More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

Internet use, in- and exclusion in decision-making processes within political parties

Authors:

Gefion Thuermer,

Markus Luczak-Rösch,

Kieron O'HaraAuthors Info & Claims

WebSci '16: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Web Science

Pages 205 - 214

https://doi.org/10.1145/2908131.2908149

Published: 22 May 2016 Publication History

Abstract

This paper investigates the effect of internet-use on democratic decision-making processes within political parties. Through two case studies of the Green Party and the Pirate Party Germany, the influence of internet-use on these processes and their inclusiveness are shown. We argue that how the internet is used in democratic processes impacts on participation and inclusion.

How internet technology interacts with decision making processes within parties depends on the existing party structure and culture. Thus, in order to achieve meaningful and inclusive participation, the institutional framework and the influence it has must be considered in process and tool design. Whereas the affordances of specific online tools have been evaluated, the institutional context in which they are embedded have so far been widely ignored. We offer a structure for analysis of these foundations.

References

[1]

Acker, J. 1990. HIERARCHIES, JOBS, BODIES: A Theory of Gendered Organizations. Gender & Society. 4, 2 (Jun. 1990), 139--158.

[2]

Agre, P. E. 2002. Real-Time Politics: The Internet and the Political Process. The Information Society. 18, 5 (2002), 311--331.

[3]

Bennett, W. L. and Segerberg, A. 2012. THE LOGIC OF CONNECTIVE ACTION. Information, Communication & Society. 15, 5 (Jun. 2012), 739--768.

[4]

Beschlussporotokoll AVB: 2016. http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/BE:Parteitag/2016.1/Beschlussporotokoll_AVB#Liste. Accessed: 2016-01-27.

[5]

Buhl, H. U. 2011. From revolution to participation: Social media and the democratic decision-making process. Business and Information Systems Engineering. 3, 4 (2011), 195--198.

[6]

Bullwinkel, B. and Probst, L. 2014. Innerparteiliche Willensbildung und Entscheidungsprozesse durch digitale Partizipation. Ein Praxistest des Konzepts der Liquid Democracy. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen. 2, (2014), 382--401.

[7]

Carr, L. et al. 2010. Could the Web be a Temporary Glitch? Proceedings of the WebSci10: Extending the Frontiers of Society On-Line, Raleigh, US, 26--27 Apr 2010 (Raleigh, US, 2010).

[8]

Costanza-Chock, S. 2012. Mic Check! Media Cultures and the Occupy Movement. Social Movement Studies.

[9]

Dahl, R. 1989. Democracy and its Critics. Yale University Press.

[10]

Gibson, R. and Cantijoch, M. 2013. Conceptualizing and Measuring Participation in the Age of the Internet: Is Online Political Engagement Really Different to Offline? The Journal of Politics. 75, 03 (2013), 701--716.

[11]

Gibson, Rachel K., Wainer Lusoli, Andrea Römmele, S. J. W. 2004. Introduction: representative democracy and the Internet. Electronic democracy: mobilisation, organisation and participation via new ICTs. R. K. Gibson et al., eds. Routledge / ECPR Studies in European Political Science. 1--16.

[12]

Gil de Zúñiga, H. et al. 2010. Digital Democracy: Reimagining Pathways to Political Participation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 7, 1 (2010), 36--51.

[13]

Guthrie, K. K. and Dutton, W. H. 1992. The Politics of Citizen Access Technology. The Development of Public Information Utilities in Four Cities. Policy Studies Journal. 20, 4 (Dec. 1992), 574--597.

[14]

Hague, B. N. and Loader, B. D. 1999. Digital Democracy: an introduction. Digital Democracy. Discourse and Decision Making in the Information Age. B. N. Hague and B. D. Loader, eds. Routledge. 3--22.

[15]

Halford, S. et al. 2010. A manifesto for Web Science. Proceedings of the WebSci10: Extending the Frontiers of Society On-Line, Raleigh, US, 26--27 Apr 2010 (2010).

[16]

Halford, S. and Savage, M. 2010. RECONCEPTUALIZING DIGITAL SOCIAL INEQUALITY. Information, Communication & Society. 13, 7 (Oct. 2010), 937--955.

[17]

Hardt, S. and Lopes, L. C. R. 2015. Google Votes: A Liquid Democracy Experiment on a Corporate Social Network. Technical Disclosure Commons.

[18]

Hargittai, E. 2008. The Digital Reproduction of Inequality. Social Stratification. D. Grusky, ed. Westview Press. 936--944.

[19]

Held, D. 2006. Models of Democracy. Stanford University Press.

[20]

Hyland, J. L. 1995. Democratic Theory: The philosophical foundations. Manchester University Press.

[21]

Is there an echo in here? 2004. http://www.salon.com/2004/02/21/echo_chamber/. Accessed: 2016-01-24.

[22]

Jackson, N. and Lilleker, D. 2009. Building an Architecture of Participation? Political Parties and Web 2.0 in Britain. Journal of Information Technology Politics. 6, 3 (2009), 232--250.

[23]

Kerr, A. and Waddington, J. 2014. E-Communications: An Aspect of Union Renewal or Merely Doing Things Electronically? British Journal of Industrial Relations. 52, 4 (Dec. 2014), 658--681.

[24]

Kling, C. C. et al. 2015. Voting Behaviour and Power in Online Democracy: A Study of LiquidFeedback in Germany's Pirate Party. International Conference for Web and Social Media (ICWSM) in Oxford (2015).

[25]

Kneuer, M. 2014. Mehr oder weniger demokratische Qualität durch das Internet? Der Bürger im Staat. 64, (2014).

[26]

Lenk, K. 1999. Electronic support of citizen participation in planning processes. Digital Democracy. Discourse and Decision Making in the Information Age. B. N. Hague and B. D. Loader, eds. Routledge. 87--95.

[27]

Lunenburg, F. C. 2011. Decision Making in Organizations. International journal of management, business, and administration. 15, 1 (2011), 1--9.

[28]

Miller, J. C. 1969. A program for direct and proxy voting in the legislative process. Public Choice. 7, 1 (Sep. 1969), 107--113.

[29]

Moore, R. K. 1999. Democracy and Cyberspace. Digital Democracy. Discourse and Decision Making in the Information Age. B. N. Hague and B. D. Loader, eds. Routledge. 39--59.

[30]

Neumann, T. 2011. Die Piratenpartei Deutschland: Entwicklung und Selbstverständnis. Contumax.

[31]

Niedermayer, O. 2015. Parteimitglieder in Deutschland:Version 2015. Arbeitshefte aus dem Otto-Stammer-Zentrum. 20, 25 (2015), 53.

[32]

O'Hara, K. and Stevens, D. 2015. Echo Chambers and Online Radicalism: Assessing the Internet's Complicity in Violent Extremism. Policy Studies Organization. 9999, 9999 (2015), 1--22.

[33]

Papacharissi, Z. 2009. The Virtual Sphere 2.0: The Internet, the Public Sphere and beyond. Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics. A. Chadwick and P. N. Howard, eds. Routledge. 230--245.

[34]

Roth, S. et al. 2014. Occupy as a free space - Mobilization processes and outcomes. Sociological Research Online. 19, 1 (2014), 1--23.

[35]

Schermerhorn, J. R. J. et al. 2011. Organizational Behavior. Wiley.

[36]

Smith, J. and Glidden, B. 2012. Occupy Pittsburgh and the Challenges of Participatory Democracy. Social Movement Studies. 11, 3--4 (2012), 288--294.

[37]

Spada, P. et al. 2014. A First Step toward Scaling-up Deliberation: Optimizing Large Group E-Deliberation using Argument Maps. Under Review. (2014), 36.

[38]

The Tyranny of Structurelessness: http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm. Accessed: 2015-06-11.

[39]

Thuermer 2015. Differences in decision-making processes between web-native and non-web-native political parties. University of Southampton.

[40]

Ward, S. et al. 2002. Virtually participating: A survey of online party members. Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age. 7, (2002), 199--215.

Digital Library

[41]

Wilhelm, A. G. 1999. Virtual sounding boards: how deliberative is online political discussion? Digital Democracy. Discourse and Decision Making in the Information Age. B. N. Hague and B. D. Loader, eds. Routledge. 154--178.

[42]

Wresch, W. 2001. Democracy in the Digital Age: Challenges to Political Life in Cyberspace. The Information Society. 17, 2 (2001), 145--146.

[43]

Zhang, W. 2010. TECHNICAL CAPITAL AND PARTICIPATORY INEQUALITY IN EDELIBERATION. Information, Communication & Society. 13, 7 (Oct. 2010), 1019--1039.

Cited By

Folvarčný AKopeček L(2024)A digital party organisation? Evolution of the Czech PiratesEast European Politics10.1080/21599165.2024.2379892(1-23)Online publication date: 24-Jul-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2024.2379892
Bloquet CBorucki IHöhne B(2022)Digitalization in Candidate Selection. Support and Resistance Within Established Political Parties in GermanyFrontiers in Political Science10.3389/fpos.2022.8155134Online publication date: 13-Apr-2022
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2022.815513
Haq EBraud TKwon YHui P(2020)A Survey on Computational PoliticsIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2020.30349838(197379-197406)Online publication date: 2020
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3034983
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Internet use, in- and exclusion in decision-making processes within political parties
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Collaborative and social computing
    1. Empirical studies in collaborative and social computing
  2. Human computer interaction (HCI)
    1. Empirical studies in HCI

Recommendations

Differences in eDemocracy parties' eParticipation systems

eDemocracy political parties are an emerging and radically new form of political party that enables citizen participation in the policy-making process using ICTs. This paper compares the eParticipation systems of four of the first eDemocracy parties (...
Internet Use and Political Participation: Reflections on the Mobilization/Normalization Controversy

Web-based and theoretical studies often claim that Internet use can mobilize political participation, while survey-based studies generally conclude that Internet use will normalize political participation. This article aims to offer some reflections on ...
Political Parties and Internet Voting System Adoption in Ghana
Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective
Abstract
The role of political parties in elections and factors that influence political parties’ internet voting system adoption has hardly been explored. One of the key barriers to internet voting system adoption is the lack of trust in the technology ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

WebSci '16: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Web Science

May 2016

392 pages

ISBN:9781450342087

DOI:10.1145/2908131

General Chairs:
Wolfgang Nejdl
Leibniz University Hannover & L3S Research Center, Germany
,
Wendy Hall
University of Southampton, UK
,
Program Chairs:
Paolo Parigi
Stanford University
,
Steffen Staab
University of Koblenz, Germany

Copyright © 2016 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

SIGWEB: ACM Special Interest Group on Hypertext, Hypermedia, and Web

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 22 May 2016

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

Conference

WebSci '16

Sponsor:

SIGWEB

WebSci '16: ACM Web Science Conference

May 22 - 25, 2016

Hannover, Germany

Acceptance Rates

WebSci '16 Paper Acceptance Rate 13 of 70 submissions, 19%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 245 of 933 submissions, 26%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

6
Total Citations
View Citations
132
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)4
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 20 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Folvarčný AKopeček L(2024)A digital party organisation? Evolution of the Czech PiratesEast European Politics10.1080/21599165.2024.2379892(1-23)Online publication date: 24-Jul-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2024.2379892
Bloquet CBorucki IHöhne B(2022)Digitalization in Candidate Selection. Support and Resistance Within Established Political Parties in GermanyFrontiers in Political Science10.3389/fpos.2022.8155134Online publication date: 13-Apr-2022
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2022.815513
Haq EBraud TKwon YHui P(2020)A Survey on Computational PoliticsIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2020.30349838(197379-197406)Online publication date: 2020
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3034983
O’Hara K(2020)The contradictions of digital modernityAI & Society10.1007/s00146-018-0843-735:1(197-208)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s00146-018-0843-7
Kandathil GWagner EMark GFussell SLampe Cschraefel mHourcade JAppert CWigdor D(2017)Negotiating Absent Practices and Dormant FeaturesProceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3025453.3026039(5954-5965)Online publication date: 2-May-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3025453.3026039
Borucki I(undefined)Digital Transformation as Organizational Change for Political Parties – a narrative reviewSSRN Electronic Journal10.2139/ssrn.4098439
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4098439

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents