Comparing Three Online Civic Engagement Platforms using the “ Spectrum of Public Participation ” Framework

Author(s): Nelimarkka, Matti; Nonnecke, Brandie; Krishnan, Sanjay; Aitumurto, Tanja; Catterson, Daniel; Crittenden, Camille; Garland, Chris; Gregory, Conrad; Huang, Ching-Chang (Allen); Newsom, Gavin; Patel, Jay; Scott, John; Goldberg, Ken | Abstract: Online civic engagement platforms accessed via desktops or mobile devices can provide new opportunities for the public to express views and insights, consider the views of others, assist in identifying innovative ideas and new approaches to public policy issues, and directly engage with elected leaders. Existing platforms vary widely in their approaches to: assessment, engagement, ideation, evaluation, and deliberation. We consider three online platforms: the Living Voters Guide, including its earlier iterations Consider.it and Reflect; the Open Town Hall; and the California Report Card. We compare them using the International Association of Public Participation’s “Spectrum of Public Participation” framework. Using a 10-point scale, we evaluate the user interface of each platform in terms of how well it supports the Spectrum’s levels of civic engagement (inform, consult, involve, collaborate, and empower). Results suggest how user interface design affects civic engagement and suggest opportunities for future work

[1]  Sanjay Krishnan,et al.  A methodology for learning, analyzing, and mitigating social influence bias in recommender systems , 2014, RecSys '14.

[2]  Ethan Zuckerman.  New Media, New Civics?: New Media, New Civics? , 2014 .

[3]  Todd Graham,et al.  Discursive Equality and Everyday Talk Online: The Impact of "Superparticipants" , 2014, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[4]  Henrik Serup Christensen,et al.  Deliberation and Opinion Change: Evidence from a Deliberative Mini-public in Finland , 2014 .

[5]  Ainin Sulaiman,et al.  Facebook: The enabler of online civic engagement for activists , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[6]  Libby Hemphill,et al.  Tweet acts: how constituents lobby congress via Twitter , 2014, CSCW.

[7]  Bryan C. Semaan,et al.  Social media supporting political deliberation across multiple public spheres: towards depolarization , 2014, CSCW.

[8]  Cynthia Farina,et al.  Designing an Online Civic Engagement Platform: Balancing "More" vs. "Better" Participation in Complex Public Policymaking , 2014, Int. J. E Politics.

[9]  Tina Nabatchi,et al.  Citizen Participation in Public Administration: Views from Lebanon , 2013 .

[10]  Eric Gordon,et al.  Why We Engage: How Theories of Human Behavior Contribute to Our Understanding of Civic Engagement in a Digital Era , 2013 .

[11]  S. Krishnan.  Dimensionality Reduction and Latent Variable Models for Online Collective Intelligence Systems , 2013 .

[12]  Sanjay Krishnan,et al.  Using a Social Media Platform to Explore How Social Media Can Enhance Primary and Secondary Learning , 2013 .

[13]  Tina Nabatchi,et al.  Putting the “Public” Back in Public Values Research: Designing Participation to Identify and Respond to Values , 2012 .

[14]  Alan Borning,et al.  Is this what you meant?: promoting listening on the web with reflect , 2012, CHI.

[15]  Eli Pariser,et al.  The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think , 2012 .

[16]  Scott Wright,et al.  Politics as usual? Revolution, normalization and a new agenda for online deliberation , 2012, New Media Soc..

[17]  Alan Borning,et al.  Supporting reflective public thought with considerit , 2012, CSCW.

[18]  Todd Graham.  Beyond “Political” Communicative Spaces: Talking Politics on the Wife Swap Discussion Forum , 2012 .

[19]  S. Coleman,et al.  Under Construction: The Field of Online Deliberation Research , 2012 .

[20]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  Design Considerations for Online Deliberation Systems , 2012 .

[21]  Mark Klein,et al.  Enabling Large-Scale Deliberation Using Attention-Mediation Metrics , 2011, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[22]  Taewoo Nam,et al.  Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0 , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..

[23]  Jacob Ratkiewicz,et al.  Political Polarization on Twitter , 2011, ICWSM.

[24]  Björn Hartmann,et al.  The diversity donut: enabling participant control over the diversity of recommended responses , 2011, CHI EA '11.

[25]  Lincoln Dahlberg,et al.  Re-constructing digital democracy: An outline of four ‘positions’ , 2011, New Media Soc..

[26]  R. Kies,et al.  Promises and Limits of Web-deliberation , 2010 .

[27]  Kenneth Y. Goldberg,et al.  Opinion space: a scalable tool for browsing online comments , 2010, CHI.

[28]  M. Karlsson.  What does it take to make online deliberation happen? : A comparative analysis of 28 online discussion forums , 2010 .

[29]  Marta Cantijoch,et al.  POLITICAL PARTICIPATION AND THE INTERNET , 2009 .

[30]  Graham Smith.  Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation - Theories of Institutional Design , 2009 .

[31]  Oliver Quiring,et al.  What Interactivity Means to the User Essential Insights into and a Scale for Perceived Interactivity , 2008, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[32]  Daren C. Brabham.  Crowdsourcing as a Model for Problem Solving , 2008 .

[33]  Todd Graham,et al.  Needles in a Haystack , 2008 .

[34]  Todd Graham.  NEEDLES IN A HAYSTACK: A NEW APPROACH FOR IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING POLITICAL TALK IN NON-POLITICAL DISCUSSION FORUMS , 2008 .

[35]  Scott Wright,et al.  Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online discussion forums , 2007, New Media Soc..

[36]  E. Hargittai,et al.  Cross-ideological discussions among conservative and liberal bloggers , 2007 .

[37]  T. Englund.  Deliberative communication: a pragmatist proposal , 2006 .

[38]  B. Head.  Community Engagement: Participation on Whose Terms? , 2007 .

[39]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: divided they blog , 2005, LinkKDD '05.

[40]  G. Rowe,et al.  A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms , 2005 .

[41]  Jennifer Stromer-Galley,et al.  Interactivity-as-Product and Interactivity-as-Process , 2004, Inf. Soc..

[42]  Jakob Linaa Jensen,et al.  Virtual democratic dialogue? Bringing together citizens and politicians , 2003, Inf. Polity.

[43]  C. May,et al.  Interaction between States and Citizens in the Age of the Internet: “e-Government” in the United States, Britain, and the European Union , 2003 .

[44]  Archon Fung,et al.  Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. Edited by Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright. New York: Verso, 2003. 310p. $60.00 cloth, $22.00 paper , 2004, Perspectives on Politics.

[45]  A. Whyte,et al.  Electronic Democracy and Young People , 2003 .

[46]  Lincoln Dahlberg.  The Internet and Democratic Discourse: Exploring The Prospects of Online Deliberative Forums Extending the Public Sphere , 2001 .

[47]  R. Gibson,et al.  A Proposed Methodology for Studying the Function and Effectiveness of Party and Candidate Web Sites , 2000 .

[48]  C. Sunstein.  The Law of Group Polarization , 1999, How Change Happens.