The DemocrIT? research group (Örebro University) is aiming for a more comprehensive understanding on the conditions for e-participation and e-democracy by pulling together insights from four different disciplines: informatics, political science, history and media and communication studies. Taking on this challenge DemocrIT? is involved with empirical research and theoretical questions ranging from the invigoration of formal politics to the ‘explosion’ of informal politics, from global trends to local responses, and from political ideas to technical practices.

One important perspective is that of the public sphere. Put simply, the public sphere is comprised of any and all locations, physical or virtual, where ideas and feelings relevant to politics are transmitted and exchanged openly. The public sphere perspective thus leads us to study not only the declining tendencies and struggles for renewal within formal political institutions (parties, governments, parliaments etc) but also politics in a broader sense, for instance journalism and activist networks. Drawing on the literature on multi-level governance, we also find it important to study how local and global is linked, why and what that means.

In brief summary, DemocrIT?’s approach is one of governance in which eParticipation is seen not as distinct but included – intricately enmeshed – in governance processes which only partly can be separated out as purely political. Most of them are “service” and “administrative” processes but with a political element, which may be direct or indirect. DemocrIT? do aim at a comprehensive understanding of the relation between technology and humans, and the following figure 1 explains the general approach:

Figure 2: A structurational model of technology (based on but extending that of Orlikowski 1992, p. 410)

The theory developed out of this approach is explained in detail under Theory of eGovernance information systems.

References:

Orlikowski, W.J. (1992) The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organizations Science, Vol 3, No 3, pp. 398-427.

The objective of Masaryk University (MU) is to define the communication and interoperability framework for eParticipation in the field of sustainable development and environment protection at regional, national and international level in order to pick up forms and tools of eParticipation, relevant to the actual level of maturity of society (see Hřebíček, Pitner, & Ráček, 2005). The core research interest lies in creating of the eParticipation ICT tools, platforms and organization management, which will take into account issues such as communication between governments and citizens, businesses and academicians and level of information society.

We identify and analyse informational needs of particular target groups (citizens, national, regional and local public administration, commercial sphere, scientific, research and educational organizations, public and non-governmental organizations) of environmental information with regard to communication with relevant information systems in the Czech Republic and abroad. Based on this research we are going to design structure, formats, attributes and appropriate ICT of effective methods of communication between government and citizens within the European Interoperability Framework of international communication and information system in environmental sphere.

There are three main themes of our research in eParticipation:

·         Interoperability

·         Security

·         Accessibility

We are using a new approach to providing information and services within eParticipation - Web Services, which are placed on technology basics of service oriented architecture. Web services are software systems which enable interoperability and a simple communication among applications in different environment because the communication is based on platform independent standards – particularly on XML language and protocol HTTP.

Further approach is using Open Source Software (OSS) and Open Source platform, which offer outstanding contribution to technical platform of eParticipation. Development of OSS which uses open standards can support the higher interoperability among systems and enable wider system sharing.

Open Source together with web services, Open Document Format and other standards create the technology platform of eParticipation on which it is possible to operate public services connected with eParticipation very easy and effectively.

Figure 1:    Technical platform for eParticipation using web services

References

Hřebíček, J., Pitner, T., & Ráček, J. (2005). Analysis of Environmental Information Management in Czech Republic. In 6th International Symposium on Environmental Software Systems (ISESS'05). Sesimbra, Portugal. International Federation for Information Processing. (May 24 - 27).

The approach of the Institute for Information Management Bremen Ltd. (ifib) implies that tools for information, consultation and active participation, as the main components of government initiated citizen communication, must be embedded into users’ and governments’ environments not only technically, but also economically, legally, organizationally, culturally and politically. In other words: the electronic applications in the so-called virtual world need to be integrated into processes and structures in the real world (see Kubicek & Westholm, 2001; Westholm, 2003). The approach is the backbone of all of ifib's research. In e-participation specifically it concerns, for example, the embedding of websites and consultations or other tools, or the evaluation of e-voting.

Embedding (we also used the term “adaptability”) means that the technical tools and the preconditions of its use as well as the expected behaviour of its suppliers and users must fit with the situation in which they are (see figure 1). In a first step, an analysis of fit has to be performed. Mismatches require either an adaptation of the system or a change of those aspects of the situation which are not favourable for the running and the use of the system.

From a technical point of view, online participation tools should be integrated into the technical infrastructures and applications in the back-offices of administrations and governments. This may vary, for example, for planning procedures and for voter registrations in online elections. Online applications should not overstretch users’ ICT resources and capabilities.

Another precondition is the legal admissibility of existing regulations or those to be revised. There are some means of communication between administration and citizens where it is necessary that the addressees can be authenticated.

A further issue is the organizational embedding: Online participation tools have to correspond with processes and responsibility in the backoffice of the administrations. This means that on the one hand civil servants should be involved into online discussions (best by replying to postings). On the other hand, the results of such a discussion should be delivered in a format that can be used by the backoffice directly (e.g. by using the same format of a data-base). Normally, these possibilities vary from human keying in to automatically processing. It is also important that the responsible persons are addressed and involved in the process.

Another issue is the economic aspect or the cost-benefit analysis for the public authorities and the users. Public consultation is not for free and can even be considered expensive when further requirements, such as the printing and distribution of popular brochures or the rent of venues, are considered. Furthermore, public officials often fear extra workload caused by emails and forum contributions from citizens. From the point of view of the citizens as users, political participation (via the Internet or elsewhere) will only have a chance when the target groups are motivated to spend their time. The readiness of citizens to participate has often been overestimated. According to the standard model of political participation (Dalton, 1988) only citizens with a good financial and educational background and societal influence believe that they can move something with their own political engagement. There is no reason to believe in a change due to the existence of new technologies. Citizens must get a gratification – such as the promise of more influence.

Consequently, e-democracy opportunities should correspond to the political culture which supports citizens’ involvement both via onsite formal and informal means of participation and which considers citizens’ input as a chance (knowledge of citizens), not as a complaint. Politicians should take citizens’ contributions seriously and have to communicate why they adopt citizens’ opinions and why not.

The degree to which e-participation processes and tools are embedded into the respective contexts to a large extent depends on the engagement of politicians and political bodies. Voting for the budget and adaptation of laws and regulations are important steps for policy to influence direction and speed of the development of e-democracy. Policy-makers have the power to decide about more participation rights. Pressure from other sides, like from the economy or third sector associations, may affect policy-related activities.

References

Westholm, H. (2003). Online Democratic Engagement: A Multi-channel Strategy to Enhance Deliberative Policies. European Journal on Communication Research, 28 (2), 205-227.

The underlying assumption of the sociotechnical researchers in the Napier group is that e-participation is a contingent and dynamic and complex social process; the group’s research focuses on ways in which technology supports this; both at the design stage in requirements negotiation; and in explanations of post-implementation adoption.

E-participation takes different shapes in different circumstances, and a further research focus is to examine the diverse sociotechnical arrangements that characterise the process. Many of the models of e-participation that have been proposed (e.g. stage models) depend on such understanding, though these have tended to focus on tools and to emphasise compliance with requirements negotiated at the design stage. Some of Napier’s research explores the development of, and the implications of a broader set of criteria that takes the long view, and positions e-participation in a wider set of societal trends.

Holistic reference framework for eGovernment service provision: The holistic reference framework for eGovernment service provision is based on the socio-technical approach of Cherns (1976), the Business Media Reference Model (BMRM) of Schmid (1999), the Information Architecture of Mok (1996), an elaboration of the BMRM by Gisler (1999) who extended the Schmid model with legal aspects and a discussion of Lenk (2001) who elaborated the BMRM from the point of view of different stages in service delivery. What can be learned from these approaches is the multidimensional consideration (from the strategic layer to the technical layer) of distinct aspects (organizational, judicial, security, process modelling, access, services, workflow, etc.) and the core phases of an electronic public service (from information to transaction and settlement - including an aftercare phase). The strengths of these approaches have been merged to a holistic reference framework. This concept supports the understanding of complex public services from three distinct points of view:

• Abstraction layers: different points of detail
• Progress of public services: different phases of progress of a public service
• Different Views: distinct foci on issues

Figure 1:  Holistic reference framework for eGovernment developed by Wimmer (2002)

The holistic reference framework is not restricted to eGovernment; eParticipation services and processes should be investigated likewise.

Holistic understanding of eGovernment and eParticipation:

Applying a holistic approach for designing socio-technical systems is becoming more and more important (Wimmer, 2000, p. 148). Complex interactive systems such as being deployed in eParticipation are formed by a multitude of aspects. One can identify a series of research questions emerging especially from the interaction among the four key aspects as depicted in figure 2 (Bicking et al., 2006):

• Research in society evolution, people using ICT as a daily support tool, people refusing or being unable to use ICT, people expecting governments to serve in traditional mode, problems of societal change such as digital divide, ICT illiteracy, ICT addiction, etc.

• ICT related research, including new and innovative technologies that might be of interest in future eGovernment and eParticipation applications.

• Government modernization research, including organizational change, networked governments, legal groundings, new business models, new public management, citizen integration, customer orientation, eSkills required by certain stakeholders, etc.

• Research in effectiveness, efficiency and economic values in Government modernization based on ICT diffusion, including public value of new ICT tools and technologies in eParticipation contexts;

Figure 2: Holistic consideration of eGovernment and eParticipation socio-technical systems (Bicking et al., 2006)

As can be recognized and as indicated with the arrows in figure 2, the four main areas cannot be considered in isolation. Instead, interaction among the four pillars and their interrelationships are of particular interest. Just to exemplify one relation: eParticipation success is shaped by the interrelation of how Governments use ICT in order to provide their participation services to citizens and thereby reaching certain performance criteria such as public value, effectiveness, quality of participatory service, cost savings at the administrative side, etc. One could make a long list of examples of such relationships indicating the multidisciplinary nature of eParticipation (Bicking et al., 2006).

Digging further into these interrelationships thereby exploring the particular (eParticipation and eGovernment) processes of these interactions is a means to gather a proper understanding of the system and its contextual environment.

Guideline for comprehensive Business Process Management:

Effective process management has recently regained attention[1]? as a key success factor for successfully implementing eGovernment and eParticipation projects (Wimmer & Klischewski, 2005). The analysis and simulation of the models deliver advice for the optimisation and quality assurance on one hand. On the other hand, effective business process management leads to more effective process execution, and it paves the way to comprehensive and knowledge-based process reengineering and process performance management. Consequently, Business Process Management (BPM) - often used as a generic term for Business Process Reengineering (BPR) - includes the organisation of business processes, reengineering of service processes, management and documentation of process knowledge, performance and quality management as well as transferring process chains into technical implementations such workflow management systems (WfMS?), web services, and service chains.

A guideline to comprehensive process analysis and design was developed by Wimmer (2005). It suggests the following steps for process management:

1. Identify the range of processes relevant for being implemented in eGovernment and eParticipation thereby also indicating which services and process chains can be supported with ICT (process landscape and portfolio with prioritization of processes to be investigated first).
2. Identify the key stakeholders involved in these processes: who carries core responsibility and who does what in the full process chain.
3. Set up a team for process management (analysis and design, modelling) including experts of the domain of application and experts in process management.
4. Select a proper process modelling / process management tool (or tool-suite) for modelling, documentation and reengineering of the selected processes.
5. Carry out the process analysis and documentation (the field work of analysis of the current processes) with the aim of getting a proper understanding of the processes to be reengineered or newly designed.
6. Execute process reengineering and process design (the field work and experts work for designing and reengineering processes by means of process modelling) with the aim of designing / reengineering the new processes (how these should be executed with the help of ICT and in online environments).
7. Evaluation of analysis and design results with users external to the project team as set up in step 3.
8. Transfer and integration to the technical and organisational environments (some parts may be transferred automatically, some process design issues are to be transferred via changes in organisation, training of people, etc.)

The steps 5 – 7 are iterative, following an evolutionary approach, because the analysis and design of complex processes usually requests time and cannot be done at once. Also, gathering the proper understanding in terms of analysis of a domain is usually time-consuming.

[1]? After a first hype of BPM and BPR in the mid 1990s which was driven by an outstanding book of Hammer and Champy (1993) on Business Process Reengineering

References

Bicking, M., Janssen, M., & Wimmer, Maria A. (2006). Scenarios for Governments in 2020: Towards a Roadmap for future eGovernment research in Europe. In Proceedings of eChallenges Conference 2006 (to appear).

Cherns, A. (1976). The principles of sociotechnical design. Human Relations, 29(8), 783-792.

Mok, C. (1996). Designing Business: Multiple Media, Multiple Disciplines. MacMillan? Computer Publications.

Wimmer, M. A. (2000). Designing interactive Systems – Key Issues for a Holistic Approach. PhD? Thesis, University of Linz. Linz: Trauner Verlag.

Wimmer, M. A. (2002). Integrated service modeling for online one-stop Government. EM – Electronic Markets, special issue on e-Government, 12(3), 1-8.

Wimmer, M. A. (2005). Ganzheitliches Vorgehen in der Prozessgestaltung für E-Government: Erfolgsfaktoren und Leitfaden. In M. A. Wimmer, & R. Klischewski, R., Wissensbasiertes Prozessmanagement im E-Government (pp. 95 – 109). Münster et al: LIT Verlag.

Wimmer, M., & Klischewski, R. (2005). Wissensbasiertes Prozessmanagement im E-Government: Herausforderungen und Handlungsmöglichkeiten. In R. Klischewski, & M. A. Wimmer, (Eds), Wissensbasiertes Prozessmanagement im E-Government ( pp. 7-27). Münster et al: LIT Verlag.

The research approach of the Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA) in Vienna is generally informed by the broad approach within the field of technology studies known as “Social Shaping of Technology (SST)”. It integrates a whole family of approaches in analysing the complex relationship between technology and society with a common basic perspective (Soerensen & Williams, 2002). This perspective assumes that technology is a product of the interplay between and inseparability of technical and social factors. SST goes beyond a simple and determinist understanding of consequences of a given technology and conceives technological change as a social process, acknowledging both the influence of social forces shaping technology as well as the emergent nature of socio-technical change and societal effects. The assumption is that technology, social organisation and impacts are co-produced. For modelling the relation between technology and society, “co-construction” and “co-evolution” are preferred to the notion of “impacts”. Metaphors and concepts like a “seamless web” or “socio-technical ensembles” indicate the hybrid nature of technological developments and their social contexts. This includes some – however limited – space for choice in design and use as well as an emphasis on the situated and systemic character of technologies with implications for policy and interventions: a broader scope for interventions, the need for diverse forms of knowledge and expertise and a broader range of evaluation criteria for technological projects.

The overarching issue is how the interplay of social and technological factors shapes process and outcome of technological change, in particular in the case of eParticipation systems. Within the multidisciplinary field of SST studies there are specific sub-variants with more concrete profiles in empirical research. Among these “Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA)” is the perspective which describes ITA’s approach best (Rip et al., 1995). Additionally, elements from other approaches are integrated, such as from “Cultural Shaping of Technology” (Rammert, 2002) as well as from “Actor-centred Institutionalism” (Schneider & Mayntz, 1995). The latter is especially suitable for international comparisons of the design, adoption and use of technologies in different contexts as it analyses the role of the institutional set-up and key actors and their interplay with technology, e.g. in different countries.

Figure 1: Modelling the interplay of social and technical factors in technology development (adapted from Schneider & Mayntz, 1995, p. 113).

Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) has moved away from traditional conceptions of Technology Assessment as “a systematic attempt to foresee the consequences of introducing a particular technology in all spheres it is likely to interact with” (Braun, 1998, p. 28). It acknowledges that the development of a technology and the production of societal effects occur in an extended, tightly interwoven cycle. Instead of ex-post assessments of “impacts” of a technology on society, CTA suggests iterative assessments along with the design, development, implementation and use of a technology, in interaction with developers and stakeholders. This process type of technology assessment intends to avoid an institutional and temporal separation of promotion and control. Instead, it is to allow for social learning and reflexivity through feeding knowledge from assessments into adaptation and intervention with the goal of achieving more beneficial effects for society. The ultimate purpose is analysing factors shaping technology development, design, implementation, usage and diffusion with an interest in anticipating, assessing and influencing (enhancing beneficial ones, avoiding harmful) likely societal impacts. This makes impacts on eParticipation as well as impacts of eParticipation a core subject of ITA’s research approach.

Within this process view of CTA, anticipating likely effects of the introduction of eParticipation systems on society (including second-order and unintended outcomes) is an overarching issue for ITA. How to identify, anticipate and change impacts is a major challenge. This extends to a variety of impact dimensions which constitute a range of particular issues in the political, cultural, social, institutional, organisational, legal and technological field. [1]?

[1]? A mnemonic device for key impact dimensions suggested in Porter et al. (1980, 62) is the acronym EPISTLE standing for economic, psychological, institutional, social, technological, legal, environmental dimensions).

References

Braun, E. (1998). Technology in Context – Technology Assessment for Managers. London/New York: Routledge.

Porter, A. R., Rossini, F. A., Carpenter, S. R., Roper, A., Larson, R. W., & Tiller, J. S. A (1980). Guidebook for Technology Assessment and Impact Analysis. System Science and Engineering, Vol. 4 . New York/Amsterdam/Oxford: North-Holland: Sage.

Rammert, W. (2002). The Cultural Shaping of Technologies and the Politics of Technodiversity. In K. H. Soerensen, & R. Williams (Eds), Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy: Concepts, Spaces, and Tools (pp. 173-194). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Rip, A., Misa, T. J., & Schot, J. (Eds.) (1995). Managing Technology in Society – The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London: Cassell Publishers Ltd.

Schneider, V., & Mayntz R. (1995). Akteurzentrierter Institutionalismus in der Technikforschung. In J. Halfmann, G. Bechmann, & W. Rammert (Eds.) Technik und Gesellschaft – Jahrbuch 8 (pp. 107-130). Frankfurt/New York.

Soerensen, K. H., & Williams, R. (Eds.) (2002). Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy: Concepts, Spaces, and Tools. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

A major challenge for European Governments is to improve ways of heterogeneous systems working together. Due to the growing of the European Union, existing systems have to be analyzed and evaluated properly to pave the way for a smooth cooperation and collaboration. To enable cooperation (either in terms of collaboration or coordination), two approaches can be identified: integration and interoperation. Klischewski and Scholl (2006) define integration as “the forming of a (temporary or permanent) larger unit of government entities for the purpose of merging processes [and systems,]? and/or sharing information”. The European Commission has defined interoperability as “the means by which the inter-linking of systems, information and ways of working, whether within or between administrations, nationally or across Information and Communication Technologies Europe, or with the enterprise sector, occurs” [1]?. Klischewski and Scholl further stress that systems and applications that interoperate are characterized by the following aspects: independency, heterogeneity, and control by different jurisdictions/administrations or by external actors; yet also cooperation in a predefined and agreed upon fashion. Likewise, Wimmer et al (2006) stress that interoperation can only be reached by means of open standards, whereby interoperation needs to be addressed on technical, semantic and organizational level alike. On this basis, the authors have developed an interoperability framework as shown in figure 1 detailing three dimensions of interoperability:

•  Making collaboration possible from the technical basis via the semantic interoperability up to the organizational setup.
• Seamless eGovernment and eParticipaiton: In a collaborative environment, each part of an overall electronic service or participatory process has to be smoothly integrated in the whole eParticipation or eGovernment service environment.
• Area of application of standards and interoperability: With the trend towards networked governments, agreements and policies for cross-organisational systems operation have to be achieved at distinct levels of governments. Developments towards interoperability happen currently at many levels. Being aware of who develops what and how this can be fed into an overall picture (including knowledge sharing) is of utmost urgency to guarantee future widespread networked governments and interoperation beyond certain organisational borders.

The framework shall guide system designers to develop interfaces and open standards that guarantee a smooth execution of public services in eGovernment and eParticipation covering the whole lifecycle of service execution from information provision till archiving of service products. At the same time, the framework shall support to define interfaces for global usage by applying open standard protocols, by developing common data specifications, common process models and by commonly agree on smooth cooperation and collaboration policies across distinct organizational settings.

Figure 1:    Interoperability reference framework: addressing interoperability in a comprehensive way

eGovernment Systems Engineering: From strategies to implementation to performance measurement

Implementing the holistic reference framework as introduced above requires as well a structured systems engineering approach. The concept developed by Hanl and Wimmer (2002) spans the systems engineering from setting the overall strategies and goals of systems development till evaluation, assessment and improvement of systems, and feeding back to earlier phases of systems development (see figure 2).

Figure 2:   eGovernment systems engineering: going beyond pure software engineering (Hanl & Wimmer, 2002)

Success Criteria for eGovernment Projects

Based on the eGovernment overall systems engineering concept, criteria for successful eGovernment and eParticipation projects can be derived (cf. Hanl & Wimmer, 2002; Wimmer, 2005):

• Clear strategies and visions: Clear definitions on visions and strategies for the development of eGovernment and eParticipation projects are important to lay the ground of development directions as well as to make evaluation possible. If such visions and strategies are not formulated in a proper way, there is no ground against which success can be measured at the end. Consequently, it is important that the visions and strategies can be measured with quantitative and/or qualitative quality indicators.
• Socio-technical understanding: eGovernment and eParticipation systems can be categorized as socio-technical systems. Consequently, a holistic understanding as depicted in figure 1 and figure 2 is crucial and should lead to a better understanding of the interdependencies of social, individual, process aspects, etc. in relation to ICT support.
• Structured engineering approaches: Structured approaches to systems engineering (e.g. waterfall model, German V-Model XT, ISO 9241, ISO 13407, the spiral model of Böhm, prototyping, Participatory Design, Scenario-based Design methods, etc.) are important in order to deal with the complexity of socio-technical systems and to take the various influencing aspects of people, organisations, technology, processes and content into account.
• Strong focus on the stakeholders and users: Understanding the needs and capabilities (skills, resources …) of stakeholders, the functionalities and technical facilities they will be using, and how they are going to use them, is a crucial factor for proper design of information systems. Consequently, concepts of usability engineering and of interface design are to be taken into account.
• Setting the project scope and defining the interoperation needs: This is crucial to plan the project (based on the overall goals and scope) and to know the system borders. An overall system architecture shall guide in defining the necessary interactions with external systems thereby defining the interfaces based on e.g. open standards.
• Engineering the organisational culture and the legal frame: The socio-technical nature of eGovernment and eParticipation calls also for considering legal, organizational or political scope of the system to be developed.
• Designing the information and knowledge in the properly: System design means to change the knowledge combination of people, systems and processes. Since any change of a tool impacts the content, a proper design of the information and knowledge resources at stake, as well as its flow through the processes to the stakeholders and actors is required.
• Comprehensive process management is key in any ‘e’-development: As stated before a clear definition of processes, accountability and interoperation and proper knowledge on each of the involved social and technical actors is key to functional and user-centric services. Thereby, structured approaches for a comprehensive process analysis and process redesign need to be applied.

[1]? Commission of the European Communities. Linking-up Europe: The importance of interoperability for e-government services. Staff Working Document, 2003

References

 
Hanl, S., & Wimmer M. (2002). Rahmenkonzept für e-Government Entwicklungen. In Wimmer (Eds.), Impulse für e-Government: Internationale Entwicklungen, Organisation, Recht, Technik, Best Practices (pp. 72-83). Proceedings of the first e|Gov Day of the forum e|Gov.at. Volume 158, Austrian Computer Society, Vienna.

Klischewski, R., & H. J. Scholl (2006). Information quality as a common ground for key players in e-government integration and interoperability. In Proceedings of HICSS’06.

Wimmer, M. A. (2005). Ganzheitliches Vorgehen in der Prozessgestaltung für E-Government: Erfolgsfaktoren und Leitfaden. In M. A. Wimmer, & R. Klischewski, Wissensbasiertes Prozessmanagement im E-Government (pp. 95 – 109). Münster et al: LIT Verlag.

Wimmer, M., Liehmann, M., & Martin, B. (2006). Offene Standards und abgestimmte Spezifikationen - das österreichische Interoperabilittskonzept. Proceedings MKWI.

This approach to eParticipation reflects the composition of Aalborg University’s Centre for Digital Governance and the centre’s cross disciplinary approach to Electronic Government (see figure 1).

Figure 1:  Three perspectives of the cross-disciplinary approach to eParticipation

Three cross-disciplinary perspectives are outlined:

1. politics and organisation (reflecting both the democratic dimension of digital governance and its location in government organisations with particular characteristics and ways of working).
2. communication and interaction ( focusing on the roles of computer-mediated discourse, socio-technical interaction and technology-facilitated work in governance), and
3. technology and infrastructure (concentrating on emerging internet-based and mobile technologies enabling governance, and the physical and conceptual infrastructures that underpin these technologies).

eParticipation is discussed in terms of these three perspectives, with particular focus on scientific perspective (preliminary assumptions; theoretical concepts; theoretical models; research community; disciplines involved, method), eParticipation typologies, research issues and problems studied, and eParticipation challenges and barriers.

The politics and organisation perspective

From the perspective of politics and organisation it is assumed that the involvement of citizens in the process of political decision-making and implementation can improve democracy in terms of more responsive and effective democratic institutions. EParticipation? is to be seen as one tool among others. However, in highly developed welfare states there is a growing need to find new ways of closing the gap between citizens and political representatives to improve both democratic legitimacy and political effectiveness. EParticipation? could be a new and effective tool for collecting information and knowledge from citizen-experts, stakeholders and ordinary citizens as well. Key issues for the research on these subjects are different normative models of democracy (liberal, participatory, deliberative), theories of the effect of participation on politics, theories about media and the public, policy-theory and theories of organization and management. In relation to eParticipation we have worked with a distinction between the supply of e-tools (that may help create new political opportunity structures for citizens) and the demand for (or the use of) such e-tools among citizens. The disciplines involved are political science, political sociology and public management.

Here eParticipation is studied at the local level – in communities, in associations, in welfare-institutions and in local politics and administration. The topics studied include plans and strategies for the use of e-tools in administration and politics as well as various forms of political e-communication. These cover: 1) communication “from above” (Municipal websites and other official and unofficial websites where citizens, members and user-groups can get information about services and policies). 2) communication “within” organizations (digitalization of the administration and of internal communication). 3) communication “from below” (citizens involved in public deliberations via e-consultations, e-voting, e-surveys, e-citizen-panels and e-discussion forums). E-communication is studied in all phases of the political process: from agenda setting through political decision-making to implementation and evaluation of policies.

Problems addressed in these kinds of research include investigating the potential of eParticipation for improving democratic decision-making and implementation with regard to 1) a more open, transparent and inclusive public, 2) stronger involvement of citizens in public decision-making and implementation, 3) more responsive and effective policy-performance. The methods applied are survey-methods, qualitative interviews with actors on different levels and document readings. Part of the analytical approach is shown in table 1.

Table 1:            Analytical approach to eParticipation

To-day, political participation via the Internet plays only a marginal role in the political process. One reason is that eParticipation is neither prioritized by public authorities or by citizens, forming a negative circle. Political representatives should pay more attention to the potentials of the Net for two-way-communication. The political authorities should furthermore pay more attention to securing an effective access of all citizens to the Internet. The lack of access to the Net is still an important barrier for eParticipation. It should be seen as a duty of government to overcome this barrier; in the present situation, the market decides.

The communication and interaction perspective

From the perspective of interaction and communication focus is put on the use and meaning of participation technologies. This means that design and implementation of technologies are always studied in relation to a use context. Primary research topics are interaction and communication in both design processes and in designed products. The research is partly rooted in the Scandinavian tradition of systems design and the participatory design school, emphasising the design of systems which contribute to quality in use by developing techniques for users to participate in the design process. The underlying assumption is that democratic or participatory processes in the design of information systems will lead to improved quality in use. Other research traditions include interaction design for interactive systems from the tradition of human computer interaction. Democracy perspectives are found at both an individual level (focusing on the support of individuals in order to make them able to participate, or focusing on the designed product and its ability to let users interact and communicate), a community or organisational level (developing participatory techniques and processes in order for different stakeholders to participate in design processes) and a societal level (influencing and improving politics in the IT-area). Key-words and theories for this research are participation, design, democracy, learning, politics and power. In relation to eParticipation we have especially worked on the design and evaluation of e-services.

The research focuses on eParticipation at the local level. Primary research areas are public institutions (schools, hospitals, municipalities). The ‘use and meaning’ perspective implies that the focus is on users (rather than institutions or citizens) and on analysis of user interaction with existing technologies and user interaction in the design process of new technologies.

Problems addressed by the research include how to improve interaction and communication in design and use context of information technologies. This is pursued through development of participatory methods for interaction design, development of theories of interactive technologies, development of theories for technology use, development of methods for how to study quality in use, development of theories for use contexts. The technologies studied are primarily owned by public institutions, such as 1) websites/e-services (e.g. e-tax websites, e-service websites from the power industry) and 2) administrative information systems (primarily electronic health records). The approach is simultaneously critical and constructive: eParticipation technologies call for critical reflections on who is setting the stage for participation, who can participate, why, and what does this mean, especially from a democratic perspective. Our position is, however, constructive, which means, that the biggest challenge is to use critical perspectives to construct better processes and products from a democratic and life quality perspective.

The technology and infrastructure perspective

From a technology and infrastructure perspective, eParticipation is studied in terms of particular computer applications (such as voting systems, debate forums, eHearing systems) which are usually particular instantiations of already developed technologies (such as chat rooms, geographical information systems, web-logging, group work systems, and decision support systems). Such applications are always dependent on at least two types of infrastructure: physical infrastructure such as the internet or satellites hosting mobile communications, and conceptual infrastructure such as ontological schemes, software protocols, but also citizen registers and voting protocols. Infrastructure is an important area of study because eParticipation cannot normally extend beyond the boundaries of infrastructure: thus eVoting cannot take place in the absence of internet access, or in the absence of a generally agreed and accepted protocol for voting. Thus infrastructure development goes hand in hand with the development of new technologies and applications. The focus of the research is on the development and implementation of new eParticipation technologies and the infrastructures they are dependent on, but this can take many forms, including software development, method support, system development management and work and use studies. A particular problem in the management of eParticipation initiatives is the diffusion and acceptance of the new applications – many eParticipation tools lie unnoticed and unused on the web. Other development problems concern user involvement (where users are diverse and geographically widely dispersed), strategy and design of eParticipation systems and a range of more technological problems concerning for instance, security, multi-platform access and mobility.

A variety of technologies underpin typical eParticipation applications and some of these, and their uses are detailed in table 2.

Table 2:            eParticipation technologies and their uses

Research in technology and infrastructure in the eParticipation field involves two different types of research communities. The first types of communities are those that directly concerned with computing and the development of computing systems, such as information systems, software engineering computer science, and health informatics. The second type of research community with an interest in eParticipation are disciplines which target various governance activities which are heavily dependent on technology and technological infrastructures, for instance: land administration, public administration and environmental studies.

Discussion: a three perspective model of eParticipation

Based on the considerations voiced above we can outline an integrative three perspective model of eParticipation reflecting the different disciplinary contributions to this emerging field.

Figure 6.2: Three-perspective cross-disciplinary model of eParticipation

Participation is regarded here as a form of interaction between citizens and politicians (and other societal stakeholders and stakeholder groups) rooted in communication. This discourse takes place in a political context under (in developed western societies) established democratic frameworks. EParticipation? is participation mediated by computer systems, and facilitated by technological and conceptual infrastructures. Government organisations take a prime responsibility for sponsoring and developing eParticipation and eParticipation systems, though this also evolves spontaneously and independently.

E-participation is a component of a wider process of social transformation participation in general. The societal change implied in the shift from a paradigm of industrial societies to a paradigm of information societies and more recently networked and knowledge based societies has brought increasingly relevant implications for the previous political institutions and the way they integrated the citizens political participation.

The changes in the employment structures, the differentiation of the market, the relevance achieved by the migration flows, the individualization of the life and work conditions, the weakening of welfare state and the trend to a lean form of state and public bodies, the growing colonization of the public sphere, the increased weight of media logic in the political discourse, the higher level of education of citizenship with higher expectations, the emerging of new social and cultural demands, all these aspects seem to have deeply corroded the basis of the functioning of the industrial society political institutions in their essential role of representation, as intermediaries of the political demand. On the other hand the democratic political institutions are experimenting a structural loss of power and legitimacy, as they have been increasingly challenged by the pressure of the global market, the growing interdependence of the decision making process at different territorial level, the expansion of the area of negotiation between political institutions and private sector (the so called governance) and the speed of the technological innovations. The emerging of new forms and issues in the field of the informal politics and of the collective action is also a very relevant piece of the new social puzzle of the participation, where digital networks seem to have played a crucial role of mutual recognition at the basis of the new identities and social relationships building processes (Castells, 1996).

In this perspective the development of new communication technologies and the evolving cultural and organizational demands could be seen in a relationship of mutual congruence, far from any kind of determinism. Moreover, networked society, like the Internet, doesn't seem a unified social phenomenon under the imperatives of the control decentralization and of the symmetrical relationships. This means that there are different models of e-participation and e-democracy, linked to different institutional contexts (social, cultural, economic, political and communicational), characterized by different power relationships among different social actors. In this general perspective, the study of e-democracy and e-participation seems to require both the analysis of their institutional contexts, in a broad sociological meaning, and the rhetoric and practices of social and political actors involved.

References:

Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.

Based on our 20 years of experience in applied systems design Fraunhofer FIT pursues this approach. The notion “socio-technical” refers to a trans-disciplinary perspective in systems design and organizational science: In enterprises or virtual, digital communities the social and the technical systems are intertwined. They are open, malleable systems and not closed entities. A socio-technical system is like a Janus face. Solutions have to take both systems into respect (see Trist, 1978).

“Formative Evaluation” stands for the immediate response and feedback of authentic user participation and other knowledge gained during the evaluation of the implementation and use. The impact of this feedback into the design team decisions and output has to be organised explicitly (see Mambrey et al., 1998).

“Redesign” stands for the perspective that systems design for the work practice should be organised as an evolutionary process consisting of different evolving life-cycles open to change. Evolving design assures the integration of new requirements and perspectives according to the current needs. Especially for groupware where different partners collaborate based on fragile structures and weak social connections group-centered solutions must be in accordance to the newest requirements.

References:

Trist, E.L. (1978). On Socio-Technical Systems. In W. A. Pasmore & J.J. Sherwood (eds.), Sociotechnical Systems. A Sourcebook (pp.43-47). La Jolla, CA: University Associates.

Mambrey, P., Mark, G., & Pankoke-Babatz, U. (1998). User Advocacy in Participatory Design: Designer's Experiences with a New Communication Channel. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, NL), 7(3-4), 291-313.