22 research outputs found
Dopamine restores reward prediction errors in old age
Get PDFSenescence affects the ability to utilize information about the likelihood of rewards for optimal decision-making. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging in humans, we found that healthy older adults had an abnormal signature of expected value, resulting in an incomplete reward prediction error (RPE) signal in the nucleus accumbens, a brain region that receives rich input projections from substantia nigra/ventral tegmental area (SN/VTA) dopaminergic neurons. Structural connectivity between SN/VTA and striatum, measured by diffusion tensor imaging, was tightly coupled to inter-individual differences in the expression of this expected reward value signal. The dopamine precursor levodopa (L-DOPA) increased the task-based learning rate and task performance in some older adults to the level of young adults. This drug effect was linked to restoration of a canonical neural RPE. Our results identify a neurochemical signature underlying abnormal reward processing in older adults and indicate that this can be modulated by L-DOPA
From madrasah to museum : a biography of the Islamic manuscripts of Cape Town
No full textThis paper focuses on the Islamic manuscripts of Cape Town, locally referred to as kietaabs, written by Muslims predominantly in the 19th century, in jawi (Arabic-Malay) and Arabic-Afrikaans. Inspired by the idea of a 'biography' of the archive and 'the social life of things', the study traces the life of the kietaabs, from their creation and original use, to their role in contemporary South African society, as objects of heritage and identity. It approaches the kietaabs as objects, emphasizing their movements, status and use, rather than their content
Inclusivity (Online Discussions/Discussion Quality)
Get PDFInclusivity is a key dimension to assess the deliberative quality of online discussions. In quantitative content analyses, this dimension measures the openness and accessibility of and the equality and diversity within a discussion.
Field of application/Theoretical foundation
Most studies on online discussions draw on deliberative norms to measure the quality of their discourse (e.g., Esau et al., 2017; Friess et al., 2021; Rowe, 2015; Ziegele et al., 2020; Zimmermann, 2017). Deliberation is an important concept for the study of (political) online discussions (Ziegele et al., 2020). It focuses on a free and equal exchange of arguments to bridge social differences and legitimize political decisions (Dryzek et al., 2019; Fishkin, 1991, Habermas, 2015). Inclusivity or open participation is one of the central criteria of Habermas’ discourse ethics. Deliberative discussions should be open to everyone and all participants should be able to express their attitudes, desires, and needs (Habermas, 2015; Steenbergen et al., 2003). Inclusivity occurs on two levels: On the one hand, it is a matter of open and free access for all citizens, which precedes the actual discussion process (input, Friess & Eilders, 2015). This precondition is often referred to as universalism or openness (Engelke, 2019; Kersting, 2008). In the discussion process itself (troughput, Friess & Eilders, 2015), all voices should have an equal opportunity to be heard and responded to, regardless of factors such as gender, race, or social background. Inclusivity usually implies opinion diversity, since one-sided discussions carry the risk of marginalizing other positions (Habermas, 2006; Manin, 1987; Zimmermann, 2017).
References/Combination with other methods
Besides quantitative content analyses, the (deliberative) quality of online discussions is examined with qualitative content analyses and discourse analyses (e.g., Graham & Witschge, 2003; Price & Capella, 2002). Furthermore, participants’ perceptions of the quality of online discussions are investigated with qualitative interviews (e.g., Engelke, 2019; Ziegele, 2016) or a combination of qualitative interviews and content analysis (Díaz Noci et al., 2012).
Cross-references
Inclusivity is one of five dimensions of deliberative quality in this database written by the same author. Accordingly, there are overlaps with the entries on rationality, interactivity, explicit civility, and storytelling regarding the theoretical background, references/combinations with other methods, and some example studies.
Information on Stromer-Galley (2007)
Author: Jennifer Stromer-Galley
Research question: The aim of the paper was developing a coding scheme for academics and practitioners of deliberation to systematically measure what happens during group deliberations (p. 1; p. 7).
Object of analysis: The author conducted a secondary analysis of online group discussions (23 groups with 5-12 participants) in an experiment called “The Virtual Agora Project” at Carnegie Mellon Unversitiy in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Participants attended the discussions from dormitory rooms that were equipped with a computer, headphones, and microphone. The group discussions were recorded and transcribed for analysis (pp. 7-8). Although strictly speaking the study does not analyze media content, the coding scheme has provided the basis for numerous other studies on the deliberative quality of online discussions (e.g., Rowe, 2015; Stroud et al., 2015; Ziegele et al., 2020).
Time frame of analysis: Three weeks in July 2004 (p. 7).
Info about variables
Level of analysis: Equality was measured on the level of the group discussion as well as on the level of the thought. Coders segmented each speaking contribution into thought units as first stage of the coding process. “A thought is defined as an utterance (from a single sentence to multiple sentences) that expresses an idea on a topic. A change in topic signaled a change in thought. A second indicator of a change in thought was a change in the type of talk. The distinct types of talk that this coding captured were the following: talk about the problem of public schools, talk about the process of the talk, talk about the process of the deliberation, and social talk” (p. 9).
Variables and values: For measuring the variable equality, the number of speakers within a group was counted. Furthermore, the thoughts were counted for the number of words per thought. Additionally, the total number of thoughts spoken in a given group was counted (p. 15).
Reliability: “Two coders spent nearly two months developing and training with the coding scheme. The intercoder agreement measures […] were established from coding 3 of the 23 groups, which were randomly selected. […] The coders of the unitizing process achieved a statistically significant correlation of .86 (p < .001)” (p. 14).
Codebook: in the appendix (pp. 22-33)
Information on Zimmermann (2017)
Author: Tobias Zimmermann
Research question: Which role do online reader comments play for a deliberative-democratic understanding of a digital public sphere? (p. 11)
Object of analysis: To compare discursive participation online and offline, the author conducted a full-sample content analysis of online reader comments (N = 1.176) and letters to the editor (N = 381) from German local newspapers on three similar conflicts in local politics concerning the renaming of streets and squares. Because the coding scheme was based on the discourse quality index (DQI), only contributions that contained a demand were included in the analysis, that is, “a proposal on what decision should or should not be made” Steenbergen et al., 2003, p. 27). Only then, a speech act is considered relevant from a discourse ethics perspective.
Time frame of analysis: June 2012 to May 2013
Info about variables
Level of analysis: see Table 1
Variables: Following Stromer-Galley (2007) and Bächtiger et al. (2010), the author operationalizes participation (egalitarian openness) based on frequency and volume of the comments. Furthermore, the study assigns the comments to a pro or contra side in regard to their content. This allows conclusions regarding the equality of different positions (pp. 161-163). Additionally, based on the DQI (Steenbergen et al., 2003), he included the variable common good reference, because reasoning oriented to common interests represents the most inclusive form of reasoning (pp. 190-191).
Reliability: Intracoder reliability was tested on a subset of 100 comments. The variable “common good reference” reached a Krippendorff’s Alpha of .71 (p. 201).
Codebook: pp. 159-185 (in German)
Table 1: Variables, values and level of analysis (Zimmermann, 2017, p. 163; p. 191)
Indicator
Category
Definition
Level of analysis
Egalitarian openness
Egalitarian openness (a)
Length of a comment (or letter to the editor)
Individual contribution
Egalitarian openness (b)
Number of contributions per participant
Discussion
Egalitarian openness (c)
Number of contributions per thematic position
Discussion
Common good reference
No common good reference
No reference to the common good is explicitly made
Individual contribution
Explicit common good reference
The contribution includes at least one explicit reference to the common good (utilitarian or disadvantaged-oriented)
Individual contribution
Example studies
Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Micó, J. L., Díaz-Noci, J., Meso, C. & Masip, P. (2011). Public Sphere 2.0? The Democratic Qualities of Citizen Debates in Online Newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16, 463–487.
Stromer Galley, J. (2007). Measuring Deliberation\u27s Content: A Coding Scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), Article 12.
Ziegele, M., Quiring, O., Esau, K. & Friess, D. (2020). Linking News Value Theory With Online Deliberation: How News Factors and Illustration Factors in News Articles Affect the Deliberative Quality of User Discussions in SNS’ Comment Sections. Communication Research, 47(6), 860-890. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218797884
Zimmermann, T. (2017). Digitale Diskussionen: Über politische Partizipation mittels Online-Leserkommentaren [Digital discussions: On political participation trough online reader comments]. Edition Politik: Bd. 44. transcript Verlag. http://www.content-select.com/index.php?id=bib_view&ean=9783839438886
Further references
Bächtiger, A., Shikano, S., Pedrini, S. & Ryser, M. (2010). Measuring Deliberation 2.0: Standards, Discourse Types, and Sequentialization. University of Konstanz and University of Bern. https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/baechtiger_0.pdf
Díaz Noci, J., Domingo, D., Masip, P., Micó, J. L. & Ruiz, C. (2012). Comments in news, democracy booster or journalistic nightmare: Assessing the quality and dynamics of citizen debates in Catalan online newspapers. #ISOJ, 2(1), 46–64. https://isoj.org/ wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ISOJ_Journal_V2_N1_2012_Spring.pdf#page=46
Dryzek, J. S., Bächtiger, A., Chambers, S., Cohen, J., Druckman, J. N., Felicetti, A., Fishkin, J. S., Farrell, D. M., Fung, A., Gutmann, A., Landemore, H., Mansbridge, J., Marien, S., Neblo, M. A., Niemeyer, S., Setälä, M., Slothuus, R., Suiter, J., Thompson, D. & Warren, M. E. (2019). The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science (New York, N.Y.), 363(6432), 1144–1146. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2694
Engelke, K. M. (2019). Enriching the Conversation: Audience Perspectives on the Deliberative Nature and Potential of User Comments for News Media. Digital Journalism, 8(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1680567
Esau, K., Friess, D. & Eilders, C. (2017). Design Matters! An Empirical Analysis of Online Deliberation on Different News Platforms. Policy & Internet, 9(3), 321–342. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.154
Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. Yale University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/j.ctt1dt006v https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1dt006v
Friess, D. & Eilders, C. (2015). A systematic review of online deliberation research. Policy & Internet, 7(3), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.95
Friess, D., Ziegele, M. & Heinbach, D. (2021). Collective Civic Moderation for Deliberation? Exploring the Links between Citizens’ Organized Engagement in Comment Sections and the Deliberative Quality of Online Discussions. Political Communication, 38(5), 624–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1830322
Graham, T. & Witschge, T. (2003). In Search of Online Deliberation: Towards a New Method for Examining the Quality of Online Discussions. Communications, 28(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2003.012
Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411–426.
Habermas, J. (2015). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (Reprinted.). Polity Press.
Kersting, N. (2008). Innovative Partizipation: Legitimation, Machtkontrolle und Transformation. Eine Einführung [Innovative participation. Legitimation, control of power, and transformation. An introduction]. In N. Kersting (Hrsg.), Politische Beteiligung: Einführung in dialogorientierte Instrumente politischer und gesellschaftlicher Partizipation (S. 11–39). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Manin, B. (1987). On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation. Political Theory, 15(3), 338–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591787015003005
Price, V. & Cappella, J. N. (2002). Online deliberation and its influence: The Electronic Dialogue Project in Campaign 2000. IT&Society, 1(1), 303–329. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.9.5945&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Rowe, I. (2015). Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the Deliberative Quality of Online News User Comments Across Platforms. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(4), 539–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482
Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M. & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index. Comparative European Politics, 1(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002
Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., Muddiman, A., & Curry, A. L. (2015). Changing Deliberative Norms on News Organizations\u27 Facebook Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 188–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12104
Ziegele, M. (2016). Nutzerkommentare als Anschlusskommunikation: Theorie und qualitative Analyse des Diskussionswerts von Online-Nachrichten [The Discussion Value of Online News. An Analysis of User Comments on News Platforms]. Springer VS
Indications and practical approach to non-invasive ventilation in acute heart failure
No full textIn acute heart failure (AHF) syndromes significant respiratory failure (RF) is essentially seen in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (ACPE) or cardiogenic shock (CS). Non-invasive ventilation (NIV), the application of positive intrathoracic pressure through an interface, has shown to be useful in the treatment of moderate to severe RF in several scenarios. There are two main modalities of NIV: continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and pressure support ventilation (NIPSV) with positive end expiratory pressure. Appropriate equipment and experience is needed for NIPSV, whereas CPAP may be administered without a ventilator, not requiring special training. Both modalities have shown to be effective in ACPE, by a reduction of respiratory distress and the endotracheal intubation rate compared to conventional oxygen therapy, but the impact on mortality is less conclusive. Non-invasive ventilation is also indicated in patients with AHF associated to pulmonary disease and may be considered, after haemodynamic stabilization, in some patients with CS. There are no differences in the outcomes in the studies comparing both techniques, but CPAP is a simpler technique that may be preferred in low-equipped areas like the pre-hospital setting, while NIPSV may be preferable in patients with significant hypercapnia. The new modality â €high-flow nasal cannula' seems promising in cases of AHF with less severe RF. The correct selection of patients and interfaces, early application of the technique, the achievement of a good synchrony between patients and the ventilator avoiding excessive leakage, close monitoring, proactive management, and in some cases mild sedation, may warrant the success of the technique. © The Author 2017
A pragmatic approach to the use of inotropes for the management of acute and advanced heart failure: An expert panel consensus
No full textInotropes aim at increasing cardiac output by enhancing cardiac contractility. They constitute the third pharmacological pillar in the treatment of patients with decompensated heart failure, the other two being diuretics and vasodilators. Three classes of parenterally administered inotropes are currently indicated for decompensated heart failure, (i) the beta adrenergic agonists, including dopamine and dobutamine and also the catecholamines epinephrine and norepinephrine, (ii) the phosphodiesterase III inhibitor milrinone and (iii) the calcium sensitizer levosimendan. These three families of drugs share some pharmacologic traits, but differ profoundly in many of their pleiotropic effects. Identifying the patients in need of inotropic support and selecting the proper inotrope in each case remain challenging. The present consensus, derived by a panel meeting of experts from 21 countries, aims at addressing this very issue in the setting of both acute and advanced heart failure. © 2019 The Author
Levosimendan beyond inotropy and acute heart failure: Evidence of pleiotropic effects on the heart and other organs: An expert panel position paper
No full textLevosimendan is a positive inotrope with vasodilating properties (inodilator) indicated for decompensated heart failure (HF) patients with low cardiac output. Accumulated evidence supports several pleiotropic effects of levosimendan beyond inotropy, the heart and decompensated HF. Those effects are not readily explained by cardiac function enhancement and seem to be related to additional properties of the drug such as anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidative and anti-apoptotic ones. Mechanistic and proof-of-concept studies are still required to clarify the underlying mechanisms involved, while properly designed clinical trials are warranted to translate preclinical or early-phase clinical data into more robust clinical evidence. The present position paper, derived by a panel of 35 experts in the field of cardiology, cardiac anesthesiology, intensive care medicine, cardiac physiology, and cardiovascular pharmacology from 22 European countries, compiles the existing evidence on the pleiotropic effects of levosimendan, identifies potential novel areas of clinical application and defines the corresponding gaps in evidence and the required research efforts to address those gaps. © 2016 The Author
Gaia Data Release 3: Mapping the asymmetric disc of the Milky Way
Get PDF35 pages, 27 figures, accepted for publication in A&A special Gaia DR3 issue. V2: abstract completed. V3: complete author list and link to data: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/1yOJPjYmM7QK5XVsqaiSOTuwDQNti2LlZInternational audienceWith the most recent Gaia data release the number of sources with complete 6D phase space information (position and velocity) has increased to well over 33 million stars, while stellar astrophysical parameters are provided for more than 470 million sources, in addition to the identification of over 11 million variable stars. Using the astrophysical parameters and variability classifications provided in Gaia DR3, we select various stellar populations to explore and identify non-axisymmetric features in the disc of the Milky Way in both configuration and velocity space. Using more about 580 thousand sources identified as hot OB stars, together with 988 known open clusters younger than 100 million years, we map the spiral structure associated with star formation 4-5 kpc from the Sun. We select over 2800 Classical Cepheids younger than 200 million years, which show spiral features extending as far as 10 kpc from the Sun in the outer disc. We also identify more than 8.7 million sources on the red giant branch (RGB), of which 5.7 million have line-of-sight velocities, allowing the velocity field of the Milky Way to be mapped as far as 8 kpc from the Sun, including the inner disc. The spiral structure revealed by the young populations is consistent with recent results using Gaia EDR3 astrometry and source lists based on near infrared photometry, showing the Local (Orion) arm to be at least 8 kpc long, and an outer arm consistent with what is seen in HI surveys, which seems to be a continuation of the Perseus arm into the third quadrant. Meanwhile, the subset of RGB stars with velocities clearly reveals the large scale kinematic signature of the bar in the inner disc, as well as evidence of streaming motions in the outer disc that might be associated with spiral arms or bar resonances. (abridged
Rationality (Online Discussions/Discussion Quality)
Get PDFRationality is considered the most important dimension to assess the deliberative quality of online discussions. In quantitative content analyses, it is usually measured with a set of variables, including (among others) reasoning, justification, fact claims, evidence, additional knowledge, and topic relevance.
Field of application/Theoretical foundation
Most studies on online discussions draw on deliberative theories to measure the quality of their discourse (e.g., Esau et al., 2017; Friess et al., 2021; Rowe, 2015; Ziegele et al., 2020; Zimmermann, 2017). Deliberation is an important concept for the study of (political) online discussions (Ziegele et al., 2020). It focuses on a free and equal exchange of arguments to bridge social differences and legitimize political decisions (Dryzek et al., 2019; Fishkin, 1991, Habermas, 2015). Rationality is considered the most important dimension of deliberative quality, which is inherent in most conceptualizations (Frieß & Eilders, 2015). Rationality is primarily about reasoning, justifications, and facts (Engelke, 2019). Discussion participants should provide justifications and evidence to support their positions (Friess et al., 2021). These reasons and arguments must be both criticizable and verifiable or falsifiable (Esterling, 2011; Habermas, 1995). Counterarguments and different perspectives should also be included (Engelke, 2019; Ziegele et al., 2020). This allows the elaboration of the best arguments in the deliberation process and an informed opinion formation based on these arguments (“the unforced force of the better argument”, Habermas, 2015). A rational discourse and a constructive discussion atmosphere are also considered necessary for reaching a rationally motivated consensus, a central aim of formal deliberation (Cohen, 1989; Friess & Eilders, 2015; Stromer-Galley, 2007).
References/Combination with other methods
Besides quantitative content analyses, the (deliberative) quality of online discussions is examined with qualitative content analyses and discourse analyses (e.g., Graham & Witschge, 2003; Price & Capella, 2002). Furthermore, participants’ perceptions of the quality of online discussions are investigated with qualitative interviews (e.g., Engelke, 2019; Ziegele, 2016) or a combination of qualitative interviews and content analysis (Díaz Noci et al., 2012).
Cross-references
Rationality is one of five dimensions of deliberative quality in this database written by the same author. Accordingly, there are overlaps with the entries on interactivity, inclusivity, explicit civility, and storytelling regarding theoretical background, references/combinations with other methods, and some example studies.
Information on Heinbach & Wilms (2022)
Authors: Dominique Heinbach & Lena K. Wilms (Codebook by Dominique Heinbach, Marc Ziegele, & Lena K. Wilms)
Research question: Which attributes differentiate moderated from unmoderated comments?
Object of analysis: The quantitative content analysis was based on a stratified random sample of moderated and unmoderated comments (N = 1.682) from the German online participation platform “#meinfernsehen202” [#myTV2021], a citizen participation platform to discuss the future of public broadcasting in Germany.
Time frame of analysis: November 24, 2020 to March 3, 2021
Info about variables
Level of analysis: User comment
Variables and reliability: see Table 1
Table 1: Variables and reliability (Heinbach & Wilms, 2022)
Dimension
Measure
Definition
Krippendorff’s α (ordinal)
Rationality
Topic relevance
Does the comment refer to the topic of the post?
.70
Fact claims
Does the comment contain at least one objectively falsifiable statement with a claim to truth?
.78
Reasoning
Does the comment contain at least one justification to support a statement (e.g., an assertion, opinion, or claim)?
.73
Solution proposal
Does the comment contain at least one suggestion on how to resolve problems or issues?
.75
Additional knowledge
Does the comment contain additional information that is of a knowledge nature of and adds content-related value?
.72
Genuine questions
Does the comment contain at least one question with a genuine need for
information, e.g. questions of knowledge, understanding, justification or opinion?
.75
n = 159, 3 coders
Values: All variables were coded on a four-point scale (1 = clearly not present; 2 = rather not present; 3 = rather present; 4 = clearly present). Detailed explanations and examples for each value are provided in the Codebook (in German).
Codebook: in the appendix of this entry (in German)
Information on Zimmermann (2017)
Author: Tobias Zimmermann
Research question: Which role do online reader comments play for a deliberative-democratic understanding of a digital public sphere? (p. 11)
Object of analysis: To compare discursive participation online and offline, the author conducted a full-sample content analysis of online reader comments (N = 1.176) and letters to the editor (N = 381) from German local newspapers on three similar conflicts in local politics concerning the renaming of streets and squares. Because the coding scheme was based on the discourse quality index (DQI), only contributions that contained a demand were included in the analysis, that is, “a proposal on what decision should or should not be made” Steenbergen et al., 2003, p. 27). Only then, a speech act is considered relevant from a discourse ethics perspective.
Time frame of analysis: June 2012 to May 2013
Info about variables
Variables: Based on the DQI (Steenbergen et al., 2003) the author operationalizes the level of justification as an indicator for rationality. This variable distinguishes four levels of justification (p. 164). Besides the ordinal variable “Level of justification”, the author also uses a dichotomous measurement to distinguish between substantiated and unsubstantiated claims.
Level of analysis: Individual contribution
Values: see Table 2
Table 2: Variables and Values (pp. 163-166; p. 188)
Variable
Value
Definition
Level of Justification
No justification
The author makes a demand without justifying it argumentatively. The demand stands for itself.
Indirect justification
The author introduces an argument but its connection to the demand is incomplete, or its justification is not falsifiable.
Qualified justification
An argument substantiates a demand. A (falsifiable) link is made as to why one should expect that X contributes to or detracts from Y.
Detailed justification
At least two complete justifications are given, either two complete justifications for the same demand or complete justifications for two different demands (broad justification). Or one justification explains the represented position in depth from several points of view (deep justification).
Justification
No justification
A user makes a demand that X should (not) be done or happen without giving a justification.
Justification
A user substantiates a demand why X should (not) be done or happen.
Reliability: Intracoder reliability was tested on a subset of 100 comments. The ordinal variable “level of justification” exceeded a Krippendorff’s Alpha above .73. The dichotomous variable “justification” reached a Krippendorff’s Alpha of .75 (p. 200-201).
Codebook: pp. 159-185 (in German)
Information on Ziegele et al. (2020)
Authors: Marc Ziegele, Oliver Quiring, Katharina Esau, & Dennis Friess
Research questions: RQ1: “Which news factors predict the civility and rationality of reactive user comments?” (p. 869) RQ3: “Which illustration factors predict civil and rational reactive user comments?” (p. 871)
Object of analysis: The quantitative content analysis was based on a sample of top-level comments (i.e., comments responding to the article) from the Facebook pages of nine established German news media outlets (N = 11.218). Three artificial weeks were constructed for the sampling of news articles and user comments. On each access day, three or four news articles and the corresponding user comments were randomly selected from each news page. Then, for each article, the oldest five top-level comments, the most recent five top-level comments, five random top-level comments from the middle of the discussion, and the five most popular comments were selected (20 comments per article) (pp. 872-873).
Time frame of analysis: May 2015 to August 2015
Info about variables
Level of analysis: User comment
Variables and reliability: see Table 3
Table 3: Variables and reliability (p. 874)
Dimension
Measure
Definition
Krippendorff’s α
Rationality
Topic relevance
Is the comment on-topic?
.67
Balance
Does the comment include a balanced view on the commented issue?
.74
Additional knowledge
Does the comment contain additional knowledge?
.79
Elaboration
Does the comment appear elaborate to the coders?
.81
Arguments
Does the comment provide reasons for its claims?
.74
Analytical
Does the comment analyze the background of the issue at hand?
.70
Factual claims
Does the comment provide facts and factual claims?
.72
Questions
Does the comment include genuine questions?
.80
n = 100, 9 coders
Values: “Each factor was coded on 3-point scales (0 = absent, 1 = sporadically present, 2 = highly present)” (p. 874).
Example studies
Esau, K., Fleuß, D. & Nienhaus, S.‑M. (2021). Different Arenas, Different Deliberative Quality? Using a Systemic Framework to Evaluate Online Deliberation on Immigration Policy in Germany. Policy & Internet, 13(1), 86–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.232
Esau, K., Friess, D. & Eilders, C. (2017). Design Matters! An Empirical Analysis of Online Deliberation on Different News Platforms. Policy & Internet, 9(3), 321–342. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.154
Friess, D., Ziegele, M. & Heinbach, D. (2021). Collective Civic Moderation for Deliberation? Exploring the Links between Citizens’ Organized Engagement in Comment Sections and the Deliberative Quality of Online Discussions. Political Communication, 38(5), 624–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1830322
Heinbach, D. & Wilms, L. K. (2022): Der Einsatz von Moderation bei #meinfernsehen2021 [The deployment of moderation at #meinfernsehen2021]. In: F. Gerlach, C. Eilders & K. Schmitz (Eds.): #meinfernsehen2021. Partizipationsverfahren zur Zukunft des öffentlich-rechtlichen Fernsehens. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Monnoyer-Smith, L. & Wojcik, S. (2012). Technology and the quality of public deliberation: a comparison between on and offline participation. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 5(1), Artikel 47443, 24. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEG.2012.047443
Rowe, I. (2015). Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the Deliberative Quality of Online News User Comments Across Platforms. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(4), 539–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482
Stromer Galley, J. (2007). Measuring Deliberation\u27s Content: A Coding Scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), Article 12.
Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., Muddiman, A. & Curry, A. L. (2015). Changing Deliberative Norms on News Organizations\u27 Facebook Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 188–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12104
Ziegele, M., Quiring, O., Esau, K. & Friess, D. (2020). Linking News Value Theory With Online Deliberation: How News Factors and Illustration Factors in News Articles Affect the Deliberative Quality of User Discussions in SNS’ Comment Sections. Communication Research, 47(6), 860-890. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218797884
Zimmermann, T. (2017). Digitale Diskussionen: Über politische Partizipation mittels Online-Leserkommentaren. Edition Politik: Bd. 44. transcript Verlag. http://www.content-select.com/index.php?id=bib_view&ean=9783839438886
Further references
Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In A. P. Hamlin & P. Pettit (Hrsg.), The good polity: Normative analysis of the state (S. 67–92). Blackwell.
Díaz Noci, J., Domingo, D., Masip, P., Micó, J. L. & Ruiz, C. (2012). Comments in news, democracy booster or journalistic nightmare: Assessing the quality and dynamics of citizen debates in Catalan online newspapers. #ISOJ, 2(1), 46–64. https://isoj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ISOJ_Journal_V2_N1_2012_Spring.pdf#page=46
Dryzek, J. S., Bächtiger, A., Chambers, S., Cohen, J., Druckman, J. N., Felicetti, A., Fishkin, J. S., Farrell, D. M., Fung, A., Gutmann, A., Landemore, H., Mansbridge, J., Marien, S., Neblo, M. A., Niemeyer, S., Setälä, M., Slothuus, R., Suiter, J., Thompson, D. & Warren, M. E. (2019). The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science (New York, N.Y.), 363(6432), 1144–1146. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2694
Engelke, K. M. (2019). Enriching the Conversation: Audience Perspectives on the Deliberative Nature and Potential of User Comments for News Media. Digital Journalism, 8(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1680567
Esterling, K. M. (2011). “Deliberative Disagreement” in U.S. Health Policy Committee Hearings. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36(2), 169–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-9162.2011.00010.x
Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. Yale University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/j.ctt1dt006v https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1dt006v
Friess, D. & Eilders, C. (2015). A systematic review of online deliberation research. Policy & Internet, 7(3), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.95
Graham, T. & Witschge, T. (2003). In Search of Online Deliberation: Towards a New Method for Examining the Quality of Online Discussions. Communications, 28(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2003.012
Habermas, J. (2015). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (Reprinted.). Polity Press.
Price, V. & Cappella, J. N. (2002). Online deliberation and its influence: The Electronic Dialogue Project in Campaign 2000. IT&Society, 1(1), 303–329. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.9.5945&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M. & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index. Comparative European Politics, 1(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002
Ziegele, M. (2016). Nutzerkommentare als Anschlusskommunikation: Theorie und qualitative Analyse des Diskussionswerts von Online-Nachrichten [The Discussion Value of Online News. An Analysis of User Comments on News Platforms]. Springer VS
El perfil de las revistas españolas de comunicación (2007-2008)
Get PDFThe evolution of parameters for scholarly publications and of academic requirements in Spain has resulted in changes to scholarly journals, among others, those in the field of communication sciences. This article characterizes the core Spanish communication journals according to variables such as the number of published articles, language, author institution and collaboration networks, and citation patterns during 2007-2008. By applying bibliometric techniques and social network analysis, a
profi le showing similarities and differences among the journals is obtained, as well as a profile of the overall system
