The deliberative strand

In contrast with liberal individualist and communitarian forums, the deliberative strand is marked by Habermas’ conceptual trio of rational-critical argument, public issue focus and putative equality. A relatively high quantity of cross-cutting discussion is usually also considered an essential element (Delli Carpini et al. 2004)...six of the most commonly utilized [are]: rational-critical argument, public issue focus, equality, discussion topic focus, out-group reciprocity and out-group questioning (Freelon 2010 p.1181).

Rational critical argument

Rational critical argument suggests logical, structured application of thought to the subject in question and Freelon claims that rational critical argument is ‘arguably the lynchpin of the Habermasian public sphere’ (ibid. p1182). In line with deliberative democracy, the notion of rational critical argument suggests that the individual has applied more than merely his or her own personal, emotional response in a way that fits with an expression of Kantian enlarged thought, as discussed in previous chapters. In saying such, it ought to be again acknowledged that later deliberative theorists such as Mansbridge et al. (2010) allow for self-interest in deliberation in a way that Habermas would not. Rational critical argument seems on appearance to sit uncomfortably with basic agonistic pluralism which is unashamedly based upon conflict and passion. However, there is no specific reason as to why these are mutually exclusive elements of political debate. The empirical study examines the possibilities of the deliberative and agonistic theories working in tandem and whether they are nuanced aspects

Chapter 5 – Methodology 115 of essentially the same theoretical position. The conflict of the desire for a social media separate from the mainstream media, perhaps to the detriment of rational critical argument associated more with professional journalists than bloggers, is an important debate in terms of the future of the democratic communication process.

As noted in the previous section, rational critical argument was a principal component of the coding approaches which aimed to specifically recognise online deliberation. Coding rational critical argument involved manually scrolling through tweets which initially portrayed a respectful invitation to discuss any given issue. Being able to recognise and quantify rational critical argument within any dataset would again be suited to one of the more detailed dialogical approaches such as Graham (2008) or Trenel (2004). Trenel, suggests that there are two core components of rational argument, the first being validity claims supported by appropriate reasons, and secondly that those reasons must be framed in terms of the common good (ibid. p.3). In total there are eight stages in the process of rational critical argument, in Trenel’s model (ibid p.7). These are, ‘equality’, ‘rationality’, ‘respect’, ‘constructiveness’,

‘interactivity’, ‘testimoniality’, ‘emotional balance’ and finally ‘reflexivity’. Future coding schemes containing such categories ought to ensure a robust means of assessing rationality, although the same issues previously discussed regarding reflexivity will continue to be an issue with datasets exclusively drawn from online forums.

Public issue focus

The method by which the data for the empirical study was collected meant that only relevant political discourse focused upon the referendum was studied as opposed to studying the broader content on a given forum. Therefore, public issue focus is omitted from the study.

Equality

Equality in Freelon’s model is focused upon ‘the extent to which forum contributions are spread evenly among participants’ (ibid.). Freelon goes on to detail this concept of equality as another essential component of the Habermasian public sphere. Whilst this kind of assessment may have been desirable as it would help answer accusations of social media as politics as usual in merely a different setting, such an analysis was beyond the scope of this project due to the fact that it was centred on an open forum with a large number of participants. In light of this, equality is re-interpreted in line with Karppinen, Moe and Svensson (2008) in their critique of Habermas and Mouffe, whereby they suggest in terms of agonistic norms, equality to encompass the opportunity for minorities to express themselves in a way that may contribute to challenging the existing hegemony. Evidence of social media as a leveller recalibrating democracy away from political elites would give weight to those that suggest the internet and

Chapter 5 – Methodology 116 social media has the capacity to achieve such laudable aims. The interplay of hegemony and counter hegemony is another basic tenet of Mouffe’s agonistic pluralism. It is, however, fundamentally different from the deliberative unit of analysis in Freelon’s original model.

The re-imagined coding of this unit of analysis required a retrospective analysis of tweets regarding certain issues and occurrences, which could be classed as having presented a challenge to the existing hegemony. In studies which included the specific goal of measuring the level of equality in terms of actual participation, this would be a relatively simple task to measure in any closed forum via a simple mathematical breakdown of the number, length and authorship of forum posts within the study sample. Such a study would not particularly lend itself to open forums such as Twitter, whereas platforms such as Facebook, which, as noted by Halpern and Gibbs (2013) generally has a more ‘egalitarian distribution’ (ibid. p1159) of forum messages, would be more suited to such a task.

Discussion topic focus

Discussion topic focus very simply assesses ‘the extent to which posts within discussion threads address the initial thread topic (Stromer-Galley 2007; Herring 2003)’ (Freelon 2010).

In order to effectively consider discussion topic focus, a concentrated discourse analysis would need to have been applied early within the project. This was not within the aims or remit of this project so has been excluded from analysis within the results of the empirical study and is not considered to have any direct relevance to agonistic theory.

Inter-ideological questioning and response

The act of responding to, and questioning, those on the other side of the debate, from Yes Scotland to Better Together and vice versa within the independence referendum, changes the categorisation of the act to deliberative rather than communitarian. Freelon, very importantly, suggests that inter-ideological response and questioning that display the indicators associated with flaming or trolling should primarily be considered as such as this negates them from being considered as deliberative. This type of mature discourse can be seen as an extension of rational critical argument as previously documented and would be the preferred discourse of the majority of proponents of democracy.

Opponents of agonism would perhaps suggest that a theory which emphasises conflict, passion and hegemony, would see inter-ideological response make this unit of analysis anathema to the theory. There is, however, no specific reason or theoretical statement put forward by Mouffe and other agonists that suggests that this is the case, and it could well be seen as an example of Mouffe’s conflictual consensus which has been previously discussed.

Chapter 5 – Methodology 117 If that were to be the case, it would give credence to those that suggest agonism and deliberation are nuanced variations of the same theory (see Karppinen, Moe and Svensson (2008).

In terms of coding, the complexity of identifying and quantifying inter-ideological questioning and response is the same as the previously discussed intra-ideological questioning and response unit of analysis (see the previous communitarian strand), the only difference being the allegiance of the intended/actual responders to the initial tweet or forum post. For reasons already noted, the coding of such messages is suited to the more in-depth approaches such as Given (2008), which facilitates the opportunity to analyse streams of dialogue consisting of multiple message responses.