This article proposes a social science research agenda that will reflect on and inform the development of new information technology-based approaches to the electronic collection, distribution, synthesis, and analysis of public commentary in the regulatory rulemaking process. It identifies one critical area of an ongoing governance transformation: the use of web-based programs to collect public commentary on proposed agency rules. In the tradition of reflexive modernization, this article calls for deeper social science reflection during the development of a technological design in order to tap its democratic potential.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aikens, G. S. (1999). Deweyan systems in the information age. In B. N. Hague & B. D. Loader (Eds.), Digital democracy: Discourse and decision making in the information age (pp. 179-194). New York: Routledge.
2.
Alexander, C. J., & Pal, L. A. (1998). Introduction: New currents in politics and policy. In C. J. Alexander & L. A. Pal (Eds.), Digital democracy: Policy and politics in the wired world (pp. 2-22). Don Mills, Canada: Oxford University Press.
3.
Ames, B. N., Magaw, R., & Gold, L. S. (1987). Ranking possible carcinogenic hazards. Science, 236, 271-280.
4.
Andrews, R. N. L. (1999). Managing the environment, managing ourselves: A history of American environmental policy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5.
Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
6.
Beck, U. (1995). Ecological enlightenment (M. A. Ritter, Trans.). Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
7.
Beck, U. (1997). The reinvention of politics: Rethinking modernity in the global social order (M. A. Ritter, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Polity.
8.
Beck, U. (1998). Democracy without enemies (M. A. Ritter, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Polity.
9.
Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
10.
Benhabib, S. (1992). Situating the self: Gender, community and postmodernism in contemporary ethics. New York: Routledge.
11.
Bessette, J. M. (1980). Deliberative democracy: The majoritarian principle in republican government. In R. A. Goldwin & W. A. Shambra (Eds.), How democratic is the constitution? (pp. 102-116). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
12.
Bessette, J. M. (1994). The mild voice of reason: Deliberative democracy and American national government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
Blumler, J. G., & Coleman, S. (2001). Realising democracy online: A civic commons in cyberspace. London: IPPR.
14.
Bohman, J. (1995). Public reason and cultural pluralism: Political liberalism and the problem of moral conflict. Political Theory, 23, 253-279.
15.
Bohman, J. (1996). Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16.
Byrd, D. M., & Cothern, R. (2000). Introduction to risk analysis. Rockville, MD: Government Institutes.
17.
Coleman, S., & Gøtze, J. (2001). Bowling together: Online public engagement in policy deliberation. London: Hansard Society. Retrieved July 24, 2002, from http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/bowling.pdf
18.
Covello, V., & Allen, F. (1988). Seven cardinal rules of risk communication. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency.
19.
Davis, R. (1999). The web of politics: The Internet's impact on the American political system. New York: Oxford University Press.
20.
Dawes, S. S., Bloniarz, P. A., Kelly, K. L., & Fletcher, P. D. (1999). Some assembly required: Building a digital government for the 21st century. Retrieved January 14, 2000, from http://www.ctg.albany.edu/resources/rptwplst.html
21.
Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
23.
Environmental Protection Agency. (2001). Stakeholder involvement & public participation at the U.S. EPA: Lessons learned, barriers, & innovative approaches (Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation Number EPA-100-R-00-040). Retrieved July 29, 2002, from http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/pdf/sipp.pdf
24.
Fielding, N., & Schreier, M. (2001). Introduction: On the compatibility between qualitative and quantitative research methods. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(1). Retrieved May 5, 2002, from http://qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm
25.
Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
26.
Fountain, J. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
General Accounting Office. (2001). Regulatory management: Communication about technology-based innovations can be improved (GAO-01-232). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
29.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
30.
Glickman, D. (2000). National organic standards remarks as prepared for delivery by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman Washington, DC—March 7, 2000. Retrieved June 18, 2000, from http://www.ams.usda.gov:80/nop/glickman.htm
31.
Graham, J. D., & Wiener, J. B. (1995). Risk vs. risk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32.
Grossman, L. K. (1995). The electronic republic: Reshaping democracy in the information age. New York: Viking.
33.
Gutman, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
Hanson, R. L. (1985). The democratic imagination in America: Conversations with our past. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35.
Henrion, M., & Fischoff, B. (1986). Assessing uncertainty in physical constants. American Journal of Physics, 54, 791-798.
36.
Hern, M., & Chauk, S. (1997). The Internet, democracy and community: another.big.lie. Journal of Family Life, 3, 36-39.
37.
Hill, K. A., & Hughes, J. E. (1998). Cyberpolitics: Citizen activism in the age of the Internet. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
38.
Johnson, S. M. (1998). The Internet changes everything: Revolutionizing public participation and access to government information through the Internet. Administrative Law Review, 50, 277-337.
39.
Kammen, D. M., & Hassenzahl, D. M. (1999). Should we risk it? Exploring environmental health and technological problem solving. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
40.
Kerwin, C. M. (1999). Rulemaking: How government agencies write law and make policy (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
41.
Kleinman, D. L. (1998). Beyond the science wars: Contemplating the democratization of science. Politics and the Life Sciences, 17, 133-145.
Malina, A. (1999). Perspectives on citizen democratisation and alienation in the virtual public sphere. In B. N. Hague & B. D. Loader (Eds.), Digital democracy: Discourse and decision making in the information age (pp. 23-38). New York: Routledge.
44.
Montague, P. (1999). The waning days of risk assessment. Rachel's Environment and Health News, 652. Retrieved June 2, 2001, from http://www.rachel.org/home_eng.htm
45.
National Research Council. (2000). Making IT better: Expanding information technology research to meet society's needs. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Noack, D. R. (1995). Of, by, and for the people. Internet World, 6, 28-31.
48.
O'Brien, M. (2000). Making better environmental decisions: An alternative to risk assessment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49.
Office of Management and Budget. (2002). OMB accelerates effort to open federal regulatory process to citizens and small businesses (OMB 2002-27). Available from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/pubpress/2002-27.pdf
50.
Paehlke, R. (1989). Environmentalism and the future of progressive politics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
51.
President's Information Technology Advisory Committee. (1999). Information technology research: Investing in our future. Retrieved January 14, 2000, from http://www.ccic.gov/ac/report/
52.
Putnam, R. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and renewal of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
53.
Rawls, J. (1996). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
54.
Renn, O. (1995). Style of using scientific expertise: A comparative framework. Science and Public Policy, 22(3), 147-156.
55.
Rosenbaum, W. (1989). The bureaucracy and environmental policy. In J. P. Lester (Ed.), Environmental politics and policy: Theories and evidence. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
56.
Schlosberg, D. (1999). Environmental justice and the new pluralism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
57.
Schlosberg, D. (2003). The justice of environmental justice: Reconciling equity, recognition, and participation in a political movement. In A. Light & A. deShalit (Eds.), Moral and political reasoning in environmental practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
58.
Schlosberg, D., & Dryzek, J. S. (2002). Digital democracy: Authentic or virtual? Organization and Environment, 15, 327-330.
59.
Shulman, S. W. (in press). An experiment in digital government at the United States National Organic Program. Agriculture and Human Values.
60.
Tengs, T. O., Adams, M. E., Pliskin, J. S., Safran, D. G., Siegel, J. E., Weinstein, M. C., et al. (1995). Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk Analysis, 15, 369-390.
61.
Tesh, S. N. (2000). Uncertain hazards: Environmental activists and scientific proof. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
62.
Toregas, C. (2001). The politics of e-gov: The upcoming struggle for redefining civic engagement. National Civic Review, 90, 235-240.
Williams, B. A., & Matheny, A. R. (1995). Democracy, dialogue, and environmental disputes: The contested languages of social regulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
65.
Young, I. M. (1996). Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
66.
Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
67.
Zavestoski, S., & Shulman, S. W. (2002). The Internet and environmental decision-making. Organization and Environment, 15, 323-327.
