The education edition of For All Mindkind, with all of the still images kept for those who love such things.The LaserDisc Player used was a Pioneer CLD-S104....

Heed the Empress’s call and command an Interstellar Vessel toward the Galactic Core! This is the beginning of a great adventure, and your decisions will determine the fate of Techno-Humanity.

Kosmik is the visual canvas for knowledge management. Kosmik allows you to write, create large media collections, browse the web and share it all with your team! No more folders, bookmarks or infinite...

Background: Public deliberation is a qualitative research method that has successfully been used to solicit lay people’s perspectives on health ethics topics, but questions remain as to whether this traditionally in-person method translates into the online context. The MindKind #study conducted public deliberation sessions to gauge the concerns and aspirations of young people in India, South Africa, and the United Kingdom in regard to a prospective mental health databank. This paper details our adaptations to and evaluation of the public deliberation method in the online context, especially in the presence of a #digital divide. Objective: The purpose of this paper is to assess the quality of online public deliberation and share emerging learnings in a remote disseminated qualitative research context. Methods: We convened #participants for 2 hours of structured deliberation over an online video conferencing platform (Zoom). We provided #participants with multimedia informational materials describing different ways to manage mental health data. We analyzed the quality of online public deliberation in variable resource settings on the basis of (1) equal #participation, (2) respect for the opinions of others, (3) adoption of a societal perspective, and (4) reasoned justification of ideas. In order to assess the depth of comprehension of informational materials, we used qualitative data pertaining directly to the material provided. Results: The sessions were broadly of high quality, although some sessions suffered from unstable internet connection and resulting multimodal #participation, complicating our ability to perform a quality assessment. English-speaking #participants displayed a deep understanding of complex informational materials. We found that #participants were particularly sensitive to linguistic and semiotic choices in informational materials. A more fundamental barrier to understanding was encountered by #participants who utilized materials translated from English. Conclusions: Although online public deliberation may produce similar quality outcomes to in-person public deliberation, researchers who utilize remote methods should plan for technological and linguistic barriers when working with a multinational population. Our recommendations to researchers include budgetary planning, logistical considerations, and ensuring #participants’ psychological safety.