Articles de revues sur le sujet « BD. Information society »

Abstract With the reform of China’s power system, power transmission and transformation project (hereinafter referred to as PTATP) are gradually developing in the direction of integration, informatization, large-scale and systematization. Therefore, the traditional project cost can no longer meet the needs of the society, which requires the project cost based on BD (hereinafter referred to as BD) technology. Through the information platform (hereinafter referred to as IPF), we can collect a lot of information, including policies and regulations database, talent and machine price information database, project cost index database, industry information database, etc., which will provide important support for project cost. Project cost informatization will solve the problems of low information sharing rate, low information value and high information cost, which will more scientifically complete the cost of PTATP. Based on BD technology, we can collect, sort out and analyze the cost information data of PTATP, which will fully explore the data value. Firstly, this paper analyzes the main algorithms needed for project cost. Finally, this paper constructs a PTATP cost IPF based on BD analysis, which will provide accurate countermeasures.

We live in an increasingly heterogeneous society. The rate of international migration has contributed to cultural diversity in many nations. Libraries of all types have started to address cultural and linguistic diversity while providing information sources and services. According to The IFLA Multicultural Library Manifesto (2008), each individual has the right to a full range of library and information services, and libraries should serve all members of the community without discrimination. Special attention should be paid to cultural and linguistic groups which are underserved such as minorities, refugees, immigrants, including those with temporary residence permits. Public libraries are considered useful social instruments in the democratization of information. They are agents for social change and excellent tools for the integration of immigrants. They prepare immigrants for citizenship by introducing them to the values of their new nation, and frequently sustain them through the initial period of adaptation. They are spaces where patrons can readily access information, not only to increase their knowledge, but also to improve their abilities and skills in order to participate in society. As the key for life-long learning and success not only in school and the work place but also in daily life, information literacy skills must be developed by immigrants, refugees and foreign residents in order for them to integrate into their adopted country. Knowing how to access, use and communicate information effectively will enable the social inclusion of newcomers. Therefore, developing special information literacy programs to equip such groups with information literacy skills should be among the priorities of public libraries. In this study, the importance of information literacy skills in multicultural societies in terms of the social inclusion of immigrants will be underlined. Findings of a survey which has been conducted to ascertain information needs of foreign residents in Turkey and the level of fulfillment of their information needs will be presented. The findings of the research will also be used to make suggestions for developing information literacy programs which address the specific information needs of culturally and linguistically diverse communities.

With the continued advancement and popularization of the Internet and Edge Computing, the right to privacy of big data has taken on new meanings, and the tools available to protect citizens’ personal information under administrative law have grown in number. In the context of big data, infringers frequently use the Internet as a natural barrier and medium, making it difficult to collect evidence once personal information has been leaked. This paper investigates the administrative law protection of citizens’ personal information using big data analysis. In comparison to traditional society, information technology innovation has created massive information storage equipment, efficient information processing equipment, and rapid information dissemination means for human beings to protect their legitimate rights and interests. Sharing goes far beyond traditional societal competition. The study of administrative law protection of citizens’ personal information in the big data era has the potential to not only advance the study of administrative law protection of citizens’ personal information but also to reveal the characteristics of administrative law protection of citizens’ personal information in the big data era.

Background: Brachial plexus block with Bupivacaine provides effective intraoperative anesthesia and analgesia. The use of dexamethasone along with local anesthetic has been shown to improve the duration of analgesia. Objective: To observe the effect of Dexamethasone on the duration of analgesia for Supraclavicular Brachial plexus block. Materials and Methods: A prospective, double-blind study was undertaken in patients scheduled for upper limb surgeries under supraclavicular brachial plexus block. patients were randomly divided into two groups, Group (BD) and B. Group B received 28 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine with 2 ml normal saline while Group BD received 28 ml of 0.25% bupivacain with 2ml (8mg) dexamethasone for supraclavicular brachial plexus block. The groups were compared regarding quality of sensory and motor blockade. All the information was recorded in data collection sheet. Data was processed and analysed with the help of computer program SPSS and Microsoft excel. Results: There was no significant difference between groups in respect of demographic and American Society of Anaesthesiologist (ASA) status. Mean age was found to 34.7±8.53 years. In Group (BD) , 63.3% were ASA I and 36.6% were ASA II. In Group B, 60% were ASA I and 40% were ASA II. It has become evident that satisfactory anaesthesia can be made possible by addition of adjuvant to local anaesthetic in brachial plexus block (in Group-BD). onset of sensory block was faster in Group BD (8.17 ± 1.4 min) than Group B (9.12 ± 1.68 min). Similarly mean onset time of motor block in group A was 12.26 ± 3.96 min, and 11.58 ± 3.68 min in group B. Our study shows that duration of motor block was 408.68±26.96 min and 380.26 ± 24.11 min in group BD and Group B respectively. Conclusion: There was significantly prolonged duration of analgesia in addition of Dexamethasone without any unwanted effects. KYAMC Journal Vol. 11, No.-4, January 2021, Page 199-203

The need for knowledge is as old as human history and the importance of this need is even more increased in the technology age of today. Anyone, regardless of his or her position, is in desire and in need to get the necessary scope-of-interest knowledge in order to keep up with the change and thus to be able to survive. Therefore, in this paper, a general overview of knowledge age and knowledge society is presented and the search points out the importance of knowledge management for organizations and the other related disciplines. After that, the main purpose of this research is laid out, that is, the employee’s attitude toward knowledge sharing and the relationship between their positions and knowledge sharing is explained. Finally, results are evaluated and our conclusions are proposed. It can be seen that sharing of knowledge is not suff iciently successful in the institution on which we carried out our survey. In addition, cognitive channels should be kept open, desire and attitudes of organization members for sharing of information should be increased in order to establish an intellectual capital management system in the institution.

Bibliyometri, yayınların ya da belgelerin yazar, konu, yayın bilgisi, atıf yapılan kaynaklar, vb. gibi belirli özelliklerinin niceliksel olarak analizi ile ilgilenir. Elde edilen bibliyometrik verilere dayanarak çeşitli disiplinlerde bilimsel iletişim sürecinin nasıl gerçeklefltiği araştırılabilir. Bu araştırmada Hacettepe Üniversitesi Kütüphanecilik Bölümünde 1974-2002 yılları arasında yapılan 100 adet yüksek lisans ve doktora tezi bibliyometrik özellikleri açısından incelenmektedir. Bölümde yapılan tezler ortalama 171 sayfa uzunluğundadır. Tezlerdeki ortalama atıf sayısı ise 70’tir. Doktora tezleri ortalama 275 sayfa, yüksek lisans tezleriyse 142 sayfa uzunluğundadır. Doktora tezlerindeki ortalama atıf sayısı (132) yüksek lisans tezlerindeki ortalama atıf sayısından (53) yaklaşık 2,5 kat daha yüksektir. Tezlerde yer alan toplam 7019 atıfın %50’si kitaplara, %42’si dergilere, %3’ü tezlere, %3’ü elektronik yayınlara, %2’si ise diğer yayınlara (yayımlanmamış makaleler, görüşmeler, arşiv belgeleri) yapılmıştır. En çok atıf yapılan dergiler sıralamasında Türk Kütüphaneciliği, Resmî Gazete, College & Research Libraries, Library Trends, Library Journal, Journal of the American Society for Information Science ve Unesco Bulletin for Libraries dergileri başta gelmektedir. Toplam atıfların %32’si 4, %67’si 38 dergide yayımlanan makalelere yapılmıştır. Yabancı dergilere yapılan atıfların dağılımı Bradford’un Saçılım Yasasına uygunluk göstermektedir. Tezlerde atıf yapılan kaynakların yarı yaşamı (half-life) dokuz yıldır. Yüksek lisans tezlerinde atıf yapılan kaynaklar doktora tezlerinde atıf yapılan kaynaklardan daha gençtir. Tezlerde atıf yapılan kaynakların büyük bir çoğunluğu tek yazarlıdır. Araştırmada elde edilen bibliyometrik bulgular kütüphane koleksiyonlarının değerlendirilmesinde ve kütüphanecilik alanında çekirdek dergi koleksiyonu oluşturulmasında kullanılabilir.

Aim/Purpose: This study explored an alternative means to offering supervisory coaching to teachers, professional development, and virtual teacher coaching through the use of videoconferencing. Background: Teacher coaching has been identified as an effective way to improve teacher implementation of research proven effective classroom strategies. The use of technology to implement coaching widens the audience of coaches that one coach can reach. Methodology : A single-case multiple baseline design was used to investigate the effect the intervention had on the frequency with which teachers offer Opportunities to Respond (OTR) and on the on-task behavior of middle school students with emotional/ behavior disorders (E/BD). Contribution: This paper expands the body of knowledge on teacher coaching to include the use of technology. Findings: Results indicated there was a functional relationship between virtual teacher coaching with videoconferencing and teacher rates of OTR. However, no functional relationship was observed between teachers given OTR and student on-task behavior. Recommendations for Practitioners : The use of technology to implement coaching widens the audience of coaches that one coach can reach. Recommendation for Researchers: Future researchers should consider collecting data on academic information such as the number of correct responses in addition to on-task behavior. Impact on Society : Teacher practitioners will be able to benefit from increased access to coaches, improving effective implementation of evidence-based practices. Future Research: Among other things, researchers could consider studying students with disabilities other than emotional/behavioral disorders and even students without disabilities may give important information on how opportunities to respond works with other populations.

TPS3621 Background: Adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colorectal cancer (CRC) still remains controversial. Although the NCCN and ESMO guidelines recommend adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with “high-risk features,” the survival benefit has not been confirmed. We reviewed the evidence levels for prognostic values of risk factors, because lack of their robustness is a major source of uncertainty regarding the optimal indication of adjuvant chemotherapy. Consequently, on top of the T-stage, three pathological factors—perineural invasion (Pn), tumor budding (BD), and desmoplastic reaction (DR)—were selected as robust risk factors of recurrence. Among the conventional factors, the prognostic value of Pn had been well validated in a multicenter study conducted by the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR; Am J Surg Path 2013), but others were deemed suboptimal in terms of the prognostic value. BD and DR are novel tumor- and stroma-factors, respectively, associated with cancer microenvironment at the tumor front. According to the JSCCR and ITBCC 2016 criteria, tumors are graded as BD1, BD2, or BD3. The DR heterogeneity is categorized into Mature, Intermediate, and Immature patterns based on site-specific products of cancer-associated fibroblasts—keloid-like collagen and myxoid stroma. According to a recent prospective multicenter study, BD and DR characterization represent a higher level of prognostic value than other conventional factors (SACURA trial; J Clin Oncol 2019, Br J Cancer 2021). Based on the four selected risk factors, we can exclude the patient group with favorable prognosis (i.e., > 90% of 5-year RFS), which accounts for approximately 40% of the total population, resulting in enabling us to identify the concentrated population of high risk of developing recurrence. Methods: The Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) launched a randomized controlled phase III trial to evaluate the superiority of adjuvant chemotherapy in terms of relapse-free survival (RFS) over observation only in stage II CRC patients aged 20–80 years having one or more of the following risk factors: pathological T4, Pn, BD3, and non-Mature DR. Patients are randomised, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to [A] observation, [B] capecitabine monotherapy for 6 months, or [C] capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) for 3 months. A total of 1680 patients will be accrued from 54 Japanese institutions assuming 3-year RFS with [A] to be 82% and expected 5% increase in 3-year RFS for [B] and [C] with one-sided alpha of 2.5% and power of 80% for each pair comparison. Patient enrollment was started in January 2020 and 170 patients have been enrolled until January 2021. This trial has been registered at Japan Registry of Clinical Trials as jRCTs031190186. Clinical trial information: jRCTs031190186.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of the Digital Divide (DD) and digital alphabetization (DA) on the Big Data (BD) generation process, to gain insight into how BD could become a useful tool in the decision-making process of supply chain management (SCM). Similarly, the paper aims to recognize and understand, from a value-creation perspective, the correlation between DD and BD generation and between DD and SCM.Design/methodology/approachThe approach utilized in the present study consists of two steps: first, a systematic literature review was conducted aiming at finding out to determine the existing relationship between “Big Data Analytics” (BDA), “SCM” and the “DD”. A total of 595 articles were considered, and analysis showed a clear relationship among BDA, SCM, and DD. Next, the Vector autoregressive (VAR) approach was applied in a case study to prove the correlation between DD (as part of internet usage) and internet acquisitions, and in general terms the relationship between DD and Trade. Internet usage and internet acquisition in imports and exports at the European level were considered as variables in an empirical study of European trade. The novelty of this two-tiered approach consists in its application of a systematic literature review, the first of its kind, to generate inputs for the longitudinal case study of imports and exports at the EU level. In turn, the case study tested the accuracy of the theorized relationship among the main variables.FindingsBy analyzing the connection between DD and internet acquisitions, a positive and long-lasting impulse response function was revealed, followed by an ascending trend. This suggests that a self-multiplying effect is being generated, and it is reasonable to assume that the more individuals use the internet, the more electronic acquisitions occur. We can thus reasonably conclude that the improvement of the BD and SCM process is strongly dependent on the quality of the human factor. Tackling DA is the new reading key in the decision-making process: quantifying the added value of the human factor in SCM is challenging and is an ongoing process, based on the opportunity cost between automation in decision-making or relying on the complexity of human factors.Research limitations/implicationsOne of the biggest limits in our research is the lack of the time series available on consumer orientations and preferences. Data on the typology of customer preferences, and how they are shaped, modified, or altered, were non-accessible, though big companies may have access to this data. The present longitudinal study on European trade helps clarify how and to what extent BDA, SCM, and DD are inter-related. The modeling of the theoretical framework likewise highlights several identifiable benefits for companies of adopting BDA in their business processes.Practical implicationsUnderstanding the obstacles to DD in trade companies and states, and identifying their influence on firm performance, serves to orient the decision-making process in SCM toward reducing DD to generate important economic benefits. Enhancing internet usage may accelerate longer-term investments in human resources, offering developing countries unprecedented opportunities to enhance their educational systems and to improve their economic policies, widening the range of opportunities for businesses and poor states.Social implicationsBD generation will undeniably influence microeconomic decisions: they will become evaluation tools of more efficient economic progress in small and/or large economies. However, an economically efficient society will be achievable only in those countries in which qualified human resources can generate and manage BD, to unlock its potential. This twofold effect will surely affect the socio-economic and geopolitical situation. The economic progress of conventional countries may vacillate if it is not adequately flanked by qualified human resources able to progress the information and communication technology (ICT) prevalent in contemporary economies. Consequently, the social impact of investments in ICT capacity building will necessarily affect future socio-economic scenarios. New indicators will become necessary to measure the conventional progress, and one of them will surely be DD.Originality/valueThe novelty of the present study is twofold: first, it is the first meticulous meta-analysis developed using a very wide analysis of the published literature to highlight a previously hidden relationship among DD, BD, and SCM. This comparative approach made it possible to build a theoretical framework for the real evaluation of the impact of BDA on different organizational elements, including SCM. Second, the research emphasizes the need to reform and reshape the studies on BDA, convincing companies that it is necessary to understand that the obstacles (DD and DA, i.e. internet usage) must be addressed with conscious decision-making processes, strategically and resolutely, to transform points of weakness into opportunities.

The relevance of this article is due to the objective need for further development of methodological approaches to the study of the academic discipline "Life Safety" (hereinafter – BD) in the higher education system of the Russian Federation. This discipline is one of the main components of the mechanisms that allow for deep, qualitative and timely study of problems in the security of the individual, society and the state, which have high dynamics and mobility in the Russian community. This circumstance makes it necessary to constantly analyze the state of this discipline, the methodology of its teaching in, as well as the main problems of its development in Russian universities. The purpose of our research is to substantiate the necessity and expediency of the transition in the process of studying the discipline of BDZ from issues related to man-made hazards to the development of a culture of safe behavior in the field of information, energy, economic, transport, criminal, national security. It is with these problems of protection and survival in the socio-cultural sphere that the citizen of modern Russia faces more than with man-made dangers. This is what the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation of July 2, 2021 is currently aiming at. The most important task of our research is to substantiate the socio-natural nature of the competence of the CC-8, introduced into the educational process in higher education institutions of the Russian Federation by the new educational standards of FGOS3++. The authors used the methods of structural and functional analysis, which allowed them to build and substantiate a theoretical model for analyzing the process of studying the academic discipline of BD in the higher education system of the Russian Federation at the present time. Based on the analysis of the constructed model, the authors come to the main conclusions that it is necessary to develop and adopt a law at the federal level as soon as possible, laying down a clear understanding of the category "security". At the same time, it is necessary to work out and clearly define the system of indicators for the competence of the CC-8. The paper highlights other aspects of the research and educational process, which, according to the authors, can optimize the process of studying the discipline in universities of the Russian Federation.

For the English abstract and full text of the article please see the attached PDF-File (English version follows Russian version).The publication was prepared within the framework of the project No. 15-02-00007, supported by a grant from the Russian Humanitarian Scientific Foundation (RHSF). ABSTRACT The problems of the peculiarities of the structure of main educational programs of the leading higher educational institutions of managerial and economic profile are considered in the context of the gradual increase in information competencies of students. With the help of morphological analysis and the study of the specifics of information content, the necessity of introducing a systematized, integrated and process approach to development of appropriate competencies with account of new trends and priorities that will determine the benchmarks for the graduate of the university is justified. Keywords: university, transport environment, information competence, process approach, educational programs, morphological analysis, vocational training. REFERENCES 1.The order of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia «On approval of the federal state educational standard of higher education in the field of training 38.03.05 Business Informatics (bachelor’s level) » [Prikaz Minobrnauki Rossii «Ob utverzhdenii federal’nogo gosudarstvennogo obrazovatel’nogo standarta vysshego obrazovanija po napravleniju podgotovki 38.03.05 Biznes-informatika (uroven’ bakalavriata) »].[Electronic resource]: http://минобрнауки.рф/%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BA %D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D1 %8B/8875/%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB/830 7/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D 0 % B 7 % 2 0 % E 2 % 8 4 % 9 6 % 2 0 1 0 0 2 % 2 0 %D0%BE%D1%82%2011.08.2016.pdf.Last accessed 30.08.2016. 2.Modeling and forecasting.March, 19, 2012 [Modelirovanie I prognozirovanie. Mart 19, 2012].[Electronic resource]: http://www.economic-s.ru/index.php/category/practice/modeling/.Last accessed 30.08.2016. 3.Koryagin, N. D. Application of the methodology of quantitative assessment and analysis of organizational culture for selection of key performance indicators of the perspective of «learning and development» of a balanced system of indicators [Primenenie metodiki kolichestvennoj ocenki i analiza organizacionnoj kul’tury dlja vybora kljuchevyh pokazatelej rezul’tativnosti perspektivy «obuchenie i razvitie» sbalansirovannoj sistemy pokazatelej].Ekonomika, statistika i informatika. Vestnik UMO, 2014, Iss.2, pp.95-98. 4.Koryagin, N. D. Implementation of modern methodological approaches to management in a balanced system of indicators and business-engineering management technologies [Realizacija sovremennyh metodologicheskih podhodov k menedzhmentu v sbalansirovannoj sisteme pokazatelej i biznes-inzhiniringovyh tehnologijah upravlenii].Ekonomika, statistika i informatika. Vestnik UMO, 2015, Iss.3, pp.72-76. 5.Koryagin, N. D. Directions of formation of information competences of managers of aviation enterprises [Napravlenija formirovanija informacionnyh kompetencij menedzherov aviapredprijatij].Nauchnyj vestnik MGTU GA, 2015, Iss.214, pp.69-73. 6.Koryagin, N.D., Sukhorukov, A.I., Medvedev, A. V.Implementation of modern methodological approaches to management in information management systems.Scientific monograph [Realizacija sovremennyh metodologicheskih podhodov k menedzhmentu v informacionnyh sistemah upravlenija. Nauchnaja monografija].Moscow, RIO MGTU GA publ., 2015, 148 p. 7.Koryagin, N. D. Strategic directions of ensuring competitiveness of aviation enterprises in the conditions of the modern information society [Strategicheskie napravlenija obespechenija konkurentosposobnosti aviapredprijatij v uslovijah sovremennogo informacionnogo obshhestva].Internet-journal «Innovations in Civil Aviation»,2016, Iss.1.[Electronic resource]: http://www.mstuca.ru/upload/Innovatcii_blok_1.pdf.Last accessed 27.06.2016.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may further promote the development of Industry 4.0 leading to the fifth industrial revolution (Society 5.0). Industry 4.0 technology such as Big Data (BD) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) may lead to a personalized system of healthcare in Pakistan. The final bridge between humans and machines is Society 5.0, also known as the super-smart society that employs AI in healthcare manufacturing and logistics. In this communication, we review various Industry 4.0 and Society 5.0 technologies including robotics and AI being inspected to control the rate of transmission of COVID-19 globally. We demonstrate the applicability of advanced information technologies including AI, BD, and Information of Technology (IoT) to healthcare. Lastly, we discuss the evolution of Industry 4.0 to Society 5.0 given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in accordance with the technological strategies being considered and employed. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.37.2.3387 How to cite this:Sarfraz Z, Sarfraz A, Iftikar HM, Akhund R. Is COVID-19 pushing us to the Fifth Industrial Revolution (Society 5.0)? Pak J Med Sci. 2021;37(2):---------. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.37.2.3387 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract Background Lithium is considered the gold standard treatment for bipolar disorder (BD). Current clinical guidelines and scientific evidence support its use as a first-line treatment in BD. However, over the last two decades, there has been a downward tendency in lithium's use in several developed countries. Based on a nationwide survey, this study's objective is to analyze in a large sample of psychiatrists relevant issues of the use of lithium salts in BD. Methods Data were collected through an anonymous survey sent by email among 500 psychiatrists who belong to a National Society of Psychiatry (Spanish Society of Biological Psychiatry). The survey is a self-administered questionnaire consisting of 21 items on the most key aspects of lithium's use (indication, dosage, monitoring, and information for patients). Results 212 psychiatrists completed the survey. 70% of psychiatrists prescribe lithium to more than 50% of patients diagnosed with BD. Adverse effects are the main reason not to use lithium salts. Over 75% of the participants consider lithium salts the treatment of choice for the maintenance phase of BD, both in women and men. Most of the participants (> 50%) start lithium after the first affective episode, use conservative plasma concentrations (0.6–0.8 mmol/L), and generally prescribe it twice a day. 57% of psychiatrists who treat patients under 18 do not use lithium in this population. About 70% of the survey respondents use official protocols to inform and monitor patients on lithium treatment. Conclusions From the results of the present study, it can be concluded that the use of lithium in Spain is in line with the recommendations of the main international clinical guidelines and current scientific literature. The first reason not to prescribe lithium in our country is the perception of its adverse effects and not the aspects related to its practical use or its effectiveness. Considering that BD is a chronic disease with a typical onset in adolescence, the low rate of prescription of lithium salts in patients under 18 must be thoroughly studied.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to verify if the characteristics of the board of directors (BD) affects the disclosure practices of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Two different population samples were used from the period 2008-2011: Brazilian listed companies and Spanish companies. It is observed that the size of the board positively affects CSR disclosure practices of the two groups of companies. The percentage of independent directors of the board members positively affects the disclosure practices of CSR in Spanish companies. The percentage of participants of the board women positively impacts the disclosure practices of CSR in Brazilian companies. Design/methodology/approach The authors worked with two different population samples: one, composed by the Brazilian listed companies in BM&FBOVESPA and other by Spanish companies listed on Madrid Stock Exchange. The selection of this period was due to the increase in the adoption of GRI guidelines from 2008 (Prado-Lorenzo et al., 2012). In addition, as Spanish companies disclose more CSR reports according to the GRI guidelines (Global Reporting Initiative, 2012), this is a suitable environment for the analysis. Findings Regarding the research question of this study, it was found that the profile of the board affects the disclosure practices of CSR of Brazilian and Spanish companies. The size of the board positively affects CSR disclosure practices of the two groups of companies. The percentage of independent directors of the board members positively affects the disclosure practices of CSR in Spanish companies. The percentage of participants of the board women positively impacts the disclosure practices of CSR in Brazilian companies. Research limitations/implications Both the BD of Spanish companies as the Brazilian still requires the participation of a greater number of women. It is important to remember that the variable that represents women in the board presented a positive impact on the dependent variables, and it is statistically significant, so it is possible to affirm that when a large number of women are on the Board, the company tends to disclose more standardized information about CSR practices. These results are in line to other empirical analysis that defend that women usually introduce more philanthropic worries (Ibrahim and Angelidis, 1991) and tend to provide higher information transparency, especially about sustainability issues (Barako and Brown, 2008; Prado-Lorenzo and García-Sánchez, 2010; Frías-Aceituno et al., 2012). Practical implications This research should benefit, in this sense, investors, managers and policymakers, civil society representatives and corporate managers themselves active in the two economies investigated. Social implications It should be noticed that both Brazil and Spain use to encourage joint research between researchers of Brazilian and Spanish universities, funding projects developed in partnership as Cooperation Programme signed in 2001 by the Ministries of Education in both countries. Thus, it is justified the choice of Spain for its comparative analysis due to the need for more field studies on this topic in both countries, and also that it has been promoted by their governments. Originality/value It is expected that the results of this research contribute to the identification of relevant factors in disclosure of corporate environmental policies and actions that may be useful in the decision-making process of various stakeholders. Such identification will also allow us to identify possible relationships between environmental initiatives, the profile of BD.

Explicit civility or respect is a key dimension to assess the (deliberative) quality of online discussions. In contrast to operationalizations that address civility through the mere absence of incivility or offensive language, this construct measures explicit indicators for respect, such as acknowledgements, endorsement, and explicit valuation. Field of application/Theoretical foundation Most studies on online discussions draw on deliberative norms to measure the quality of their discourse (e.g., Esau et al., 2017; Friess et al., 2021; Rowe, 2015; Ziegele et al., 2020; Zimmermann, 2017). Deliberation is an important concept for the study of (political) online discussions and consists of a fair and respectful exchange of arguments between participants who are deemed as equals (Graham & Witschge, 2003; Ziegele et al., 2020). Mutual respect and appreciation of one another are considered fundamental assets of a democratic society (Papacharissi, 2004). A minimum level of respect ensures the mutual acknowledgement of participants as free and equal members of society and hence is a requirement for deliberation (Habermas, 2007; Steiner, 2012; Ziegele et al., 2020). References/Combination with other methods Besides quantitative content analyses, the (deliberative) quality of online discussions is examined with qualitative content analyses and discourse analyses (Graham & Witschge, 2003; Price & Capella, 2002). Furthermore, perceptions of civility and incivility are investigated with qualitative interviews and focus groups (Bormann, 2022; Engelke, 2019; Ziegele, 2016), surveys (Kenski et al., 2020; Stryker et al., 2016) and experimental designs (Muddiman, 2017; Ziegele et al., 2019). Cross-references Explicit civility is one of five dimensions of deliberative quality in this database written by the same author. Accordingly, there are overlaps with the entries on interactivity, inclusivity, rationality, and storytelling regarding theoretical background, references/combinations with other methods, and some example studies. Information on Heinbach & Wilms (2022) Authors: Dominique Heinbach & Lena K. Wilms (Codebook by Dominique Heinbach, Marc Ziegele, & Lena K. Wilms) Research question: Which attributes differentiate moderated from unmoderated comments? Object of analysis: The quantitative content analysis was based on a stratified random sample of moderated and not moderated comments (N = 1.682) from the German online participation platform “#meinfernsehen2021” [#myTV2021], a citizen participation platform to discuss the future of public broadcasting in Germany. Time frame of analysis: November 24, 2020 to March 3, 2021 Info about variables Level of analysis: User comment Variables and reliability: see Table 1 Values: All variables were coded on a four-point scale (1 = clearly not present; 2 = rather not present; 3 = rather present; 4 = clearly present). Detailed explanations and examples for each value are provided in the Codebook (in German). Codebook: in the appendix of this entry (in German) Table 1: Variables and reliability (Heinbach & Wilms, 2022) Dimension Measure Definition Krippendorff’s α (n = 159, 3 coders) Explicit respect Polite salutation Does the comment contain formulations of polite salutations, greetings or farewell phrases, e.g., “Dear …”, “Have a good weekend”? .80 Expression of respect Does the comment contain appreciation, approval, praise, or acknowledgements, e.g, “Kudos!”, “You are doing a great job, “Thank you”, “I respect your opinion“? .71 Information on Stromer-Galley (2007) Author: Jennifer Stromer-Galley Research question: The aim of the paper was developing a coding scheme for academics and practitioners of deliberation to systematically measure what happens during group deliberations (p. 1; p. 7). Object of analysis: The author conducted a secondary analysis of online group discussions (23 groups with 5-12 participants) in an experiment called “The Virtual Agora Project” at Carnegie Mellon Unversitiy in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Participants attended the discussions from dormitory rooms that were equipped with a computer, headphones, and microphone. The group discussions were recorded and transcribed for analysis (pp. 7-8). Although strictly speaking the study does not analyze media content, the coding scheme has provided the basis for numerous other studies on the deliberative quality of online discussions (e.g., Rowe, 2015; Stroud et al., 2015; Ziegele et al., 2020). Time frame of analysis: Three weeks in July 2004 (p. 7). Info about variables Level of analysis: Social talk was measured on the level of the thought. Coders segmented each speaking contribution into thought units before coding the categories. “A thought is defined as an utterance (from a single sentence to multiple sentences) that expresses an idea on a topic. A change in topic signaled a change in thought. A second indicator of a change in thought was a change in the type of talk. The distinct types of talk that this coding captured were the following: talk about the problem of public schools, talk about the process of the talk, talk about the process of the deliberation, and social talk” (p. 9). Variables and values: see Table 2 Reliability: Reliability scores for social talk are not provided. Codebook: in the appendix (pp. 22-33) Table 2: Variables and values (Stromer-Galley, 2007, p. 9; pp. 26-27). Variable Description Value Definition Social talk Social talk is talk that brings the strangers together by building social bonds, including salutations, praise, and apologies. Salutations Statements of welcome, greeting, hello, and good bye, see you later, and the like. Apologies Statements of apology: I’m sorry, and ‘I hope’ statements, such as “I hope I haven’t been too obnoxious.” Includes statements of reflection of how the participant performed in the group (likely comes at the end of the group’s discussion): “I hope my few ideas did get across.” Praise Includes thank you, you’re welcome, as well as praise for other individuals or the group (“you’ve been a good group.” I’ve really enjoyed myself,” “this has been fun”) Praise in the service of an argument about the problem is coded as a problem thought (“I want to commend Sally for volunteering at her school. We need more people to be volunteers”). ChitChat Thought statements that are not on topic relative to the deliberation. These could be jokes or puns (but not as they relate to the problem of schools), social chit chat about the weather, and the like. Information on Zimmermann (2017) Author: Tobias Zimmermann Research question: Which role do online reader comments play for a deliberative-democratic understanding of a digital public sphere? (p. 11) Object of analysis: To compare discursive participation online and offline, the author conducted a full-sample content analysis of online reader comments (N = 1.176) and letters to the editor (N = 381) from German local newspapers on three similar conflicts in local politics concerning the renaming of streets and squares. Because the coding scheme was based on the discourse quality index (DQI), only contributions that contained a demand were included in the analysis, that is, “a proposal on what decision should or should not be made” Steenbergen et al., 2003, p. 27). Only then, a speech act is considered relevant from a discourse ethics perspective. Time frame of analysis: June 2012 to May 2013 Info about variables Variables: For the variable respect towards groups, the author extends the respect variable of the Discourse Quality Index (DQI, Steenbergen et al., 2003) by adding anti-democratic behavior following Papacharissi (2004). Besides the ordinal variable “respect”, the author measured the dichotomous variable “democratic respect”. Level of analysis: Individual contribution Variables and values: see Table 3 Reliability: Intracoder reliability was tested on a subset of 100 comments. The ordinal respect variable exceeded a Krippendorff’s Alpha above .73 (p. 201). The dichotomous variable “democratic respect” that measured if a comment contained anti-democratic behavior or not reached a Krippendorff’s Alpha of .89 (p. 200-201). Codebook: pp. 159-185 (in German) Table 3: Variables and values (Zimmermann, 2017, p. 171; p. 189) Variable Value Definition Respect Anti-democratic behavior Only or predominantly statements are made that either contain at least one threat against the democratic system as a whole, use negative stereotypes, or question other individuals’ individual liberty rights. No respect This category applies when exclusively or predominantly negative statements about others, but not anti-democratic statements are made. Implicit respect There are no explicitly positive or negative statements to others, that is, a comment is neither explicitly respectful nor disrespectful. Balanced respect Both positive and negative statements in relation to others are expressed in the same degree. Explicit respect This category is applied when there is at least one explicitly positive statement regarding others and no negative statements, or if the positive statement clearly dominates the negative. Democratic respect Anti-democratic behavior Only or predominantly statements are made that either contain at least one threat against the democratic system as a whole, use negative stereotypes, or question other individuals’ individual liberty rights. Democratic respect Anti-democratic behavior does not occur. Example studies Heinbach, D. & Wilms, L. K. (2022): Der Einsatz von Moderation bei #meinfernsehen2021 [The deployment of moderation at #meinfernsehen2021]. In: F. Gerlach, C. Eilders & K. Schmitz (Eds.): #meinfernsehen2021. Partizipationsverfahren zur Zukunft des öffentlich-rechtlichen Fernsehens. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Stromer Galley, J. (2007). Measuring Deliberation's Content: A Coding Scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), Article 12. Zimmermann, T. (2017). Digitale Diskussionen: Über politische Partizipation mittels Online-Leserkommentaren [Digital discussions: On political participation trough online reader comments]. Edition Politik: Bd. 44. transcript Verlag. http://www.content-select.com/index.php?id=bib_view&ean=9783839438886 Further references Bormann, M. (2022). Perceptions and Evaluations of Incivility in Public Online Discussions—Insights From Focus Groups With Different Online Actors. Frontiers in Political Science, 4, Article 812145. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2022.812145 Engelke, K. M. (2019). Enriching the Conversation: Audience Perspectives on the Deliberative Nature and Potential of User Comments for News Media. Digital Journalism, 8(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1680567 Esau, K., Friess, D. & Eilders, C. (2017). Design Matters! An Empirical Analysis of Online Deliberation on Different News Platforms. Policy & Internet, 9(3), 321–342. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.154 Friess, D., Ziegele, M. & Heinbach, D. (2021). Collective Civic Moderation for Deliberation? Exploring the Links between Citizens’ Organized Engagement in Comment Sections and the Deliberative Quality of Online Discussions. Political Communication, 38(5), 624–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1830322 Graham, T. & Witschge, T. (2003). In Search of Online Deliberation: Towards a New Method for Examining the Quality of Online Discussions. Communications, 28(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2003.012 Habermas, J. (2007). Moral consciousness and communicative action (Repr). Polity. Kenski, K., Coe, K. & Rains, S. A. (2020). Perceptions of Uncivil Discourse Online: An Examination of Types and Predictors: An examination of types and predictors. Communication Research, 47(6), 795–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217699933 Muddiman, A. (2017). Personal and Public Levels of Political Incivility. International Journal of Communication, 11, 3182–3202. Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. new media & society, 6(2), 259–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444 Price, V. & Cappella, J. N. (2002). Online deliberation and its influence: The Electronic Dialogue Project in Campaign 2000. IT&Society, 1(1), 303–329. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.9.5945&rep=rep1&type=pdf Rowe, I. (2015). Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the Deliberative Quality of Online News User Comments Across Platforms. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(4), 539–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482 Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index. Comparative European Politics, 1(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002 Steiner, J. (2012). The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057486 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12104 Stryker, R., Conway, B. A. & Danielson, J. T. (2016). What is political incivility? Communication Monographs, 83(4), 535–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2016.1201207 Ziegele, M. (2016). Nutzerkommentare als Anschlusskommunikation: Theorie und qualitative Analyse des Diskussionswerts von Online-Nachrichten [The Discussion Value of Online News. An Analysis of User Comments on News Platforms]. Springer VS. Ziegele, M., Naab, T. K. & Jost, P. (2020). Lonely together? Identifying the determinants of collective corrective action against uncivil comments. New Media & Society, 22(5), 731-751. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819870130 Ziegele, M., Quiring, O., Esau, K. & Friess, D. (2020). Linking News Value Theory With Online Deliberation: How News Factors and Illustration Factors in News Articles Affect the Deliberative Quality of User Discussions in SNS’ Comment Sections. Communication Research, 47(6), 860-890. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218797884

Storytelling is a variable to assess the quality of online discussions beyond traditional deliberation criteria, such as rationality, interactivity, and inclusiveness. It belongs to the so-called type II deliberation (Bächtiger et al., 2010) and includes personal experiences and narratives from participants’ own lives and environments. Field of application/Theoretical foundation In addition to traditional criteria such as rationality, more inclusive forms are increasingly playing a role in deliberation research, for example, the so-called "type II deliberation" (Bächtiger et al., 2010) or "democratic deliberation" (Mansbridge, 2007). Following these approaches, the use of expressive forms of communication such as participants’ personal experiences and stories, emotions, and humor are also legitimate in deliberative discourse (Esau et al., 2019; Esau et al., 2021). Of these inclusive quality criteria, the most important is probably storytelling, where participants contribute personal stories, narratives, and experiences to the discussion (Bächtiger et al., 2010; Polletta & Lee, 2006). By now, storytelling is widely accepted as an indicator of quality in deliberation research (Bächtiger et al., 2010; Zimmermann, 2017). It is considered the most significant alternative to rational argumentation, which has been so crucial in traditional deliberation literature, since positions can also be justified with personal stories and experiences (Bächtiger et al., 2010; Polletta & Lee, 2006; Steiner, 2012). References/Combination with other methods Besides quantitative content analyses, storytelling is examined by means of qualitative content analyses and discourse analyses (Graham & Witschge, 2003; Steiner et al., 2017) or a combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses (Polletta & Lee, 2006). Cross-references Storytelling is one of five dimensions of deliberative quality in this database written by the same author. Accordingly, there are overlaps with the entries on interactivity, inclusivity, rationality, and explicit civility regarding theoretical background, references/combinations with other methods, and some example studies. Information on Esau et al. (2021) Authors: Katharina Esau, Dannica Fleuß, & Sarah-Michelle Nienhaus Research question: “RQ1: How does the deliberative quality of online participatory practices vary between different deliberative arenas? RQ2: Does deliberative quality, according to a classic concept of deliberation, vary between different arenas? RQ 1.2: Does the proportion of alternative forms of communication (expressions of emotion and storytelling) vary between arenas?” (p. 88) Object of analysis: The authors conducted comparative content analyses of three different deliberative arenas: A government-run online consultation platform (all user comments, N = 603), the comment sections of mass media platforms (stratified random sample, N = 794), and a civil society Facebook community page (all user comments, N = 767). This resulted in a final sample of 2,164 user comments across all three platforms (pp. 101-102). Time frame of analysis: 2015 Info about variables Level of analysis: User comment (p. 101) Variables: see Table 1 Values: Dichotomous measure (yes,no) Reliability: “The comments were analyzed by a team of five trained coders. […] All variables had a Krippendorff’s α > 0.70“ (p. 102). Table 1: Variables (Esau et al., 2021, p. 102). Dimension Measure Definition Storytelling Personal storytelling This measure captured whether a comment reported a personal experience (or an experience of known others), expressed in a narrative form. Information on Heinbach & Wilms (2022) Authors: Dominique Heinbach & Lena K. Wilms (Codebook by Dominique Heinbach, Marc Ziegele, & Lena K. Wilms) Research question: Which attributes differentiate moderated from unmoderated comments? Object of analysis: The quantitative content analysis was based on a stratified random sample of moderated and not moderated comments (N = 1.682) from the German online participation platform “#meinfernsehen202” [#myTV2021], a citizen participation platform to discuss the future of public broadcasting in Germany. Time frame of analysis: November 24, 2020 to March 3, 2021 Info about variables Level of analysis: User comment Variables and reliability: see Table 2 Values: All variables were coded on a four-point scale (1 = clearly not present; 2 = rather not present; 3 = rather present; 4 = clearly present). Detailed explanations and examples for each value are provided in the Codebook (in German). Codebook: in the appendix of this entry (in German) Table 2: Variables and reliability (Heinbach & Wilms, 2022) Dimension Measure Definition Krippendorff’s α Storytelling Storytelling Does the comment contain personal stories and experiences? .85 Narrative reasoning Does the comment contain personal stories or experiences to support an argument or position? .75 n = 159, 3 coders Information on Zimmermann (2017) Author: Tobias Zimmermann Research question: Which role do online reader comments play for a deliberative-democratic understanding of a digital public sphere? (p. 11) Object of analysis: To compare discursive participation online and offline, the author conducted a full-sample content analysis of online reader comments (N = 1.176) and letters to the editor (N = 381) from German local newspapers on three similar conflicts in local politics concerning the renaming of streets and squares. Because the coding scheme was based on the discourse quality index (DQI), only contributions that contained a demand were included in the analysis, that is, “a proposal on what decision should or should not be made” Steenbergen et al., 2003, p. 27). Only then, a speech act is considered relevant from a discourse ethics perspective. Time frame of analysis: June 2012 to May 2013 Info about variables Variables: Following Bächtiger et al. (2011, p. 17), the variable storytelling measures “whether participants use personal narratives or experiences”. However, the author interprets storytelling in a narrow sense, that is, if users clarify the narration as their personal story of experience. Consequently, only own experiences are considered (p. 173). Following Steiner (2012), the study operationalizes storytelling on an ordinal scale in order to measure its deliberative quality (p. 174). Level of analysis: Individual contribution Variables and values: see Table 3 Reliability: Intracoder reliability for storytelling was tested on a subset of 100 comments and exceeded a Krippendorff’s Alpha (ordinal) above .73 (p. 201). Codebook: pp. 159-185 (in German) Table 3: Variables and values (Zimmermann, 2017, p. 174) Variable Value Definition Storytelling No storytelling The comment does not contain any personal story of experience of the author. Unfocused storytelling The comment does contain at least one personal story of experience of the author. Justifying storytelling The comment does contain at least one personal story of experience of the author, which serves as sole justification for the demand. Complementary storytelling The comment does contain at least one personal story of experience of the author that supports the justification. Example studies Esau, K., Fleuß, D. & Nienhaus, S.‑M. (2021). Different Arenas, Different Deliberative Quality? Using a Systemic Framework to Evaluate Online Deliberation on Immigration Policy in Germany. Policy & Internet, 13(1), 86–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.232 Heinbach, D. & Wilms, L. K. (2022): Der Einsatz von Moderation bei #meinfernsehen2021 [The deployment of moderation at #meinfernsehen2021]. In: F. Gerlach, C. Eilders & K. Schmitz (Eds.): #meinfernsehen2021. Partizipationsverfahren zur Zukunft des öffentlich-rechtlichen Fernsehens. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Rowe, I. (2015). Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the Deliberative Quality of Online News User Comments Across Platforms. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(4), 539–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482 Stromer Galley, J. (2007). Measuring Deliberation's Content: A Coding Scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), Article 12. Zimmermann, T. (2017). Digitale Diskussionen: Über politische Partizipation mittels Online-Leserkommentaren [Digital discussions: On political participation trough online reader comments]. Edition Politik: Bd. 44. transcript Verlag. http://www.content-select.com/index.php?id=bib_view&ean=9783839438886 Further references Bächtiger, A., Gerber, M., & Shikano, S. (2011, August). Deliberative Abilities of Ordinary Citizens. In 6th ECPR General Conference, Reykjavik. Bächtiger, A., Shikano, S., Pedrini, S. & Ryser, M. (2010). Measuring Deliberation 2.0: Standards, Discourse Types, and Sequentialization. University of Konstanz and University of Bern. https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/baechtiger_0.pdf Graham, T. & Witschge, T. (2003). In Search of Online Deliberation: Towards a New Method for Examining the Quality of Online Discussions. Communications, 28(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2003.012 Mansbrige, J. (2007). “Deliberative Democracy” or “Democratic Deliberation”? In S. W. Rosenberg (Hrsg.), Deliberation, Participation and Democracy (S. 251–271). Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230591080_12 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100501 Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index. Comparative European Politics, 1(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002 Steiner, J. (2012). The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge University Press. Steiner, J., Jaramillo, M. C., Maia, R. C. M. & Mameli, S. (2017). Deliberation Across Deeply Divided Societies. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316941591

Interactivity (or reciprocity) is a key dimension to assess the deliberative quality of online discussions. In quantitative content analyses, this dimension measures if participants engage in dialog with each other and refer to each other. Field of application/Theoretical foundation Most studies on online discussions draw on deliberative norms to measure the quality of their discourse (e.g., Esau et al., 2017; Friess et al., 2021; Rowe, 2015; Ziegele et al., 2020; Zimmermann, 2017). Deliberation is an important concept for the study of (political) online discussions (Ziegele et al., 2020). It focuses on a free and equal exchange of arguments to bridge social differences and legitimize political decisions (Dryzek et al., 2019; Fishkin, 1991, Habermas, 2015). Interactivity is a key dimension of deliberative quality, since deliberation is always a reciprocal and dialogical process (Goodin, 2000; Zimmermann, 2017). Participants engage in a dialogic exchange with each other, reflecting on other views and perspectives, and referring to each other (Friess et al., 2021; Ziegele et al., 2020). This reciprocal process includes both responding and listening (Barber, 1984; Graham, 2009). Interactivity is considered essential for desirable effects of deliberation such as learning, tolerance building and opinion change (Estlund & Landmore, 2018; Friess et al., 2021). References/Combination with other methods Besides quantitative content analyses, the (deliberative) quality of online discussions is examined with qualitative content analyses and discourse analyses (e.g., Graham & Witschge, 2003; Price & Capella, 2002). Furthermore, participants’ perceptions of the quality of online discussions are investigated with qualitative interviews (e.g., Engelke, 2019; Ziegele, 2016) or a combination of qualitative interviews and content analy­sis (Díaz Noci et al., 2012). Cross-references Interactivity is one of five dimensions of deliberative quality in this database written by the same author. Accordingly, there are overlaps with the entries on inclusivity, rationality, explicit civility, and storytelling regarding theoretical background, references/combinations with other methods, and some example studies. Information on Esau et al. (2017) Authors: Katharina Esau, Dennis Friess, & Christiane Eilders Research question: “How does platform design affect the level of deliberative quality?” (p. 323) Object of analysis: “We conducted a quantitative content analysis of user comments left in a news forum, on news websites, and on Facebook news pages concerning the same journalistic content on two topics […] A sample of news articles […] with related user comments, was drawn from the online platforms of four German news media […] The first step of the sampling process consisted of 18 news articles from which 3,341 comments were collected […] In the second step for each article, up to 100 sequential comments were randomly selected for content analysis, leading to a total sample of 1,801 comments (979 on Facebook, 591 on news websites, and 231 in the news forum)” (p. 331). Time frame of analysis: December 2015 Info about variables Level of analysis: individual comment Variables and reliability: see Table 1 Table 1: Variables and Reliability (Esau et al., 2017, pp. 332-333): Dimension Measure Definition RCA Cohen’s Kappa Reciprocity General engagement This measure captures whether a comment addresses another comment. .92 - Argumentative engagement This measure captures whether a comment addresses a specific argument made in another comment. .77 .542 Critical engagement This measure captures whether a comment is critical of another comment. .89 - n = 40; 12 coders Values: Dichotomous measures (yes, no) Information on Heinbach & Wilms (2022) Authors: Dominique Heinbach & Lena K. Wilms (Codebook by Dominique Heinbach, Marc Ziegele, & Lena K. Wilms) Research question: Which attributes differentiate moderated from unmoderated comments? Object of analysis: The quantitative content analysis was based on a stratified random sample of moderated and not moderated comments (N = 1.682) from the German online participation platform “#meinfernsehen202” [#myTV2021], a citizen participation platform to discuss the future of public broadcasting in Germany. Time frame of analysis: November 24, 2020 to March 3, 2021 Info about variables Level of analysis: User comment Variables and reliability: see Table 2 Table 2: Variables and reliability (Heinbach & Wilms, 2022) Dimension Measure Definition Krippendorff’s α Reciprocity Reference to other users or to the community Does the comment refer to at least one other user, a group of users, or all users in the community? .78 Reference to the content of other comments Does the comment refer to content, arguments or positions in other comments? .78 Critical reference Does the comment refer to other comments in a critical manner? .86 n = 159, 3 coders Values: All variables were coded on a four-point scale (1 = clearly not present; 2 = rather not present; 3 = rather present; 4 = clearly present). Detailed explanations and examples for each value are provided in the Codebook (in German). Codebook: in the appendix of this entry (in German) Information on Stromer-Galley (2007) Author: Jennifer Stromer-Galley Research question: The aim of the paper was developing a coding scheme for academics and practitioners of deliberation to systematically measure what happens during group deliberations (p. 1; p. 7). Object of analysis: The author conducted a secondary analysis of online group discussions (23 groups with 5-12 participants) in an experiment called “The Virtual Agora Project” at Carnegie Mellon Unversitiy in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Participants attended the discussions from dormitory rooms that were equipped with a computer, headphones, and microphone. The group discussions were recorded and transcribed for analysis (pp. 7-8). Although strictly speaking the study does not analyze media content, the coding scheme has provided the basis for numerous other studies on the deliberative quality of online discussions (e.g., Rowe, 2015; Stroud et al., 2015; Ziegele et al., 2020). Time frame of analysis: Three weeks in July 2004 (p. 7). Info about variables Level of analysis: Level of the turn: Speaking contribution of a participant. Participants had to get “in line” to speak. When a speaker had finished their turn, the software activated the next speaker (max. 3 minutes per turn) (p. 8). Level of the thought: Coders segmented each turn into thought units before coding the categories. “A thought is defined as an utterance (from a single sentence to multiple sentences) that expresses an idea on a topic. A change in topic signaled a change in thought. A second indicator of a change in thought was a change in the type of talk. The distinct types of talk that this coding captured were the following: talk about the problem of public schools, talk about the process of the talk, talk about the process of the deliberation, and social talk” (p. 9). Variables an values: see Table 3 Reliability: “Two coders spent nearly two months developing and training with the coding scheme. The intercoder agreement measures […] were established from coding 3 of the 23 groups, which were randomly selected. […] Cohen’s Kappas of the coding elements described above are as follows: thought statements on the problem of public schools, .95; […] turn type (new topic, continuing self, responding to others) .97; meta-talk, 1.0 […]” (p. 13-14). Codebook: in the appendix (pp. 22-33) Table 3: Variables and values of the dimension “engagement” (Stromer-Galley, 2007, p.12; pp. 24-26). Category Level Description Value Definition Turn-type Turn Identify whether and to whom this turn is referring. Starting a new topic A new topic (not prompted by the moderator). Respond on topic A turn that is in response to a prior speaker or is on a topic that has been discussed. Includes responding to multiple speakers. Respond to moderator A turn that is a response to a prompt or question from the moderator. Continue self A turn that seems not to respond to anything a prior speaker said but to continue the current speaker’s ideas from one of his or her prior turns. Problem Thought Talk about the problem is talk that focuses on the issue under consideration. Question A genuine question directed to another speaker that is trying to seek information or an opinion from others. Metatalk Thought Metatalk is talk about the talk. It attempts to step back and assess what has transpired or is transpiring in the interaction. Consensus Consensus metatalk is talk about the speaker’s sense of consensus of the group (“I think we all agree that . . . .”), including an explanation for the collective’s opinions or the collective’s behavior (We’re asking you these questions because . .). Conflict Highlighting some disagreement or conflict in the group (“I sense some disagreement around . . . .”). Clarify own Clarify the speaker’s own opinion or fact statement (“what I’m trying to say is”). It’s an attempt to clarify what the speaker means. This will arise ONLY after they’ve provided an opinion, NOT a question, and are now trying to clarify their original opinion on the problem, likely because they believe someone has misunderstood them. Clarify other Clarify someone else’s argument/opinion or fact statement (“Sally, so, what you’re saying is . . . “). It is an attempt to clarify what someone else means. Pay attention to the use of another participants’ name. That can be a sign of metatalk of another’s position. Example studies Esau, K., Fleuß, D. & Nienhaus, S.‑M. (2021). Different Arenas, Different Deliberative Quality? Using a Systemic Framework to Evaluate Online Deliberation on Immigration Policy in Germany. Policy & Internet, 13(1), 86–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.232 Esau, K., Friess, D. & Eilders, C. (2017). Design Matters! An Empirical Analysis of Online Deliberation on Different News Platforms. Policy & Internet, 9(3), 321–342. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.154 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.), Digital Communication Research: Bd. 6. Politische Partizipation im Medienwandel (S. 221–245). Friess, D., Ziegele, M. & Heinbach, D. (2021). Collective Civic Moderation for Deliberation? Exploring the Links between Citizens’ Organized Engagement in Comment Sections and the Deliberative Quality of Online Discussions. Political Communication, 38(5), 624–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1830322 Heinbach, D. & Wilms, L. K. (2022): Der Einsatz von Moderation bei #meinfernsehen2021 [The deployment of moderation at #meinfernsehen2021]. In: F. Gerlach, C. Eilders & K. Schmitz (Eds.): #meinfernsehen2021. Partizipationsverfahren zur Zukunft des öffentlich-rechtlichen Fernsehens. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Rowe, I. (2015). Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the Deliberative Quality of Online News User Comments Across Platforms. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(4), 539–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482 Stromer Galley, J. (2007). Measuring Deliberation's Content: A Coding Scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), Article 12. Ziegele, M., Quiring, O., Esau, K. & Friess, D. (2020). Linking News Value Theory With Online Deliberation: How News Factors and Illustration Factors in News Articles Affect the Deliberative Quality of User Discussions in SNS’ Comment Sections. Communication Research, 47(6), 860-890. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218797884 Zimmermann, T. (2017). Digitale Diskussionen: Über politische Partizipation mittels Online-Leserkommentaren. Edition Politik: Bd. 44. transcript Verlag. http://www.content-select.com/index.php?id=bib_view&ean=9783839438886 Further references Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. University of California Press. Díaz Noci, J., Domingo, D., Masip, P., Micó, J. L. & Ruiz, C. (2012). Comments in news, democracy booster or journalistic night­mare: Assessing the quality and dynamics of citizen debates in Catalan online new­spapers. #ISOJ, 2(1), 46–64. https://isoj.org/ wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ISOJ_Jour­nal_V2_N1_2012_Spring.pdf#page=46 Dryzek, J. S., Bächtiger, A., Chambers, S., Cohen, J., Druckman, J. N., Felicetti, A., Fishkin, J. S., Farrell, D. M., Fung, A., Gutmann, A., Landemore, H., Mansbridge, J., Marien, S., Neblo, M. A., Niemeyer, S., Setälä, M., Slothuus, R., Suiter, J., Thompson, D. & Warren, M. E. (2019). The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science (New York, N.Y.), 363(6432), 1144–1146. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2694 Engelke, K. M. (2019). Enriching the Conversation: Audience Perspectives on the Deliberative Nature and Potential of User Comments for News Media. Digital Journalism, 8(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1680567 Estlund, D. & Landemore, H. (2018). The epistemic value of democratic deliberation. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. J. Mansbridge & M. E. Warren (Hrsg.), Oxford handbooks online. The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy: An introduction (S. 113–131). Oxford 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 https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1dt006v Goodin, R. E. (2000). Democratic Deliberation Within. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 29(1), 81–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2000.00081.x Graham, T. (2009). What's Wife Swap got to do with it? Talking politics in the net-based public sphere Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3413.0088 Graham, T. & Witschge, T. (2003). In Search of Online Deliberation: Towards a New Method for Examining the Quality of Online Discussions. Communications, 28(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2003.012 Habermas, J. (2015). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (Reprinted.). Polity Press. Price, V. & Cappella, J. N. (2002). Online deliberation and its influence: The Electronic Dialogue Project in Campaign 2000. IT&Society, 1(1), 303–329. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.9.5945&rep=rep1&type=pdf 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12104 Ziegele, M. (2016). Nutzerkommentare als Anschlusskommunikation: Theorie und qualitative Analyse des Diskussionswerts von Online-Nachrichten [The Discussion Value of Online News. An Analysis of User Comments on News Platforms]. Springer VS.

Inclusivity is a key dimension to assess the deliberative quality of online discussions. In quantitative content analyses, this dimension measures the openness and accessibility of and the equality and diversity within a discussion. Field of application/Theoretical foundation Most studies on online discussions draw on deliberative norms to measure the quality of their discourse (e.g., Esau et al., 2017; Friess et al., 2021; Rowe, 2015; Ziegele et al., 2020; Zimmermann, 2017). Deliberation is an important concept for the study of (political) online discussions (Ziegele et al., 2020). It focuses on a free and equal exchange of arguments to bridge social differences and legitimize political decisions (Dryzek et al., 2019; Fishkin, 1991, Habermas, 2015). Inclusivity or open participation is one of the central criteria of Habermas’ discourse ethics. Deliberative discussions should be open to everyone and all participants should be able to express their attitudes, desires, and needs (Habermas, 2015; Steenbergen et al., 2003). Inclusivity occurs on two levels: On the one hand, it is a matter of open and free access for all citizens, which precedes the actual discussion process (input, Friess & Eilders, 2015). This precondition is often referred to as universalism or openness (Engelke, 2019; Kersting, 2008). In the discussion process itself (troughput, Friess & Eilders, 2015), all voices should have an equal opportunity to be heard and responded to, regardless of factors such as gender, race, or social background. Inclusivity usually implies opinion diversity, since one-sided discussions carry the risk of marginalizing other positions (Habermas, 2006; Manin, 1987; Zimmermann, 2017). References/Combination with other methods Besides quantitative content analyses, the (deliberative) quality of online discussions is examined with qualitative content analyses and discourse analyses (e.g., Graham & Witschge, 2003; Price & Capella, 2002). Furthermore, participants’ perceptions of the quality of online discussions are investigated with qualitative interviews (e.g., Engelke, 2019; Ziegele, 2016) or a combina­tion of qualitative interviews and content analy­sis (Díaz Noci et al., 2012). Cross-references Inclusivity is one of five dimensions of deliberative quality in this database written by the same author. Accordingly, there are overlaps with the entries on rationality, interactivity, explicit civility, and storytelling regarding the theoretical background, references/combinations with other methods, and some example studies. Information on Stromer-Galley (2007) Author: Jennifer Stromer-Galley Research question: The aim of the paper was developing a coding scheme for academics and practitioners of deliberation to systematically measure what happens during group deliberations (p. 1; p. 7). Object of analysis: The author conducted a secondary analysis of online group discussions (23 groups with 5-12 participants) in an experiment called “The Virtual Agora Project” at Carnegie Mellon Unversitiy in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Participants attended the discussions from dormitory rooms that were equipped with a computer, headphones, and microphone. The group discussions were recorded and transcribed for analysis (pp. 7-8). Although strictly speaking the study does not analyze media content, the coding scheme has provided the basis for numerous other studies on the deliberative quality of online discussions (e.g., Rowe, 2015; Stroud et al., 2015; Ziegele et al., 2020). Time frame of analysis: Three weeks in July 2004 (p. 7). Info about variables Level of analysis: Equality was measured on the level of the group discussion as well as on the level of the thought. Coders segmented each speaking contribution into thought units as first stage of the coding process. “A thought is defined as an utterance (from a single sentence to multiple sentences) that expresses an idea on a topic. A change in topic signaled a change in thought. A second indicator of a change in thought was a change in the type of talk. The distinct types of talk that this coding captured were the following: talk about the problem of public schools, talk about the process of the talk, talk about the process of the deliberation, and social talk” (p. 9). Variables and values: For measuring the variable equality, the number of speakers within a group was counted. Furthermore, the thoughts were counted for the number of words per thought. Additionally, the total number of thoughts spoken in a given group was counted (p. 15). Reliability: “Two coders spent nearly two months developing and training with the coding scheme. The intercoder agreement measures […] were established from coding 3 of the 23 groups, which were randomly selected. […] The coders of the unitizing process achieved a statistically significant correlation of .86 (p < .001)” (p. 14). Codebook: in the appendix (pp. 22-33) Information on Zimmermann (2017) Author: Tobias Zimmermann Research question: Which role do online reader comments play for a deliberative-democratic understanding of a digital public sphere? (p. 11) Object of analysis: To compare discursive participation online and offline, the author conducted a full-sample content analysis of online reader comments (N = 1.176) and letters to the editor (N = 381) from German local newspapers on three similar conflicts in local politics concerning the renaming of streets and squares. Because the coding scheme was based on the discourse quality index (DQI), only contributions that contained a demand were included in the analysis, that is, “a proposal on what decision should or should not be made” Steenbergen et al., 2003, p. 27). Only then, a speech act is considered relevant from a discourse ethics perspective. Time frame of analysis: June 2012 to May 2013 Info about variables Level of analysis: see Table 1 Variables: Following Stromer-Galley (2007) and Bächtiger et al. (2010), the author operationalizes participation (egalitarian openness) based on frequency and volume of the comments. Furthermore, the study assigns the comments to a pro or contra side in regard to their content. This allows conclusions regarding the equality of different positions (pp. 161-163). Additionally, based on the DQI (Steenbergen et al., 2003), he included the variable common good reference, because reasoning oriented to common interests represents the most inclusive form of reasoning (pp. 190-191). Reliability: Intracoder reliability was tested on a subset of 100 comments. The variable “common good reference” reached a Krippendorff’s Alpha of .71 (p. 201). Codebook: pp. 159-185 (in German) Table 1: Variables, values and level of analysis (Zimmermann, 2017, p. 163; p. 191) Indicator Category Definition Level of analysis Egalitarian openness Egalitarian openness (a) Length of a comment (or letter to the editor) Individual contribution Egalitarian openness (b) Number of contributions per participant Discussion Egalitarian openness (c) Number of contributions per thematic position Discussion Common good reference No common good reference No reference to the common good is explicitly made Individual contribution Explicit common good reference The contribution includes at least one explicit reference to the common good (utilitarian or disadvantaged-oriented) Individual contribution Example studies Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Micó, J. L., Díaz-Noci, J., Meso, C. & Masip, P. (2011). Public Sphere 2.0? The Democratic Qualities of Citizen Debates in Online Newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16, 463–487. Stromer Galley, J. (2007). Measuring Deliberation's Content: A Coding Scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), Article 12. Ziegele, M., Quiring, O., Esau, K. & Friess, D. (2020). Linking News Value Theory With Online Deliberation: How News Factors and Illustration Factors in News Articles Affect the Deliberative Quality of User Discussions in SNS’ Comment Sections. Communication Research, 47(6), 860-890. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218797884 Zimmermann, T. (2017). Digitale Diskussionen: Über politische Partizipation mittels Online-Leserkommentaren [Digital discussions: On political participation trough online reader comments]. Edition Politik: Bd. 44. transcript Verlag. http://www.content-select.com/index.php?id=bib_view&ean=9783839438886 Further references Bächtiger, A., Shikano, S., Pedrini, S. & Ryser, M. (2010). Measuring Deliberation 2.0: Standards, Discourse Types, and Sequentialization. University of Konstanz and University of Bern. https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/baechtiger_0.pdf Díaz Noci, J., Domingo, D., Masip, P., Micó, J. L. & Ruiz, C. (2012). Comments in news, democracy booster or journalistic night­mare: Assessing the quality and dynamics of citizen debates in Catalan online new­spapers. #ISOJ, 2(1), 46–64. https://isoj.org/ wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ISOJ_Jour­nal_V2_N1_2012_Spring.pdf#page=46 Dryzek, J. S., Bächtiger, A., Chambers, S., Cohen, J., Druckman, J. N., Felicetti, A., Fishkin, J. S., Farrell, D. M., Fung, A., Gutmann, A., Landemore, H., Mansbridge, J., Marien, S., Neblo, M. A., Niemeyer, S., Setälä, M., Slothuus, R., Suiter, J., Thompson, D. & Warren, M. E. (2019). The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science (New York, N.Y.), 363(6432), 1144–1146. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2694 Engelke, K. M. (2019). Enriching the Conversation: Audience Perspectives on the Deliberative Nature and Potential of User Comments for News Media. Digital Journalism, 8(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1680567 Esau, K., Friess, D. & Eilders, C. (2017). Design Matters! An Empirical Analysis of Online Deliberation on Different News Platforms. Policy & Internet, 9(3), 321–342. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.154 Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. Yale University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/j.ctt1dt006v https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1dt006v Friess, D. & Eilders, C. (2015). A systematic review of online deliberation research. Policy & Internet, 7(3), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.95 Friess, D., Ziegele, M. & Heinbach, D. (2021). Collective Civic Moderation for Deliberation? Exploring the Links between Citizens’ Organized Engagement in Comment Sections and the Deliberative Quality of Online Discussions. Political Communication, 38(5), 624–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1830322 Graham, T. & Witschge, T. (2003). In Search of Online Deliberation: Towards a New Method for Examining the Quality of Online Discussions. Communications, 28(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2003.012 Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411–426. Habermas, J. (2015). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (Reprinted.). Polity Press. Kersting, N. (2008). Innovative Partizipation: Legitimation, Machtkontrolle und Transformation. Eine Einführung [Innovative participation. Legitimation, control of power, and transformation. An introduction]. In N. Kersting (Hrsg.), Politische Beteiligung: Einführung in dialogorientierte Instrumente politischer und gesellschaftlicher Partizipation (S. 11–39). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Manin, B. (1987). On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation. Political Theory, 15(3), 338–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591787015003005 Price, V. & Cappella, J. N. (2002). Online deliberation and its influence: The Electronic Dialogue Project in Campaign 2000. IT&Society, 1(1), 303–329. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.9.5945&rep=rep1&type=pdf Rowe, I. (2015). Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the Deliberative Quality of Online News User Comments Across Platforms. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(4), 539–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482 Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M. & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index. Comparative European Politics, 1(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002 Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., Muddiman, A., & Curry, A. L. (2015). Changing Deliberative Norms on News Organizations' Facebook Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 188–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12104 Ziegele, M. (2016). Nutzerkommentare als Anschlusskommunikation: Theorie und qualitative Analyse des Diskussionswerts von Online-Nachrichten [The Discussion Value of Online News. An Analysis of User Comments on News Platforms]. Springer VS.

Rationality is considered the most important dimension to assess the deliberative quality of online discussions. In quantitative content analyses, it is usually measured with a set of variables, including (among others) reasoning, justification, fact claims, evidence, additional knowledge, and topic relevance. Field of application/Theoretical foundation Most studies on online discussions draw on deliberative theories to measure the quality of their discourse (e.g., Esau et al., 2017; Friess et al., 2021; Rowe, 2015; Ziegele et al., 2020; Zimmermann, 2017). Deliberation is an important concept for the study of (political) online discussions (Ziegele et al., 2020). It focuses on a free and equal exchange of arguments to bridge social differences and legitimize political decisions (Dryzek et al., 2019; Fishkin, 1991, Habermas, 2015). Rationality is considered the most important dimension of deliberative quality, which is inherent in most conceptualizations (Frieß & Eilders, 2015). Rationality is primarily about reasoning, justifications, and facts (Engelke, 2019). Discussion participants should provide justifications and evidence to support their positions (Friess et al., 2021). These reasons and arguments must be both criticizable and verifiable or falsifiable (Esterling, 2011; Habermas, 1995). Counterarguments and different perspectives should also be included (Engelke, 2019; Ziegele et al., 2020). This allows the elaboration of the best arguments in the deliberation process and an informed opinion formation based on these arguments (“the unforced force of the better argument”, Habermas, 2015). A rational discourse and a constructive discussion atmosphere are also considered necessary for reaching a rationally motivated consensus, a central aim of formal deliberation (Cohen, 1989; Friess & Eilders, 2015; Stromer-Galley, 2007). References/Combination with other methods Besides quantitative content analyses, the (deliberative) quality of online discussions is examined with qualitative content analyses and discourse analyses (e.g., Graham & Witschge, 2003; Price & Capella, 2002). Furthermore, participants’ perceptions of the quality of online discussions are investigated with qualitative interviews (e.g., Engelke, 2019; Ziegele, 2016) or a combination of qualitative interviews and content analysis (Díaz Noci et al., 2012). Cross-references Rationality is one of five dimensions of deliberative quality in this database written by the same author. Accordingly, there are overlaps with the entries on interactivity, inclusivity, explicit civility, and storytelling regarding theoretical background, references/combinations with other methods, and some example studies. Information on Heinbach & Wilms (2022) Authors: Dominique Heinbach & Lena K. Wilms (Codebook by Dominique Heinbach, Marc Ziegele, & Lena K. Wilms) Research question: Which attributes differentiate moderated from unmoderated comments? Object of analysis: The quantitative content analysis was based on a stratified random sample of moderated and unmoderated comments (N = 1.682) from the German online participation platform “#meinfernsehen202” [#myTV2021], a citizen participation platform to discuss the future of public broadcasting in Germany. Time frame of analysis: November 24, 2020 to March 3, 2021 Info about variables Level of analysis: User comment Variables and reliability: see Table 1 Table 1: Variables and reliability (Heinbach & Wilms, 2022) Dimension Measure Definition Krippendorff’s α (ordinal) Rationality Topic relevance Does the comment refer to the topic of the post? .70 Fact claims Does the comment contain at least one objectively falsifiable statement with a claim to truth? .78 Reasoning Does the comment contain at least one justification to support a statement (e.g., an assertion, opinion, or claim)? .73 Solution proposal Does the comment contain at least one suggestion on how to resolve problems or issues? .75 Additional knowledge Does the comment contain additional information that is of a knowledge nature of and adds content-related value? .72 Genuine questions Does the comment contain at least one question with a genuine need for information, e.g. questions of knowledge, understanding, justification or opinion? .75 n = 159, 3 coders Values: All variables were coded on a four-point scale (1 = clearly not present; 2 = rather not present; 3 = rather present; 4 = clearly present). Detailed explanations and examples for each value are provided in the Codebook (in German). Codebook: in the appendix of this entry (in German) Information on Zimmermann (2017) Author: Tobias Zimmermann Research question: Which role do online reader comments play for a deliberative-democratic understanding of a digital public sphere? (p. 11) Object of analysis: To compare discursive participation online and offline, the author conducted a full-sample content analysis of online reader comments (N = 1.176) and letters to the editor (N = 381) from German local newspapers on three similar conflicts in local politics concerning the renaming of streets and squares. Because the coding scheme was based on the discourse quality index (DQI), only contributions that contained a demand were included in the analysis, that is, “a proposal on what decision should or should not be made” Steenbergen et al., 2003, p. 27). Only then, a speech act is considered relevant from a discourse ethics perspective. Time frame of analysis: June 2012 to May 2013 Info about variables Variables: Based on the DQI (Steenbergen et al., 2003) the author operationalizes the level of justification as an indicator for rationality. This variable distinguishes four levels of justification (p. 164). Besides the ordinal variable “Level of justification”, the author also uses a dichotomous measurement to distinguish between substantiated and unsubstantiated claims. Level of analysis: Individual contribution Values: see Table 2 Table 2: Variables and Values (pp. 163-166; p. 188) Variable Value Definition Level of Justification No justification The author makes a demand without justifying it argumentatively. The demand stands for itself. Indirect justification The author introduces an argument but its connection to the demand is incomplete, or its justification is not falsifiable. Qualified justification An argument substantiates a demand. A (falsifiable) link is made as to why one should expect that X contributes to or detracts from Y. Detailed justification At least two complete justifications are given, either two complete justifications for the same demand or complete justifications for two different demands (broad justification). Or one justification explains the represented position in depth from several points of view (deep justification). Justification No justification A user makes a demand that X should (not) be done or happen without giving a justification. Justification A user substantiates a demand why X should (not) be done or happen. Reliability: Intracoder reliability was tested on a subset of 100 comments. The ordinal variable “level of justification” exceeded a Krippendorff’s Alpha above .73. The dichotomous variable “justification” reached a Krippendorff’s Alpha of .75 (p. 200-201). Codebook: pp. 159-185 (in German) Information on Ziegele et al. (2020) Authors: Marc Ziegele, Oliver Quiring, Katharina Esau, & Dennis Friess Research questions: RQ1: “Which news factors predict the civility and rationality of reactive user comments?” (p. 869) RQ3: “Which illustration factors predict civil and rational reactive user comments?” (p. 871) Object of analysis: The quantitative content analysis was based on a sample of top-level comments (i.e., comments responding to the article) from the Facebook pages of nine established German news media outlets (N = 11.218). Three artificial weeks were constructed for the sampling of news articles and user comments. On each access day, three or four news articles and the corresponding user comments were randomly selected from each news page. Then, for each article, the oldest five top-level comments, the most recent five top-level comments, five random top-level comments from the middle of the discussion, and the five most popular comments were selected (20 comments per article) (pp. 872-873). Time frame of analysis: May 2015 to August 2015 Info about variables Level of analysis: User comment Variables and reliability: see Table 3 Table 3: Variables and reliability (p. 874) Dimension Measure Definition Krippendorff’s α Rationality Topic relevance Is the comment on-topic? .67 Balance Does the comment include a balanced view on the commented issue? .74 Additional knowledge Does the comment contain additional knowledge? .79 Elaboration Does the comment appear elaborate to the coders? .81 Arguments Does the comment provide reasons for its claims? .74 Analytical Does the comment analyze the background of the issue at hand? .70 Factual claims Does the comment provide facts and factual claims? .72 Questions Does the comment include genuine questions? .80 n = 100, 9 coders Values: “Each factor was coded on 3-point scales (0 = absent, 1 = sporadically present, 2 = highly present)” (p. 874). Example studies Esau, K., Fleuß, D. & Nienhaus, S.‑M. (2021). Different Arenas, Different Deliberative Quality? Using a Systemic Framework to Evaluate Online Deliberation on Immigration Policy in Germany. Policy & Internet, 13(1), 86–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.232 Esau, K., Friess, D. & Eilders, C. (2017). Design Matters! An Empirical Analysis of Online Deliberation on Different News Platforms. Policy & Internet, 9(3), 321–342. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.154 Friess, D., Ziegele, M. & Heinbach, D. (2021). Collective Civic Moderation for Deliberation? Exploring the Links between Citizens’ Organized Engagement in Comment Sections and the Deliberative Quality of Online Discussions. Political Communication, 38(5), 624–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1830322 Heinbach, D. & Wilms, L. K. (2022): Der Einsatz von Moderation bei #meinfernsehen2021 [The deployment of moderation at #meinfernsehen2021]. In: F. Gerlach, C. Eilders & K. Schmitz (Eds.): #meinfernsehen2021. Partizipationsverfahren zur Zukunft des öffentlich-rechtlichen Fernsehens. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Monnoyer-Smith, L. & Wojcik, S. (2012). Technology and the quality of public deliberation: a comparison between on and offline participation. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 5(1), Artikel 47443, 24. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEG.2012.047443 Rowe, I. (2015). Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the Deliberative Quality of Online News User Comments Across Platforms. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(4), 539–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482 Stromer Galley, J. (2007). Measuring Deliberation's Content: A Coding Scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), Article 12. Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., Muddiman, A. & Curry, A. L. (2015). Changing Deliberative Norms on News Organizations' Facebook Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 188–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12104 Ziegele, M., Quiring, O., Esau, K. & Friess, D. (2020). Linking News Value Theory With Online Deliberation: How News Factors and Illustration Factors in News Articles Affect the Deliberative Quality of User Discussions in SNS’ Comment Sections. Communication Research, 47(6), 860-890. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218797884 Zimmermann, T. (2017). Digitale Diskussionen: Über politische Partizipation mittels Online-Leserkommentaren. Edition Politik: Bd. 44. transcript Verlag. http://www.content-select.com/index.php?id=bib_view&ean=9783839438886 Further references Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In A. P. Hamlin & P. Pettit (Hrsg.), The good polity: Normative analysis of the state (S. 67–92). Blackwell. Díaz Noci, J., Domingo, D., Masip, P., Micó, J. L. & Ruiz, C. (2012). Comments in news, democracy booster or journalistic nightmare: Assessing the quality and dynamics of citizen debates in Catalan online newspapers. #ISOJ, 2(1), 46–64. https://isoj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ISOJ_Journal_V2_N1_2012_Spring.pdf#page=46 Dryzek, J. S., Bächtiger, A., Chambers, S., Cohen, J., Druckman, J. N., Felicetti, A., Fishkin, J. S., Farrell, D. M., Fung, A., Gutmann, A., Landemore, H., Mansbridge, J., Marien, S., Neblo, M. A., Niemeyer, S., Setälä, M., Slothuus, R., Suiter, J., Thompson, D. & Warren, M. E. (2019). The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science (New York, N.Y.), 363(6432), 1144–1146. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2694 Engelke, K. M. (2019). Enriching the Conversation: Audience Perspectives on the Deliberative Nature and Potential of User Comments for News Media. Digital Journalism, 8(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1680567 Esterling, K. M. (2011). “Deliberative Disagreement” in U.S. Health Policy Committee Hearings. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36(2), 169–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-9162.2011.00010.x Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. Yale University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/j.ctt1dt006v https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1dt006v Friess, D. & Eilders, C. (2015). A systematic review of online deliberation research. Policy & Internet, 7(3), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.95 Graham, T. & Witschge, T. (2003). In Search of Online Deliberation: Towards a New Method for Examining the Quality of Online Discussions. Communications, 28(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2003.012 Habermas, J. (2015). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (Reprinted.). Polity Press. Price, V. & Cappella, J. N. (2002). Online deliberation and its influence: The Electronic Dialogue Project in Campaign 2000. IT&Society, 1(1), 303–329. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.9.5945&rep=rep1&type=pdf Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M. & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index. Comparative European Politics, 1(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002 Ziegele, M. (2016). Nutzerkommentare als Anschlusskommunikation: Theorie und qualitative Analyse des Diskussionswerts von Online-Nachrichten [The Discussion Value of Online News. An Analysis of User Comments on News Platforms]. Springer VS.