eParticipation research: Systematizing the field

Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) 373–382

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Government Information Quarterly journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/govinf

Review

eParticipation research: Systematizing the field Iryna Susha ⁎, Åke Grönlund Swedish Business School, Örebro University, 701 82, Örebro, Sweden

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Available online 19 May 2012 Keywords: eParticipation eDemocracy eGovernment Research Literature review

a b s t r a c t It has been widely acknowledged recently that the research field of eParticipation suffers from lack of comprehensive theoretical contributions, insufficient depth, and inconsistency in definitions of central concepts. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the field researchers find it difficult to consolidate their theoretical groundwork and further theory building in the eParticipation domain. This paper reports a literature study of conceptual publications on the subject of eParticipation/eDemocracy in the time frame of 2007–2009. Its objectives are to track recent theoretical development in the field, to reveal constraints and limitations to researching the area, and to offer some suggestions for further inquiry. The results show that most theories currently used in conceptual eParticipation research originate from the fields of Political Science and Media and Communication Studies. But together with this, contemporary eParticipation authors contribute to strengthening the field with some “in-house” models and frameworks as well. Central problems with eParticipation research concern immaturity of the field, topical gaps, and biased assumptions. The review shows that the themes of recent publications can be grouped into three major categories: stakeholders, environment, and applications and tools. It also finds some interconnections between these categories; however, in general the coupling technology–stakeholders–(participatory) environments is weak. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction eParticipation is a field sometimes discussed in its own right, but even so, in both research and practice, it cannot be entirely detached from the wider field of eGovernment. The UN eGovernment index (UNDESA, 2010) today includes an eParticipation section, the reason for which, as stated in the UN report, is to “bring some order to measurement of e-governance by positing the relevance of three factors in citizen engagement: electronic information dissemination, electronic consultation, and electronic participation in decision-making” (UNDESA, 2010, p. 96). In research, eParticipation and eGovernment often find a place at the same, or coordinated, conferences — for example, the International conference on eParticipation (IFIP ePart) has sprung from the older IFIP eGovernment conference (EGOV), and the two are co-located. Interestingly, the domain of eParticipation originated from a field earlier called eDemocracy, 1 but the relation between the two fields is still not clear (Grönlund, 2009a, 2009b). A decade ago Hacker and van Dijk (2000) set forward a theoretical agenda for the field of digital (virtual, tele-, cyber-, electronic) democracy which brought into focus

⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (I. Susha), [email protected] (Å. Grönlund). 1 To be true to our references we use their term as required by the context; both terms, eParticipation and eDemocracy, refer to the use of ICT for participation in government–citizen processes.

0740-624X/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2011.11.005

research issues such as the concept of democracy in general, definitions of electronic democratization, the role of ICTs in the political system, structural transformation of the public sphere, to name just a few. In other words, the focal point of the research domain of eDemocracy is to explore how ICT-supported communication processes can facilitate democratic goals. Although it is often taken for granted that eParticipation is a sub-field of eDemocracy (Macintosh, 2004), research on eParticipation assumes even greater independence. The UN eParticipation index, which in its measurement uses the models from eParticipation studies, relates it to the use of social networks, newsgroups, blogs, polls, surveys, and other interactive tools to facilitate engagement (UNDESA, 2010, p 96). In the research community there's a so-called “wide” definition of the eParticipation field which describes the domain as citizens' participation in the processes of public service provision at various stages in the production chain (planning, decision making, implementation, evaluation) (Grönlund, 2001; Millard, Macintosh and Tambouris, 2009) which is another evidence of the close ties between eParticipation and eGovernment concepts. There are two instances of discrepancy between the focuses and themes in the fields of eDemocracy and eParticipation as described above. First, there is a lack of internal logic in linking (e-)Participation with solely democratic regimes of governance: among other things technology tools can help create facades or even barriers to genuine public participation (Arnstein, 1969) thus serving as an effective means for non-democratic purposes (this has been insufficiently discussed in the literature so far). Therefore it should not be an

374

I. Susha, Å. Grönlund / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) 373–382

overstatement that research on eDemocracy (virtual, digital, cyber-, tele-), as opposed to eParticipation studies, to a certain degree, has an ideological twist with an emphasis on the transformational effects of technology use. In confirmation of this consider most of the existing eDemocracy models which are founded on the logic of vertical communication with “the authorities” and/or increased influence of citizenry on the governance processes (Institute for Electronic Government, 2004; OECD, 2001). There is no denying that eParticipation models have inherited this feature from the eDemocracy area but it has been explicitly argued elsewhere that this trail lacks theoretical rigor. For instance, eParticipation maturity models are typically based on technology sophistication levels and not on any theory of participation or democracy. Further, they often implicitly assume direct democracy as the ultimate and undisputed goal, which is (1) in practice in conflict with the dominating democratic theories, and (2) not rigorous from a scientific point of view as a major underlying theory is not explicitly dealt with (Grönlund, 2009a, 2009b). The second discrepancy argument concerns the scope and methods used in the two fields. Although eParticipation research appears as a rather instrumental domain largely oriented towards the utilization of ICT tools, its scope is much broader and encompasses citizens' participation in virtually any public service and not necessarily in the political, or governance-related, field. For example, there is a concept of ICT-mediated patient participation in health care (and in the Health Informatics research field) which concerns patient–doctor interaction and has nothing at all to do with democracy as a political decision-making system. Therefore the set of research approaches and methods used to study eParticipation practices mainly correspond to the socio-technical aspects of the phenomenon (usercentered design, usability and accessibility, user performance evaluation, etc.). Contrary to this, the eDemocracy focus on political impact means the range of approaches and tools used focuses on assessing the democratic effects of ICT use, including such techniques as stakeholder analysis, policy analysis, etc. At first glance this makes the eDemocracy scope narrower than that of eParticipation research, but it should not be overlooked that apart from participation the eDemocracy field discusses a number of other topics, not entirely devoted to citizens' engagement, including e.g. political cultures, globalization, and political systems in the digital age. Therefore it is apparent that the scopes of the two fields – eParticipation and eDemocracy – are distinct but overlap at a point where citizens take part in a political activity (as opposed to other public services) using electronic media in the framework of the conditions of a participatory democracy model (as opposed to e.g. “legalist” or “competitive” models; Hacker & van Dijk, 2000). As was mentioned above, the use of ICT tools to mediate interaction between governments and citizens in the frameworks of other democracy models still lacks a comprehensive discussion in the current eParticipation research. This discussion prompts a conclusion that the fields of eDemocracy (digital, virtual, tele-, cyber-) and eParticipation are noticeably disconnected at the theoretical level. Nonetheless, recently attempts have been made to resolve the issues between the two fields and set the necessary direction for eParticipation research. For instance, Macintosh and Whyte (2008) stressed that there is a strong need to go beyond the assessment of user satisfaction in eParticipation initiatives and evaluate with greater scrupulosity and depth of their impact on democratic practices. This also means approaching eParticipation research from a qualitative point of view in terms of methodologies used. Regardless of the outlined differences between the research focuses, problems, questions, and methods in the two scientific fields, eParticipation and eDemocracy go hand in hand in the practical sphere (see e.g. the Council of Europe's generic set of “e-Democracy instruments” which are in fact typical e-Participation tools; Krimmer & Kripp, 2008) and are often used interchangeably in the professional jargon. It is a pronounced tendency that the impact of ICTs on

participation (and by implication democracy) is viewed in the current eParticipation practice from the “narrow,” as opposed to the “wide,” perspective. The “narrow” view on eParticipation assumes that online participation is a tool helping to move from a representative democratic system to a more participatory and direct one in order to enable the citizens to fully participate in decision-making processes and arrive at reasonable and responsible solutions for themselves. But in the practical world, as well as in research, some efforts are made to combine the narrow view with the wide. For instance, the EU eParticipation Study (Millard, Nielsen, et al., 2009) produced a comprehensive review of both practice and research in the field and constructed a framework which attempts to re-unite the two. The aforementioned discussion gives a good reason to claim that the emergent research field of eParticipation has not yet realized its self-determination. In other words, with a variety of understandings of eParticipation the field lacks a conceptual pivot which would make it an established, mature research domain. To a certain degree this can be attributed to the quality of research and its coupling to theory which are among the contemporary challenges eParticipation research faces (Macintosh et al., 2009a,b). This brings forward the need to strengthen the theoretical foundations of the field and explore in greater depth where it stands in terms of conceptual development. 1.1. Research motivation According to Webster and Watson (2002), an effective review can considerably contribute to furthering the state of theory and accelerating the accumulation of knowledge in the field. Therefore, as input to help advance the theoretical stance of the domain of eParticipation, the present paper reviews academic publications on the subject. As discussed in the Introduction, today eParticipation is conceptually and in practice linked to electronic government, although the theoretical grounds for this link are less clear. This can be ascribed not least to the weak theoretical underpinnings of both fields individually as well as in conjunction. Although the state of eGovernment research has been at the focus of a number of literature reviews (Andersen and Henriksen, 2005; Grönlund, 2005; Grönlund, 2010; Heeks & Bailur, 2007; Norris and Lloyd, 2006; Yildiz, 2007), contemporary research in the area of eParticipation has only been partially reflected upon. For instance, Sanford and Rose (2007, p.416) found that research on eParticipation had been largely concentrated around issues of deliberation and inclusion and “relates almost exclusively to participation in the political process.” These authors also argue that at present eParticipation is theoretically focused on democracy models originating from the domain of political science and philosophy (Sanford and Rose, 2007). Another study by Sæbø et al. (2007) suggests that the use of theories in the area is “eclectic” with most theories borrowed from preceding or adjacent knowledge branches. Moreover, the use of such theories has so far not been thoroughly tested as concerns their appropriateness in relation to eParticipation context (Sæbø et al., 2007). A recent literature review by Medaglia (2011), which studied eParticipation related research longitudinally, concluded that in general the field shows dynamism and gets more mature. This conclusion gives another reason to examine the developing field closer in order to understand into which theoretical grounds it is taking itself. On the whole, apart from the recent Medaglia contribution, there have been few attempts to structure and summarize the publications related to eParticipation from the year 2007 onwards. The present study aims to fill in this time gap and add a conceptual view to the available knowledge about eParticipation research. 1.2. Research questions and objectives The general objective of this literature review is to describe and analyze the current state of conceptual development of the

I. Susha, Å. Grönlund / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) 373–382

eParticipation research area. Beyond this, the review is aimed at summarizing and systematizing limitations in the recently published literature and offering some topical suggestions for further research. Thus the three research questions specifically addressed in this study are: Research Question 1 What themes are represented in recent publications and in what relation to one another? Research Question 2 What theories, models, and frameworks are currently in use in conceptual publications on eParticipation? Research Question 3 What are the research limitations and ways to overcome them suggested in contemporary eParticipation studies? 2. Research strategy This study adopts an inductive approach, i.e. the findings of the review are organized so as to form a conceptual product. This study is a theoretical one aiming to produce knowledge of a descriptive nature. 2.1. Article selection The data collection for this paper was carried out in two stages. Stage 1 First, a keyword search was conducted in two of the three library databases suggested by Webster and Watson (2002) — ISI-Web of Science and EBSCO Host. This search, which covered a large number of journals from many disciplines for the obvious reason of not missing any important article, was performed using as a basis the system of keywords generated by Sæbø et al. (2007) (and later also used by Medaglia, 2011), modified to satisfy the particular needs of this study: e-Democracy, electronic democracy, digital democracy, democracy AND internet, democracy AND information system e-Participation, electronic participation, e-Government AND participation, e-Governance AND participation e-Voting, electronic voting, internet voting e-Inclusion, digital divide AND participation Second, the full contents of the following academic journals, which were found to be the core outlets for eGovernment publications by Scholl (2009), was examined by means of browsing through titles, author-supplied keywords and abstracts: Electronic Journal of e-Government Government Information Quarterly Information Polity International Journal of Electronic Government Research Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy

Third, a search was conducted in the proceedings of International EGOV Conference (2007, 2008, 2009) which, according to Scholl (2009), is one of the three core conferences for eGovernment research. The EGOV conference was chosen as representing one out of these three quite similar, in terms of the nature of the content, eGovernment conferences. Additional search was performed through the proceedings of two recently established specialized conferences on the theme — 1st International Conference on e-Participation and EDEM: Conference on e-Democracy (2008, 2009). As the list of articles found this way testifies, the strategically

375

selected set of journals and conferences was fairly accurate. This set represents 50% of the articles found, and the number of articles per outlet was higher than for other journals and conferences. On the other hand, the open search found the other 50% of the papers; these were found in different kinds of journals, including general ones such as Social Science Computer Review, and very specialized ones such as Group Decision and Negotiation. Such journals typically publish only a few articles on specific topics such as eParticipation: in the first case it is just one out of a large amount of topics eligible and in the other case it is just one application area out of many for a specific method that is in the focus of the journal. Journals representing specific disciplines other than the obvious information science, information technology, and political science related ones, were also represented, e.g. Public Administration Review, New Media and Society (media and communication studies), and Public Choice (economics). In sum, our search method combining an open search with a strategic selection of journals and conferences has generated a reasonably representative set of articles. Stage 2 The large volume of collected articles had to be filtered as only conceptual articles were of interest. Conceptual papers usually offer models, frameworks, or theories on the subject. In other words, they look for relationships among categories, make explanatory propositions, or try to systematize earlier generalizations. In contrast to this, purely empirical papers often contain “product descriptions” (Grönlund, 2008) and case stories, in which merely categories and their clusters are identified and labeled and “ad hoc classification systems” (Parsons & Shils, 1962, cited in Webster & Watson, 2002) are created. Therefore, conceptual publications make greater input to theory building and development than empirical papers and, as earlier reviews agree, the eParticipation domain should be theoretically strengthened with more theories of its own. In order to select only conceptual papers from the multitude of the found material, abstracts of all the publications were scrutinized. In this filtering process the criteria for inclusion were production of a framework, model or theory in the result of the study, and/or presence of concept descriptions or theory testing (Medaglia, 2007). These words served as indicators that were particularly searched for in the abstracts of the selected papers. For example, in the abstract to Axelsson and Melin (2008), it is stated that the results of their work are an emergent framework of citizen participation and involvement in the eGovernment context. Another example is Pickard (2008) who uses the theory of structuration to conceptualize the e-friendly democratic culture among elected members. This process yielded 50 relevant conceptual articles for further analysis; a quality check mechanism was applied to the selected papers by means of reading through the entire texts and studying the conceptual weight of each article in more detail. To sum up, the methodology for data collection has been designed to conform as closely as possible to the recommendations in the review methods literature. Nonetheless, it should be recognized that the selection procedure outlined above does impose certain limitations on the results of the study. The choice of the literature outlets to a certain degree relies on the association between eParticipation and eGovernment fields argued for in the Introduction to this paper. It also leaves out contributions in the format of books as this would have seriously complicated the processing of contributions. Given this, it would be fair to say that the results of this study account for the conceptual eParticipation research as situated within the boundaries of the eGovernment domain where most discussions take place in the form of journal articles.

376

I. Susha, Å. Grönlund / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) 373–382

2.2. Data analysis The analysis of selected articles was performed using the template analysis technique which, similar to conceptual content analysis, examines incidence of themes in textual materials (King, 2004). In brief this means that during reading and interpretation of texts all identified themes are assigned code names, which are later organized in a hierarchical classification system. This classification system illustrates relationships between higher and lower order code names and gives an idea of how various themes are interconnected (King, 2010). It hence illustrates horizontal as well as vertical relations. Similar analysis strategies were used by Heeks and Bailur (2007) and by Sæbø et al. (2007). Generally, King (2004, p. 257) notices that template analysis is “on the whole a more flexible technique with fewer specified procedures.” Nonetheless, the key feature of template analysis is the hierarchical organization of codes which helps sketch the thematic structure of the subject of study and make a conceptual product out of the system of codes — a “template.” In such a template higherorder codes would give a good overview of the general direction of the research field and lower-order codes would allow for fine distinctions within and between the categories of themes. Another distinct feature of the template analysis technique is that, unlike in content analysis, the coding scheme applied to the analysis of texts is not static but is constantly revised and modified in the process of interpretation of the data (King, 2004, p. 259). The literature suggests that in the absence of any strict rules the strategy for interpretation of the template must be developed by the researchers themselves relying on the aims and content of their particular study (King, 2004, p. 266). Nevertheless, there are certain recommendations (King, 2004, pp. 266–267) which were closely accounted for in the design of the strategy for results interpretation in this study. Apart from providing a graphical overview of the template, i.e. “listing the codes,” the principle of selectivity was applied further in the process which means that themes (and connections between them) of most central relevance were discussed in greater detail. Units thus selected were termed “Lines” and used to illustrate the relationships between the codes going beyond the general linear structure of the model. According to King (2004, p. 267), researchers should be encouraged to build interpretations going beyond the linear ones and free to use various kinds of strategies and tools (e.g., a map) to display such findings. 3. Findings and discussion The presentation of the findings of this study is structured after the three research questions. First, themes of the sample of articles are mapped, then theoretical grounds of the eParticipation articles are described, and afterwards the limitations to the research area are summarized. 3.1. RQ 1 — themes and their relation The first research question was, “What themes are represented in recent publications and in what relation to each other?” As outlined in the Data analysis section, to collect and organize themes in recent eParticipation research a template analysis was carried out. The template, presented in Fig. 1, offers an overview of identified research themes and illustrates implied relationships between them. As the template shows, the set of identified themes was divided between three major categories: stakeholders, environment, and applications and tools. The stakeholders category represents research problems concerning the involved actors' concerns and interests in eParticipation projects and initiatives. The results of the review showed that three groups of stakeholders earned researchers' primary attention:

government and administration, citizenry and collective agents like NGOs, lobby groups, etc. The first connection identified between the themes in this category runs between government and administration and “constraints to citizens' participation” (Line 1 in Fig. 1). Authors making this connection in their works attempt to illustrate in which ways governments can address each factor that is restricting citizens' participation in their digital initiatives. For instance, Mantilla (2009) discusses such limitations as governments' prerogative for legitimacy determination and agenda-setting in the policy process. Also, Hacker et al. (2009) elaborate on digital inequalities in a network society and outline recommendations for governments to lessen these gaps. In general, an important point made by a number of authors in recent eParticipation publications is that governments and administrations should assume new roles in the rapidly changing social and political environment. For instance, Freschi et al. (2009) claim that “changing interactions between citizens, politicians and administration introduced by eParticipation” are currently the focus of eParticipation research. The results of the present literature study add to this that the topic of this “changing interaction” is now viewed from an important point of reference, namely what governments can do to eliminate constraints to full-fledged citizen participation and why these actions are important in a digital democratic society. The environment theme includes various systemic factors surrounding digital democracy practices, such as social structural change, properties of the political systems, and technologic factors. Articles covering these issues discuss the ways in which social structures, the nature of politics, and internet properties shape eParticipation processes. The present study found that within this category an important causal connection was made by several authors who claim that certain features of the democratic political system and the current internet governance regime impose constraints on noninstitutional actors' online representation and participation (Line 2 in Fig. 1). Within this thematic connection researchers explore, e.g., how search engine content selection on the internet is affecting digital representation of non-institutionalized actors (Gerhards & Schäfer, 2010), or how the need to continuously invest social capital to earn a respectable digital status impedes newly participating entities' efforts to make their voices heard (Rethemeyer, 2007). The democratic potential of technology (especially the internet) is in general a highly debated issue in political communication and media studies. But close acquaintance with these themes is especially important for emerging eParticipation research as it can help contextualize the studies and provide a rich background picture. A number of researchers call upon the eParticipation research community to pay greater attention to non-institutional democratic stakeholders (Kampitaki et al., 2008; Macintosh et al., 2009a,b), which means that there is a recognized need for a comprehensive analysis of online participation opportunities and challenges for civil society. The applications and tools theme describes the application of digital democratic practices on the internet including the use of other technologies. Here a quite clear distinction was found between institutionally initiated applications like eInformation, eService, etc. and citizen-initiated processes, e.g., social networking. The review showed that in the first case researchers were mostly occupied with development of successful eParticipation systems, while in the second — focus was on citizens' motivation and subsequent effects of such participation. A number of studies point out that there is a need to bridge these two, quite different, forms of citizen online participation and explore possible ways to further public policy debate using both (Line 3 in the template). Some authors question the underlying motives of citizens' preference for social networking over government-initiated eParticipation activities. For example, Bakardjieva (2009) looked into the way the private sphere and the need for self-identification determined internet users' choice of participation forms and methods. Similarly, Cruickshank

I. Susha, Å. Grönlund / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) 373–382

Fig. 1. Template illustrating classification of themes in recent conceptual eParticipation research and identified connections between them (Lines 1, 2 and 3).

377

378

I. Susha, Å. Grönlund / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) 373–382

and Smith (2009) introduce a set of personal and social motivators that shape citizens' decisions regarding engagement in eParticipation initiatives. Recently some authors found it necessary to investigate in greater detail and depth how Web 2.0 technologies channel citizens' participation (Petrik, 2009; Sæbø et al., 2009). The present study reaffirms these statements and suggests that research on citizens-initiated eParticipation might also benefit from targeting citizens' personal attitudes, their self-perception, and everyday life concerns in particular. It should be noted that the approach to structuring the multitude of themes in the present study is in line with the set of “focuses” of eParticipation research identified (Sæbø et al., 2009) and re-used (Medaglia, 2011) in earlier studies (actors, activities, contextual factors, and effects and evaluation). Interestingly, the Medaglia study found that there are certain gaps in the coverage of themes by recent eParticipation contributions as regards stakeholders and environment; more research is being done related to governments and citizens than concerning other involved actors. Moreover, the eParticipation field exhibits a trait of technological determinism as regards studying environmental factors. With this in mind, the specific contribution of the present study is that our template (Fig. 1) can serve as a roadmap for leveling off this imbalance among different eParticipation research focuses because it provides a detailed picture of all the available themes and emphasizes some important agendas in the eParticipation domain.

3.2. RQ 2 — use of theory The second research question was, “What theories, models, and frameworks are currently in use in conceptual publications on eParticipation?” To answer this question all selected publications were screened for theories used by authors to underpin statements and claims in the articles. On the whole, the meaning of the notion “theory” and its use for scientific inquiry is the subject of constant contest in the literature on the philosophy of science. Thomas (2007, p. 27) provides a typology of four broad uses of theory in education, and the use type adopted for this research out of these four is “theory as generalizing/explanatory model.” According to Thomas, the understanding of theory that falls into this category means ideas “embracing looser or tighter hypothesizing, modeling, heuristics and thought experiments” emerging from experience or intuition either before or after data gathering in a research (Thomas, 2007, p. 27). To put it in other words, the present literature review looked for theoretical constructs either utilized deductively to guide the research process in the articles or developed inductively based solely on the findings of these selected studies. Table 1 summarizes the results of this review. The review showed that most theories used in the articles originate from the field of political communication, media studies, and contemporary social theory. The review found one principal building

Table 1 Summary of theories, frameworks and models used in conceptual articles on eParticipation published in 2007–2009 (2010). Used theories Political theories – Model of political system (D. Easton) – Models of governance – Concept of representation (H. Pitkin) – “Dictator's dilemma” (C. Kedzie) – Theories of online political participation (mobilization/reinforcement) – Political disengagement theory (D. Scheufele, M. Nisbet) – Modes of cyberspace regulation model (L. Lessig) – Theory of polyarchy (R. Dahl) – Participation ladder (S.R. Arnstein) Communication theory – Theory of communicative action and conception of public sphere (J. Habermas) – Theory of cosmopolitanism and second modernity (U. Beck) – Theory of the information age (M. Castells) – Theory of mediatization and dialectics of mediation – Culture of under-determination thesis (M. Poster) Sociological theory – Structuration theory (A. Giddens) – Social capital decline thesis (R. Putnam) – Spontaneous social order thesis (F. von Hayek) – Social network theory – Theory of normative behavior (E. Chatman) – Concept of “public screen” (K. DeLuca and J. Peeples) – Critical cosmopolitanism thesis (G. Delanty) Public administration theories – Public value management (G. Stroker) – Politics-administration dichotomy model – Policy design models Information systems theories – Technology acceptance model (F. Davis) – User participation frameworks eGovernment theories – Levels of eGovernment applications (J. Moon) – eParticipation ladder models Other disciplines' theories – Social cognitive theory (A. Bandura and W. Mischel) – Theories of development economics “In-house” theory (developed in the eParticipation field, not imported from any specific discipline)

Principal references Andersen et al. (2007) Roy (2008) Wright (2009) Best and Wade (2007) Strandberg (2008) Best and Wade (2007) Cooke (2007) Couldry (2008) Grönlund (2009a, 2009b) Dahlberg (2007), Burnett and Jaeger (2008), Cooke (2007), Sunstein (2008), Hacker et al. (2009), McCusker et al. (2007) Hier (2008) Hacker et al.(2009) Couldry (2008) Hier (2008) Parvez (2008) Rethemeyer (2007) Sunstein (2008) Sæbø et al. (2009) Burnett and Jaeger (2008) Hier (2008) Hier (2008) Roy (2008) Rethemeyer (2007) Moody (2007) Cruickshank and Smith (2009) and Yao and Murphy (2007) Axelsson and Melin (2008) Schwarzer and Wallner (2009) Grönlund (2009a, 2009b) Cruickshank and Smith (2009) McCusker et al. (2007) Benyoucef and Verrons (2008), Boyd (2008), Edwards (2008), Funilkul and Chutimaskul (2009), Lor and Britz (2007) and Macintosh and Whyte (2008)

I. Susha, Å. Grönlund / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) 373–382

block in the theory on eParticipation, namely the Habermasian conception of the public sphere, which supports the conclusions made in an earlier literature review by Sanford and Rose (2007). As was argued by these authors, the contemporary theory on eParticipation is strongly linked to and dependent on democratic theories; to that the researchers' might even add that eParticipation theory does not exist in its own right, except as expressed in the “ladder models.” However, closer scrutiny of these shows that they are directly, however not necessarily strictly, derived from democracy and participation theories too (here Habermas is the principle reference as concerns the theory of democracy and Arnstein is the historical root of the ladder models concerning participation). The review also showed that some philosophy of technology propositions and media and communication theories are put to good use in contemporary eParticipation studies. This includes, e.g., Castells' theory of the information age and Beck's cosmopolitalism thesis, which are used to further widen the understanding of democracy in the digital age. For example, Hacker et al. (2009) use Castell's network society concept to contextualize inequalities in political participation; and Hier (2008) makes an interpretation of Beck's second modernity thesis in the view of democracy transformation process. The review results also suggest that apart from “classic” liberal and consensus-building perspectives on democracy used in eParticipation research, some more radical propositions are making their way through. These include for instance Dahlberg's (2007) attempt to “re-radicalize” the understanding of Habermasian public sphere, or Rethemeyer's (2007) use of social capital theory to reject the hypothesis of policy networks democratization. It is also important to mention that apart from re-inventing already established theories in ICT terms, contemporary eParticipation authors contribute to strengthening the field with some “in-house” (Medaglia, 2007) models and frameworks. This term denotes theoretical constructs (concepts, models, frameworks) developed based on the specific grounds of the eParticipation domain and not borrowed from other fields. For instance, Macintosh and Whyte (2008) propose a framework for evaluation of eParticipation applications which integrates democratic, socio-technical, and project evaluation criteria and

379

includes a wide range of stakeholders and methods for assessing the projects. Another example of “in-house” theory is Funilkul and Chutimaskul (2009) who introduce a 4 + 1 framework for sustainable eDemocracy development consisting of such components as stakeholder and policy; the methodology, the ICT, and the environment; and a quality model of eDemocracy system combining internal (knowledge, process, communication) and external (perceived easeof-use and perceived usefulness) quality characteristics. Clearly, such contributions are very important for the development of the eParticipation area since they foster a shared understanding of how the research field should be mapped conceptually and defined as regards terminology. 3.3. RQ 3 — research limitations and ways to overcome them The third research question was, “What are research limitations and ways to overcome them suggested in contemporary eParticipation studies?” This question is answered by summarizing and interpreting research constraints, challenges, and gaps suggested by the reviewed publications. Here, careful attention was paid to articles which included meta-analytic reviews, i.e. the articles in which the findings from completed qualitative studies in a target area are formally combined with the aim of systematically ascertaining the state of knowledge in this field of study (Lewis-Beck et al., 2004, p. 892). Table 2 lists the identified limitations to eParticipation research and the suggested ways to cope with them. Table 2 shows that the central problems identified in contemporary eParticipation research include immaturity of the field, topical gaps, and biased assumptions. As in the case of eGovernment research in general, research on eParticipation is described as highly fragmented, unsystematic, immature, and under-theorized. The need for appropriate theory either of its own (Medaglia, 2007) or borrowed from other disciplines (Macintosh et al., 2009a,b) is expressly emphasized by most authors in our sample. No less prominent a place in the reviewed literature occupies the issue of methodological immaturity. In this respect the authors of the articles put particular stress on insufficient sensitivity of measurement tools and their limited capability to recognize the

Table 2 Summary of constraints to eParticipation research and ways to overcome them described in conceptual publications from 2007 to 2009 (2010).

Immaturity

Topical gaps

Biased assumptions

Limitations

Proposed solutions

Principal references

Fragmentation with lack of coordinated agendas, consistent terminology, proper scholarly communication Immaturity of research methods and designs, lack of comprehensive methodology for progress evaluation

To foster integrated interdisciplinary research culture through shared methods, data and tools

Under-theorization with lack of critical distance, conceptual clarity and systematic knowledge building

To develop independent theory of its own possibly through grounded analysis of data, to evaluate in terms informed by key works in democratic and political theory

Insufficient understanding of underlying reasons for institutional resistance and lack of political will Lack of profound research on citizen-initiated forms of eParticipation (social networking, weblogs ) Unjustified preoccupation of eParticipation research with citizens' input at decision making stage

To search for balance between problem-solving and power-sharing concerns of stakeholders To investigate in greater detail and depth how Web 2.0 technologies channel citizens' participation To investigate citizens' potential to contribute at early visionary stages of policy making (agenda setting, consultations) To pay greater attention to national and supra-national institutional levels and on non-institutional democratic stakeholders (NGOs, interest and lobby groups) To look closely at contested and conflict-oriented nature of democracy and participation

Macintosh et al. (2009a,b) Sæbø et al. (2008) Medaglia (2007) Macintosh et al. (2009a,b) Sæbø et al. (2008) Medaglia (2007) Macintosh and Whyte (2008) Macintosh et al. (2009a,b) Grönlund (2009a, 2009b) Medaglia (2007) Grönlund and Åström (2009) Freschi et al. (2009) Macintosh et al. (2009a,b)

Excessive concentration on institutional and traditional stakeholders (administration, citizens, politicians) at the local level of policy making Predominantly liberal consensus-like reading and understanding of eParticipation theory and practice Technological determinism with over-estimation of sole technology effects on participation

To employ more sensitive research designs capable of measuring quality and effect and recognizing full complexity of domain

To examine interaction between new channels (online) and traditional forms (offline) of participation

Macintosh et al. (2009a,b) Meijer et al. (2009) Grönlund (2009a, 2009b) Mantilla (2009) Kampitaki et al. (2008) Freschi et al. (2009) Macintosh et al. (2009a,b) Sanford and Rose (2007) Dahlberg (2007) Macintosh et al. (2009a,b) Kampitaki et al. (2008) Freschi et al. (2009) Grönlund (2009a, 2009b)

380

I. Susha, Å. Grönlund / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) 373–382

multi-dimensional nature of the eParticipation phenomenon (Grönlund, 2009a, 2009b; Macintosh et al., 2009a,b). Another concern identified in this category is insufficient cross-fertilization of research results among research communities from various involved disciplines. Many researchers agree to the need for consistent methodologies, coordination of research agendas, and clarification of central concepts (Grönlund, 2009a, 2009b; Medaglia, 2007; Sæbø et al., 2008), but the means to do so, i.e. to develop a research culture, are clearly articulated only in Macintosh et al. (2009a,b). The topical gaps identified have been referred to in the previous section in support of findings of the conducted template analysis (see Section 3.1). Another group of constraints found in a number of the papers reviewed concerns biased assumptions at times underlying the logic of eParticipation research. Quite a few researchers now make the point that it is impossible to single out the effect of technologies in their isolation from offline participation channels (Freschi et al., 2009; Kampitaki et al., 2008). Although the research community seems to have accepted that technology is simultaneously shaped by social practices and transforming them (Macintosh et al., 2009a,b; Meijer et al., 2009), there is little understanding of the actual interdependence between the new forms of participation and the traditional channels and the resultant effects of this relationship between the two channels. Another bias suggested by a number of authors is that the contentious nature of the democratic system is being seriously overlooked in contemporary research on eParticipation (Dahlberg, 2007; Sanford & Rose, 2007). In other words, these authors suggest that of the two paradigmatic views on the nature of collective decision making – consensus or conflict – the first one currently prevails in eParticipation research. This is in stark contrast to democracy studies (with no “e”) where since earliest times public participation is an issue where there is no consensus (Grönlund, 2009a, 2009b). 4. Conclusion and implications This literature study aimed to systematize knowledge about recent conceptual eParticipation research and to contribute to grounding this emerging area of inquiry in theory. The objectives of the literature review were to describe and analyze the current state of conceptual development of the area, to summarize and systematize limitations in the lately published literature, and to offer some topical suggestions for further research. The principal result of this study is the development of a conceptual product – a thematic map, or template – which integrates and systematizes different levels of themes present in the current research on eParticipation and illustrates selected relationships between the identified thematic units. In the current situation with an unjustified imbalance in research focuses in eParticipation field (as found by Medaglia, 2011), the present template can be very helpful in illustrating the whole thematic variety available in the research field and streaming the scientific debate into the previously neglected topics. Generally, the major findings of the study are in brief: – Theories. The screening of theories used in the sample showed that theories from the fields of political science and media studies dominate the area of eParticipation research at present. There are, however, also some “in-house” theories developed within the eParticipation field. – Limitations. All central problems with eParticipation research, as of our sample, can be summarized in three general categories: immaturity of the field, topical gaps, and biased assumptions. The present study adds to this categorization by discussing the discrepancies between eParticipation research and research on (digital) democracy: in brief, eParticipation research obviously derives from the field of democracy studies, but even so eParticipation

models do not correctly correspond to democracy theories. Moreover, the relationship between the fields of eParticipation and eDemocracy needs reconciliation due to some subtle differences in focuses, scope, and methods used. – Themes. The analysis of topics of publications showed that the set of identified themes can be summarized by three categories: stakeholders, environment, and applications and tools; there are also interconnections among these categories. However, in general there is a lack of research combining stakeholders with methods, tools, and environments (the lack of research on social media and participation is one example). More generally, this lack seems to reflect the disciplinary boundaries — informaticians study tools, political scientists study government, and sociologists study users and environments. As of future directions for conceptual eParticipation research, the review leads to the following suggestions. 1. It is important to investigate in greater detail what new roles governments can assume in a rapidly changing social environment and how they can eliminate constraints to citizens' (electronic) participation in particular. There is a discrepancy here as regards the theories found in our sample: whereas technology is sometimes ascribed a determining role in “transforming” the government, the actual change in public administration practices – i.e. outsourcing, privatizing, delegating work to users – is not clearly reflected in the theories. It appears both approaches – starting from government versus starting from technology – require some updating, and this is apparently an issue where increased interdisciplinarity could be fruitful. 2. There is a need for more profound analysis of the challenges and opportunities for eParticipation involving non-institutional actors (NGOs, lobby groups, interest groups, etc.) in the context of the current internet governance regime and the inherent properties of the political system(s). 3. It is necessary to explore in more detail how government- and citizen-initiated forms of eParticipation can be best arranged to mutual benefit and how the use of Web 2.0 technologies (social networking, blogging) can transform public policy debate. As concerns limitations and constraints to eParticipation research, besides immaturity issues and topical gaps, a problem of biased assumptions at times underlying scientific inquiry in the eParticipation domain was discussed. In particular, – There is insufficient understanding of the interdependency and resultant effects of eParticipation and its traditional (non-“e”) channels. Often changes in citizens' participation patterns are solely, and wrongly, attributed to their use of digital channels of political communication and activity. – The contentious nature of the democratic system is being seriously overlooked in contemporary research on eParticipation. Public policy making is often viewed as a consensus building process with balanced interests, while in reality any policy decision satisfies different concerns unequally. This study, as well as other literature reviews in the eGovernment field, was constrained by the fact that there is no firmly established set of authoritative information sources. In this study this limitation was addressed by following Webster and Watson's (2002) advice on the choice of library databases for keyword search and by searching through the journals labeled “core” for eGovernment research by Scholl (2009). This study is a theoretical contribution as it aggregates and systematizes current knowledge about eParticipation research and maps themes and theories used in most recent publications in the field. Apart from the description of results and exemplification of conclusions, the study also identifies and interprets emergent

I. Susha, Å. Grönlund / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) 373–382

connections between the themes. This gives a good orientation for newly engaged researchers and offers new viewpoints to the eParticipation community. Acknowledgment Special thanks to PhD student Ann-Sofie Hellberg for thorough reading and valuable advice to our work. This research was partially supported by a scholarship from the Swedish Institute.

381

Scholl, H. (2009). Profiling the EG research community and its core. In M. A. Wimmer, H. J. Scholl, M. Janssen, & R. Traunmüller (Eds.), Proceedings of 8th international conference on electronic government, EGOV 2009 (pp. 1–12). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer LNCS 5693. Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Flak, L. S. (2007). The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research field. Government Information Quarterly, 25, 400–428. UNDESA (2010). Leveraging E-government at a time of financial and economic crisis. 2010 United Nations e-Government survey. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs978-92-1-123183-0 Web, January 15, 2011 http://www2.unpan.org/egovkb/ global_reports/10report.htm Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. (Editorial). MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii. Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3), 646–665.

References Andersen, K. V., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2005). The first leg of e-government research: Domains and application areas 1998–2003. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 1(4), 26–44. Arnstein, Sherry R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. JAIP, 35(4), 216–224. Grönlund, Å. (2001). Democracy in an IT-framed society. Communications of the ACM, 44(1), 23–26. Grönlund, Å. (2005). State of the art in e-Gov research: Surveying conference publications. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 1(4), 1–25. Grönlund, Å. (2008). Lost in competition? The state of the art in e-government research. In H. Chen, L. Brandt, V. Gregg, R. Traunmüller, S. Dawes, E. Hovy, A. Macintosh, & C. A. Larson (Eds.), Digital government: E-government research, case studies, and implementation (pp. 61–83). New York: Springer. Grönlund, Å. (2009). ICT is not participation is not democracy — eParticipation development models revisited. In A. Macintosh, & E. Tambouris (Eds.), Proceedings of 1st international conference on electronic participation, ePart 2009 (pp. 12–23). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag LNCS 5694. Grönlund, Å. (2010). Ten years of e-government: The ‘end of history’ and new beginning. In M. A. Wimmer, J. -L. Chappelet, M. Janssen, & H. J. Scholl (Eds.), Proceedings of 9th international conference on electronic government, EGOV 2010 (pp. 13–24). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer LNCS 6228. Hacker, K. L., & van Dijk, J. (2000). Digital democracy: Issues of theory and practice. London: SAGE. Heeks, R., & Bailur, S. (2007). Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 243–265. Institute for Electronic Government (2004). E-democracy: Putting down global roots. Washington, DC: Institute for Electronic Government Web, September 9, 2011 bhttp://www-01.ibm.com/industries/government/ieg/pdf/edemocracy%20putting%20down%20roots.pdf >. King, N. (2004). Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In C. Cassel, & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 256–270). London: SAGE. King, N. (2010). Template analysis [WWW page]. School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield Web, 25 May 2010 bhttp://www.hud. ac.uk/hhs/research/template_analysis/index.htm > Krimmer, R., & Kripp, M. J. (2008). A set of generic e-democracy tools. Ad Hoc Committee on E-democracy, CAHDE, 5, Directorate of Democratic Institutions, Council of Europe. Lewis-Beck, M. S., Bryman, A., & Liao, T. F. (Eds.). (2004). The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods, Vol. 1, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE. Macintosh, A. (2004). Characterizing e-Participation in policy-making. Proceedings of the 37th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS'04) (pp. 10). IEEE Press. Macintosh, A., Coleman, S., & Schneeberger, A. (2009). eParticipation: The research gaps. In A. Macintosh, & E. Tambouris (Eds.), Electronic participation: Proceedings of first international conference, ePart 2009 (pp. 1–11). Germany: Springer-Verlag LNCS 5694, ISSN 0302-9743. Medaglia, R. (2007). The challenged identity of a field: The state of the art of eParticipation research. Information Polity, 12, 169–181. Medaglia, R. (2011). eParticipation research: A longitudinal overview. In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, & H. de Bruijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the third international conference on electronic participation, ePart 2011. August 29 - September 1, 2011, Delft, the Netherlands. Springer. Millard, J., Nielsen, M. M., Warren, J., Smith, S., Macintosh, A., Tarabanis, K., Tambouris, E., Panopoulu, E., Efpraxia, D., & Parisopoulos, K. (2009). European eParticipation summary report. European Commission, Directorate for Information Society and Media. Web, February 1, 2011. http://ec.europa.eu/ information_society/activities/egovernment/docs/reports/ eu_eparticipation_summary_nov_09.pdf Norris, D. F., & Lloyd, B. A. (2006). The scholarly research of e-government: Characterizing a nascent field. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 2, 40–56. OECD (2001). Citizens as partners. OECD handbook on information, consultation and public participation in policy-making Web, September 16, 2011 http://browse. oecdbookshop.org/oecd/pdfs/free/4201141e.pdf Thomas, G. (2007). Education and theory: Strangers in paradigms. Conducting educational research. England: McGraw-Hill International. Sanford, C., & Rose, J. (2007). Characterizing eParticipation. International Journal of Information Management, 27, 406–421.

APPENDIX. LIST OF PUBLICATIONS Andersen, K. V., Henriksen, H. Z., Secher, C., & Medaglia, R. (2007). Cost of eparticipation: The management challenges. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 1(1), 29–43. Axelsson, K., & Melin, U. (2008). Citizen participation and involvement in eGovernment projects: An emergent framework. In M. A. Wimmer, H. J. Scholl, & E. Ferro (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international conference on electronic government, EGOV 2008 (pp. 207–218). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer LNCS 5184. Bakardjieva, M. (2009). Subactivism: Lifeworld and politics in the age of the internet. The Information Society, 25(2), 91–104. Bayley, C., & French, S. (2008). Designing a participatory process for stakeholder involvement in a societal decision. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(3), 195–210. Benyoucef, M., & Verrons, M. -H. (2008). Configurable e-negotiation systems for large scale and transparent decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17, 211–224. Best, M. L., & Wade, K. W. (2007). Democratic and anti-democratic regulators of the internet: A framework. The Information Society, 23, 405–411. Boyd, O. P. (2008). Differences in eDemocracy parties' eParticipation systems. Information Polity, 13, 167–188. Burnett, G., & Jaeger, P. T. (2008). Small worlds, lifeworlds, and information: The ramification of the information behaviour of social groups in public policy and the public sphere. Information Research, 13(2). Cetinkaya, O., & Cetinkaya, D. (2007). Verification and validation issues in electronic voting. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 5(2), 117–126. Coleman, R., Lieber, P., Mendelson, A. L., & Kurpius, D. D. (2008). Public life and the internet: if you build a better website, will citizens become engaged? New Media and Society, 10(2), 179–201. Cooke, L. (2007). Controlling the net: European approaches to content and access regulation. Journal of Information Science, 33, 360–376. Couldry, N. (2008). Mediatization or mediation? Alternative understandings of the emergent space of digital storytelling. New Media and Society, 10(3), 373–391. Cruickshank, P., & Smith, C. (2009). Self-efficacy as a factor in the evaluation of epetitions. In A. Prosser, & P. Parycek (Eds.), Proceedings of EDEM 2009 — Conference on electronic democracy (pp. 223–232). Vienna: Austrian Computer Society. Dahlberg, L. (2007). Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: From consensus to contestation. New Media and Society, 9(5), 827–847. Edwards, A. (2008). What e-politicians do with words: Online communication between councilors and citizens. Information Polity, 13, 233–248. Freschi, A. C., Medaglia, R., & Nørbjerg, J. (2009). A tale of six countries: eParticipation research from an administration and political perspective. In A. Macintosh, & E. Tambouris (Eds.), Proceedings of 1st international conference on electronic participation, ePart 2009 (pp. 36–45). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag LNCS 5694. Funilkul, S., & Chutimaskul, W. (2009). The framework for sustainable eDemocracy development. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 3(1), 16–31. Gerhards, J., & Schäfer, M. S. (2010). Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the USA and Germany. New Media and Society, 12(1), 143–160. Grönlund, Å. (2009). ICT is not participation is not democracy – eParticipation development models revisited. In A. Macintosh, & E. Tambouris (Eds.), Proceedings of 1st international conference on electronic participation, ePart 2009 (pp. 12–23). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag LNCS 5694. Grönlund, Å., & Åström, J. (2009). DoIT right: Measuring effectiveness of different eConsultation designs. In A. Macintosh, & E. Tambouris (Eds.), Proceedings of 1st international conference on electronic participation, ePart 2009 (pp. 90–100). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag LNCS 5694. Hacker, K. L., Mason, S. M., & Morgan, E. L. (2009). Digital disempowerment in a network society. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 5(2), 57–71. Hier, S. (2008). Transformative democracy in the age of second modernity: Cosmopolitanization, communicative agency and the reflexive subject. New Media and Society, 10(1), 27–44. Kampitaki, D., Tambouris, E., & Tarabanis, K. (2008). eElectioneering: Current research trends. In M. A. Wimmer, H. J. Scholl, & E. Ferro (Eds.), Proceedings of 7th international conference on electronic government, EGOV 2008 (pp. 184–194). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag LNCS 5184. Lezcano, J. M., & Olivera, N. (2009). The electronic ombudsman. In J. Davies, & T. Janowski (Eds.), Proceedings of 3rd international conference on theory and practice

382

I. Susha, Å. Grönlund / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) 373–382

of electronic governance, ICEGOV 2009 (pp. 218–225). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Little, L., Storer, T., Briggs, P., & Duncan, I. (2008). E-voting in an ubicomp world: Trust, privacy, and social implications. Social Science Computer Review, 26(1), 44–59. Lor, P. J., & Britz, J. J. (2007). Is a knowledge society possible without freedom of access to information? Journal of Information Science, 33(4), 387–397. Macintosh, A., Coleman, S., & Schneeberger, A. (2009). eParticipation: The research gaps. In A. Macintosh, & E. Tambouris (Eds.), Proceedings of 1st international conference on electronic participation, ePart 2009 (pp. 1–11). Berlin/Heidelberg: SpringerVerlag LNCS 5694. Macintosh, A., & Whyte, A. (2008). Towards an evaluation framework for eParticipation. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 2(1), 16–30. Maggipinto, A., & Visconti, E. (2008). A normative approach to democracy in the electronic government framework. In A. Mazzeo, R. Bellini, & G. Motta (Eds.), Proceedings of the IFIP 20th world computer congress on e-government, ICT professionalism and competences, and service science (pp. 21–29). Boston: Springer. Mantilla, C. C. (2009). E-democracy and inclusion: The role for government agencies in mobilizing participation. In J. Davies, & T. Janowski (Eds.), Proceedings of 3rd international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance, ICEGOV 2009 (pp. 211–217). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. McCusker, P., O'Donnell, D., & Fagan, G. H. (2007). Creating democratic value in the public sphere through e-participation: Where is this value? In D. Remenyi (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th European conference on e-Government, ECEG 2007 (pp. 301–308). South Oxfordshire, UK: Academic Conferences International. Meijer, A., Burger, N., & Ebbers, W. (2009). Citizens4citizens: Mapping participatory practices on the internet. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 7(1), 99–112. Michel, G., de Abreu, W. C., & Brangier, E. (2007). Electoral ergonomic guidelines to solve the interference of new technologies and the dangers of their broader use in computerized voting. In D. Remenyi (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th European conference on e-Government, ECEG 2007 (pp. 337–348). South Oxfordshire, UK: Academic Conferences International. Millard, J., Macintosh, A., & Tambouris, E. (2009). European eParticipation summary report. European Union, Information Society and Media. Retrieved from. http://ec. europa.eu/information_society/activities/egovernment/docs/reports/ eu_eparticipation_summary_nov_09.pdf September 15, 2011 Moody, R. (2007). Assessing the role of GIS in e-government: A tale of e-participation in two cities. In M. A. Wimmer, H. J. Scholl, & Å. Grönlund (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th international conference on electronic government, EGOV 2007 (pp. 354–365). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag LNCS 4656. Parvez, Z. (2008). E-democracy from the perspective of local elected members. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 4(3), 20–35. Petrik, K. (2009). Participation and e-democracy: How to utilize Web 2.0 to policy decision-making. In S. A. Chun, R. Sandoval, & P. Regan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th annual international conference on digital government research, dg. o 2009 (pp. 254–263). New York: Digital Government Society of North America. Pickard, V. (2008). Cooptation and cooperation: Institutional exemplars of democratic internet technology. New Media and Society, 10, 625–645.

Pieters, W. (2009). Combatting electoral traces: The Dutch tempest discussion and beyond. In P. Ryan, & B. Schoenmakers (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on e-Voting and identity, VOTE-ID 2009 (pp. 172–190). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag LNCS 5767. Rethemeyer, K. R. (2007). The empires strike back: Is the internet corporatizing rather than democratizing policy processes? Public Administration Review, 67(2), 199–215. Roy, J. (2008). Beyond Westminster governance: Bringing politics and public service into the networked era. Canadian Public Administration, 51(4), 541–568. Schwarzer, S., & Wallner, C. (2009). Don't jump over to acceptability before implementing e-voting: Social acceptability and its conditions of e-participation. In A. Prosser, & P. Parycek (Eds.), Proceedings of EDEM 2009 – Conference on electronic democracy. Vienna: Austrian Computer Society. Solvang, B. (2009). Political participation and democracy in the information age: Effects of ICT-based communication forms between the authorities and the citizens on traditional channels of participation and democracy. In Y. Takahashi (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on digital society (pp. 46–51). Washington D.C.: IEEE Computer Society ICDS 2009. Strandberg, K. (2008). Public deliberation goes online? An analysis of citizens' political discussions on the internet prior to the Finnish parliamentary elections in 2007. Javnost – The Public, 15(1), 71–90. Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Neither Hayek nor Habermas. Public Choice, 134, 87–95. Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Flak, K. S. (2008). The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly, 25, 400–428. Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Nyvang, T. (2009). The role of social networking services in eparticipation. In A. Macintosh, & E. Tambouris (Eds.), Proceedings of 1st international conference on electronic participation, ePart 2009 (pp. 46–55). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag LNCS 5694. Wright, S. (2009). Political blogs, representation and the public sphere. ASLIB Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 61(2), 155–169. Yao, Y., & Murphy, L. (2007). Remote electronic voting systems: An exploration of voters' perceptions and intention to use. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(2), 106–120. Iryna Susha is a PhD student with the department of Informatics at Örebro University, Sweden. She received her Master education in the field of Electronic Government and has a Bachelor's degree in Political Science. Her research interests are principally concerned but not limited to eDemocracy, eParticipation and eVoting. Åke Grönlund is a Professor of Informatics at Örebro University. Åke's research concerns the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in various human activities. The common denominator involved in all projects is to understand how people arrange their work, their organizations, and other activities pertaining to private life, such as socializing on the web, and how ICT can be used to make improvements. One strong focus is ICT use in government reform, “electronic government”. Åke has also worked as a consultant in different contexts in Sweden and abroad, such as for Sida and the World Bank in various countries, among others Rwanda, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan and Russia.