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

Contemporary public debates are often characterized by structural and substantial dissonances. This paper is concerned with normative and empirical evaluations of these dissonances and makes contributions on both levels. We argue that agonistic pluralism provides an insightful, yet often dismissed, theoretical perspective on the matter of political fragmentation. On the empirical level, we exemplify these considerations against the backdrop of the 2016 Austrian presidential elections and propose a corresponding measurement approach for political fragmentation. A combined network analysis and automated content analysis of comments on Facebook pages affiliated with political parties results in the following main findings: First, when looking at comments between different parties, fragmentation is at a low level at the beginning of the election campaign but increases over time. Second, degrees of fragmentation vary to a great extent between different parties. Third, offensive speech is one purpose for communication between political groups but not the main one.

Dissonance from the Perspective of Agonistic Pluralism: A Study of Political Fragmentation on Facebook during the 2016 Austrian Presidential Election