E-Consultations: A Review of Current Practice and a Proposal for Opening Up the Process

  • Steffen Albrecht
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7444)

Abstract

Information and communication technologies have altered the relations between the political system and citizens. Policy-formulation is enhanced by e-consultations that extend the knowledge base and the legitimacy of policy-making. However, current e-consultation practice in the EU falls short of the potential. The paper proposes a deliberative turn, the use of special purpose technologies and the integration of social media discourse into the consultation process as means to further open it up and to strengthen the connection between government and citizens.

Keywords

online consultations social media policy-making e-participation 

References

  1. 1.
    Wright, S., Street, J.: Democracy, Deliberation and Design: The Case of Online Discussion Forums. New Media & Society 9, 849–869 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Quittkat, C., Finke, B.: The EU Commission Consultation Regime. In: Kohler-Koch, B., De Bièvre, D., Maloney, W. (eds.) Opening EU Governance to Civil Society: Gains and Challenges. CONNEX Report Series No 05, pp. 183–222. MZES, Mannheim (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tomkova, J.: E-consultations: New Tools for Civic Engagement or Facades for Political Correctness? European Journal of ePractice 7 (2009), http://www.epractice.eu/en/document/287934
  4. 4.
    Ruesch, M.A., Basedow, S., Korte, J.-H.: From E to O. Towards Open Participation as a Guiding Principle of Open Government. Paper to be presented at EDEM 2012, Vienna, Austria, September 3-6 (forthcoming, 2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Institut für Informationsmanagement Bremen GmbH (ifib)/Zebralog e.V.: eParticipation – Electronic Participation of Citizens and the Business Community in eGovernment. Ifib, Bremen (2008), http://www.ifib.de/publikationsdateien/study_e-participation_engl.pdf
  6. 6.
    Habermas, J.: Moralbewußtsein und kommunikatives Handeln. Frankfurt/M. Suhrkamp (1983)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Habermas, J.: Faktizität und Geltung. Frankfurt/M. Suhrkamp (1992)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nielsen, P.C., Santamera, A.S., Vondeling, H.: Policy Processes and Health Technology Assessment. In: Garrido, M.V., Christensen, F.B., Nielsen, C.P., Busse, R. (eds.) Health Technology Assessment and Health Policy-Making in Europe, pp. 19–30. The European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, Copenhagen (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    OECD: Citizens as partners. Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policymaking. OECD, Paris (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cabinet Office: In the Service of Democracy. A Consultation Paper on a Policy for Electronic Democracy, Cabinet Office of HM Government, London (2002) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    United Nations: UN E-Government Survey 2012. E-Government for the People. United Nations, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    European Commission: European Governance. A White Paper. COM (2001) 428 final. Brussels (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    European Commission: Smart Regulation in the European Union. COM (2010) 543 final. Brussels (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Quittkat, C.: The European Commission’s Online Consultations: A Success Story? J. of Common Market Studies 49, 653–674 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Winkler, R., Kozeluh, U.: Europeans Have a Say: Online Debates and Consultations in the EU. Research Report. Institute of Technology Assessment of the Austrian Academy of Sciences & Centre for Social Innovation, Vienna (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fazi, E., Smith, J.: Civil Dialogue: Making It Work Better. Study Commissioned by the Civil Society Contact Group. Civil Society Contact Group, Brussels (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., Tarabanis, K.: eParticipation Initiatives in Europe: Learning from Practitioners. In: Tambouris, E., Macintosh, A., Glassey, O. (eds.) ePart 2010. LNCS, vol. 6229, pp. 54–65. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hüller, T.: Gut beraten? Die Online-Konsultationen der EU Kommission. Zeitschrift für Politikberatung 1, 359–382 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Millard, J., Meyerhoff Nielsen, M., Warren, R., Smith, S., Macintosh, A., Tarabanis, K., Tambouris, E., Panopoulou, E., Dalakiouridou, E., Parisopoulos, K.: European eParticipation Summary Report. European Commission, Brussels (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dalakiouridou, E., Smith, S., Tambouris, E., Tarabanis, K.: Electronic Participation Policies and Initiatives in the European Union Institutions. Social Science Computer Review (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bohman, J.: Public Deliberation. Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stromer-Galley, J., Webb, N., Muhlberger, P.: Deliberative E-Rulemaking Project: Challenges to Enacting Real World Deliberation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 9, 82–96 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Beckert, B., Lindner, R., Goos, K., Hennen, L., Aichholzer, G., Strauß, S.: E-Democracy in Europe – Prospects of Internet-based Political Participation. Theoretical Framework and Overview. In-depth Examination of Three Selected Areas – Phase II. European Technology Assessment Group, Bonn (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Davis, A.: New Media and Fat Democracy: The Paradox of Online Participation. New Media & Society 12, 745–761 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ferro, E., Molinari, F.: Making Sense of Gov 2.0 Strategies: “No Citizens, No Party”. eJournal of eDemocracy 2, 56–68 (2010), http://www.jedem.org/article/view/13/33 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tigelaar, A.S., op den Akker, R., Hiemstra, D.: Automatic Summarisation of Discussion Fora. Natural Language Engineering 16, 161–192 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hilbert, M.: The Maturing Concept of E-Democracy: From E-Voting and Online Consultations to Democratic Value Out of Jumbled Online Chatter. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 6, 87–110 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tambouris, E., Dalakiouridou, E., Panopoulou, E., Tarabanis, K.: Evaluation of an Argument Visualisation Platform by Experts and Policy Makers. In: Tambouris, E., Macintosh, A., de Bruijn, H. (eds.) ePart 2011. LNCS, vol. 6847, pp. 74–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Karamanou, A., Loutas, N., Tarabanis, K.: ArgVis: Structuring Political Deliberations Using Innovative Visualisation Technologies. In: Tambouris, E., Macintosh, A., de Bruijn, H. (eds.) ePart 2011. LNCS, vol. 6847, pp. 87–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Benn, N., Macintosh, A.: Argument Visualization for eParticipation: Towards a Research Agenda and Prototype Tool. In: Tambouris, E., Macintosh, A., de Bruijn, H. (eds.) ePart 2011. LNCS, vol. 6847, pp. 60–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chadwick, A.: Web 2.0: New Challenges for the Study of E-Democracy in an Era of Informational Exuberance. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 5, 9–41 (2009)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Graham, T.: Beyond “Political” Communicative Spaces: Talking Politics on the Wife Swap Discussion Forum. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 9, 31–45 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wright, S.: Politics as Usual? Revolution, Normalization and a New Agenda for Online Deliberation. New Media & Society (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee, D., Loutas, N., Sánchez-Nielsen, E., Mogulkoc, E., Lacigova, O.: Inform-Consult-Empower: A Three-Tiered Approach to eParticipation. In: Tambouris, E., Macintosh, A., de Bruijn, H. (eds.) ePart 2011. LNCS, vol. 6847, pp. 121–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wandhöfer, T., Thamm, M., Joshi, S.: Politician 2.0: Information Behavior and Dissemination on Social Networking Sites – Gaps and Best-Practices. eJournal of eDemocracy 3, pp. 207–214 (2011), http://www.jedem.org/article/view/78/90
  36. 36.
    Charalabidis, Y., Gionis, G., Ferro, E., Loukis, E.: Towards a Systematic Exploitation of Web 2.0 and Simulation Modeling Tools in Public Policy Process. In: Tambouris, E., Macintosh, A., Glassey, O. (eds.) ePart 2010. LNCS, vol. 6229, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ferro, E., Osella, M., Charalabidis, Y., Loukis, E., Boero, R.: Policy Gadgets: Paving the Way for Next-Generation Policy Making. In: Proc. of IFIP Third Int. Conf. on e-Participation – ePart 2011, Trauner, Linz (2011)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gordon, T.: The IMPACT Argumentation Toolbox for Policy Deliberations. Paper presented at the Workshop “Open Government” at EGOV 2011, Delft, The Netherlands (2011)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jones, N., Blackey, H., Fitzgibbon, K., Chew, E.: Get out of MySpace! Computers & Education 54, 99, 776–782 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Albrecht, S., Coenen, C., Yang, M., Trénel, M.: Perception of Nanotechnology in Internet-based Discussions. BfR Wissenschaft 08/2010. Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Macintosh, A.: Characterizing E-Participation in Policy-Making. In: Proc. of the 37th Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences (HICSS-37), Big Island, Hawaii, January 5-8 (2004)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ruesch, M., Märker, O.: Real Name Policy in E-Participation. The Case of Gütersloh’s Second Participatory Budget. Paper presented at CeDEM 2012, Krems, Austria, May 3-4 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steffen Albrecht
    • 1
  1. 1.Zebralog GmbH & Co. KGBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations