1.24. The information traffic patterns model

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.

Next: The Network Society Previous: Structuration theory