Behind the interface: Human moderation for deliberative engagement in an eRulemaking discussion

an article by Chaebong Nam (Harvard University, USA) published in Government Information Quarterly Volume 37 Issue 1 (January 2020)

Highlights

• Crosscutting interaction was used as a proxy indicator to measure deliberativeness.
• Discussion was heated across three different interest groups: debt collectors, consumers, and others.
• RegulationRoom adopted neutrally engaged and expertise-based facilitative moderation for public policy discussion.
• The results of the comment- and commenter-level network analyses presented that the RegulationRoom moderator played a pivotal role in facilitating active discussion, encouraging both within-group and between-group (crosscutting) interactions among participants.
• Diffusion of social innovation such as RegulationRoom requires not only technological progress but also social, cultural, and organizational change, both inside and outside the rulemaking context.

Abstract

RegulationRoom was an online discussion platform designed to help stakeholders historically missing from the conventional rulemaking processes, such as ordinary citizens and small businesses, engage in thoughtful and informed discussion about a proposed rule. To achieve the goal, RegulationRoom adopted a neutrally engaged and expertise-based facilatative moderation system.

The RegulationRoom moderator helped commenters better understand the topic, engage in the discussion more effectively, consider opposing views, and substantiate their own comments.

In this study, employing social network analysis (SNA), I analysed one discussion hosted by RegulationRoom on a debt collection policy. I used crosscutting interaction between different interest groups as a proxy indicator to measure deliberativeness.

The results showed that the RegulationRoom moderator played a pivotal role in facilitating active discussion, encouraging both within-group and between-group (crosscutting) interactions.

Further research needs to be done to illuminate what moderation strategies are most effective in encouraging crosscutting interaction, how the quality of comments (or participation) is improved, and what roles the moderator plays in the process.

RegulationRoom also showed that the diffusion of social innovation is not so much a matter of technological progress alone as of social, cultural, and organisational change, both inside and outside the rulemaking context.

Full text (PDF 13pp)

Hazel’s comment:
The RegulationRoom is no more. The site still exists but has not been updated in nearly a year nor has the blog.
It seems like a good idea although I would be concerned about people who cannot participate because of lack of internet access or inability to understand the issues.

Labels:
eRulemaking, public_participation, online_deliberation, moderation, crosscutting_interaction, deliberative_democracy, social_network_analysis,

---