skip to main content
10.1145/2912160.2912184acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesdg-oConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Paradoxes of Deliberative Interactions on Government-Managed Social Media: Evidence from China

Published: 08 June 2016 Publication History

Abstract

The presence of government agencies on increasingly popular social media platforms potentially enables interactions that go beyond one-way government-to-citizen information or service provision, and include citizen-to-citizen open interactions. These interactions can either contribute to deliberative practices, characterized by mutual understanding, reasonableness, and cross-opinion exposure, or hinder them, resulting in increased homophily and polarization. Using the theoretical lens of public deliberation, this study investigates attitudinal and cognitive aspects of user conversations on government-managed social media accounts. Drawing on a survey of 417 users of the Chinese social media platform Weibo, data show that, on the one hand, general conversations between users are characterized by homophily and polarization, even though participants tend to perceive their own interactions as deliberative in some key aspects; and, on the other hand, that participants in conversations on government-managed Weibo accounts -- which are used to a low extent -- perceive their interactions as less deliberative. Findings contribute to research and practice of government social media management aimed at citizen engagement.

References

[1]
Albrecht, S. 2006. Whose voice is heard in online deliberation?: A study of participation and representation in political debates on the internet. Information, Communication & Society. 9, 1 (Feb. 2006), 62--82.
[2]
Arendt, H. 1961. Between Past and Future: Six Exercises in Political Thought. Faber & Faber.
[3]
Bächtiger, A. et al. 2010. Disentangling Diversity in Deliberative Democracy: Competing Theories, Their Blind Spots and Complementarities. Journal of Political Philosophy. 18, 1 (Mar. 2010), 32--63.
[4]
Benhabib, S. 2001. Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the internet. Philosophy Social Criticism. 27, 4 (2001), 21--39.
[5]
Bertot, J.C. et al. 2012. The impact of polices on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations. Government Information Quarterly. 29, 1 (Jan. 2012), 30--40.
[6]
Bertot, J.C. et al. 2010. Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly. 27, 3 (Jul. 2010), 264--271.
[7]
Black, L.W. et al. 2011. Self-Governance Through Group Discussion in Wikipedia: Measuring Deliberation in Online Groups. Small Group Research. (May 2011), 1046496411406137.
[8]
Blau, P.M. 1977. Inequality and Heterogenity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure. Free Press.
[9]
Brabham, D.C. 2008. Crowdsourcing as a Model for Problem Solving An Introduction and Cases. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies. 14, 1 (Feb. 2008), 75--90.
[10]
Brown, J. et al. 2007. Word of mouth communication within online communities: Conceptualizing the online social network. Journal of Interactive Marketing. 21, 3 (Jun. 2007), 2--20.
[11]
Carpini, M.X.D. et al. 2004. Public Deliberation, Discursive Participation, and Citizen Engagement: A Review of the Empirical Literature. Annual Review of Political Science. 7, 1 (2004), 315--344.
[12]
Carter, L. and Bélanger, F. 2005. The utilization of e-government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors*. Information Systems Journal. 15, 1 (Jan. 2005), 5--25.
[13]
China Internet Watch 2014. Sina Weibo User Demographics Analysis in 2013.
[14]
China Internet Watch 2016. Weibo MAUs Reached 222 Million in Q3 2015.
[15]
Chun, S.A. et al. 2010. Government 2.0: Making connections between citizens, data and government. Information Polity. 15, 1-2 (2010), 1--9.
[16]
CNNIC 2015. 35th Statistical Report on Internet Development in China. China Internet Network Information Center.
[17]
Coleman, S. and Gotze, J. 2001. Bowling together: Online public engagement in policy deliberation. Hansard Society.
[18]
Coleman, S. and Moss, G. 2012. Under Construction: The Field of Online Deliberation Research. Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 9, 1 (Jan. 2012), 1--15.
[19]
Criado, J.I. et al. 2013. Government innovation through social media. Government Information Quarterly. 30, 4 (Oct. 2013), 319--326.
[20]
Dahlberg, L. 2001. Computer-Mediated Communication and The Public Sphere: A Critical Analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 7, 1 (Oct. 2001), 1--30.
[21]
Dahlberg, L. 2001. Extending the public sphere through cyberspace: The case of Minnesota E-Democracy. First Monday. 6, 3 (Mar. 2001).
[22]
Dahlberg, L. 2001. The Internet and Democratic Discourse: Exploring The Prospects of Online Deliberative Forums Extending the Public Sphere. Information, Communication & Society. 4, 4 (Jan. 2001), 615--633.
[23]
DeVellis, R.F. 2003. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. SAGE Publications.
[24]
Dillman, D.A. 2011. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method -- 2007 Update with New Internet, Visual, and Mixed-Mode Guide. John Wiley & Sons.
[25]
Doan, A. et al. 2011. Crowdsourcing systems on the World-Wide Web. Communications of the ACM. 54, 4 (Apr. 2011), 86--96.
[26]
Eisinga, R. et al. 2013. The Reliability of a Two-Item Scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International journal of public health. 58, 4 (2013), 637--642.
[27]
Ferro, E. et al. 2013. Policy making 2.0: From theory to practice. Government Information Quarterly. 30, 4 (Oct. 2013), 359--368.
[28]
Fishkin, J.S. 1992. Beyond Teledemocracy: "America on the Line." The Responsive Community. 2, 3 (1992), 13--19.
[29]
Friess, D. and Eilders, C. 2015. A Systematic Review of Online Deliberation Research. Policy & Internet. 7, 3 (Sep. 2015), 319--339.
[30]
Gastil, J.W. and Black, L.W. 2008. Public deliberation as the organizing principle of political communication research. Journal of Public Deliberation. 4, 1 (2008), Article 3.
[31]
Gimmler, A. 2001. Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the internet. Philosophy Social Criticism. 27, 4 (2001), 21--39.
[32]
Golbeck, J. et al. 2010. Twitter use by the U.S. Congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61, 8 (Aug. 2010), 1612--1621.
[33]
Graham, T. and Witschge, T. 2003. In search of online deliberation: Towards a new method for examining the quality of online discussions. Communications. 28, 2 (2003), 173--204.
[34]
Grant, J.S. and Davis, L.L. 1997. Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Research in Nursing & Health. 20, 3 (Jun. 1997), 269--274.
[35]
Habermas, J. 1975. Legitimation crisis. Beacon Press.
[36]
Habermas, J. 1991. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. MIT Press.
[37]
Habermas, J. 1984. The theory of communicative action, Vol. I. Beacon Press.
[38]
Halpern, D. and Gibbs, J. 2013. Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior. 29, 3 (May 2013), 1159--1168.
[39]
He, B. and Warren, M.E. 2011. Authoritarian Deliberation: The Deliberative Turn in Chinese Political Development. Perspectives on Politics. 9, 2 (Jun. 2011), 269--289.
[40]
Hillmann, R. and Trier, M. 2013. Influence And Dissemination Of Sentiments In Social Network Communication Patterns. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2013). (Jul. 2013), Paper 52.
[41]
Hillmann, R. and Trier, M. 2012. Sentiment Polarization and Balance among Users in Online Social Networks. Proceedings of the American Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2012). (Jul. 2012), Paper 10.
[42]
Hofmann, S. et al. 2013. What makes local governments' online communications successful? Insights from a multi-method analysis of Facebook. Government Information Quarterly. 30, 4 (Oct. 2013), 387--396.
[43]
Huckfeldt, R.R. and Sprague, J. 1995. Citizens, politics and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge University Press.
[44]
Internet Live Stats 2015. Internet Users by Country.
[45]
Jaeger, P.T. 2005. Deliberative democracy and the conceptual foundations of electronic government. Government Information Quarterly. 22, 4 (2005), 702--719.
[46]
Janssen, D. and Kies, R. 2005. Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy. Acta Politica. 40, 3 (Sep. 2005), 317--335.
[47]
Kiesler, S. et al. 1984. Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist. 39, 10 (1984), 1123--1134.
[48]
King, G. et al. 2013. How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression. American Political Science Review. 107, 2 (May) (2013), 1--18.
[49]
Lawrence, E. et al. 2010. Self-Segregation or Deliberation? Blog Readership, Participation, and Polarization in American Politics. Perspectives on Politics. 8, 01 (2010), 141--157.
[50]
Lee, A.S. and Baskerville, R.L. 2003. Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research. Info. Sys. Research. 14, 3 (Sep. 2003), 221--243.
[51]
Lee, G. and Kwak, Y.H. 2012. An Open Government Maturity Model for social media-based public engagement. Government Information Quarterly. 29, 4 (Oct. 2012), 492--503.
[52]
Lewis, B.R. et al. 2005. A methodology for construct development in MIS research. European Journal of Information Systems. 14, 4 (2005), 388--400.
[53]
Liang, H. 2014. Coevolution of Political Discussion and Common Ground in Web Discussion Forum. Social Science Computer Review. 32, 2 (Apr. 2014), 155--169.
[54]
McKinney, V. et al. 2002. The Measurement of Web-Customer Satisfaction: An Expectation and Disconfirmation Approach. Information Systems Research. 13, 3 (Sep. 2002), 296--315.
[55]
McPherson, M. et al. 2001. Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology. 27, (2001), 415--444.
[56]
Medaglia, R. and Zheng, L. 2016. Characterizing Government Social Media Research: Towards a Grounded Overview Model. Proceedings of the 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2016), 2991--2999.
[57]
Meijer, A. and Thaens, M. 2013. Social media strategies: Understanding the differences between North American police departments. Government Information Quarterly. 30, 4 (Oct. 2013), 343--350.
[58]
Mergel, I. 2013. A framework for interpreting social media interactions in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly. 30, 4 (Oct. 2013), 327--334.
[59]
Mergel, I. 2013. Social media adoption and resulting tactics in the U.S. federal government. Government Information Quarterly. 30, (2013), 123--130.
[60]
Morozov, E. 2012. The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. PublicAffairs.
[61]
Mossberger, K. et al. 2013. Connecting citizens and local governments? Social media and interactivity in major U.S. cities. Government Information Quarterly. 30, 4 (Oct. 2013), 351--358.
[62]
Moy, P. and Gastil, J. 2006. Predicting Deliberative Conversation: The Impact of Discussion Networks, Media Use, and Political Cognitions. Political Communication. 23, 4 (2006), 443--460.
[63]
Muhlberger, P. 2000. Defining and measuring deliberative participation and potential: A theoretical analysis and operationalization. International Society of Political Psychology Twenty-Third Annual Scientific Meeting, Seattle, WA (2000).
[64]
Nunnally, J.C. 1978. Assessment of Reliability. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill.
[65]
Nunnally, J. C. 1988. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill.
[66]
Palmer, J.W. 2002. Web Site Usability, Design, and Performance Metrics. Information Systems Research. 13, 2 (2002), 151--167.
[67]
Papacharissi, Z. 2004. Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society. 6, 2 (Apr. 2004), 259--283.
[68]
Picazo-Vela, S. et al. 2012. Understanding risks, benefits, and strategic alternatives of social media applications in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly. 29, 4 (Oct. 2012), 504--511.
[69]
Price, V. et al. 2002. Does Disagreement Contribute to More Deliberative Opinion? Political Communication. 19, 1 (Jan. 2002), 95--112.
[70]
Rauchfleisch, A. and Schäfer, M.S. 2015. Multiple public spheres of Weibo: a typology of forms and potentials of online public spheres in China. Information, Communication & Society. 18, 2 (Feb. 2015), 139--155.
[71]
Rowe, I. 2015. Civility 2.0: a comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society. 18, 2 (Feb. 2015), 121--138.
[72]
Schachter, S. 1959. The psychology of affiliation: Experimental studies of the sources of gregariousness. Stanford University Press.
[73]
Schneider, S.M. 1996. Creating a Democratic Public Sphere Through Political Discussion A Case Study of Abortion Conversation on the Internet. Social Science Computer Review. 14, 4 (Dec. 1996), 373--393.
[74]
Sobkowicz, P. and Sobkowicz, A. 2012. Properties of Social Network in an Internet Political Discussion Forum. Advances in Complex Systems. 15, 6 (Aug. 2012).
[75]
Sobkowicz, P. and Sobkowicz, A. 2012. Two-Year Study of Emotion and Communication Patterns in a Highly Polarized Political Discussion Forum. Social Science Computer Review. 30, 4 (Nov. 2012), 448--469.
[76]
Steenbergen, M.R. et al. 2003. Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index. Comparative European Politics. 1, 1 (Mar. 2003), 21--48.
[77]
Stromer-Galley, J. 2007. Measuring deliberation's content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation. 3, 1 (2007), Article 12.
[78]
Stromer-Galley, J. and Wichowski, A. 2011. Political Discussion Online. The Handbook of Internet Studies. M. Consalvo and C. Ess, eds. Wiley-Blackwell. 168--187.
[79]
Sullivan, J. 2012. A tale of two microblogs in China. Media, Culture & Society. 34, 6 (Sep. 2012), 773--783.
[80]
Sullivan, J. 2014. China's Weibo: Is faster different? New Media & Society. 16, 1 (2014), 24--37.
[81]
Sunstein, C.R. 2001. Republic.com. Princeton University Press.
[82]
Teo, T.S.H. et al. 2008. Trust and Electronic Government Success: An Empirical Study. Journal of Management Information Systems. 25, 3 (2008), 99--131.
[83]
Thompson, D.F. 2008. Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science. Annual Review of Political Science. 11, 1 (2008), 497--520.
[84]
Van Alstyne, M. and Brynjolfsson, E. 2005. Global Village or Cyber-Balkans? Modeling and Measuring the Integration of Electronic Communities. Management Science. 51, 6 (2005), 851--868.
[85]
Weibo 2015. Weibo User Development Report 2015.
[86]
Wilhelm, A.G. 1998. Virtual sounding boards: How deliberative is on-line political discussion? Information, Communication & Society. 1, 3 (1998), 313--338.
[87]
Wojcieszak, M. and Price, V. 2012. Facts Versus Perceptions: Who Reports Disagreement During Deliberation and Are the Reports Accurate? Political Communication. 29, 3 (Jul. 2012), 299--318.
[88]
Wright, J. 2014. Regional variation in Chinese internet filtering. Information, Communication & Society. 17, 1 (Jan. 2014), 121--141.
[89]
Yang, Y. and Medaglia, R. 2014. Structural Changes in Online Discussion Networks: Evidence From a Case in China. Proceedings of The International Workshop of Information Technology and Internet Finance Chengdu, China 25 June 2014 (Chengdu, China, 2014), 13.
[90]
Zavattaro, S.M. and Sementelli, A.J. 2014. A critical examination of social media adoption in government: Introducing omnipresence. Government Information Quarterly. 31, (2014), 257--264.
[91]
Zhang, W. 2015. Perceived Procedural Fairness in Deliberation Predictors and Effects. Communication Research. 42, 3 (Apr. 2015), 345--364.
[92]
Zhang, W. et al. 2013. The structural features and the deliberative quality of online discussions. Telematics and Informatics. 30, 2 (May 2013), 74--86.
[93]
Zheng, L. and Zheng, T. 2014. Innovation through social media in the public sector: Information and interactions. Government Information Quarterly. 31, Supplement 1, (Jun. 2014), S106--S117.
[94]
Zhou, X. et al. 2008. Deliberativeness of Online Political Discussion. Journalism Studies. 9, 5 (Oct. 2008), 759--770.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Research on risk assessment model and simulation of online group polarization in emergenciesPLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.030555219:6(e0305552)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Government – Citizen Interaction Online. Examining the Social Media Pages of the Russian Regional AuthoritiesSocial Computing and Social Media10.1007/978-3-031-61312-8_8(107-119)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2024
  • (2017)Extending Impact Analysis in Government Social Media ResearchProceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research10.1145/3085228.3085298(202-212)Online publication date: 7-Jun-2017

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
dg.o '16: Proceedings of the 17th International Digital Government Research Conference on Digital Government Research
June 2016
532 pages
ISBN:9781450343398
DOI:10.1145/2912160
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 08 June 2016

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Social media
  2. government
  3. online discussion
  4. public deliberation.

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

dg.o '16

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 150 of 271 submissions, 55%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)12
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 20 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Research on risk assessment model and simulation of online group polarization in emergenciesPLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.030555219:6(e0305552)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Government – Citizen Interaction Online. Examining the Social Media Pages of the Russian Regional AuthoritiesSocial Computing and Social Media10.1007/978-3-031-61312-8_8(107-119)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2024
  • (2017)Extending Impact Analysis in Government Social Media ResearchProceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research10.1145/3085228.3085298(202-212)Online publication date: 7-Jun-2017

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media