Abstract How do different stakeholders in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) define and discuss privacy? Using sophisticated statistical and linguistic tools, the authors analyze the language used at the IGF from 2006 to 2011 to identify the frames used by different groups in privacy policy rhetoric. The article exemplifies a case of the use of these complex tools for research purposes; and also reveals that the focus of the privacy discourse at the IGF has evolved over time, especially with respect to the balance between "privacy rights" and "security" and between civil society and state actors.
Abstract How do different stakeholders in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) define and discuss privacy? Using sophisticated statistical and linguistic tools, the authors analyze the language used at the IGF from 2006 to 2011 to identify the frames used by different groups in privacy policy rhetoric. The article exemplifies a case of the use of these complex tools for research purposes; and also reveals that the focus of the privacy discourse at the IGF has evolved over time, especially with respect to the balance between "privacy rights" and "security" and between civil society and state actors.
In: International journal of e-politics: IJEP ; an official publication of the Information Resources Management Association, Volume 5, Issue 1, p. 16-40
A new form of online citizen participation in government decisionmaking has arisen in the United States (U.S.) under the Obama Administration. "Civic Participation 2.0" attempts to use Web 2.0 information and communication technologies to enable wider civic participation in government policymaking, based on three pillars of open government: transparency, participation, and collaboration. Thus far, the Administration has modeled Civic Participation 2.0 almost exclusively on a universalist/populist Web 2.0 philosophy of participation. In this model, content is created by users, who are enabled to shape the discussion and assess the value of contributions with little information or guidance from government decisionmakers. The authors suggest that this model often produces "participation" unsatisfactory to both government and citizens. The authors propose instead a model of Civic Participation 2.0 rooted in the theory and practice of democratic deliberation. In this model, the goal of civic participation is to reveal the conclusions people reach when they are informed about the issues and have the opportunity and motivation seriously to discuss them. Accordingly, the task of civic participation design is to provide the factual and policy information and the kinds of participation mechanisms that support and encourage this sort of participatory output. Based on the authors' experience with Regulation Room, an experimental online platform for broadening effective civic participation in rulemaking (the process federal agencies use to make new regulations), the authors offer specific suggestions for how designers can strike the balance between ease of engagement and quality of engagement – and so bring new voices into public policymaking processes through participatory outputs that government decisionmakers will value.
Purpose– Rulemaking (the process agencies use to make new health, safety, social and economic regulations) is one of the US Government's most important policymaking methods and has long been a target for e-government efforts. Although broad transparency and participation rights are part of its legal structure, significant barriers prevent effective engagement by many citizens. The paper aims to discuss these issues.Design/methodology/approach– RegulationRoom.org is an online experimental e-participation platform, designed and operated by Cornell e-rulemaking Initiative (CeRI), the cross-disciplinary CeRI. Using the Regulation Room as a case study, this paper addresses what capacities are required for effective civic engagement and how they can be nurtured and supported by an online participation system.Findings– The research suggests that effectively designing and deploying technology, although essential, is only one dimension of realizing broader, better online civic engagement. Effective e-participation systems must be prepared to address procedural, social, and psychological barriers that impede citizens' meaningful participation in complex policymaking processes. The research also suggests the need for re-conceptualizing the value of broad civic participation to the policymaking processes and for recognizing that novice commenters engage with policy issues differently than experienced insiders.Practical implications– The paper includes a series of strategic recommendations for policymaking seeking public input. While it indicates that a broader range of citizens can indeed be meaningfully engaged, it also cautions that getting better participation from more people requires the investment of resources. More fundamental, both government decision makers and participation designers must be open to recognizing non-traditional forms of knowledge and styles of communication – and willing to devise participation mechanisms and protocols accordingly.Originality/value– This paper describes lessons from a unique design-based research project with both practical and conceptual implications for more, better civic participation in complex government policymaking.
