Distributed Discussion: An Integrated eParticipation Model for Engaging Young People in Technology Policy

  • Ella Taylor-Smith
  • Simone Kimpeler
  • Pille Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt


This chapter describes an eParticipation model, designed to be especially appropriate to young people and complex topics: distributed discussion. It draws on the experiences of the HUWY project, which piloted a distributed discussion model, in four countries, to assess how this supported young people’s engagement. The pilot revealed that young people valued structured and well-supported discussions, particularly well-facilitated offline discussions. Integrating online and offline, national and international elements are the advantages and challenges of this model. This chapter aims to give an overview of the theoretical basis, process and impacts of the model and to provide recommendations for future development and use.


Young People Engagement Worker Youth Group User Engagement Social Networking Tool 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



HUWY was co-funded by the European Commission and the project partners, under the eParticipation Preparatory Action. The involvement of the Estonian partners was supported by Estonian Target Financing measure SF0180017s07 ‘Estonia as an Emerging Information and Consumer Society: Social Sustainability and Quality of Life’.


  1. Byron T (2008) Safer children in a digital world: executive summary. Department for Children, Schools and Family, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Coleman S, Rowe C (2006) Remixing citizenship democracy and young people’s use of the Internet. Carnegie Trust, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Dahlgren P (2006) Civic participation and practices: beyond ‘deliberative democracy’. In: Carpentier N et al (eds) Researching media, democracy and participation: the intellectual work of the European Media and Communication Doctoral Summer School. University of Tartu Press, Tartu, pp 23–34Google Scholar
  4. Duff A (2008) The normative crisis of the information society. Cyberpsychol J Psychosoc Res Cyberspace, 2(1), Article 1Google Scholar
  5. Escobar O (2011) The work of participation: local deliberative policy making as mediated by public engagement practitioners. In: 61st conference of the Political Studies Association, London, April 2011Google Scholar
  6. Hale S (2011) The mechanics of listening. Accessed 30 June 2011
  7. Innes J, Booher D (2003) Collaborative policymaking: governance through dialogue. In: Hajer M (ed) Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  8. Kim J, Kim EJ (2008) Theorizing dialogic deliberation: everyday political talk as communicative action and dialogue. Commun Theor 18:51–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lippa B, Aichholzer G, Allhutter D, Freschi AC, Macintosh A, Westholm H (2007) Demo-net: D13.3 DEMO-net booklet “eParticipation evaluation and impact”. Accessed 30 June 2011
  10. Livingstone S (2007) Mapping the possibilities for beneficial online resources for children: issues of trust, risk and media literacy. Working paper for the EU media expert seminar: more trust in contents – the potential of co- and self-regulation in digital media European UnionGoogle Scholar
  11. Macintosh A, Whyte A (2006) Evaluating how eParticipation changes local democracy. In: Irani Z, Ghoneim A (eds) Proceedings of the eGovernment workshop 2006, eGov06. Brunel University, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Mayo E, Steinberg T (2007) The power of information. OPSI, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  13. Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Sudwest (MPFS) (ed) (2010) JIM 2010 – Jugend, Information, (Multi-) Media. Basisstudie zum Medienumgang 12- bis 19-Jähriger in Deutschland. Stuttgart. Accessed 30 June 2011
  14. Monnoyer-Smith L, Wojcik S (2011) Technology and the quality of public deliberation. A comparison between on and off-line participation. In: 61st conference of the International Communication Association, Boston, MA, p 5Google Scholar
  15. Runnel P, Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt P, Reinsalu K (2009) The Estonian tiger leap from post- communism to the information society: from policy to practices. J Balt Stud 40(1):29–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sanders LM (1997) Against deliberation. Polit Theor 25(3):347–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Talpin J, Wojcik S (2010) Deliberating environmental policy issues: comparing the learning potential of online and face-to-face discussions on climate change. Policy Internet 2(2):Article 4Google Scholar
  18. Taylor-Smith E, Lindner R (2009) Using social networking tools to promote eParticipation initiatives. In: Prosser A, Parycek P (eds) Proceedings of EDEM 2009 – conference on electronic democracy, Vienna, 7–8 Sep 2009, pp 115–121Google Scholar
  19. Taylor-Smith E, Lindner R (2010) Social networking tools supporting constructive involvement throughout the policy-cycle. In: Prosser A, Parycek P (eds) Proceedings of EDEM 2010 – conference on electronic democracy, Danube-University Krems, Austria, 7–8 May 2010, pp 331–339Google Scholar
  20. van Eimeren B, Frees B (2010) Fast 50 Millionen Deutsche online – multimedia für alle? Ergebnisse der ARD/ZDF-Onlinestudie 2010. In: Media Perspektiven, Nr. 7–8, pp 334–349Google Scholar
  21. Williamson A (2011) Driving CIVIC participation through social media. European workshop at perspectives of Web 2.0 for citizenship education in Europe, Brno, Czech Republic, 7–9 Apr 2011. Accessed 30 June 2011

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ella Taylor-Smith
    • 1
  • Simone Kimpeler
    • 2
  • Pille Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute for Informatics and Digital InnovationEdinburgh Napier UniversityEdinburghUK
  2. 2.Fraunhofer Institute Systems and Innovation Research (ISI)KarlsruheGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Journalism and CommunicationUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations