This article analyses the processes and outcomes of communication by two Australian government departments – the Departments of Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy (DBCDE) and Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR – that used blogs to consult with citizens on a policy that was under development. The researcher also interviewed managers of the blog processes of both departments to secure their feedback. The findings indicate that closed community blogs create excellent conditions for rich policy input, while open blogs (available to all citizens) provide less specific and less useable policy input. This is partially because public blogs are easily skewed off topic by participants who wish to dictate a particular view or as a result of ‘the vibe’ in the public sphere, affected by media and other people's commentary that can set the agenda for discussion. Nevertheless, open blogs can provide government with a litmus test of the immediate concerns of active members of the public.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA)2014, Website, www.acma.gov.au
BaileyK.D.1982, Methods of Social Research, The Free Press, New York.
4.
BohmanJ.2003, After Habermas: New Perspectives on the Public Sphere, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 131–53.
5.
BolerM.2008, Digital Media and Democracy: Tactics in Hard Times, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
6.
BroomG.2009, Cutlip and Center's Effective Public Relations, 10th edn, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
7.
BouldingK.1956, ‘General Systems Theory: The Skeleton of Science’, Management Science, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 197–208.
8.
BrunsA.WilsonJ.A.2010, ‘Citizen Consultation from Above and Below: The Australian Perspective’, in ReddickC.G. (ed.), Politics, Democracy and E-Government: Participation and Service Delivery, IGI Global, Hershey, PA, p. 332–46.
9.
BurgessS.HoughtonJ.2006, ‘e-Government in Australia’, in HernonP.CullenR.RelyeaH. (eds), Comparative Perspectives on E-government, Scarecrow Press, Lanham, MD.
10.
CastellsM.2010, ‘The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance’, in ThussuD. (ed.), International Communication: A Reader, Routledge, London, pp. 36–45.
11.
CleggS.KornbergerM.PitsisT.2011, Managing & Organizations: An Introduction to Theory & Practice, 3rd edn, Sage, London.
CouldryN.LivingstoneS.MarkhamT.2007, Media Consumption and Public Engagement: Beyond the Presumption of Attention, Palgrave McMillan, Basingstoke.
16.
CouldryN.LivingstoneS.MarkhamT.2010, Why Voice Matters: Culture and Politics After Neoliberalism, Sage, London.
17.
DahlgrenP.2009, Media and Political Engagement: Citizens, Communication and Democracy, Cambridge University Press, New York.
18.
DickertN.SugarmanJ.2005, ‘Ethical Goals of Community Consultation in Research’, American Journal of Public Health, vol. 95, no. 7, pp. 1123–7.
19.
FischerG.2009, ‘Cultures of Participation and Social Computing: Rethinking and Reinventing Learning and Education’, paper presented to International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), Riga, July.
20.
FlewT.2008, New Media: An Introduction, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
21.
FursdonR.JamesM.2010, ‘Why are PR Agencies Blogging? An Exploratory Study of the Blogging Practices of Public Relations Agencies’, paper presented to ANZCA conference, Canberra.
22.
GeiselhartK.2008, personal interview, Canberra.
23.
GibsonR.LusoliW.WardS.2008, ‘The Australian Public and Politics Online: Reinforcing or Reinventing Representation’, Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 43, pp. 111–31.
24.
GrunigJ.E.1983, The Handbook of Public Relations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 11–31.
25.
HabermasJ.2006, ‘Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research’, Communication Theory, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 411–26.
26.
HeldD.2006, Models of Democracy, 3rd edn, Polity Press, Cambridge.
27.
IandoliLKleinM.ZollaG.2009, ‘Enabling Online Deliberation and Collective Decision Making Through Large-scale Argumentation: A New Approach to the Design of an Internet Based Mass Collaboration Platform’, International Journal of Decision Making Support System Technology, vol. 1, no. 1, n.p.
28.
KeaneJ.1998, Civil Society: Old Images, New Visions, Polity Press, Cambridge.
29.
KleinM.2007, The MIT Collaboratorium: Enabling Effective Large Scale Deliberation for Complex Problems, MIT Sloan School of Management Working paper 4679-08, 31 December.
30.
KiousisS.McCombsM.2004, ‘Agenda-setting Effects and Attitude Strength: Political Figures During the 1996 Presidential Election’, Communication Research, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 36–57.
31.
LyonsM.2009, Director, Centre for Policy Development, personal interview, Sydney.
32.
MacnamaraJ.2010, ‘The Quadrivium of Online Consultation: Policy, Culture, Resources, Technology’, Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 45, pp. 227–44.
33.
MacnamaraJ.BamfordV.BettsJ.2009, Analysis of Online Public Consultation Trials: The Quadrivium of Policy, Culture, Resources and Technology, University of Technology, Sydney, July.
34.
McCombsM.ShawD.1972, ‘The Agenda-setting Function of Mass Media’, Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 176–87.
WalkerA.M.1994, ‘The Delphi Method: A Useful Tool for Allied Health Researchers’, International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 677–81.
40.
WatersR.BurnettE.LammA.LucasJ.2009, ‘Engaging Stakeholders Through Social Networking: How Nonprofit Organizations are Using Facebook’, Public Relations Review, no. 35, pp. 102–6.
41.
WengerE.1998, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
