The University in the Polis: An Emerging Role of Democratic Intermediary in e-Participation?

  • Marina Ribaudo
  • Claudio Torrigiani
  • Fiorella De Cindio
  • Mauro Palumbo
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 11)


e-participation enables citizens’ voices to be heard more clearly and frequently, but does not self-implement. Strategies should be planned, models should be followed, the public actor should encourage administrative and political changes. In this paper the well established OECD levels of engagement (information, consultation, public participation) are described, with reference to enabling digital technologies: a need of trustworthy intermediaries emerges. This conceptual framework drives the presentation of some experiences that recently took place in the city of Genoa, highlighting the emerging role of the university as a democratic intermediary.


Democratic intermediary Participation levels e-participation 


  1. 1.
    Arnstein, S.R.: A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 35(4), 216–224 (1969)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bellezza, E., Florian, F.: Le fondazioni del terzo millennio. Pubblico e privato per il non-profit. Passigli editori (1998) (in Italian)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bertot, J., Jaeger, P., Hansen, D.: The impact of polices on government social media usage: issues, challenges, and recommendations. Govern. Inf. Q. 29(1), 30–40 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bobbio, L.: Prove di democrazia deliberativa. Parole chiave 43,185–203 (2011) (in Italian)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caddy, J., Vergez, C.: Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making. OECD Publishing, Ottawa (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coleman, S., Blumer, J.: The Internet and Democratic Citizenship: Theory, Practice and Policy. Cambridge University Press (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Concilio, G., De Bonis, L., Marsh, J., Trapani, F.: Urban smartness: perspectives arising in the Periphéria project. J.Knowl. Econ. 4(2), 205–216 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Cindio, F.: Guidelines for designing deliberative digital habitats: learning from e-participation for open data initiatives. J. Commun. Inf. 2(8) (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Cindio, F., Di Loreto, I., Peraboni, C.: Moments and modes for triggering civic participation at the urban level, pp. 97–113. Information Science Reference, IGI Global, Hershey (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Cindio, F., Gentile, O., Grew, P., Redolfi, D.: Community networks: rules of behavior and social structure. Inf. Soc. 19(5), 395–406 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Cindio, F., Krzatala-Jaworska, E., Sonnante, L.: Problems&Proposals, a tool for collecting citizens’ intelligence. In: CSCW2012 Workshop on Collective Intelligence as Community Discourse and Action, Seattle (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Edwards, A.R.: The moderator as an emerging democratic intermediary: the role of the moderator in internet discussions about public issues. Info. Pol. 7(1) (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hollands, R.: Will the real smart city please standup? City Anal. Urban Trends Cult. Theory Policy Action 12(3), 303–320 (2008)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    House, E., Howe, K.: Deliberative democratic evaluation. In: Ryan, E., De Stefano, L. (eds.) Evaluation as a Democratic Process, New Directions for Program Evaluation, vol. 85. Jossey Bass, San Francisco (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Olson, M.: The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Harvard University Press (1971)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Palumbo, M., Torrigiani, C.: Participatory evaluation in the field of social policies: why, who, what, where, how and when. Working Paper Series, FPeV 25 (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pastore, V.: Si fa presto a dire valutazione. Una riflessione su attori, finalità, tecniche e strumenti. Rivista Trimestrale di Scienza dell’Amministrazione 4, 73–108 (2010). In ItalianGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Picazo-Vela, S., Gutiérrez-MartÃ-nez, I., Luna-Reyes, L.: Understanding risks, benefits, and strategic alternatives of social media applications in the public sector. Govern. Inf. Q. 29(4), 504–511 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pizzorno, A.: (1978). Political exchange and collective identity in industrial conflict. In: Crouch, C., Pizzorno, A. (eds.) The resurgence of class conflict in Western Europe since 1968, vol. 2, pp. 277–298. LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Senato della Repubblica. I media civici in ambito parlamentare (2013) (in Italian).
  21. 21.
    Torrigiani, C.: Partecipazione e valutazione partecipata. In: Palumbo, M., Torrigiani, C. (eds.) La partecipazione tra ricerca e valutazione, pp. 112–134. Franco Angeli (2009) (in Italian)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wiedemann, P., Femers, S.: Public participation in waste management decision making: analysis and management of conflicts. J. Hazard. Mater. 33(3), 355–368 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marina Ribaudo
    • 1
  • Claudio Torrigiani
    • 1
  • Fiorella De Cindio
    • 2
  • Mauro Palumbo
    • 1
  1. 1.University of GenoaGenoaItaly
  2. 2.University of MilanMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations