Full title: Technology and the Quality of Public Deliberation. A Comparison between On and Off-line Participation. Co-authored with Laurence Monnoyer-Smith. Presented at the 61st Conference of the International Communication Association, Boston, 26-30 May 2011

1. Technology and the Quality of Public Deliberation. Comparing Online and Offline Participation Laurence Monnoyer-Smith University of Technology, Compiègne Stéphanie Wojcik University of Paris EstCréteil France 61st Annual ICA ConferenceBoston, MassachusettsWestin Boston Waterfront Hotel26-30 May 2011

2. Objectives Theoretical framework Case study : a public debate on a industrial plant devoted to waste treatment in Ivry (France) Methodology Results 2 Outline ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011

4. Make our own evaluation of a deliberative arrangement organized by a public authority, the French National Commission of Public Debate (CNDP).

5. Compare online and offline modalities of participation.

6. Highlight the uses and assets of each deliberative device (and show how they are linked) 3 1. Objectives ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011

7. Many attempts to operationalize the Habermas’ model of ideal speech situation using coding schemes for measuring the quality of online deliberation (e.g. Dahlberg, 2001, Trénel, 2004, Janssen & Kies, 2004; Stromer-Galley, 2007; Black, Burkhalter & Gastil, 2010, …) Set of quite stable criteria (although discussions still open on some of them, e.g. « sincerity »). Following the re-reading of Steenbergen & al. (2003) and Bächtiger & al. (2009),we propose to distinguish two types of deliberation through the deliberation quality index (DQI). Type I deliberation concerns the criteria related to the rational dimension of discursive exchanges. Type II deliberation is intended to grasp the alternative forms of communication emerging in the course of deliberative exchanges. ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 4 2. Theoretical framework Evaluating the quality of deliberation

9. The social choice theorists who highlight the reluctance of people to change their normative preferences during the course of discussions. Thus, type II deliberation is thought to include various forms of talks (e.g. storytelling) in the deliberative process i.e. to extend the quite narrow idealistic conception of Habermassian deliberation. ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 5 2. Theoretical framework Evaluating the quality of deliberation

10. ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 6

12. a newsletter

13. a question & answer system

14. a platform entitled « Co-ment », allowing users to comment online the proceedings of the F2F debates, which were written by the CNDP The whole online device is intended to complement, precede and/or prolong the face-to-face discussions. ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 7 3. Case study : a public debate about the restructuration of a waste treatment plant in Ivry (France)

15. ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 8 The CPDP website : the blog

17. 15 semi-directed interviews

18. Ethnographic observation ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 9 4. Methodology

19. ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 10 5. Results (justification)

20. ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 11 5. Results - RespectSourcing on and offline

21. ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 12 5. Results - InteractivityExpression of agreement and disagreement

22. Very few alternative expressions Salience of rational rhetoricimposed by institutionalactors and followed by associations. Interactivityhigher online withstrong expression of conflict. High sourcing and technicaldebate but low inclusion of laycitizens. ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 13 Discussion 1

23. Specialization of arenas Blog as a space of legitimization for associations Q&A : space for offline conflict resolution « Co-ment » platform : post-debate space for negociation Off line (public meetings) : constructive elaboration of shared proposals ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 14 Discussion 2General comparison between online and F2F

24. Dynamic articulation between arenas of debate Strategic distribution of expression methodological consequences ICA - Boston - May 26-30, 2011 15 Conclusion