DoIT Right: Measuring Effectiveness of Different eConsultation Designs

  • Åke Grönlund
  • Joachim Åström
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5694)


eConsultations have been used in many countries over many years, yet most research in the field is case descriptions and there is so far little systematic evidence as to the effectiveness of consultations as a tool for enhancing democracy. Using a case survey method we investigate what factors make a consultation succeed or fail based on data from 57 cases reported in the literature. Success is measured as high participation, deliberative mode of discussion, and impact on policy. We test three hypotheses from the literature claiming, respectively, that institutional design, democratic intent, and quality of research are the most important factors behind the reported success. We find support for all hypotheses. Using consultation at the analysis/decision making stage, mixing online and offline methods and active strategic recruiting are institutional factors positively contributing. Democratic intent and content analysis research both have positive influence.


consultation e-consultation online consultation case survey 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Albrecht, S.: Whose Voice is Heard in Online Deliberation? A Study of Participation and Representation in Political Debates on the Internet. Information, Communication & Society 9(1), 62–82 (February 2006),,
  2. Beierle, T., Konisky, D.M.: Values, Conflict, and Trust in Participatory Environmental Planning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 19(4), 587–602 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blaug, R.: Engineering democracy. Political Studies 50, 102–116 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Daemen, H.H.F.M., Schaap, L. (eds.): Citizen and City: Developments in Fifteen Local Democracies. Delft, The Netherlands (2000)Google Scholar
  5. Danielson, M., Grönlund, Å., Ekenberg, L., Larsson, A.: Public Decision Support - Using a DSS to Increase Democratic Transparency. International Journal of Public Information Systems 1(1) (2005), Electronic journal,
  6. DEMO_net Demo_net D5.1: Report on current ICTs to enable participation (2006), (retrieved December 16, 2008),
  7. DEMO_net /eParticipation Evaluation and Impact. /DEMO-net D13.3./ (2006b), (retrieved December 16, 2008),
  8. DEMO_net Analytical report on eParticipation research from an Administrative and Political Perspective./ DEMO_net D14.1(2008) (retrieved December 16, 2008),
  9. Dunn, W.N.: Public Policy Analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1994)Google Scholar
  10. Hayward, C.: Introducing e-enabled citizens panels. The Local e-Democracy National Project (2005),
  11. Fung, A.: Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Design Choices and their Consequences. The journal of Political Philosophy 11(3), 338–367 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fung, A.: Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Public Administration Review (December 2006); Special issueGoogle Scholar
  13. Grönlund, Å.: Emerging Electronic Infrastructures - Exploring Democratic Components. Social Science Computer Review 21(1), 55–72 (spring 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jankowski, N.W., Van Os, R.: Internet-based Political Discourse: A Case Study of Electronic Democracy in Hoogeveen. Paper presented at the Conference Prospects for Electronic Democracy, Pittsburgh, PA, September 20-21 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. Jensen, J.L.: Virtual Democratic Dialogue? Bringing together Citizens and Politicians. Information Polity 8(1) (2003)Google Scholar
  16. John, P.: Methodologies and Research Methods in Urban Political Science. In: Baldersheim, H., Wollman, H. (eds.) The Comparative Study of Local Government and Politics: Overview and Synthesis. Barbara Budrich Publishers, Opladen (2006)Google Scholar
  17. Polat, K., Rabia: The Internet and democratic local governance: the context of Britain. The International Information & Library Review 37, 87–97 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Larsson, R.: Case survey methodology: Quantitative analysis of patterns across case studies. Academy of Management Journal 36(6), 1515–1546 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Loughlin, J.: Subnational Democracy in the European Union. Challenges and Opportunities. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001)Google Scholar
  20. Lucas, W.: The case survey method of aggregating case experience. Rand, Santa Monica (1974)Google Scholar
  21. Macintosh, A.: eParticipation in policy-making: the research and the challenges. In: Exploiting the Knowledge Economy: Issues, Applications, Case Studies. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  22. Macintosh, A., Whyte, A.: Evaluating how eParticipation Changes Local Democracy. In: eGovernment Workshop 2006 (eGOV 2006), September 11, 2006. Brunel University, West London, UB8 3PH (2006)Google Scholar
  23. Morrison, J., Newman, R.: On-line Citizenship: Consultation and Participation in New Labour’s Britain and Beyond. International Review of Law Computers & Technology 15(2), 171–194 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Märker, O., Morgenstern, B., Hagedorn, H., Trénel, M.: Integrating Public Knowledge into Decision Making. Use Case: Internet Public Hearing in the City of Esslingen. In: Wimmer, M. (ed.) Knowledge Management in e-Government - KMGov 2002. 3rd International Workshop on Knowledge Management in e-Government, May 23-24, 2002. Trauner Druck, Linz (2002)Google Scholar
  25. Norris, P.: Digital divide? In: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peart, M.N., Diaz, J.R.: Comparative Project on Local e-Democracy Initiatives in Europe and North America. University of Geneva, Geneva (2007)Google Scholar
  27. OECD. Citizens as Partners: Information, consultation and public participation in policy-making: OECD, Paris (2001)Google Scholar
  28. Olsson, J., Åström, J. (eds.): Democratic eGovernance: Approaches and Research Directions. Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm (2006)Google Scholar
  29. Phillips, A.: Why does Local Democracy Matter? In: Pratchett, L., Wilson, D. (eds.) Local Democracy and Local Government. MacMillan Press Ltd. London (1996)Google Scholar
  30. Putnam, R.: Bowling Alone. In: The Collaps and Revival of American Community. Free Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  31. Rose, J., Saebo, O.: Democracy Squared. Designing On-line Communities to Accommodate Conflicting Interests. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 17(2), 133–168 (2005)Google Scholar
  32. Rowe, G., Frewer, L.J.: Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda. In: Science, Technology & Human Values, vol. 29(4), pp. 512–556 (2004)Google Scholar
  33. Seawright, J., Gerring, J.: Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research. A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options. Political Research Quarterly 61(2), 294–308 (2008)Google Scholar
  34. Stewart, K.: Write Rules and Win: Understanding Citizen Participation Game Dynamics. Public Administration Review (November/December 2007)Google Scholar
  35. Yin, R.: Case study research: Design and methods, 2nd edn. Sage Publishing, Beverly Hills (1994)Google Scholar
  36. Åström, J.: Mot en digital demokrati? Teknik, politik och institutionell förändring (Towards a digital democracy? In: Technology, politics, and institutional change). Örebro Studies in Political Science, vol. 9, Örebro University, Orebro (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Åke Grönlund
    • 1
  • Joachim Åström
    • 1
  1. 1.Örebro UniversityÖrebroSweden

Personalised recommendations