Rebecca Schild - Engaging Policy Communities Online?
•
1 like•793 views
This document discusses Canada's Digital Economy Consultation, which aimed to engage policy communities online around issues of technology and Canadian democracy. It finds that while new technologies theoretically enable more democratic public participation, the consultation saw participation clustered in "online echo chambers" among like-minded groups, with little networking between different stakeholder layers. Most participants only contributed one message, with a few power users responsible for much of the discussion. The forum design did not facilitate deliberation across diverse viewpoints.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Rebecca Schild - Engaging Policy Communities Online?
Similar to Rebecca Schild - Engaging Policy Communities Online? (20)
More from Danube University Krems, Centre for E-Governance
More from Danube University Krems, Centre for E-Governance (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Rebecca Schild - Engaging Policy Communities Online?
- 1. EngagingPolicy Communities Online? The Case of Canada’s Digital Economy Consultation CEDEM 2011 Rebecca Schild 04schild@utsc.utoronto.ca
- 2. Technology and Canadian Democracy Old Technologies a strong institutionalization or norms around extensive public consultation and balancing public interest (Massey commission (etc), CRTC) New Technologies neoliberal shift occurred and public policy process has become more exclusive/dominated by private sector (CANARIE, IHAC) While policy making around new technologies has historically become less democratic, there is an optimism surrounding the ability of these very same technologies to reinstitute public participation within the policy making process
- 4. Can the internet encourage deliberation among diverse stakeholdersin a policy community?
- 8. Layered-Composition of Policy Community
- 9. Online Echo Chambers of Like-Minded Participants
- 11. 7% contributed 5 or more messages
- 13. Networking Among, not Between Layers!
- 14. Bibliography Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: how social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press. Hargittai, E. "The Digital Reproduction of Inequality." In Social Stratification, edited by David Grusky, 936-944. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2008. Hargittai, E, J Gallo, and M Kane. "Cross-Ideological Discussions among Conservatives and Liberal Bloggers." Public Choice, 2008: 67-86. Krueger, Brian S. "Assessing the Potential of Internet Political Participation." American Politics Research, 2002: 476-498. E. Lawrence, J. Sides, and H. Farrell, “Self-segregation or deliberation? Blog readership, participation, and polarization in American politics,” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 8, 2010, pp. 141–157. Rhodes, R. (2002). Putting People Back into Networks. Australian Journal of Political Science , 399-416.
Editor's Notes
- Cultural vs. industrial goals, commerce vs. public service, market liberalization vs. state intervention democracy has not ranked highly among the priorities of public policy on new ICTs. Instead, policy in this area (has reflected the priority of unfettered technological innovation and growth technologies in ways that maximize their potential as media of industry, commerce, and economic accumulation). Historicaldepartures from the inclusiveness and participatory exercises of exercises such as the Aird and Massey Commissions, and a consistent tendency to respond more readily and decisively to the interests of major commercial and industrial actors (authority to regulate significant matters concerning these technologies to private and powerful economic actors in commercial markets)
- * Dominant presence of industry associations/business community—academic institutions with close ties with industry**the relative influence does not matter so much here because we are interested in seeing how the internet shapes the process, rather than the outcome itself***Trade Associations-23%Business -19%Individuals- 15%Academic Institutions-11%Research Networks/Think Tanks –11%Professional Associations 7%Not for Profit (Research and Advocacy) 5%Not for Profit (Education and Service) 3%Library and Education -4%Public Sector 2%