Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Policy Analytics, Modelling, and Informatics

Part of the book series: Public Administration and Information Technology ((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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

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

  • 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

  • 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 72–85

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):21–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkland TA (2011) An introduction to the policy process: theories, concepts, and models of public policy making, 3rd edn. M. E. Sharpe, Armonk

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI (2003) Latent Dirichlet allocation. J Mach Learn Res 3(4/5):993–1022

    Google Scholar 

  • Blei DM, Griffiths D, Jordan MI, Tenenbaum M (2004) Hierarchical topic models and the nested Chinese restaurant process. Adv Neural Inf Proces Syst 16:17

    Google Scholar 

  • Bochel C (2012) Petitions systems: contributing to representative democracy? Parliam Aff:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 225–255

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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, Vancouver

    Google Scholar 

  • 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/

  • 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

  • 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 86–98

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Croft WB, Metzler D, Strohman T (2010) Search engines: information retrieval in practice. Addison-Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton RJ (2013) Citizen politics: public opinion and political parties in advanced industrial democracies. CQ Press, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Downs A (1972) Up and down with ecology – the “issue-attention cycle”. Public Interest 28:38–50

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Easley D, Kleinberg J (2010) Networks, crowds and markets: reasoning about a highly connected world. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 53–62

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):337–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evangelopoulos N, Visinescu L (2012) Text-mining the voice of the people. Commun ACM 55(2):55–62. doi:10.1145/2076450.2076467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

  • Grimmer J (2010) A bayesian hierarchical topic model for political texts: measuring expressed agendas in Senate press releases. Polit Anal 18(1):1–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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, WA

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett M, Ramesh M, Perl A (2009) Studying public policy: policy cycles and policy subsystems, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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/

  • Johnston EW (ed) (2015) Governance in the information era: Theory and practice of policy informatics, 1st edn. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon J (1984) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Little, Brown and Co., Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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

  • 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 2199–2208

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindner R, Riehm U (2009) Electronic petitions and institutional modernization. International parliamentary e-petition systems in comparative perspective. JeDEM 1(1):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

  • Marcus G, Davis E (2014) Eight (no, nine!) problems with big data. New York Times, http://nyti.ms/1kgErs2. Accessed 17 May 2016

  • Mcauliffe JD, Blei DM (2008) Supervised topic models. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 121–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Mimno D (2012) Computational historiography: data mining in a century of classics journals. J Comput Cult Herit 5(1):3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morozov Y (2009) The brave new world of slacktivism. http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/19/the_brave_new_world_of_slacktivism

  • 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 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman MEJ (2010) Networks: an introduction. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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 254–263

    Google Scholar 

  • PoliInformatics (2015) About PoliInformatics. Retrieved June 15, 2015, from http://poliinformatics.org/

  • 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 234–243

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 evaluation

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Scholl HJ (2015) EGRL. Retrieved from http://faculty.washington.edu/jscholl/egrl/

  • Shipley R, Utz S (2012) Making it count: a review of the value and techniques for public consultation. J Plann Lit 27(1):22–42

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 200

    Google Scholar 

  • 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/

  • 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

  • Teh YW, Jordan MI, Beal MJ, Blei DM (2004) Hierarchical Dirichlet processes. J Am Stat Assoc 101:1566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Towne WB, Herbsleb JD (2012) Design considerations for online deliberation systems. J Inf Technol Polit 9(1):97–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk J (2012) The network society. Sage, London/Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Wan W (2013) Frustrated Chinese complain to Obama. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/frustrated-chinese-complain-to-obama/2013/05/09/131e04a8-b8ad-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html

  • 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 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CIS 2031, Tampa, FL, 33620-7800, USA

    Loni Hagen

  2. Department of Communication, University at Albany, SUNY, BA 356, 1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY, 12222, USA

    Teresa M. Harrison

  3. Informatics Doctoral Program, College of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University at Albany, SUNY, BA 356, 1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY, 12222, USA

    Catherine L. Dumas

Authors
  1. Loni Hagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Teresa M. Harrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Catherine L. Dumas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Teresa M. Harrison .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Technology in Government & Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, New York, USA

    J Ramon Gil-Garcia

  2. Center for Technology in Government & Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, New York, USA

    Theresa A. Pardo

  3. Center for Technology in Government & Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, New York, USA

    Luis F. Luna-Reyes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hagen, L., Harrison, T.M., Dumas, C.L. (2018). Data Analytics for Policy Informatics: The Case of E-Petitioning. In: Gil-Garcia, J., Pardo, T., Luna-Reyes, L. (eds) Policy Analytics, Modelling, and Informatics. Public Administration and Information Technology, vol 25. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61762-6_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation