English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Online deliberation may provide a more cost-effective and/or less inhibitingenvironment for public participation than face to face (F2F). But do onlinemethods bias participation toward certain individuals or groups? We compare F2Fversus online participation in an experiment affording within-participants andcross-modal comparisons. For English speakers required to have Internet accessas a condition of participation, we find no negative effects of online modes onequality of participation (EoP) related to gender, age, or educational level.Asynchronous online discussion appears to improve EoP for gender relative toF2F. Data suggest a dampening effect of online environments on blackparticipants, as well as amplification for whites. Synchronous online voicecommunication EoP is on par with F2F across individuals. But individual-levelEoP is much lower in the online forum, and greater online forum participationpredicts greater F2F participation for individuals. Measured rates ofparticipation are compared to self-reported experiences, and other findings arediscussed.

Equality of Participation Online Versus Face to Face: Condensed Analysis of the Community Forum Deliberative Methods Demonstration