The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measuring Deliberation’s Content: A Coding Scheme
Open accessAbstract
This paper details a content analysis scheme to measure the quality of political deliberation in face-to-face and online groups. Much of deliberation research studies the outcomes of deliberation, but there has been a lack of analysis of what groups actually do when tasked with deliberating. The coding scheme was developed out of the theoretical literature on deliberation and further enhanced by the empirical literature on small groups, deliberation, online political talk, and conversation analysis. Strict standards for creating coding schemes were followed to ensure a valid and reliable coding process. Results of the coding of deliberations on the topic of public schools suggest that participants produced a fairly high level of reasoned opinion expression, but not necessarily on the topic which they were asked to deliberate. It is hoped that the code scheme can be utilized by practitioners and researchers of political and social deliberations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Content Analysis Guidebook
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017) · doi:10.4135/9781071802878 · Cited by 9,286 · cited 1×
“The data used to t est the coding scheme came from the Virtual Agora Project, in which Pittsburgh, PA residents deliberate d school policy (Muhlberger, 2005) . The coding procedure followed rigorous standards for content analysis as described by Neuendorf (2002) and Krippendor ff (2003) , including establishing a code…”
Method
Cited by
Online and Uncivil? Patterns and Determinants of Incivility in Newspaper Website Comments
Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/jcom.12104 · Cited by 964
Halpern, D., & Gibbs, J. (2013) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.008 · Cited by 631
Rossini, P. (2022) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650220921314 · Cited by 312
Changing Deliberative Norms on News Organizations' Facebook Sites
Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., Muddiman, A., & Curry, A. L. (2015) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/jcc4.12104 · Cited by 276
Public deliberation on government-managed social media: A study on Weibo users in China
Medaglia, R., & Zhu, D. (2017) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2017.05.003 · Cited by 114
Metadata
- Authors
- Stromer-Galley, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Deliberative Democracy
- Publisher
- University of Westminster Press
- Published
- 2007-07-06
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 1937-2841 (ISSN-L)
- 2634-0488
- OpenAlex
- W2561060463
- Cited by
- 349
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 31.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring Deliberation’s Content: A Coding Scheme. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.16997/jdd.50
- The paper
- Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring Deliberation’s Content: A Coding Scheme. Journal of Deliberative Democracy. https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.50
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.