eParticipation is the extension and transformation of participation in political deliberation and decision-making processes through information and communication technologies (ICTs). The most commonly found examples of eParticipation systems are political discussion forums. Although much of the discussion of these technologies is conducted in the eGovernment and eDemocracy literature, political discussion forums present a distinct set of design and management challenges, which relate directly to information systems concerns. In this article, we use the overview model of eParticipation of Sæbø, Rose, and Flak to structure a critical review of the existing literature to identify key challenges for designing and managing political discussion forums. We offer a contribution to theory in the form of a descriptive model of political discussion forums in their social context, based on a literature review of relevant literature. The explanatory potential of the model is illustrated by analyzing D:mo, a Norwegian political discussion forum. Based on the review and the case study, we offer a contribution to practice by suggesting a set of guidelines for the design and management of political discussion forums.
Aidemark, J. ( 2003). A knowledge perspective on e-democracy. Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences, 2739, 319-324.
2.
Aikens, G.S. ( 1998). A personal history of Minnesota electronic democracy . Journal of Government Information, 25, 1-9.
3.
Ainsworth, S., Hardy, C., & Harley, B. ( 2005). Online consultation: e-Democracy and e-resistance in the case of the development gateway. Management Communication Quarterly, 19, 120-145.
4.
Bekkers, V. ( 2004). Virtual policy communities and responsive governance: Redesigning on-line debates. Information Polity, 9, 193-203.
5.
Berelson, B. ( 1952). Content analysis in communication research. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
6.
Best, S.J., & Krueger, B.S. ( 2005). Analyzing the representativeness of Internet political participation. Political Behavior, 27, 183-216.
7.
Biasiotti, M.A., & Nannucci, R. ( 2004). Learning to become an e-citizen: The European and Italian policies. Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences, 3025, 253-264.
8.
Callanan, M. ( 2005). Institutionalizing participation and governance? New participative structures in local government in Ireland. Public Administration, 83, 909-929.
9.
Carlitz, R.D., & Gunn, R.W. ( 2002). Online rulemaking: A step toward e-governance. Government Information Quarterly, 19, 389-405.
10.
Chadwick, A. ( 2003). Bringing e-democracy back in-Why it matters for future research on e-governance. Social Science Computer Review, 21, 443-455.
11.
Chadwick, A., & May, C. ( 2003). Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the internet: ‘‘e-government’’ in the United States, Britain, and theEuropean Union. Governance-An International Journal Of Policy And Administration, 16, 271-300.
12.
Clift, S. ( 2000). An Internet of democracy. Communications of the ACM, 43, 31-32.
13.
Conhaim, W.W. ( 2000). The Internet. Link-Up, 17, 5.
14.
Dahlberg, L. ( 2001). The Internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 4, 615-633.
15.
DeLuca, K.M., & Peeples, J. ( 2002). From public sphere to public screen: Democracy, activism, and the ‘‘violence’’ of Seattle. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 19, 125-151.
16.
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W.R., & Robinson, J.P. (2001). Social implications of the Internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 307-336.
17.
Eisenhardt, K. ( 1989). Building theories from case-study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532-550.
18.
Engström, Y. ( 1987). Learning by expanding. An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
19.
Finn, K., & Detlor, B. ( 2002). Youth and electronic government: Towards a model of civic participation. Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce, 3, 191-209.
20.
Galliers, R. ( 1992). Choosing information systems research approach. In R. Galliers (Ed.), Information systems research: Issues, methods and practical guidelines. Oxford: Blackwell.
21.
Gimmler, A. ( 2001). Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the Internet . Philosophy & Social Criticism, 27, 21-39.
22.
Hagemann, C. ( 2002). Participation in and contents of two Dutch political party discussion lists on the Internet. Javnost-The Public , 9, 61-76.
23.
Held, D. ( 1996). Models of democracy. Oxford: Blackwell.
24.
Howard, P.N. ( 2005). Deep democracy thin citizenship: The impact of digital media in political campaign strategy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 597, 153-170.
25.
Hudson-Smith, A., Evans, S., & Batty, M. ( 2005). Building the virtual city: Public participation through e-democracy. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 18, 62-85.
26.
Jákupsstovu, B. í. , Kjersem, E., & Molka-Danielsen , J.A. (2008). Kommunedemokrati på nett: En Evaluerng av e-demokratiprosjektet D:mo Molde, Møreforsking Molde.
27.
Janssen, D., & Kies, R. ( 2005). Online forums and deliberative democracy. Acta Politica, 40, 317-335.
28.
Jensen, J.L. ( 2003). Virtual democratic dialogue? Bringing together citizens and politicians. Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, 8, 29-47.
29.
Kjersem, E., Jákupsstovu, B. í. , & Molka-Danielsen , J.A. (2005). Evaluering av D:mo i Molde kommune: Forundersøkelse: Kjennskap til og bruk av D:mo pr. august 2005: Høgskolen i Molde. Document Number2005:6; ISBN 8279620613.
30.
Koch, A. ( 2005). Cyber citizen or cyborg citizen: Baudrillard, political agency, and the commons in virtual politics. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 20, 159-175.
31.
Langley, A. ( 1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24, 691-710.
32.
Macintosh, A., Robson, E., Smith, E., & Whyte, A. ( 2003). Electronic democracy and young people. Social Science Computer Review, 21, 43-54.
33.
Norris, P. ( 2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. UKCambridge University Press .
34.
Nugent, J.D. ( 2001). If e-democracy is the answer, what’s the question ? National Civic Review, 90, 221-234.
35.
Olsson, T., Sandstrom, H., & Dahlgren, P. ( 2003). An information society for everyone?Gazette: The International Journal for Communication Studies, 65, 347-363.
36.
Oravec, J.A. ( 2005). Preventing e-voting hazards: The role of information professionals. Journal of Organizational & End User Computing , 17, 1-6.
37.
Päivärinta, T., & Sæbø, Ø (2006). Models of e-democracy. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 17, 818-840.
38.
Papacharissi, Z. ( 2002). The virtual sphere: The Internet as a public sphere. New Media and Society, 4, 9-27.
39.
Papacharissi, Z. ( 2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6, 259-283.
40.
Pateman, C. ( 1970). Participation and democratic theory. UKCambridge University Press.
41.
Ranerup, A. ( 1999). Factors affecting discussions in on-line forums in local government. SIGGROUP Bulletin, 20, 11-13.
42.
Ranerup, A. ( 2000). On-line forums as an arena for political discussions . Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1765, 209-223.
43.
Rose, J., & Sæbø, Ø (2005). Democracy squared: Designing on-line political communities to accommodate conflicting interests. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, E-government Special Issue, 17, 133-168.
44.
Rushkoff, D. ( 2004). The promise and peril of Internet democracy. Tikkun, 19, 24-24.
45.
Scheufele, D.A., & Nisbet, M.C. ( 2002). Being a citizen online: New opportunities and dead ends . Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7, 55-75.
46.
Schneider, S.M. ( 1996). Creating a democratic public sphere through political discussion-A case study of abortion conversation on the Internet. Social Science Computer Review, 14, 373-393.
47.
Seaton, J. ( 2005). The Scottish parliament and e-democracy. Aslib Proceedings, 57, 333-337.
48.
Siapera, E. ( 2004). Asylum politics, the Internet, and the public sphere: The case of UK refugee support groups online. Javnost-The Public, 11, 79-100.
49.
Siapera, E. ( 2005). Minority activism on the web: Between deliberative democracy and multiculturalism. Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies , 31, 499-519.
50.
Silverman, D. ( 2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. London: SAGE.
51.
Stanley, J.W., & Weare, C. ( 2004). The effects of internet use on political participation: Evidence from an agency online discussion forum. Administration Society, 36, 503-527.
52.
Sæbø, Ø. , & Päivärinta , T. (2005). Autopoietic cybergenres for e-democracy? Genre analysis of a web-based discussion board. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (HICSS).
53.
Sæbø, Ø. , Rose, J., & Flak, L.S. (2008). The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly, 25, 400-428.
54.
Tambouris, E., Liotas, N., & Tarabanis, K. ( 2007). A framework for assessing eParticipation projects and tools. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).
55.
Wilkinson, S. ( 1997). Focus group research. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice. London: SAGE.
56.
Xenakis, A., & MacIntosh, A. ( 2005). Trust Analysis of the U.K. e-Voting Pilots. Social Science Computer Review, 23, 312-325.
