Abstract
In parallel to more open and participative governance movements associated with mobility, there has been widening interest in linking the Internet with new forms of democracy. Underpinned by the wider canvas of the democratization of information across societies, proponents of reform and critics of the status quo have thus sought to foster an alternative paradigm less rooted in historical foundations and increments of change and more aligned with more virtual realities. Fueled by the widening capacities for spontaneous and grassroots mobilization, any such reform project nonetheless faces stiff head winds stemming from tensions between machinery and mobility. At the core of such tensions in terms of democratic processes is the challenge of deliberation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Indeed, going forward in this book, we will not distinguish between engagement and empowerment, viewing the space in between these two levels as the essence of “participation and engagement” as discussed and titled in this chapter.
- 2.
Such a definition is in keeping with and largely stems from the “spectrum of public participation” created by the International Association for Public Participation:
- 3.
As discussed further below, such a basis for more direct and less partisan involvement already exists in many jurisdictions at the local level—where not coincidentally governments are leading in the embracement of digital experimentation aimed at wider and more direct and collaborative forms of citizen engagement with both appointed and elected officials. Although the local scene is far from a nirvana of democratic renewal, and while its structuring and conduct is shaped by national institutions and cultures, it nonetheless provides a more feasible laboratory and window upon current incremental changes that may yield more insight into prospects and conditions for more widespread change and reform as democracies and public administration adapts more fully to a still-nascent mobility era.
- 4.
Source: Twitter is not a typewriter: Ted Koppel’s Commencement Address at UMass Amherst (http://stearns.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/twitter-is-not-a-typewriter-ted-koppels-commencement-address-at-umass-amherst/)
- 5.
See, for example, the Toronto City Council Social Media Report Card as one compilation of such practices by elected officials: http://campaignimpossible.blogspot.ca/
- 6.
Summarized from the following source, a research consultancy having gathered such policies and guidelines from numerous municipalities across the Province and elsewhere: http://www.redbrick.ca/assets/file/resource/City-of-Guelph---Social-Media---Guiding-Principles-for-City-Spokespeople.pdf
References
Carr-West, J. (2009). From e-democracy to ‘here comes everybody’ a short history of government and the internet. In A. Sawford (Ed.), Local government 3.0: How councils can respond to the new web agenda (pp. 4–9). London: Local Government Information Unit.
Center for Technology in Government. (2012). The dynamics of opening government data. Albany. http://www.ctg.albany.edu
Charalabidis, Y., Kleinfeld,, R., & Loukis, E. (2012). Towards a rationalisation of social media exploitation in government policy-making processes. European Journal of ePractice 16.
Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22, 147–162.
Dutil, P., Howard, C., Langford, J., & Roy, J. (2010). The service state—Rhetoric, reality, and promise (Governance series). Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press.
Fatland, E. (2007). Democratic interfaces: Decision-making tools for online communities. MA thesis, Media Lab University of Arts and Design, Helsinki.
Hull, R. T. (1979). The varieties of ethical theories. Buffalo, NY: Buffalo Psychiatric Centre.
Kernaghan, K., & Langford, J. (1990). The responsible public servant. Toronto, ON: Institute for Public Administration of Canada.
Kettl, D. (2005). The next government of the United States: Challenges for performance in the 21st century. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
Kingwell, M. (2010). The shout doctrine. Walrus magazine. Toronto, ON: Walrus Foundation.
Kostakis, V. (2011). The advent of open source democracy and wikipolitics: Challenges, threats and opportunities for democratic discourse. An Interdisciplinary Journal on Human in ICT Environment, 7(1), 9–29.
Kotsiopoulos, I. (2009). Bringing together and accelerating eGovernment research in the EU: eDemocracy report. ICT for Government and Public Services Unit, European Commission.
Lacigova, O., Maizite, A., & Cave, B. (2012). eParticipation and social media: A symbiotic relationship? European Journal of ePractice, 16
Lips, M. (2012). E-government is dead: Long live public adminstration 2.0. Information Polity, 17(2012), 239–250.
Macintosh, A. (2003). Using Information and Communications Technologies to Enhance Citizen Engagement in the Policy Process. Promise and Problems of E-Democracy: Challenges of Online Engagement. Paris: OECD.
McNutt, K. (2009). Citizen engagement through online consultation a comment on public involvement and e-consultation: A new era of democratic governance in Canada. Montreal, QC: IRPP.
Mergel, I. (2012a). Working the network: A manager’s guide for using twitter in government. Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government.
Mergel, I. (2012b). A manager’s guide to designing a social media strategy. Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government.
Mindus, P., Greppi, A., & Cuono, M. (2011). Legitimacy 2.0—E-democracy and public opinion in the digital age (p. 182). Frankfurt am Main: Goethe University Press.
Mossberger, K., & Wu, Y. (2012). Civic engagement and local e-government: Social networking comes of age. Chicago, IL: UIC Institute for Policy and Civic Engagement.
Mota, J. C., & Santinha, G. (2012). Social media and civic engagement: Discussing the case of Aveiro Portugal. European Journal of ePractice, 16.
Nabatchi, T. (2010). Addressing the citizenship and democratic deficits: The potential of deliberative democracy for public administration. The American Review of Public Administration, 40(4), 376–399.
Orr, A. (2010). Blogging, deliberation and the public sphere. University of New South Wales, School of Social Science and International Studies.
Pole, A. (2011). Blogging the political: Politics and participation in a networked. Government Information Quarterly, 28, 290–293.
Public Policy Forum. (2012). Building youth engagement through civic collaboration. Ottawa, ON: Public Policy Forum.
Reddick, C. G., & Aikins, S. K. (Eds.). (2012). 2.0 technologies and democratic governance: Political, policy and management implications. New York: Springer.
Rogers, B. (2005). From membership to management? The future of political parties as democratic organizations. Parliamentary Affairs, 58(3), 600–610.
Roy, J. (2006). E-government in Canada: Transformation for the digital age (Governance Series). Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press.
Roy, J. (2008). Beyond Westminster governance: Bringing politics and public service into the network era. Canadian Public Administration, 5(4), 541–568.
Roy, J. (2011). Bridging the great divide: Piliticians and the public. Montreal, QC: IRPP.
Roy, J. (2012c). Secrecy versus openness: Democratic adaptation in a Web 2.0 era. In C. G. Reddick & S. K. Aikins (Eds.), Web 2.0 technologies and democratic governance: Political, policy and management implications. New York: Springer.
Samara. (2010). It’s my party: Parliamentary dysfunction reconsidered. The third in a series of reports exploring political leadership in Canada. Toronto, ON: Samara Research Institute.
Shane, P. M. (Ed.). (2004). Democracy online: The prospects for political renewal through the internet. London: Routledge.
Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. New York: Penguin Group.
Sloam, J. (2007). Rebooting democracy: Youth participation in politics in the UK. Parliamentary Affairs, 60, 548–567.
Sommer, L., & Cullen, R. (2009). Participation 2.0: A case study of e-participation within the New Zealand Government. 42nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Hawaii: Systems Sciences 2009, pp. 1–10.
Stoker, G. (2005). Public value management—A new narrative for networked governance? American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 41–57.
Viitanen, J. (2010). Does transparency erode trust? The Guardian.
Williamson, A. (2011). Disruption and empowerment. eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 3(1), 22–32.
World Economic Forum. (2011). The future of government: Lessons learned from around the World. World Economic Forum: Global Agenda Council on the Future of Government.
Wyld, D. (2007). The blogging revolution: Government in the age of Web 2.0. Washington, DC: IBM Endowment for The Business of Government.
Timoshenko, L. & Demers, J. (2012) Social Media Use Among Ontario Municipalities is Growing Fast. Redbrick Communications (Toronto). Accessed online at: http://www.redbrick.ca/assets/file/resource/Social-Media-Growth.pdf
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Roy, J. (2013). Deliberation and Engagement. In: From Machinery to Mobility. Public Administration and Information Technology, vol 2. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7221-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7221-6_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-7220-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-7221-6
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)