Actor-Network Theory (ANT) was developed in the field of Science and Technology Studies as a means of conceptualising relations between people and material objects, or rather how those ‘actants’ own conceptualisations form shifting relationships that may be stabilised into material form. ANT originated through work of sociologists Callon, Latour, Law and colleagues in the 1980s, at the Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation (CSI) of the École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris. Recent work has included a focus on democracy, technology and the ‘politics of things’ (e.g. the architecture of parliamentary assemblies) (see Latour & Weibel, 2005).


ANT treats “existing structures” as defined by social patterns institutionalized (“inscribed” in technology), and hence not necessarily confined to specific institutions such as organizations, neither determined by social practices (as technology is also “acting”). “Actor networks” are the most salient structures driving the technological development by “negotiations”.


References:

Latour, B., & Weibel (Eds.) (2005). Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. Boston: MIT Press.

The approach provides a conceptual basis for investigating the relationship between human agents, objects and their environment, a relationship which is understood to be mediated by cultural means, tools and signs. Activity Theory derives from the 1930’s work of Soviet social psychologists Vygotsky, Leont'ev and Luria, and was introduced to the Information Systems field primarily through Engeström and colleagues. It has been used extensively to study collaborative systems (see Redmiles, 2002).



References:

Redmiles, D. (ed.) (2002). Special Issue of CSCW: Activity Theory and the Practice of Design Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 11(1-2).

1. User-to-user interaction focuses on forms that individuals use to interact with each other.
   • Research areas: Social interaction; Interpersonal interaction; Symbolic interaction etc.
   • Applications: E-mail; Electronic bulleting boards, discussion for a, chats etc.
2. User-to-documents interaction deals with ways that active audiences choose in order to interpret and use mass media messages. The audience interacts with the messengers and gets involved in the process of content creation.
   • Research areas: Parasocial interactions in radio, television, film and the illusion of face-to-face relationships with moderators, performers etc.
   • Applications: Early forms of teledemocracy; interactive television; news-on-demand systems etc.
3. User-to-system interaction involves all forms of interaction between people and computers.
   • Research areas: Explorations of Human-Technology Interfaces
   • Applications: Web-based forms; any computer-based instruction etc.

References:
McMillan? (2002)
Richards, R. (2006). Users, interactivity and generation. New Media & Society, 8(4), 531-550.

Theoretical inputs for research concerning the “embedding/adaptability”-approach ifib applies mainly come from the “contingency approach” in organizational theory (Kieser & Kubicek, 1983): While classical management theorists such as Taylor and Fayol, were looking for the one best way in management and organization design, in the late 50s and early 60s a shift of paradigm arose, claiming that the organizational structure of a company or administration has to fit to the situation in which it finds itself. As these situations vary, different structures turn out to be most effective. In other words the optimal organizational structure is contingent, depending on certain contextual factors. Therefore this approach is labelled Contingeny Approach, in German the context is termed “situation“; and the approach is called situational approach (“Situativer Ansatz“).


Different researchers focussed on different contextual factors and investigated their influence in empirical studies. Joan Woodward (1958) looked into the production technology, Blau and Schoenherr (1971) into the size of the organizations, Burns and Stalker (1961) as well as Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) into the economic environment, in particular market competition and technological change. A broader approach was developed by a British team of researchers at the University of Aston by developing a conceptual scheme for the comparative analysis of organizational structure which took account of several contextual factors at the same time (Pugh & Hickson et al., 1963). In a survey of more than 30 organizations, seven contextual variables such as size, technology, geographical dispersion as well as five dimensions of organization structure (specialization, centralization of decision making, standardization, formalization and configuration) were operationalized by more than 80 indicators. Statistical analysis was directed towards identifying correlations, which were found, for example, between the size of an organization and the degree of specialization and formalization, as predicted by Max Weber. Later John Child joined the Aston Team and added variables describing the role structure and behaviour of organizational members and the performance of the organization, which are considered to be the relevant criteria for judging the fit between the structure and its context.


The Aston research programme was adopted in studies in more than ten countries. The whole research is summarized in four volumes (Pugh/Hickson, 1976; Pugh & Hinings, 1976; Pugh & Payne, 1977; Hickson & McMillan?, 1981). Kieser and Kubicek summarized this and related research in a German Textbook in 1976, using the following conceptual model (figure 1):





Figure 1: Conceptual model of the contingency approach developed by Kieser and Kubicek (1983)

According to this model, the formal structure of an organization defines the roles of its members in a specific way and thereby directs their behaviour to a certain degree. The performance of the organization depends on the degree to which these role definitions enable members to cope with the requirements resulting from the context of the organization. For example if there is strong competition and a high degree of technological change, decisions about new products and marketing strategies have to be changed frequently and be taken close to the market. A formal structure with a high degree of centralization, specialization and formalization would not fit to the requirements resulting from this situation, rather roles defined by a low degree of these structural dimensions would enable members to act in the required flexible way.


The method to analyze and assess these kinds of relationships is the comparative quantitative analysis, in the most advanced stage a multi-level quantitative analysis, assigning data to the level of the context, the organization and its members. These variables are operationalized in quantitative indicators, and data are collected by standardized questionnaires distributed to several members of each organization under investigation and afterwards aggregated to different indices for each level (for more details see Kubicek, 1975).


Empirical studies conducted according to this model could identify some interesting relations but did not show very high correlations and clear cut patterns. Kubicek and Kieser in later editions of their textbook suggested to take into consideration additional factors such as the management philosophy and strategic aspects of top management as well as the broader socio-cultural context (Kieser & Kubicek, 3rd ed., 1992). But the introduction of additional variables did not increase the level of the correlations. The fit of an organizational structure with its context depends on too many aspects and seems to be too complex, to be precisely captured by linear quantitave relations.


However, the basic idea of the situational contingency of a particular object on its context as well as the idea that the performance of an institution depends on the fit between its properties and its relevant context is still valid and of great heuristic value as it suggests the critical examination of too early generalizations and asks for situational differentiation.


This analytical approach can be found in other areas of management theory too (e.g. leadership styles or strategic management) as well as in studies on the social shaping of technology. For example Mayntz and Schneider in a comparative study of the introduction of videotex in the United Kingdom, France and Germany used a conceptual framework according to which the final design of the technical system and its institutional arrangement was influenced by different constellations of actors in each country which acted in different contexts, defined by the respective legal system, political system, market structure and a different technological pool (Mayntz & Schneider, 1988, p. 282). Kubicek and Westholm used a contingency model of the deployment of e-democracy tools in their scenarios of the future use of this kind of tools (Kubicek & Westholm, 2005). The map of the socio-technical research landscape employed to map different subjects of research in DEMO-net is based on a contingency approach as well.





References

Blau, P.M., & Schoenherr, R.A. (1971). The Structure of Organizations. New York.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London

Hickson, D.J., & McMillan?, C.J. (eds) (1981). Organization and Nation. The Aston Programme IV. Westmead – Farnborough.

Kieser, A., & Kubicek, H. (1983). Organisation, (3rd ed. 1992), Berlin – New York

Kubicek, H. (1975). Empirische Organisationsforschung. Stuttgart.

Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and Environment. Cambridge, Mass.

Pugh, D. S., & Hickson, D. J. et.al (1963). A Conceptual Scheme for Organizational Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 8, 289 – 315

Pugh, D. S., & Hickson, D. J. (eds) (1976). Organizational Structure in its Context. The Aston Programme I. Westmead – Farnborough.

Pugh, D. S. & Hinings, C. R.. (eds) (1976). Organizational Structure. Extensions and Replications. The Aston Programme II. Westmead – Farnborough.

Pugh, D. S. & Payne, R. L. (eds) (1977). Organizational Behavior in Iis Context. The Aston Programme III. Westmead – Farnborough.

Woodward, J. (1958). Industrial Organization. Theory and Practice. London.

In addition to linguistic theory, CDA draws from social theory and contributions from Karl Marx, Antonio Gramsci, Louis Althusser, Jürgen Habermas, Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu — in order to examine ideologies and power relations involved in discourse. According to Fairclough (1989, p. 15) “language connects with the social through being the primary domain of ideology, and through being both a site of, and a stake in, struggles for power”.



References:

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Second edition. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Since the 1990s another theory of democratic participation has become quite popular (see Eriksen 2000, 47): Deliberative democracy (see Winkler, 2006). Basically, this theory attempts to strengthen representative democratic systems but it is also increasingly discussed in relation to supranational polities (e.g. in the context of the EU).

The theory of deliberative democracy emerges from a rich history of debates on normative conceptions dealing with questions of inclusion of citizens in policy-making and the necessity to develop vibrant political public spheres for political debates. The approaches put forward by e.g. Rawls, Habermas, Cohen or Fishkin provide broad outlines for a model of normative justification for public deliberation. In their theories, these authors recognise and stress the importance of deliberative dialogue for a more inclusive and fair society. Some foci accentuate the significance of public reasoning about a problem of common concern (Cohen & Fishkin) others the existence of a non-coercive communication sphere (Habermas) or the emphasis on fairness of the deliberative process and mutual respect among participants (Rawls).

However, deliberative democracy is also subject to some substantial criticism as for instance expressed by Chantal Mouffe. She considers too many shortcomings in the deliberative view of democratic participation. Mouffe points out that proponents of deliberative democracy deny the dimension of “ineradicability of antagonism”, which is supposed to be a constitutive element of political life. Accordingly, it appears to be a “naïve assumption” that there is something like a political public sphere enabling rational consensus since pluralism has an inherently conflicting nature. Mouffe holds that “a well functioning democracy calls for a vibrant clash of democratic political positions. (…) Too much emphasis on consensus and the refusal of confrontation, lead to apathy and dissatisfaction with political participation” (Mouffe, 2000, p. 13ff.).

Apart from such critique, deliberative practices have played a crucial role in modern public discussion programmes, though (e.g. citizen juries or study circles) (see Gastil, 2000, p. 357). One major objective of deliberative democracy is that individuals are prepared and willing to be “moved” by reason. Citizens may change their opinions and preferences as a result of the reflection induced by deliberative communication (see Dryzek, 2000, p. 31).


References:

Dryzek, J. (2000). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: University Press.

Eriksen, E. (2000). Deliberative supranationalism in the EU. In: E. Eriksen & J. Fossum (Eds.). Democracy in the European Union. Integration through deliberation?(pp. 42-65). London; New York: Routledge

Gastil, J. (2000). Is Face-to-Face Citizen Deliberation a Luxury or a Necessity? Political Communication, 17, 357-361.

Mouffe, C. (2000). Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism. Political Science Series Vol. 72. Vienna: Institute of Advanced Studies.

Winkler, R. (2006). PhD? thesis. Electronic Participation: Potentials and constraints of online debates and online consultations at the EU’s interactive platform Your Voice in Europe (interim report).

Point of departure is taken in different normative models of democracy (competitive elitists, consumerist, participatory and deliberative). In particular, the deliberative model is discussed in relation to the classical Habermas model of the political public. This discussion is inspired by democratic theorists as Dryzek (2002), Eriksen & Weigaard (2003) and Loftager (2004) and media theorists as Thompson (1995), Slevin (2000) and Schudson (1997). Particular related to eParticipation a distinction is made 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. Such a “market-approach” to e-participation is inspired by the works of Pippa Norris (2004). As to the political effects of e-participation both Dahl’s criteria of democratization (Dahl, 1989) and theories of the policy-cycle ranging from agenda-setting to policy-outcomes are included (Albæk, 2004; Larsen & Goul Andersen, 2004).



References:


Dahl, R.A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Dialectics is seen as a central driver or mechanism for organizational change and development (Van de Ven & Pool, 1995). The key element in the dialectical analysis of development is explicit thinking in terms of contradictions (Mathiassen & Nilsen, 1989). A contradiction takes place between two opposite aspects, thesis and antithesis. One aspect, the thesis in a contradiction, cannot be fully understood without considering the other aspect, the antithesis. In dialectical process theory, stability and change are explained by reference to the balance of power between opposing entities. Change occurs when these opposing values, forces or events gain sufficient power to confront and engage the status quo. A thesis may be challenged by an antithesis, and the resolution of the contradiction becomes a synthesis (Van de Ven & Pool, 1995). Contradictions are certainly present in eParticipation projects and dialectics may serve as a way of analyzing change related to eParticipation efforts.







References:


Mathiassen, L., & Nilsen, P. A. (1989). Soft Systems and Hard Contradictions - Approaching the Reality of Informations Systems in Organizations. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 16, 75-88.

Van de Ven, A. H., & Pool, M. S. (1995) Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 510-540.

Partner Leeds is very engaged in models of democracy and much of Stephen Coleman’s work is devoted to a rejection of the direct/indirect democracy model. The new term is called Direct Representation. The argument, stated in its simplest form, is that democracy works best when voters and representatives connect: exchanging views, accounting for themselves to each other, and, ideally, sharing a common world. Textbook histories of democracy tend to draw a sharp contrast between modern representative democracy and the direct, or participatory, democracy of the ancient world, while contemporary, academic, political theorists tend to equate representative democracy with formal mechanisms of representation – they are more interested in voting systems than in the way that citizens and representatives interact, or fail to interact. But modern representative democracy has always been shot through with ‘direct’ or participatory elements; the public has engaged, not just through voting, but at public meetings, in representatives’ surgeries, through the postbag, on the doorstep, or in the many forums offered by, first, the printed press, and, later, radio and TV. As the public becomes less deferential, and new means of two-way electronic communication evolve, citizens want more of this sort of direct exchange with their representatives. They want to be heard by politicians and have opportunities to converse with them. They want to be understood by them and to understand them. Much of the current dissatisfaction with our political system can be traced to its failure to supply this sort of understanding (see Coleman, 2006).

References:

Coleman, S. (forthcoming 2006). How The Other Half Votes. International Journal of Cultural Studies.

The genre perspective is one way of studying the emergence of new media or sub-media (Ihlström, 2004). The term genre originally describes a distinctive type or category of literary composition (Ihlström, 2004). The genre perspective was introduced to IS research by Yates and Orlikowski (1994; 1992) who investigated organizational communication based on it. By employing various computing devices and the internet, the genre research agenda has broadened not only to organizational, but also digital genres (Ihlström, 2004). The genre perspective employs communication, while also exploring the rationale or reason for enacting the communication (Ihlström, 2004). In general, genre of communication is characterized by socially recognised substance and common characteristics of form(s) identified by a community (Yates & Orlikowski, 1992). Substance refers to social motives, such as purpose of communication (Honkaranta, 2003). Form of a genre refers to physical and linguistic features like layout, language and media (Honkaranta, 2003; Yates & Orlikowski, 1992). The theory helps focus on communication needs in eParticipation projects and the context, substance and form the eParticipation technology is embedded in.







References:


Honkaranta, A. (2003). From Genres to Content Analysis. University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä.

Ihlström, C. (2004). The Evolution of a New(s) Genre. Göteborg University, Gothenburg.

Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). Genres of Organizational Communication: A Structurational Approach to Studying Communication and Media. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 299-326.

Theories of governance emphasize the regulatory function of the state to guide or steer our collective behaviour to achieve common interests. The governance perspective emphasizes open, transparent collaboration and participation among actors in complex, networked interrelationship, as an alternative model to hierarchical and authoritative control regimes.

In the public context, governance is about how to steer or guide society so as to best serve public interests and achieve the common good. The life cycle of legislation model of governance leads to an appreciation of the potential of legal knowledge-based systems. Focusing on the implementation phase of the legislation life cycle, it is discussed how legal knowledge-based systems can be used to improve the correctness, consistency, transparency and efficiency of deep transactions, i.e. those determinative processes of public administration requiring the application of complex legislation and regulations. Most efforts of public administration to bring transactions online have been restricted to simple transactions requiring little or no knowledge of the law, such as change of address notifications. Only when deep transactions are supported will the full potential of information and communications technology to improve the quality and efficiency of public administration be fully realized. Legal knowledge-based systems are a mature and proven technology with the capability to help realize the potential of eGovernance. (Gordon 2006)







References:

Gordon, T. F (2006). Encyclopedia of Digital Government. Idea Group, Hershey, Pennsylvania, ch. Legal Knowledge Systems, pp. 1161–1166.

The information architecture of Mok (1996) investigates information systems from different viewpoints, different levels of abstraction and by complexity. It thereby tries to incorporate the corporate design, strategic goals, processes and content of an organisation into a comprehensive “outfit”. Three levels of design are described (see figure 1): The first level, Identity Design, addresses the identity of an organisation, i.e. how the organisation expresses its mission and overall visions and intents towards the outside (the customers, citizens, etc.). The second level, Information Design, treats information by giving it a context. The third level, Interactivity Design, is about facilitating and mediating interaction between components. The interaction level is the turning point where the information objects and processes are being integrated. It is the level, where a specific process execution is defined and where the interaction with other systems comes in. Interaction describes a process in its interaction among different system components and how the interfaces for the interaction are being composed. Apart from that, information is integrated.



Figure 1: The Architecture part of the Information Architecture by Mok (1996)



Mok also details information in a way to decompose it till the physical storage layer.

The Information Architecture of Mok can help eParticipation systems design to guide especially in the way how to present and design solutions an a comprehensible way.

Institutional theory observes that organizations are stable entities, hard to change, and thus IS development will happen much as restricted by the rules and culture of the organization in which the systems are implemented. As most eGov systems are developed within the administration sphere, institutional theory would suggest culture clashes for systems developed to be used across two or more spheres, as social, political and professional institutions act to consensually structure social relations (see March et al., 1989; Powell et al., 1991).

According to institutional theories, the values, rules, or the patterns of interactions of individuals within institutions explain the decisions governments make. Individuals remain important actors in these theories, but there is greater leverage to be gained through understanding the institutional frameworks within which they operate. A central idea in all accounts of institutions is that they are enduring entities: they cannot be changed at once at the will of the agents. Institutional theories thus provide accounts on the constraints that institutions impose on action but, as has been pointed out by Jane Fountain, these theories also leave unanswered questions in relation to new technologies. According to her, it is important to expand or extend institutional theory so that it takes into account the new technology – how institutional conditions influence the development, use and effects of the Internet, as well as how the Internet influences the context in which norms and rules influence perception and action.





References:

March, J.G. & Olsen J.P. (1989). Rediscovering Institutions. The Organizational Basis for Politics. New York: The Free Press.

Powell, W., & DiMaggio?, P. (1991). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. University of Chicago Press.

Another theory of eParticipation is inspired by two major sets of political ideas: participatory and liberal democracy. Zittel (2001) argues that according to this distinction e-democracy can be analysed on three levels: A general concept of democracy, an institutional/structural dimension (democratic design), and a behavioural dimension (participatory behaviour). The participatory and the liberal ideas of democracy involve different views of citizenship. The individual as part of the political community is the basis of the participatory ideal. Citizens should become engaged in political processes as much as possible. The participatory idea involves elements of direct and representative democracy which become visible in citizens' active role in opinion formation and decision-making processes. The emergence of ICTs? has extended the research questions and different frameworks of analysis can be detected concerning the role of ICTs? in this context. Among the group of eParticipation proponents there are those political representatives and scholars who assume a causal relationship between technological innovation and democratic change and those who consider ICTs? as means to renew existing democratic practices (such as deliberation and voting processes) and public institutions. The liberal concept stresses the antagonism between the individual and the political community and perceives individuals as autonomous within the community. Since the liberal idea of democracy has become the dominant paradigm in Western societies, democratic participation in a “liberal sense” is based upon a strictly representative system. The main problem arising in this context is reflected in citizens' participation options which are mainly restricted to "voting" actions.




References:

Zittel, T. (2001). Elektronische Demokratie. Planskizze für eine Demokratie des 21. Jahrhunderts? Neue Politische Literatur, 46(3), 433-470.

Participatory design is an approach to design that attempts to actively involve the end users in the design process to help ensure that the product designed meets their needs and is usable. Participatory design grew out of systems development research in Scandinavia from the beginning of the 1970ies onwards, building on action research and a socio technical approach to work organization emphasizing self-guidance in groups. Participatory design work comprise conceptualization, construction and collaboration, and the use of design techniques such as scenarios, games, and mock ups, with extensive use of video, and communication based on mutually respectful dialogues between designers and users.

Research of Fraunhofer FOKUS is theoretically based on Douglas Walton's philosophy of argumentation, which provides a theoretical foundation and normative model for plausible argumentation with defeasible generalizations, as needed for practical reasoning and decision-making in the face of incomplete and inconsistent information, conflicting goals and interests of multiple stakeholders, under time and other resource constraints (see Gordon et al., 2006; Walton, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1998).




References:

Gordon, T., Prakken, H., & Walton, D. (2006). The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof, preprint submitted to Elsevier (31st October 2006).

Walton, D. (1998a). Appeal to Popular Opinion. University Park, Pa.: Penn State Press.

Walton, D. (1998b). The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

Walton, D. (2002). Ethical Argumentation. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books.Walton, D. (2004). Relevance in Argumentation. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York: Cambridge: University Press.

A thesis represented by Leeds is that political systems are technologies and that technologies are political systems. What is meant by that? Most scholars agree that governance has always been dependent upon technology, in the broadest sense of knowledge, skills, techniques and epistemological strategies, as well as devices, hardware, software and power circuits. As the reach of governance has spread – into new areas of the globe as well as new aspects of hitherto personal relationships -, it has come to rely upon more complex assemblages of technically stored and disseminated knowledge. But here it is been contended that technologies are constitutive tools: they do not simply support predetermined courses of action, but open up new spaces of action. For example, the emergence of the printing press in Europe generated a space in which publics could come together as cohabitants of imagined communities; centralised states could disseminate their propaganda to mass populations; and vernacular idioms and dialects could be systematised into official languages. As Anderson argues, ‘the convergence of capitalism and print technology on the fatal diversity of human language created the possibility of a new form of imagined community, which in its basic morphology set the stage for the modern nation.’ Because technologies are not simply used by governments, but are a constitutive element of governance, it makes sense to think of the rules, routines, structures, language, skills and networks of governance as a political technology.”

Similarly, it makes sense to think of e-technologies as political systems, insofar as that they are designed to produce specific particular ends. That is to say, democratic citizenship is not a neutral or simply descriptive concept, but a normative political aspiration. Historically, citizenship has been regarded as a birthright, the entitlements of which have been the subject of contestation and negotiation over the past three centuries. The free citizen is characterised by autonomous moral agency which is most potently exercised within the public sphere. In this sense, it is the liberal freedom from interference, especially by the state, which makes civic action so precious to effective democracy. More recently, however, a number of cultural and political trends have precipitated a shift towards what Garland has called ‘the responsibilization of citizenship.’ These trends include the weakening of strong welfare structures, which leave more people, in more areas of life, having to fend for themselves; the decline of political deference and rise of volatile political consumerism, which leaves citizens feeling rather like shoppers who can buy whatever they want, as long as they can afford it and predict the uncertain consequences; and the adoption of a strong ideological commitment by both conservatives and social democratics towards a belief that social rights must be balanced by communitarian duties. The need to produce citizens who are prepared for these new conditions has given rise to an expanded field of pedagogy which includes citizenship education in schools; risk communication; the training of expert patients; offender rehabilitation schemes; lifestyle courses and various projects to promote ‘sensible’ interactions with the media. Citizenship becomes something more like an apprenticeship. One is no longer simply governed; one is educated through a variety of practices, discourses and technologies to become a responsible collaborator in governance.

E-governance technologies can be understood as political projects designed to shape and promote such norms of skill and knowledge. Learning to be an e-citizen entails becoming familiar with techniques of online information-searching, protocols for digitally interacting and the legal regulation of software use. The cultivation of these skills – often referred to as digital literacy - not only point citizens towards a particular view of governance, but govern the process of being governed. What has been called ‘digital literacy’ is a regulatory project intended to cultivate a citizenry capable of responsible digital interaction. In the context of e-governance, this includes knowing which level of governance one should address in relation to particular problems; being able to navigate through the bureaucratic divisions of departmental and agency remits; behaving in a civilized way; and having appropriate (i.e. well managed) expectations about outcomes. From the perspective of governmentality, none of these skills are politically neutral. A good example of this is the way in which most e-government websites seek to draw an artificial distinction between governance and politics. (For example, few local authority websites in the UK explain the partisan composition of council committees; and councilors are not allowed to use official web spaces to promote their ‘political’ views.) This online illusion reinforces an implicit view that governments are there to get things done efficiently and politics is there to cause arguments and get in the way.” Leed’s argument is that these are not outcomes of technology, but of the political cultures that govern the production and use of technologies.

E-participation can be understood as a dimension of a broader social and political transformation process of the participation in the networked and knowledge-based society, within a cultural and political context stressing efficiency priorities and market rationality and where the public sphere has been strongly affected by an intense process of market colonization. In this landscape the notion/function of democratic politics itself appears subjected to a great transformation, as some scholars has underlined (Crouch, 2005; Beck, 1992). In this perspective, one crucial issue deals with the possible roles played by ICTs? in the shaping of a new vision of politics and democracy in contemporary society.

The current social transformation of the form of citizens’ participation has its roots in the structural and cultural transformations underlined by sociological theory on post-modern/post-industrial and globalized society (Bauman, 2001a, 2001b; Beck, 1992, 1999; Castells, 1996; Giddens, 1984; Touraine, 1984). E-democracy and e-participation pertain to a specific political context linked to the paradigm of neo-liberal society (Barber, 2004).

In fact, in this theoretical line relevant elements on the social landscape of e-participation are for example: the individualized society emerging from neo-liberal globalization; the impact of globalization on the perceived legitimacy of the political institutions; the growing distrust for formal politics and the pervasion of the politics as a robust dimension of the individuals experience outside from the political institutions and discourse (e.g. in the field of the private life and consumption styles); the new organizations and claims emerging from the social movements wave at the beginning of the new century, experimenting more individualized mobilizations and a wide set of multifaceted identities/belongings.

The different ways social/political actors use ICTs? in their relationships can't be understood without reference to this changing context where divergent organizational opportunities are challenging the previous institutional settings and each others. For a rich overview on this approach underling the relationships among institutional and technological developments see Hargittai, Di Maggio, Neuman, Robinson (2001).







References:

Barber, B. (2004). Which technology and which democracy. In H. Jenkins & D. Thorburn, Democracy and New media. MIT Press.

Bauman, Z. (2001a). The Individualized Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bauman, Z. (2001b). Community. Seeking Safety in an Insecure World. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.

Beck, U. (1999). What Is Globalization? Cambridge: Polity Press.

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

Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hargittai, E., Di Maggio, P., Neuman, W.R. & Robinson, J.P.(2001). The social implications of the Internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 307-336.

Touraine, A. (1984). Le retour de l'acteur. Paris: Fayard.

A further group of theories and empirical sociological studies of reference (Bagnasco, 2003; Trigilia, 2005; Le Gales, 2005) has stressed the capacity of local societies and economies to manage the challenges coming from the globalized knowledge based economy and its political consequences. Local societies are actively experimenting with new models of local governance through the increasingly inclusion of social partners and civil society in the policy making, stressing the cooperation between public and private sectors/actors around the building of a common view/project on the future of their communities (local development pacts, strategic urban planning, Agenda 21, etc.). This is a possible perspective on the rebuilding of social and political relationships from below, in the specific meaning of local/regional communities integrating public and private actors, answering to the trend of growing fragmentation and dis-embbeding of social relationships implied in the actual form of globalization.







References:

Bagnasco, A. (2003). Società fuori squadra. Come cambia l’organizzazione sociale. Bologna: Mulino.

Le Galès, P. (2005). Le città europee. Società urbane, globalizzazione, governo locale. Bologna: Mulino.

Trigilia, C. (2005). Sviluppo locale. Bari: Laterza.

The socio-technical approach by Cherns (1976) is a basic framework for understanding and designing socio-technical systems. The fundamental assumption is that more effective and successful systems can be designed if human and social considerations are taken into account in a systematic and coherent manner. Cherns (1976) defined a list of key principles of socio-technical design which is strongly influenced by the notion of a participative process:

• Compatibility: The process of design must be compatible with its objectives • Minimal Critical specification: No more detail in design than needed, but design must express the essential requirements.

• Socio-technical Criterion: Control is local and awarded to the immediate work team – the aim is to make supervision normal

• Multi-function: Individuals and groups need a range of tasks to provide satisfying jobs and for redundancy and flexibility.

• Boundary location: Boundaries are political, boundaries are to be managed.

• Information flow: Eschew information intermediaries – information should flow initially to the prime user group.

• Support congruence: Systems should be established within a framework of social support for desired behaviour.

• Design and human values: Emphasis in design is placed on quality of working life.

• Incompletion: Design is iterative and continuous.

The key principles for design should support in exploiting the knowledge of people within a design activity and in delivering improved and flexible work practices for organisations. Cherns (1976) expresses the goal for socio-technical design as developing “a system capable of self-modification, of adapting to change and of making the most of the creative capacities of the individual”. In this way not only are people fitted to strong technological structures, but also the organisations themselves are to be formed and shaped around dominant technologies. Hence, development does not determine with the definition of the job, task or the work group, but it requires a more comprehensive design endeavour. The contribution of socio-technical theory has been in informing and extending the design process to include a consideration of individual and group interests and to provide means for their expression because new working systems based on technological innovations are established (cf. Mumford, 1996; Lin & Cornford, 2000).





References:

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

Another model of understanding the interrelations of socio-technical system components is Edwards’ SHEL model (Edwards, 1972). The author introduced the Software, Hardware, Environment and Liveware (SHEL) model in the context of safety-critical systems (see figure 1). Thereby, the components stand for:

S - Software: Non-material part of systems which includes practices, procedures, regulations etc.

H - Hardware: Technical systems and equipment, also tools and manuals etc.

E - Environment: The Environment includes all external influences and factors such as policies, cultural restrictions, etc.

L - Livewire: The Human as component. This component includes operators, managers and clients being involved in the productive process.

The important aspect is the interaction among the three components in order to achieve a certain objective. Consequently, the heart of the model are the communication and relational aspects of the model.

The SHEL Model expresses the interrelationships and interdependencies of different systemic components on the one hand and the human component on the other hand under the influence of environmental conditions. Edwards’ observations are that socio-technical systems are always shaped by the three components S H L embedded in an E. Any change of a component impacts the others. When introducing e.g. a certain technology into a working environment, this has, consequently, an implication to the people working in the environment and to the processes in this environment.





Figure 1: The SHEL model by Edwards

The combination of hardware, software and human resources do not exist in vacuum. They always operate in a context of economic, political, historical or socio-cultural factors. However, environmental factors are in the minority of cases subject of change or even changeable.

Kawano (2002) extended the SHEL model of Edwards into the m-SHEL model by adding an ‘m’ for management (control of the system).

The SHEL model serves as a basic understanding for eParticipation as a multi-disciplinary and socio-technical system context.





References:

Edwards, E. (1972). Man and machine: Systems for safety. In Proc. of British Airline Pilots Associations Technical Symposium, (pp. 21-36). British Airline Pilots Associations, London

Stakeholder theory evolved from Freeman’s (1984) stakeholder approach to strategic management in the mid 1980ies. Freeman argued that monitoring and satisfying the interests of relevant stakeholders ultimately leads to improved corporate performance and sustainability. Stakeholder theory expanded to include descriptive ways of modelling and understanding organisations, ethical considerations of how organisations should interact with society and finally to provide evidence supporting the benefits of stakeholder management (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). The theory has spread to several disciplines, including e-Government where the theory has been applied related to managing the ongoing e-transformation (Scholl, 2005) and has been suggested as a suitable approach for investigating both ethical and practical aspects of changes in the relationship between governments and their constituents caused by implementation of new technology (Flak & Rose, 2005).







References:

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation - Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65-91.

Flak, L. S., & Rose, J. (2005). Stakeholder Governance: Adapting Stakeholder Theory to the e-Government Field. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16, 642-664.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management. A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.

Scholl, H. J. (2005). Involving Salient Stakeholders: Beyond the Technocratic View on Change. Action Research (AR), 2, 281-308.

Anthony Giddens’ structuration theory (Giddens, 1984; 1990) draws together the two principal strands of social thinking. In the structuralist tradition the emphasis is on social structure (which is primarily seen as a form of constraint over human behaviour), whereas in the phenomenological and hermeneutic traditions the human agent is the primary focus. Structuration theory attempts to recast structure and agency as a mutually dependent duality. Human actors display agency, but in a structural context, and this mutually dependent relationship (structure influences action, action influences structure) evolves over time and space. In this way many micro actions come to constitute the social interaction. The theory helps illuminate both how participation is embedded in its social context and how it evolves over time. Technology is in this context socially transformative as well as socially transformed and hence any process study needs to consider the interdependence of human action and social structure.





References:

Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

The information traffic patterns model (developed by Bordewijk & Kaam, 1986) is of particular importance since it sheds light on the new of new media. This model focuses on four different information and communication patterns and makes the major differences between electronic (broadcasting) and new media more visible (see Latzer, 1997, p. 166). Bordewijk and Kaam (1986) and McQuail? (1994, p. 41), who further developed this model, show how ICTs? break up dominant communication patterns (e.g. such as the “one-to-many” information flow representing a basic principle of broadcasting) and how this impacts on the “power relations” (in terms of control over time, topic and place of communication and the information storage) between communicators and recipients. “Emphasizing the control aspect of information flows, it [the “information traffic patterns model”]? reveals the power structure underlying the flows of information, as well the extent to which information flows reinforce, or possibly transform, the power structure” (Koert van, 2003, p. 13; completion in brackets added).

The issue of control over time, topic and place of communication and information and role of the involved “actors” (in the model labelled as the individual and the center) becomes more clearly in Koert’s explanations of the four different modes (Koert van, 2003, p. 13f. referring to Bordewijk and Van Kaam, 1982).

• Allocution: Information is distributed from a center to many peripheral receivers, a pattern that applies to mass media (radio and television). The topic and time of the communication process are controlled by the center, which typically also controls the information storage. This ITP [information traffic pattern]? tends to strengthen existing power structures.
• Consultation: An individual in the periphery searches for information from a central source. In principle, the individual has control over time, topic and often also place of communication process, but the center retains control over the information storage. Consulting databases, libraries and information centers are examples of this ITP. By itself this ITP does not strengthen the existing power structure, but it does sustain, or create, dependencies.
• Conversation: Individuals in the periphery (through technical, for example, telephone and radio-communication, or social networks) interact directly with each other, bypassing the center. This ITP is, in principle, the only ITP with a tendency to challenge, and possibly change, the existing power structure in favor of decentralization of control over information and knowledge.
• Registration: A center requests/collects information from the periphery, often without the total awareness of the individual in the periphery. Typically, the center controls time and subject and the information is added to the center’s information storage. The most relevant aspect of this ITP is that the information collection supports the allocution pattern. At the same time, it reinforces the position of the center in the power structure.”

Figure 1: Information traffic patterns and trends;  source: Latzer 1997, 167 (referring to the typology of Bordewijk & Kaam, 1986 and the presentation put forward in McQuail?, 1994, p. 419)

According to this model the dominance of the allocution mode decreases in the context of ICTs?, while the conversation mode (one-to-one) (e.g. through e-mail conversation) and the consultation mode gain importance due to interactive information and communication networks. The conversation mode also involves group communication i.e. communication processes that are undertaken by a few people (e.g. via a discussion forum) through ICTs?. The registration mode describes information flows between service providers (e.g. Internet providers) and service clients (e.g. subscribers of online information). This information exchange produces enormous amounts of data, which often touch privacy protection issues (see Latzer, 1997, p. 167). However, discussions about enhanced political participation options due to ICTs? have to be analysed critically. Although interactivity is a core feature of ICTs?, it has to be considered that “there is no automatically democratic character to the new media” and “democratic practice must be established within political culture” (Coleman, 1999, p. 197). This consideration is to counteract any form of technological determinism, which oversees that “monological media” (such as TV or radio) have also developed a few forms of “interactive communication” (e.g. phone-ins).

Conceptual framework of electronic participation

A general typology of public engagement mechanisms is provided by Rowe and Frewer (2005). It has its merits in offering a rather comprehensive integration of different forms of public participation, both offline and online. While such a combined view is required, a flaw of this typology is the lack of differentiation regarding online forms of public participation.

The information traffic model is also adequate to classify different forms of eParticipation options (see Dijk, 2000, p. 46). The importance of this model for the issue of political participation is rooted in its appropriateness “for a classification of the extremely diverging applications of new media in politics (Dijk, 2000, p. 46). Table 1 represents some of the new, ICT-based forms of political participation.

Table 1:     Applications of ICT in politics and democracy

 Source: Dijk, 2000, p. 40 (including slight adjustments). 

When debating the role of ICTs? for political participation, the conversation mode is supposed to be the one, which gains particular significance for the establishment of networks among citizens since it makes citizens less dependent from “information and communication centeres” in terms of time, content and place of communication. It involves those forms of political participation that build on the exchange of information and communication (see Dijk, 2000, p. 46). From a government perspective, eParticipation options belonging to the registration mode are very popular and mostly used to either collect citizens’ opinions or to conduct elections, referenda etc. online.

References:

Bordewijk, J.& Kaam van, B. (1986). Towards a New Classification of Tele-Information Services. Intermedia, 14(1), 16-21.

Coleman, S. (1999). Cutting out the middle man: from virtual representation to direct deliberation. In B. Hague & B. Loader, (eds.), Digital democracy. Discourse and Decision Making in the Information Age (pp. 195-210). London; New York: Routledge.

Dijk, J. (2000). Models of Democracy and Concepts of Communication. In J. Dijk, & K.  Hacker (eds.), Digital Democracy – Issues of Theory & Practice(pp. 30-54). London: Thousand Oaks; New Delhi: SAGE.

Koert van, R. (2003). E-media in development: Combining multiple e-media types. First Monday, Peer-reviewed journal on the Internet, Vol. 8 (2), http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_2/koert

Latzer, M. (1997). Mediamatik – Die Konvergenz von Telekommunikation, Computer und Rundfunk. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

McQuail?, D. (1994). Mass Communication Theory. Third edition. London: SAGE.

The Information Age trilogy (Castells, 1996; 1997; 1998) theorizes ‘a world reconstituting itself around a series of networks strung around the globe on the basis of advanced communication technologies’ (Stalder, 2006). The network theme represents both a new ordering of society (no longer primarily hierarchical) and the technological means which make it possible – the internet. Particularly interesting for eParticipation studies are Castells’ analyses of social movements as the engine of political change in society, the network state and informational politics. Unlike many other macro theories of society and social change, information technology is integrated into the theory.

References:

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

Castells, M. (1997). The Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell.

Castells, M. (1998). End of Millenium. Oxford: Blackwell.

Stalder, F., & Castells, M. (2006). The Theory of the Network Society. Polity, Malden.

A specific focus is the relation between technology and humans and their organizations. This field was earlier, in the 1970s, called sociotechnical studies (Mumford), but over the years several other theories have been devised to study that, some of which are also related to institutions (such as Structuration theory, see Orlikowski, 1992), some of which focus more on actors (such as Actor Network Theory, see Latour, 1991), and some of which focus more on social groups (such as SCOT, Social Construction of Technology, see Bijker & Law, 1994).

References:

Bijker, W. E., & Law, J. (1994). Shaping Technology/Building Society. Studies in Sociotechnological Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Orlikowski,W.J. (1992). The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organizations Science, 3 (3), 398-427.

This macro-theory of societal and political processes developed by Etzioni (1968) represents a plea for strengthening a bottom up way of societal guidance and self-determined action by committed citizens safeguarding the responsiveness of political and societal organisation towards the concerns of its members. This conception of society does not only presuppose the active engagement of the constituency in its public concerns but also the provision of adequate means to develop, express and exercise its voice, including in particular institutional, organisational and technical means.

References:

Etzioni, A. (1968). The Active Society: A Theory of Societal and Political Processes. New York: Free Press.

The purpose of this simple and high-level theory of eGovernment information systems developed by the DemocrIT? research group of Örebro University is mainly to contribute to a more realistic and governance focused view on the idea of eGov than the more technical and determinist one currently prevailing. This is done on an empirical basis, but not by testing the theory. This could be done, authors believe, as there now is some eGov reality to be investigated, but would require another paper to be done in any credible manner.

While some thirty years of studies of information systems have produced many theories concerning IT use in organizations, eGov studies require going beyond the border of the organization as government/nance cannot be reduced to individual organizations, not even if interorganizational cooperation is included. Here a theory is proposed that considers governance as a system rather than in terms of its individual organizational units and processes, and views information systems from that perspective. The theory draws on both theories of government and theories of IT in organizations, and proposes the following:

Governance is for this purpose best described in terms of a system consisting of three interrelated societal spheres: the political sphere, the administrative sphere, and civil society (including individuals, organizations, media and the public sphere). These spheres have different nature in terms of their motivation, interests, focus unit, and mode of operation. The successful eGov information systems will be those who best and most constructively integrate interests and modes of operation of all three spheres.

In other words, the complete system, including the spheres and the processes that tie them together, constitutes a democratic infrastructure, which serves both as a limiting factor for rapid technology-driven development and as support for long-term success of changes designed to meet the success criteria suggested by the theory.

A general governance model

To discuss electronic governance or electronic government theoretically, there is a need for a model of government that goes beyond the individual organization. Most e-government discussions and systems so far do not do that. They focus on the operations of one single organization – e g job office e-services (Wiberg, 2002). or car license renewal – or (one or a few) processes that stretch over two or more organizations but without changing the rationale of any of the organizations (e g one-stop shops). Also, as some authors have noted, eGov projects typically apply an information processing view of government activities and do not consider other aspects of government (Zouridis & Thaens, 2002). In a systems perspective this too narrow approach means a risk for suboptimization in two respects, technically (information processing regarded too narrowly in terms of coverage of the whole government) and functionally (a too narrow view of what government is all about). As an example of the latter, Zouridis & Thaens (Zouridis & Thaens, 2002) argue that this approach to eGov will lead to solidification of a certain distribution of power, transformation of citizenship into consumership, and rationalization of legal and policy processes into administrative-technical ones (Zouridis & Thaens, p. 127-128).

Unlike businesses and individual government organizations, government as a whole (as opposed to individual politicians and parties) does not have a clearly defined goal in terms of where to go. It does have a goal, however, in terms of maintaining a balance among different interests in society so as to maintain general interests such as peace, individual freedom and privacy, a viable economic system and so on. Hence, government is an infrastructure guarantor.

The term government covers several aspects of managing a country (or some part thereof), ranging from the very form of government, over strategic management to daily operations. Definitions of eGov generally also cover all these areas, and hence most typically contain not only goals of more efficient operations but also of better quality of services and increased and improved citizen participation in democra­tic processes (e g Grönlund, 2002a; World Bank, 2002). Sometimes the term governance is more appropriate, as it also incorporates the idea of other organizations than public sector ones engaged in public sector-related activities by means of e g outsourcing, partnerships or value-added services.

Discussing eGov stringently requires defining the context in which it appears in terms of a public sector model. In simple terms, drawing on a textbook in political science, and at a general level where national differences do not matter, a democratic[1]? government can be described as shown in Figure 1. It consists of three interrelated spheres, the political sphere, the administrative one, and the civil society one.

Figure 1: Basic spheres and relations in a democratic government system. Arrows indicate influence, and circles indicate domains of control. Domain intersections indicate “transaction zones” where control is negotiated by e g lobbyists and media on the left-hand side, intermediary service deliverers on the right-hand side and professional interaction in government boards and committees on the top side (Adapted from Molin et al., 1975, p. 16).

Each sphere contains individuals, organizations, technical systems, social relations and value systems. Often, an overly simplified view of a democratic system is propagated, where the relationships of the model are presented as straightforward; citizens elect officials, which then go to work in a formal political system containing certain institutions and rules. Their work produces results in the form of directives to the administration, which with blind obedience – without any influence on the political decisions – executes the decisions.

In practice, the system is of course much more complex. The political impact administrations can exert by having the expertise necessary to prepare decisions in complicated matters is often acknowledged (Snellen, 2001; Watson et al., 1999). Citizens act in many other ways than by casting votes, for example they organize in many ways, and they lobby. This is not the place for enumerating and analyzing all aspects of this, neither to discuss different variations of democratic systems. For now, let us just observe that there are a number of relations, and that each node in the system influences both the others by a number of relationships: all nodes are interrelated. The details of these relations are always under discussion and borders are changing slightly over time. Currently, however, they are in a process of profound change in many countries, for several reasons including globalization, economic constraints, changing demographics, declining appreciation for the political system (as measured by declining turnout in elections) and the availability of IT. One example of changes is that private enterprise is increasingly acting in the system by means of outsourcing of government activities or deregulation and competition.

Given that eGov IS typically transcend organizational borders there is likely to be conflicts among different structures involved (see Figure 2). Given also that there are indeed values, practices etc that pertain to each of the three spheres, and thus serve as a general “mode of operation” for actors (organizations and individuals) in each sphere we have an additional complexity for eGov IS. This is of course a practical problem, but also one that has to be reflected in theories in, and of, the field.

The eGov framework thus adds locus to structuration theory by situating the idea of structures in the eGov context. It also extends the concept of structures by introducing the “sphere” concept as a “modality” (Giddens, 1982) in each of which a large number of actors, individuals and institutions, operate under a similar basic “mindset”, different from the others’.

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

Unlike actor network theory (ANT), eGov theory views actors as not independent of their “social background”, their position in the governance system. This is not a unique feature of our eGov framework – SCOT (Social Construction of Technology) also – if somewhat vaguely – recognizes “groups”, which are based on mutual interests.

The nature of the spheres

eGov information systems often, arguably typically, span more than one societal sphere. Information systems – even mandatory ones – are generally dependent on user acceptance to work well. User acceptance comes only to a part from technical qualities of the system. More importantly in this context it comes also from alignment of the system with work practices and culture. Hence, there is a need for analyzing the nature of the spheres – if there are differences among them on any of the above criteria, there is likely a complication for implementation of information systems.

The below table summarizes some salient features that distinguish the three above-mentioned major spheres of a governance system. The table is of course a rough summary, and it does not attempt to tell the complete truth about any of the spheres. In democratic theory, there is a host of literature on the relation between leaders and the people (e g Dahl, 1989; Sartori, 1987; Pateman, 1970), and even a brief study, of for example the three ones just referred to, shows that this relation can be conceived very differently. Table 1 does not directly want to add to that discussion, but one point is to bring awareness of the literature into eGov studies – government is about managing a society, and democratic theories are then to be compared with management theories in the business sector. Another point is to say just what the table amounts to: the spheres are different. They are different in terms of their motivation, interests, focus unit, and mode of operation; variables that are individually, and certainly together, important for the implementation and operation of any information system. Therefore they can be seen as “modalities”, or as “superinstitutions”, clusters of institutions operating under the same general conditions. They each set the scene for the actors that operate within them, not just formally but also culturally.

Table 1:    A comparison of the spheres.

In the development of democracy there is generally an ongoing struggle between two perspectives, both beneficial for democracy but neither of them sufficient (Goldkuhl & Röstlinger, 2001). The top-down perspective is about implementing political decisions in activities directed towards the citizens; politics as design. The bottom-up perspective, sometimes called user democracy or consumer democracy (Bellamy & Taylor, 1998), is about interaction between users and suppliers leading to user influence over service design and content; politics as evolution. Real user influence over service design also means real influence over politics. In fact, this discussion goes all the way back to fundamental theories of government developed in the 17th and 18th century by Thomas Hobbes (top-down), John Locke (power balance) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (bottom-up). Their respective views express fundamentally different roles for government, which have echoed through the debates on government design since the democratic revolutions of the late 18th century.

In Figure 2 (above), the top-down perspective can be seen as a command chain going clockwise starting in the politics sphere and ending with reactions on decisions picked up by that same sphere. The bottom-up perspective starts on the right-hand side in “service dialogues” involving the administration and civil society spheres.

A brief look at the current development of information systems relevant to eGov shows that different forces are stretching the spheres of influence of the political system, the administrative one, and the civil society respectively (Figure 3).

Figure 3:    The government model under change - different actors affect the development in the transaction zones.

The increasing use of IT in administrative processes – a more comprehensive electronic information infrastructure – restricts the action space of the political sphere as this infrastructure becomes increasingly hard to change (and, indeed, understand). This means the influence of the administrative system is increased at the expense of the political one (Arrow 1 in Figure 3). Zouridis & Thaens (Zouridis & Thaens, 2002) provide some evidence to suggest this.

The civil society cultures, in the electronic world for instance manifested in virtual communities of different kinds, contain strong social elements but less of the characteristics of formal politics (“citizen” and “member” are not synonyms, for instance). To the extent that electronic tools and techniques from such cultures become used in formal politics it will become less formal and thus more open to the influence of active minorities (Arrow 2).

The official e-democracy initiatives, as indeed municipal practice, generally endorse information rather than participation (Anttiroiko, 2001). “Participation” then most often means “everybody should know about….” rather than something that involves citizen influence. These efforts can be seen as a means to reinforce the current procedures of formal politics by complementing them with increased direct communication with citizens (Arrow 3).

Often local e-democracy projects are in practice controlled by the civil servants rather than politicians due to their control of the IT system. In a study of four Swedish local e-democracy projects, Grönlund (Grönlund 2002b) found that sometimes politicians did not control the develop­ment, but had to adjust to the development at a later stage when important traits of the information infrastructure were already implemented. This means the action space of the political system has been reduced and that of the administration has been increased (Arrow 1).

Increasing IT use in the civil society includes efforts to affect services in practice by individuals, by using electronic communication to influence individual administrative decision makers or simply by acquiring a better understanding of how the administration works by using the electronic information and tools provided. This includes new pressures on the administration, which can no longer hide behind an information monopoly, and hence increases the influence of civil society at the administration’s expense (Arrow 5).

Initiatives like the eEurope electronic government strive for more administrative control over, and efficiency within and among, the many activities of the public sector by formalizing them to the point of being implementable in electronic tools. To the extent that this succeeds it means not only that the action space of civil society actors diminishes as their interactions with government are more formalized (Arrow 4), it also means that the political system’s control over the administration is strengthened as political initiatives are more directly expressed in computer code and hence can be more easily inspected and evaluated (Arrow 6).

From this brief illustration we can see that there is no single development in terms of the relative strengths of the “influence” arrows in Figure 3. But as we cannot just assume that everything will eventually add up to a balance quite similar to what we have today, it is important to try to assess the development more in detail. Which arrows are strongest, most likely to prevail? This is the area for our theory, following next.

Conclusion

Based on the above discussion, we can now formulate a theory of eGov IS:

eGov information systems will only achieve long-term success when they sufficiently well implement interests and modes of operation of all three spheres of a governance system: formal politics, administration, and civil society.

This is not a suggestion of an either-or situation. Rather, different proposals for information systems will exist, and the more successful ones will be, the theory predicts, those who score better in these respects.

The theory does not predict any particular development path for a governance system, but it provides a framework for making such predictions. For instance, the need for sufficient agreement among actors across spheres that a particular system should be designed in a certain way does not preclude some actors from being able to influence the system’s design so it works more their way (and hence typically at least compatible with general interests of their sphere) than any other actors’ way, thus shifting the equilibrium among the spheres a bit. For example, one hypothesis stemming from the current development, following the observations of Zouridis & Thaens (Zouridis & Thaens, 2002), could be that eGov will over time lead to that the administrative sphere will increase its influence over the others as administrative systems are in majority, and as information processing paradigm is paramount in eGov applications so far.

Another proposition following the first could be that eGov will contribute to political systems gradually becoming more alike in different countries, as there are strong use cultures involved, in particular in the administration and civil society spheres, and these use cultures are becoming increasingly international culturally.

A number of hypotheses could be derived from the theory. These could well conflict in terms of where the development will head in terms of what actors will be most successful, as national and local situations vary and can be interpreted differently. What the theory proposes is that what will make the difference is the ability of information systems to cater for interests of all the spheres. This is, those qualities are things that technical quality of systems and process efficiency can not achieve, as these concern efficiency rather than effectiveness.

The eGov theory could then be used to assess the overall potential and the sphere bias of a certain development by providing a comprehensive general reference framework. This is an advantage compared to models commonly used today, such as penetration of PCs? and broadband connection, availability of services, economic measures by organizational unit etc, which only measure details and perhaps efficiency but do not do not measure effectiveness.

[1]? This is a restriction, but one without which eGov risks losing all credibility as information systems cannot be reduced to technical systems only.

References

Anttiroiko, A-V. (2001). Toward the European Information Society. Communications of the ACM, January 2001.

Bellamy, C.  &, Taylor, J. A. (1998). Governing in the information age. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Dahl, R.A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Giddens, A  (1982). sProfiles and Critiques in Social Theory. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

Goldkuhl, G. & Röstlinger, A. (2001). IT som möjliggörare och hinder – i samspel mellan politik och verksamhet i kommuner (IT as enabler and obstacle). In Åke Grönlund & Agenta Ranerup (red) Elektronisk förvaltning, elektronisk demokrati (Electronic government, electronic democracy). Lund: Studentlitteratur

Grönlund, Å. (2002a). Electronic government – Design, Applications, and Management. Idea Group Publishing.

Grönlund, Å. (2002b). Emerging Infrastructures for E-democracy - in Search of Strong Inscriptions. eService Journal, 2 (4).

Molin, B., Månsson, L., & Strömberg, L. (1975). Offentlig förvaltning (Public Administration). Bonniers.

Orlikowski,W.J. (1992). The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organizations Science, 3 (3), 398-427.

Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sartori, G. (1987). The theory of democracy revisited. New Jersey: Chatam House Publishers Inc.

Snellen, I. (2001). ICT:s, Bureaucracies, and the Future of Democracy. Communications of the ACM.

Watson, R., Akselsen, S., Evjemo, B., & Aasaether, N. (1999). Teledemocracy in Local Government. Communications of the ACM, December 1999; 58-63.

Wiberg, M. (2002). e-Government in Sweden: Centralization, Self-Service and Competition. In Å. Grönlund (ed), Electronic Government – Design, Applications and Management. Hershey, PA, USA: Idea Group Publishing.

World Bank (2002). A Definition of E*Government. Retrived Nov 13, 2003 from: http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/egov/definition.htm

Zouridis, S., & Thaens, M. (2002). eGovernment: Towards a Public Administration Approach. In Proceedeings of Global e-Policy eGov Forum (pp 119-133), Seoul, Korea, Nov 6-7, 2002. Seoul: SungKyunKwan? University, Global e-Policy eGovernment Institute.