How to Identify Objectives and Genres in E-Democracy Projects: Learning from an Action Case Study

  • Øystein Sæbø
Conference paper

An increased number of public organisations engage in E-Democracy projects to improve their capability to communicate on democratic issues. Such efforts are complex due to lack of knowledge on how to develop information technology solutions to support the complex nature of the electronic communication taking place. In this paper a process is proposed, identifying objectives and genres in E-Democracy projects. The process addresses two major problems identified from the E-Democracy literature and a case study. Firstly, the purposes of E-Democracy projects are often unclear and somewhat naïvely understood. Secondly, it seemed difficult to enact technology to achieve the identified objectives. This paper first describes the suggested process and then focus on experiences from an action case study. The opportunity to link main ideas (phase 1) and genres (phase 2) showed importance in the discussion about what to develop in the action case project. Introducing E-Democracy models simplified a comparison between alternatives and initiated a discussion on the objectives before focusing directly on technology, which is found to be a weakness in other E-Democracy projects.


Discussion Forum Liberal Democracy Direct Democracy Deliberative Democracy Technological Form 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Braa, K. (1995). Beyond Formal Quality in Information Systems Design, UiO, Oslo.Google Scholar
  3. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Grönlund, Å. (2003). Emerging electronic infrastructures - Exploring democratic components. Social Science Computer Review, 21(1), 55-72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Held, D. (1996). Models of Democracy. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Ihlström, C. (2004). The Evolution of a New(s) Genre. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Göteborg University, Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  8. Lively, J. (1975). Democracy. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Olsson, T., Sandstrom, H., & Dahlgren, P. (2003). An Information Society for Everyone? Gazette: The International Journal for Communication Studies, 65 (4-5), 347-363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Päivärinta, T., & Sæbø, Ø. (2006). Models of E-Democracy. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 17, 818-840.Google Scholar
  12. Ranerup, A. (2000). On-line forums as an arena for political discussions. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1765, 209-223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rose, J., & Sæbø, Ø. (2005). Democracy Squared: designing on-line political communities to accommodate conflicting interests. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 17(2).Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Sæbø, Ø. (2006). A process for identifying objectives and technological forms in E-Democracy initiatives. Paper presented at the 12th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Acapulco, Mexico.Google Scholar
  17. Sæbø, Ø., & Päivärinta, T. (2006). 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Øystein Sæbø
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information Systems, School of ManagementAgder University CollegeNorway

Personalised recommendations