Quality of deliberation Individual gains

Issue1: Issue 2: Issue 3: Issue Issue 5: Issue 6: Issue 7: Issue 8:

Moderation 4:

Quality of Anonymity F-t-f Policy attitude Knowledge Efficacy and Policy

discussion vs. or opinion gains experience connection
online change

Non – 50 51 6 0 0 0 20 20
institutional

(n=20) (n=20) (n=2) (n=0) (n=0) (n=0) (n=2) (n=4)

Institutional 25 36 51 15 10 7 10 60

(n=10) (n=14) (n=18) (n=2) (n=2) (n=1) (n=1) (n=12)

General 10 5 9 23 25 20 30 5

(n=4) (n=2) (n=3) (n=3) (n=5) (n=3) (n=3) (n=1)

Experimental 5 5 34 62 50 60 30 0

(n=2) (n=2) (n=12) (n=8) (n=10) (n=9) (n=3) (n=0)

Mixed arena 10 3 0 0 15 13 10 15

(n=4) (n=1) (n=0) (n=0) (n=3) (n=2) (n=1) (n=3)

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 10 100

(n=40) (n=39) (n=35) (n=13) (n=20) (n=15) (n=10) (n=20)

Media & 32 33 40 54 20 40 60 20
communica-
tion

(n=13) (n=13) (n=14) (n=7) (n=4) (n=6) (n=6) (n=4)

Political 32 31 34 46 60 13 30 20
science

(n=13 (n=12) (n=12) (n=6) (n=12) (n=2) (n=3) (n=4)

Other 36 36 26 0 20 47 10 60

(n=14) (n=14) (n=9) (n=0) (n=20) (n=7) (n=1) (n=12)

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

(n=40) (n=39 (n=35) (n=13) (n=20) (n=15) (n=10) (n=20)

Quantitative 30 20 48 69 80 80 60 30

(n=12) (n=8) (n=17) (n=9) (n=16) (n=12) (n=6) (n=6)

Qualitative 12 13 9 31 0 0 20 15

(n=5) (n=5) (n=3) (n=4) (n=0) (n=0) (n=2) (n=3)

Content 58 67 43 0 20 20 20 55
analysis

(n=23) (n=26) (n=15) (n=0) (n=4) (n=3) (n=2) (n=11)

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

(n=40) (n=39) (n=35) (n=13) (n=20) (n=15) (n=10) (n=20)

Comment: The categories presented in Table 3 are not mutually exclusive, since one empirical study can discuss and
conduct research that touches upon multiple themes and issues.

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 International Journal of E-Politics, 5(1), 1-15, January-March 2014 11
Compared to the field of deliberative
democracy that “has entered a kind of adoles-
cence” (Neblo et al., 2010), the field of online
deliberation is still considered to be in its infancy
(Wright, 2011; Coleman & Moss, 2012). To
go forward, we suggest that there is a need for
the field to have stronger internal exchanges of
results, methods and issues, but also stronger
focus on external relevant research. While the
empirical evidence within in the field is slowly
transforming into a critical mass, there is little
evidence that the field takes notice of this mass
in order to formulate general results. At the
same time, the theoretical connection to the
field of deliberative democracy is strong, yet
heavily focused on the Habermasian framework
and not on the more recent developments. To
take the step into adolescences, the field needs
to acknowledge these shortcomings and go
forward from there.
CONCLUSION
In this review, we have systematically analysed
the literature in the field of online deliberation.
A first conclusion is that the field consists of
researchers from several different disciplines
and that these researchers are studying online
deliberation in a variety of arenas with the help
of a wide range of methods. A second conclusion
is that the field struggles with a highly diver-
sified concept of deliberation and that newer
theoretical developments are underutilised in
the operationalisation of theoretical concepts
for empirical analyses, which in turn suggests
that there is a rather low degree of cumulativ-
ity in the field. A final conclusion is that more
attention is paid on deliberation per se, rather
than the political and democratic consequences
of deliberation.
REFERENCES
Albrecht, S. (2006). Whose voice is heard in online
deliberation?: A study of participation and repre-
sentation in political debates on the internet. Infor-
mation Communication and Society, 9(1), 62–82.
doi:10.1080/13691180500519548
Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Åström, J. (2001). Should democracy online be quick,
strong, or thin? Communications of the ACM, 44(1).
doi:10.1145/357489.357505
Bächtiger, A., & Hangartner, D. (2010). When de-
liberative theory meets empirical political science:
Theoretical and methodological challenges in politi-
cal deliberation. Political Studies, 58(4), 609–629.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00835.x
Bächtiger, A., Niemeyer, S., Neblo, M., Steenbergen,
M. R., & Steiner, J. (2010). Symposium: Toward
more realistic models of deliberative democracy
disentangling diversity in deliberative democracy:
Competing theories, their blind spots and comple-
mentarities. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1),
32–63. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00342.x
Baek, Y. M., Wojcieszak, M. E., & Delli Carpini, M.
X. (2011). Online versus face-to-face deliberation:
Who? Why? What? With what effects? New Media
& Society.
Barabas, J. (2003). Virtual deliberation: Knowledge
from online interaction versus ordinary discussion.
In Proceedings of the Research paper originally
presented at the “Prospects for Electronic Democ-
racy” Conference at Carnegie Mellon University.
Basu, S. (1999). Dialogic ethics and the virtue of hu-
mor. Journal of Political Philosophy, 7(4), 378–403.
doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00082
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. Routledge.
Berdal, S. R. B. (2004). Public deliberation on the
Web: A Habermasian inquiry into online discourse.
PhD-Thesis. Oslo University.
Black, L. W. (2008). Deliberation, storytelling, and
dialogic moments. Communication Theory, 18,
93–116. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00315.x
Chadwick, A. (2009). Web 2.0: New challenges for
the study of e-democracy in an era of informational
exuberance. I/S. Journal of Law and Policy, 5(1).
Cindio, F. D., Peraboni, C., & Sonnante, L. (2008).
A two-room e-deliberation environment, in DIAC-
2008/OD2008 – Directions and implications of
advanced computing. In Proceedings of the Confer-
ence on Online Deliberation: Tools for Participation.
Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Coleman, S. (2004). Connecting parliament to the
public via the internet: Two case studies of online
consultations. Information Communication and
Society. doi:10.1080/1369118042000208870
12 International Journal of E-Politics, 5(1), 1-15, January-March 2014
Coleman, S., & Moss, G. (2012). Under construction:
The field of online deliberation research. Journal of
Information Technology & Politics, 9(1), 1–15. doi:
10.1080/19331681.2011.635957
Dahlberg, L. (2001a). Extending the public sphere
through cyberspace: The case of Minnesota e-
democracy. First Monday. doi:10.5210/fm.v6i3.838
Dahlberg, L. (2001b). Democracy via cyber-
space: Mapping the rhetorics and practices of
three prominent camps. New Media & Society.
doi:10.1177/14614440122226038
Dahlberg, L. (2007). The Internet, deliberative de-
mocracy, and power: Radicalizing the public sphere.
International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics,
3(1). doi:10.1386/macp.3.1.47/1
Davies, T. (2009). The Blossoming field of online
deliberation. In Davies, T. & Gangadharan, S.P.,
Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice.
San Francisco, CA: CSLI Publications.
Delborne, J. A., Anderson, A. A., Kleinman, D.
L., Colin, M., & Powell, M. (2011). Virtual de-
liberation? Prospects and challenges for integrat-
ing the Internet in consensus conferences. Public
Understanding of Science (Bristol, England).
doi:10.1177/0963662509347138
Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and
beyond – liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford
University Press.
Dunne, K. (2009). Cross cutting discussion: A
form of online discussion discovered within local
political online forums. Information Polity, 14(3),
219{332, 2009
Edwards, A. R. (2002). The moderator as an emerging
democratic intermediary: The role of the moderator
in Internet discussions about public issues. [IOS
Press.]. Information Policy, 7, 3–20.
Fishkin, J. S. (2000, November 6-10). Virtual demo-
cratic possibilities: Prospects for internet democracy.
In the conference on “Internet, Democracy and Public
Goods”, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Gastil, J. (2000). Is face-to-face citizen deliberation
a luxury or a necessity? Political Communication,
17, 357–361. doi:10.1080/10584600050178960
Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication
and deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
doi:10.4135/9781483329208
Gimmler, A. (2001). Deliberative democracy, the
public sphere and the internet. Philosophy and Social
Criticism, 27, 21. doi:10.1177/019145370102700402
Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Gordon, E., & Manosevitch, E. (2010). Aug-
mented deliberation: Merging physical and vir-
tual interaction to engage communities in urban
planning. New Media & Society, 13(1), 75–95.
doi:10.1177/1461444810365315
Graham, T., & Witschge, T. (2003). In search of online
deliberation: Towards a new method for examining
the quality of online discussions. Communications:
The European Journal of Communication Research,
28(2), 173–204. doi:10.1515/comm.2003.012
Grönlund, K., Strandberg, K., & Himmelroos, S.
(2009). The challenge of deliberative democracy
online – A comparison of face-to-face and virtual
experiments in citizen deliberation. [IOS Press.].
Information Polity, 14, 187–201.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative
action – Reasons and the rationalization of society.
Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation
of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of
bourgeois society. Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and
communicative action. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Habermas, J. (1997). Between facts and norms.
Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Hall, C. (2007). Recognizing the passion in de-
liberation: Toward a more democratic theory
of deliberative democracy. Hypatia, 22(4).
doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2007.tb01321.x
Hamlett, P. W., & Cobb, M. D. (2006). Potential
solutions to public deliberation problems: Structured
deliberations and polarization cascades. Policy Stud-
ies Journal: the Journal of the Policy Studies Organi-
zation, 34(4). doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2006.00195.x
Hands, J. (2005). e-Deliberation and local gover-
nance: The role of computer mediated communica-
tion in local democratic participation in the United
Kingdom. First Monday. doi:10.5210/fm.v10i7.1258
Ho, S. S., & McLeod, D. M. (2008). Social-
psychological influences on opinion expression in
face-to-face and computer-mediated communication.
Communication Research, 35, 190.
Iyengar, S., Luskin, R. C., & Fishkin, J. S. (2003).
Facilitating informed public opinion: Evidence
from face-to-face and online deliberative polls.
Research paper.
 International Journal of E-Politics, 5(1), 1-15, January-March 2014 13
Jankowski, N. W., & van Os, R. (2004). Internet-based
political discourse: A case study of electronic democ-
racy in Hoogeveen. In P. Shane (Ed.), Democracy
online: The prospects for political renewal through
the internet. Routledge.
Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2005). Online forums
and deliberative democracy. Acta Politica, 40(3),
317–335. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500115
Jensen, J. L. (2003a). Virtual democratic dialogue?
Bringing together citizens and politicians. [IOS
Press.]. Information Polity, 8, 29–47.
Jensen, J. L. (2003b). Public spheres on the internet:
Anarchic or government-sponsored – A comparison.
Scandinavian Political Studies, 26(4). doi:10.1111/
j.1467-9477.2003.00093.x
Jonsson, M. E., Åström, J., & Karlsson, M. (2013).
e-Participation policy in Iceland. In Case studies on
e-participation policy: Sweden, Estonia and Iceland.
PRAXIS Center for Policy Studies, Report Series.
Karlsson, M. (2010, June 30–July 2). What does it take
to make online deliberation happen? A comparative
analysis of 28 online discussion forums. In Proceed-
ings from the Fourth International Conference on
Online Deliberation, Leeds, UK (pp. 101-116).
K i e s , R . ( 2 0 1 0 ) . P ro m i s e s a n d l i m -
its of web-deliberation. Palgrave Macmillan.
doi:10.1057/9780230106376
Kies, R., & Wojcik, S. (2010, June 30–July 2). Euro-
pean web-deliberation: Lessons from the European
citizens consultation. In Cindio, F.D., Machintosh,
A. & Peraboni, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference (OD2010), Leeds, UK
(pp. 198-211).
Kim, J.-Y. (2006). The impact of Internet use pat-
terns on political engagement: A focus on online
deliberation and virtual social capital. [IOS Press.].
Information Polity, 11, 35–49.
Koop, R., & Jansen, H. J. (2009). Political blogs
and blogrolls in Canada forums for democratic de-
liberation? Social Science Computer Review, 27(2),
155–173. doi:10.1177/0894439308326297
Lührs, R., Albrecht, S., Lubcke, M., & Hohberg, B.
(2003). How to grow? Online consultation about
growth in the City of Hamburg: Methods, techniques,
success factors. In Traunmüller R. (Ed.), EGOV 2003
(Vol. LNCS 2739, pp. 79-84). Berlin, Germany:
Springer-Verlag.
Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S., & Iyengar, S. (2004).
Considered opinions on U.S. foreign policy: Face-
to-face versus online deliberative polling. Research
paper.
Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Estlund,
D., Føllesdal, A., & Fung, A. et al. (2010). The place
of self-interest and the role of power in deliberative
democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1),
64–100. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00344.x
Milioni, D. L. (2009). Probing the online counterpublic
sphere: the case of Indymedia Athens. Media Culture
& Society, 31, 409. doi:10.1177/0163443709102714
Min, S.-J. (2007). Online vs. face-to-face delibera-
tion: Effects on civic engagement. Journal of Com-
puter-Mediated Communication, 12, 1369–1387.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00377.x
Muhlberger, P. (2005). Attitude change in face-to-
face and online political deliberation: Conformity,
information, or perspective taking? In Proceedings
of the 2005 Annual Meeting of the American Political
Science Association, Washington, DC.
Muhlberger, P., & Weber, L. M. (2006). Lessons
from the virtual agora project: The effects of agency,
identity, information, and deliberation on political
knowledge. Journal of Public Deliberation, 2(1).
Neblo, M. A., Esterling, K. M., Kennedy, R. P., Lazer,
D. M. J., & Sokhey, A. E. (2010). Who wants to de-
liberate—and why? The American Political Science
Review, 104(3). doi:10.1017/S0003055410000298
Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility,
politeness, and the democratic potential of online
political discussion groups. New Media & Society,
6, 259. doi:10.1177/1461444804041444
Polletta, F., & Lee, J. (2006). Is telling stories good
for democracy? Rhetoric in public deliberation after
9/11. American Sociological Review, 71, 699–723.
doi:10.1177/000312240607100501
Price, V., & Cappella, J. N. (2002). Online delibera-
tion and its influence: The electronic dialogue project
in campaign 2000. IT & Society, 1(1), 303–329.
Ranerup, A. (2000). On-line discussion forums in a
Swedish local government context. In M. Gurstein
(Ed.), Community informatics: Enabling communi-
ties with information and communications technolo-
gies (pp. 359–379). doi:10.4018/978-1-878289-69-8.
ch017
Rhee, J. W., & Kim, E. M. (2009). Deliberation on the
net: Lessons from a field experiment. In T. Davies,
& S. P. Gangadharan (Eds.), Online deliberation:
Design, research, and practice. CSLI Publications.
14 International Journal of E-Politics, 5(1), 1-15, January-March 2014
Sampaio, R. C., & Maia, R. C., Moreira, & Marques,
F. P. J. A. (2011). Participation and deliberation on
the internet: A case study on digital participatory
budgeting in Belo Horizonte. Journal of Community
Informatics, 7(1-2).
Scheufele, D. A., & Nisbet, M. C. (2007). Being a
citizen online: New opportunities and dead ends. The
Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7,
55. doi:10.1177/1081180X0200700304
Schneider, S. M. (1997). Expanding the public sphere
through computer-mediated communication: Politi-
cal discussion about abortion in a usenet newsgroup.
PhD-Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Stanley, J. W., Weare, C., & Musso, J. (2004). Par-
ticipation, deliberative democracy, and the internet:
Lessons from a National Forum on commerical
vehicle safety. In Shane, P. (Ed.), Democracy online:
The prospects for political renewal through the
internet. Routledge.
Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., &
Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring political deliberation: A
discourse quality index. Comparative European Poli-
tics, 1, 21–48. doi:10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002
Strandberg, K. (2008). Public deliberation goes on-
line? An analysis of citizens’ Political discussions
on the internet prior to the Finnish parliamentary
elections in 2007. Javnost-The Public, 15(1), 71–90.
Stromer-Galley, J. (2002). New voices in the public
sphere: A comparative analysis of interpersonal and
online political talk. Javnost-The Public, 9(2), 23–42.
Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring delibera-
tion’s content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public
Deliberation, 3(1).
Stromer-Galley, J., & Muhlberger, P. (2009). Agree-
ment and disagreement in group deliberation: Effects
on deliberation satisfaction, future engagement, and
decision legitimacy. Political Communication, 26(2),
173–192. doi:10.1080/10584600902850775
Sunstein, C. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton Uni-
versity Press.
Talpin, J., & Wojcik, S. (2010). Deliberating envi-
ronmental policy issues: Comparing the learning
potential of online and face-to-face discussion on
climate change. Policy and the Internet, 2(2).
Tanner, E. (2006). Chilean conversations: Internet
forum participants debate Augusto Pinochet’s de-
tention. The Journal of Communication, 383–403.
Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Trénel, M. (2004). Measuring the quality of online
deliberation. Coding scheme 2.2. Unpublished paper.
Social Science Research Center Berlin, Germany.
Retrieved from http://www.wz berlin.de/~trenel/
tools/qod_2_0.pdf
Tsaliki, L. (2002). Online forums and the enlargement
of public space: Research findings from a European
Project. Javnost-The Public, 9(2), 95–112.
Tucey, C. B. (2010, April 1-3). Online vs. face-to-face
deliberation on the global warming & stem cell issues.
In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Western
Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA.
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the
past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature
review. Management Information Systems Quarterly,
26(2), xiii–xxiii.
Weger, H. Jr, & 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.
Wilhelm, A. G. (1998). Virtual sounding boards: How
deliberative is on-line political discussion? Informa-
tion Communication and Society, 1(3), 313–338.
doi:10.1080/13691189809358972
Wilhelm, A. G. (2000). Democracy in the Digital
Age: Challenges to political life in cyberspace. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Witschge, T. (2002). Online deliberation: Possibili-
ties of the internet for deliberative democracy. In
Proceedings of the Euricom Colloquium Electronic
Networks & Democratic Engagement.
Wojcieszak, M., & Price, V. (2010). Bridging the
divide or intensifying the conflict? How disagreement
affects strong predilections about sexual minorities.
Political Psychology, 31(3). doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9221.2009.00753.x
Wojcieszak, M. E., Baek, Y. M., & Delli Carpini,
M. X. (2009). What is really going on? Information
Communication and Society, 12(7), 1080–1102.
doi:10.1080/13691180902725768
Wojcik, S. (2007). How does eDeliberation work?
A study of French local electronic forums. In A.
Avdic, K. Hedström, J. Rose, & Å. Grönlund (Eds.),
Understanding eParticipation - Contemporary PhD
eParticipation research in Europe. Örebro Univer-
sity Library.
Wright, S. (2006). Government-run online discus-
sion Fora: Moderation, censorship and the shadow
of control. BJPIR, 8, 550–568.
 International Journal of E-Politics, 5(1), 1-15, January-March 2014 15

Wright, S. (2007). A virtual European public 2

sphere? The Futurum discussion forum. Journal
of European Public Policy, 14(8), 1167–1185.
doi:10.1080/13501760701656403
Wright, S., & Street, J. (2007). Democracy,
deliberation and design: the case of online dis-
cussion forums. New Media & Society, 9, 849.
doi:10.1177/1461444807081230
Xenos, M. (2008). New mediated deliberation: Blog
and press coverage of the alito nomination. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 485–503.
‡
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00406.x
Zhou, X., Chan, Y.-Y., & Zhen-Mei, P. (2008).
Deliberativeness of online political discus-
sion a content analysis of the Guangzhou daily
website. Journalism Studies, 9(5), 759–770.
doi:10.1080/14616700802207771
3
ENDNOTES
1
A draft version of this paper was presented
at the conference Deliberative Democracy
in Action: Theory, Practice and Evidence, in
Turku, Finland, June 5-7, 2012.
† = The search in Publish or Perish was con-
ducted as follows: the terms were searched
clean, i.e. without “”, in the “general citation
search”, the “all of the words” field, and
used “[Business, administration, finance,
economics], [Engineering, computer science
and mathematics], [Social sciences, arts,
humanities]” as filters. The search in ISI-Web
of Knowledge was conducted as follows: the
terms were searched in the general section,
using “topic” as filter.
= The search in Publish or Perish was con-
ducted as follows: the terms were searched
with “”, in the “general citation search”, “the
phrase” field, and used “[Business, adminis-
tration, finance, economics], [Engineering,
computer science and mathematics], [Social
sciences, arts, humanities]” as filters.
By ’implicitly’ we mean studies that refer to
other studies that rely on the Habermasian
framework, but do not explicitly refer to
Habermas.

Magnus E. Jonsson (b. 1985) is a doctoral student in political science at the Department of
Political Science at Örebro University in Örebro, Sweden. Magnus is also affiliated with the
Research School in Technology-Mediated Knowledge Processes, a collaboration between Örebro
University and Dalarna University. His research is focusing on political communication and
political participation in open online forums.

Joachim Åström, PhD, is Professor in Political Science at Örebro University, Sweden. His re-
search is focusing on new modes of governance in general, and issues concerning information
and communication technologies, power and democracy in particular.

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.