Kommunikationsformen und Deliberationsdynamik

Schlagworte

Social Media Kommentar Internet Emotion Deliberative Demokratie Deliberation Gespräch Sequenzanalyse Argumentation Narration user Humor Digitale Öffentlichkeit Deliberationsdynamik Online-Partizipation Online-Beteiligung Deliberative Reziprozität relationale Inhaltsanalyse Nutzerkommentare Follow

• Abbott, A. (1988). Transcending General Linear Reality. Sociological Theory, 6(2), 169–186.
• Abbott, A. (1990). A Primer on Sequence Methods. Organization Science, 1(4), 375–392.
• Abbott, A. (1995). Sequence Analysis: New Methods for Old Ideas. Annual Review of Sociology, 21(1), 93–113.
• Abbott, A. & Forrest, J. (1986). Optimal Matching Methods for Historical Sequences. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 16(3), 471–494.
• Adam, S. (2007). Symbolische Netzwerke in Europa: Der Einfluss der nationalen Ebene auf europäische Öffentlichkeit; Deutschland und Frankreich im Vergleich. Herbert von Halem Verlag.
• Adam, S. (2008). Medieninhalte aus der Netzwerkperspektive. Publizistik, 53(2), 180–199.
• Adler, A. (2017). Liquid Democracy in Deutschland [Dissertation]. GBV Gemeinsamer Bibliotheksverbund.
• Aisenbrey, S. & Fasang, A. E. (2010). New Life for Old Ideas: The "Second Wave" of Sequence Analysis Bringing the "Course" Back Into the Life Course. Sociological Methods & Research, 38(3), 420–462.
• Albert, R., Jeong, H. & Barabási, A.‑L. (1999). Diameter of the World-Wide Web. Nature, 401(6749), 130–131.
• 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), 62–82.
• Albrecht, S. (2008). Netzwerke und Kommunikation. Zum Verhältnis zweier sozialwissenschaftlicher Paradigmen. In C. Stegbauer (Hrsg.), Netzwerkforschung. Netzwerkanalyse und Netzwerktheorie: Ein neues Paradigma in den Sozialwissenschaften (S. 165–178). Springer.
• Albrecht, S. (2010). Reflexionsspiele: Deliberative Demokratie und die Wirklichkeit politischer Diskurse im Internet. De Gruyter.
• Albrecht, S. (2013). Kommunikation als soziales Netzwerk? Anreize und Herausforderungen der Netzwerkanalyse von Kommunikationsprozessen. In B. Frank-Job, A. Mehler & T. Sutter (Hrsg.), Die Dynamik sozialer und sprachlicher Netzwerke (S. 23–46). Springer.
• Almond, G. A. & Verba, S. (1963). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton University Press.
• Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A. & Ladwig, P. (2014). The “Nasty Effect": Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 373–387.
• Anicker, F. (2019). Entwurf einer Soziologie der Deliberation. Velbrück Wissenschaft.
• Aragón, P., Gómez, V. & Kaltenbrunner, A. (2017). Detecting Platform Effects in Online Discussions. Policy & Internet, 9(4), 420–443.
• Arendt, H. (1967). Vita activa oder Vom tätigen Leben. Piper Verlag.
• Arguello, J., Butler, B. S., Joyce, L., Kraut, R., Ling, K. S. & Wang, X. (2006). Talk to me: Foundations for Successful Individual-Group Interactions in Online Communities. In G. Olson & R. Jeffries (Vorsitz), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors.
• Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.
• Bächtiger, A., Dryzek, J. S., Mansbridge, J. & Warren, M. E. (Hrsg.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press.
• Bächtiger, A. & Hangartner, D. (2010). When Deliberative Theory Meets Empirical Political Science: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Political Deliberation. Political Studies, 58(4), 609–629.
• Bächtiger, A., Niemeyer, S., Neblo, M., Steenbergen, M. R. & Steiner, J. (2010). Disentangling Diversity in Deliberative Democracy: Competing Theories, Their Blind Spots and Complementarities. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 32–63.
• Bächtiger, A. & Parkinson, J. (2019). Mapping and measuring deliberation: Towards a new deliberative quality. Oxford University Press.
• Bächtiger, A., Pedrini, S. & Ryser, M. (2010). Prozessanalyse politischer Entscheidungen: Deliberative Standards, Diskurstypen und Sequenzialisierung. In J. Behnke, T. Bräuninger & S. Shikano (Hrsg.), Jahrbuch für Handlungs- und Entscheidungstheorie (S. 193–226). Springer.
• Bächtiger, A., Shikano, S., Pedrini, S. & Ryser, M. (2009). Measuring Deliberation 2.0: Standards, Discourse Types, and Sequenzialization. Conference Paper. ECPR – Studies in European Political Science, Potsdam.
• Bächtiger, A. & Wyss, D. (2013). Empirische Deliberationsforschung – eine systematische Übersicht. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 7(2), 155–181.
• Bakeman, R. & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (2. Aufl.). Cambridge University Press.
• Bakeman, R. & Quera, V. (1995). Analyzing interaction: Sequential analysis with SDIS & GSEQ. Cambridge University Press.
• Bakeman, R. & Quera, V. (2011). Sequential Analysis and Observational Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. Cambridge University Press.
• Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis; a method for the study of small groups. Addison-Wesely Press. https://archive.org/details/interactionproce00bale
• Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. University of California Press.
• Barber, B. R. (1998). A passion for democracy: American essays. Princeton University Press.
• Baringhorst, S. (2019). Partizipation in invited und invented spaces des Internet – unpolitisch und postdemokratisch? In I. Engelmann, M. Legrand & H. Marzinkowski (Hrsg.), Politische Partizipation im Medienwandel (S. 29–51). Digital Communication Research, 6.
• Barnes, S. H. & Kaase, M. (Hrsg.). (1979). Political action: Mass participation in five western democracies. Sage.
• Basu, S. (1999). Dialogic ethics and the virtue of humor. Journal of Political Philosophy, 7(4), 378–403.
• Baumeister, R. F. & Newman, L. S. (1994). How Stories Make Sense of Personal Experiences: Motives that Shape Autobiographical Narratives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(6), 676–690.
• Beauvais, E. & Bächtiger, A. (2016). Taking the Goals of Deliberation Seriously: A Differentiated View on Equality and Equity in Deliberative Designs and Processes. Journal of Public Deliberation, 12(2), 1–18. https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol12/iss2/art2/
• Bellamy, C. & Raab, C. D. (1999). Wiring-up the deck-chairs? Parliamentary Affairs, 52(3), 518–534.
• Bene, M. (2016). Go viral on the Facebook! Interactions between candidates and followers on Facebook during the Hungarian general election campaign of 2014. Information, Communication & Society, 20(4), 513–529.
• Bennett, W. L. & Pfetsch, B. (2018). Rethinking Political Communication in a Time of Disrupted Public Spheres. Journal of Communication, 68(2), 243–253.
• Berg, J. (2016). The Impact of Anonymity and Issue Controversiality on the Quality of Online Discussion. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(1), 37–51.
• Bertelsmann Stiftung. (2011). Bürger fordern direkte Beteiligung. Umfrage bestätigt Wunsch nach Volks- und Bürgerentscheiden. https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/en/press/press-releases/press-release/pid/buerger-fordern-direkte-beteiligung/
• Bessette, J. M. (1980). Deliberative Democracy. The Majoritarian Principle in Republican Government. In R. A. Goldwin & W. A. Schambra (Hrsg.), AEI studies: Bd. 294. How democratic is the constitution? (S. 102–116). American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
• Bickford, S. (2011). Emotion Talk and Political Judgment. The Journal of Politics, 73(04), 1025–1037.
• Black, L. W. (2008a). Deliberation, Storytelling, and Dialogic Moments. Communication Theory, 18(1), 93–116.
• Black, L. W. (2008b). Listening to the City: Difference, Identity, and Storytelling in Online Deliberative Groups. Journal of Public Deliberation, 5(1).
• Black, L. W., Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J. & Stromer-Galley, J. (2011). Methods for Analyzing and Measuring Group Deliberation. In E. P. Bucy & R. L. Holbert (Hrsg.), Communication series. The sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (S. 323–345). Routledge.
• Black, L. W., Welser, H. T., Cosley, D. & DeGroot, J. M. (2011). Self-Governance Through Group Discussion in Wikipedia: Measuring Deliberation in Online Groups. Small Group Research, 42(5), 595–634.
• Blöbaum, B., Hanitzsch, T. & Badura, L. (2020). Medienskepsis in Deutschland. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
• Blumenthal, J. von. (2014). Governance im und durch den Staat: Politikwissenschaftliche Perspektiven der Governance-Forschung. In K. Maag Merki, R. Langer & H. Altrichter (Hrsg.), Educational Governance als Forschungsperspektive (S. 87–110). Springer.
• Blumler, J. G. & Gurevitch, M. (1995). The Crisis of Public Communication. Routledge.
• Bohman, J. (1996). Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. MIT Press.
• Bohman, J. & Rehg, W. (Hrsg.). (1997). Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics. MIT Press.
• Bormann, E. G. (1970). The paradox and promise of small group research. Speech Monographs, 37(3), 211–217.
• Bossetta, M. (2018). The Digital Architectures of Social Media: Comparing Political Campaigning on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat in the 2016 U.S. Election. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(2), 471–496.
• Boulianne, S. (2015). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 524–538.
• boyd, d. (2011). Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Hrsg.), Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites (S. 39–58). Routledge.
• Boyte, H. C. (2005). Reframing Democracy: Governance, Civic Agency, and Politics. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 536–546.
• Braun, N. & Saam, N. J. (2015). Handbuch Modellbildung und Simulation in den Sozialwissenschaften. Springer.
• Bright, J., Bermudez, S., Pilet, J.‑B. & Soubiran, T. (2020). Power users in online democracy: their origins and impact. Information, Communication & Society, 23(13), 1838–1853.
• Brinker, K. & Sager, S. F. (2006). Linguistische Gesprächsanalyse: Eine Einführung (4. Aufl., Bd. 30). Schmidt.
• Brosius, H.‑B. (2013). Kontext. In G. Bentele, H.-B. Brosius & O. Jarren (Hrsg.), Lexikon Kommunikations- und Medienwissenschaft (S. 169). Springer.
• Brosius, H.‑B., Haas, A. & Koschel, F. (2012). Methoden der empirischen Kommunikationsforschung. Springer.
• Bruns, A. (2012). How Long is a Tweet? Mapping Dynamic Conversation Networks on Twitter Using GAWK and GEPHI. Information, Communication & Society, 15(9), 1323–1351.
• Bundeswahlleiter. (2018). Ergebnisse früherer Bundestagswahlen. https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/dam/jcr/397735e3-0585-46f6-a0b5-2c60c5b83de6/btw_ab49_gesamt.pdf
• Bundeswahlleiter. (2019). Ergebnisse früherer Europawahlen. Wiesbaden. Der Bundeswahlleiter. https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/dam/jcr/0872e1f8-935a-45d6-a0f1-a3352fb4bc69/ew_ergebnisse_gesamt.pdf
• Bunge, M. (1997). Mechanism and Explanation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 27(4), 410–465.
• Cameron, A. C. & Trivedi, P. (2013). Regression Analysis of Count Data. Cambridge University Press.
• Cao, X. (2010). Hearing it From Jon Stewart: The Impact of the Daily Show on Public Attentiveness to Politics. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22(1), 26–46.
• Cappella, J. N., Price, V. & Nir, L. (2002). Argument Repertoire as a Reliable and Valid Measure of Opinion Quality: Electronic Dialogue During Campaign 2000. Political Communication, 19(1), 73–93.
• Carcasson, M. (2012). The Cycle of Deliberative Inquiry: Re-conceptualizing the Work of Public Deliberation. In J. Goodwin (Hrsg.), Between Scientists & Citizens: Proceedings of a Conference at lowa State University (S. 85–97). Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation.
• Carcasson, M. & Sprain, L. (2016). Beyond Problem Solving: Reconceptualizing the Work of Public Deliberation as Deliberative Inquiry. Communication Theory, 26(1), 41–63.
• Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society. Blackwell.
• Castells, M. (2007). Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society. International Journal of Communication, 1, 238–266.
• Chadwick, A. (2009). Web 2.0: New Challenges for the Study of E-Democracy in an Era of Informational Exuberance. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 5(1), 9–41.
• Chadwick, A. (2013). The Hybrid Media System. Oxford University Press.
• Chambers, S. (1996). Reasonable Democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. Cornell University Press.
• Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative Democratic Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6(1), 307–326.
• Chambers, S. (2009). Rhetoric and the Public Sphere: Has Deliberative Democracy Abandoned Mass Democracy? Political Theory, 37(3), 323–350.
• Coe, K., Kenski, K. & Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and Uncivil? Patterns and Determinants of Incivility in Newspaper Website Comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658–679.
• Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy. In A. Hamlin (Hrsg.), The good polity: Normative analysis of the state (S. 17–34). Wiley-Blackwell.
• Coleman, S. (2005). The Lonely Citizen: Indirect Representation in an Age of Networks. Political Communication, 22(2), 197–214.
• Coleman, S. & Moss, G. (2012). Under Construction: The Field of Online Deliberation Research. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(1), 1–15.
• Coleman, S. & Shane, P. M. (Hrsg.). (2011). Connecting Democracy: Online Consultation and the Flow of Political Communication. MIT Press.
• Cornwell, B. (2015). Social sequence analysis: Methods and applications. Structural analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge University Press.
• Crouch, C. (2017). Postdemokratie. Suhrkamp.
• Curato, N. (2012). A sequential analysis of democratic deliberation. Acta Politica, 47(4), 423–442.
• Curato, N., Niemeyer, S. & Dryzek, J. S. (2013). Appreciative and contestatory inquiry in deliberative forums: Can group hugs be dangerous? Critical Policy Studies, 7(1), 1–17.
• Dahl, R. A. (1972). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition (26. Aufl.). Yale University Press.
• Dahlberg, L. (1998). Cyberspace and the Public Sphere: Exploring the Democratic Potential of the Net. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 4(1), 70–84.
• Dahlberg, L. (2001a). Democracy via Cyberspace: Mapping the Rhetorics and Practices of Three Prominent Camps. New Media & Society, 3(2), 157–177.
• Dahlberg, L. (2001b). The Habermasian Public Sphere Encounters Cyber-Reality. The Public: Journal of the European Institute for Communication and Culture, 8(3), 83–96.
• Dahlberg, L. (2001c). The Internet and Democratic Discourse: Exploring The Prospects of Online Deliberative Forums Extending the Public Sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 4(4), 615–633.
• Dahlberg, L. (2004). Net-Public Sphere Research: Beyond The “First Phase”. Javnost – The Public, 11(1), 27–43.
• Dahrendorf, R. (1967). Aktive und passive Öffentlichkeit. MERKUR, 21(12), 1109–1122.
• Dalton, R. J. (2004). Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford University Press.
• Dalton, R. J., Scarrow, S. E. & Cain, B. E. (2003). New Forms of Democracy? In B. E. Cain, R. J. Dalton & S. E. Scarrow (Hrsg.), Democracy Transformed? (S. 1–22). Oxford University Press.
• Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. Putnam.
• Dathe, D., Priller, E. & Thürling, M. (2010). Mitgliedschaften und Engagement in Deutschland. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/60047/1/634173936.pdf
• Davies, T. & Gangadharan, S. P. (Hrsg.). (2009). Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice. CSLI Publications.
• Davis, J. L. & Jurgenson, N. (2014). Context collapse: Theorizing context collusions and collisions. Information, Communication & Society, 17(4), 476–485.
• Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of personality and social psychology, 44(1), 113–126.
• Davis, M. H. (1996). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Social psychology series. Westview Press.
• Delli Carpini, M. (Hrsg.). (2002). Research in micropolitics: Bd. 6. Political decision-making, deliberation and participation. JAI Press.
• Delli Carpini, M., Cook, F. L. & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public Deliberation, Discursive Participation, and Citizen Engagement: A Review of the Empirical Literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7(1), 315–344.
• Delli Carpini, M. & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/j.ctt1cc2kv1
• Dervin, B. (1991). Comparative Theory Reconceptualized: From Entities and States to Processes and Dynamics. Communication Theory, 1(1), 59–69.
• Deutsch, M. & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629–636.
• Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and Nature. Open Court.
• Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Swallow Press.
• Diekmann, A. (2006). Empirische Sozialforschung: Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen (16. Aufl.). Rowohlt.
• Dobson, A. (2014). Listening for Democracy. Oxford University Press.
• Dryzek, J. S. (1992). How Far is it from Virginia and Rochester to Frankfurt? Public Choice as Critical Theory. British Journal of Political Science, 22(4), 397–417.
• Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford political theory. Oxford University Press.
• Dryzek, J. S. (2010). Rhetoric in Democracy: A Systemic Appreciation. Political Theory, 38(3), 319–339.
• Dryzek, J. S. & Braithwaite, V. (2000). On the Prospects for Democratic Deliberation: Values Analysis Applied to Australian Politics. Political Psychology, 21(2), 241–266.
• Dryzek, J. S. & Niemeyer, S. (2006). Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 634–649.
• Dubiel, H. (1999). Integration durch Konflikt? In J. Friedrichs & W. Jagodzinski (Hrsg.), Soziale Integration (S. 132–144). Westdeutscher Verlag.
• Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. Wiley.
• Egbert, M. M. (1997). Schisming: The Collaborative Transformation From a Single Conversation to Multiple Conversations. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 30(1), 1–51.
• Eilders, C. (1997). Nachrichtenfaktoren und Rezeption: Eine empirische Analyse zur Auswahl und Verarbeitung politischer Information. Westdeutscher Verlag.
• Eilders, C. (2004). Von Links bis Rechts – Deutung und Meinung. In C. Eilders, F. Neidhardt & B. Pfetsch (Hrsg.), Die Stimme der Medien (S. 129–166). Springer.
• Eilders, C. (2008). Massenmedien als Produzenten öffentlicher Meinungen — Pressekommentare als Manifestation der politischen Akteursrolle. In B. Pfetsch & S. Adam (Hrsg.), Massenmedien als politische Akteure: Konzepte und Analysen (S. 27–51). Springer.
• Eilders, C. (2011). Der Einzelne, das Publikum und die Öffentlichkeit. Wie die Mikroperspektive in der Wirkungsforschung und die Makroansätze zur Öffentlichkeit zueinander kommen können. In T. Quandt & B. Scheufele (Hrsg.), Ebenen der Kommunikation: Mikro-Meso-Makro-Links in der Kommunikationswissenschaft (S. 143–161). Springer.
• Eilders, C. (2013). Öffentliche Meinungsbildung in Online-Umgebungen: Zur Zentralität der normativen Perspektive in der politischen Kommunikationsforschung. In M. Karmasin, M. Rath & B. Thomaß (Hrsg.), Normativität in der Kommunikationswissenschaft (S. 329–351). Springer.
• Eilders, C. & Esau, K. (2022). Partizipation, Deliberation und Hochaktive – eine vergleichende Analyse der Beteiligungsquantität und -qualität unterschiedlicher Nutzergruppen. In F. Gerlach & C. Eilders (Hrsg.), #meinfernsehen2021: Bürgerbeteiligung: Wahrnehmungen, Erwartungen und Vorschläge zur Zukunft öffentlich-rechtlicher Medienangebote. Nomos.
• Elster, J. (Hrsg.). (1998). Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge University Press.
• Elwyn, G., Lloyd, A., May, C., van der Weijden, T., Stiggelbout, A., Edwards, A., Frosch, D. L., Rapley, T., Barr, P., Walsh, T., Grande, S. W., Montori, V. & Epstein, R. (2014). Collaborative deliberation: a model for patient care. Patient education and counseling, 97(2), 158–164.
• Emmer, M., Vowe, G. & Wolling, J. (2011). Bürger online: Die Entwicklung der politischen Online-Kommunikation in Deutschland. UVK.
• Emmer, M. & Wolling, J. (2010). Online-Kommunikation und politische Öffentlichkeit. In W. Schweiger & K. Beck (Hrsg.), Handbuch Online-Kommunikation (S. 36–58). Springer.
• Engelmann, I., Legrand, M. & Marzinkowski, H. (Hrsg.). (2019). Politische Partizipation im Medienwandel. Digital Communication Research, 6.
• Engelmann, I. & Wendelin, M. (2015). Relevanzzuschreibung und Nachrichtenauswahl des Publikums im Internet. Publizistik, 60(2), 165–185.
• Engesser, S. (2013). Barrieren medialer Partizipation: Ergebnisse eines explorativen Feldexperiments. In M. Emmer, M. Seifert & J. Wolling (Hrsg.), Politik 2.0? Die Wirkung computervermittelter Kommunikation auf den politischen Prozess (1. Aufl., S. 151–169). Nomos.
• Ercan, S. A. & Gagnon, J.‑P. (2014). The Crisis of Democracy: Which Crisis? Which Democracy? Democratic Theory, 1(2), 1–10.
• Ercan, S. A., Hendriks, C. M. & Dryzek, J. S. (2019). Public deliberation in an era of communicative plenty. Policy & Politics, 47(1), 19–36.
• Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M. & Persson, M. (2012). Which decision-making arrangements generate the strongest legitimacy beliefs? Evidence from a randomised field experiment. European Journal of Political Research, 51(6), 785–808.
• Esau, K. (2018). Capturing Citizens’ Values: On the Role of Narratives and Emotions in Digital Participation. Analyse & Kritik, 40(1), 55–72.
• 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, 4(1), 86–112.
• Esau, K. & Friess, D. (2022). What Creates Listening Online? Exploring Reciprocity in Online Political Discussions with Relational Content Analysis. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 18(1), 1–16.
• 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.
• Esau, K., Frieß, D. & Eilders, C. (2019). Online-Partizipation jenseits klassischer Deliberation: Eine Analyse zum Verhältnis unterschiedlicher Deliberationskonzepte in Nutzerkommentaren auf Facebook-Nachrichtenseiten und Beteiligungsplattformen. In I. Engelmann, M. Legrand & H. Marzinkowski (Hrsg.), Politische Partizipation im Medienwandel (S. 221–245). Digital Communication Research, 6.
• Escher, T., Friess, D., Esau, K., Sieweke, J., Tranow, U., Dischner, S., Hagemeister, P. & Mauve, M. (2017). Online Deliberation in Academia: Evaluating the Quality and Legitimacy of Cooperatively Developed University Regulations. Policy & Internet, 9(1), 133–164.
• ESS. (2018). Round 9: European Social Survey Data: Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC. Norway. https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/data/download.html?r=9
• Etzioni, A. (1968). The Active Society: A theory of societal and political processes. The Free Press.
• Etzioni, A. (1969). Elemente einer Makrosoziologie. In W. Zapf (Hrsg.), Theorien des sozialen Wandels (S. 147–176). Kiepenheuer & Witsch.
• Etzioni, A. (1993). The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities, and the Communitarian Agenda. Crown Publishers.
• Fahr, A. & Früh, H. (2011). Prozessbetrachtungen in der Kommunikationswissenschaft. In M. Suckfüll, H. Schramm & C. Wünsch (Hrsg.), Rezeption und Wirkung in zeitlicher Perspektive (S. 19–36). Nomos.
• Ferree, M. M. (2002). Shaping abortion discourse: Democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge University Press.
• Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. Yale University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/j.ctt1dt006v
• Fishkin, J. S. (1995). The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. Yale University Press.
• Fishkin, J. S. & Luskin, R. C. (2005). Experimenting With a Democratic Ideal: Deliberative Polling and Public Opinion. Acta Politica, 50(3), 284–298.
• Fishkin, J. S., Siu, A., Diamond, L. & Bradburn, N. (2021). Is Deliberation an Antidote to Extreme Partisan Polarization? Reflections on “America in One Room”. American Political Science Review, 115(4), 1464–1481.
• Forsa. (2015). Mehrheit der Deutschen wünscht mehr Einfluss in ihrer Stadt. https://www.bmbf.de/de/mehrheit-der-deutschen-wuenscht-mehr-einfluss-in-ihrer-stadt-978.html
• Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. Social Text(25/26), 56.
• Fraser, N. (2015). Legitimation Crisis? On the Political Contradictions of Financialized Capitalism. Critical Historical Studies, 2(2), 157–189.
• Freelon, D. G. (2010). Analyzing online political discussion using three models of democratic communication. New Media & Society, 12(7), 1172–1190.
• Friess, D. & Eilders, C. (2015). A Systematic Review of Online Deliberation Research. Policy & Internet, 7(3), 319–339.
• Frieß, D. & Eilders, C. (2016). Deliberation: zwischen normativer Theorie und empirischen Zugängen. Ein forschungsleitendes Modell. In P. Werner, L. Rinsdorf, T. Pleil & K.-D. Altmeppen (Hrsg.), Schriftenreihe der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft. Verantwortung – Gerechtigkeit – Öffentlichkeit: Normative Perspektiven auf Kommunikation (S. 63–78). UVK.
• Frieß, D. & Porten-Cheé, P. (2018). What Do Participants Take Away from Local eParticipation? Analyse & Kritik, 40(1), 1–30.
• Fritz, G. & Hundsnurscher, F. (Hrsg.). (1994). Handbuch der Dialoganalyse.
• Früh, W. (2011). Inhaltsanalyse: Theorie und Praxis (7. Aufl.). UVK / UTB.
• Früh, W. & Frey, F. (2014). Narration und Storytelling: Theorie und empirische Befunde. Unterhaltungsforschung: Bd. 10. Herbert von Halem Verlag.
• Früh, W. & Schönbach, K. (1982). Der dynamisch-transaktionale Ansatz. Ein neues Paradigma der Medienwirkungen. Publizistik, 27, 74–88.
• Früh, W. & Schönbach, K. (2005). Der dynamisch-transaktionale Ansatz III: Eine Zwischenbilanz. Publizistik, 50(1), 4–20.
• Fuhse, J. (2009). Die kommunikative Konstruktion von Akteuren in Netzwerken. Soziale Systeme, 15(2), 288–316.
• Fung, A. (2004). Deliberation's darker side: Six questions for Iris Marion Young and Jane Mansbridge. National Civic Review, 93(4), 47–54.
• Fung, A. & Wright, E. O. (2001). Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. Politics & Society, 29(1), 5–41.
• Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Rust, M. C., Nier, J. A., Banker, B. S., Ward, C. M., Mottola, G. R. & Houlette, M. (1999). Reducing Intergroup Bias: Elements of Intergroup Cooperation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 76(3), 388–402.
• Galtung, J. & Ruge, M. H. (1965). The Structure of Foreign News. Journal of Peace Research, 2(1), 64–90.
• Gambetta, D. (1998). “Claro!”: An Essay on Discursive Machismo. In J. Elster (Hrsg.), Deliberative Democracy (S. 19–43). Cambridge University Press.
• Gastil, J. (1992). A Definition of Small Group Democracy. Small Group Research, 23(3), 278–301.
• Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Sage.
• Gastil, J. & Black, L. W. (2008). Public Deliberation as the Organizing Principle of Political Communication Research. Journal of Public Deliberation, 4(1), 1–47. http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol4/iss1/art3/
• Gastil, J., Richards, R. C., Ryan, M. & Smith, G. (2017). Testing Assumptions in Deliberative Democratic Design: A Preliminary Assessment of the Efficacy of the Participedia Data Archive as an Analytic Tool. Journal of Public Deliberation, 13(2), 1–28. https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol13/iss2/art1
• Geißel, B. (2008). Zur Evaluation demokratischer Innovationen — die lokale Ebene. In H. Heinelt & A. Vetter (Hrsg.), Lokale Politikforschung heute (S. 227–248). Springer.
• Geissel, B. & Newton, K. (Hrsg.). (2012). Evaluating democratic innovations: Curing the democratic malaise? Routledge.
• Geißel, B. & Sauer, B. (2001). Transformationsprozess und Geschlechterverhältnisse in den neuen Bundesländern: Auswirkungen auf der lokalen politischen Ebene. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte(B 39), 32–38.
• Gerhards, J. (1997). Diskursive versus liberale Oeffentlichkeit. Eine empirische Auseinandersetzung mit Juergen Habermas. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 49(1), 1–34.
• Gerhards, J. (1998). Konzeptionen von Öffentlichkeit unter heutigen Medienbedingungen. In O. Jarren & F. Krotz (Hrsg.), Symposien des Hans-Bredow-Instituts: Bd. 18. Öffentlichkeit unter Viel-Kanal-Bedingungen (S. 25–48). Nomos.
• Gerhards, J. & Neidhardt, F. (1990). Strukturen und Funktionen moderner Öffentlichkeit.: Fragestellungen und Ansätze [Discussion Paper]. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.
• Gerhards, J. & Neidhardt, F. (1991). Strukturen und Funktionen moderner Öffentlichkeit. Fragestellungen und Ansätze. In S. Müller-Doohm (Hrsg.), Öffentlichkeit, Kultur, Massenkommunikation: Beiträge zur Medien- und Kommunikationssoziologie (S. 31–89). Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg.
• Gerhards, J. & Schäfer, M. S. (2010). Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the USA and Germany. New Media & Society, 12(1), 143–160.
• GESIS. (2018). Allgemeine Bevölkerungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften ALLBUS – Kumulation 1980–2016.
• Gil de Zúñiga, H., Molyneux, L. & Zheng, P. (2014). Social Media, Political Expression, and Political Participation: Panel Analysis of Lagged and Concurrent Relationships. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 612–634.
• Gladitz, P., Schöttle, S., Steinbach, M., Wilker, N. & Witt, T. (2017). DIID Monitor Online Partizipation – Zum Stand von Online-Bürgerbeteiligung in den Kommunen Nordrhein-Westfalens. Kommunalpraxis Wahlen, 8(1), 30–34.
• Gonzalez-Bailon, S., Kaltenbrunner, A. & Banchs, R. E. (2010). The structure of political discussion networks: a model for the analysis of online deliberation. Journal of Information Technology, 25(2), 230–243.
• Goodin, R. E. (2000). Democratic Deliberation within. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 29(1), 81–109.
• Goodin, R. E. (2005). Sequencing Deliberative Moments. Acta Politica, 40(2), 182–196.
• Goodin, R. E. (2008). Deliberative Lies. European Political Science, 7(2), 194–198.
• Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital Interaction: Experimental Investigations. Academic Press.
• Gottman, J. M. & Roy, A. K. (1990). Sequential analysis: A guide for behavioral researchers. Cambridge University Press.
• Gouran, D. S. (1973). Group communication: Perspectives and priorities for future research. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59(1), 22–29.
• Graham, T. (2008). Needles in a haystack: A new approach for identifying and assessing political talk in nonpolitical discussion forums. Javnost-The Public, 15(2), 17–36.
• Graham, T. (2009). What's Wife Swap Got to Do with It? Talking Politics in the Net-Based Public Sphere: PhD Dissertation. University of Amsterdam: Amsterdam. http://dare.uva.nl/search?arno.record.id=314852
• Graham, T. (2010). The Use of Expressives in Online Political Talk: Impeding or Facilitating the Normative Goals of Deliberation? In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh & O. Glassey (Hrsg.), Electronic participation: Second IFIP WG 8.5 international conference, ePart 2010, Lausanne, Switzerland, August 29 – September 2, 2010; proceedings (Bd. 6229, S. 26–41). Springer.
• Graham, T. & Witschge, T. (2003). In Search of Online Deliberation: Towards a New Method for Examining the Quality of Online Discussions. Communications, 28(2), 173–204.
• Graham, T. & Wright, S. (2014). Discursive Equality and Everyday Talk Online: The Impact of “Superparticipants”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 625–642.
• Grice, P. (1993). Studies in the way of words (3. Aufl.). Harvard University Press.
• Gudowsky, N. & Bechtold, U. (2013). The Role of Information in Public Participation. Journal of Public Deliberation, 9(1), 1–35. http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol9/iss1/art3
• Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A. & Anderson, T. (1998). Analysis of a Global Online Debate and the Development of an Interaction Analysis Model for Examining Social Construction of Knowledge in Computer Conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431.
• Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. F. (1990). Moral Conflict and Political Consensus. Ethics, 101(1), 64–88.
• Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. F. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. F. (2000). Why Deliberative Democracy is Different. Social Philosophy and Policy, 17(1), 161–180.
• Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. F. (2002). Deliberative Democracy Beyond Process. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 153–174.
• Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. F. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton University Press.
• Habel, P. D. (2012). Following the Opinion Leaders? The Dynamics of Influence Among Media Opinion, the Public, and Politicians. Political Communication, 29(3), 257–277.
• Habermas, J. (1962). Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Suhrkamp.
• Habermas, J. (1973). Legitimationsprobleme im Spätkapitalismus. Suhrkamp.
• Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation Crisis. Beacon Press.
• Habermas, J. (1976). Legitimationsprobleme im modernen Staat. In P. G. Kielmansegg (Hrsg.), Politische Vierteljahresschrift Sonderhefte: Bd. 7. Legitimationsprobleme politischer Systeme: Tagung der Deutschen Vereinigung für Politische Wissenschaft (S. 39–61). Westdeutscher Verlag.
• Habermas, J. (1981a). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns: Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung (1. Aufl., Bd. 1). Suhrkamp.
• Habermas, J. (1981b). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns: Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft (1. Aufl., Bd. 2). Suhrkamp.
• Habermas, J. (1983). Moralbewusstsein und kommunikatives Handeln. Suhrkamp.
• Habermas, J. (1992). Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Suhrkamp.
• Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. MIT Press.
• Habermas, J. (1999). Wahrheit und Rechtfertigung: Philosophische Aufsätze (1. Aufl.). Suhrkamp.
• Habermas, J. (2005). Concluding Comments on Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics. Acta Politica, 40(3), 384–392.
• 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. (2008). Ach, Europa. Suhrkamp.
• Habermas, J. (2020). Moralischer Universalismus in Zeiten politischer Regression: Jürgen Habermas im Gespräch über die Gegenwart und sein Lebenswerk. Leviathan, 48(1), 7–28.
• Hackman, J. & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group Tasks, Group Interaction Process, and Group Performance Effectiveness: A Review and Proposed Integration. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Volume 8 (Bd. 8, S. 45–99). Elsevier.
• Hadjar, A. & Becker, R. (2007). Unkonventionelle Politische Partizipation Im Zeitverlauf. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 59(3), 410–439.
• Halpern, D. & 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), 1159–1168.
• Hanitzsch, T., van Dalen, A. & Steindl, N. (2018). Caught in the Nexus: A Comparative and Longitudinal Analysis of Public Trust in the Press. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 23(1), 3–23.
• Hardy, B. W. & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). Presidential Campaign Dynamics and the Ebb and Flow of Talk as a Moderator: Media Exposure, Knowledge, and Political Discussion. Communication Theory, 19(1), 89–101.
• Hargittai, E. & Walejko, G. (2008). The Participation Divide: Content creation and sharing in the digital age. Information, Communication & Society, 11(2), 239–256.
• Hartz-Karp, J. (2004). Harmonising Divergent Voices: Sharing the Challenge of Decision Making. Public Administration Today, 2, 14–19.
• Hedström, P. & Bearman, P. (Hrsg.). (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology. Oxford University Press.
• Hedström, P. & Swedberg, R. (1996). Social Mechanisms. Acta Sociologica, 39(3), 281–308.
• Heilsberger, L., Mauve, M. & Möltgen-Sicking, K. (2017). Online-Partizipation auf kommunaler Ebene in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Deutsche Verwaltungspraxis, 68(8), 311–315.
• Heiss, R. & Matthes, J. (2019). Funny Cats and Politics: Do Humorous Context Posts Impede or Foster the Elaboration of News Posts on Social Media? Communication Research, 009365021982600.
• Heiss, R., Schmuck, D. & Matthes, J. (2019). What drives interaction in political actors’ Facebook posts? Profile and content predictors of user engagement and political actors’ reactions. Information, Communication & Society, 22(10), 1497–1513.
• Hendriks, C. M., Ercan, S. A. & Boswell, J. (2020). Mending Democracy: Democratic Repair in Disconnected Times. Oxford University Press.
• Henn, P. & Frieß, D. (Hrsg.). (2016). Politische Online-Kommunikation: Voraussetzungen und Folgen des strukturellen Wandels der politischen Kommunikation. Digital Communication Research.
• Hennis, W. (1976). Legitimität: Zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. In P. G. Kielmansegg (Hrsg.), Politische Vierteljahresschrift Sonderhefte: Bd. 7. Legitimationsprobleme politischer Systeme: Tagung der Deutschen Vereinigung für Politische Wissenschaft (S. 9–38). Westdeutscher Verlag.
• Hermida, A. & Thurman, N. (2008). A Clash of Cultures: The integration of user-generated content within professional journalistic frameworks at British newspaper websites. Journalism Practice, 2(3), 343–356.
• Herring, S. C. & Stoerger, S. (2014). Gender and (A)nonymity in Computer-Mediated Communication. In S. Ehrlich, M. Meyerhoff & J. Holmes (Hrsg.), The Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality (S. 567–586). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• Hilbe, J. M. (2011). Negative Binomial Regression. Cambridge University Press.
• Himelboim, I. (2008). Reply distribution in online discussions: A comparative network analysis of political and health newsgroups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(1), 156–177.
• Himelboim, I., Gleave, E. & Smith, M. (2009). Discussion catalysts in online political discussions: Content importers and conversation starters. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 771–789.
• Hirokawa, R. Y. & Poole, M. S. (1996). Communication and group decision making (2. Aufl.). Sage.
• Hirschman, A. O. (1994). Wieviel Gemeinsinn braucht die liberale Gesellschaft? Leviathan, 22(2), 293–304. www.jstor.org/stable/23983905
• Höffe, O. (2018). Erlaubt eine Demokratie Geheimnisse? Zeitschrift für Politik, 65(2), 137–149.
• Hoffmann, C. P., Lutz, C. & Meckel, M. (2014). Content creation on the Internet: A social cognitive perspective on the participation divide. Information, Communication & Society, 18(6), 696–716.
• Höflich, J. R. (1997). Zwischen massenmedialer und technisch vermittelter interpersonaler Kommunikation – der Computer als Hybridmedium und was Menschen damit machen. In K. Beck & G. Vowe (Hrsg.), Computernetze – ein Medium öffentlicher Kommunikation? (S. 85–104). Spiess.
• Hoggett, P. & Thompson, S. (2002). Toward a Democracy of the Emotions. Constellations, 9(1), 106–126.
• Holtkamp, L., Wiechmann, E. & Buß, M. (2017). Genderranking deutscher Großstädte 2017: Nur 8,2 Prozent der Oberbürgermeister/innen sind weiblich (böll.brief Demokratiereform). Berlin. https://www.boell.de/de/2017/04/28/genderranking-deutscher-grossstaedte-2017-boellbrief-demokratiereform-3?dimension1=ds_genderranking17
• Humprecht, E., Hellmueller, L. & Lischka, J. A. (2020). Hostile Emotions in News Comments: A Cross-National Analysis of Facebook Discussions. Social Media + Society, 6(1), 205630512091248.
• Infratest dimap. (2012). Was Bürger können – Ergebnisse einer Repräsentativstudie. https://www.infratest-dimap.de/de/umfragen-analysen/bundesweit/umfragen/aktuell/buerger-wollen-mehr-mitsprache-bei-energie-steuer-und-verkehrspolitik/
• Iosub, D., Laniado, D., Castillo, C., Fuster Morell, M. & Kaltenbrunner, A. (2014). Emotions under discussion: gender, status and communication in online collaboration. PloS one, 9(8), 1–23.
• Isernia, P. & Fishkin, J. S. (2014). The EuroPolis deliberative poll. European Union Politics, 15(3), 311–327.
• Jäger, S. (2015). Kritische Diskursanalyse: Eine Einführung (6. Aufl.). Unrast.
• Jakob, J., Dobbrick, T. & Wessler, H. (2021). The Integrative Complexity of Online User Comments Across Different Types of Democracy and Discussion Arenas. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 194016122110440.
• Jandura, O., Fahr, A. & Brosius, H.‑B. (Hrsg.). (2012). Reihe Rezeptionsforschung: Bd. 25. Theorieanpassungen in der digitalen Medienwelt. Nomos.
• Jankowski, N. W. & van Os, R. (2004). Internet-Based Political Discourse: A Case Study of Electronic Democracy in the City of Hoogeveen. In P. M. Shane (Hrsg.), Democracy online: The prospects for political renewal through the Internet (S. 181–193). Routledge.
• Janning, F., Leifeld, P., Malang, T. & Schneider, V. (2009). Diskursnetzwerkanalyse: Überlegungen zur Theoriebildung und Methodik. In V. Schneider, F. Janning, P. Leifeld & T. Malang (Hrsg.), Politiknetzwerke (S. 59–92). Springer.
• Janssen, D. & Kies, R. (2005). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy. Acta Politica, 40(3), 317–335.
• Jaramillo, M. C. (2013). Transformative Deliberative Moments Among Ex-Combatants In Colombia [Dissertationsschrift], Universität Bern.
• Jaramillo, M. C. & Steiner, J. (2014). Deliberative Transformative Moments: A New Concept as Amendment to the Discourse Quality Index. Journal of Public Deliberation, 10(2), 1–22. https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol10/iss2/art8/
• Jensen, J. L. (2003). Public Spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or Government-Sponsored – A Comparison. Scandinavian Political Studies, 26(4), 349–374.
• Jensen, M. J., Jorba, L. & Anduiza, E. (2012). Introduction. In E. Anduiza, M. J. Jensen & L. Jorba (Hrsg.), Digital Media and Political Engagement Worldwide (S. 1–15). Cambridge University Press.
• Jeong, A. (2003). The Sequential Analysis of Group Interaction and Critical Thinking in Online. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 25–43.
• Jeong, A. (2005a). The Effects of Communication Style and Message Function in Triggering Responses and Critical Discussion in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation. Proceedings of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 394–403.
• Jeong, A. (2005b). A Guide to Analyzing Message–Response Sequences and Group Interaction Patterns in Computer‐mediated Communication. Distance Education, 26(3), 367–383.
• Kaase, M. (1992). Partizipation. In D. Nohlen (Hrsg.), Wörterbuch zur Politik (S. 682–684). Piper.
• Kaase, M. & Marsh, A. (1979). Political Action. A Theoretical Perspective. In S. H. Barnes & M. Kaase (Hrsg.), Political action: Mass participation in five western democracies (S. 27–56). Sage.
• Karpf, D. (2017). Digital politics after Trump. Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(2), 198–207.
• Karpowitz, C. F. & Mendelberg, T. (2014). The silent sex: Gender, deliberation, and institutions. Princeton University Press.
• Karpowitz, C. F., Mendelberg, T. & Shaker, L. (2012). Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation. American Political Science Review, 106(03), 533–547.
• Karpowitz, C. F. & Raphael, C. (2016). Ideals of Inclusion in Deliberation. Journal of Public Deliberation, 12(2), 1–21. https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol12/iss2/art3
• Kenix, L. J. (2011). Alternative and Mainstream Media: The Converging Spectrum. Bloomsbury Academic.
• Kersting, N. (Hrsg.). (2008). Politische Beteiligung: Einführung in dialogorientierte Instrumente politischer und gesellschaftlicher Partizipation. Springer.
• Kersting, N. (2014). Online Beteiligung – Elektronische Partizipation – Qualitätskriterien aus Sicht der Politik. In K. Voss (Hrsg.), Internet und Partizipation: Bottom-up oder Top-down? Politische Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten im Internet (S. 53–87). Springer.
• Kies, R. (2010). Promises and limits of Web-deliberation. Palgrave Macmillan. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10433703
• Kiesler, S., Siegel, J. & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123–1134.
• Klaus, E. (2001). Das Öffentliche im Privaten – Das Private im Öffentlichen. In F. Herrmann & M. Lünenborg (Hrsg.), Tabubruch als Programm (S. 15–35). Springer.
• Kleinhenz, T. (1995). Die Nichtwähler. Springer.
• Klinger, U. (2018). Aufstieg der Semiöffentlichkeit: Eine relationale Perspektive. Publizistik, 63(2), 245–267.
• Klinger, U., Rösli, S. & Jarren, O. (2015). To Implement or Not to Implement? Participatory Online Communication in Swiss Cities. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1926–1946.
• Klinger, U. & Russmann, U. (2014). Measuring Online Deliberation in Local Politics: An Empirical Analysis of the 2011 Zurich City Debate. International Journal of E-Politics, 5(1), 61–77.
• Klinger, U. & Russmann, U. (2015). The sociodemographics of political public deliberation: Measuring deliberative quality in different user groups. Communications, 40(4), 23.
• Kloß, A. (2020). Deliberative Offenheit durch Empathie? Eine experimentelle Untersuchung zur Aktivierung von deliberativer Offenheit durch Transformation Stories. Eingereichte Dissertationsschrift an der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München.
• Knobloch, J. (2017). Demokratie und Geheimnis. In R. Voigt (Hrsg.), Staatsgeheimnisse (S. 205–224). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
• Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Sharma, N., Hansen, D. L. & Alter, S. (2005). Impact of Popularity Indications on Readers' Selective Exposure to Online News. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49(3), 296–313.
• Knoll, J., Matthes, J. & Heiss, R. (2018). The social media political participation model. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 22(4), 135485651775036.
• Kolleck, A. (2017). Politische Diskurse online: Einflussfaktoren auf die Qualität der kollektiven Meinungsbildung in internetgestützten Beteiligungsverfahren. Nomos.
• Krause, S. R. (2002). Liberalism with honor. Harvard University Press.
• Krause, S. R. (2008). Civil Passions: Moral Sentiment and Democratic Deliberation. Princeton University Press.
• Krauthoff, T., Baurmann, M., Betz, G. & Mauve, M. (2016). Dialog-Based Online Argumentation. In P. Baroni, T. F. Gordon & T. Scheffler (Hrsg.), Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications: volume 287. Computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2016 (S. 33–40). IOS Press.
• Krebs, D. & Menold, N. (2014). Gütekriterien quantitativer Sozialforschung. In N. Baur & J. Blasius (Hrsg.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Springer.
• Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4. Aufl.). Sage.
• Kubicek, H. & Aichholzer, G. (2016). Closing the Evaluation Gap in e-Participation Research and Practice. In G. Aichholzer, H. Kubicek & L. Torres (Hrsg.), Public Administration and Information Technology. Evaluating e-Participation: Frameworks, Practice, Evidence (S. 11–45). Springer.
• Kubicek, H., Lippa, B. & Westholm, H. (2009). Medienmix in der Bürgerbeteiligung: Die Integration von Online-Elementen in Beteiligungsverfahren auf lokaler Ebene. Nomos.
• Labov, W. & Waletzky, J. (1997). Narrative Analysis: Oral Versions of Personal Experience. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7(1–4), 3–38.
• Landemore, H. (2013). Democratic reason: Politics, collective intelligence, and the rule of the many. Princeton University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/j.ctt1r2gf0
• Lave, C. A. & March, J. G. (1993). An Introduction to Models in the Social Sciences. University Press of America.
• LeDoux, J. (1996). The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings Of Emotional Life. Simon & Schuster.
• Leifeld, P. & Schneider, V. (2012). Information Exchange in Policy Networks. American Journal of Political Science, 56(3), 731–744.
• Liebeck, M., Esau, K. & Conrad, S. (2016). What to Do with an Airport? Mining Arguments in the German Online Participation Project Tempelhofer Feld. Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Argument Mining.
• Liebeck, M., Esau, K. & Conrad, S. (2017). Text Mining für Online-Partizipationsverfahren: Die Notwendigkeit einer maschinell unterstützten Auswertung. HMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik, 54(4), 544–562.
• Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. Yale University Press.
• List, C. (2002). Two Concepts of Agreement. The Good Society, 11(1), 72–79.
• List, C. (2018). Democratic Deliberation and Social Choice: A Review. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge & M. E. Warren (Hrsg.), The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy (S. 1–31). Oxford University Press.
• List, C., Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S. & McLean, I. (2013). Deliberation, Single-Peakedness, and the Possibility of Meaningful Democracy: Evidence from Deliberative Polls. The Journal of Politics, 75(1), 80–95.
• Lusher, D., Koskinen, J. & Robins, G. (2012). Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks. Cambridge University Press.
• Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S. & Jowell, R. (2002). Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 32(3), 455–487.
• Lutz, C., Hoffmann, C. P. & Meckel, M. (2014). Beyond just politics: A systematic literature review of online participation. First Monday, 19(7).
• Mabry, E. A. (1999). The Systems Metaphor in Group Communication. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran & M. S. Poole (Hrsg.), The Handbook of Group Communication Theory & Research (S. 71–91). Sage.
• MacIntyre, A. (1981). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. University of Notre Dame Press.
• Maia, R. C. M. (2012). Deliberation, the Media and Political Talk. Hampton Press.
• Manin, B. (1987). On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation. Political Theory, 15(3), 338–368.
• Manosevitch, E., Steinfeld, N. & Lev-On, A. (2014). Promoting online deliberation quality: Cognitive cues matter. Information, Communication & Society, 17(10), 1177–1195.
• Mansbridge, J. (1999). Everyday Talk in the Deliberative System. In S. Macedo (Hrsg.), Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement (S. 211–242). Oxford University Press.
• March, J. G & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. Free Press.
• Marcus, G. E. (2000). Emotions in Politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 221–250.
• Margolis, M. & Resnik, D. (2000). Politics as Usual: The Cyberspace “Revolution”. Sage.
• Marti, J. L. & Besson, S. (2006). Deliberative Democracy and its Discontents. Routledge.
• Marwick, A. E. & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133.
• Marzinkowski, H. & Engelmann, I. (2018). Die Wirkung „guter“ Argumente. Publizistik, 63(2), 269–287.
• Marzinkowski, H. & Engelmann, I. (2022). Rational-Critical User Discussions: How Argument Strength and the Conditions Set by News Organizations Are Linked to (Reasoned) Disagreement. Digital Journalism, 10(3), 433–451.
• Matamoros-Fernández, A., Rodriguez, A. & Wikström, P. (2022). Humor That Harms? Examining Racist Audio-Visual Memetic Media on TikTok During Covid-19. Media and Communication, 10(2), 180–191.
• Matthes, J. (2013). Elaboration or Distraction? Knowledge Acquisition From Thematically Related and Unrelated Humor in Political Speeches. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(3), 291–302.
• McLaughlin, M. L., Cody, M. J., Kane, M. L. & Robey, C. S. (1981). Sex Differences in Story Receipt and Story Sequencing Behaviors in Dyadic Conversations. Human Communication Research, 7(2), 99–116.
• Meier, A. (2017). Online Participation. HMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik, 54(4), 457–458.
• Mendelberg, T. (2002). The Deliberative Citizen: Theory and Evidence. In M. Delli Carpini (Hrsg.), Research in micropolitics: Bd. 6. Political decision-making, deliberation and participation (S. 151–193). JAI Press.
• Mendelberg, T., Karpowitz, C. F. & Oliphant, J. B. (2014). Gender Inequality in Deliberation: Unpacking the Black Box of Interaction. Perspectives on Politics, 12(1), 18–44.
• Merkel, W. (Hrsg.). (2015). Demokratie und Krise. Springer.
• Merkel, W., Puhle, H.‑J., Croissant, A., Eicher, C. & Thiery, P. (2003). Defekte Demokratie: Band 1: Theorie. Springer.
• Merkle, D. M. (1996). Review: The National Issues Convention Deliberative Poll. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(4), 588–619.
• Merten, K. (1995). Inhaltsanalyse. Springer.
• Merten, K. (1999). Grundlagen der Kommunikationswissenschaft (3. Aufl.). Einführung in die Kommunikationswissenschaft: Bd. 1. LIT Verlag.
• Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. Free Press.
• Meyer, J. C. (2000). Humor as a Double-Edged Sword: Four Functions of Humor in Communication. Communication Theory, 10(3), 310–331.
• Mill, J. S. (1962 [1835]. De Tocqueville on Democracy in America. In G. Himmelfarb (Hrsg.), Essays on politics and culture (S. 173–213). Doubleday.
• Millard, J., Meyerhoff Nielsen, M., Warren, R., Smith, S., Macintosh, A., Tarabanis, K., Tambouris, E., Panopoulou, E., Efpraxia, D. & Parisopoulos, K. (2009). European eParticipation: Summary Report. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/2014-12/European%20eParticipation%20Summary%20Report%20-%20November%2C%202009.pdf
• Mitozo, I. & Marques, F. P. J. (2019). Context Matters! Looking Beyond Platform Structure to Understand Citizen Deliberation on Brazil's Portal e-Democracia. Policy & Internet, 11(3), 370–390.
• Möhring, W. & Schlütz, D. (Hrsg.). (2013). SpringerLink. Handbuch standardisierte Erhebungsverfahren in der Kommunikationswissenschaft. Springer.
• Mokrosińska, D. (Hrsg.). (2021). Transparency and secrecy in European democracies: Contested trade-offs. Routledge.
• 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), 24–49.
• Moody, J. (2011). Network Dynamics. In P. Hedström & P. Bearman (Hrsg.), The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology (S. 447–474). Oxford University Press.
• Morrell, M. E. (2010). Empathy and democracy: Feeling, thinking, and deliberation. Pennsylvania State University Press.
• Morrell, M. E. (2018). Listening and Deliberation. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge & M. E. Warren (Hrsg.), The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press.
• Mortensen, C. D. (1970). The status of small group research. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 56(3), 304–309.
• Moscovici, S. & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 12(2), 125–135.
• Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745–758. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40971349
• Muradova, L. (2020). Seeing the Other Side? Perspective-Taking and Reflective Political Judgements in Interpersonal Deliberation. Political Studies, 10(4).
• Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press.
• Mutz, D. C. (2008). Is Deliberative Democracy a Falsifiable Theory? Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 521–538.
• Myers, D. G. & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83(4), 602–627.
• Myerson, G. (1994). Rhetoric, Reason and Society: Rationality as Dialogue. Sage.
• Nanz, P. & Steffek, J. (2005). Assessing the Democratic Quality of Deliberation in International Governance: Criteria and Research Strategies. Acta Politica, 40(3), 368–383.
• Neidhardt, F. (Hrsg.). (1994). Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie Sonderhefte: Bd. 34. Öffentlichkeit, öffentliche Meinung, soziale Bewegungen. Springer.
• Neidhardt, F. (2004). Kommentarthemen – die mediale Policy-Agenda. In C. Eilders, F. Neidhardt & B. Pfetsch (Hrsg.), Die Stimme der Medien (S. 106–128). Springer.
• Neuberger, C. (2007). Interaktivität, Interaktion, Internet. Publizistik, 52(1), 33–50.
• Neuberger, C. (2009). Internet, Journalismus und Öffentlichkeit: Analyse des Medienumbruchs. In C. Neuberger, C. Nuernbergk & M. Rischke (Hrsg.), Journalismus im Internet (S. 19–105). Springer.
• Neuberger, C. (2014). Konflikt, Konkurrenz und Kooperation: Interaktionsmodi in einer Theorie der dynamischen Netzwerköffentlichkeit. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 62(4), 567–587.
• Neuberger, C. (2017). Die Rückkehr der Masse: Interaktive Massenphänomene im Internet aus Sicht der Massen- und Komplexitätstheorie. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 65(3), 550–572.
• Neuman, W. R., Marcus, G. E., Crigler, A. N. & MacKuen, M. (2007). The Affect Effect: Dynamics of Emotion in Political Thinking and Behavior. University of Chicago Press.
• Niemeyer, S. (2004). Deliberation in the Wilderness: Displacing Symbolic Politics. Environmental Politics, 13(2), 347–372.
• Niemeyer, S. (2011). The Emancipatory Effect of Deliberation: Empirical Lessons from Mini-Publics. Politics & Society, 39(1), 103–140.
• Niemeyer, S. & Dryzek, J. S. (2007). The Ends of Deliberation: Meta-consensus and Inter-subjective Rationality as Ideal Outcomes. Swiss Political Science Review, 13(4), 497–526.
• Nishiyama, K. (2018). Enabling children’s deliberation in deliberative systems: Schools as a mediating space. Journal of Youth Studies, 22(4), 473–488.
• Noelle-Neumann, E. (1980). Die Schweigespirale: Öffentliche Meinung – unsere soziale Haut. Ullstein.
• Nooy, W. de & Kleinnijenhuis, J. (2013). Polarization in the Media During an Election Campaign: A Dynamic Network Model Predicting Support and Attack Among Political Actors. Political Communication, 30(1), 117–138.
• Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge University Press.
• North, D. C. (2012). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press.
• Noveck, B. S. (2009). Wiki government: How technology can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. Brookings Institution Press.
• Nuernbergk, C. (2013). Anschlusskommunikation in der Netzwerköffentlichkeit: Ein inhalts- und netzwerkanalytischer Vergleich der Kommunikation im "Social Web" zum G8-Gipfel von Heiligendamm. Nomos.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (Hrsg.). (2014). Gerechtigkeit oder Das gute Leben (7. Aufl.). Suhrkamp.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (2015). Political emotions: Why love matters for justice (First Harvard University Press paperback edition). Harvard University Press.
• Offe, C. (1972). Strukturprobleme des kapitalistischen Staates. Campus Bibliothek. Surkamp.
• Offe, C. (2003). Demokratisierung der Demokratie: Diagnosen und Reformvorschläge. Campus.
• Offe, C. (2009). Governance: An “Empty Signifier”? Constellations, 16(4), 550–562.
• Overgaard, C. S. B., Dudo, A., Lease, M., Masullo, G. M., Stroud, N. J., Stroud, S. R. & Woolley, S. C. (2021). Building connective democracy: Interdisciplinary solutions to the problem of polarisation. In H. Tumber & S. Waisbord (Hrsg.), Routledge media and cultural studies companions series. The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism (S. 559–568). Routledge.
• Oz, M., Zheng, P. & Chen, G. M. (2017). Twitter versus Facebook: Comparing incivility, impoliteness, and deliberative attributes. New Media & Society, 20(9), 3400–3419.
• Page, B. I. (1996). Who deliberates? Mass media in modern democracy. American politics and political economy series. University of Chicago Press.
• Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259–283.
• Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford studies in digital politics. Oxford University Press.
• Parsons, J., Gokey, C. & Thornton, M. (2013). Indicators of Activities, Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts in Security and Justice Programming. Vera Institute of Justice. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/304626/Indicators.pdf
• Pavitt, C. (1999). Theorizing About the Group Communication-Leadership Relationship: Input-Process-Output and Functional Models. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran & M. S. Poole (Hrsg.), The Handbook of Group Communication Theory & Research (S. 313–334). Sage.
• Pavitt, C. (2014). An Interactive Input–Process–Output Model of Social Influence in Decision-Making Groups. Small Group Research, 45(6), 704–730.
• Pavitt, C. & Broomell, L. (2016). Group Communication During Resource Dilemmas: The Effect of Group Size. Human Communication Research, 42(1), 1–20.
• Pedrini, S., Bächtiger, A. & Steenbergen, M. R. (2013). Deliberative inclusion of minorities: Patterns of reciprocity among linguistic groups in Switzerland. European Political Science Review, 5(03), 483–512.
• Pentzold, C. & Bischof, A. (2019). Making Affordances Real: Socio-Material Prefiguration, Performed Agency, and Coordinated Activities in Human-Robot Communication. Social Media + Society, 1–11.
• Peters, B. (1994). Der Sinn von Öffentlichkeit. In F. Neidhardt (Hrsg.), Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie Sonderhefte: Bd. 34. Öffentlichkeit, öffentliche Meinung, soziale Bewegungen (S. 42–76). Springer.
• Peters, B. (2008). Public deliberation and public culture: The writings of Bernhard Peters, 1993 – 2005 (H. Wessler, Hg.). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Peters, B., Schulz, T. & Wimmel, A. (2004). Publizistische Beiträge zu einer diskursiven Öffentlichkeit: Eine themenübergreifende Inhaltsanalyse deutscher Zeitungen und Zeitschriften (InIIS-Arbeitspapier Nr. 30). Bremen. Institut für Interkulturelle und Internationale Studien (InIIS). http://edoc.vifapol.de/opus/volltexte/2008/505/
• Pew Research Center. (2017). Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy. But many also endorse nondemocratic alternatives. http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/10/16/globally-broad-support-for-representative-and-direct-democracy/
• Pfetsch, B., Löblich, M. & Eilders, C. (2018). Dissonante Öffentlichkeiten als Perspektive kommunikationswissenschaftlicher Theoriebildung. Publizistik, 63(4), 477–495.
• Pogrebinschi, T. (2015). Mehr Partizipation – ein Heilmittel gegen die ‚Krise der Demokratie‘? In W. Merkel (Hrsg.), Demokratie und Krise (S. 127–154). Springer.
• Polletta, F. & Lee, J. (2006). Is Telling Stories Good for Democracy? Rhetoric in Public Deliberation after 9/11. American Sociological Review, 71(5), 699–721.
• Poole, M. S. (1983). Decision development in small groups II: A study of multiple sequences in decision making. Communication Monographs, 50(3), 206–232.
• Poole, M. S. & Roth, J. (1989). Decision Development in Small Groups IV A Typology of Group Decision Paths. Human Communication Research, 15(3), 323–356.
• Porten-Cheé, P. (2017). Anschlusskommunikation als Medienwirkung: Der Einfluss von Relevanz und Qualität von Medieninhalten auf das Gesprächsverhalten. Nomos.
• Porten-Cheé, P., Haßler, J., Jost, P., Eilders, C. & Maurer, M. (2018). Popularity cues in online media: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. Studies in Communication | Media, 7(2), 208–230.
• Postmes, T., Spears, R., Sakhel, K. & Groot, D. de (2001). Social Influence in Computer-Mediated Communication: The Effects of Anonymity on Group Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 1243–1254.
• Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. (Hrsg.). (2008). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press.
• Price, V., Nir, L. & Cappella, J. N. (2006). Normative and Informational Influences in Online Political Discussions. Communication Theory, 16(1), 47–74.
• Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. In L. Crothers & C. Lockhart (Hrsg.), Culture and Politics (S. 223–234). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster.
• Quandt, T. & Scheufele, B. (Hrsg.). (2011). Ebenen der Kommunikation: Mikro-Meso-Makro-Links in der Kommunikationswissenschaft. Springer.
• Rhee, J. W. & Kim, E.‑M. (2009). Deliberation on the Net: Lessons from a Field Experiment. In T. Davies & S. P. Gangadharan (Hrsg.), Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice (S. 223–232). CSLI Publications.
• Rheingold, H. (2000 [1993]. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier (2. Aufl.). MIT Press.
• Roald, V. & Sangolt, L. (2011). Deliberation, rhetoric, and emotion in the discourse on climate change in the European Parliament. Eburon Academic Publishers.
• Rojo, A. & Ragsdale, R. G. (1997). Participation in electronic forums: Implications for the design and implementation of collaborative distributed multimedia. Telematics and Informatics, 14(1), 83–96.
• Rosenberg, S. W. (2007). Types of Discourse and the Democracy of Deliberation. In S. W. Rosenberg (Hrsg.), Deliberation, participation and democracy: Can the people govern? (S. 130–158). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Rössler, P. & Geise, S. (2013). Standardisierte Inhaltsanalyse: Grundprinzipien, Einsatz und Anwendung. In W. Möhring & D. Schlütz (Hrsg.), Handbuch standardisierte Erhebungsverfahren in der Kommunikationswissenschaft (S. 269–287). Springer.
• 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.
• Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Micó, J. L., Díaz-Noci, J., Meso, K. & Masip, P. (2011). Public Sphere 2.0? The Democratic Qualities of Citizen Debates in Online Newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(4), 463–487.
• Ryfe, D. M. (2002). The Practice of Deliberative Democracy: A Study of 16 Deliberative Organizations. Political Communication, 19(3), 359–377.
• Ryfe, D. M. (2005). Does Deliberative Democracy Work? Annual Review of Political Science, 8(1), 49–71.
• Saam, N. J. (2018). Recognizing the Emotion Work in Deliberation. Why Emotions Do Not Make Deliberative Democracy More Democratic. Political Psychology, 39(4), 755–774.
• Sally, D. (1995). Conversation and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Meta-Analysis of Experiments from 1958 to 1992. Rationality and Society, 7(1), 58–92.
• Sampaio, R. C., Barros, S. A. R. & Morais, R. (2015). Como avaliar a deliberação online? Um mapeamento de critérios relevantes. Opinião Pública, 18(2), 470–489. https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/op/article/view/8641430
• Sandel, M. J. (1982). Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge University Press.
• Sanders, L. M. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25(3), 1–17.
• Sankoff, D. & Kruskal, J. (1983). Time Warps, String Edits, and Macromolecules: The Theory and Practice of Sequence Comparison. Longman Higher Education.
• Santana, A. D. (2014). Virtuous or Vitriolic: The Effect of Anonymity on Civility in Online Newspaper Reader Comment Boards. Journalism Practice, 8(1), 18–33.
• Saward, M. (Hrsg.). (2000). Democratic Innovation: Deliberation, representation and association. Routledge.
• Schafer, J. B., Frankowski, D., Herlocker, J. & Sen, S. (2007). Collaborative Filtering Recommender Systems. In D. Hutchison, T. Kanade, J. Kittler, J. M. Kleinberg, F. Mattern, J. C. Mitchell, M. Naor, O. Nierstrasz, C. P. Rangan, B. Steffen, M. Sudan, D. Terzopoulos, D. Tygar, M. Y. Vardi, G. Weikum, P. Brusilovsky, A. Kobsa & W. Nejdl (Hrsg.), The Adaptive Web (S. 291–324). Springer.
• Scharkow, M. (2011). Zur Verknüpfung manueller und automatischer Inhaltsanalyse durch maschinelles Lernen. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 59(4), 545–562.
• Scherer, S. & Brüderl, J. (2010). Sequenzdatenanalyse. In C. Wolf & H. Best (Hrsg.), Handbuch der sozialwissenschaftlichen Datenanalyse (S. 1031–1051). Springer.
• Scheufele, D. A. (2016). Talk or Conversation? Dimensions of Interpersonal Discussion and Their Implications for Participatory Democracy. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(4), 727–743.
• Schneider, S. M. (1996). Creating a Democratic Public Sphere Through Political Discussion. Social Science Computer Review, 14(4), 373–393.
• Schöttle, S. (2019). Politische Online-Partizipation und soziale Ungleichheit: Eine empirische Studie mit Gender-Fokus. Springer.
• Schudson, M. (1997). Why conversation is not the soul of democracy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 14(4), 297–309.
• Schweitzer, E. J. (2004). Deliberative Polling®. Deutscher Universitätsverlag.
• Sears, D. O. (2011). The Role of Affect in Symbolic Politics. In J. H. Kuklinski (Hrsg.), Citizens and Politics (S. 14–40). Cambridge University Press.
• Serrano-Contreras, I.‑J., García-Marín, J. & Luengo, Ó. G. (2020). Measuring Online Political Dialogue: Does Polarization Trigger More Deliberation? Media and Communication, 8(4), 63–72.
• Shane, P. M. (2011). Online Consultation and Political Communication in the Era of Obama: An Introduction. In S. Coleman & P. M. Shane (Hrsg.), Connecting Democracy: Online Consultation and the Flow of Political Communication (S. 1–20). MIT Press.
• Shapiro, I. (1999). Enough of deliberation: Politics is about interests and power. In S. Macedo (Hrsg.), Practical and professional ethics series. Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement (S. 28–38). Oxford University Press.
• Shapiro, I. (2002). Optimal Deliberation? Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 196–211.
• Smith, G. (2005). Power Beyond the Ballot: 57 Democratic Innovations from Around the World. A report for the Power Inquiry. London. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/34527/
• Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge University Press.
• Smith, S., Macintosh, A. & Millard, J. (2011). A three-layered framework for evaluating e-participation. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 4(4), Artikel 46013, 304.
• Somin, I. (2010). Deliberative Democracy and Political Ignorance. Critical Review, 22(2–3), 253–279.
• Somin, I. (2013). Democracy and political ignorance: Why smaller government is smarter. Stanford University Press.
• Song, H. & Boomgaarden, H. G. (2017). Dynamic Spirals Put to Test: An Agent-Based Model of Reinforcing Spirals Between Selective Exposure, Interpersonal Networks, and Attitude Polarization. Journal of Communication, 67(2), 256–281.
• Spitzmüller, J. & Warnke, I. H. O. (2011). Diskurslinguistik: Eine Einführung in Theorien und Methoden der transtextuellen Sprachanalyse. De Gruyter.
• Springall, D., Finkenauer, T., Durumeric, Z., Kitcat, J., Hursti, H., MacAlpine, M. & Halderman, J. A. Security Analysis of the Estonian Internet Voting System. In G.-J. Ahn, M. Yung & N. Li (Vorsitz), the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.
• Springer, N. (2014). Beschmutzte Öffentlichkeit? Warum Menschen die Kommentarfunktion auf Online-Nachrichtenseiten als öffentliche Toilettenwand benutzen, warum Besucher ihre Hinterlassenschaften trotzdem lesen, und wie die Wände im Anschluss aussehen. Zugl.: München, Univ., Diss., 2012. Mediennutzung: Bd. 20. LIT Verlag.
• Springer, N., Engelmann, I. & Pfaffinger, C. (2015). User comments: motives and inhibitors to write and read. Information, Communication & Society, 18(7), 798–815.
• Sproull, L. & Faraj, S. (1995). Atheism, Sex and Databases: The Net as a Social Technology. In B. Kahin & J. H. Keller (Hrsg.), Public access to the Internet: A publication of the Harvard Information Infrastructure Project. MIT Press.
• Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M. & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index. Comparative European Politics, 1(1), 21–48.
• Stegbauer, C. & Rausch, A. (2001). Die schweigende Mehrheit – „Lurker“ in internetbasierten Diskussionsforen. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 30(1), 48–64.
• Steiner, J., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M. & Steenbergen, M. R. (2004). Deliberative politics in action: Analyzing parliamentary discourse. Cambridge University Press.
• Steiner, J., Jaramillo, M. C., Maia, C. M. R. & Mameli, S. (2017). Deliberation across Deeply Divided Societies: Transformative Moments. Cambridge University Press.
• Stenetorp, P., Pyysalo, S., Topic, G., Ohta, T., Ananiadou, S. & Tsujii, J. (2012). BRAT: a Web-based Tool for NLP-Assisted Text Annotation. In Proceedings of the Demonstrations at the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
• Stewart, J. (1996). Innovation in Democratic Practice in Local Government. Policy & Politics, 24(1), 29–41.
• Stokes, S. C. (1998). Pathologies of Deliberation. In J. Elster (Hrsg.), Deliberative Democracy (S. 123–139). Cambridge University Press.
• Stoltenberg, D. & Maier, D. (2019). Descriptive Methods for Investigating Dynamics in Online Networks. In P. Müller, S. Geiß, C. Schemer, T. K. Naab & C. Peter (Hrsg.), Methoden und Forschungslogik der Kommunikationswissenschaft. Dynamische Prozesse der öffentlichen Kommunikation: Methodische Herausforderungen (S. 147–176).
• Strandberg, K. & Berg, J. (2013). Online Newspapers’ Readers’ Comments – Democratic Conversation Platforms or Virtual Soapboxes? Comunicação e Sociedade, 23, 132–152.
• Strandberg, K. & Berg, J. (2015). Impact of Temporality and Identifiability in Online Deliberations on Discussion Quality: An Experimental Study. Javnost – The Public: Journal of the European Institute for Communication and Culture, 22(2), 164–180.
• Strandberg, K. & Grönlund, K. (2018). Online Deliberation. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge, M. Warren, K. Strandberg & K. Grönlund (Hrsg.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy (S. 364–377). Oxford University Press.
• Strebel, M. A., Kübler, D. & Marcinkowski, F. (2019). The importance of input and output legitimacy in democratic governance: Evidence from a population‐based survey experiment in four West European countries. European Journal of Political Research, 58(2), 488–513.
• Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring Deliberation's Content: A Coding Scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), 1–35.
• Stromer-Galley, J. & Martinson, A. M. (2009). Coherence in political computer-mediated communication: Analyzing topic relevance and drift in chat. Discourse & Communication, 3(2), 195–216.
• Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., Muddiman, A. & Curry, A. L. (2015). Changing Deliberative Norms on News Organizations' Facebook Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 188–203.
• Sunstein, C. R. (2002). The Law of Group Polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 175–195.
• Taddicken, M. & Bund, K. (2010). Ich kommentiere, also bin ich: Community research am Beispiel des Diskussionsforums der Zeit online. In M. Welker & C. Wünsch (Hrsg.), Neue Schriften zur Online-Forschung: Bd. 8. Die Online-Inhaltsanalyse: Forschungsobjekt Internet (S. 187–190). Herbert von Halem Verlag.
• Tambouris, E., Macintosh, A., Smith, S., Panopoulou, E., Tarabanis, K. & Millard, J. (2012). Understanding eParticipation State of Play in Europe. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 321–330.
• Theocharis, Y. & van Deth, J. W. (2017). Political Participation in a Changing World: Conceptual and Empirical Challenges in the Study of Citizen Engagement. Routledge.
• Thom, R. (1983). Mathematical Models of Morphogenesis. Horwood.
• Thompson, S. & Hoggett, P. (2001). The emotional dynamics of deliberative democracy. Policy & Politics, 29(3), 351–364.
• Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The Uses of Argument (aktualisierte Auflage). Cambridge University Press.
• Towne, W. B. & Herbsleb, J. D. (2012). Design Considerations for Online Deliberation Systems. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(1), 97–115.
• Tranow, U. (2014). Kooperative Normsetzung im Internet: Partizipationsbedingungen aus handlungstheoretischer Perspektive. Momentum Quarterly, 3(2).
• Tranow, U., Beckers, T. & Becker, D. (2016). Social Mechanisms: Themenheft. Analyse & Kritik, 38(1).
• Troitzsch, K. G. (1990). Modellbildung und Simulation in den Sozialwissenschaften. Springer.
• Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399.
• Tuomela, R. (2007). Social Institutions. In R. Tuomela (Hrsg.), The Philosophy of Sociality (S. 182–211). Oxford University Press.
• Tutz, G. (2010). Regression für Zählvariablen. In C. Wolf & H. Best (Hrsg.), Handbuch der sozialwissenschaftlichen Datenanalyse (S. 887–904). Springer.
• van Dijck, J., Poell, T. & Waal, M. d. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.
• van Dijk, J. (2012). The network society (3. Aufl.). Sage.
• van Dijk, J. (2013). Inequalities in the Network Society. In K. Orton-Johnson & N. Prior (Hrsg.), Digital Sociology: Ciritcal Perspectives (S. 105–124). Palgrave Macmillan.
• van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283.
• van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press.
• V-Dem Institute. (2019). Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Annual Democracy Report: Democracy Facing Global Challenges. Göteborg, Schweden. V-Dem Institute. https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/99/de/99dedd73-f8bc-484c-8b91-44ba601b6e6b/v-dem_democracy_report_2019.pdf
• Vittengl, J. R. & Holt, C. S. (1998). A Time-Series Diary Study of Mood and Social Interaction. Motivation and Emotion, 22(3), 255–275.
• Voltmer, K. (1998). Medienqualität und Demokratie: Eine empirische Analyse publizistischer Informations- und Orientierungsleistungen in der Wahlkampfkommunikation. Nomos-Universitätsschriften Politik: Bd. 94. Nomos.
• Voss, K. (2014a). Internet & Partizipation – Einleitung. In K. Voss (Hrsg.), Internet und Partizipation: Bottom-up oder Top-down? Politische Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten im Internet (S. 9–23). Springer.
• Voss, K. (Hrsg.). (2014b). Internet und Partizipation: Bottom-up oder Top-down? Politische Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten im Internet. Springer.
• Vowe, G. & Henn, P. (Hrsg.). (2016). Routledge research in political communication: Bd. 13. Political communication in the online world: Theoretical approaches and research designs. Routledge.
• Vromen, A. (2008). Building virtual spaces: Young people, participation and the Internet. Australian Journal of Political Science, 43(1), 79–97.
• Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43.
• Weber, P. (2012). Nachrichtenfaktoren & User Generated Content. Die Bedeutung von Nachrichtenfaktoren für Kommentierungen der politischen Berichterstattung auf Nachrichtenwebsites. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 60(2), 218–239.
• Weber, P. (2014). Discussions in the comments section: Factors influencing participation and interactivity in online newspapers' reader comments. New Media & Society, 16(6), 941–957.
• Weber, P. & Kühne, R. (2013). Zähldaten und ihre Analyse in der kommunikationswissenschaftlichen Forschung. In T. K. Naab (Hrsg.), Methoden und Forschungslogik der Kommunikationswissenschaft: Bd. 9. Standardisierung und Flexibilisierung als Herausforderungen der kommunikations- und publizistikwissenschaftlichen Forschung (S. 285–312). Herbert von Halem Verlag.
• Weinmann, C. (2018). Measuring Political Thinking: Development and Validation of a Scale for “Deliberation Within”. Political Psychology, 39(2), 365–380.
• Weiß, J. & Bonk, A. (2019). Kommunale Beteiligungskonzepte – Einschätzungen aktueller Entwicklungen zur Förderung der Partizipation von Bürgerinnen und Bürgern in Kommunen (Schriftenreihe Local Government Transformation 8). Halberstadt. Hochschule Harz. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-62478-8
• Welker, M. & Wünsch, C. (Hrsg.). (2010). Neue Schriften zur Online-Forschung: Bd. 8. Die Online-Inhaltsanalyse: Forschungsobjekt Internet. Herbert von Halem Verlag.
• Wessler, H. (2008). Investigating Deliberativeness Comparatively. Political Communication, 25(1), 1–22.
• Wessler, H. (2013). Diskursanalyse. In G. Bentele, H.-B. Brosius & O. Jarren (Hrsg.), Lexikon Kommunikations- und Medienwissenschaft (S. 63). Springer.
• Wessler, H. (2018). Habermas and the media. Theory and the media. Polity.
• Westwood, S. J. (2015). The Role of Persuasion in Deliberative Opinion Change. Political Communication, 32(4), 509–528.
• Wheelan, S. A. (1994). Group processes: A developmental perspective. Allyn and Bacon.
• Wheelan, S. A. & Mckeage, R. L. (1993). Developmental Patterns in Small and Large Groups. Small Group Research, 24(1), 60–83.
• Wilcox, D. (1994). The Guide to Effective Participation. Delta Press.
• Wilhelm, A. G. (1998). Virtual sounding boards: How deliberative is online political discussion? Information, Communication & Society, 1(3), 313–338.
• Wilker, N. (2019). Online-Bürgerbeteiligung und politische Repräsentation. Springer.
• Wirth, W. & Lauf, E. (Hrsg.). (2001). Inhaltsanalyse: Perspektiven, Probleme, Potentiale. Herbert von Halem Verlag.
• Wojcieszak, M. (2011). Deliberation and Attitude Polarization. Journal of Communication, 61(4), 596–617.
• Wojcieszak, M. & Mutz, D. C. (2009). Online Groups and Political Discourse: Do Online Discussion Spaces Facilitate Exposure to Political Disagreement? Journal of Communication, 59(1), 40–56.
• Wright, S. (2006). Government-run Online Discussion Fora: Moderation, Censorship and the Shadow of Control. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 8(4), 550–568.
• Wright, S. & Street, J. (2007). Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online discussion forums. New Media & Society, 9(5), 849–869.
• Wyss, D., Beste, S. & Bächtiger, A. (2015). A Decline in the Quality of Debate? The Evolution of Cognitive Complexity in Swiss Parliamentary Debates on Immigration (1968–2014). Swiss Political Science Review, 21(4), 636–653.
• Young, I. M. (1996). Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy. In S. Benhabib (Hrsg.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (S. 120–136). Princeton University Press.
• Young, I. M. (1997). Asymmetrical Reciprocity: On Moral Respect, Wonder, and Enlarged Thought. Constellations, 3(3), 340–363.
• Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford political theory. Oxford University Press.
• Zhou, X., Chan, Y.‑Y. & Peng, Z.‑M. (2008). Deliberativeness of Online Political Discussion: A Content Analysis of the Guangzhou Daily Website. Journalism Studies, 9(5), 759–770.
• Ziegele, M. (2016). Nutzerkommentare als Anschlusskommunikation: Theorie und qualitative Analyse des Diskussionswerts von Online-Nachrichten. Springer.
• Ziegele, M., Breiner, T. & Quiring, O. (2014). What Creates Interactivity in Online News Discussions? An Exploratory Analysis of Discussion Factors in User Comments on News Items. Journal of Communication, 64(6), 1111–1138.
• Ziegele, M. & Quiring, O. (2013). Conceptualizing Online Discussion Value: A Multidimensional Framework for Analyzing User Comments on Mass-Media Websites. Annals of the International Communication Association, 37(1), 125–153.
• Ziegele, M., Quiring, O., Esau, K. & Friess, D. (2018). 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, 12(2), 1–31.
• Ziegele, M., Springer, N., Jost, P. & Wright, S. (2017). Online user comments across news and other content formats: Multidisciplinary perspectives, new directions. Studies in Communication | Media, 6(4), 315–332.