Como avaliar a deliberação online? Um mapeamento de critérios relevantes
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2012 |
Outros Autores: | , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | https://hdl.handle.net/10216/148893 |
Resumo: | This paper explores the main criteria used in researches in the field of online deliberation. Through an extensive literature review, we selected 59 articles that list indicators to assess discussions in the internet. In these articles were found, altogether, 369 criteria, with an average of 6,25 per item and standard deviation of 2,69. In a second stage, the research effort is made to group these criteria into broad categories and connected to the deliberative principles. The criteria were summarized in eight categories, namely: Justification, Reciprocity, Reflexivity, Respect, Pluralism, Equality, Information and Topic. We conclude that despite the many criteria used, one cannot say there is an excessive dispersion at online deliberation studies. This result is linked to different deliberative democracy approaches, the difficult to operationalize the criterion, the need for specific criterion for different contexts and objects and, in many cases, the mere difference of taxonomy. |
id |
RCAP_2e827f4ca90774ca9e02ae833fad0bcb |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio-aberto.up.pt:10216/148893 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Como avaliar a deliberação online? Um mapeamento de critérios relevantesCiências da comunicaçãoCommunication sciencesThis paper explores the main criteria used in researches in the field of online deliberation. Through an extensive literature review, we selected 59 articles that list indicators to assess discussions in the internet. In these articles were found, altogether, 369 criteria, with an average of 6,25 per item and standard deviation of 2,69. In a second stage, the research effort is made to group these criteria into broad categories and connected to the deliberative principles. The criteria were summarized in eight categories, namely: Justification, Reciprocity, Reflexivity, Respect, Pluralism, Equality, Information and Topic. We conclude that despite the many criteria used, one cannot say there is an excessive dispersion at online deliberation studies. This result is linked to different deliberative democracy approaches, the difficult to operationalize the criterion, the need for specific criterion for different contexts and objects and, in many cases, the mere difference of taxonomy.2012-112012-11-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://hdl.handle.net/10216/148893por0104-627610.1590/S0104-62762012000200010Sampaio, Rafael CardosoBarros, Samuel Anderson RochaMorais, Ricardoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-11-29T16:06:39Zoai:repositorio-aberto.up.pt:10216/148893Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-20T00:37:59.380866Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Como avaliar a deliberação online? Um mapeamento de critérios relevantes |
title |
Como avaliar a deliberação online? Um mapeamento de critérios relevantes |
spellingShingle |
Como avaliar a deliberação online? Um mapeamento de critérios relevantes Sampaio, Rafael Cardoso Ciências da comunicação Communication sciences |
title_short |
Como avaliar a deliberação online? Um mapeamento de critérios relevantes |
title_full |
Como avaliar a deliberação online? Um mapeamento de critérios relevantes |
title_fullStr |
Como avaliar a deliberação online? Um mapeamento de critérios relevantes |
title_full_unstemmed |
Como avaliar a deliberação online? Um mapeamento de critérios relevantes |
title_sort |
Como avaliar a deliberação online? Um mapeamento de critérios relevantes |
author |
Sampaio, Rafael Cardoso |
author_facet |
Sampaio, Rafael Cardoso Barros, Samuel Anderson Rocha Morais, Ricardo |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Barros, Samuel Anderson Rocha Morais, Ricardo |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Sampaio, Rafael Cardoso Barros, Samuel Anderson Rocha Morais, Ricardo |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Ciências da comunicação Communication sciences |
topic |
Ciências da comunicação Communication sciences |
description |
This paper explores the main criteria used in researches in the field of online deliberation. Through an extensive literature review, we selected 59 articles that list indicators to assess discussions in the internet. In these articles were found, altogether, 369 criteria, with an average of 6,25 per item and standard deviation of 2,69. In a second stage, the research effort is made to group these criteria into broad categories and connected to the deliberative principles. The criteria were summarized in eight categories, namely: Justification, Reciprocity, Reflexivity, Respect, Pluralism, Equality, Information and Topic. We conclude that despite the many criteria used, one cannot say there is an excessive dispersion at online deliberation studies. This result is linked to different deliberative democracy approaches, the difficult to operationalize the criterion, the need for specific criterion for different contexts and objects and, in many cases, the mere difference of taxonomy. |
publishDate |
2012 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2012-11 2012-11-01T00:00:00Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://hdl.handle.net/10216/148893 |
url |
https://hdl.handle.net/10216/148893 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
0104-6276 10.1590/S0104-62762012000200010 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799136287337218048 |