This study intends to answer how design features of deliberative spaces, i.e., the places where people go to talk about politics and issues of common concerns, impact a participants ability to reason with others, especially when participants differ in their political orientation. We look at all kinds of activated reasoning within three modes of deliberation: online using Common Ground for Action (CGA), online using Zoom and Zoom’s polling features, and in person deliberation. These three modes are the most popular modes of deliberation and understand the kinds of joint reasoning generated by differences in design can help practitioners and scholars of democracy create better, more useful spaces for engaged deliberation and democracy. Using the Deliberative Reasoning Index (DRI), we assess which online forums better activate reasoning and compare it to reasoning in in-person NIF forums. This research will provide the first of its kind empirical comparison between online modes of deliberation and in-person methods.
This study has been approved by the JMU IRB, protocol # 23-3876. All forums held using the NIF issue guide “Youth & Opportunity” are part of this research project and features its own survey on deliberative reasoning.
This research is a collaborative effort between James Madison University’s Madison Center for Civic Engagement, Kansas State University’s Institute for Civil Discourse and Democracy, University of Houston-Downtown’s Center for Public Deliberation, and St. Edwards University, with research and financial support from the Kettering Foundation.
Contact Dr. Kara Dillard for more information.