Mercea, D., Lekakis, E. Nixon, P. (2013). Taking stock: a meta-analysis of the virtual public [601464]

Mercea, D., Lekakis, E. & Nixon, P. (2013). "Taking stock: a meta-analysis of the virtual public
sphere in communication journals". In: P. Nixon, R. Rawa l & D. Mercea (Eds.), Politics and the
Internet in Comparative Context: Views from the Clou d. Routledge Research in Political
Communication. (pp. 10-26). Oxford: Routledge. ISBN [anonimizat]
City Research Online
Original citation : Mercea, D., Lekakis, E. & Nixon, P. (2013). "Taking sto ck: a meta-analysis of the
virtual public sphere in communication journals". In: P. Nixon, R. Rawal & D. Mercea (Eds.), Politics
and the Internet in Comparative Context: Views from the Cloud. Routledge Research in Political
Communication. (pp. 10-26). Oxford: Routledge. ISBN [anonimizat]
Permanent City Research Online URL : http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/3050/

Copyright & reuse
City University London has developed City Research Onl ine so that its users may access the
research outputs of City University London's staff. Cop yright © and Moral Rights for this paper are
retained by the individual author(s) and/ or other cop yright holders. All material in City Research
Online is checked for eligibility for copyright before being made available in the live archive. URLs
from City Research Online may be freely distributed an d linked to from other web pages.
Versions of research
The version in City Research Online may differ from the final published version. Users are advised
to check the Permanent City Research Online URL above for the status of the paper.
Enquiries
If you have any enquiries about any aspect of City Research Online, or if you wish to make contact
with the author(s) of this paper, please email the te am at [anonimizat] .

1

Taking stock: A Meta-Analysis of the Virtual Public Sphere in Commu nication Journals
Dan Mercea, Eleftheria Lekakis and Paul G. Nixon
Paul Nixon, Rajash Rawal and Dan Mercea (eds.) (2013) Views from the Cloud:Politics, Citizens and
the Internet in Comparative Perspective , London: Routledge

The virtual public sphere is coming of age as a guiding concept for the scholarship that has mapped
out online political deliberation. In this chapter we cros s-examine the treatment of the concept in
communication journals over the past decade. We focus on aspects of the virtual public sphere that
have come under systematic scrutiny: access and inclusion , locality, fragmentation and power
differentials. Debates around the existence of a potential re invigorating relationship between new
media and the public sphere have been proliferating since the mid-1990s. Yet they have not aligned
towards a coherent and informed overarching argument. )izi PapaĐhaƌissi͛s ;ϮϬϬϮͿ aƌtiĐle oŶ the
virtual public sphere has arguably become nothing short of a landmark within political
communication research. Interrogating the mediation of poli tical engagement by information and
communication technologies (ICTs), ͛The ǀiƌtual spheƌe: the iŶteƌŶet as a puďliĐ spheƌe͛ ǁas iŶ JuŶe
2012 the most cited article published in New Media and Society .
This chapter is a meta-analysis of the scholarship that has emerged on the virtual public
spheƌe iŶ ĐoŵŵuŶiĐatioŶ jouƌŶals iŶ the deĐade siŶĐe the puďliĐatioŶ of PapaĐhaƌissi͛s pieĐe. We
adopt the teƌŵ ͚ǀiƌtual puďliĐ sphere ͛ for the sake of consistency with the terminology deploye d in
the key primary reference. The journals at the heart of thi s analysis are all listed in the
ĐoŵŵuŶiĐatioŶ studies seĐtioŶ of the ThoŵsoŶ͛s “oĐial “ ĐieŶĐe Citation Index (TSSI) and are
published in English. They are generalist communication journals by virtue of their stated mission .
They a) span a broad variety of social scientific discipli nary areas; b) are not focused on a narrowly
drawn subject matter (e.g. journalism, language use, media economics, personal relationships,
public relations, social interaction, the communication of s cience and technology, visual
communication); and c) cover either empirical or theoreti cal aspects geared towards theory-building
in the field of communication studies. On the basis of thi s filtering principle, 20 journals were
selected for the purpose of this paperi. A search among the selected TSSI communication journals for
articles that referred to the concept of the public sphere in their abstracts or key words (N=136)
yielded 49 items which embed the public sphere in computer-medi ated communication. Our choice

2
to review articles from Thomson indexed journals stems from a cognizance of the status value the
index bestows on publications and the attendant sway they h ave on a disciplinary field (Amin &
Mabe, 2000). Nonetheless, we remain critical of the inde x itself for reasons outlined elsewhere
(Pauly and Stergiou, 2005 ).
We are at no point intimating that the analyses we encountered reflected directly on
PapaĐhaƌissi͛s pieĐe. What ǁe pƌopose is aŶ edžaŵiŶatioŶ that ƌ eǀisit s the concerns and expectations
she has raised. First and foremost, we seek to provide a comprehensive picture of the virtual public
sphere as it emerges from the scientific conversations f ostered by these journals. Deliberation has
been extoled as the cornerstone of democratic governance ( Blumler & Coleman, 2009), virtuous for
its educational qualities as well as for the possibility to r ender politics more tolerant, transparent
and accountable (Blumler & Gurevitch, 2001; Dahlgren, 200 9). We note here the high density of
theoretical pieces that reflect and propose revisions to the conceptual framework delineated by
Habermas (1989). Below we also afford careful consideratio n to empirical treatments that are
particularly meritorious for grounding and refining a theoretical model singled out for its unworldly
detachment (Huspek, 2007a ). We have taken a special interest in examinations of social media
which seem scarce in the scholarship on the public sphe re despite the interest these have raised in
the literature on democratic participation (see for example Loader and Mercea, 2012 ). We note the
increasing prevalence of social media as an additional cond uit for deliberation within a changing
virtual public sphere which seems to be somewhat overlo oked in the majority of the case study
articles.
It can hardly be an overstatement to say that the body of rese arch examining the
participatory virtues and pitfalls of the polymorphous commu nication ecology fostered by ICTs is
both impressive and daunting. If one were to undertake an archaeological excavation of that ecology
with the toolkit provided by Jussi Parikka (2012), a g reat flurry of scholarly intersections, cross-
fertilizations and critical re-positionings would readily c ome to the fore. Herein, we attempt a review
together with a critique of the arguments surrounding the v irtual public sphere by way of a cross-
examination departing from the following collection of po ints of deliberation articulated by
Papacharissi (2002, 2010) .
We begin by tracking the trajectory of research which h as considered the demographic and
thematic composition of the space for political discussi on spun out of networked communication.
Second, we reflect on the quality of such discussion par ticularly in terms of the civility and tolerance
that of necessity underpin participation in the public spher e. Third, we reconsider the balance of
power that pits together the concentrated special interests of internet entrepreneurs and the
cacophony of concerns pursued by an inordinate number o f subgroups that populate the general

3
public. These critical identifiable elements are part of a l arger body of literature within
communication science centred on issues of access and inclusion, notions of public and private,
singularity and fragmentation or locality and scale (c.f. Calhoun, 2003; Curran, 1991; Dahlgren, 1995;
Fraser, 1992; Goode, 2005; Keane, 1991) on which this chapter can only in passing touch upon.
From the outset, we have been highly cognizant that a study of this size cannot do complete
justice to the extensiveness and depth of the studies we h ave scrutinized. With this undertaking, we
solely seek to call attention to the consolidation of theore tical and empirical evidence which frames
discussions on the potentialities and hindrances of ICTs f or the articulation of deliberative
democratic participation. In line with the reviewed articles, we focus chiefly on technologically
saturated societies where institutional politics are in crisi s. Nonetheless, we recognize an
epistemological limitation in the almost exclusive confinem ent of the remit of those articles to the
English-speaking countries of the North-Atlantic rim (c. f. Dahan, 2007; Ndlela, 2007).

The Mediation of the Public Sphere

Before embarking on an examination of the three topics at the heart of this piece -the
composition, civility and the power differentials in the virtual public sphere- we pay heed to an
argument that illustrates just how divergent considerations on the notion of public sphere ma y be.
We haǀe ďeeŶ foƌeǁaƌŶed that the puďliĐ spheƌe ͚alǁaLJs appe aƌs, Ŷeǀeƌ is͛ ; Sinekopova, 2006: 517).
In spite of successive revisions to the concept carrie d out by Habermas himself aimed at softening its
normative character, instead portraying it as a more fluid as well as more fragmented field for
deliberation (1998), the public sphere remains epistemol ogically disputed. Illustratively, it stands
aĐĐused of haƌďouƌiŶg a Ŷuŵďeƌ of ͚ƌhetoƌiĐal ďiases͛ ǁ hiĐh, iŶ the ĐoŶteŵpoƌaƌLJ ICT ecology,
ƌeŶdeƌ it a ͚statiĐ͛ ĐoŶĐept ill -equipped to capture the contraction of time in online inter action
(2006:215). Reflecting on these crippling premises of the concept, Sinekopova (2006) advocates
renewed sensitivity for mediation; not only that performe d by media institutions (which have de
facto been a staple of research on public deliberation, Blu mler and Gurevitch, 1995 ) but particularl y
of those facilitated by ICTs. Media institutions have been singled out as a hindrance to the
enactment of deliberative democratic participation due to thei r collusion with special interests and
political elites (Huspek, 2007b). Normative re-mediation s proposed for addressing the inclusiveness
of the public sphere have advocated a (self) regulatory re sponse directed at levelling the mediated
playing field so that the media attain autonomy from outlying p owerful influences and their
facilitative function is restored (Habermas, 2006: 419-20; Huspek, 2007b:330).

4
Alongside this, ICTs have been vested with a transformativ e role in as far as they facilitate a
perpetual rediscovery of the public sphere, a process o f rhetorical articulation of individual
subjectivities into publics . ICTs have been seen to chime with the late-modern rise o f reflexive
individual identities (Giddens, 1991; Bennett, 2003). By that token, they have been portrayed as
closely entwined with reassertions of autonomous publi cs acting as a corrective on the expressive
power differential created by the media (Hauser, 2007). Countervailing claims pertaining to the
fragmentation and specialization of deliberative engagement t o the exclusion of the apathetic
͚aǀeƌage ĐitizeŶ͛ haǀe ďeeŶ brought into relief by ICTs (Habermas, 2006). Indeed, Muhlberger (2005:
170) has contended th at ͞ƌeseaƌĐheƌs of the puďliĐ spheƌe Ŷeed to ĐoŶsideƌ the possiďilitLJ that the
public sphere has not grown dramatically because most peopl e simply are not interested in political
aŶd soĐial affaiƌs͟. An attendant delegitimation of participatory opinion formation due to such
limitations on inclusiveness (Habermas, 2006) is reviewe d below.

The virtual public sphere: access
A pressing question a decade ago was whether the kaleidos cope of political views and interests
accommodated by liberal democracies can be faithfully repr esented in the virtual public sphere.
Papacharissi (2002) drew attention to the fragmented nature o f the emerging public space, pointing
out that it may continue to be exclusionary as much as the bou rgeois public sphere was seen to be
(Fraser, 1992) whilst concurrently becoming increasing ly dominated by powerful commercial
interests. Considering the question of access to the vi rtual public sphere, Papacharissi argued that
ICTs remained largely inaccessible to large swathes of the population in rich but particularly in poor
countries (see also Norris, 2001). If networked commun ication has become more affordable and
thus more accessible in the last decade, a lingering issue is whether those people who would benefit
the most from an expansion in bandwidth for information r etrieval and deliberation (Howcroft,
1999), the socio-economically and politically marginalized , have had the possibility to realize that
potential.
A series of authors have identified focal points of critic ality towards the digital manifestation
of the public sphere . They have highlighted a Western-centric (cf. Cammaerts an d Van Audenhoven,
2005; Ndlela, 2007), whilst emphasising that particularly g ender remained a crucial parameter of
uneven access to electronic deliberation (Rakow, 1988; S hifman and Lemish, 2011). This argument
has resonated with the critique that the conceptualisation of th e public sphere has occurred at the
expense of excluded voices due to the equation of the stat e apparatus with the discursive space of
the public sphere (cf. Fraser, 1990; Landes, 1992; McL aughlin, 1993). In this view, the public sphere

5
has been the official political realm where a succession o f powerful political and economic elites
preclude the voicing of alternative views which do not r einforce the entrenched distribution of
power.

This ostensible alignment between state and the public sp here has been confronted as a
question of agency (in terms of the equal opportunities to participate beyond state recognition ,
Dahlgren, 20 09) as well as of physical space. Hampton et al . (2010) have argued that whist
networked communication may catalyse more extensive parti cipation in the public sphere, it might
be at a cost of decreased participation in public spaces suc h as streets, parks, squares. Contrasting
the immateriality of the public sphere, the public spaces that Hampton and his colleagues
considered were specifically those urban settings where both planned and chance social interaction
may occur. Such social contact may ͚minimise the segregation of people based on lifestyles : values,
opinions, gender, race, ethnicity, stage in the life cou rse and other foƌŵs of diǀeƌsitLJ͛ ; 2010:702).
Their article examined the use in US public spaces of increasingly more widely available wireless
connectivity both through hotspots and 3G networks (see al so Nielsen, 2012).
Conversely, it has been proposed that mobile communicatio n may prompt a firm embedding
in public space as well as user engagement with strangers if it serves to collect information and to
ĐooƌdiŶate oŶe͛s affaiƌs ;Caŵ pbell and Kwak, 2011). Coordination meant that people were ab le to
organize their affairs on the go, simultaneously increasing their presence in public spaces as well as
their availability to converse with strangers (2011:217). Nonetheless, if used for remote relationship
maintenance with friends and family (2011:218), mobile tec hnologies appeared to produce the
disconnection effect described by Hampton et al . (2010). Ultimately, only more empirical research
could settle the question of whether the prerequisites for functional deliberative democracy of both
individual social network and oŶe͛s edžposuƌe to soĐial diǀeƌsitLJ (Scheufele et al ., 2004; Scheufele et
al., 2006) are met in the networked communication of publ ic spaces; realized through the plurality
of both online as well as co-located interactions.
The most prominent users of the mobile technology und erpinning public space networked
communication are regarded to be young people . Drawing on ICTs, their communication practices
are challenging established notions of civic participatio n (Bennett et al ., 2011; Loader, 2007; Nixon
2004) . YouŶg people͛s strong presence online could arguably represent an oppo rtunity for civic
organisations to induct young citizens into the fundamentals of civic participation. However, notions
of ǁhat ĐoŶstitutes ͚ǀiƌtuous͛ ĐitizeŶship ǀaƌLJ ďetǁeeŶ Điǀ iĐ oƌ ganisations that address the younger
generation whilst predominant among them seems to be a comm unication model that rests on top-
down content dissemination and an emphasis on participation i n institutional politics (Bennett et al .,

6
2011:840). Bennett and his colleagues propose that ͚ŵoƌe peƌsoŶallLJ Đƌeatiǀe aŶd edžpƌessiǀe
opportunities for civic engagement can be offered to res onate with the lucidity of LJouŶg people͛s
actions online. To that end, civic organisations would have to tone down an apparent compulsion to
closely manage relationships with their publics' (emphasis added, 2011:851; see also Ward, 2012) ).
Ultimately, these organisations may have a better chance o f boosting youth civic participation if they
are able to make their content available to young people thr ough social media whilst concurrently
incentivizing them to socialise around that content (e.g. to distribute and discuss it with peers, see
Valenzula et al ., 2012). Such calls are echoed and amplified by researc h on pathways towards
potential reconnections of the politically peripheral actors that are young women from poor socio-
economic backgrounds (Geniets, 2010 ).

Fragmentation

In spite of searches, such as the one above, for technol ogical fixes to participation in the virtual
public sphere, one of its inherent weaknesses may stem from its fragmentation in terms of the
breadth and density of outlets that it comprises. Public de liberation has been characterized by a n
overabundance of information, a great diversity among stakeholders and a mounting mediation of
information that targets them (cf. Bennett and Entman, 2001). Indeed, there has been vocal
appƌeheŶsioŶ, iŶĐludiŶg fƌoŵ Haďeƌŵas, aďout ͚the ĐoŶ tents and formats of a degenerating kind of
politiĐal ĐoŵŵuŶiĐatioŶ͛ peƌsoŶified ďLJ estaďlished ŵedi a outlets suĐh as radio and television
(Habermas, 2006: 422) and their ICT-based franchises. The mediation of information appears to be
debilitating for deliberation because of it acting as a drive r for fragmentation in the virtual public
sphere (cf. Dahlgren, 2000; Holmes, 2002; Keane, 1995 ; Muhlberger, 2005). To address this issue,
theorists have focused on the possibility of variant formatio ns of public sphere(s) rather than a
holistic approach to an elusive and normative understanding of a uniform public sphere.
Micro, meso and macro-public spheres have been mapped out by Keen in relation to
networked communication growing deeper roots in Wester n societi es (Keane, 1995 ). Micro-public
spheres are local spaces and communications exemplary to social mo vements, meso-public spheres
typical in the format of the national terrain and the commun ication flows within it, and finally
macro-public spheres are coterminous with the public communication sponsored by transnational
media corporations . Foƌ KeaŶe ;ϭϵϵϱ: ϮϬͿ ͞a theoƌLJ of puďliĐ life that ĐliŶ gs dogŵatiĐallLJ to the
ǀisioŶ of a uŶified puďliĐ spheƌe iŶ ǁhiĐh ͚puďliĐ opiŶioŶ͛ aŶd ͚the puďliĐ iŶteƌest͛ aƌe defined is a
chimera –aŶd that foƌ the sake of deŵoĐƌaĐLJ it ought Ŷoǁ to ďe jet tisoŶed͟. FƌagŵeŶtatioŶ thus

7
seems a condition that marks whichever activity occurs with in the public sphere. Concerns regarding
the fragmentation of online deliberation have revolved not solely around the noted multiplicity of
venues where it occurs but also on observations relating to the selective exposure to ideas and
information by individual users (Sunstein, 2001). In contrast to such accounts, it has been proposed
that us eƌs͛ seleĐtiǀe distƌiďutioŶ of theiƌ atteŶtioŶ is ďalaŶĐed out ďLJ the ĐapaĐitLJ of ŵedia outlets to
monitor, trend and represent public attention back to indiv idual users (Webster, 2011). Moreover,
fragmentation has been viewed as tantamount to a balkanization of online deliberation (Dahan,
2003; Terranova, 2004), generative of factional diatribe rathe r than reasoned dialogue (c.f. Dahlberg,
2007). Evidence is presented in a number of articles w hich dispels this apprehension from different
angles (Brundidge, 2010; Dahlberg, 2007; Webster, 2011 ). On the one hand, there may be a germinal
link between online news consumption, online politica l deliberation and diverse networks of political
discussion foƌŵiŶg ĐhieflLJ as a ƌesult of ͚iŶadǀeƌteŶt͛ oŶliŶe edžpos uƌe to competing views
(Brundidge, 2010:695). On the other hand, Boulian Ŷe͛s ;ϮϬϬϵͿ ďeŶĐhŵaƌk ŵeta -analysis considered
the impact of antecedent conditions on the use of the intern et for political engagement. Her study
emphasized the curbing influence of political interest on the use of the internet for political
engagement (2009:20, albeit without a definite indication of direction) whilst Brundidge (2010:695)
showed that partisanship has similar consequences for diver sity in online political discussionii. Put
differently, the use of the technology itself may be viewed as catalyst. Answers to the qu estions of
the fragmentation, incivility or one-sidedness (Gerhard s and Schäfer, 2010) of online deliberation
are to be sought outside virtual fora (Curran et al ., 2012: 179).
Empirical evidence tellingly points to persisting imbala nces in online civic engagement which
is skewed towards the more affluent, better educated and s ocially distinguished of citizens (Bimber,
2003; Dalton, 2006; Loader & Mercea, 2012; Leung, 2009). Socio-economic obstacles to civic
participation often seem insurmountable whilst being concur rently compounded by the replication
online of chiefly uni-directional models of unrespons ive communication. The result is a sobering
qualification of assertions that a citizen-producer is super seding the information consumer
(Bentivegna, 2006:336). Whilst the predominant image is that of a faltering commitment to political
debileration (Muhlberger, 2005: 164), it still appears that the resource-rich and politically savvy are
riding the wave of empowering technological change (Chr istensen & Bengtsson, 2011) leaving the
rest of society trailing behind. The resource-rich have been furnished with further means of
expression whilst the disenchanted who lack a sense of p olitical efficacyiii continue to be by-and-
large confined to the margins of online civic deliberati ons (Dahlberg, 2007; Geniets, 2010).
Moreover, whilst the resource-poor seem to have had littl e to gain from the social turn in ICT design,

8
the quality of the online political deliberation that largely excludes them has failed to live up to
earlier expectations.
Civility

If access and fragmentation are thought to obstruct the manifest ation and operation of an inclusive
and coherent digital public sphere, then civility needs to be examined in order to understand the
conditions within existing digital sphere (s). Politics i n the computer-mediated ether has appeared t o
be no more virtuous than face- to-face or radio and TV broadcasted political debate (Dahlberg , 2007).
The democratic credentials of the political discussion that has emerged with networked
communication have stayed uncertain. Debate has been charac terised by an overlap rather than an
intersection of opinions and a lack of civility (see Pap acharissi, 2004). A distinction has been drawn
between politeness and civility in online deliberation ( 2004). IŶ PapaĐhaƌissi͛s conception, politeness
can be summarized a s ͞iŶteƌaĐtioŶ that floǁs sŵoothlLJ͟ ǁhilst ĐiǀilitLJ ǁould ďe ͞iŶteƌaĐtioŶ that
fosteƌs deŵoĐƌatiĐ goals͟ ;ϮϬϬϰ: ϮϲϮͿ. She stresses the centrality of civility as opposed to po liteness
for the advancement of a democratic and inclusive public s phere.
PapaĐhaƌissi͛s ;ϮϬϬϰͿ claim that civility is by and large observed in political deliberation may
be due a re-examination given that the contention is based on a study of political Usenet groups
conducted approximately a decade ago. A reconsideration of this topic would need to account for
the technological transformation exemplified by social medi a. Social media have eroded anonymity
and its ostensible impunity (see Postmes and Brunsting, 2002) instituting a regime of heightened
personal disclosure (Baron, 2008). Social media platfor ms provide an additional level of
interconnectivity for people who already share a social co nnection (Ellison et al., 2007). Social media
affordances for interaction through user-generated content, the sorting and viral re-articulation of
content created by others (Beer and Burrows, 2 007; Beer and Burrows, 2010; Hogan and Quan-
Haase, 2010) may have render ed debate on topics of wide concern more porous, inclus ive and more
open to agonistic engagement that is not directed at consensus -building (Sanderson and Hope-
Cheong, 2010). This contention has not been without its c ritics who have argued that, social media
foster polarisation through the mechanisms of social inf luence that characterise the circulation of
content on them (Webster, 2011) .
Polarisation is a more extreme condition than fragmentation as i t signifies not only a lack of
sensitivity for diversity but also outright hostility towar ds it (2011:57). The danger to which Webster
(2011) alludes is that even when peripheral voices of non-consensus- seekiŶg ͚suďalteƌŶ ĐouŶteƌ
puďliĐs͛ ;Fƌaseƌ, ϭϵϵϮͿ reach a critical mass, the public attention afforded to them is by default
filtered out by the social recommendation mechanisms that un derpin social media. Nonetheless,

9
before polarisation becomes the subject of a moral panic, it remains to be evidenced not just as an
aggƌegate ŵeasuƌe ďut as pƌedoŵiŶaŶt at the leǀel of iŶdiǀidu al ͚ŵedia ƌepeƌtoiƌes͛, i.e. individual
patterns of content selection across media sources (Webs ter, 2011:59).
In its turn, polarisation may be viewed as a normative con cept that revolves around an
assumption that extreme views have to be reined in through rational deliberation directed at
consensus-building and implicitly the maintenance of the s tatus-quo defined by liberal-democratic
political institutions (Dahlberg, 2007). Contrary to this v iew, an emphasis has been laid on power
asymmetries derived chiefly from socio- eĐoŶoŵiĐ loĐatioŶ ǁhiĐh ͚iŶflueŶĐe ǁho ĐaŶ speak, ǁhat Đ aŶ
be said and how interact ioŶ is uŶdeƌtakeŶ͛ (2007:532). In this line, Dahlberg argues that the public
sphere rests on an exclusionary notion of a rational indiv idual who holds the requisite socio-
economic and cultural capital for making informed contribu tions to consensus-oriented
deliberations. Thus, in spite of the best efforts, the v irtual public sphere would appear irreparably
inaccessible to the underprivileged.
Conversely, dissident voices that can overcome the socio- economic barrier may act as a
check and perhaps a remedy to any levelling tendencies associated with consensus-building.
Dahlberg, however, is of the view that such dissident v oices are difficult to articulate online in the
dominant outlets owned by business corporations. An examp le of telling exclusionary practices may
be the ranking logic under which search engines operat e that results in the foregrounding of
established views (Gerhards and Schäfer, 2010:155). Wh ilst we sympathize with this outlook, we
would not discard the possibility that dissident re-approp riations may already be at play on
corporate-owned social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Google+ etc.). For instance, Segerberg
and Bennett (2011) allude to the capacity Twitter hashtags fur nished protest coalitions, who had
differing levels of resources available to them, to organ ize and publicize their views and actions on
climate change ahead of the 2009 UN Climate Summit in Cop enhagen. Power differentials in the
virtual public sphere are the final substantive topic review ed in this chapter.

Power Dynamics

Inquiring into power differentials in the virtual public sphere, one is presented with an array of
concerns. They range from apprehension about the strengthe ning grip of business corporations
(including the established media, Bennett el al., 2004) on the communication infrastructure
(Goldberg, 2011 ) to scepticism about a trickling up of opinions and deman ds on public officials

10
(Wright and Street, 2007), or to concerns about entrenched journalistic gatekeeping that pr ioritizes
elite accounts whilst sidelining dissident voices (Benne tt et al., 2004) . Two major impediments seem
to come in the way of an expansive operation of a networked public sphere: firstly, the
normalisation of network space into offline orders and sec ondly a twinned distortion and overload
of information (Friedland et al ., 2006).
Primarily, networks tend to favour those with the capacity to attract the most nodes, a
phenomenon otherwise known as a power law (cf. Barabási, 2 002, 2011). According to this thesis,
the dynamics inherent in networks are more favourable tow ards already strong nodes in the
network or socially prominent actors as well as nodes wh ich have exhibited strong pulling power
outside network topology . Online, corporate media actors-established or emerging ones-attract the
largest plurality of interest to their websites (Gerhards and Schäfer, 2009; Webster, 2011 ). There is a
"ghostly presence, often left unmentioned, of antidemocr atic corporate power in the U.S. that
commodifies everything, including the ubiquitous techno logies driving cyberspace" (Giroux, 2011:
23).
Thus, a noted convergence of media formats (Jenkins, 20 06) together with the profit-making
drive which underpins commercial social media (Goldber g, 2011; Halavais, 2008) has resulted in
their users being objectified as labourers in a capitalist informational mode of production. Instead of
a potential to be realized, participation is a precondition to entering a market-based public sphere
which operates in favour of those already endowed with ec onomic, social or cultural capital
(Webster, 2011) . Thus, ͚faƌ fƌoŵ liďeƌatiŶg the passiǀe ĐoŶsuŵeƌ fƌoŵ ĐoŶtƌol, paƌtiĐipatioŶ ŵaLJ
simply in stall ĐoŶtƌol oŶ a ͚deepeƌ leǀel͛ uŶdeƌ the guise of sel f-expression (2011:743) ͛. Put
differently, the changing relationship between productio n and consumption of online content can be
re-viewed as a shift in labour to consumers of online content who are also burd ened with the task
of content creation as well engagement in in civil delib eration.
Critical voices increasingly therefore contend that t he communication architecture of social
media, erected on user-generated content creation, seems to suffer from similar ailments to those
tracked by earlier forays into the design of platforms for democratic deliberation (Wright and Street,
2007). Wright and Street posited that rather than empowering, technologies for online deliberation
such as chat fora replicated entrenched power relations. O thers agree, with some qualifications. The
young and resource-rich appear to be the most avid produ cers of user-generated content (Leung,
2009:1341), though these individuals may not be the hig hly educated and consequently politically
most active of the online demographic (c.f. Christensen an d Bengtsson, 2011). Those content
producers also hold the view that they can have an influen ce on political institutions (Leung,
2009:1342) exhibiting a sense of external efficacy whic h was not apparent in previous explorations

11
into the purchase of networked communication on political engagement (Coleman et al ., 2008).
Ultimately, these politically efficacious individuals see m to be no less than another emergent elite
joining the ranks of the established and most competent of democratic citizens.
Whilst those empowered by the technology may be the more resourceful of social actors
(Leung, 2009), alternative intermediators such as NGO or activist groups may nevertheless rise to
the challenge of channelling participation in both the vi rtual public sphere and in the life of the
polity. NGOs ͞offeƌ the kŶoǁledgeaďle aŶd ĐƌitiĐal ǀoiĐe Ŷeeded to iŶf oƌŵ aŶd diƌeĐt the passioŶ of
the street and the colourful, but cluttered, multivocality of online discussions" (Bakardjieva, 2012:76;
see also Ndlela, 2007). Thereby, power differentials may come to be offset through networked
communication at times of agonistic social upheaval that on th e face of it seem to upset rather than
bolster consensus politics.

Conclusion

The relevance of a discussion on the relation between th e internet and the public sphere is
uŶdeŶiaďle; aĐĐoƌdiŶg to DahlgƌeŶ ;ϮϬϬϱ: ϭϰϴͿ this theŵe ͞has a peƌŵaŶeŶt plaĐe oŶ ƌeseaƌĐh
agendas and in intellectual inquiry for the foreseeable f uture ͟. The significance of exploring the
potential of deliberation across spheres and sphericules remains highly pertinent. In the constant
flux that is becoming a trademark of networked communicatio n, the last decade has seen the
mainstreaming of ubiquitous and instantaneous communication by political and commercial
institutions, groups and individuals. On the one hand, net worked communication allows for anytime-
anywhere communication which can create a havoc of civic co mmunication. On the other hand, it
has been expected to countervail the reach and prominence of influential agents. Nonetheless, and
in spite of the so-called revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East, or the protests in Europe
and North America, the literature on networked activism re mains pessimistic on the question of the
galvanizing potential of social media for effective action on political institutions (c.f. Bennett and
Segerberg, 2011; Fenton and Barassi, 2011).
Reflecting back on this review of the field, we propose the following avenues for future
empirical research. A more extensive treatment may be affo rded to the question of a potential
trade-off between engagement in the virtual public sphere an d involvement in the material world in
which the networked communication unfolds. Habermas (19 89) firmly grounded the public sphere in
locales of bourgeois sociality, cafés, clubs, societie s, salons. An ostensible detachment from the
material coordinates of the networked communication has thus far received mixed evaluations

12
when weighed against expectations for civic participation (s ee Morozov, 2011 on his portrayal of
Internet-based political participation as slacktivism ). As a result of this, contextual conditions (both
spatial ones as well as material and symbolic resources) are essential in the reconsideration of the
deliberative possibilities of communication technologies . This is especially relevant in the case of the
allowances of social media for social and political change.
Even though social media are becoming increas iŶglLJ doŵiŶaŶt as destiŶatioŶs foƌ people͛s
online activities in the West (Nielsen, 2010), attention to the implications of social media usage for
deliberative democracy seems marginal in the reviewed jo urnals. As waves of dissidence splash
digitally and physically across politically or economically repressive regimes, the tendency to
exaggerate their potential can be exclusive of the conditi ons which underline their existence
(Gladwell, 2010). The theorisation of social media cannot be decoupled from the socio-political,
economic and physical coordinate s of their usage (Howard and Parks, 2012).
If normative preoccupations associated with the public spher e are to continue to inform
research, renewed attention to places and practices of mundan e communication may perhaps
stimulate not only reflections on the multiplicity of pu blic spheres but also the interplay between
exclusionary and empowering forces in civil society. E xemplars for this approach might be Hampton
aŶd Gupta͛s ;ϮϬϬϴͿ oƌ HaƌtŵaŶŶ͛s ;ϮϬϬϵͿ studie s on Wi-Fi cafes peering into emerging user cultures.
Questions relative to a layered location (in physical space , along a private-public continuum, in
relation to the social attributes of a place) of communication are highlighted therein to sensitize
comm uŶiĐatioŶ sĐholaƌs to ͚the eŵďedded Ŷatuƌe of ŵedia use ͛ ;ϮϬϬϵ:ϰϯϮͿ.
As a reflection of the studies it considered, this chap ter is largely silent about non-Western
public spheres. An encouragement of analyses that dwell on non-Western developments or compare
them with Western counterparts could perhaps inquire into practices that facilitate access in lower
internet-penetration contexts whilst also scrutinizing the e fficacy of participation in subaltern public
spheres. In countries as China such participation whilst ci vil may not bolster perceptions of political
efficacy and thus fail to motivate active engagement (c.f. P apacharissi, 2002) .
We would also propose a more substantial investment in empiri cal research to
simultaneously anchor and re-inspire the ideal of deliber ative democracy. Such rekindling would
occur in a universe where power differentials, hurdle s to inclusiveness and norms of civility are
contested and rearticulated discursively as well as through distributed socio-technological play with
social media. We see particularly approaches at the cusp of sociology and historiography as being
suitable for this purpose. By virtue of their embeddedn ess in lived social networks, social media
seem to be suited for a reinforcement of social norms, including those that foster civility in public
discourse. Concurrently, they may occasion new attempts at resistance to such normalization by

13
being deployed, for example, in pervasive games aimed at subverting a public culture increasingly
based on surveillance (Geesin, 2010).

i These journals were: The Communication Monographs, The Communication Review, Communication Theory,
Continuum: The Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, Cr itical Studies in Media and Communication, European
Journal of Communication, Human Communication Research, Inte rnational Journal of Mobile
Communications, Journal of Applied communication Research, Journal of Communication, Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Journal of Computer-Medi ated Communication, Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, Mass Communication and Society, Med ia International Australia, Media, Culture &
Society, New Media & Society, Political Communication, Pu blic Culture, Television & New Media.
ii Yet, results seem contradictory in regard to a positive effect of online news consumption on engagement
perhaps due to variability in explanatory models (Bouliann e, 2009) but also because of the breadth of the
spectrum of activities signifying civic participation (Kzi azek, Malthouse, Webster, 2010).

References
Amin M, Mabe, M (2000) Impact factors: use and abuse. Perspectives in Publishing , 1, 1-6.
Author removed (2012)
Bakardjieva M (2012) Reconfiguring the mediapolis: mew m edia and civic agency. New Media and
Society , 14(1), 63- 79.
Barabási AL (2002) Linked: The New Science of Networks , Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
Barabási AL ;ϮϬϭϭͿ ͚IŶtƌoduĐtioŶ and Keynote to A Networked Self ͛. In Zizi Papacharissi (ed.) A
Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites , Oxon: Routledge, 1-
14.
Baron N (2008) Always On , Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Beer D and Burrows R (2007 Ϳ ͞“oĐiologLJ aŶd, of aŶd iŶ Weď Ϯ.Ϭ: soŵe iŶitial ĐoŶsi deƌatioŶs͟. IŶ
Sociological Research Online , 12 (5). Available at:
<http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/5/17.html .
Beer D and Burrows R (2010) Consumption, presumption an d participatory web cultures: an
introduction. Journal of Consumer Culture , 10 (3) 3- 12.
Bennett WL and Entman RM (2001) Mediated Politics: Communication in the Future of Democra cy,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bennett WL (2003) Communicating global activism. Information, Communication & Society , 6 (2),
143-168.
Bennett WL, Pickard VW, Iozzi DP, Shroeder CL, Lagos T and Caswell EC (2004) Managing the public
sphere: journalistic construction of the great globalizatio n debate. Journal of Communication ,
54 (3), 437-455.

14

Bennett WL, Wells C, Freelon D. (2011) Communicating c ivic engagement: contrasting models of
citizenship in the youth web sphere. Journal of Communication , 61 (5), 835-856.
Bentivegna S (2006) Rethinking politics in the world of I CTs. European Journal of Communication , 21
(3), 331-343.
Bimber B (2003) Information and American Democracy: Technology in the Ev olution of Political
Power , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blumler J, Gurevitch M (1995) The Crisis of Public Communication , London and New York: Routledge .
Blumler J, Gurevitch M (2001) The new media and our p olitical communication discontents:
democratizing cyberspace. Information, Communication and Society , 4(1) 1- 13.
Boulianne S (2009) Does internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political
Communication , 26 (2) 193-211.
Brundidge J ;ϮϬϭϬͿ EŶĐouŶteƌiŶg ͞diffeƌeŶĐe͟ iŶ the ĐoŶteŵpoƌaƌLJ pu ďliĐ spheƌe: the ĐoŶtƌiďutioŶ of
the internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication , 60
(4), 680-700.
Brunstig S and Postmes T ;ϮϬϬϮͿ ͞“oĐial ŵoǀeŵeŶt paƌtiĐipatioŶ iŶ the digital age: pƌe diĐtiŶg offliŶe
aŶd oŶliŶe ĐolleĐtiǀe aĐtioŶ͟. IŶ Small Group Research , 33 (5), 525- 54.
Calhoun C (ed.) (2003) Habermas and the Public Sphere , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cammaerts C and Van Audenhoven L (2005) ' Online Political Debate, Unbounded Citizenship, and
the Problematic Nature of a Transnational Public Sphere,' 22 (2): 179-196.
Campbell S and Kwak N (2011) Mobile communication and ci vil society: linking patterns and places
of use to engagement with others in public. Human Research Communication , 37 (2), 207-222.
Carey JW (1988). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society, Boston: Unwin Hyman
Christensen HK, Bengtsson A (2011)The political compet ence of internet participants. Information,
Communication and Society , 14(6) 896-916.
Coleman S, Morrison DE, Svennevig M (2008)New media an d political efficacy. International Journal
of Communication , 2, 771-791.
Coleman S, Blumler J (2009) The internet and democrati c citizenship: Theory, practice and policy ,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Curran J (1991) 'Rethinking the Media as a Public Sphere ' pp.27-57 in Peter Dahlgren and Colin
Sparks (eds. ) Communication and Citizenship: Journalism and the Publ ic Sphere in the New Media
Age, London: Routledge.
Curran J, Fenton N and Freedman D (2012) Misunderstanding the internet , London: Routledge.

15

Dahan M (2003) 'Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Changi ng Public Sphere of Palestinian
Israelis,' Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 8(2). Available at:
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue2/dahan.html .
Dahlberg L (2001) ' Computer-Mediated Communication and The Public Sphere: A Critical Analysis,'
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 7(1). Available at:
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue1/dahlberg.html.
Dahlberg L (2007) Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyb erpublic: from consensus to contestation.
New Media and Society , 2007, 9 (5), 827-847.
Dahlgren P (1995) Television and the Public Sphere: Citizenship, Democra cy and the Media , London:
Sage.
Dahlgren P ;ϮϬϬϬͿ ͚The IŶteƌŶet aŶd the DeŵoĐƌatizatioŶ of CiǀiĐ Cu ltuƌe,͛ Political Communication ,
17(4): 335-340.
Dahlgren P ;ϮϬϬϱͿ ͚The IŶteƌŶet, PuďliĐ “pheƌes, aŶd PolitiĐal Coŵ ŵuŶiĐatioŶ: DispeƌsioŶ aŶd
DeliďeƌatioŶ,͛ Political Communication , 22(2): 147-162.
Dahlgren P (2009) Media and Political Engagement: Citizens, Communication, and Democracy , New
Yoƌk. ΝΥ: Caŵďƌidge UŶiǀeƌsitLJ Pƌess .
Denardis L (2009) Protocol Politics: The Globalization of Internet Governa nce, Cambridge MA,
London UK: MIT Press.
Ellison N, Steinfeld C and Lampe C ;ϮϬϬϳͿ ͚The ďeŶefits of FaĐeďook ͚fƌieŶds͛: “oĐial Đ apital aŶd
Đollege studeŶts͛ use of oŶliŶe soĐial Ŷetǁoƌk sites͛ . Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication 12 (4), 1143-1168.
Fenton N and Barassi V (2011) Alternative media and social ne twork sites: the politics of
individuation and political participation. The Communication Review , 14 (3) 179-196.
Fraser N ;ϭϵϵϬͿ ͚ Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the C ritique of Actually Existing
DeŵoĐƌaĐLJ,͛ Social Text , 25/26: 56- 80.
Fraser N (1992) Rethinking the public sphere: A Contribu tion to the critique of actually existing
democracy. In Craig Calhoun (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere , Cambridge: MIT Press, 109-
142
Friedland LA, Hove, T and Rojas, H ;ϮϬϬϲͿ ͚The Netǁoƌked PuďliĐ “pheƌe,͛ janvost- the public , 13(4):
5-26.
Geesin, B (2010) Ludic spaces for living post-privacy . Paper presented at the conference Networking
Democracy: New Media Innovations in Participatory Politics , Cluj-Napoca: Babe ș-Bolyai
University.

16

Geniets, A (2010) Lost in Translation: why civic online efforts in Britain have failed to engage young
women from low socioeconomic backgrounds. European Journal of Communication , 25 (4) 398-
412.
Gerhards J and Schäfer MS (2010) Is the internet a better public sphere? Compari ng old and new
media in the USA and Germany. New Media and Society, 12 (1), 143-160.
Giddens A (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the La te Modern Age , Cambridge,
U.K.: Polity Press.
Gitlin T (1998) Public sphere or public sphericules? In T. Liebes & J . Curran (Eds.), Media, ritual,
identity (pp. 168-175). London: Routledge.
Giroux HA (2011) 'The Crisis of Public Values in the Age of the New Media,' Critical Studies in Media
Communication , 28(1): 8- 29.
Gladwell M ;ϮϬϭϬͿ ͚WhLJ the ƌeǀolutioŶ ǁill Ŷot ďe tǁeeted͛. IŶ The New Yorker , available at:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004f a_fact_gladwell?currentPage=1 .
Goldberg G (2011) Rethinking the public/virtual spher e: the problem with participation. New Media
and Society, 13 (5) 739-754.
Goode L (2005) Democracy and the Public Sphere , London: Pluto.
Habermas J (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere , Cambridge: Polity.
Habermas J (1998) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theo ry of Law and
Democracy , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas J (2006) Political communication in media society: does democracy still enjoy an epistemic
dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical r esearch. Communication Theory , 16
(4), 411-426.
Halavais A (2008) Search Engine Society , Cambridge: Polity.
Hampton KN and Gupta N (2008) Community and social interacti on in the wireless city: Wi-Fi use in
the public and semi-public spaces. New Media and Society , 10(6), 831-850.
Hampton K, Livio O and Sessions Goulet L (2010) The s ocial life of wireless urban spaces: internet
use, social networks, and the public realm. Journal of Communication , 60 (4), 701-722.
Hartmann M (2009) The changing urban landscapes of media c onsumption and production.
European Journal of Communication , 24 (4) 421-436.
Hauser GA (2007) Vernacular discourse and the epistemi c dimension of public opinion.
Communication Theory , 17 (4), 333-339.
Hogan B and Quan-Haase A (2010) Persistence and change in social media. Bulletin of Science and
Technology , 30 (5), 309- 315.

17

Holmes D (2002) 'Transformations in the Mediation of Publ icness: Communicative Interaction in the
Network Society,' Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 7(2). Available at:
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue2/holmes.html .
Howard, PN, Parks, MR (2012) Social media and political cha nge: capacity, constraint and
consequence. Journal of Communication , 62 (2), 359-362
Howcroft D (1999) The hyperbolic age of information: an empirical study of internet usage.
Information, Communication and Society , 2(3), 277-299.
Huspek M (2007a) Normative potentials of rhetorical action within deliberative democracies.
Communication Theory , 17 (4), 356-3666.
Huspek M (2007b) Symposium: Habermas and the deliberative democracy: introd uctory remarks, 17
(4), 329-332.
Jenkins H (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and N ew Media Collide. New York and London:
New York University Press.
Keane J (1991) The Media and Democracy , Cambridge: Polity.
Keane J (1ϵϵϱͿ ͚“tƌuĐtuƌal TƌaŶsfoƌŵatioŶs of the PuďliĐ “pheƌe,͛ The Communication Review , 1(1):
1-22.
Ksiazek TB, Malthouse EC and Webster, J.G. News-seekers and avoiders: exploring patterns of total
news consumption across media and the relationship to civi c participation. Journal of
Broadcasting and Electronic Media , 54 (4), 551-568.
Landes J (1992) Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere , A Feminist
Inquiry. Praxis International ¸ 12(1): 106-127.
Leung L (2009) User-generated content on the internet: an examination of gratifications, civic
engagement and psychological empowerment. New Media and Society , 11 (8) 1327-1347.
Loader BD (2007) Young Citizens in the Digital Age : Political Engagement, Young People and New
Media , London and New York: Routledge.
Loader, BD and Mercea D (2012) Social Media and Democracy: Innovations in Participatory Politics ,
London and New York: Routledge
McLaughlin L ;ϭϵϵϯͿ ͚FeŵiŶisŵ, the puďliĐ spheƌe, ŵedia aŶd deŵoĐƌ aĐLJ͛, Media, Culture and
Society , 15(4): 599-620.
Morozov E (2011) The Net Delusion: How Not to Liberate the World. London, New York: Allen Lane.
Muhlberger P ;ϮϬϬϱͿ ͚HuŵaŶ AgeŶĐLJ aŶd the ‘eǀitalizatioŶ of the PuďliĐ “pheƌe,͛ Political
Communication , 22(2): 163-178.
Ndlela N (2007) Reflections on the global public spher e: challenges to internationalizing media
studies. Global Media and Communication , 3(3): 324- 329.

18

Nielsen (2012) Smartphones account for half of all mobile phones, dominate new phone purchases
in the US. Available at: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/sm artphones-
account-for-half- of-all-mobile-phones-dominate-new-phone-purchases- in-the- us.
Nixon PG ;ϮϬϬϰͿ ͚ J(EU)nesse sans frontiers: information age governance, yo uth and the EU. In Vasiliki
Koutrakou Contemporary Issues and Debates in EU policy , Manchester: Manchester University
Press , 262-279.
Norris P(2001) Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Inform ation Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Papacharissi Z (2002) The virtual public sphere: the int ernet as a public sphere. New Media and
Society , 4(1) 9- 27.
Papacharissi Z (2004) Democracy online: civility, polit eness and the democratic potential of online
political discussion groups. New Media and Society , 6 (2), 259-283.
Papacharissi Z (2010) A Private Sphere: Democracy in a Digital Age , Cambridge: Polity.
Parikka J (2012) What is Media Archaeology , Cambridge: Polity Press.
Pauly D, Stergiou, KI ;ϮϬϬϱͿ EƋuiǀaleŶĐe of ƌesults fƌoŵ tǁo ĐitatioŶ aŶalLJses: ThoŵsoŶ͛s I“I CitatioŶ
IŶdedž aŶd Google “Đholaƌ͛s seƌǀiĐe. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics , 5, 33- 35.
Poor N (2005) 'Mechanisms of an Online Public Sphere: The Website Slashdot,' Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication , 10(2). Available: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/ poor.html.
Rakow LF (1988) 'Gendered technology, gendered practice ,' Critical Studies in Mass Communication ,
5(1): 57- 70.
Sanderson J and Cheong, PH (2010) Tweeting prayer and communicating grief over Michael Jackson
online. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society , 30 (2) 328-340.
Scheufele DA, Nisbet M C, Brossard D and Nisbet EC (20 04) Social structure and citizenship:
examining the impacts of social setting, network hetero geneity and informational variables on
political participation. Political Communication , 21 (3), 315 –338.
Scheufele DA, Hardy WB, Brossard D, Waismel-Manor, IS an d Nisbet E (2006) Democracy based on
difference: examining the links between structural hete rogeneity, heterogeneity of discussion
networks, and democratic citizenship. Journal of Communicati on 56 (4), 728-753.
Segerberg A and Bennett WL (2011) Social media and the organization of collective action: Using
Twitter to explore the ecologies of two climate change protests. The Communication Review , 14
(3), 197-215.
Shifman L and Lemish D ;ϮϬϭϭͿ '͞Maƌs aŶd VeŶus͟ iŶ ǀiƌtual spaĐe: Post -feminist humor and the
internet,' Critical Studies in Media Communication, 28(3), 253-273.

19

Simone MA (2010) 'Deliberative Democracy Online: Brid ging networks with digital technologies,' The
Communication Review , 13(2): 120-139.
Sinekopova GV (2006) Building the Public Sphere: Bases and Biases. Journal of Communication , 56
(3), 502-522.
Stein L ;ϮϬϬϴͿ: ͚“peeĐh Without ‘ights: The “tatus of PuďliĐ “paĐe oŶ the IŶteƌŶet͛, The
Communication Review , 11:1, 1- 23.
Sunstein C (2001) Republic.com . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Terranova T (2004) Network Culture , London: Pluto.
Valenzula, S, Arriagada, A and Scherman, A (2012) The soc ial media basis of youth protest behaviour:
the case of Chile. Journal of Communication , 62(2), 299-314
Ward J ;ϮϬϭϮͿ ͚‘eaĐhiŶg ĐitizeŶs oŶliŶe: hoǁ LJouth oƌgaŶisatioŶ s aƌe eǀolǀiŶg theiƌ ǁeď pƌeseŶĐe͛.
In Brian Loader and Dan Mercea (eds.) Social Media and Democracy: Innovations in Participatory
Politics , London and New York: Routledge.
Webster JG (2011) The duality of media: A structurational th eory of public attention. Communication
Theory , 21 (1) 43- 66.
Wright S and Street J (2007) Democracy, deliberation and d esign: the case of online discussion
forums. New Media and Society , 9(5) 849-869.

iii Coleman et al. (2008:771- ϮͿ defiŶe politiĐal effiĐaĐLJ as ͚people͛s ďeliefs iŶ t heiƌ aďilitLJ to uŶdeƌstaŶd aŶd
paƌtiĐipate effeĐtiǀelLJ iŶ goǀeƌŶaŶĐe, ďe it at the ŶatioŶal , loĐal oƌ ŵoƌe iŵŵediate leǀels͛. The authoƌs go oŶ
to ar gue that perceptions of effectiveness are closely conn ected with the sensitivity that political institutions
have for citizen involvement in political decision-making .