The interactive nature of the Internet is seen by some as a technological innovation that might boost participation in politics and civic affairs. That potential, however, is clouded by imprecise definitions of interactivity found among scholars and practitioners alike. Evaluation of state legislature Web sites found them to not be very interactive under most definitions of the term. Chief technology officers of the legislatures appear to differ as to which site features promote interactivity. The current state of these sites may do more to encourage civic engagement than to promote interactivity.
Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
2.
Bezjian-Avery, A., Calder, B.,& Iacobucci, D. (1998). New media interactive advertising vs. traditional advertising, Journal of Advertising Research, 38(4), 23-32.
3.
Bimber, B. (1998). The Internet and political transformation: Populism, community, and accelerated pluralism, Polity, 31(1), 133-160.
4.
Bretz, R. (1983). Media for interactive communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
5.
Carey, J. (1989). Interactive media. In E. Barnouw (Ed.), International encyclopedia of communications (pp. 328-330). New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
Dahl, R. A. (1985). Controlling nuclear weapons: Democracy versus guardianship. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
7.
Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
8.
Davis, R. (1999). The web of politics. New York: Oxford.
9.
Dyson, E., Gilder, G., Keyworth, G., & Toffler, A. (1994, August 22). Cyberspace and the American dream: A Magna Carta for the knowledge age. Retrieved September 23, 2002, from http://www.pff.org/position.html
10.
Ferber, P., Foltz, F., & Pugliese, R. (2003a). Info tech and public participation: The impact of state legislature design. Paper presented at annual meeting of American Political Science Association, Philadelphia.
11.
Ferber, P., Foltz, F., & Pugliese, R. (2003b). The politics of state legislature Websites: Making e-government more participatory. Bulletin of Science, Technology& Society, 23(3), 157-167.
12.
Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.
13.
Grossman, L. (1995). The electronic republic: Reshaping American democracy in the information age. New York: Viking.
14.
Ha, L., & James, L. (1998). Interactivity reexamined: A baseline analysis of early businessWeb sites. Journal of Broadcasting& Electronic Media, 42(4), 457-474.
15.
Haeckel, S. H. (1998). About the nature and future of interactive marketing, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 12(1), 63-71.
16.
Heeter, C. (1989). Implications of newinteractive technologies for conceptualizing communication. In J. L. Salvaggio& J. Bryant (Eds.), Media use in the information age: Emerging patterns of adoption and computer use(pp. 217-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17.
Kiousis, S. (1999, August). Broadening the boundaries of interactivity: A concept explication. Paper read at Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Annual Conference at New Orleans, LA.
18.
Lombard, M., & Snyder-Dutch, J. (2001). Interactive advertising and presence: Aframework, Journal of Interactive Advertising, 1(2). Available from http://jiad.org
19.
Madden, M. (2003). Pew Internet and American life project. Retrieved June 10, 2003, from http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/reports.asp?Report=106&Section=ReportLevell&Field=Level1ID&ID=473
20.
McGovern, G. (2002, March 18). New thinking: The myth of interactivity on the Internet. New Thinking Newsletter, Retrieved January 8, 2004, from http://www.gerrymcgovern.com/nt_2002_03_18_interactivity.htm
21.
McMillan, S. J. (2000). Interactivity is in the eye of the beholder: Function, perception, involvement, and attitude toward the Web site. In M. A. Shaver (Ed.), Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising(pp. 71-78). East Lansing: Michigan State University.
22.
McMillan, S. J. (2002). A four-part model of cyber-interactivity: Some cyber-places are more interactive than others. New Media and Society, 4(2), 271-291.
23.
Newhagen, J. E., Cordes, J. W., & Levy, M. R. (1996). Nightly@ Nbc.Com: Audience scope and the perception of interactivity in viewer mail on the Internet. Journal of Communication, 45(3), 164-175.
24.
Pavlik, J. V. (1998). New media technology: Cultural and commercial perspectives (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
25.
Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. P. Hawkins, J. M. Wiemann, & S. Pingree, (Eds.), Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal process (pp. 110-134). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26.
Rice, R. E. (1984). Newmedia technology: growth and integration. In R. E. Rice (Ed.), The new media: Communication, research, and technology (pp. 33-54). New York: Free Press.
27.
Schumann, D. W., Artis, A., & Rivera, R. (2001). The future of interactive advertising viewed through an IMC lens. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 1(2). Available from: http://jiad.org
28.
Stanley, J. W., & Weare, C. (2003). The effects of Internet use on political participation: Evidence froman agency online discussion forum. Paper presented at annual meeting of American Political Science Association, Philadelphia.
29.
Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 73-93.
30.
Straubhaar, J.,& LaRose, R. (1996). Communications media in the information society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Press.
31.
West, D. M. (2001, September). State and federal e-government in the United States, 2001. Retrieved April 23, 2002, from http://www.InsidePolitics.org/egovt01us.html
32.
Zack, M. H. (1993). Interactivity and communication mode choice in ongoing management groups. Information Systems Research, 4(3), 207-239.
