Social media and deliberation in the period of COVID-19 crisis
transforming political interaction between citizens and Russian authorities in the digital sphere
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59490/dgo.2025.988Keywords:
Social media, online deliberation, deliberative quality, political interaction, civic engagement, COVID-19, RussiaAbstract
Deliberation is a basic term about reaching a decision through balanced discussion, which openly raises the issues of consensus and its achievement through communication. The current article aims at studying the quality of online deliberation between citizens and Russian authorities on social media in the conditions of global health crisis COVID-19. Indeed, the quality of online deliberation between citizens and authorities on public policy issues is traditionally explored in periods of social certainty and mainly in democratic contexts. However, when this problem is considered in times of crisis and out of democratic societies, there is a huge gap in political science. Indeed, studying the quality of deliberation in online sphere becomes more significant and simultaneously complicated in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. To evaluate the quality of deliberation, we propose a methodology of content analysis based on the theories of democratic deliberation and cumulative deliberation as well. Also, we employ a medium-size case dedicated to discussing state measures of quarantine and self-isolation in the social network VK.com during March-May 2020 in Russia. These conversations were conducted on the state VK.com platform Stopcoronavirus.rf, which is the official information resource of the Russian Government on coronavirus control issues. In total, 5215 comments of both citizens and authorities were analyzed. As a result, the quality of social media deliberation between Russian authorities and citizens is described and assessed in such categories as participatory activity, (ir)rationality, argumentation, constructive politics, interactivity, (in)civility, (dis)agreement and striving for consensus. Generally, the paper contributes to a better understanding the phenomenon of deliberation in non-democratic societies like Russia, going beyond the Western liberal democracies where deliberation is investigated as one of the most important components in the process of making legitimate decisions. Also, our work shows how the digital interaction can be implemented in the conditions of COVID-19 crisis and whether the results of political dialogue between state officials and people on social media can be taken into consideration in the real process of public policymaking in non-democratic societies.
Downloads
References
Abdullah, N.N. & Rahman, M.F.A. (2015). The Use of Deliberative Democracy in Public Policy Making Process. Public Policy and Administration Research, 5(3), 221–229.
Alarabiat, A., Soares, D.S., & Estevez, E. (2016) Electronic participation with a special reference to social media- a literature review.Electronic Participation: 8th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, EPart 2016, Guimarães, Portugal, September 5-8. Proceedings, 41-52.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). Authoritarian specter. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Amat, F., Arenas, A., Falcó-Gimeno, A., & Munoz, J. (2020). Pandemics meet democracy: Experimental evidence from the COVID-19 crisis in Spain.
Beauvais, E. (2020). Deliberation and Non-Deliberative Communication. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 16(1), 4–13.
Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T., & Grimes, J.M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 27 (3), 264-271.
Bodrunova, S. S. (2021). Practices of cumulative deliberation: A meta-review of the recent research findings. In A. V. Chugunov, M. Janssen, I. Khodachek, Y. Misnikov, & D. Trutnev (Eds.), Proceedings of electronic governance and open society: Challenges in Eurasia (EGOSE'2021). Communications in computer and information science (Vol. 1529, pp. 89–104). Springer.
Boin, A., ‘t Hart, P., & Kuipers, S. (2018). The crisis approach / H. Rodriguez, E. Quarantelli, & R. Dynes (Eds.). Handbook of disaster research. New York: Springer, 24.
Bolgov, R., Filatova, O., & Volkovskii, D. (2024). E-Participation as a Research Domain: Analysis of Publication Patterns and Current Tendencies. In.: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV '24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 158–165.
Bonsón, E., Torres, L., Royo, S., & Flores, F. (2012). Local E-Government 2.0: Social Media and Corporate Transparency in Municipalities, Sector Público, Spain.
Brown, M. (2014). Expertise and Deliberative Democracy. In Deliberative Democracy: Issues and Cases, edited by S. Elstub, and P. Mclaverty. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Chambers, S. (1996). Reasonable Democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press.
DePaula, N., & Dincelli, E. (2018). Information strategies and affective reactions: How citizens interact with government social media content. First Monday, 23(4).
Elstub, S., et al. (2021). The Resilience of Pandemic Digital Deliberation: An Analysis of Online Synchronous Forums. Javnost - The Public, 28:3, 237–255.
Enikeeva, E.M, Kulnazarova, A.V., Rafikov, A.I., & Shutman, D.V. (2023). The Impact of Digital Tools on Conflictive Communications in the “Government-Society System”: St. Petersburg Experience. In Communication Strategies in Digital Society Seminar, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 147-150.
Eriksson, M., & Olsson, E.K. (2016). Facebook and Twitter in crisis communication: A comparative study of crisis communication professionals and citizens. Journal of contingencies and crisis management, 24 (4), 198–208.
Filatova, O., Volkovskii, D., & Begen P. (2020). Usage of Artificial Intelligence in Internet Discourse Analysis: from Manual Mechanisms of Data Processing to Electronic Ones. In.: Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Scientific Services & Internet (SSI-2020) Novorossiysk-Abrau (online), Russia, September 21-25, 352-360.
Filatova, O. & Volkovskii, D. (2021). Key Parameters of Internet Discussions: Testing the Methodology of Discourse Analysis. In.: Chugunov, A.V. et.al (ed.) Digital Transformation and Global Society (DTGS 2020). Proceedings of the 5th International Conference, St. Petersburg, Russia, 32-46.
Filatova, O. & Volkovskii, D. (2020). The online discourse as a form of e-Participation: the experience of internet discourse research. In.: Proceedings of the 13 the International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV 2020). Athens, Greece, 326-333.
Filsinger, M. & Freitag, M. (2022). Pandemic threat and authoritarian attitudes in Europe: An empirical analysis of the exposure to COVID-19. Eur Union Polit, 23(3), 417–36.
Fischer, K. et al. (2021). A Typology of Reasoning in Deliberative Processes: A Study of the 2010 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 18(2), 1-13.
Fishkin, J. (1995). The Voice of the People. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
Gastil, J., Black, & Lawra, W. (2008). Public deliberation as the organizing principle of political communication research. Journal of Public Deliberation, 4 (1).
Gastil, J. (2000). By Popular Demand. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press, 20-25.
Gough, A., Hunter, R.F., Ajao, O., Jurek, A., McKeown, G., Hong. J., et al. (2017). Tweet for behavior change: Using social media for the dissemination of public health messages. JMIR Public Health Surveill, 3(1).
Gouran, D.S., & Hirokawa, R.Y. (1996). Functional theory and communication in decision making and problem-solving groups: An expanded view. In R.Y. Hirokawa and M.S. POOLE (eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 55-80.
Graham, M.W., Elizabeth, J.A., & Sejin, P. (2015). The role of social media in local government crisis communications. Public Relations Review, 41(3), 386–394.
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms. Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press.
Halpern, D., & Gibbs, J. (2013). Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1159–1168.
Haro-de-Rosario, A., Sáez-Martín, A., & del Carmen Caba-Pérez, M. (2018). Using social media to enhance citizen engagement with local government: Twitter or Facebook? New Media & Society, 20(1), 29-49.
He, B. (2014). Deliberative culture and politics: the persistence of authoritarian deliberation in China. Political Theory, 42, 58–81.
He, B. & Warren, M.E. (2017). Authoritarian Deliberation in China. Daedalus, 146(3), 155–166.
He, B. & Warren, M.E. (2011). Authoritarian Deliberation: The Deliberative Turn in Chinese Political Development. Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 9, №2, 269‒289.
He, B. (2006). Western theories of deliberative democracy and the Chinese practice of complex deliberative governance. In.: E. Leib & B. He (Eds.), The search for deliberation democracy in China. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Herovic, E., Sellnow, T.M., & Sellnow, D.D. (2020). Challenges and opportunities for pre-crisis emergency risk communication: Lessons learned from the earth-quake community. Journal of Risk Research, 23(3), 349–364.
Hyland-Wood, B., Gardner, J., Leask, J., & Ecker, U.K. (2021). Toward effective government communication strategies in the era of COVID-19. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1–11.
Jonga, W. (2012). Prioritizing political banditry than good governance: Rethinking urban governance in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2 (24), 117-135.
Lavazza, A., & Farina, M. (2020). The Role of Experts in the Covid-19 Pandemic and the Limits of Their Epistemic Authority in Democracy. Frontiers in Public Health, 8:356.
Lee, G. & Kwak, Y.H. (2012). An Open Government Maturity Model for social media-based public engagement. Government information quarterly, 29 (4), 492-503.
Lilleker, D., Coman, I.A., Gregor, M., & Novelli, E. (2021). Political communication and COVID-19: Governance and rhetoric in global comparative perspective. In Political Communication and COVID-19: Governance and Rhetoric in Times of Crisis, 333–350.
Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 29 (4), 446-454.
Liu, B., & Kim, S. (2011). How organizations framed the 2009 H1N1 pandemic via social and traditional media: Implications for U.S. Health communicators. Public Relations Review, 37(3), 233–244.
Misnikov, Y. (2011). Public Activism Online in Russia: Citizens’ Participation in Web-based Interactive PoliticalDebate in the Context of Civil Society. Development and Transition to Democracy. PhD thesis.
Mossberger, K., Wu, Y., & Crawford J. (2013). Connecting citizens and local governments? Social media and interactivity in major U.S. cities. Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 30 (4), 351-358.
Nabatchi, T. (2010). Addressing the citizenship and democratic deficits: the potential of deliberative democracy for public administration. The American Review of Public Administration, 40 (4), 376-399.
Nigmatullina, K., Bodrunova, S., Rodossky, N., & Nepiyushchikh, D. (2023). Discourse of Complaining on Social Networks in Russia: Cumulative Opinions vs. Decentering of Institutions. In.: Networks in the Global World VI: Proceedings of NetGloW 2022, 3–20.
Parry, L.J., Asenbaum, H., & Ercan, S.A. (2020). Democracy in Flux: A Systemic View on the Impact of COVID-19. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 15 (2), 197–205.
Rauchfleisch, A., Vogler, D., & Eisenegger, M. (2021). Public Sphere in Crisis Mode: How the COVID-19 Pandemic Influenced Public Discourse and User Behaviour in the Swiss Twitter-sphere. Javnost - The Public, 28:2, 129-148.
Reynolds, B. & Quinn, S.C. (2008). Effective communication during an influenza pandemic: The value of using a crisis and emergency risk communication framework. Health Promotion Practice, 9(4) Supplement, 13–17.
Shapiro, I. (2003). The State of Democratic Theory, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Shin, B. & Rask, M. (2021). Assessment of online deliberative quality: new indicators using network analysis and time-series analysis. Sustainability, 13.
Sibony, A-L. (2020). The UK COVID-19 Response: A Behavioural Irony? European Journal of Risk Regulation, 11(2), 350–357.
Steenbergen, M., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., et al. (2003). Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index. Comp Eur Polit, 1, 21–48.
Strekalova, Y. (2017). Health risk information engagement and amplification on social media. Health Education & Behavior, 44(2), 332–339.
Stromer-Galley, J., Bryant, L., & Bimber, B. (2015). Context and medium matter: Expressing disagreements online and face-to-face in political deliberations. Journal of Public Deliberation, 11(1), 1.
Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation’s content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3, 1-35.
Stromer–Galley, J. & Muhlberger, P. (2009). Agreement and disagreement in group deliberation: Effects on deliberation satisfaction, future engagement, and decision legitimacy. Political Communication, 26(2), 173-192.
Toepfl, F. (2020). Comparing Authoritarian Publics: The Benefits and Risks of Three Types of Publics for Autocrats, Communication Theory, Volume 30, Issue 2, 105–125.
Toepfl, F. & Litvinenko, A. (2021). Critically Commenting Publics as Authoritarian Input Institutions: How Citizens Comment Beneath their News in Azerbaijan, Russia, and Turkmenistan. Journalism Studies, 22(4), 475–495.
van Dijck, J., & Alinejad, D. (2020). Social media and trust in scientific expertise: Debating the Covid-19 pandemic in The Netherlands. Social Media + Society, 6(4).
Vijaykumar, S., Meurzec, R., Jayasundar, K., Pagliari, C., & Fernandopulle, Y. (2017). What’s buzzing on your feed? Health authorities’ use of Facebook to combat Zika in Singapore. J Am Med Informatics Assoc, 24 (6)
Volkovskii, D. & Bodrunova, S. (2023). Incivility balanced? Civil vs. uncivil speech in online political discussions as dependent on political parallelism. In: Comito, C., Talia, D. (eds) Pervasive Knowledge and Collective Intelligence on Web and Social Media. PerSOM 2022. Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, vol 494. Springer, Cham.
Volkovskii, D., Filatova, O., Bodrunova, S., & Bolgov, R. (2024). Does government hear citizenry? The quality of deliberative practice between authorities and citizens on social media in Russia. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV '24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, USA, 327–336.
Volkovskii, D., Filatova, O. & Bolgov, R. (2023). Automated Detection of Different Publication Patterns of Online Deliberation as a Research Domain. In.: Social Computing and Social Media: 15th International Conference, SCSM 2023, Held as Part of the 25th HCI International Conference, HCII 2023, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 23–28, 2023, Proceedings, Part I. Cham: Springer Nature, 146-163.
Volkovskii, D., Filatova, O. & Bolgov, R. (2022). Social media deliberation: civil or uncivil, reasoned or unreasoned? In.: Central and Eastern European eDem and eGov Days (CEEeGov), September 22, 23, 2022, Budapest, Hungary. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–6.
Volkovskii, D. & Filatova, O. (2022) Influence of Media Type on Political E-Discourse: Analysis of Russian and American Discussions on Social Media’. In.: Electronic Governance and Open Society. Challenges in Eurasia - 8th International Conference, EGOSE 2021, Proceedings. Chugunov, A. V., Janssen, M., Khodachek, I., Misnikov, Y. & Trutnev, D. (eds.). Springer Nature, 119-131 (Communications in Computer and Information Science; vol. 1529 CCIS).
Volkovskii, D. & Filatova, O. (2023). Low civility and high incivility in Russian online deliberation: a case of political talk in VKontakte social network. KOME, 11(1), 95–109.
Volkovskii, D. & Filatova, O. (2021). Online deliberation on social media as a form of public dialogue in Russia. In.: IMS 2021 – International Conference "Internet and Modern Society", June 24-26, 2021, St. Petersburg, Russia, 146-156.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Conference Proceedings Volume
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Daniil Volkovskii, Olga Filatova
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
