Örebro Studies in Media and Communication 7
Mikael Norén
Designing for Democracy
End-user Participation in the Construction
of Political ICTs
© Mikael Norén, 2008
Title: Designing for Democracy. End-user Participation
in the Construction of Political ICTs.
Publisher: Örebro universitet 2008
www.oru.se
Editor: Heinz Merten
heinz.merten@oru.se
Printer: Intellecta DocuSys, V Frölunda 2/2008
issn 1651-4785 isbn 978-91-7668-586-0
Abstract
The Internet and related Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have been proposed as a way to vitalise (western) political democracy, currently marked by a decline in traditional forms of participation. Even if the Internet has established itself as a potential source of power and social change, the lack of clear results for democracy has left the initially mainly optimistic research community disappointed. Recognising the general lack of innova-tive ideas and successful examples of how to use technology for democratic purposes in the public sector, this thesis frames the notion of a ‘democratic Internet’ as a design endeavour that involves users of technological applications. The purpose of the thesis is two-fold: 1) to explore the possibility of engaging end-users, citizens and others, in the construction of public sector ICTs; 2) to identify a set of design recommendations for such applications, where promoting democratic participation is a central objective. It employs a qualitative metho-dology, and theories of participatory democracy, republican citizenship, critical theory, and Human-Computer Interaction, applied in a three-part study dealing with the production and usage of public sector ICTs. Three applications are investigated: a decision support system, a municipality’s external web site, and a central government web portal.
Results show that there is a high level of awareness and concern for users and their needs among producers, which is for example refl ected in the regular application of user tests. However, user-oriented design work is not always prioritised in terms of resources, formal knowledge, and expertise. Initiatives to promote usability and user-centred development are typically driven by civil servants rather than political directives. Motives for involving users in design have more to do with gaining acceptance for and improving existing solutions than innovation or democratic participation.
The kinds of applications citizens participating in the study request to enhance political engagement partly coincide with what is offered by the examined public organisations. Still, it is clear that more remains to be done in terms of providing information, and even more so ma-king public institutions open and receptive to the citizenry. Citizens, among other things, ask for accessible information on political institutions and actors, and dialogic uses of technology. Design considerations include the need to account for the fact that citizens-as-users represent diverse needs, recognise that levels of political and technological knowledge vary, enhance opportunities for exchange and mutual learning between citizens and public representatives, and aim for fl exible solutions that can incorporate additional and changing needs over time. In general, participants gave proof of a critical distance to technology as well as an ability to contribute as both innovators and evaluators in a design process. A broad contextual approach to shed light on everyday political and technological practices, as applied in this study, is useful for exploring the needs users have regarding ICTs. However, future research has the task of investigating methods to facilitate creativity as well as citizen representation in public sector design work.
Civil servants and representatives, using a decision support system in municipal planning and decision-making, are largely satisfi ed in terms of operation and structure of the applica-tion. However, timelier data delivery and other types of contents, for example opinion data on citizens, are requested. Wishes of this kind may not be easy to satisfy because of prevailing institutional and organisational priorities. The same is true when it comes to the employment of statistical data in municipal decision-making, which is not always well received by political actors. Design recommendations include taking closer heed of local municipal needs and non-expert users. It is also recommended that initiators and producers of decision support technology promote a pragmatic view of statistical data to increase its acceptance.
Keywords: Internet, Design, Democracy, ICT, World Wide Web, Participation, Citizenship, Critical Theory, Technology, HCI, User-Centred Design, Participatory Design
Acknowledgements
Writing a Ph.D. thesis represents countless hours of work that may be solitary, but that you never could accomplish on your own. I am indebted to the following people, who all have had a part in this work in one way or another:
First of all, I am grateful to my supervisor Stig Arne Nohrstedt for invaluable guidance and support over the years. Many thanks also to assistant supervisor Åke Grönlund. Additional credit goes to Mats Ekström for reading and commenting drafts during important stages of writing, and to the DemocrIT research group, especially Jan Olsson, Joachim Åström and Ulf Buskqvist for inspiration, feedback and advice. I would like to thank Henrik Artman for crucial comments and suggestions at the latter stages of this work.
I am also grateful to Annika Gardhorn and Fredrik Sturzenbecker for their excellent work with the courses in Digital Media Design at Örebro University, and for freeing up valuable time for me to work with this project. Thanks to Ola Westberg for stepping in as a lecturer in my place on such short notice in Fall 2007; and to Åsa Jernudd for good companionship during coffee breaks and late hours of writing. Special thanks to Marinette Fogde for friendship, endorsement, and insightful comments on the manuscript.
My appreciation also goes to other colleagues and personnel at the Department of Humanities, Media and Communications Division, who in different ways have made this thesis possible. Thanks to Christer Lässman and Mats Wendel for their help with matters relating to the troubling (well, sometimes) world of computers. Charlotta Hambre-Knight, Ida Lindberg, and Lisa Johansson deserve extra recognition for providing practical guidance and arrangements.
Finally, I extend my gratitude to family and friends for their support throughout the years. Most of all, thank you Anna for your love, patience and encouragement.
1. INTRODUCTION ...11
Motivations ...13
Origins of the Democratic Internet ... 17
A Participatory Democratic Foundation ... 22
Objectives and Research Questions ... 28
Overview and Disposition ... 29
2. THE FIELD ...31
Research on ICT and Democracy ...31
Summary and Contribution to Research ...47
3. THEORY ...49
3.1 CITIZENSHIP ...49
Participatory Citizenship ...50
3.2 TECHNOLOGY ...56
Technology Drives Social Change ...56
Social Factors Drive Technological Change ... 57
Instrumentalist and Substantivist Notions ...59
The Critical Theory of Technology ...62
The Prospect of Technical Democratisation ... 69
3.3 DESIGN ...73
Human-Computer Interaction: Anthropocentric Design ...74
HCI as a Political Endeavour ... 84
Summary ...87
4. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH ... 89
Qualitative Methods: Merits and Criticism ... 90
The Role of Theory and Forms of Reasoning ... 90
Triangulation of Methods and Perspectives ...91
Empirical Cases ... 92
Analytic Procedure ...103
5. THE PRODUCTION OF POLITICAL ICTs ...109
Introduction ...109
The Municipal Database ...109
The Municipal Website ...113
The Public Portal ...115
Democratic Themes ...117
Discussion ...131
6. CITIZENS, ICT AND DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION...133
Introduction ...133
Setting the Context: Citizens in the Information Society ...134
The Meaning and Consequences of ICT ... 140
Sources of Political Commitment ...157
Ideas about Employing ICT for Political Engagement ...179
Reactions to Contemporary Public Sector ICTs ...186
Discussion ... 202
7. ICT USE IN A MUNICIPAL CONTEXT ... 207
Introduction ... 207
The Role of the MD in Everyday Municipal Work ... 207
Ratios and Comparisons: a Disputed Matter ... 221
The Political and Organisational Meaning of Technology ... 228
Ideas to Facilitate Adoption ...233
Discussion ...237
8. CONCLUSIONS ...245
Objectives Revisited ...245
Foundations of a Democratic Design Approach ...257
Further Research ... 264 Summary ...265 References ...271 Appendix I ... 287 Appendix II ... 290 Appendix III ...293
1. INTRODUCTION
Information and communication technology (ICT) is a significant aspect of everyday life and experience. Just as architecture, roads, electricity, and other infrastructure make up a substantial part of our physical living conditions, ICT artefacts constitute an increasing portion of the material environment. Similarly to how radio, television and newspapers permeate our representational practices, ICT is a growing element of the symbolic milieu that surrounds us. It appears not only as a medium in the traditional sense, but also as a searchable information space, a place of discussion and debate, and a means for handling daily business. Increasingly, ICT saturates society, the ways we interact and communicate, how we relate to ourselves and others.
Although the overall social implications of ICT are likely to be far-reaching, it remains an open question exactly what role this technology is going to play now and in the future, for whom and in what areas (Bakardjieva 2005, Benkler 2006, Kahn & Kellner 2007, May 2002, Sunstein 2006, Tengström 1987, Tengström 1998). The Internet, for example, can be characterised as contested terrain (Castells 2001:137), where different interests interact and compete, and where genres and communicative practices are forming almost before our eyes. Over the years, numerous suggestions have been made regarding the Internet’s potentials, and where its most promising employment lies. One intriguing possibility discussed in academia as well as in the political realm is its use as an instrument of democracy. ‘It has been said, with varying conviction, that the diffusion of the new media, especially the Internet, can transform the now devitalized relationship between political bodies and the citizenry they represent and govern.’ (Bentivegna 2002:50) This is mainly due to its providing of unprecedented opportunities for communication and mediated interaction. Political rhetoric has also asserted technology’s potential to open up politics to greater levels of public input (SOU 2000:1).
The present work is concerned with the idea of using the Internet, and more precisely the World Wide Web, to promote and support democratic leverage and participation in people’s everyday lives. It does so recognising that forms of technology are invested with values during their conception and design (Friedman & Nissenbaum 1997:28ff, McLuhan 2001, Mitcham 1994:188f, Winner 1988), which are expressed, and to some extent modified, in use. In other words, the Internet as such does not come pre-programmed to fulfil a certain function in society – as is sometimes suggested – it has to be moulded into something useful. A Democratic Internet is not a given, lying out there waiting to be discovered; its realisation is a design endeavour. As such, it must be continuously re-evaluated in relation to its users, while society and technology
is changing. To be effective, applications for democracy cannot look just any way. Although this sounds obvious, relatively little has been done in terms of investigating how different types of applications and technical solutions relate to democratic values1.
The aim of this study, therefore, is to explore the relationship between ICT-design and democracy, in order to lay the foundations of what I tentatively call a democratic design approach2. This is done in two ways: 1) by analysing incentives and ideas behind three Swedish public sector websites, their expression in specific design solutions, and how users receive them; and 2) by exploring citizens’ ideas, experiences and opinions about ICT, politics, and political engagement. By political I mean concerning relationships of power between and within formal political institutions and citizens (c.f. Birgersson & Westerståhl 1989:9). The analysis is founded on the
assumption that technological designs with political overtones should be opened up to greater public contribution in their construction. It is a call to examine the meaning of politicising ICT development, founded on its wide-ranging consequences in society, and a participatory democratic ideal (Feenberg 1991, Feenberg 1995, Feenberg 1999, Feenberg 2002, Sclove 1995, Winner 1993). In this work, abstract theory plays a key role in framing and (re)interpreting empirical findings, and in identifying fundamental conditions for ‘democratic design’3 (Danermark et al. 1997:ch. 2-3, 5-6).
Issues pertaining to democracy and technology can of course be studied in numerous ways. This study takes particular interest in how citizens relate to notions of using ICT for political and democratic purposes, and how this knowledge can inform the development of such applications. However, it also considers how ICTs are utilised in a local government context, for example, the extent to which technology is assumed to affect the quality, transparency and legitimacy of decision-making processes, and political work in general. The institutional perspective is also present in two more fundamental ways. Firstly, public and governmental institutions are understood as the context in which technological decisions are made and artefacts produced, thus setting
1 One exception is van Dijk’s broad overview of how Internet-based communication forms relate to democratic ideals (van Dijk 2000a). A more recent example is Sæbo’s investigation of the relationship between genres of online communication and models of democracy (Sæbo 2006).
2 Design refers to the process of handling issues related to giving shape to, manufacturing and using artefacts (Lundequist 1995:60). However, design can also refer to the outcome of such a process, that is, a plan, or an artefact’s physical expression and qualities. I use the term in both senses, and point out which sense is intended when it is not clear from the context. Mitcham makes a similar distinction, where technology is manifested as knowledge, volition, activity (using and making), or object (Mitcham, 1994:ch. 6-10).
3 I am inspired by the Critical Realist School of though as presented in Danermark et al. (1997). The approach is further elaborated in the theoretical and methodological chapters.
the outer boundaries for design work. Secondly, it is a conscious choice to delimit the study to the role played by ICTs within the formal political system (c.f. Hacker & van Dijk 2000a). A civic society perspective on democratic participation and new
technology would indeed be both a worthy and intriguing object of investigation, however it falls outside the scope of this study.
Motivations
The theme of this dissertation should be viewed in the context of a recent period of relative academic and political uncertainty as to whether ICT could make a substantial contribution to democracy in other ways than rendering administrative procedures more efficient. For one thing, scholars have noted that practical examples have typically not lived up to the vivid hopes tied to technology early on. Although problematic, the current waiting game reflects a healthy scepticism emerging in the aftermath of the IT-boom in the late 1990s, when stakes were high and computers connected to the Internet were presented as a generic solution to many of the challenges facing modern societies. While theoretical speculation has so far been extensive, actual attempts to employ ICTs for democratic purposes have been few and far between4. Not least because the public sector has been slow to realise
ICT-democratic policies and practical solutions5 (Ilshammar 2002). In academia, more critically inclined assessments of the Internet-democracy thesis have subsequently appeared (Agre 2002, Barney 2000, Hacker & van Dijk 2000b, Hoff & Storgaard 2005, Loader 2007, Olsson 2002, Olsson & Åström 2006, Saco 2002, Åström 2004). One thing they have in common is the insertion of ICT into a wider context of everyday and political practices, thus avoiding earlier determinist notions of technologies conveniently ‘causing’ democratic reinvigoration (Hoff & Storgaard 2005:37).
A more careful stance is, of course, better than inflated expectations bound to disappoint later on. Too much scepticism, however, can prove counterproductive by prematurely stigmatising ICT and democracy as a non-viable field of inquiry. My impression is that there has long been a lack of innovative ideas about how to put technology to democratic use (Grönlund et al. 2007). Even if the bulk of claims about
4 In terms of ICT-enhanced service provision, the situation is more encouraging.
5 This mainly refers to Swedish context, but is applicable to most developed countries where the question of ICT and democracy has been on the agenda.
ICT and democracy do not appear to have materialised6, it would certainly be
premature to abandon the idea altogether. This is especially true in a Swedish context, where Internet usage is now widespread and the necessary infrastructure is in place. The question is how to move ahead from here.
Already in 2002, Olsson argued that it was time researchers moved beyond theoretical assumptions, and looked into the practices of ICT use and appropriation (Olsson 2002). As I will argue, this is not exclusively about drawing conclusions from existing applications and established practices; clearly this can only take us so far (c.f. above). It is also a matter of exploring new ideas and perspectives, so that those wishing to pursue a democratic agenda can become pro-active and foresighted instead of reactive and laggard (Edge 1995:27). Here, the ideas and opinions of the putative users stand out as an invaluable, although often underutilised resource (Eriksson 2005). There is for example a need to better understand the needs of different groups regarding their use of public sector ICTs. As the title of this dissertation suggests, ICT provides a potential path to facilitate democratic invigoration. My intention is to investigate to what extent this path can be effectively delineated via substantial end-user participation in design work and the development of domain-specific design knowledge.
Design as a Public Concern
Given the widespread assumptions about, and growing overall importance of ICTs, it is quite surprising that their design and implementation is so seldom a matter of public scrutiny and debate. In general, there are few, if any, officially sanctioned forms of participation where public opinion can be taken into account regarding society’s technological choices. Typically, these issues are settled from above, with the details of implementation left to technical expertise to solve (Sclove 1995:9, Winner 1995:65-82). Obviously, this situation is especially problematic when it comes to ‘democratic’ ICTs and public institutions devoted to distributing power and wealth in society. Here, if anywhere, we would expect democratic principles to kick in more often than they appear to do. As computer systems are increasingly used to formalise and render automatic political and administrative procedures, it is reasonable that those who live by them should have an opportunity to influence their implementation (c.f. Dahl 2002, Feenberg 1991, Feenberg 1999, Feenberg 2002, Sclove 1995; Winner 1995). Following
6 I do not deny that partly new democratic practices are already forming with the Internet, not least in civil society (c.f. Dahlberg & Siapera 2007). However, there is room for a more active stance not least when it comes to the use of ICTs in formal politics.
Chadwick (2006), ‘such systems are not neutral’, but ‘shape and constrain the types of behaviour in which it is possible to engage while interacting with government and other citizens online.’ (200) Moreover, as a collective, the public possess a wide repertoire of practical everyday knowledge about ‘what works’, which is difficult for individual professionals and decision makers to represent (Dahl 2002, Sunstein 2006). This provides an important basis for prioritising between different applications. More radically, users can work as a source of innovation, by participating actively and substantially in the design process.
Actually, this argument is less far-fetched than it appears. In Scandinavia, there is a tradition and ongoing trend towards involving users in the implementation and evaluation of public services, such as education and health care (Andersen & Hoff 2001). Proponents see such participation as a training ground for the development of civic virtues. It is assumed that opportunities to make one’s voice heard generate feelings of gratification, or contribute to self-realisation. For the state, increased trust, legitimacy, efficiency and effectiveness of public institutions are desirable outcomes. An essential principle behind the efficiency and effectiveness goals is that organisational operations should be firmly grounded in the needs and wants of their clients, as this lends itself to the realisation of better services and helps balance power between the public and the administration (Dahlberg & Vedung 2001:43-69). Arguments in favour of involvement represent a mixture of (participatory) democratic values and economic rationality. According to Andersen and Hoff (2001), the recently heightened status of the service user follows from the realisation that their ideas are crucial for the
successful and economically sustainable implementation of policies in the welfare state. Attempts at empowering users vis-à-vis public institutions can also been seen as a strategy to compensate for the decline in more traditional forms of political activity (9, 135).
Yet another reason for advocating user input into the design of public sector ICTs is represented by the research field Human-Computer Interaction7 (HCI). HCI in general draws on cognitive psychology, and increasingly also social and ethnographic perspectives to understand the conditions of ICT use (Dourish 2001, Preece et al. 2002). Its overall aim is the development of computer systems well adapted to the needs and wants of their users. A central argument of HCI is that users, not technology
7 Some scholars prefer the term ‘interaction design’ to stress the fact that they are interested in humans’ ability to interact with different kinds of ICTs, not just desktop computers. It also indicates a more specific interest in communication between humans and artefacts.
should take centre stage in system development. In the user-centred design approach, users and practitioners typically interact in order to agree upon desirable solutions (Preece et al. 2002:ch. 9). One important objective is to produce usable systems that support people in solving specific tasks and achieving their goals in given contexts of use. Learning about users’ needs and concerns is considered necessary to obtain this objective (Ottersten & Berndtsson 2002:16). Without usability, we are less likely to end up with technologies that people are willing and able to use. Naturally, higher-level goals, for example a more responsive public administration, will be frustrated as well. A purely economic argument in favour of user involvement resides in ‘getting things right’ from the start.
Although not itself a democratic enterprise, some of the methods and perspectives applied in HCI have a background in such concerns. The participatory design approach (PD), for example, harks back to notions of workplace democracy, and people’s right to influence how new technology affects their professional lives (Ehn 1988). As a non-political approach to design, HCI and usability bear relevance to democracy in the sense of dealing with questions pertaining to access, acceptance and mastery of technology. Insufficient user friendliness8, according to van Dijk, is one of the major obstacles to equal access to the information society (van Dijk 2000b:173f). Still, it was not until relatively recently that user issues have become a taken for granted ingredient in professional web design.
In a Swedish context, the development and maintenance of guiding principles for usable public sector websites is now well underway (Statskontoret 2004, VERVA 2006). While guidelines are one important aspect of democratic web design, they hardly cover all the complexities and nuances of the design process (c.f. Ottersten & Berndtsson 2002:30f). If they are too general, the problem is how to translate
guidelines into practical applications, if too specific, how to prioritise between them in different contexts. In addition, guidelines say little about what forms of technology to develop in the first place. Nor do they guarantee a desirable outcome. Even if there is likely to be great regional and local variation, an interest and concern for user issues appears to be establishing itself in the public sector. From a democratic viewpoint, however, there is a need to better connect the supply and demand sides of the ICT-democracy equation by giving citizens and other user groups a fuller and more active role in the conception of technological applications. The immediate effect is, of course, the bringing of democracy to the design process. Another benefit is increased chances of creating relevant solutions that people are willing and able to use. In a broader
8Usability is the preferred term within the HCI-tradition. The term user friendliness is generally avoided since it lacks an agreed-upon definition.
perspective, extended and systematic participation can contribute to the emergence of design knowledge particularly pertinent to the context of public institutions and democracy (c.f. Barber 1999).
Origins of the Democratic Internet
The idea of connecting the Internet with democracy may seem far from obvious. This section tries to put things into context by critically probing the background of the argument. My aim is to shed light on and position myself in relation to the sometimes problematic assumptions upon which the ICT-democracy argument rests. Part of this discussion continues in the chapter on previous research (chapter 2), where the presumed democratic characteristics of the Internet are presented and criticised.
Technology, Utopia, and Determinism
Utopian visions of technology, among which more vivid accounts of the
ICT-democracy thesis can be included, are nothing new. On the contrary, they seem to go hand-in-hand with technological innovation. New communication forms have
repeatedly been hailed with excessive hopes of progress and liberation. Bleaker pictures have been painted as well. Academic discourse has repeatedly been preoccupied with the destruction of traditional values by technology (e.g. Postman 1996), but in society as a whole, the initial attitude towards new communication media is generally positive (Enlund 2005:79ff, Jensen 1990:94). While few would question the significance of radio, television and telephony for modern societies, their role has turned out to be much more complex and ambiguous than initially believed. More often than not, time has proven overtly optimistic prophecies9 wrong (Tengström 1987:37). Ideas of the transformative capacity of technology draw on a deterministic model, assuming sweeping changes virtually independent of surrounding circumstances, established patterns, and so on. In reality, of course, processes of social and technological change are complex and interrelated (May 2002:13f). More soberly, ICTs are merely the most recent in a series of communication forms that have given birth to visions of
community and participation as well as fragmentation and alienation. ‘The same dreams […] and the same nightmares […] are dreamed each time.’ (Jensen 1990:97).
The roots of our attitudes towards the Internet can be sought in culture, in adherence to certain values, often expressed as recurring themes of progress and
salvation. Not that there is anything wrong with values per se; they define what we deem worthwhile in life as individuals and as members of different communities. According to Tengström (1987), visions of the future are important in that they legitimise decisions and point out possible courses of action; without them we risk become paralysed (19f). The problem occurs when we passively assume that technologies by themselves possess the power to realise our dreams.
The Information Society
It is not very surprising then, that the Internet has spawned a renewed interest in the relationship between technology and society. According to the information society idea, ICTs are the generative mechanism or underlying principle of an emerging society, founded on information and knowledge rather than material goods. In this world, traditional forms of social and economic organisation are being replaced by new ones, with far-reaching consequences for how we live our lives (Lyon 1995, May 2002, Tengström 1987). In many respects, the notion of deploying the Internet for
democratic purposes is situated within this wider complex of ideas. A number of different, but conceptually related interpretations of the information society have been proposed10. May (2002) gives a good summary of the central claims found in the literature: 1) ICTs are paving the way for a social revolution that challenges the material foundation of cultural existence; 2) theoretical knowledge and networking individuals are undermining established power structures, while also forming the basis of a new ‘service economy’; 3) increased access to information and online public spaces changes democratic participation and political accountability by facilitating group coordination and single-issue mobilisation; 4) unrestricted flows of information are weakening the authority of the state and legal institutions (13ff).
From an everyday point of view, it is easy enough to find evidence of society’s growing reliance on knowledge, information and communication networks. While many things remain the same as before, it is not difficult to agree that we are living in a period of rapid change, apparently strongly connected to new technologies. However tempting it may be, there is still no reason to ascribe to ICTs alone such massive transformative powers. Realistically, the Internet is as much an expression as an agent of social change. Otherwise, it would be difficult to explain why new applications are
10 Different authors use designations such as the network-, service-, or knowledge society, and they give different weight to the nature of its impact on established forms of life. However, they agree on the point that the growing reliance on information and communication goods/networks/technologies represents a major shift in the organisation of social, cultural, and economic relations.
constantly being developed to meet various human needs. Neither should we
underestimate the possibility that the very idea of an emerging information society in many ways is an ideological construct, put forward to promote certain economic and hegemonic interests (Enlund 2005:79ff, Tengström 1987:42f).
May criticises the idea of an ‘immanent information society’ on three points, starting with the fundamental claim that what we are witnessing is above all changes in
form, not substance. The essence of social and economic life remains much the same, as
do fundamental power relations (Lyon 1995:60, May 2002:3, 13ff). Even if any distinction between form and content must remain analytic, I broadly agree with this interpretation. However, I do not preclude the possibility that changes in forms of practice can translate into more substantial shifts in a longer time frame. This brings us to the second point in May’s criticism: the notion that current changes are
revolutionary in scope. A more reasonable description is that they have historical roots and are part of a continuum (c.f. Bolter & Grusin 2000). The computer and the Internet as we know them today are the result of a series of inventions and historical ‘accidents’. Information and administrative work did not start with the computer, and so on (May 2002:ch. 2). What I believe might be worth stressing, however, is that technologies, just like influential ideas, can gain a critical momentum whereby they begin to work as catalysts for change. But for this to happen there must be a wide agreement about their value. Or at least there need to be influential groups who promote and begin to rely on them for specific purposes. Finally, May’s critique brings us back to the initial question of technological determinism. As it stands, even some of the most eloquent accounts of the information society thesis, implicitly or explicitly, rely on such assumptions in their argumentation. The associated problems have already been mentioned above. By using Peter Golding’s notion of new technologies as
belonging to the first or second grade, May also suggests that most innovations are likely to enhance existing ways of doing things, rather than revolutionise how we organise social life (Ibid:13f, 151, 153).
Although important work has been accomplished in this tradition in recent years (e.g. Castells 1996, Castells 1997, Castells 1998), the information society idea can hardly be seen as a comprehensive theory of social and technological change. Indeed, Lyon (1995) refers to the concept as ‘problematic’, and as carrying a substantial amount of hidden ideological ballast about how the world is or should be (67ff). Prevailing digital divides are only the tip of the iceberg (Norris 2001). There is every reason to be careful about, and critically scrutinise, ostentatious claims about the relationship between ICT, society and democracy. Even if the Internet is quickly becoming a major social phenomenon, there is no guarantee it will favour some specific purpose, democratic or other. Moreover, initially, it is likely to perform its work on
top of existing structures and practices rather than change them altogether at an instant (van Dijk 1999:24, Pierson 2004:20). This also means that the realisation of a
‘democratic Internet’ requires a conscious and long-term effort, with different actors pulling in the same direction. By recognising that the impact of ICT is a function of its application and appropriation in various contexts, we can arrive at a more realistic assessment of its democratic potential.
Democracy in Crisis
Perhaps the most palpable reason why scholars have taken interest in ICT as a vehicle of political and democratic reinvigoration emanates from the ‘democracy-in-crisis debate’11. The current condition of low, or at least decreasing, voter turnouts, in combination with cynicism, or worse, political indifference among the electorate, has been taken as indications of democracy being in decline. There has been a related concern for a decline in public life, sometimes associated with the media’s inability to sustain meaningful political discourse (Bentivegna 2002:51, Habermas 1988, Hadenius & Weibull 1997:2f, Norris 2000:4ff, Putnam 2001:32-49, Thompson 1995:250f). Phenomena like ownership concentration, commercially driven programming, and the mediatisation of politics have been seen as posing severe threats to its functioning as a ‘fourth estate’, and as an element of the public sphere (Fairclough 1995b:13, Gurevitch & Blumler 1993:30, Habermas 1988:211-228, 247ff, Thompson 1995:137ff).
Empirically speaking, what is at stake is most of all the status of political parties, who seem to be becoming less and less popular as a form of popular mobilisation and engagement. Since the 1970s, they have experienced a steady decline in membership, participation, and identification vis-à-vis the public. Active participation in trade unions and voluntary organisations has diminished as well12 (Dalton & Wattenberg, 2000a, Dalton & Wattenberg 2000b, Andersen & Hoff 2001:257, Åström & Olsson 2006:59). Indeed, the party democratic crisis is not to be taken lightly. Parties
constitute one of the bastions of representative democracy around which participation is organised and formal political institutions are designed. In so far as parties play an important role in representing citizens and structuring political processes, their decline has implications for democracy and political mobilisation as we currently know it (Dalton & Wattenberg, 2000a:5f). Some scholars believe democracy as such to be under threat, while others see the current state of affairs as a transitional period out of
11 Mainly referring to established Western democracies. 12 Again, this mainly refers to Western democracies.
which new forms of participation will eventually materialise (Åström & Olsson 2006:59f). In trying to adapt to the ongoing changes, party organisations have often opted for a more pragmatic view on politics and campaigning. They have become more professional and less ideologically inclined in their attempts to attract an increasingly issue-oriented electorate, and they are keener to learn about citizens’ ideas and demands (Farrell & Webb 2000:123, Scarrow et al. 2000:129, 149). Although on the surface signifying a form of democratisation, such adaptation may prove a double-edged sword, critics argue. Growing focus on candidates, elections and issues rather than political programmes does little to bolster parties’ ideological profile or popular identification (Dalton & Wattenberg 2000a:12f, Dalton & Wattenberg 2000b:270). Parties continue to occupy a prominent position in government (Thies 2000:257). But being less concerned with traditional aspects like the socialisation, mobilisation and representation of the citizenry, they are isolating themselves from significant changes in society (Dalton & Wattenberg 2000b:269f). From this viewpoint, complementary paths of political influence and representation seem desirable.
In Scandinavia, as well as in other places, there is a corresponding trend of non-partisan political protest and single-issue mobilisation, indicating the formation of new participatory modes. On the problematic side, enduring commitments are rarer, and ‘participation is tending to become more particularized, more individualized, or not at all directly related to the input side of the political system.’ (Andersen & Hoff 2001: 257) In the EU, various democratic experiments, often led by scientific expertise, have been initiated to make (local) governments and authorities more responsive to the public. In this context, the Internet has been pointed out as an important vehicle for enhanced opportunities to participate. Examples of concrete applications range from information portals to online citizen panels (e.g. Demos Project 2004, Macintosh et al. 2005).
Regardless of its exact interpretation, the crisis perspective has motivated scholars of different academic backgrounds to look to ICT for possible solutions. As an
institutionally unbound medium, with the capacity for instant ‘interactive’, two-way communication independent of geographic borders, the Internet has been pointed out as a potential ally of democracy. Hopes have been raised that it can be used to breathe new life into the public sphere by providing an arena for deliberation and debate. Similarly, increased access to political information permits improved opportunities for monitoring government activities. Generally speaking, such expectations relate to notions of communication processes freed from the intercession of traditional
journalism and media, new forms of interaction, a more well-informed electorate, and decentralised decision-making (Bentivegna 2002:50, Lyon 1995:63). For governments and public authorities, new technology holds the promise to counteract participatory
deficits signified by the party-democratic crisis, not least by incorporating new channels of popular input. One final explanation of the ICT-democratic idea can be located in a recent upswing in participatory and deliberative ideals of democracy (SOU 2000:1). These forms value civic involvement, learning, and communication as critical components of the democratic process (Barber 1984, Dahl 2002, Dryzek 2000). It is relatively simple to draw a connection between these ideals and the forms of
interaction afforded by the Internet. In this perspective, new technology is one of many possible allies in the never fully completed project of democracy.
My own position in the crisis debate is that democracy appears to be in a state of transition, with traditional forms of engagement in decline, and new ones possibly forming. In this process, it is reasonable to talk about a legitimacy crisis of the state and representative party democracy (Andersen & Hoff 2001). Even if – or precisely because of this – established political institutions and structures are likely to endure for the foreseeable future, it is urgent to investigate how they can become more accessible and responsive to the public. I believe that, properly used, ICTs have an important role to play. As I am concerned with the prospect of enhancing public involvement, the participatory perspective on democracy will be outlined next.
A Participatory Democratic Foundation
Democracy is a broad and multifaceted concept. The basic definition to which I shall adhere is founded on three principles, seen as fundamental in realising the will of the demos (Petersson 1999:13): 1) governance by the people, 2) governance by law, and 3) power to act. Versions of this model have been adopted and practically applied by the Swedish government and parliament (Petersson 2001:5), making it an interesting yardstick for how public institutions in this thesis relate to their constituent parts. As has already been indicated, governance by the people occupies a key position in the present work. It fits nicely onto the notion of design as a public matter (c.f. above), and connects to the participatory theory of democracy. Moreover, it relates to the
empirically established ‘party-crisis of democracy’ and the (normative) call for more receptive public institutions. In Swedish politics, the participatory principle is well established in the notion of decentralised decision-making and the relative independence of local governments13 (Birgersson & Westerståhl 1989:197).
Governance by the people means that political decisions should express the will of the demos. It entails free opinion formation, with citizens as the final instance in
13 Even if there is a tradition and intention to make decisions as close as possible to those most affected, there is of course no guarantee that there will be opportunities for citizens to make their voices heard.
determining which issues should be subject to collective decision-making. An essential component is the existence of public spaces of critical debate and enlightenment. Equally important is access to methods to participate effectively in decision-making processes, so that individuals can exert influence over their lives and society as a whole. The next principle, governance by law, refers to a system where public power is organised and executed in accordance with a set of legal rights and duties. The exercise of public authority requires objectivity, impartiality and accountability vis-à-vis the citizens. Democratic institutions must also possess the necessary resources and practical capability to carry out their decisions, not least the capacity to translate diverse
interests into decisions. Hence the criterion power to act (Petersson, 1999:12f). In the literature, democracy is often described in terms of narrower ideal-typical models that stress different aspects of democratic governance. Participatory democracy, like most contemporary models, accepts the basic notion of representation as a
practical necessity in governing large bodies of people. Most models, conversely, recognise the value of participation. The participatory tradition, however, makes a special point of this principle, stating that the benefits that come with democracy are best supported and appreciated by comparatively high levels of public involvement in government. Conventional forms of political activity, such as voting in elections, are considered insufficient to sustain a vibrant democracy. Promoters of participatory schemes fear that intensified competition for votes, and governments’ increased reliance on expert advice are threatening to reduce popular input in decision-making processes (Terchek 2001:165f). Quite obviously, this situation poses a direct challenge to procedural democracy and representation.
Following participatory theorists, reducing the public’s role in decision-making also nurtures feelings of powerlessness and indifference among the citizenry, causing a vicious circle of apathy and dwindling political interest. The less the opportunity to make one’s voice heard, the less the likelihood of taking an active interest in self-governance. In contrast to liberal and elitist approaches, which regard a degree of apathy as unavoidable, even desirable for social stability, adherents of participatory democracy believe it necessary to deepen and encourage political activity throughout society, for example by expanding it to encompass what is normally seen as non-political contexts such as school, the workplace, and technology (Cunningham 2001:123, 127, Pateman 1970/2003:40, 43, Terchek 2001:165). As should be clear by now, decisions about ICTs can be included here.
Forms of Participation
If democracy resides in participation, it is useful to have a clear view of how involvement relates to formal politics. Strictly speaking, political participation takes place whenever citizens ‘play a part in the process by which political leaders are chosen and/or government policies are shaped and implemented.’ (Birch 2001:104) I shall adhere to this basic definition, but complement it by the shaping of attitudes and understanding necessary for such activities. In a typical model of the political system, it is commonplace to divide the decision-making process into input, output, and feedback stages (Almond et al. 2004:38ff, Birgersson & Westerståhl 1989:10f). Instead of feedback, it is sometimes adequate to speak of evaluation, for example in cases where there are formal procedures for assessing the implementation of decisions. The input stage consists of interest articulation and aggregation, policymaking, policy
implementation and negotiation. From a participatory viewpoint, it is desirable to maximise public influence in all of these activities (Pateman 1970/2003:42), although in the definition I use, output and feedback are important as well. In representative democracies, the most obvious opportunity to become politically active occurs during elections. Other forms, more or less directly related to the input side, can be
summarised as (Birch, 2001:105, Aars 2007:208f):
o Referenda.
o Public hearings and debates.
o Political support and campaigning.
o Membership in parties, organisations, and pressure groups. o Lobbying, demonstrations, civil disobedience and similar activities. o Forms of community action, for example environmental campaigning.
Lying outside decision-making per se, but still fundamental to it, are the ongoing processes of political socialisation, recruitment and communication taking place throughout society. They shape the elemental attitudes, knowledge and relationships among individuals that decide the structure and functioning of the political system over time (Almond et al. 2004:38f). ICTs and communication media in general occupy a prevalent position in this context. Also, recall from earlier that the very act of
participating is also regarded as a key dimension of political socialisation. As we know by now, it is desirable to design public institutions so that they ‘facilitate ongoing civic participation in agenda-setting, deliberation, legislation, and policy implementation.’
(Barber 1984:151) This includes the development of new or currently not widespread participatory modes such as public opinion polls and citizen panels, for example with the aid of ICTs.
In the output phase, government departments and the bureaucracy implement the decisions that have been reached during the policy process (Almond et al. 2004:39, Birgersson & Westerståhl 1989:11f). Output includes laws and regulations, benefits and services (Almond et al. 2004:39). Here too, citizens may exert influence in terms of being asked to choose between alternative solutions to a problem, or to become directly involved in the setup of public services. Crucially, in a participatory polity, the social and political learning that presumedly follows involvement also counts as a type of output (Pateman 1970/2003:42). As we saw earlier, welfare societies are now actively seeking the public’s advice in service development in order to increase their democratic legitimacy. There may for example be explicit schemes aimed at the collection of data about satisfaction with public goods. Even if such do not exist, citizens can try to influence politicians and officials by engaging in any of the activities already described above, including casting their vote differently in the next election. As citizens and other stakeholders react to, or try to change political outcomes, there is continuous feedback from output to input – from implementation to agenda setting, policy and decision-making (Almond et al. 2004:38, Birgersson & Westerståhl 1989:11).
The Merit of Participation
The merit of high levels of participation throughout society is commonly thought to reside on two levels; the political system, and the individual citizen. In the case of the citizen, involvement is believed to be beneficial in its own right. Since Rousseau, it has been argued that active engagement in societal matters brings enjoyment and emotional reward. It breaks14 with feelings of isolation and alienation, and gives a sense of control and political efficacy. Most importantly, participation fosters democratic attitudes, the lifeblood of a democratic polity (Birch 2001:112ff, Pateman 1970/2003:43f). As can be seen, these are essentially the same arguments as the ones put forward by proponents of public involvement in service design (c.f. above). Critics have been quick to point out that people in general, perhaps even most individuals, are not interested in getting involved15 in the first place. Theory should thus be adjusted to line up with reality
14 Or prevents them from occurring. 15 Beyond voting in elections.
(Ibid:107, Ibid:40). Pateman (1980, In: Birch 2001:115) has responded that this represents an unduly static world view, saying more about the unequal distribution of power and other resources in society than of a human predisposition to apathy. Measures to extend participation beyond the already politically active must be taken. Differently stated, democracy has yet to be fully realised (Birch 2001:107f). In the final instance it all boils down to our view of human nature; we either have to agree that most people are destined to be politically inept, or we can argue that certain social and structural arrangements that would maximize engagement are lacking (Cunningham 2001:127, 135f). According to participationists, the most important function of participation is to educate people in the principles and skills of democracy. Hence, an adequate participatory milieu is the locus of democratic action, learning and
sustainability (Pateman 1970/2003:41, Terchek 2001:166). A participatory society and local community, Pateman (1970/2003) argues, puts ordinary citizens in a better position to evaluate political representatives, and to take a stand on important national matters (46).
From the viewpoint of the political system, widespread public commitment helps power holders stay updated on citizens’ needs and attitudes. Furthermore, the
legitimacy of government decisions, as well as the inclination to comply with them are likely to increase insofar as there are viable channels of political influence (Birch 2005:105ff).
Opportunities to get involved not only foster democratic learning and the
acquisition of important civic skills, they are also believed to increase the propensity to participate in other areas (Birch 2001:114, Pateman 1970/2003:41). That is, by making room for democracy in one place, democracy will make room for itself in other places as well. People in general may not possess the same level of insight into particular matters as experts do. But based on their experience of being citizens, parents, workers, teachers, and so on, they own a special kind of everyday knowledge of the effects of political decisions. As was asserted before, this knowledge is difficult, arguably impossible, for individual experts and politicians to fully acquire or represent.
Participationists firmly believe that people have common sense enough, to at least point out policy direction, and when necessary they can learn from experts (Terchek
2001:166). In the last instance, we are talking about autonomy, and the right to exercise control over one’s life and environment (Pateman 1970/2003:41). In fact, this argument is fundamental to democratic reasoning per se (Dahl 2002), and does not require a participatory outlook to make sense.
An investigation of ICT as a potential platform for democratic learning and action raises the interesting question of whether such technologies require a
democratic process in order to create tools that support a democratic outcome? I do not consider it impossible for individual designers, or other experts to come up with technological solutions beneficial to democracy. But I do believe that public
involvement in design dramatically increases the likelihood of creating something that works as intended. Political philosopher John Dewey is very clear on this point: ‘If there is one conclusion to which human experience unmistakably points, it is that democratic ends demand democratic methods for their realization.’ (Dewey 1939, In: Terchek 2001:167) Based on the previous discussion one may further qualify this position by saying that democratic means (ICTs) require a democratic process
(participation) in their construction in order to be effectively supportive of democratic ends.
Criticism of Widespread Participation
Opponents of extensive participation point to the risk of populism as power holders become increasingly sensitive to the sway of public opinion. Another assumed problem is citizens becoming so sympathetically entangled with an insider view of politics that they become less prone to criticise those in power (see further section 3.2). There is also the related fear of non-representative constellations of citizens gaining undue big influence over decision-making (Birch 2001:110f). Although these concerns should be taken seriously, I think there are forceful arguments against them as well. For example, it does not appear to be a democratically sound strategy to counter populism by renouncing public influence. Indeed, the party crisis has shown that forms of populism and vote catching may develop anyway. It is also debatable whether the balancing of competing interests cannot be achieved, or that greater inclusion into political
processes will cloud individuals’ judgement so completely. The criticism that individual citizens are not competent enough to govern themselves has already been addressed above. For the sake of clarity, however, there is an essential distinction to be made between self-determination and co-determination. In self-determination, groups make the decisions themselves. In co-determination, on the other hand, citizens join professionals in decision-making so that their needs and wants are coupled with expertise to produce a viable outcome (Ibid:109ff). The latter is where I stand on the issue. In a representative system, participation is not so much a matter of doing away with expertise and representation, as acknowledging the value of public contribution. Finally, it is probably important to point out that participationism is one possible take on issues pertaining to ICT and democracy. I am furthermore not denying the value of beginning in descriptive, empirically grounded accounts of democratic
practice. With my orientation towards design, however, I am as interested in future possibilities as in current realities.
A Definition of Democratic ICT
After this introductory chapter, it is now possible to attempt a more precise definition of democratic ICT. By democratic ICTs I mean Internet applications supportive of a participatory polity by stimulating and facilitating citizens’ interest, knowledge, and capacity to influence or take active part in decision-making, policy implementation, and choosing representatives. It furthermore refers to artefacts developed through a participatory scheme, where users, most notably citizens, have a clear say in the conceptualisation, design and evaluation of technology. Henceforth, unless otherwise stated, the term democracy is used to indicate its participatory form as outlined above.
Objectives and Research Questions
This study has two objectives: 1) To explore the institutional conditions for user-oriented design work, with a special focus on involving representatives of the citizenry in the development and evaluation of ICTs; 2) To identify a set of design
recommendations for public sector websites aimed at encouraging and facilitating democratic participation, with citizens as a central user or stakeholder group. The significance of the first purpose lies in the notion that the generation of ‘democratic ICTs’ is ultimately dependent on users’ ability and willingness to contribute, as well as the nature of the contexts where public sector technologies are developed.
Design recommendations should be understood in broad terms, as referring to overarching concerns that can function as a starting point for development, rather than detailed prescriptions. My intention is to point out prominent areas of application, pin down important aspects of content production and interaction design. Taken together, they form the foundation of what I tentatively call a ‘democratic design approach’. Using three public sector web applications as an empirical reference, the study sets out to answer the following research questions:
Æ In terms of organisational goals, democratic values and user-oriented design procedures, what are the institutional conditions under which public sector ICTs are developed and introduced?
Æ How do citizens, civil servants and politicians use, value, and give meaning to ICT in general, and public sector ICTs in particular, in their everyday and professional lives?
Æ What needs, possibilities and limitations do initiators, producers and users experience regarding the political employment of ICT?
Æ Given prevailing attitudes, practices, and perspectives tied to ICT and politics, and the ideal of user involvement, what are the prospects of employing technology as a platform to facilitate democratic participation?
These questions are answered in three interrelated studies concerned with: A) the development of public sector ICTs (questions 1, 4); B) citizens’ attitudes and practices of political engagement and ICT usage (questions 2, 3, 4); C) Officials and
representatives’ use of ICTs in planning and decision-making (questions 2, 3). The empirical analysis is guided by a set of theoretical assumptions concerning democracy, technology and design, whose basic features have been outlined above, and will be further developed in the theoretical chapter. Indirectly, I also test the fruitfulness of this approach for understanding the relationship between design and democracy.
Overview and Disposition
So far, the study’s motivations, objectives and theoretical points of departure have been outlined. First, the societal importance of ICT was recognised, along with the notion of applying new technology for democratic purposes. Frustrated expectations, political inertia, and lack of practical initiatives were put forward as explanations of recent academic and political disinterest in the field. The idea of design as a public concern, stressing the democratic right to participate in decisions about technology, was introduced as a possible way forward. A brief background and critique of the
arguments portraying ICT as a phenomenon with utopian implications was given. The importance of adopting a sceptical stance towards such claims was stressed, though without losing sight of the democratic potentials of ICT. I then argued that ongoing social and institutional transformations, summarised as the crisis of (party) democracy, are a good reason to delve deeper into aspects of how new information and
communication technologies relate to political activity. The participatory model was introduced to substantiate the meaning of democracy as applied in this thesis. Finally, the objectives and research questions were presented. A summary of the argument so
far suggests that by carefully considering the needs, wants and abilities of the intended users, most centrally citizens, we can learn more about the potentials of new
technology. This democratically founded knowledge is furthermore practically applicable to help achieve ICTs compatible with, and contributing to democratic principles and values.
In the next chapter, an overview of previous research further contextualises the aims and ambitions of this study. First follow a few reflections about ICT and democracy as a research field, and some broad theoretical themes are discussed. A number of relevant studies are then reviewed, roughly structured according to: 1) research on ICT in an organisational context; 2) ICT usage and user involvement; 3) concrete design solutions. In chapter three, the theoretical-analytic framework applied to the empirical material is described in more detail. The theoretical outlook of the study is constructed from three key positions, theories about: citizenship and
participation, democratisation of technology, and finally Human-Computer Interaction and user-centred design. The idea of the framework is to connect different, but
conceptually related ideas and perspectives that can further our theoretical as well as empirical understanding of ICT, design and democracy. For example, it makes it possible to complement the notion of the user with that of the citizen, and to draw a connection between citizenship, agency and participation in technological design. By and large the chapter is an extension of ideas touched upon more briefly in the introduction. The chapter on method follows, where the methodological approach, empirical cases, and overall design of the study are presented. Issues of validity, reliability, and generalisability are examined. Readers familiar with qualitative methodology, focus groups, semi-structured interviews, and user testing may want to read parts of this chapter casually.
The rest of the book is divided into three chapters, making up the analysis of the empirical material. The first study deals with the conditions of design work in public institutional contexts. Next, citizens’ ideas and opinions about the Internet, politics and public sector websites are explored. In the final study, politicians and civil servants’ experiences and opinions about ICT-supported decision-making are considered. Each chapter is closed by a discussion on findings. In the final chapter, the overall results are presented and discussed, and the research questions are answered. A number of broad design considerations for political ICTs are outlined, forming the cornerstones of a democratic design approach. Some key observations regarding user involvement in the design of public sector ICTs are also discussed. Finally, possible directions for future research are pointed out.
2. THE FIELD
Research on ICT and Democracy
Research and theory formation on ICT and democracy has long been characterised by speculation, fragmentation and incoherence. In 2000, Hacker and van Dijk concluded that a great deal of what had been said about ‘electronic democracy’ so far was ‘loose and atheoretical’ (2000a:1). Two years later, Agre (2002), writing on the role of the Internet in the political process, noted that much research on the Internet’s role in politics is based on deterministic models, leading to unrealistic expectations about the transformative capacity of technology. According to Agre, theoretical models looking for clear-cut evidence of political change due to new technology, also risk missing more subtle processes of appropriation that may account for something significant in the long run.
As a research field, ICT and democracy has attracted researchers from different academic backgrounds and traditions, all with a common interest in technology and democracy. Technological, institutional, social and communicative perspectives have been pursued to shed more light on this matter. Yet, there have been few opportunities (or attempts) to establish a shared agenda and bring together the scattered research community. Consequently, there is a risk of compartmentalisation, with scholars in one tradition unaware of the work being done in another. One way of moving forward is to employ a more integrated approach, where different theoretical and methodological traditions are consciously combined (Olsson & Åström 2006). This work represents an attempt in that direction.
Simplifying, two broad strands of research can be noted. Firstly, the civil society
strand takes interest in the democratic potential of ICT usage among groups and
individuals throughout society. One common research theme is to what extent ICTs challenge or complement established political and institutional structures. At stake is the relationship between technology, the public sphere, and groups’ political use of ICTs in national or international contexts. Secondly, the formal political strand is more concerned with what is currently referred to as Government, Democracy, and e-Participation (e.g. Avdic et al. 2007). Its main concern is how governments use or could use new electronic means of communication to enhance political democracy. The prospect of enhanced participation, service provision, and decision-making procedures is at issue. A further distinction that spans the civic and political levels can be made between macro-oriented studies aiming to understand ICT from an organisational
perspective, and those aiming to explaining it from the bottom up by investigating individuals’ and groups’ use of technology.
Technological Assets as Democratic Assets
As has already been touched upon, the basic notion of ICT as ‘democratic’ has often, rather simplistically, been deduced from a set of general technological properties or potentials, focusing on the facilitation of ‘interactive’, two-way communication. Hence, the criticism of ICT-democracy related research as atheoretical and deterministic. Although different terms have been used to characterise the Internet’s democratic capabilities, the summary below gives a fair representation of the most common claims (Agre 2002:311ff, Bentivegna 2002:50ff, Hacker & van Dijk 2000a:4, Hoff &
Storgaard 2005:36f):
o Integration of horizontal and vertical communication patterns in one medium.
o Circumvention of intermediaries such as the news media, locating more power with citizens or the political system.
o Boundary-crossing and time-space independent forms of communication and interaction that facilitate the circulation of ideas and opinions throughout society.
o Decentralisation and democratisation of common communication resources. o Increased access to large bodies of politically relevant information.
At stake is not whether these hold true or not, but whether it is possible to extrapolate from technology to social outcomes. As stressed by Hoff and Storgaard (2005), technical potentials materialise in specific contexts; there is no guarantee that they will translate into practices or discourses contributing to democratic development of any kind. Writing from a Danish local political perspective, they argue that there is an ongoing struggle between economic and democratic interests in the shaping of
technology. And the outcome is by no means settled to the benefit of the latter. Others have similarly argued that it is time to move past theoretical speculation and dig deeper into everyday ICT use. Currently, this is one of the least researched areas of all. Few have asked fundamental questions about ICT use and appropriation, or dwelt to any greater extent on how and under what circumstances humans interact with computers
and the Internet. One early exception is Olsson’s (Olsson 2002) longitudinal study on why working class families fail to use the Internet as a democratic medium.
Taken together, there are now quite a few examples of theoretically sound work dealing with ICT and democracy. One example especially worth mentioning is research concerned with the deliberative potentials of Internet technology. Researchers in this tradition have often used Jürgen Habermas’s notion of the public sphere and the ‘ideal speech situation’ as theoretical underpinnings for analysing online communication (e.g. Buskqvist 2007, Dahlgren et al. 2006:77ff, Slevin 2000:186ff, Wilhelm 2000). They have been preoccupied with the deliberative qualities of online discussion forums and similar applications (Agre 2002:311), although several of the examples mentioned above have substantially broader concerns than this. When it comes to connecting democracy to issues of design and technology use, very little has been done. In the following, I draw together research from several different areas not necessarily dealing directly with design and participation, but still relevant for the purpose of the study.
Research on ICT in Institutional and Organisational Contexts
Åström (2004) sets out to investigate causes and consequences of how Swedish municipalities use the Internet in the democratic process. Specifically, it looks into municipal responses to new technology and its relationship to politics and institutional change. The study uses questionnaire data to examine leading municipal actors’ attitudes towards new ICT as a democratic medium. Analyses of policy documents are made to capture municipalities’ views on the connection between technology and politics, along with a case study on three pioneering municipalities’ work with ICT. Finally, Åström analyses the functional qualities of Swedish municipal websites to reveal how democratic ideals and possibilities are expressed through design.The conclusions indicate that there is great variation between the least and the most innovative municipalities. Typically, the web is used for incremental
modernisation of prevailing practices rather than reform. In general, politicians’ attitudes, opinions and policy decisions leave few imprints on technological practice. Political representatives are little engaged in ICT-related work, and their values and opinions play only a limited role in development. A similar tendency is recognisable in policy documents; political goals are vaguely formulated, and do not take the outcome of concrete technological solutions into consideration. Consequently, municipal ICTs tend to live a life of their own, separate from systematic political control. Åström notes that municipal discourses on technology as a lever for institutional change are
primarily a rhetorical device and marker of modernity to create positive publicity. ICT policies are thus rather symbolic statements than control instruments, which is why
