Çevrimiçi Kamusal Tartışmaların Müzakere İlkeleri Bağlamında Çözümlenmesine Yönelik Yöntembilimsel Yaklaşımlar

Bu çalışma, çevrimiçi kamusal tartışmaların müzakere ilkeleri ışığında değerlendirilmesine yönelik yöntembilimsel yaklaşımlara odaklanmaktadır. Çalışmada tartışma ortamını, sürecini ve katılımcıları Habermascı bir yaklaşımla, etik ve akılcılık bakımından düzenleyen ilkeler tanımlanmakta; bu ilkelerin değerlendirilmesinde kullanabilecek araştırma yöntemleri tartışılmaktadır. Bu çerçevede çalışma, çevrimiçi tartışmaların kalitesinin değerlendirilmesinde ilkelerin tümünü kapsayan bir araştırma tasarımının benimsenmesi ve bu bağlamda da nitel ve nicel farklı veri toplama tekniklerinin kullanılması gerektiğini belirtmektedir. Bu süreçte veri toplama kaynakları da katılımcılar ve tartışma metinleri olarak çeşitlenmelidir. Bu yaklaşımın çevrimiçi müzakerelerin doğasının çok yönlü ve derinlemesine anlaşılabilmesinin yanı sıra ölçme yanılgılarının önüne geçebilmesi bakımında da gerekli olduğu düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Müzakereci demokrasi, çevrimiçi tartışma, Habermas, değerlendirme.

Methodological Approaches for the Analysis of Online Public Discussions in the Context of Deliberation

This study focuses on methodological approaches for the evaluation of online public discussion activities in the context of deliberative principles. In the study, principles are defined that arrange the discussion environment, process and participants in terms of ethical and rational elements with the Habermasian approach and the research methods discussed that can be used in the evaluation of these principles. Within this framework, the study indicates that a research design encompassing all the principles should be adopted for the evaluation of the online discussion quality and that multiple (qualitative and quantitative) data collection techniques should also be used. During this process, data collection sources should be varied as participants and discussion texts. It is thought that this approach is required for an in-depth and multifaceted understanding of the nature of online deliberation and to prevent measurement errors.

Keywords:

Deliberative democracy, online discussion, Habermas, evaluation.,

PDF

___

BÄCHTİGER, A.; Shikano, S.; Pedrini, S.; Ryser, M. (2011). Measuring deliberation 0: Standarts, discourse types, and sequenzialization. Paper presented at Democracy Seminar Series. http://ash.harvard.edu/extension/ash/docs/baechtiger.pdf.
BARNES, S. B. (2003). Computer-Mediated Communication: Human to Human Communication Across The Internet. Boston: Pearson.
BENHABİB, S. (1996). Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In Democracy and Difference (S. Benhabib ed.), Princeton University Press, Princeton, p. 67-94.
BLACK, L.W.; Burkhalter, S.; Gastil, J.& Stomer-Galley, J. (2011). Methods for analyzing and measuring group deliberation. The sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques. (Eds. E. P. Bucy; R. L. Holbert). New York: Routledge, p. 323- 345.
COHEN, J. (1989). Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy. The good polity: Normative analysis of the state. (Ed: A.P. Hamlin) Oxford: Blackwell, p. 17-34.
COHEN, J. (1996). Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy. In Democracy and Difference (S. Benhabib ed.), Princeton University Press, Princeton, p. 95-119.
DAHLBERG, L. (2001). The Internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 4(4), 613-633.
DAHLBERG, L. (2004). Net-public sphere research: Beyond the ‘first phase’. JavnostThe Public, 11(1), 27-44.
FİSHKİN, J. S. (2009). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy & public consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
GENÇER Kasap, D. (2013). Sanal iletişim ortamlarının katılımcı demokrasi süreçlerine etkisi: Web temelli forum, toplumsal paylaşım ağı ve üç boyutlu sanal dünyalarda gerçekleştirilen tartışma etkinlikleri üzerine bir araştırma. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Eskişehir: Anadolu University.
GRAHAM, T. S. (2008). Needles in a haystack: A new approach for identifiying and assessing political talk in non-political discussion forums. Javnost-The Public, 15(2), 17-36.
GRAHAM, T.S. (2009). What’s wife swap got to do with it? Talking politics in the net-based public sphere. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University.
GUTMANN, A. ve Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? New Jersey: Princeton University.
HABERMAS, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society. (Transladed by: T. McCharty). Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press.
HABERMAS, J. (1991). Moral consciousness and communicative action (Transladed by: C. Lenhardt ve S. W. Nicholsen). Cambridge: Polity.
HABERMAS, J. (2007). Moral consciousness and communicative action (4th ed.). (Transladed by: C. Lenhardt ve S. W. Nicholsen). Massachusetts: MIT.
HABERMAS, J. (1996). Between fact and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (2nd ed.). (Transladed by: W. Regh). Cambridge: MIT.
HABERMAS, J. (2001). İletişimsel eylem kuramı. (Transladed by: M. Tüzel). İstanbul: Kabalcı.
HABERMAS, J. (2009). Kamusallığın Yapısal Dönüşümü (9th ed.). (Transladed by: T. Bora ve M. Sancar). İstanbul: İletişim.
JANKOWSKİ, N. W. & Van Os, R. (2005). Internet-based political discourse: A case study of electronic democracy in the city of Hoogeveen. In Democracy online: The prospects for political renewal through the Internet (Ed: P.M. Shane). New York: Routledge, p.181-195.
JANKOWSKİ, N. W. & Van Selm, M. (2008). Internet-based political communication research: Illustrations, challenges and innovations. Javnost-The Public, 15(2), 5JANSSEN, D. & Kies, R. (2004). Online forums and deliberative democracy: Hypotheses, variables and methodologies. Paper presented at Conferance on “Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”. http://www.edemocracycentre.ch/files/onlineforums.pdf
JENSEN, J. L. (2003). Public spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or govermentsponsored- A comparision. Scandinavian Political Studies, 26(4), 249-374.
KİES, R. & Wojcik, S. (2010). European Web-deliberation: Lessons from the European Citizen Consultation. Fourth International Conferance, OD2010. Leeds: Leeds Üniversitesi, p. 198-211.
LEA, M., Spears, R. & de Groot, D.(2001). Knowing me, knowing you: Anonymity effects on social identity process within groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(5), 526-537.
MANNOYER-Smith, L. & WOJCİK, S. (2011). Technology and the quality of public deliberation: A comparsion between on and off-line participation. Paper presented at 61st Conference of the International Communication Association, Boston: United States hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/59/82/73/PDF/Proposal_final.pdf
MİN, S-J. (2009). Deliberation, east meets west: Exploring the cultural dimension of citizen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ohio: Ohio State University.
SCHNEİDER, S. M. (1997). Expanding public sphere through computer-mediated communication: Political discussion about abortion in a Usenet news group. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cambridge: Massachhussetts Institute of Technology.
STEENBERGEN, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M. & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics, 1, p. 21-48. 23
STROMER-Gally, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation’s content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), 1-35
PİNGREE, R.J. (2009). Decision Structure: A new approach to three problems in deliberation. Online deliberation: Design, research and practice. Stanford: CSLI Publications, p.309-316.
YOUNG, I.M. (1996). Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy, In Democracy and Difference (S. Benhabib ed.), Princeton University Press, Princeton, p.120-135.
WİLHELM, A.G. (2002). Democracy in the digital age: Challenges to political life in cyberspace. New York: Routledge.