SMITH, P. 2018. An analysis of the relevance of deliberative democracy, agonistic pluralism, and pluralist group theory in explaining Twitter activity during the Scottish independence referendum 2014. Robert Gordon University [online], PhD thesis. Available from: https://openair.rgu.ac.uk An analysis of the relevance of deliberative democracy, agonistic pluralism, and pluralist group theory in explaining Twitter activity during the Scottish independence referendum 2014. SMITH, P. 2018 The author of this thesis retains the right to be identified as such on any occasion in which content from this thesis is referenced or re-used. The licence under which this thesis is distributed applies to the text and any original images only – re-use of any third-party content must still be cleared with the original copyright holder. This document was downloaded from https://openair.rgu.ac.uk An Analysis of the Relevance of Deliberative Democracy, Agonistic Pluralism, and Pluralist Group Theory in Explaining Twitter Activity During the Scottish Independence Referendum 2014 Paul Smith A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Robert Gordon University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy November 2018 Abstract This thesis is predominantly focused upon the relevance of deliberative democracy and agonistic pluralism in helping us to understand and analyse the Scottish independence referendum of 2014, as it played out on Twitter. In doing so, it advances theoretical political communication research into social media platforms, which often focuses upon the possibilities of deliberative democracy, whilst agonistic pluralism tends to be used in opposition to deliberative theory. Aspects of liberalism and communitarianism are also used in the empirical study as an aid to this comparison, by applying a model taken from Deen G. Freelon (2010). Uniquely, in addition to activist groups, journalists and MSPs are focused upon as key stakeholders in the democratic communication process. The thesis is qualitative, with a critical theory research philosophy which focuses upon pluralism as a theory which contextualises power relations in the democratic process, underpins the vital role of media plurality in liberal democracies, and is a forerunner of agonistic theory. Methodologically, the empirical study combines an 18 month period of Twitter observation with intensive interviews (conducted with individuals from the three aforementioned stakeholder groups) in line with accepted norms of critical theory research. The empirical study makes an original contribution to knowledge by presenting rich descriptions of exemplars of three different strands of political communication taken from Freelon’s model, which could be operationalised by quantitative scholars in future studies. The empirical results suggest that whilst deliberation was negligible during the campaign, there are a number of coding schemes that when tailored to the appropriate platform are capable of capturing online deliberation. However, the process of recognising certain requisite components of deliberative exchanges is particularly challenging from remote settings. Agonistic pluralism was found to be somewhat representative of the online debate, though lacking regarding essential components of Chantal Mouffe’s version of the theory in the areas of agonistic respect and conflictual consensus. The study, therefore, concludes that a new strand of agonistic pluralism would complement existing models of political communication, and core components of such a model are discussed. The thesis has a secondary focus which asks how pluralist group theory aids our understanding of Twitter-based activism during the referendum campaign. In this regard, the study concludes that pluralist group theory is indeed still relevant in the modern day, whilst social media platforms such as Twitter are perhaps redefining traditional notions of political interest groups. Keywords: democracy, pluralism, media, Twitter, deliberation, agonism, social media | Abstract ii Acknowledgements Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisors Peter McLaverty, Elizabeth Tait and Iain Macleod for their help throughout the PhD. Your support and skilful guidance throughout the process has been invaluable. Your patience throughout the more difficult times, along with your willingness to read and reread my work and also your unendingly constructive feedback, has been hugely appreciated. Thanks also to my fellow PhD students and staff at RGU for supporting me throughout this study. This study would not have been possible without the willingness of the research participants to take part. I owe my thanks to each and every one of them. I would like to thank them for willingly affording me generous amounts of time, often at the peak of a frantically busy referendum campaign. For Ben | Acknowledgement iii Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 10 1.1 OVERVIEW OF CHAPTER 1 ........................................................................................................ 10 1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY ................................................................................................... 10 1.3 BACKGROUND TO THE SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM 2014 ........................................ 12 1.4 OUTLINE OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM ...................................................................................... 13 1.5 OVERVIEW OF THE THESIS ........................................................................................................ 18 2 DEMOCRACY ............................................................................................................................... 21 2.1 OVERVIEW OF CHAPTER 2 ........................................................................................................ 21 2.2 CONTEMPORARY DEMOCRACY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM ............................................................ 21 2.3 LIBERAL DEMOCRACY............................................................................................................... 31 2.4 DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY...................................................................................................... 33 2.5 AGONISTIC PLURALISM ............................................................................................................. 37 2.6 CONCLUSIONS TO CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................................. 41 3 PLURALISM ................................................................................................................................. 42 3.1 OVERVIEW OF CHAPTER 3 ........................................................................................................ 42 3.2 PLURALISM AND MONISM .......................................................................................................... 42 3.3 PLURALISM, RELATIVISM AND PRAGMATISM ............................................................................... 44 3.4 VALUE PLURALISM ................................................................................................................... 47 3.5 PLURALIST GROUP THEORY ...................................................................................................... 48 3.6 CLASSICAL PLURALISM ............................................................................................................. 51 3.7 CONTEMPORARY PLURALISM .................................................................................................... 52 3.8 CONCLUSIONS TO CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................................. 54 4 MEDIA PLURALISM ..................................................................................................................... 56 4.1 OVERVIEW OF CHAPTER 4 ....................................................................................................... 56 4.2 MEDIA IN A DEMOCRACY ........................................................................................................... 56 4.3 UK MEDIA PLURALISM AS HEADLINE NEWS ................................................................................ 58 4.4 THE LEVESON ENQUIRY ........................................................................................................... 60 4.5 PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING .............................................................................................. 63 4.6 MEDIA PLURALISM – THE INTERNET AND SOCIAL MEDIA .............................................................. 65 4.7 CONCLUSIONS TO CHAPTER 4 .................................................................................................. 75 5 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 76 5.1 OVERVIEW OF CHAPTER 5 ........................................................................................................ 76 5.2 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY .......................................................................................................... 76 5.3 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH .......................................................................................................... 81 | Table of Contents iv 5.4 SOCIAL MEDIA RESEARCH PARADIGM ........................................................................................ 82 5.5 RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................................................