A Model for Analysing Argumentative Structures and Online Deliberation in User-Generated Comments to the Website of a South African Newspaper

Authors: Marthinus Conradie

Abstract:

The conversational dynamics of democratically orientated deliberation continue to stimulate critical scholarship for its potential to bolster robust engagement between different sections of pluralist societies. Several axes of deliberation that have attracted academic attention include face-to-face vs. online interaction, and citizen-to-citizen communication vs. engagement between citizens and political elites. In all these areas, numerous researchers have explored deliberative procedures aimed at achieving instrumental goals such a securing consensus on policy issues, against procedures that prioritise expressive outcomes such as broadening the range of argumentative repertoires that discursively construct and mediate specific political issues. The study that informs this paper, works in the latter stream. Drawing its data from the reader-comments section of a South African broadsheet newspaper, the study investigates online, citizen-to-citizen deliberation by analysing the discursive practices through which competing understandings of social problems are articulated and contested. To advance this agenda, the paper deals specifically with user-generated comments posted in response to news stories on questions of race and racism in South Africa. The analysis works to discern and interpret the various sets of discourse practices that shape how citizens deliberate contentious political issues, especially racism. Since the website in question is designed to encourage the critical comparison of divergent interpretations of news events, without feeding directly into national policymaking, the study adopts an analytic framework that traces how citizens articulate arguments, rather than the instrumental effects that citizen deliberations might exert on policy. The paper starts from the argument that such expressive interactions are particularly crucial to current trends in South African politics, given that the precise nature of race and racism remain contested and uncertain. Centred on a sample of 2358 conversational moves in 814 posts to 18 news stories emanating from issues of race and racism, the analysis proceeds in a two-step fashion. The first stage conducts a qualitative content analysis that offers insights into the levels of reciprocity among commenters (do readers engage with each other or simply post isolated opinions?), as well as the structures of argumentation (do readers support opinions by citing evidence?). The second stage involves a more fine-grained discourse analysis, based on a theorisation of argumentation that delineates it into three components: opinions/conclusions, evidence/data to support opinions/conclusions and warrants that explicate precisely how evidence/data buttress opinions/conclusions. By tracing the manifestation and frequency of specific argumentative practices, this study contributes to the archive of research currently aggregating around the practices that characterise South Africans’ engagement with provocative political questions, especially racism and racial inequity. Additionally, the study also contributes to recent scholarship on the affordances of Web 2.0 software by eschewing a simplistic bifurcation between cyber-optimist vs. pessimism, in favour of a more nuanced and context-specific analysis of the patterns that structure online deliberation.

Keywords: online deliberation, discourse analysis, qualitative content analysis, racism