digital engagement in uk governance: the role of … ecpr graduate conference jacobs university...

4th ECPR Graduate Conference

Jacobs University Bremen 4-6 July 2012

Digital Engagement in UK Governance: The role of Public Officials

in shaping Participation in Policy Making through Web

Technologies

Mary Houston, Post Graduate Research student, [email protected]

Social Sciences, University of Southampton

M Houston ECPR Bremen 2012 24 June 2012

Introduction

The web has the potential to transform democracy through a variety of mechanisms

such as increased information flows, and opportunities for interaction between

geographically and socially diverse individuals; it provides a platform to gather

opinions, experiences and expertise to improve policy making and alter political

discourse, bringing greater reach, and increased representation at reduced cost.

These affordances are attractive to representative democratic governments who are

looking for ways of reconnecting with citizens and reinvigorating democracy

(Prachett, 2007). Many Governments have adopted the use of digital technologies in

their efforts to engage with citizens. In recent years the UK Government has invited

participation through emails, discussion forums, e-petitions, web-chats and,

increasingly, through social media.

Such initiatives have attracted considerable attention from scholars interested in

evaluating democratic capacity. However, little consideration has been paid to the

institutional dynamics that influence online engagement initiatives, how public

officials respond to new technologies or how their interactions with citizens might

alter policy processes.

This paper will look at the political context in which e-democracy was first developed

in the UK, the influences and ideas which shaped political understandings of how

new technologies could be employed. I will review the range of existing literature on

the web and democracy. Although there is now a large body of work on many

aspects of democratic engagement and information and communication


technologies; one missing element appears to be an analysis of the role of public

officials within the political system, a theme my research will address.

Public officials and institutions have a significant part to play in mediating these new

technologies. It is the public officials, the civil servants who determine the

opportunities for online interaction. How do they comprehend the potential of the

web? What are their concerns and motivations? How are their relationships with the

public and with politicians affected? What are their views about how their roles and

values could change, particularly in terms of internal networks and hierarchies?

The research will use qualitative mixed methods to examine civil servants’

understandings and incentives for initiating digital engagement, their assessment of

the value of the public contribution, and how that feeds into the policy process.

Finally, this paper will set out some early findings from interviews with senior civil

servants and advisors and explore how these might contribute to the wider research

context.

Political Background

For over 15 years, the British government has sought to promote political

participation, and strengthen democratic practices through the use of web-based

technologies. The election of the Labour party in 1997 coincided with the growth in

mass use of the web through the wider availability of broadband. This meant the

initial political shaping of the e-government and e-democracy agenda, largely took

place during Labour’s time in power.

It has been argued that the roots of e-democracy lie in the broader modernisation

agenda (Wright, 2006: 238) which was a key aspect of Labour’s approach when


elected. One element of the modernisation agenda focused on increased efficiency,

cost savings and improved public service delivery leading to the development of e-

government, and this continues to attract much political attention and resources.

However, another aspect of the agenda was the desire to redraw the relationship

between state and citizen, using technology to invite greater participation.

In 1998, Tony Blair argued that:

The democratic impulse needs to be strengthened by finding new ways to

enable citizens to share in decision-making that affects them. For too long a

false antithesis has been claimed between “representative” and “direct”

democracy

(Blair, 1998: 17).

The emphasis on participation gained increased impetus after the general election in

2001 showed a sharp drop in voting leading to deep political anxiety about the health

of democracy in the UK and the apparent apathy and disenchantment of citizens with

politicians (Ministry of Justice, 2008). Among the political elite there was a fear that

the level of disengagement and misunderstanding could undermine the legitimacy of

democracy (Office of the E-Envoy, 2002: 3).

The government’s belief that digital technologies can be used to solve problems

such as political apathy is implicitly technologically deterministic. Technological

determinism operates under the inherent assumption that technological development

determines social change, that technology follows a predictable linear path rather

than being influenced by cultural or political ideas. Within this perspective, the web is

seen as radically new and different to what has gone before, heightening both the

sense of the unlimited possibilities it affords but also of danger and risk such a new


technology poses. Those who see technology in this way fail to see the continuities

with previous communication technologies, the accumulated knowledge and

experience of those technologies and the influences that shape how technologies

develop. Although extensively challenged, technological determinism is widespread

and continues to feed much of the debate in popular and political discourse.

The perspective is criticised by a broad body of research known as the Science and

Technology Studies (STS) which maintains that technological determinism does not

take account of how information and communication technologies are constructed,

shaped and given meaning by a range of social forces (Coleman and Blumler, 2009:

10). STS examines not only the impacts or outcomes of technology but also the

processes of innovation and the content of technologies. Every stage involves a set

of choices between different technical options and means of application (Edge and

Williams, 1996: 857). In contrast to technological determinism, it is argued that

technologies are not neutral, but are manipulated or negotiated by various actors,

including the state, with differing consequences for different social groups

(Mackenzie and Wajcman, 1999: 15, Mackay and Gillespie, 1992). Rather than

being inherently neutral, the implementation of digital technologies often reflects and

advances the interests of dominant powers in the polity.

An empirical examination of the UK government’s record on e-democracy initiatives

shows little evidence that it has led to radical new forms of political participation.

Despite apparent government interest in using the web to engage with citizens; and

some very innovative projects, digital initiatives tend to focus more on information

provision than on enabling participation or discussion. The more innovative and


interactive initiatives have been short term and experimental rather than embedded

into the institutional and policy process. Indeed, there seems to be a considerable

gap between what is claimed for the web and what is actually happening. However,

there is limited empirical material to provide substantial evidence of whether

participation has increased or if new kinds of participation are changing policy

making. More investigation is needed about the influences, connections, decisions

and networks that lead to choices about design, development, and use of digital

technologies, particularly at the national government level.

Existing Literature and Research

E-democracy remains a contested concept, with various terms such as e-

participation, e-engagement or digital engagement often used inter-changeably. I am

still in the process of clarifying and defining terminology for my research, but for this

paper, I will use Lawrence Pratchett’s definition of e-democracy:

Government sponsored ICT based initiatives that aim to improve transparency

and responsiveness of government, enhance the participation of citizens in

the policy process, or develop new opportunities for opinion formation and

exchange among and between citizens.

(Prachett, 2007).

The literature on the web and democracy and use of technologies within government

can be divided into a number of broad categories: First, there is a significant body of

work on e-government; that is the development of services and transactions online

and the implications arising from this. (Dunleavy and Magretts, 2007, Milakovich,

2012, Margetts, 2006, Fountain, 2009). Dunleavy and Magretts have tracked the UK

Government’s work online through a series of reports for the National Audit Office


between 1999 and 2007. They looked at the organisational changes needed to

enable e-government services, making recommendations for improvement and

evaluating the results. Their work is particularly relevant in their examination of the

institutional and structural factors which affected the early development of e-

government.

Milakovich (2012) describes the development of e-government in the United States,

writing firmly from a New Public Management perspective, concentrating on the

promise of the web to provide cost savings, greater efficiency and smaller

government. His work seems to represent a strand of writing that suggests

technology will determine progress. Jane Fountain (2009) provides a more nuanced

perspective although she also writes about e-government in the US. She

distinguishes between objective and enacted technologies. Objective technologies

are artefacts such as the Internet which exist as abstract entities. Enacted

technologies are mediated by the institutional and organisational contexts in which

they are implemented. Although she focuses on the implications for e-government,

there are clear links between what happens in e-government and how e-democracy

is developed within the institutional environment.

A second branch of literature looks at the role of the internet in the promotion of

political engagement of individuals. In this category, I would include the

communitarian work which looked at virtual communities, chat rooms and bulletin

boards characteristic of the earlier years of the Internet, and also liberal-individualist

work which focuses on how the web can assist in the expression of individual

interests. Scholars have also studied who participates and who is excluded,

(Williamson, 2010, Shah et al., 2005, Jenson et al., 2007) the deliberative quality of

discussion online (Albrecht, 2006, Min, 2007, Smith et al., 2012); and how online


participation can increase civic trust and belonging (Tolbert and McNeal, 2003,

Mossberger et al., 2008).

These studies examine the potential risks and opportunities of individual participation

in the political process. Shah, for example showed that by participating in online

discussions, individuals appeared to become more willing to participate in other

ways, although Albrecht in his analysis of online deliberative discussions in Hamburg

on future developments for the city, found that only a small number of people were

active participants. Much of what is written in this area is linked to wider studies on

citizenship. Writers such as Stephen Coleman have argued that a level of individual

participation is essential to the healthy functioning of a democratic state although

what constitutes participation and the level of activity required is subject to much

discussion. The impact of technology on the means of participation is relevant in that

the properties of the web generate what Coleman calls ‘the vulnerable potential’ to

revitalise flagging political communication (Coleman and Blumler, 2009: 16).

My research draws upon the analysis of participation and its role within democracy,

particularly in my interviews with civil servants. Their embedded understandings and

interpretations of why people should or how people can participate, inevitably

influences their ideas on design, and implementation of online engagement

mechanisms and channels, their perceptions of risk and their responsiveness to

citizen activity.

A third category looks at the macro level, examining whether the web will

fundamentally reconfigure the democratic system. In this category, there are both

theoretical and practical components. There is a strand of literature, derived from the

work of Jürgen Habermas, which explores whether the web can be used to expand


the public sphere of rational-critical citizen discourse in ways that are autonomous

from state and corporate power, and through which public opinion may be formed to

hold official decision makers accountable (Dahlberg, 2001: 616) Stephen Coleman

also uses the concept of the public sphere to consider how a common space or

common ground could be used to provide a democratic space which is separate

from the market and the state, to reinvigorate political conversations (Coleman and

Blumler, 2009 :165).

Within this category is the on-going debate about whether the web is a revolutionary

or normalising force. These debates are linked to those noted earlier on

technological determinism and the social shaping of technology. The hope is for

many that the implementation of digital technologies will have a transformational and

radical effect on political and democratic behaviour. The opportunities provided by

the web, it is suggested, will generate a better informed, less apathetic public. In its

more radical versions, this area of literature proposes that citizen use of the web

could challenge how representative democracy currently functions by frequent voting

on issues and decisions [see Nesbitt, 1991, Budge, 1996 in (Wright, 2012 : 246)]. In

contrast, scholars, notably Margolis and Resnick, 2000, argue that the revolutionary

potential of politics will be normalised by the socio-political reality. (Wright, 2012) that

new technological applications and their effects reflect the interests of dominant

actors, which can reinforce existing socio-political cleavages and patterns of interest.

These arguments observe the limited impact of technologies on broader

organisational and political life and recognise the role of institutions in mediating the

potentially radical nature of many applications (Prachett, 2007: 3).

Other writers talk more of the revolutionary potential of the use and design of

technologies rather than an innate quality. Despite the appearance of normalisation,


incremental changes may be generating new dynamics and behaviours by citizens,

politicians, or public officials, which while not dramatically transformative, may be

altering and re-defining how the political system operates in ways that are not yet

fully apparent (Chadwick, 2009, Wright, 2012).

Despite the range and complexity of literature on the web and democracy, there has

been relatively little written about the role and responses of policy actors in enabling

and facilitating government sponsored e-democratic initiatives. There are few

empirical studies of what happens within institutions and how the attitudes, shared

meanings and values, organisational impediments, resources and decision

processes can affect what happens even before e-democracy initiatives see the light

of day.

This uncovering process requires that we examine and weigh the relative

importance of actors’ motivations and narratives, their proximate decision-

making processes, institutional networks and hierarchies, and the complex

interplay of different actors and interests within a given organization.

(Chadwick, 2011)

My research therefore, is focused on observing and understanding the interactions of

selected public officials (predominantly civil servants) who are involved in designing,

developing and operating online democratic engagement mechanisms which seek to

invite public input into policy development. By focusing on this selected group, I hope

to gain a greater insight into the significance of these previously overlooked set of

actors.


Research Methods

The research is being carried out using qualitative mixed methods

1. Interviews with three groups of policy actors: The first group of interviews will

engage with high level ‘policy shapers’ and consists of senior civil servants,

advisors to government and external commentators. The second group of actors

consists of those who work directly on projects to understand their experiences,

relationships and problems. The third group are internal or external ICT

specialists and the interviews will explore the pressures and constraints they

experience in their interaction with government bodies.

2. I will also undertake one or more Case Studies to gain an in-depth

understanding of how particular areas of digital engagement operate. The choice

of case studies will be led by the findings from the early interviews. As such

selection criteria are still being defined. The case studies could focus on

particular projects, departments, selected policy areas, processes or groups of

people.

3. I am working on a documentary analysis of government documents. These

documents fall broadly into two groups: guidance for civil servants and policy

papers. The guidance and codes of practice for civil servants provide practical

suggestions for initiatives, advice on avoiding risk and establishment of good

practice. Policy and review papers look more at the ideas and political vision for

online engagement. The analysis will look at consistency or changes in themes,

narratives, language, influences and practices.

4. Monitoring Government e-democracy channels: Reviewing, monitoring and

tracking the extent and use of government e-democracy channels by conducting

a snap-shot analysis every three months of which digital communication channels


are used by particular departments for engagement. By mapping departmental

uses of the different platforms, for example, I can note the range and level of use

of technologies that they use over time as well as the differences between the

departments. I am also able to note where and when changes occur.

Early findings

The first phase of the research is focused on elite interviewing with senior civil

servants and advisors to the government. I would like to share some of these early

findings, although these findings are necessarily tentative and reflective of one

particular group of actors. I will focus on three concerns that were raised frequently

during the interviews: participation, technical capacity and transparency.

1. Participation and understandings of democracy

Within the political elite in the UK, there is a long standing view that the public are

not engaged enough with the political process. This can be evidenced through

decline in voting at local and general elections, decline in political party membership

and in other associational memberships such as trade unions. Consequently, there

has been consistent cross party support for finding new ways of increasing public

participation. (Office of the E-Envoy, 2002, Ministry of Justice, 2008, Cameron, 2010)

The interviews show a considerable disparity between the official rhetoric in support

of public participation and the civil servants’ doubts about the value of participation in

practice. This was linked particularly to their perception that the public fail to

understand complexities involved in policy making and often operate primarily in

terms of their own self-interest.

Furthermore, they were sceptical about the impact of such participation on political

decisions. Rather there is a sense that participation is used as an instrument of


validation, and as a legitimising device. This was articulated by one of the civil

servants interviewed:

…don’t kid yourself that it is anything other than providing a justification for

decisions that people have already made, and actually it is dangerous

because they [online engagement exercises] give that spurious authority to

highly questionable assumptions to justify why Ministers and others have

decided to do something.

(Respondent A)

In contrast, another respondent, an external advisor, suggested that digital

technologies were potentially upsetting previous tacit agreements about participation

between politicians, civil servants and interest groups:

…the traditional ways of setting up consultations are not disruptive to the

decisions they make. They [policy makers] are worried that online consultations

just might be. So what we have at the moment are a set of protocols around

consultations in which enough of the public feel consulted but allows people in

government to get on with what they want to get on with. Online consultation

endangers that, it puts not only the consultation but the process of consultation

much more in the public sphere.

(Respondent B)

This raises a question which needs further exploration, of whether the use of web

technologies represents a distinctive change from previous methods of

communications between representatives and represented, or if they are merely an

updated means of managing citizen expectations.


Underlying concerns and attitudes towards participation shape technical choices and

design. For example, in the UK, online consultations are the most common means of

asking citizens for their input into policy responses, but they are often set up so that

there are severe limitations on how people can respond, allowing only an email

response or completion of an online form. There is no opportunity to enter into

discussion with policy officials or with other respondents.

2. Technical Capacity

Secondly, questions were raised about the technical capacity within the civil service.

Respondents highlighted two main issues. The technical skills of civil servants were

seen as insufficient to grasp the full potential of digital technologies in government;

and also current government IT Platforms were seen as inadequate to cope and

keep up with fast changing technologies. Several respondents expressed frustration

at not being able to carry out initiatives in the way they thought best because the

equipment, or processes or software was not available or was not sufficiently robust

as these quotes from civil servants illustrate:

IT systems are massively expensive and there is just not the money floating

around to say that now transparency is on the agenda, let’s redo everything. It

would be hideously expensive. So we need to make our current systems work as

best they can.

(Respondent C)

Our platforms are not really up to it somehow. When I talk to people, that is one of

the big problems they have. Our website can’t cope.

(Respondent D)


Both of these problems have persisted through changes of government and internal

re-organisations. This suggests that the difficulties are not only technical. Possible

reasons explored in the interviews included the employment strategies of

departments who perhaps value policy knowledge and skills over ICT ones. Civil

servants are not trained to understand digital technologies in their work and new

training in this area is not prioritised. Recent economic reductions to departmental

budgets have cut the number of staff available to work on digital projects (Laja,

2012). However, the problems are deep-rooted. In a series of reports for the National

Audit Office between 1999 and 2007, Dunleavy and Magretts frequently criticised the

shortcomings of government IT provision which they saw as partly caused by

fragmentation of resources and expertise between different Government

departments. Their research found that the public considered government websites

confusing and difficult to navigate, information was missing or duplicated because it

was divided along departmental lines. They also noted that in some situations, there

was some internal resistance to developing online services, based on fears about

jobs, concerns about IT security and exacerbated by the lack of resources.

(Dunleavy and Magretts, 2002, Dunleavy and Magretts, 2007, Dunleavy and

Margetts, 1999).

Alongside insufficient technical skills, a fear of technology may exist at many

different levels in the civil service and in particular, respondents suggested, amongst

the decision makers who give permission and resources for digital initiatives to go

ahead. This fear and lack of knowledge often generated a high (and perhaps

unrealistic) perception of risk incurred by using web technologies. These concerns

could have an inhibiting effect on the development of more innovative online

initiatives. [See also (Chadwick, 2011: 31)]. This was implied by one respondent who


explained that a legal presence was required at all meetings relevant to

departmental activity on the transparency agenda so that potential legal risks to the

department could be averted, this led to some options being discarded.

3. Transparency

Thirdly, the political priority for senior officials is clearly focused on responding to the

emerging transparency agenda. Making government data public is a priority for the

current government although also supported by some politicians in the previous

Labour administration. However, just as e-democracy was shaped by Labour’s views

and ideas on participation and modernisation, so transparency is being shaped by

the current government’s views on making government accountable and generating

economic growth.

In a newspaper article last year, the Prime Minister explained why transparency is

seen as central to the government’s programme.

This incredible demand shows the power of transparency, and why we need

more of it. Information is power. It lets people hold the powerful to account,

giving them the tools they need to take on politicians and bureaucrats. It gives

people new choices and chances, allowing them to make informed judgments

about their future. And it lets our professionals’ judge themselves against one

another, and our entrepreneurs develop new products and services.

In so many ways, information is a national asset, and it's time it was shared.

That's why, since last year, we have published stacks of new data. Right now

you can go online and look at the salaries of senior officials, the contracts

signed by central and local government, and the breakdown of public

spending (Cameron, 2011).


Some of the rhetoric around transparency also implies that it will improve democratic

participation. The Cabinet Office, which leads on government implementation,

clearly links transparency to democratic engagement.

Openness and transparency has the potential to transform government. It can

strengthen people's trust in government and encourage greater public

participation in decision-making. (Cabinet Office 2010)

Implementing the transparency agenda was of primary concern for the elite

interviewees but their response was mixed. In general, the civil servants were

committed to developing greater transparency, but they were unsure that this would

increase or improve democratic engagement. They also expressed strong concerns

about privacy for the individual, and the risks that arose when datasets were

released online.

In an example provided by one of the civil servants, a department was asked to

release data on a sensitive topic. Before publication, officials asked an external

source to test whether it would be possible to identify people if the data was

released. The testing found that by linking sets of data, individuals could be

identified. Consequently the department broadened the categories of information so

that identification of individuals was no longer possible. However, the civil servants’

actions led to tensions with the Cabinet Office and No 10 Downing Street who felt

that that adapting the data in this way compromised the principles of transparency.

In this context, the values of the civil service culture determined how technology was

used. Civil servants felt their job was to identify risk and avoid it even if that brought

them into conflict with Ministers. One of the civil servants interviewed commented:


I think it is right to introduce a note of caution with some of those parties. I don’t

think it would actually result in the end that the transparency agenda wants i.e.

better engagement if [individuals] were named on some database. I just don’t

think that would be useful.

(Respondent C)

The transparency agenda is new and evolving. It is not yet clear, whether

transparency might ultimately generate greater democratic engagement by making

information available which is then used to challenge government policies; or if

alternatively, it is squeezing out the e-democracy agenda as civil servants scramble

to meet new political priorities which focus more on economic growth and political

accountability rather than involving citizens in the business of policy making.

Conclusions

Government sponsored digital engagement can no longer be defined as ‘new’ or a

novelty. Governments have been involved in using technologies to interact with

citizens for over 15 years. In the UK, two administrations, first Labour and

subsequently the Coalition Government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats

have brought their political ideas, instincts and perceptions to bear upon digital

initiatives. There have been several cycles of enthusiasm and disappointment

alongside the political, organisational and technical developments. Civil servants

have also been through these cycles and developments and it is their experiences

the research is concentrated upon.

Through my interviews with senior civil servants and external advisors, I have gained

insights into their understandings of public participation and their thoughts about

using technologies to enable and manage the process. I have listened to their


concerns regarding technical issues which are not purely technical problems but are

the outward manifestation of organisational structures, culture and processes. And I

have been able to observe the impact of an emergent agenda of transparency and

open data which has become a significant centre of political and officials’ energy and

resources.

From these preliminary findings, a number of key questions and issues have

surfaced. These require further investigation as the research project develops.

In particular, six questions came out of the interviews:

1. How does the Civil Service understand democracy and the role of public

participation, how does that affect their implementation of engagement

initiatives?

2. Is the civil service approach to participation altered by use of digital

technologies?

3. What is distinctive and different about digital technologies compared to other

means of communication?

4. What affect do political goals have on the design, use and deployment of

digital technologies

5. Is the emerging transparency and open data agenda squeezing out work

done on e-participation?

6. Why do the issues around technical capacity persist and what are the factors

in maintaining it?

The next step in the fieldwork is to interview officials who work directly on digital

engagement projects or who have been involved with past projects. I will explore


with them, their experiences in developing digital engagement initiatives; for example

how different platforms or technologies were selected, how the design of the initiative

developed. I will also look at the difficulties or barriers they encountered, how they

publicised the initiatives, how they managed the responses and how they think the

responses were used in policy development.

Despite all that has been written on the web and democracy, there are still gaps in

our understanding of the influences, cultural values, behaviours, networks and

decision making processes that feeds into the governance of democratic online

participation. In particular there is a lack of empirical research in this field. Reducing

that gap would provide new insights into both the continuities and what is

distinctively different about the use of electronic media in the democratic interactions

between citizens and governments.


Bibliography

ALBRECHT, S. 2006. Whose voice is heard in online deliberation?: A study of participation and representation in political debates on the internet. Information, Communication and Society, 9, 62-82.

BLAIR, T. 1998. The Third Way. In: FABIAN SOCIETY. (ed.). London: Fabian Society.,. CAMERON, D. 2011. We are creating a new era of transparency. Daily Telegraph, 06 July 2011. CAMERON, D., CLEGG, NICK., 2010. The Coalition: our programme for government. In: CABINET

OFFICE. (ed.). HM Government,. CHADWICK, A. 2009. Web 2.0: New Challenges for the Study of E-Democracy in an era of

Informational Exuberance. Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 5, 9-41. CHADWICK, A. 2011. Explaining the Failure of an Online Citizen Engagement Initiative: The Role of

Institutional Variables. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 8, 21-40. COLEMAN, S. & BLUMLER, J., G., 2009. The Internet and Democratic Citizenship: Theory, practice and

policy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. DAHLBERG, L. 2001. The Internet and Democractic Discourse: Exploring the prospects of online

deliverative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication and Society, 4, 615-633.

DUNLEAVY, P. & MAGRETTS, H. 2002. Government on the Web II. In: NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE (ed.). London: NAO.

DUNLEAVY, P. & MAGRETTS, H. 2007. Government on the Internet: progress in delivering infomation and services online. In: NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE (ed.). London: NAO.

DUNLEAVY, P. & MARGETTS, H. 1999. Government on the Web. In: NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE (ed.). London: NAO.

EDGE, D. & WILLIAMS, R. 1996. The Social Shaping of Technology. Research Policy 25, 856-899. FOUNTAIN, J., E., 2009. Bureaucratic Reform and e-government in the United States: an institutional

perspective. In: CHADWICK, A. & HOWARD, P., N., (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics. New York: Routledge.

JENSON, M. J., DANZIGER JAMES N. & VENKATESH, A. 2007. Civil Society and Cyber Society: The Role of the Internet in Community Associations and Democratic Politics. Information Society, 23, 39-50.

LAJA, S. 2012. IT staff numbers across Whitehall tumble 9% in four years. The Guardian, 11 April 2012.

MACKAY, H. & GILLESPIE, G. 1992. Extending the Social Shaping of Technology Approach: Ideology and Appropriation. Social Studies of Science, 22, 685-716.

MACKENZIE, D. & WAJCMAN, J. (eds.) 1999. The Social Shaping of Technology, Maidenhead: Open University Press.

MARGETTS, H. 2006. E-Government in Britain—A Decade On. Parliamentary Affairs, 59, 250-265. MILAKOVICH, E., MICHAEL., 2012. Digital Governance: New Technologies for Improving Public Service

and Participation, New York, Routledge. MIN, S. H. J. I. E. V. I. M. H. 2007. Online vs. face-to-face deliberation: Effects on civic engagement. .

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication., 12, article 11. MINISTRY OF JUSTICE 2008. A National Framework for Greater Citizen Engagment. In: MINISTRY OF

JUSTICE (ed.). London: TSO. MOSSBERGER, K., TOLBERT, C., J., & MCNEAL, R., S., 2008. Digitial Citizenship: The Internet, Society

and Participation, Cambridge Massachussets, Massachussets Institute of Technology (MIT). OFFICE OF THE E-ENVOY 2002. In the service of democracy : a consultation paper on a policy for

electronic democracy. In: CABINET OFFICE (ed.). London: TSO. PRACHETT, L. 2007. Local e-Democracy in Europe: Democratic X-ray as the Basis for Comparative

Analysis. International Conference on Direct Democracy. Buenos Aires Argentina.


SHAH, D., JAEHO, C., EVELAND, W., P., & KWAK, N., J.,. 2005. Information and Expression in a Digital Age: Modeling Internet Effects on Civic Participation. Communication Research [Online], 32.

SMITH, G., JOHN, P. & STURGIS, P. 2012. Taking political engagement online: an experimental analysis of asynchronous discussion forums. Political Studies Association: University of Southampton, University of Manchester.

TOLBERT, C., J., & MCNEAL, R., S., 2003. Unravelling the Effects of the Internet on Political Participation? Political Research Quarterly 56, 175.

WILLIAMSON, A. 2010. Digital Citizens and Democratic Participation. London: Hansard Society. WRIGHT, S. 2006. Electrifying Democracy? 10 Years of Policy and Practice. Parliamentary Affairs, 59,

236-249. WRIGHT, S. 2012. Politics as usual? Revolution, normalization and a new agenda for online

deliberation. New Media and Society, 14, 244-61.

digital engagement in uk governance: the role of … ecpr graduate conference jacobs university...

Documents