Suchergebnisse

Digitale Bürgerbeteiligungsprozesse sind inzwischen als etabliert anzusehen. Es gibt allerdings so gut wie keine Studien, die mobile Beteiligungskonzepte untersuchen. Die vorliegende Studie widmet sich diesem neuen Phänomen digitaler Partizipation unter dem Aspekt der sozialen Verzerrung. Können Städte durch die Nutzung smarter Beteiligungsinstrumente auch jene Gruppen der Stadtgesellschaft mobilisieren, die sich traditionell nicht oder kaum politisch engagieren? Gelingt es also durch die Nutzung von neueren Formen der digitalen Beteiligung andere als die "üblichen Verdächtigen" zu mobilisieren? Die Analyse zweier Beteiligungsprozesse mittels der "BürgerApp" in der Stadt Tübingen in den Jahren 2019 und 2020 lässt vermuten, dass traditionell wenig partizipationsfreudige Bürgerinnen und Bürger auch durch Apps nicht signifikant stärker mobilisiert werden. Im Gegenteil, wir finden unter den Teilnehmenden an den "Smartphone-Konsultationsprozessen" vor allem männliche Bürger mittleren Alters mit einer starken Technikneugierde.

AbstractThe emergence of the Internet fueled euphoric—partially utopian—visions that can be summarized as democratic promises. In most cases, the normative and empirical discussion so far has considered e‑democracy tools and their potential, regardless of the scale of interaction—be it local, national, or transnational—as a one-size-fits-all approach, assuming that what is applicable for the national level will be equally true for the subnational and transnational levels. We argue that the question of whether the Internet and digital tools can fulfill the democratic promises must be confronted in a more differentiated way, examiningunder which spatial conditionse‑democracy is more likely to incentivize citizens to engage and to involve more citizens as well as marginalized citizens in public debates and decision making. The article introduces scale as a new element for a better theoretical understanding of e‑democracy. We establish a conceptual framework that enables us to capture scale as distance in terms of territorial, cognitive, and affective distance. The spatial perspective brings an innovative spin to the somewhat petrified positions on the mobilizing or reinforcing effects of digital tools as well as a new theoretical argument for the debate on e‑democracy in general.

AbstractInternet based technology constitutes one of the most important policy innovations in the last decades. Its diffusion has been rapid, widespread and sustained. The increase has raised questions about its drivers. The article focuses on an aspect of this dynamic that has been neglected so far: the variance between and among democracies and autocracies and their respective subtypes. Moreover, the majority of studies tackles the diffusion of e‐government techniques, excluding the important array of e‐participation. Our analysis thus offers a broader and more differentiated account of the adoption of online tools by governments. The findings indicate that the adoption of e‐government and e‐participation techniques varies substantially between and among democratic and autocratic regime types as well as over time and in kind.

'There is a growing obsession with university rankings around the world' - so begins Ellen Hazel grain (2011: 4), one of the most influential education scholars of our day, her groundbreaking study on university rankings. Although rankings have existed for about 100 years, but only since the 1980s, they receive increasing attention. National rankings for measuring quality of universities are now available in more than 30 countries (spring wedge 2013: 34), since the early 2000s, international rankings are developed. In 2003, the Shanghai Jiao Tong University, the 'Academic Ranking of World Universities' (ARWU) ago with the aim to determine the location of Chinese Universities; Since then, numerous other rankings emerged (see Hazel grain 2011:. 32-38). Adapted from the source document.

Digitalization is not only a new research subject for political science, but a transformative force for the discipline in terms of teaching and learning as well as research methods and publishing. This volume provides the first account of the influence of digitalization on the discipline of political science including contributions from 20 different countries. It presents a regional stocktaking of the challenges and opportunities of digitalization in most world regions. The digital transformation is an example of technological change that will have massive implications for politics and society. It involves a sweeping set of changes that many have likened to the Industrial Revolution. The digital revolution has generated extraordinary opportunities for political scientists, but it also raises serious questions about politics, issues like privacy, regulatory oversight, international conflicts and democracy. Many of these problems are old, but digitalization has magnified their difficulties and importance. The ambivalence of digitalization not only includes multiple aspects for political processes, for communication and for interaction in the political realm, but likewise for our discipline. Digitalization is both a research subject as well as a transformative force for our discipline in terms of teaching and learning, research methods, data collection and management, but also influencing publishing and consultancy.