Small Group Discussion Grading RubricParticipation for MSNSmal.docx

Small Group Discussion Grading Rubric
Participation for MSN
Small Group Discussion Guiding Principles
The ideas and beliefs underpinning the small group discussions
(GDs) guide students through engaging dialogues as they
achieve the desired learning outcomes/competencies associated
with their course in a manner that empowers them to organize,
integrate, apply and critically appraise their knowledge to their
selected field of practice. The use of GDs provides students
with opportunities to contribute level-appropriate knowledge
and experience to the topic in a safe, caring, and fluid
environment that models professional and social interaction.
The GD’s ebb and flow is based upon the composition of
student and faculty interaction in the quest for relevant
scholarship. Participation in the GDs generates opportunities for
students to actively engage in the written ideas of others by
carefully reading, researching, reflecting, and responding to the
contributions of their peers and course faculty. GDs foster the
development of members into a community of learners as they
share ideas and inquiries, consider perspectives that may be
different from their own, and integrate knowledge from other
disciplines.
Participation Guidelines
Each weekly group discussion is worth a maximum of 50 points.
Students must post a minimum of four times in each discussion.
One of these posts must be a summary of learning for the week.
The initial response to the discussion prompt must be posted by
Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week. Each of the
subsequent posts must occur on days following the initial
response. The final posting deadline for all subsequent posts is
by Sunday, 11:59 p.m. MT of each week. For week 8 only,
subsequent posts must occur by the Saturday deadline-11:59 pm
MT. If the student does not meet the Wednesday posting
deadline for the initial posting, a late penalty is applied of 5

points. Not meeting the requirements for subsequent postings,
either in number or deadline, will result in a loss of 5 points.
Group Discussion Responses
Small group discussions provide the opportunity for deep
exploration and new knowledge discovery of course topics. This
type of exploration requires synthesis of various sources of
information. Responses in group discussions should be
substantive, reflect the student’s personal position on the topic,
thoroughly address the information being asked for by the
prompt, and include insights based on others’ postings. Direct
quotes in group discussions should be a rare occurrence. These
are to be limited to one short quotation (not to exceed 15
words). The quote must add substantively to the discussion.
Points will be deducted under Scholarliness and/or Course
Knowledge rubric categories.
MSNST_GroupDiscussionGradingRubric_Final_2019.02.21
Executive Track
MSNST_GroupDiscussionGradingRubric_Final_2019.02.21
Executive Track
MSN-ST Executive Track
Small Group Discussion Grading Rubric Guidelines
Point Values
Exceptional
Exceeds
Meets

Needs Improvement
Developing
Performance Category
15
14
13
9
0
Scholarliness
Demonstrates achievement of scholarly inquiry for professional
and academic decisions.
All three elements are addressed and clearly accurately
articulated
• develops a comprehensive analysis or synthesis of information
on required topic
• provides substantive support of analysis/synthesis evidenced
by review of scholarly literature
• uses relevant valid, current, and scholarly sources to support
interpretations, analysis, and synthesis of information on
required topic
Two(2) of three (3) elements addressed and accurately
articulated; remaining element vaguely addressed or is missing

on required topic
required topic
All elements are present but lack clarity and are generally
addressed; Little evidence of understanding of topic is present
on required topic
required topic
2 or less elements are superficially addressed with little
supportive evidence of understanding of topic is present
on required topic
required topic
All three elements are missing or not discernible

on required topic
required topic
15
14
13
9
0
Course Knowledge
15.0 pts
All four (4) required elements are addressed and clearly
articulated
• Posts make direct reference to concepts discussed within
lesson, scholarly sources, and guided discussion prompt
•Interactions with classmates are engaging and encourage
further exploration and discovery
•Interactions with classmates are directly relevant to discussion
topic

• Applies concepts to personal experience in their professional
setting and or relevant application to real life.
Two of three elements addressed and clearly articulated,
remaining element vaguely addressed or missing
•Posts make direct reference to concepts discussed within
•Interactions with classmates are engaging and encourage
• Interactions with classmates are directly relevant to
discussion topic
setting and or relevant application to real life
All elements are present but lack clarity and are generally
addressed; Little evidence of understanding of topic present
• Interactions with classmates are engaging and encourage
discussion topic
Three or less elements are superficially addressed with little
supportive evidence of understanding of topic present

discussion topic
All elements are missing, not discernible, or irrelevant to topic
discussion topic
20
18
16
14
0
Interactive Dialogue

Posts accurately address all five(5) elements, clearly
articulated; specific connections are made to topic and
discussion
· Replies to instructor prompt and facilitator by Wednesday @
11:59pm MT
· Responds to discussion group at least four times
· Summary post (which may be counted as one of the 4 required
posts) includes what was learned from discussion, lesson, and
readings
· Posts are substantive with evidence cited from a minimum of 2
scholarly sources to support thoughts and ideas, and engage
group in further discussion
· Posts reflect thoughts, ideas, and questions stimulated by
content and group discussion
Posts accurately address four(4) of five(5) elements, clearly
articulated; specific connections are made to topic and
discussion
11:59pm MT
readings
Posts generally address three (3) of five(5) required elements;
limited connections are made to topic and discussion

11:59pm MT
readings
Posts generally address required elements; limited connections
made to topic and discussion; fails to meet posting time and
number requirement
11:59pm MT
readings
· •Posts are substantive with evidence cited from a minimum of
2 scholarly sources to support thoughts and ideas, and engage
Does not respond to group discussion; No connections made to
topic; Superficial posts lacking substance and scholarly support
11:59pm MT

readings
Minus 1 Points
Minus 3 Points
Minus 5 Points
Minus 7 Points
Minus 9 Points
Grammar, Syntax, APA
Note: if there are only a few errors in these criteria, please note
this for the student in as an area for improvement. If the
student does not make the needed corrections in upcoming
weeks, then points should be deducted.
Points deducted for improper grammar, syntax and APA style of
writing.
The source of information is the APA Manual Current Edition
· 2-3 errors in APA format.
· Written responses
have 2-3 grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors.
· Writing style is generally clear, focused, and facilitates
communication.
· Writing responses

have 4-5 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors.
· Writing style is somewhat focused.
· Writing style is slightly focused making discussion difficult to
understand.
· Writing style is not focused, making discussion difficult to
understand.
· Post contains greater than 10 errors in APA format.
· Written responses have more than 10 grammatical, spelling
and punctuation errors.
· Writing style does not facilitate communication.
· The student continues to make repeated mistakes in any of the
above areas after written correction by the instructor
0 points lost
-5 points lost
Total Participation Requirements

per discussion thread
The student answers the threaded discussion question or topic
on one day and posts a second response on another day.
The student does not meet the minimum requirement of two
postings on two different days
Early Participation Requirementper discussion thread
The student must provide a substantive answer to the graded
discussion question(s) or topic(s), posted by the course
instructor (not a response to a peer), by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m.
MT of each week.
The student does not meet the requirement of a substantive
response to the stated question or topic by Wednesday at 11:59
pm MT.
NOTE: To receive credit for a week's discussion, students may
begin posting no earlier than the Sunday immediately before
each week opens. Unless otherwise specified, access to most
weeks begins on Sunday at 12:01 a.m. MT, and that week's
assignments are due by the next Sunday by 11:59 p.m. MT.
Week 8 opens at 12:01 a.m. MT Sunday and closes at 11:59
p.m. MT Wednesday. Any assignments and all discussion
requirements must be completed by 11:59 p.m. MT Saturday of
the eighth week.
*Scholarly source: Per the APA Guidelines in Course
Resources, only scholarly sources should be used in
assignments and group discussions. These include peer reviewed
publications, government reports, or sources written by a
professional or scholar in the field. Your textbook and lesson

are not considered to be an outside scholarly source. For the
discussions, reputable internet sources such as websites by
government agencies (URL ends in .gov) and respected
organizations (often ends in .org) can be counted as scholarly
sources. The best outside scholarly source to use is a peer
reviewed nursing journal. You are encouraged to use the
Chamberlain library and search one of the available data bases
for a peer reviewed journal article. The following sources
should not be used: Wikipedia, Wikis, or blogs. These web
sites are not considered scholarly as anyone can add to these.
Please be aware that .com websites can vary in scholarship and
quality. For example American Heart Association is a .com site
with scholarship and quality. It is the responsibility of the
student to determine the scholarship and quality of any .com
site. Ask your instructor before using any site that you are
unsure of. If the instructor determines that the site does not
demonstrate scholarship or quality, points will be deducted for
not using scholarly sources. Current outside scholarly sources
are required for the initial posting. This is defined to be 5 years
or less. Instructor permission must be obtained if using a
source that is older than 5 years.
Public Administration and Information
Technology
Volume 10
Series Editor
Christopher G. Reddick
San Antonio, Texas, USA

[email protected]
More information about this series at
http://www.springer.com/series/10796
[email protected]
Marijn Janssen • Maria A. Wimmer
Ameneh Deljoo
Editors
Policy Practice and Digital
Science
Integrating Complex Systems, Social
Simulation and Public Administration
in Policy Research
2123
[email protected]
Editors
Marijn Janssen Ameneh Deljoo
Faculty of Technology, Policy, and Faculty of Technology,
Policy, and
Management Management
Delft University of Technology Delft University of Technology
Delft Delft
The Netherlands The Netherlands

Maria A. Wimmer
Institute for Information Systems Research
University of Koblenz-Landau
Koblenz
Germany
ISBN 978-3-319-12783-5 ISBN 978-3-319-12784-2 (eBook)
Public Administration and Information Technology
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-12784-2
Library of Congress Control Number: 2014956771
Springer Cham Heidelberg New York London
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the
material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation,
reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other
physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software,
or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names,
trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that
such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general
use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume
that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors

or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media
(www.springer.com)
[email protected]
Preface
The last economic and financial crisis has heavily threatened
European and other
economies around the globe. Also, the Eurozone crisis, the
energy and climate
change crises, challenges of demographic change with high
unemployment rates,
and the most recent conflicts in the Ukraine and the near East or
the Ebola virus
disease in Africa threaten the wealth of our societies in
different ways. The inability
to predict or rapidly deal with dramatic changes and negative
trends in our economies
and societies can seriously hamper the wealth and prosperity of
the European Union
and its Member States as well as the global networks. These
societal and economic
challenges demonstrate an urgent need for more effective and
efficient processes of
governance and policymaking, therewith specifically addressing
crisis management
and economic/welfare impact reduction.
Therefore, investing in the exploitation of innovative

information and commu-
nication technology (ICT) in the support of good governance
and policy modeling
has become a major effort of the European Union to position
itself and its Member
States well in the global digital economy. In this realm, the
European Union has
laid out clear strategic policy objectives for 2020 in the Europe
2020 strategy1: In
a changing world, we want the EU to become a smart,
sustainable, and inclusive
economy. These three mutually reinforcing priorities should
help the EU and the
Member States deliver high levels of employment, productivity,
and social cohesion.
Concretely, the Union has set five ambitious objectives—on
employment, innovation,
education, social inclusion, and climate/energy—to be reached
by 2020. Along with
this, Europe 2020 has established four priority areas—smart
growth, sustainable
growth, inclusive growth, and later added: A strong and
effective system of eco-
nomic governance—designed to help Europe emerge from the
crisis stronger and to
coordinate policy actions between the EU and national levels.
To specifically support European research in strengthening
capacities, in overcom-
ing fragmented research in the field of policymaking, and in
advancing solutions for
1 Europe 2020 http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm
v

[email protected]
vi Preface
ICT supported governance and policy modeling, the European
Commission has co-
funded an international support action called eGovPoliNet2. The
overall objective
of eGovPoliNet was to create an international, cross-
disciplinary community of re-
searchers working on ICT solutions for governance and policy
modeling. In turn,
the aim of this community was to advance and sustain research
and to share the
insights gleaned from experiences in Europe and globally. To
achieve this, eGovPo-
liNet established a dialogue, brought together experts from
distinct disciplines, and
collected and analyzed knowledge assets (i.e., theories,
concepts, solutions, findings,
and lessons on ICT solutions in the field) from different
research disciplines. It built
on case material accumulated by leading actors coming from
distinct disciplinary
backgrounds and brought together the innovative knowledge in
the field. Tools, meth-
ods, and cases were drawn from the academic community, the
ICT sector, specialized
policy consulting firms as well as from policymakers and
governance experts. These
results were assembled in a knowledge base and analyzed in
order to produce com-
parative analyses and descriptions of cases, tools, and scientific
approaches to enrich

a common knowledge base accessible via www.policy-
community.eu.
This book, entitled “Policy Practice and Digital Science—
Integrating Complex
Systems, Social Simulation, and Public Administration in Policy
Research,” is one
of the exciting results of the activities of eGovPoliNet—fusing
community building
activities and activities of knowledge analysis. It documents
findings of comparative
analyses and brings in experiences of experts from academia
and from case descrip-
tions from all over the globe. Specifically, it demonstrates how
the explosive growth
in data, computational power, and social media creates new
opportunities for policy-
making and research. The book provides a first comprehensive
look on how to take
advantage of the development in the digital world with new
approaches, concepts,
instruments, and methods to deal with societal and
computational complexity. This
requires the knowledge traditionally found in different
disciplines including public
administration, policy analyses, information systems, complex
systems, and com-
puter science to work together in a multidisciplinary fashion
and to share approaches.
This book provides the foundation for strongly multidisciplinary
research, in which
the various developments and disciplines work together from a
comprehensive and
holistic policymaking perspective. A wide range of aspects for
social and professional
networking and multidisciplinary constituency building along

the axes of technol-
ogy, participative processes, governance, policy modeling,
social simulation, and
visualization are tackled in the 19 papers.
With this book, the project makes an effective contribution to
the overall objec-
tives of the Europe 2020 strategy by providing a better
understanding of different
approaches to ICT enabled governance and policy modeling, and
by overcoming the
fragmented research of the past. This book provides impressive
insights into various
theories, concepts, and solutions of ICT supported policy
modeling and how stake-
holders can be more actively engaged in public policymaking. It
draws conclusions
2 eGovPoliNet is cofunded under FP 7, Call identifier FP7-ICT-
2011-7, URL: www.policy-
community.eu
[email protected]
Preface vii
of how joint multidisciplinary research can bring more effective
and resilient find-
ings for better predicting dramatic changes and negative trends
in our economies and
societies.
It is my great pleasure to provide the preface to the book
resulting from the

eGovPoliNet project. This book presents stimulating research by
researchers coming
from all over Europe and beyond. Congratulations to the project
partners and to the
authors!—Enjoy reading!
Thanassis Chrissafis
Project officer of eGovPoliNet
European Commission
DG CNECT, Excellence in Science, Digital Science
[email protected]
Contents
1 Introduction to Policy-Making in the Digital Age . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 1
Marijn Janssen and Maria A. Wimmer
2 Educating Public Managers and Policy Analysts
in an Era of Informatics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 15
Christopher Koliba and Asim Zia
3 The Quality of Social Simulation: An Example from Research
Policy Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Petra Ahrweiler and Nigel Gilbert
4 Policy Making and Modelling in a Complex World . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 57
Wander Jager and Bruce Edmonds
5 From Building a Model to Adaptive Robust Decision Making

Using Systems Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 75
Erik Pruyt
6 Features and Added Value of Simulation Models Using
Different
Modelling Approaches Supporting Policy-Making: A
Comparative
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Dragana Majstorovic, Maria A.Wimmer, Roy Lay-Yee, Peter
Davis
and Petra Ahrweiler
7 A Comparative Analysis of Tools and Technologies
for Policy Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 125
Eleni Kamateri, Eleni Panopoulou, Efthimios Tambouris,
Konstantinos Tarabanis, Adegboyega Ojo, Deirdre Lee
and David Price
8 Value Sensitive Design of Complex Product Systems . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 157
Andreas Ligtvoet, Geerten van de Kaa, Theo Fens, Cees van
Beers,
Paulier Herder and Jeroen van den Hoven
ix
[email protected]
x Contents
9 Stakeholder Engagement in Policy Development: Observations

and Lessons from International Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 177
Natalie Helbig, Sharon Dawes, Zamira Dzhusupova, Bram
Klievink
and Catherine Gerald Mkude
10 Values in Computational Models Revalued . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 205
Rebecca Moody and Lasse Gerrits
11 The Psychological Drivers of Bureaucracy: Protecting
the Societal Goals of an Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 221
Tjeerd C. Andringa
12 Active and Passive Crowdsourcing in Government . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 261
Euripidis Loukis and Yannis Charalabidis
13 Management of Complex Systems: Toward Agent-Based
Gaming for Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Wander Jager and Gerben van der Vegt
14 The Role of Microsimulation in the Development of Public
Policy . . . 305
Roy Lay-Yee and Gerry Cotterell
15 Visual Decision Support for Policy Making: Advancing
Policy
Analysis with Visualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 321
Tobias Ruppert, Jens Dambruch, Michel Krämer, Tina Balke,
Marco
Gavanelli, Stefano Bragaglia, Federico Chesani, Michela
Milano

and Jörn Kohlhammer
16 Analysis of Five Policy Cases in the Field of Energy Policy .
. . . . . . . . 355
Dominik Bär, Maria A.Wimmer, Jozef Glova, Anastasia
Papazafeiropoulou and Laurence Brooks
17 Challenges to Policy-Making in Developing Countries
and the Roles of Emerging Tools, Methods and Instruments:
Experiences from Saint Petersburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 379
Dmitrii Trutnev, Lyudmila Vidyasova and Andrei Chugunov
18 Sustainable Urban Development, Governance and Policy:
A Comparative Overview of EU Policies and Projects . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 393
Diego Navarra and Simona Milio
19 eParticipation, Simulation Exercise and Leadership Training
in Nigeria: Bridging the Digital Divide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 417
Tanko Ahmed
[email protected]
Contributors
Tanko Ahmed National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies
(NIPSS), Jos,
Nigeria
Petra Ahrweiler EA European Academy of Technology and
Innovation Assess-
ment GmbH, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany

Tjeerd C. Andringa University College Groningen, Institute of
Artificial In-
telligence and Cognitive Engineering (ALICE), University of
Groningen, AB,
Groningen, the Netherlands
Tina Balke University of Surrey, Surrey, UK
Dominik Bär University of Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz, Germany
Cees van Beers Faculty of Technology, Policy, and
Management, Delft University
of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Stefano Bragaglia University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Laurence Brooks Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
Yannis Charalabidis University of the Aegean, Samos, Greece
Federico Chesani University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Andrei Chugunov ITMO University, St. Petersburg, Russia
Gerry Cotterell Centre of Methods and Policy Application in the
Social Sciences
(COMPASS Research Centre), University of Auckland,
Auckland, New Zealand
Jens Dambruch Fraunhofer Institute for Computer Graphics
Research, Darmstadt,
Germany
Peter Davis Centre of Methods and Policy Application in the
Social Sciences

Sharon Dawes Center for Technology in Government,
University at Albany,
Albany, New York, USA
xi
[email protected]
xii Contributors
Zamira Dzhusupova Department of Public Administration and
Development Man-
agement, United Nations Department of Economic and Social
Affairs (UNDESA),
NewYork, USA
Bruce Edmonds Manchester Metropolitan University,
Manchester, UK
Theo Fens Faculty of Technology, Policy, and Management,
Delft University of
Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Marco Gavanelli University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
Lasse Gerrits Department of Public Administration, Erasmus
University
Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Nigel Gilbert University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

Jozef Glova Technical University Kosice, Kosice, Slovakia
Natalie Helbig Center for Technology in Government,
University at Albany,
Albany, New York, USA
Paulier Herder Faculty of Technology, Policy, and Management,
Delft University
Jeroen van den Hoven Faculty of Technology, Policy, and
Management, Delft
University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Wander Jager Groningen Center of Social Complexity Studies,
University of
Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
Marijn Janssen Faculty of Technology, Policy, and
Management, Delft University
Geerten van de Kaa Faculty of Technology, Policy, and
Management, Delft
University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Eleni Kamateri Information Technologies Institute, Centre for
Research &
Technology—Hellas, Thessaloniki, Greece
Bram Klievink Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management,
Delft University
Jörn Kohlhammer GRIS, TU Darmstadt & Fraunhofer IGD,
Darmstadt, Germany

Christopher Koliba University of Vermont, Burlington, VT,
USA
Michel Krämer Fraunhofer Institute for Computer Graphics
Germany
Roy Lay-Yee Centre of Methods and Policy Application in the
Social Sciences
Deirdre Lee INSIGHT Centre for Data Analytics, NUIG,
Galway, Ireland
[email protected]
Contributors xiii
Andreas Ligtvoet Faculty of Technology, Policy, and
Management, Delft Univer-
sity of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Euripidis Loukis University of the Aegean, Samos, Greece
Dragana Majstorovic University of Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz,
Germany
Michela Milano University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Simona Milio London School of Economics, Houghton Street,
London, UK

Catherine Gerald Mkude Institute for IS Research, University of
Koblenz-Landau,
Koblenz, Germany
Rebecca Moody Department of Public Administration, Erasmus
University
Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Diego Navarra Studio Navarra, London, UK
Adegboyega Ojo INSIGHT Centre for Data Analytics, NUIG,
Galway, Ireland
Eleni Panopoulou Information Technologies Institute, Centre
for Research &
Technology—Hellas, Thessaloniki, Greece
Anastasia Papazafeiropoulou Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
David Price Thoughtgraph Ltd, Somerset, UK
Erik Pruyt Faculty of Technology, Policy, and Management,
Delft University of
Technology, Delft, The Netherlands; Netherlands Institute for
Advanced Study,
Wassenaar, The Netherlands
Tobias Ruppert Fraunhofer Institute for Computer Graphics
Germany
Efthimios Tambouris Information Technologies Institute, Centre
for Research &
Technology—Hellas, Thessaloniki, Greece; University of
Macedonia, Thessaloniki,
Greece

Konstantinos Tarabanis Information Technologies Institute,
Centre for Research
& Technology—Hellas, Thessaloniki, Greece; University of
Macedonia, Thessa-
loniki, Greece
Dmitrii Trutnev ITMO University, St. Petersburg, Russia
Gerben van der Vegt Faculty of Economics and Business,
University of Groningen,
Groningen, The Netherlands
Lyudmila Vidyasova ITMO University, St. Petersburg, Russia
Maria A. Wimmer University of Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz,
Germany
Asim Zia University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA
[email protected]
Chapter 1
Introduction to Policy-Making in the Digital Age
Marijn Janssen and Maria A. Wimmer
We are running the 21st century using 20th century systems on
top of 19th century political structures. . . .
John Pollock, contributing editor MIT technology review
Abstract The explosive growth in data, computational power,
and social media
creates new opportunities for innovating governance and policy-

making. These in-
formation and communications technology (ICT) developments
affect all parts of
the policy-making cycle and result in drastic changes in the way
policies are devel-
oped. To take advantage of these developments in the digital
world, new approaches,
concepts, instruments, and methods are needed, which are able
to deal with so-
cietal complexity and uncertainty. This field of research is
sometimes depicted
as e-government policy, e-policy, policy informatics, or data
science. Advancing
our knowledge demands that different scientific communities
collaborate to create
practice-driven knowledge. For policy-making in the digital age
disciplines such as
complex systems, social simulation, and public administration
need to be combined.
1.1 Introduction
Policy-making and its subsequent implementation is necessary
to deal with societal
problems. Policy interventions can be costly, have long-term
implications, affect
groups of citizens or even the whole country and cannot be
easily undone or are even
irreversible. New information and communications technology
(ICT) and models
can help to improve the quality of policy-makers. In particular,
the explosive growth
in data, computational power, and social media creates new
opportunities for in-
novating the processes and solutions of ICT-based policy-
making and research. To

M. Janssen (�)
Faculty of Technology, Policy, and Management, Delft
University of Technology,
Delft, The Netherlands
e-mail: [email protected]
M. A. Wimmer
University of Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz, Germany
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 1
M. Janssen et al. (eds.), Policy Practice and Digital Science,
Public Administration and Information Technology 10, DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-12784-2_1
[email protected]
2 M. Janssen and M. A. Wimmer
take advantage of these developments in the digital world, new
approaches, con-
cepts, instruments, and methods are needed, which are able to
deal with societal and
computational complexity. This requires the use of knowledge
which is traditionally
found in different disciplines, including (but not limited to)
public administration,
policy analyses, information systems, complex systems, and
computer science. All
these knowledge areas are needed for policy-making in the
digital age. The aim of
this book is to provide a foundation for this new
interdisciplinary field in which
various traditional disciplines are blended.

Both policy-makers and those in charge of policy
implementations acknowledge
that ICT is becoming more and more important and is changing
the policy-making
process, resulting in a next generation policy-making based on
ICT support. The field
of policy-making is changing driven by developments such as
open data, computa-
tional methods for processing data, opinion mining, simulation,
and visualization of
rich data sets, all combined with public engagement, social
media, and participatory
tools. In this respect Web 2.0 and even Web 3.0 point to the
specific applications of
social networks and semantically enriched and linked data
which are important for
policy-making. In policy-making vast amount of data are used
for making predictions
and forecasts. This should result in improving the outcomes of
policy-making.
Policy-making is confronted with an increasing complexity and
uncertainty of the
outcomes which results in a need for developing policy models
that are able to deal
with this. To improve the validity of the models policy-makers
are harvesting data to
generate evidence. Furthermore, they are improving their
models to capture complex
phenomena and dealing with uncertainty and limited and
incomplete information.
Despite all these efforts, there remains often uncertainty
concerning the outcomes of
policy interventions. Given the uncertainty, often multiple
scenarios are developed
to show alternative outcomes and impact. A condition for this is

the visualization of
policy alternatives and its impact. Visualization can ensure
involvement of nonexpert
and to communicate alternatives. Furthermore, games can be
used to let people gain
insight in what can happen, given a certain scenario. Games
allow persons to interact
and to experience what happens in the future based on their
interventions.
Policy-makers are often faced with conflicting solutions to
complex problems,
thus making it necessary for them to test out their assumptions,
interventions, and
resolutions. For this reason policy-making organizations
introduce platforms facili-
tating policy-making and citizens engagements and enabling the
processing of large
volumes of data. There are various participative platforms
developed by government
agencies (e.g., De Reuver et al. 2013; Slaviero et al. 2010;
Welch 2012). Platforms
can be viewed as a kind of regulated environment that enable
developers, users, and
others to interact with each other, share data, services, and
applications, enable gov-
ernments to more easily monitor what is happening and
facilitate the development
of innovative solutions (Janssen and Estevez 2013). Platforms
should provide not
only support for complex policy deliberations with citizens but
should also bring to-
gether policy-modelers, developers, policy-makers, and other
stakeholders involved
in policy-making. In this way platforms provide an information-
rich, interactive

[email protected]
1 Introduction to Policy-Making in the Digital Age 3
environment that brings together relevant stakeholders and in
which complex phe-
nomena can be modeled, simulated, visualized, discussed, and
even the playing of
games can be facilitated.
1.2 Complexity and Uncertainty in Policy-Making
Policy-making is driven by the need to solve societal problems
and should result in
interventions to solve these societal problems. Examples of
societal problems are
unemployment, pollution, water quality, safety, criminality,
well-being, health, and
immigration. Policy-making is an ongoing process in which
issues are recognized
as a problem, alternative courses of actions are formulated,
policies are affected,
implemented, executed, and evaluated (Stewart et al. 2007).
Figure 1.1 shows the
typical stages of policy formulation, implementation, execution,
enforcement, and
evaluation. This process should not be viewed as linear as many
interactions are
necessary as well as interactions with all kind of stakeholders.
In policy-making
processes a vast amount of stakeholders are always involved,
which makes policy-
making complex.

Once a societal need is identified, a policy has to be formulated.
Politicians,
members of parliament, executive branches, courts, and interest
groups may be
involved in these formulations. Often contradictory proposals
are made, and the
impact of a proposal is difficult to determine as data is missing,
models cannot
citizen
s
Policy formulation
Policy
implementation
Policy
execution
Policy
enforcement and
evaluation
politicians
Policy-
makers
Administrative
organizations
b
u

sin
esses
Inspection and
enforcement agencies
experts
Fig. 1.1 Overview of policy cycle and stakeholders
[email protected]
4 M. Janssen and M. A. Wimmer
capture the complexity, and the results of policy models are
difficult to interpret and
even might be interpreted in an opposing way. This is further
complicated as some
proposals might be good but cannot be implemented or are too
costly to implement.
There is a large uncertainty concerning the outcomes.
Policy implementation is done by organizations other than those
that formulated
the policy. They often have to interpret the policy and have to
make implemen-
tation decisions. Sometimes IT can block quick implementation
as systems have
to be changed. Although policy-making is the domain of the
government, private
organizations can be involved to some extent, in particular in
the execution of policies.

Once all things are ready and decisions are made, policies need
to be executed.
During the execution small changes are typically made to fine
tune the policy formu-
lation, implementation decisions might be more difficult to
realize, policies might
bring other benefits than intended, execution costs might be
higher and so on. Typ-
ically, execution is continually changing. Evaluation is part of
the policy-making
process as it is necessary to ensure that the policy-execution
solved the initial so-
cietal problem. Policies might become obsolete, might not work,
have unintended
affects (like creating bureaucracy) or might lose its support
among elected officials,
or other alternatives might pop up that are better.
Policy-making is a complex process in which many stakeholders
play a role. In
the various phases of policy-making different actors are
dominant and play a role.
Figure 1.1 shows only some actors that might be involved, and
many of them are not
included in this figure. The involvement of so many actors
results in fragmentation
and often actors are even not aware of the decisions made by
other actors. This makes
it difficult to manage a policy-making process as each actor has
other goals and might
be self-interested.
Public values (PVs) are a way to try to manage complexity and
give some guidance.
Most policies are made to adhere to certain values. Public value
management (PVM)

represents the paradigm of achieving PVs as being the primary
objective (Stoker
2006). PVM refers to the continuous assessment of the actions
performed by public
officials to ensure that these actions result in the creation of PV
(Moore 1995). Public
servants are not only responsible for following the right
procedure, but they also have
to ensure that PVs are realized. For example, civil servants
should ensure that garbage
is collected. The procedure that one a week garbage is collected
is secondary. If it is
necessary to collect garbage more (or less) frequently to ensure
a healthy environment
then this should be done. The role of managers is not only to
ensure that procedures
are followed but they should be custodians of public assets and
maximize a PV.
There exist a wide variety of PVs (Jørgensen and Bozeman
2007). PVs can be
long-lasting or might be driven by contemporary politics. For
example, equal access
is a typical long-lasting value, whereas providing support for
students at universities
is contemporary, as politicians might give more, less, or no
support to students. PVs
differ over times, but also the emphasis on values is different in
the policy-making
cycle as shown in Fig. 1.2. In this figure some of the values
presented by Jørgensen
and Bozeman (2007) are mapped onto the four policy-making
stages. Dependent on
the problem at hand other values might play a role that is not
included in this figure.

[email protected]
1 Introduction to Policy-Making in the Digital Age 5
Policy
formulation
Policy
implementation
Policy
execution
Policy
enforcement
and evaluation
efficiency
efficiency
accountability
transparancy
responsiveness
public interest
will of the people
listening

citizen involvement
evidence-based
protection of
individual rights
accountability
transparancy
evidence-based
equal access
balancing of interests
robust
honesty
fair
timelessness
reliable
flexible
fair
Fig. 1.2 Public values in the policy cycle
Policy is often formulated by politicians in consultation with
experts. In the PVM
paradigm, public administrations aim at creating PVs for society
and citizens. This

suggests a shift from talking about what citizens expect in
creating a PV. In this view
public officials should focus on collaborating and creating a
dialogue with citizens
in order to determine what constitutes a PV.
1.3 Developments
There is an …

Small Group Discussion Grading RubricParticipation for MSNSmal.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Small Group Discussion Grading RubricParticipation for MSNSmal.docx

Similar to Small Group Discussion Grading RubricParticipation for MSNSmal.docx (20)

More from jennifer822

More from jennifer822 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Small Group Discussion Grading RubricParticipation for MSNSmal.docx