Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
From 1984 to Total Information Awareness Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2021 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

13. A Multi-Criteria Approach to Analysing E-Democracy Support Systems

verfasst von : Mats Danielson, Love Ekenberg, Adriana Mihai

Erschienen in: Facebook Nation

Verlag: Springer New York

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

New information and communication technologies (ICT) have made the public sphere more diverse and fragmented, and consequently it demands a new kind of literacy to navigate. However, the inter-contextual understanding of democracy is still immature, making it sometimes difficult to have a more coherent view of the various concepts and ideas involved. Neither is the more limited concept of e-democracy uncomplicated and the design of tools and interfaces for e-democracy systems takes place in a highly multidisciplinary context, while there is still a need for some shared ideas of what democracy actually means, also in this new context. In this chapter, we suggest a general framework for evaluating tools for e-democracy and suggest some non-exhaustive criteria under which such tools can be evaluated. The framework is intended to enable users and developers to understand the varying degree of support a tool can provide for several aspects of democracy, and contains a ranking mechanism as well as a suggestion of a ranking-based index based on different criteria and the performance of a tool under these, while still being inclusive regarding different possible conceptions of the concept of e-democracy and its various forms.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel E-Government and E-Activism
Nächstes Kapitel A Ranking Model for Citizen Engagement in a Smart City
Fußnoten
4
See [69] for an overview.
 
Literatur
1.
Ahn, B.S. and Park, K.S., 2008. Comparing methods for multiattribute decision making with ordinal weights. Computers & Operations Research, 35(5), pp.1660–1670.
2.
Alarabiat A., Soares D.S., and Estevez E., 2016. Electronic Participation with a Special Reference to Social Media - A Literature Review. In: Tambouris E. et al. (eds) Electronic Participation. ePart 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9821. Springer, Cham.
3.
Alathur, S., Ilavarasan, V., and Gupta, M.P., 2014. Determinants of Citizens’ Electronic Participation: Insights from India, Transforming Government People Process and Policy 8(3), pp.447–472.
4.
Al-Jamal, M.A. and Shanab, E.A., 2016. The influence of open government on e-government website: the case of Jordan. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 8(2), pp.159–179.
5.
Ayo, C.K., Oni, A.A., and Mbarika, V.W., 2013. “A strategic framework for e-democracy development”, in the Proceedings of the International Conference on e-Learning, e-Business, Enterprise Information Systems, and e-Government (EEE), The Steering Committee of The World Congress in Computer Science, Computer Engineering and Applied Computing (WorldComp).
6.
Bader, V., Borchers, D. and Vitikainen, A., 2012. Individual and/or associational autonomy? Associative Democracy and the Freedoms of Entry and Exit. Vitikainen, A. (Ed.), On Exit: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Right of Exit in Liberal Multicultural Societies, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin. 2012
7.
Barron, F.H. and Barrett, B.E., 1996. Decision quality using ranked attribute weights. Management Science, 42(11), pp.1515–1523.
8.
Bellamy, C., 2000. Modelling electronic democracy, towards democratic discourses for an information age. In: J. Hoff, I. Horrocks and P. Tops, eds., Democratic governance and new technology: technologically mediated innovations in political practice in Western Europe. London: Routledge, pp.33–54.
9.
10.
Bennett, C. J. and Parsons, C. 2013. Privacy and surveillance: the multidisciplinary literature on the capture, use, and disclosure of personal information in cyberspace. In: Dutton, W (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
11.
Bindu, N., Prem Sankar, C., and Satheesh Kumar, K., 2019. From conventional governance to e-democracy: Tracing the evolution of egovernance research trends using network analysis tools Government Information Quarterly.
12.
13.
14.
Brogi, E. et al., 2020, “Monitoring media pluralism in the digital era: application of the Media Pluralism Monitor 2020 in the European Union, Albania & Turkey: policy report”, European University Institute, DOI: https://​doi.​org/​10.​2870/​21728.
15.
Brown, A. J. 2020. ‘Should I Stay or Should I Leave?’: Exploring (Dis)continued Facebook Use After the Cambridge Analytica Scandal. Social Media + Society, January-March, pp.1–8.
16.
Butler, J., Jia, J. and Dyer, J., 1997. Simulation techniques for the sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria decision models. European Journal of Operational Research, 103(3), pp.531–546.
17.
Cantijoch, M., Galandini, S. and Gibson, R., 2016. ‘It’s not about me, it’s about my community’: a mixed-method study of civic websites and community efficacy. New Media & Society, 18(9), pp.1896–1915.
18.
Collier, D. and Adcock, R., 1999. ‘Democracy and dichotomies: a pragmatic approach to choices about concepts’, Annual Review of Political Science, 2, pp.537–565.
19.
20.
Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Lindberg, S.I., Skaaning, S.E. and Teorell, J., 2017. V-Dem comparisons and contrasts with other measurement projects. V-Dem Working Paper 2017:45.
21.
Cozzani, F., 2015. Knowledge management 2.0: the proposal for Commipedia. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 9(1), pp.17–34.
22.
Dahlberg, L., 2011. Re-constructing digital democracy: an outline of four ‘positions.’ New Media & Society, 13(6), pp.855–872.
23.
Danielson, M. and Ekenberg, L., 2016a. A robustness study of state-of-the-art surrogate weights for MCDM. Group Decision and Negotiation, 26(4), pp.677–691.
24.
Danielson, M. and Ekenberg, L., 2016b. The CAR method for using preference strength in multi-criteria decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 25(4), pp.775–797.
25.
Danielson, M. and Ekenberg, L., 2020. A Framework for Categorising and Evaluating Tools for E-democracy, The Electronic Journal of e-Government 18(3), pp.69–82.
26.
Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L. and Larsson, A., 2020. A second-order-based decision tool for evaluating decisions under conditions of severe uncertainty, Knowledge-Based Systems 191.
27.
Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L., Larsson, A. and Riabacke, M., 2010. Transparent public decision making – discussion and case study in Sweden. In: e-democracy: a group decision and negotiation perspective, eds., D. R. Insua and S. French, Dordrecht: Springer, pp.263–281.
28.
Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L. and Riabacke, A., 2009. A prescriptive approach to elicitation of decision data. Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice, 3(1), pp.157–168.
29.
30.
Ekenberg, L., Hansson, K., Danielson, M., Cars, G. et al., 2017. Deliberation, representation, equity research approaches, tools and algorithms for participatory processes. Cambridge, UK Open Book Publishers.CrossRef
31.
Ekenberg, L., Larsson, A., Idefeldt, J. and Bohman, S., 2009. The lack of transparency in public decision processes. International Journal of Public Information Systems, 5(1), pp.1–8.
32.
European Commission DG CONNECT, A vision for public services, 2013.
33.
Farina, C.R., Epstein, D., Heidt, J.B. and Newhart, M.J., 2013. Regulation room. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 7(4), pp.501–516.
34.
Fasth, T., Bohman, S. Larsson, A. Ekenberg L. and Danielson, M., 2020. Portfolio Decision Analysis for Evaluating Stakeholder Conflicts in Land Use Planning, Group Decision and Negotiation 29, pp.321–343.
35.
Ferretti, V., Pluchinotta, I., and Tsoukiàs, A., 2019. Studying the generation of alternatives in public policy making processes. European Journal of Operational Research 273, pp.353–363.
36.
Freschi, A.C., Medaglia, R., Nørbjerg, J. et al., 2009. “eParticipation in the institutional domain: a review of research: analytical report on eParticipation research from an administration and political perspective in six European countries”, Freschi AC, Medaglia R, Nørbjerg J, et al. (eds), DEMO-Net Consortium, Bergamo.
37.
Fyfe, T. and Crookall, P., 2010. Social media and public sector policy dilemmas, Institute of Public Administration of Canada, Toronto.
38.
Gibson, J.J., 1977. The perception of the visual world. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
39.
Hansson, K. and Ekenberg, L., 2018. Embodiment and Gameplay: Situating the User in Crowdsourced Information Production: Innovative Perspectives on Public Administration in the Digital Age, in Innovative Perspectives on Public Administration in the Digital Age, Ed: A.P. Manoharan, pp.239–255, IGI Global.
40.
Hansson, K., 2015. Accommodating differences: Power, belonging and representation online, PhD thesis, Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University.
41.
Hansson, K., Belkacem, K. and Ekenberg, L., 2014. Open Government and Democracy. Social Science Computer Review, 33(5), pp.540–555.
42.
Heeks, R. and Bailur, S., 2007. “Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp.243–265.
43.
Jia J, Fischer GW, and Dyer J., 1998. Attribute weighting methods and decision quality in the presence of response error: a simulation study, J. Behavioral Decision Making 11(2), pp.85–105.
44.
Komendantova, N., Ekenberg, L., Marashdeh, L., Al Salaymeh, A., Danielson, M. and Linnerooth-Bayer, J., 2018. Are energy security concerns dominating environmental concerns? Evidence from stakeholder participation processes on energy transition in Jordan. Climate, 6(4), pp.88–99.
45.
Lee, N., 2014. Facebook Nation. New York, NY: Springer.
46.
47.
Lidén, G., 2011. “Is e-democracy more than democratic ? - An examination of the implementation of socially sustainable values in e-democratic processes”, Electronic Journal of e-Government, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp.84–94.
48.
Lörincz, B., Tinholt, D., van der Linden, N., Colclough, G., Cave, J., Schindler, R., Cattaneo, G., Lifonti, R., Jacquet, L. and Millard, J., 2010. Digitizing Public Services in Europe: Putting ambition into action, European Commission, Directorate General for Information Society and Media.
49.
Macintosh, A. and Whyte, A., 2006. “Evaluating how eParticipation changes local democracy”, eGovernment Workshop 11 September 2006, Brunel University, West London.
50.
Macintosh, A., Coleman, S., and Schneeberger, A., 2009. “eParticipation: The research gaps”, Electronic Participation, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp.1–11.
51.
52.
Marsden, J., 2013. Stigmergic self-organization and the improvisation of Ushahidi. Cognitive Systems Research, 21, pp.52–64.
53.
Medaglia, R., 2007. “The challenged identity of a field: The state of the art of eParticipation research”, Information Polity, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp.169–181.
54.
Medaglia, R., 2012. eParticipation research: moving characterization forward (2006-2011), Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp.346–360.
55.
Mobini, P. and Hansson, H., 2014. E-participation in higher education: the importance of non-technical factors as identified in the EU-project MyUniversity. IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE) Proceedings, Madrid: IEEE, pp.1–8.
56.
57.
Norman, D.A., 2013. The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
58.
Noveck B.S., 2009. “Wiki government: How technology Can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful”, Brookings Institution Revised 2nd edition. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
59.
60.
Oni, A., Ayo, C., Mbarika, V., et al., 2014. “E-democracy implementation: The imperative of agenda setting”, in the Proceedings of the 14th European conference on e-government: ECEG 2014, Academic Conferences Limited, pp. 203–209.
61.
Orihuela, L., and Obi, T., 2012. E-Democracy: ICT for a Better Relation between the State and Their Citizens. In S. S. Mishra (Ed.). E-Democracy Concepts and Practices by Mishra, Santap Sanhari Dec-31-2012 Hardback. SBS Publishers.
62.
Päivärinta, T. and Sæbø, Ø., 2006. Models of e-democracy, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 1(1), pp. 818–840.
63.
Parker, G.G., Van Alstyne, M.W. and Choudary, S.P., 2016. Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy—and how to make them work for you. New York; London: WW Norton & Company
64.
Pew Research Center, July 2018, Activism in the Social Media Age.
65.
Pirannejad, A., Janssen, M., 2017. Internet and political empowerment: towards a taxonomy for online political empowerment. Information Development, 35(1), pp.80–95.
66.
Pirannejad, A., Janssen, M. and Rezaei, J., 2019. Towards a balanced e-participation index: integrating government and society perspectives. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), pp.1–16.
67.
Pluchinotta, I., Kazakçi, A.O., Giordano, R. and Tsoukiàs, A., 2019. Design Theory for Generating Alternatives in Public Decision Making Processes, Group Decision and Negotiation.
68.
Porwol, L., Ojo, A. and Breslin, J.G., 2018. Social software infrastructure for e-participation. Government Information Quarterly, 35(4), pp.S88–S98.
69.
Riabacke, M., Danielson, M. and Ekenberg, L., 2012. State-of-the-art prescriptive criteria weight elicitation. Advances in Decision Sciences, 2012, pp.1–24.
70.
Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J. and Nyvang, T., 2009. The role of social networking services in eParticipation, In: A. Macintosh and E. Tambouris, eds., Electronic Participation, Sprinter Lecture Notes in Computer Science LNCS vol. 5694, Berlin: Springer, pp. 46–55.CrossRef
71.
Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J. and Skiftenes Flak, L., 2008. “The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 400–428
72.
Sanford, C. and Rose, J., 2007. “Characterizing eParticipation”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 406–421.
73.
Sinclair, J., Timothy, A., Peirson-Smith, J. and Boerchers, M., 2017. Environmental assessments in the Internet age: the role of e-governance and social media in creating platforms for meaningful participation, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Vol. 35:2.
74.
Skaaning, S-E., 2018. The global state of democracy indices methodology: conceptualization and measurement framework, version 2, Strömsborg: IDEA, The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.CrossRef
75.
Susha, I. and Grönlund, Å., 2012. E-participation research: systematizing the field. Government Information Quarterly, 29(3), pp.373–382.
76.
Szkuta, K., Pizzicannella, R. and Osimo, D., 2014. Collaborative approaches to public sector innovation: a scoping study. Telecommunications Policy, 38(5–6), pp.558–567.
77.
Tambouris, E., Liotas, N. and Tarabanis, K., 2007. “A Framework for Assessing eParticipation Projects and Tools”, In HICSS-40 - Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1–10.
78.
van Dijk, J. A. G. M., 2012. The network society (3rd ed.). London; New Delhi; Thousand Oaks, CA; Singapore: Sage
79.
van Dijk, J. 2009. Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society, 31 (1), pp.41–58
80.
Wimmer, M. A., 2007. Ontology for an e-participation virtual resource centre. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Theory and practice of electronic governance - ICEGOV ’07, Macao, China, pp.89–98.
Metadaten
Titel
A Multi-Criteria Approach to Analysing E-Democracy Support Systems
verfasst von
Mats Danielson
Love Ekenberg
Adriana Mihai
Copyright-Jahr
2021
Verlag
Springer New York
Buch
Facebook Nation

Print ISBN: 978-1-0716-1866-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-1-0716-1867-7

Copyright-Jahr: 2021

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-1867-7_13

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise