A process for identifying objectives and technological forms in E-democracy initiatives

Association for Information Systems - 12th Americas Conference On Information Systems, AMCIS 2006

Volumn 4, Issue , 2006, Pages 2339-2346

  Sæbø, Øystein ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AGDER   (Norway)

Author keywords

Democracy models; E democracy; Genres of communications; IT artifacts

Indexed keywords

COMPLEX NATURE; E-DEMOCRACY; IT ARTIFACTS; PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS;

INFORMATION THEORY;

INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

EID: 84870194171     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (35)

1. Aidemark, J. (2003). A knowledge perspective on e-democracy. In Electronic Government, Proceedings, Vol. 2739, pp. 319-324.
2. Andersen, K. V., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2005). The First Leg of E-Government Research: Domains and Applications Areas 1998-2003. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 1(4), 26-44.
3. Bellamy, C. (2000). Modelling electronic democracy, Towards democratic discourses for an information age. In J. Hoff, I. Horrocks & P. Tops (Eds.), Democratic governance and new technology, technologically mediated innovations in political practice in Western Europe. London: Routledge.
4. Bellamy, C., & Taylor, J. A. (1998). Governing in the Information Age. Buckingham: Open University Press.
5. Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. (2003). The identity crisis within the is discipline: Defining and communicating the discipline's core properties. Mis Quarterly, 27(2), 183-194.
6. Biasiotti, M. A., & Nannucci, R. (2004). Learning to become an e-citizen: The European and Italian policies. In Knowledge Management in Electronic Government, Proceedings (Vol. 3025, pp. 253-264).
7. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
8. Flak, L., & Rose, J. (2005). Stakeholder Governance: Adapting Stakeholder Theory to the e-Government Field. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 19, 642-665.
9. Gimmler, A. (2001). Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the internet. Philosophy Social Criticism, 27(4), 21-39.
10. Grönlund, Å. (2003). Emerging electronic infrastructures - Exploring democratic components. Social Science Computer Review, 21(1), 55-72.
11. Grönlund, Å. (2004). Introducing e-GOV: History, Definitions and Issues. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 15, 713-729.
12. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
13. Held, D. (1996). Models of Democracy. Oxford: Blackwell.
14. Hoff, J., Löfgren, K., & Torpe, L. (2003). The state we are in: E-democracy in Denmark, Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age (Vol. 8, pp. 49-66): IOS Press.
15. Hoff, J., Tops, P., & Horrocks, I. (2000). Democratic governance and new technology: technologically mediated innovations in political practice in Western Europe. London: Routledge.
16. Honkaranta, A. (2003). From Genres to Content Analysis. University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä.
17. Ihlström, C. (2004). The Evolution of a New(s) Genre. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Göteborg University, Gothenburg.
18. Lively, J. (1975). Democracy. Oxford: Blackwell.
19. Løfgren, K. (2000). Danish political parties and new technology: interactive parties or new shops windows? In J. Hoff, P. Tops & I. Horrocks (Eds.), Democratic governance and new technology: technologically mediated innovations in political practice in Western Europe (pp. 57-71). London: Routledge.
20. Marcella, R., Baxter, G., & Moore, N. (2002). An exploration of the effectiveness for the citizen of Web-based systems of communicating UK parliamentary and devolved assembly information. Journal of Government Information, 29(6), 371-391.
21. Moon, J. Y., & Yang, S. (2003). The Internet as an Agent of Political Change: The case of "Rohsamo" in the South Korean Presidential Campaign of 2002. Paper presented at the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Information Systems.
22. Olsson, T., Sandstrom, H., & Dahlgren, P. (2003). An Information Society for Everyone? Gazette: The International Journal for Communication Studies, 65(4/5), 347-363.
23. Orlikowski, & Iacono. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately seeking the "IT" in IT research - A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 121-134.
24. Päivärinta, T., & Sæbø, Ø. (2005). Being spesific on E-Democracy by explicit identification of democracy models and communication genres. Paper presented at the Fourth International EGOV Conference, Copenhagen.
25. Päivärinta, T., & Sæbø, Ø. (Forthcoming). Models of E-Democracy. Communications of the Association for Information Systems.
26. Ranerup, A. (2000). On-line forums as an arena for political discussions. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1765, 209-223.
27. Rose, J., & Sæbø, Ø. (2005). Democracy Squared: designing on-line political communities to accommodate conflicting interests. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 17(2).
28. Scheufele, D. A., & Nisbet, M. C. (2002). Being a Citizen Online: New Opportunities and Dead Ends. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7(3), 55-75.
29. Schmidtke, O. (1998). Berlin in the Net: prospects for cyberdemocracy from above and below. In R. Tsagarousianou, D. Tambini & C. Bryan (Eds.), Cyberdemocracy, technology, cities and civic networks (pp. 60-83). London: Routledge.
30. Smith, C. (2000). British political parties: continuity and change in the information age. In J. Hoff, P. Tops & I. Horrocks (Eds.), Democratic governance and new technology: technologically mediated innovations in political practice in Western Europe (pp. 71-87). London: Routledge.
31. Steyaert, J. (2000). Local governments online and the role of the resident - Government shop versus electronic community. Social Science Computer Review, 18(1), 3-16.
32. Sæbø, Ø., & Päivärinta, T. (Forthcoming). Defining the "E" in E-Democracy: a genre lens on IT artefacts. Paper presented at the 29th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia, Helsingoer, Denmark.
33. Tops, P., Horrocks, I., & Hoff, J. (2000). Tew technology and democratic renewal: the evidence assessed. In J. Hoff, I. Horrocks & P. Tops (Eds.), Democratic Governance and new technology. London: Routledge.
34. Van Dijk, J. (2000). Models of democracy and concepts of communication. In K. L. Hacker & J. Van Dijk (Eds.), Digital Democracy, Issues of theory and practice. London: Sage publications.
35. Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). Genres of Organizational Communication: A Structurational Approach to Studying Communication and Media. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 299-326.