Facilitating deliberation online: What difference does it make?

Matthias Trénel
Social Science Research Center Berlin

     Full text: PDF
     Last modified: May 17, 2005

Abstract
While facilitation is common practice in online deliberation projects, there are diverse notions of what facilitation means. Understandings range from policing, usually a rather passive role restricted to monitoring and coercive intervention when rules are broken, to intentional and goal-oriented structuring of the communication process. These differences reflect a core question: How much structure is needed in deliberation?

Here it is argued that communication processes in deliberation face several challenges. Among the most important are (1) complexity that aggravates coherence, (2) perceived conflicts of interest that might lead participants to bias the communication process in their favor, and (3) different cultural backgrounds that produce different expectations in regard to the communication process.

Considering these challenges, it is generally hypothesized that a structuring approach of facilitation is superior to self-organizing forces alone. Assumptions were tested in the case of the Listening-to-the-City Online Dialogue in New York City in 2002. Of that online dialogue, 11 facilitated discussion groups were compared to 11 monitored discussion groups. The findings are based on a quantitative analysis of discussion protocols and participant polls.