Data Analytics for Policy Informatics: The Case of E-Petitioning

  • Loni Hagen
  • Teresa M. Harrison
  • Catherine L. Dumas
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 25)

Abstract

To contribute to the development of policy informatics, we discuss the benefits of analyzing electronic petitions (e-petitions), a form of citizen-government discourse with deep historic roots that has recently transitioned into a technologically-enabled and novel form of political communication. We begin by presenting a rationale for the analysis of e-petitions as a type of e-participation that can contribute to the development of public policy, provided that it is possible to analyze the large volumes of data produced in petitioning processes. From there we consider two data analytic strategies that offer promising approaches to the analysis of e-petitions and that lend themselves to the future creation of policy informatics tools. We discuss the application of topic modeling to the analysis of e-petition textual data to identify emergent topics of substantial concern to the public. We further propose the application of social network analysis to data related to the dynamics of petitioning processes, such as the social connections between petition initiators and signers, and tweets that solicit petition signatures in petitioning campaigns; both may be useful in revealing patterns of collective action. The paper concludes by reflecting on issues that should be brought to bear on the construction of policy informatics tools that make use of e-petitioning data.

Keywords

Electronic petitions e-Petition Topic modeling Social network analysis Collective action Social media Political communication 

Abbreviations

AP

Associated Press

EGRL

e-Gov Reference Library

ICT

Information and communication technology

LDA

Latent Dirichlet Allocation

NLP

Natural language processing

OECD

Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development

SNA

Social network analysis

WtP

We the People

References

  1. Aggarwal CC, Zhai C (2012) A survey of text clustering algorithms. In Aggarwal CC, Zhai C (eds) Mining text data. Springer, pp 77–128. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-3223-4_4
  2. Bimber B, Stohl C, Flanagin AJ (2008) Technological change and the shifting nature of political organization. In: Chadwick A, Howard PN (eds) Routledge handbook of internet politics. Routledge, New York, pp 72–85Google Scholar
  3. Bimber B, Cunill MC, Copeland L, Gibson R (2015) Digital media and political participation: the moderating role of political interest across acts and over time. Soc Sci Comput Rev 33(1):21–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birkland TA (2011) An introduction to the policy process: theories, concepts, and models of public policy making, 3rd edn. M. E. Sharpe, ArmonkGoogle Scholar
  5. Blei DM, Lafferty JD (2006) Dynamic topic models. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on machine learning. ACM, pp 113–120. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1143859
  6. Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI (2003) Latent Dirichlet allocation. J Mach Learn Res 3(4/5):993–1022Google Scholar
  7. Blei DM, Griffiths D, Jordan MI, Tenenbaum M (2004) Hierarchical topic models and the nested Chinese restaurant process. Adv Neural Inf Proces Syst 16:17Google Scholar
  8. Bochel C (2012) Petitions systems: contributing to representative democracy? Parliam Aff:1–18Google Scholar
  9. Boyd-Graber J, Mimno D, Newman D, Airoldi EM, Blei D, Erosheva EA, Fienberg SE (2014) Care and feeding of topic models: Problems, diagnostics, and improvements. In: Handbook of mixed membership models and their applications, pp 225–255Google Scholar
  10. Cardie C, Farina C, Aijaz A, Rawding M, Purpura S (2008) A study in rule-specific issue categorization for e-rulemaking. In: Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on digital government research. Digital Government Society of North America, Montreal, Canada, pp 244–253. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1367832.1367874
  11. Chang J, Boyd-Graber J, Gerrish S, Wang C, Blei DM (2009) Reading tea leaves: how humans interpret topic models. In: Neural information processing systems. British Columbia, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  12. Chasmar J (2014) White House responds to Tahmooressi petition: “We respect the rule of law.” Retrieved September 1, 2014, from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/31/white-house-responds-tahmooressi-petition-we-respe/
  13. Chung W, Zeng D (2015) Social-media-based public policy informatics: sentiment and network analyses of U.S. immigration and border security. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. doi: 10.1002/asi.23449
  14. Coleman S (2003) Making parliamentary democracy visible: speaking to, with, and for the public in the age of interactive technology. In: Chadwick A (ed) Handbook of internet politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York, pp 86–98Google Scholar
  15. Crawford S (2014) Chicago is your big (friendly) brother. Retrieved June 15, 2015, from http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-19/chicago-is-your-big-friendly-brother
  16. Croft WB, Metzler D, Strohman T (2010) Search engines: information retrieval in practice. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  17. Dalton RJ (2013) Citizen politics: public opinion and political parties in advanced industrial democracies. CQ Press, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  18. Dawes SS, Helbig N, Nampoothiri S (2014) Workshop report: exploring the integration of data-intensive analytical skills in public affairs education. Retrieved from https://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/reports/egovpolinet_workshopreport?chapter=&PrintVersion=2
  19. Downs A (1972) Up and down with ecology – the “issue-attention cycle”. Public Interest 28:38–50Google Scholar
  20. Dumas C, LaManna D, Harrison T, Ravi SS, Hagen L, Kotfila C, Chen F (2015a) E-petitioning as collective political action in We the People. In: IConference 2015, Newport Beach, CA, 24–27 March. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/73665/215_ready.pdf?sequence=2
  21. Dumas C, LaManna D, Harrison TM, Ravi SS, Kotfila C, Gervais N, Hagen L, Chen F (2015b) Examining political mobilization of online communities through e-petitioning behavior in We the People. Big Data Soc 2(2).doi: 10.1177/2053951715598170
  22. Dumas C, Atrey A, Lee J, Harrison T, Fake T, Zhao X, Ravi SS (2016) E-petition information diffusion in online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 17th annual international conference on digital government research. doi: 10.1145/2912160.2912227
  23. Easley D, Kleinberg J (2010) Networks, crowds and markets: reasoning about a highly connected world. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Ekstrom JA, Lau GT (2008) Exploratory text mining of ocean law to measure overlapping agency and jurisdictional authority. In: 9th annual international conference on digital government research (dg.o 2008), pp 53–62Google Scholar
  25. Epstein D, Newhart M, Vernon R (2014) Not by technology alone: the ‘analog’ aspects of online public engagement in policymaking. Gov Inf Q 31(2):337–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Evangelopoulos N, Visinescu L (2012) Text-mining the voice of the people. Commun ACM 55(2):55–62. doi: 10.1145/2076450.2076467 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goldman J (2016) Redesigning We the People: improving the way you engage with the White House. https://medium.com/@Goldman44/redesigning-we-the-people-c8ce93f4280#.7y8dl69u7. Accessed 18 May 2016
  28. Graham S, Weingart S, Milligan I (2012) Getting started with topic modeling and MALLET. Retrieved April 25, 2015, from http://programminghistorian.org/lessons/topic-modeling-and-mallet.html
  29. Grimmer J (2010) A bayesian hierarchical topic model for political texts: measuring expressed agendas in Senate press releases. Polit Anal 18(1):1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grimmer J, King G (2009) Quantitative discovery from qualitative information: a general-purpose document clustering methodology. In: APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper. Social Science Research Network, Toronto, Canada. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1450070
  31. Grimmer J, Stewart BM (2013) Text as data: the promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Polit Anal 21(3):267–297. doi: 10.1093/pan/mps028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hagen L, Harrison T, Uzuner O, Fake T, Lamanna D, Kotfila C (2015a) Introducing textual analysis tools for policy informatics: a case study of e-petitions. In: Proceedings of the 16th annual international conference on digital government research, 10–19, ACM, NY. doi: 10.1145/2757401.2757421
  33. Hagen L, Uzuner O, Kotfila C, Harrison T, LaManna D (2015b) Understanding citizens - direct policy suggestions to the federal government: a natural language processing and topic modeling approach. In: Proceedings of the 48th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS-48). doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2015.257
  34. Hagen L, Harrison TM, Uzuner Ö, May W, Fake T, Katragadda S (2016) E-Petition popularity: do linguistic and semantic factors matter? Gov Inf Q. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2016.07.006
  35. Hale SA, Margetts H, Yasseri T (2013) Petition growth and success rates on the UK No. 10 Downing Street website. In: Proceedings of the 5th annual ACM web science conference. ACM, New York, pp 132–138. doi: 10.1145/2464464.2464518
  36. Harrison TM, Dumas C, Kotfila C, Lamanna D, Ravi SS (2014). We the People: U.S. e-petitioning as technology-mediated social action. Accepted for presentation at the annual conference of the international communication association, Seattle, WAGoogle Scholar
  37. Howlett M, Ramesh M, Perl A (2009) Studying public policy: policy cycles and policy subsystems, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Jaya P (2015) White House responds to Anwar petition - Nation | The Star Online. Retrieved May 18, 2015, from http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2015/03/13/white-house-reponds-anwar-petition/
  39. Johnston EW (ed) (2015) Governance in the information era: Theory and practice of policy informatics, 1st edn. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Jungherr A, Jürgens P (2010) The political click: political participation through e-petitions in Germany. Policy Internet 2(4):131–165. doi: 10.2202/1944-2866.1084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kingdon J (1984) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Little, Brown and Co., BostonGoogle Scholar
  42. Kwon N, Shulman SW, Hovy E (2006) Multidimensional text analysis for eRulemaking. In: Proceedings of the 2006 international conference on digital government research. Digital Government Society of North America, San Diego, pp 157–166.Google Scholar
  43. Liebelson D (2013) The 7 craziest Chinese petitions submitted to the White House. Retrieved April 9, 2015, from http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/chinese-censorship-white-house-petition
  44. Lin F-R, Chou S-Y, Liao D, Hao D (2015) Automatic content analysis of legislative documents by text mining techniques. In: Proceedings of the 48th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS-48), pp 2199–2208Google Scholar
  45. Lindner R, Riehm U (2011) Broadening participation through e-petitions? An empirical study of petitions to the German parliament. Policy Internet 3(1):1–23. doi: 10.2202/1944-2866.1083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lindner R, Riehm U (2009) Electronic petitions and institutional modernization. International parliamentary e-petition systems in comparative perspective. JeDEM 1(1):1–11Google Scholar
  47. Lynch R (2012, March 26) Trayvon Martin case gives Change.org a boost – and vice versa. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/26/nation/la-na-nntrayvon-martin-case-poll-petition-20120326
  48. Macintosh A, Malina A, Farrell S (2002) Digital democracy through electronic petitioning. In: Mclver WJ, Elmagarmid AK (eds) Advances in digital government. Springer US, pp 137–148. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/0-306-47374-7_8
  49. Marcus G, Davis E (2014) Eight (no, nine!) problems with big data. New York Times, http://nyti.ms/1kgErs2. Accessed 17 May 2016
  50. Mcauliffe JD, Blei DM (2008) Supervised topic models. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 121–128Google Scholar
  51. Mimno D (2012) Computational historiography: data mining in a century of classics journals. J Comput Cult Herit 5(1):3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Muhlberger P, Stromer-Galley J, Webb N (2011) Public policy and obstacles to the virtual agora: insights from the deliberative e-Rulemaking project. Inf Polity 16(3):197–214. doi: 10.3233/IP-2011-0235 Google Scholar
  53. Nam T (2012) Dual effects of the internet on political activism: reinforcing and mobilizing. Gov Inf Q 29:S90–S97. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2011.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Newman MEJ (2010) Networks: an introduction. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. OECD (2001) Citizens as partners: information, consultation, and public partnerships in policy making. Retrieved from http://www.ecnl.org/dindocuments/214_OECD_Engaging%20Citizens%20in%20Policy-Making.pdf
  56. Petrik K (2009) Participation and e-democracy how to utilize Web 2.0 for policy decision-making. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual international conference on digital government research: social networks: making connections between citizens, data and government, Puebla, Mexico, 2009, pp 254–263Google Scholar
  57. PoliInformatics (2015) About PoliInformatics. Retrieved June 15, 2015, from http://poliinformatics.org/
  58. Purpura S, Cardie C, Simons J (2008) Active learning for e-rulemaking: public comment categorization. In: Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on digital government research. Digital Government Society of North America, Montreal, pp 234–243Google Scholar
  59. Quinn KM, Monroe BL, Colaresi M, Crespin MH, Radev DR (2010) How to analyze political attention with minimal assumptions and costs. Am J Polit Sci 54(1):209–228. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00427.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roberts M, Stewart B, Tingley D, Airoldi E (2013) The structural topic model and applied social science. In: Advances in neural information processing systems workshop on topic models: computation, application, and evaluationGoogle Scholar
  61. Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., Tingley, D., Lucas, C., Leder-Luis, J., Gadarian, S. K. et al (2014). Structural topic models for open-ended survey responses. Am J Polit Sci, 58(4), 1064–1082.Google Scholar
  62. Scholl HJ (2015) EGRL. Retrieved from http://faculty.washington.edu/jscholl/egrl/
  63. Shipley R, Utz S (2012) Making it count: a review of the value and techniques for public consultation. J Plann Lit 27(1):22–42Google Scholar
  64. Shulman SW, Hovy E, Kwon N, Huisman E (2008) Tools for rules: technology transfer and electronic rulemaking. In: Hawaii international conference on system sciences, proceedings of the 41st annual, p 200Google Scholar
  65. Smith A, Schlozman KL, Verba S, Brady H (2009) The demographics of online and offline political participation. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2009/09/01/the-demographics-of-online-and-offline-political-participation/
  66. Stempeck M (2012) The internet didn’t make Trayvon national news, but it did sustain the story. Retrieved from https://civic.mit.edu/blog/mstem/the-internet-didnt-make-trayvon-national-news-but-it-did-sustain-the-story
  67. Teh YW, Jordan MI, Beal MJ, Blei DM (2004) Hierarchical Dirichlet processes. J Am Stat Assoc 101:1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Towne WB, Herbsleb JD (2012) Design considerations for online deliberation systems. J Inf Technol Polit 9(1):97–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Van Dijk J (2012) The network society. Sage, London/Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  70. Wei X, Croft WB (2006) LDA-based document models for ad-hoc retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 29th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. ACM, New York, pp 178–185. http://doi.org/10.1145/1148170.1148204 Google Scholar
  71. Yau C-K, Porter A, Newman N, Suominen A (2014) Clustering scientific documents with topic modeling. Scientometrics 100(3):767–786. doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1321-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zamith R, Lewis SC (2015) Content analysis and the algorithmic coder: what computational social science means for traditional modes of media analysis. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 659(1):307–318. doi: 10.1177/0002716215570576 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Loni Hagen
    • 1
  • Teresa M. Harrison
    • 2
  • Catherine L. Dumas
    • 3
  1. 1.School of InformationUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  2. 2.Department of CommunicationUniversity at Albany, SUNYAlbanyUSA
  3. 3.Informatics Doctoral Program, College of Engineering and Applied SciencesUniversity at Albany, SUNYAlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations