Skip to main content

Analysing ‘Super-Participation’ in Online Third Spaces

  • Chapter
Analyzing Social Media Data and Web Networks

Abstract

Over the past two decades, there has been much debate concerning the Internet’s ability to facilitate and support public deliberation and extend the public sphere (cf. Gimmler 2001; Papacharissi 2002; Dahlgren 2005; Coleman and Blumler 2009). The belief that the Internet may play a significant role in reducing some of the deliberative deficit of Western democracies has sparked much interest in the potential benefits and drawbacks of online communication. Following the initial euphoria over the possibility of a ‘new’ Internet-based public sphere, along with its critical response, a growing body of innovative empirical research into online deliberation has emerged in its wake. Scholars have been interested in how citizens use the Internet to express themselves, not only during election time, but also how it is used for political purposes in citizens’ everyday lives. In particular, there is growing research focusing on online, everyday political talk.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albrecht, S. (2006) ‘Whose Voice Is Heard in Online Deliberation? A Study of Participation and Representation in Political Debates on the Internet’, Information, Communication & Society, 9 (1), 62–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anstead, N. and O’Loughlin, B. (2011) ‘The Emerging Viewertariat and BBC Question Time: Television Debate and Real Time Commenting Online’, International Journal of Press/Politics, 16 (4), 440–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Astrom, J. and Gronlund, A. (2012) ‘Online Consultations in Local Government: What Works, When and How’, in S. Coleman and P. Shane (eds.), Connecting Democracy: Online Consultation and the Flow of Political Communication(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 75–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baek, Y.M., Wojcieszak, M. and Delli Carpini, M.X. (2012) ‘Online Versus Face-to-Face Deliberation: Who? Why? What? With What Effects?’, New Media & Society, 14 (3), 363–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, B.R. (1984) Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Beierle, T.C. (2004) ‘Engaging the Public Through Online Policy Dialogues’, in P. Shane (ed.), Democracy Online: The Prospects for Democratic Renewal Through the Internet (New York: Taylor & Francis), pp. 155–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benhabib, S. (1996) ‘Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy’, in S. Benhabib (ed.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), pp. 67–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brundidge, J. (2010) ‘Encountering “Difference” in the Contemporary Public Sphere: The Contribution of the Internet to the Heterogeneity of Political Discussion Networks’, Journal of Communication, 60 (4), 680–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bua, A. (2012) ‘Agenda Setting and Democratic Innovation: The Case of the Sustainable Communities Act 2007’, Politics, 32 (1), 10–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1997) ‘Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy’, in J. Bohman and W. Rehg (eds.), Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 67–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, S. (2004) ‘Connecting Parliament to the Public via the Internet’, Information, Communication & Society, 7 (1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, S. and Blumler, J.G. (2009) The Internet and Democratic Citizenship(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, S. and Gotze, J. (2001) Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation (London: Hansard Society).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlberg, L. (2001) ‘Extending the Public Sphere Through Cyberspace: The Case of Minnesota E-Democracy’, First Monday: Peer-Reviewed Journal on the Internet 6 (3), available at http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/838/747, date accessed 9 July 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlberg, L. (2004a) ‘Net-Public Sphere Research: Beyond the “First Phase”’ Javnost — The Public, 11 (1), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlberg, L. (2004b) ‘The Habermasian Public Sphere: A Specification of the Idealized Conditions of Democratic Communication’, Studies in Social and Political Thought, 10, 2–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlgren, P. (2005) ‘The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation’, Political Communication, 22 (2), 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R. (2005) Politics Online: Blogs, Chatrooms and Discussion Groups in American Democracy (London: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J.S. (2000) Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, K. (2009) ‘Cross Cutting Discussion: A Form of Online Discussion Discovered within Local Political Online Forums’, Information Polity, 14 (3), 219–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, A.R. (2002) ‘The Moderator as an Emerging Democratic Intermediary: The Role of the Moderator in Internet Discussions About Public Issues’, Information Polity, 7 (1), 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishkin, J. (2009) When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gimmler, A. (2001) ‘Deliberative Democracy, the Public Sphere and the Internet’, Philosophy & Social Criticism, 27 (4), 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, T. (2008) ‘Needles in a Haystack: A New Approach for Identifying and Assessing Political Talk in Nonpolitical Discussion Forums’, Javnost — The Public, 15 (2), 17–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, T. (2009) ‘What’s Wife Swap Got to Do with It? Talking Politics in the Net-Based Public Sphere’. PhD Dissertation (University of Amsterdam: Amsterdam), available at http://dare.uva.nl/record/314852, date accessed 9 July 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, T. (2010) ‘Talking Politics Online Within Spaces of Popular Culture: The Case of the Big Brother Forum’, Javnost — The Public, 17 (4), 25–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, T. (2012) ‘Beyond “Political” Communicative Spaces: Talking Politics on the Wife Swap Discussion Forum’, Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 9 (1), 31–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, T. and Harju, A. (2011) ‘Reality TV as a Trigger of Everyday Political Talk in the Net-Based Public Sphere’, European Journal of Communication, 26 (1), 18–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, T. and 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, T. and Wright, S. (2014) ‘Discursive Equality and Everyday Talk Online: The Impact of “Super-Participants”’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19 (3), 625–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society (Boston, MA: Beacon Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1987) The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 2, Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason (Boston, MA: Beacon Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (Cambridge, MA: Polity Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1990) Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, D. and Gibbs, J. (2013) ’social Media as a Catalyst for Online Deliberation? Exploring the Affordances of Facebook and YouTube for Political Expression’, Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (3), 1159–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, K.A. and Hughes, J.E. (1998) Cyberpolitics: Citizen Activism in the Age of Internet (New York: Rowman & Littlefield).

    Google Scholar 

  • Himelboim, I., Gleave, E. and Smith, M. (2009) ‘Discussion Catalysts in Online Political Discussions: Content Importers and Conversation Starters’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14 (4), 771–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jankowski, N.W. and van Os, R. (2004) ‘Internet-Based Political Discourse’, in P. Shane (ed.), Democracy Online: The Prospects for Political Renewal Through the Internet (New York: Taylor & Francis), pp. 181–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, J.L. (2003) ‘Public Spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or Government Sponsored — A Comparison’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 26 (4), 349–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kies R. (2010) Promises and Limits of Web-Deliberation (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, A.J. (2000) Community Building on the Web (Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge, J. (1999) ‘Everyday Talk in the Deliberative System’, in S. Macedo (ed.), Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 211–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2000) ‘Qualitative Content Analysis’, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1, available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089, date accessed 9 July 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldenburg, R. (1999) Great Good Place: Cafés, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community (New York: Marlow & Company).

    Google Scholar 

  • Papacharissi, Z. (2002) ‘The Virtual Sphere: The Internet as a Public Sphere’, New Media & Society, 4 (1), 9–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papacharissi, Z. (2004) ‘Democracy Online: Civility, Politeness, and the Democratic Potential of Online Political Discussion Groups’, New Media & Society, 6 (2), 259–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, S.M. (1997) ‘Expanding the Public Sphere Through Computer Mediated Communication: Political Discussion about Abortion in a Usenet Newsgroup’. PhD Dissertation (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, T. (2000) ‘Mass Media and the Concept of Interactivity: An Exploratory Study of Online Forums and Reader Email’, Media, Culture & Society, 22 (2), 205–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stromer-Galley, J. (2003) ‘Diversity of Political Conversation on the Internet: Users’ Perspectives’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8 (3), available at: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue3/stromergalley.html, date accessed 9 July 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stromer-Galley, J. (2007) ‘Assessing Deliberative Quality: A Coding Scheme’, Journal of Public Deliberation, 3 (1), 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C.R. (2002) Republic.com (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsaliki, L. (2002) ‘Online Forums and the Enlargement of Public Space: Research Findings from a European Project’, Javnost — The Public, 9 (2), 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm, A.G. (1999) ‘Virtual Sounding Boards: How Deliberative Is Online Political Discussion?’, in B.N. Hague and B.D. Loader (eds.), Digital Democracy: Discourse and Decision Making in the Information Age (London: Routledge), pp. 154–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, R. (2005) Europeans Have a Say: Online Debates and Consultations in the EU (Vienna: The Austrian Federal Ministry for Education).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wojcieszak, M.E, Baek, Y.M. and Delli Carpini, M.X. (2009) ‘What Is Really Going On? Structure Underlying Face-to-Face and Online Deliberation’, Information, Communication & Society, 12(7), 1080–1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wojcieszak, M.E. and Mutz, D.C. (2009) ‘Online Groups and Political Discourse: Do Online Discussion Spaces Facilitate Exposure to Political Disagreement?’, Journal of Communication, 59, 40–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. (2006) ‘Government-Run Online Discussion Forums: Moderation, Censorship and the Shadow of Control’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 8 (4), 550–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. and Street, J. (2007) ‘Democracy, Deliberation and Design: the case of online discussion forums, New Media & Society, 9 (5), 849–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. (2009) ‘The Role of the Moderator: Problems and Possibilities for Government-Run Online Discussion Forums’, in T. Davies and S.P. Gangadharan (eds.), Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice (Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications), pp. 233–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. (2012a) ‘Politics as Usual? Revolution, Normalization and a New Agenda for Online Deliberation’, New Media & Society, 14 (2), 244–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. (2012b) ‘From “Third Place” to “Third Space”: Everyday Political Talk in Non-Political Online Spaces’, Javnost — The Public, 19 (3), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2014 Todd Graham and Scott Wright

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Graham, T., Wright, S. (2014). Analysing ‘Super-Participation’ in Online Third Spaces. In: Cantijoch, M., Gibson, R., Ward, S. (eds) Analyzing Social Media Data and Web Networks. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137276773_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics