The Internet and Political Participation: Exploring the Explanatory Links

http://ejc.sagepub.com/Communication

European Journal of

http://ejc.sagepub.com/content/20/4/435The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0267323105058251

2005 20: 435European Journal of CommunicationRabia Karakaya Polat

The Internet and Political Participation: Exploring the Explanatory Links

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:European Journal of CommunicationAdditional services and information for

http://ejc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ejc.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ejc.sagepub.com/content/20/4/435.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Nov 16, 2005Version of Record >>

at UMKC University Libraries on June 5, 2014ejc.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UMKC University Libraries on June 5, 2014ejc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://ejc.sagepub.com/

http://ejc.sagepub.com/content/20/4/435

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://ejc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://ejc.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://ejc.sagepub.com/content/20/4/435.refs.html

http://ejc.sagepub.com/content/20/4/435.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



The Internet and Pol i t ical Part ic ipat ionExplor ing the Explanatory Links

j Rabia Karakaya Polat

A B S T R A C T

j There is a growing literature exploring the role of the Internet ininfluencing levels and styles of political participation. However, it is notyet clear why the Internet is perceived as a medium that can, at leastpotentially, increase participation. Moreover, putting the emphasis on theInternet as a technology rather than on its information and communicationcapabilities signals a tendency for technological determinism. In order toavoid this, the article explores the relation between the Internet andpolitical participation by examining three different facets of the Internet:the Internet as an information source, as a communication medium and asa virtual public sphere. The main argument of the article is that it is thesefacets of the Internet that may affect levels and styles of politicalparticipation and hence are of interest for political scientists. The articlealso emphasizes the relevance of established theories of participationwithin political science in evaluating the potential role of the Internet foraffecting levels and styles of political participation. j

Key Words communication, information, Internet, politicalparticipation, public sphere

Introduction

The relation between the Internet, political participation and democracyhas been attracting a growing interest among political scientists as wellas communication and media scholars (e.g. Bimber, 1998, 1999; Budge,

Rabia Karakaya Polat is affiliated to the Department of International Relationsat Isık University, Uluslararası Iliskiler, Buyukdere Cad. Maslak, Istanbul,Turkey. [email: [email protected]]

European Journal of Communication Copyright © 2005 SAGE Publications(London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) www.sagepublications.com,Vol 20(4): 435–459. [10.1177/0267323105058251]

435

at UMKC University Libraries on June 5, 2014ejc.sagepub.comDownloaded from


1996; Hacker and van Dijk, 2000; Weare, 2002). Expectations about thelikely role of the Internet centre on the question whether the Internet canbe used to affect levels and styles of political participation. The plethora ofonline political groups and activism certainly signals the potential of theInternet for political engagement. However, any debate about the role ofthe Internet for political participation has to take into consideration thatthe Internet is a multifaceted phenomenon. Therefore, it is necessary toexplore the promises and limitations of the Internet by deconstructingthe medium into its different facets through which political participationcould be enhanced. For the purposes of this article, three facets of theInternet are explored:

• The Internet as an information source;• The Internet as a communication medium; and• The Internet as a virtual public sphere.

There are several advantages of assessing the Internet in this morenuanced way, rather than considering it simply, and monolithically, as the‘latest technology’. First of all, it is possible to benefit from the researchon the role of previous technologies such as printed media and televisionin affecting levels and styles of political participation. Television hasattracted a lot of academic interest due to its potential for contributing toa more informed society and establishing new communication channels(Elgin, 1993; Tichenor et al., 1970). Research on the likely role of theInternet can benefit from this established knowledge on the role oftelevision if we perceive these technologies in terms of their commoninformation and communication capabilities rather than as distincttechnologies. Second, this approach is particularly useful in an era whentechnologies are rapidly converging and changing. Within this con-vergence process, an emphasis on these facets may help in applying thetheoretical framework to potential future technologies as well. Moreover,current debates on electronic democracy arise from the information andcommunication capabilities offered by the Internet. Therefore, anemphasis on these facets, rather than the Internet as the latest technology,helps to avoid technological determinism.

Although political participation has attracted extensive academicinterest (Parry et al., 1992; Verba and Nie, 1972; Verba et al., 1995),surprisingly, research on electronic participation largely ignores this bodyof research and in a sense attempts to reinvent the wheel (note exceptionssuch as Bimber, 1999). In light of the established literature on politicalparticipation, this article avoids over-optimistic speculations about the

E U R O P E A N J O U R N A L O F C O M M U N I C A T I O N 2 0 ( 4 )

436



likely role of the Internet and adopts a more balanced and realistic view.The article aims to discuss the central assumptions concerning theparticipatory potential of the Internet by analysing its three afore-mentioned facets. It contributes to the debate on the relation between theInternet and political participation by providing a framework foranalysing the role of information, communication and the existence of apublic sphere for political participation.

The Internet as an information source

This section examines the assumption that the Internet may potentiallycontribute to increased participation because it enables easier access to ahigh volume of information, thus encouraging a more informed society(Browning, 1996; Rheingold, 1991). However, the linkages between moreinformation and increased participation are not self-evident. This sectionexplores the validity of two different links. First, is there a link betweenthe Internet and increased levels of information? Second, is there a linkbetween increased levels of information and political participation?

Exploring the first link: the Internet and a more informed society

Research shows that the media are the dominant source of politicalinformation (Graber, 1988). Television, radio and print media, and morerecently the Internet, have played a significant role in the disseminationof political information. Unlike the traditional media, the Internetenables dissemination of a high volume of information rapidly andcheaply. It also enables users to send the information to multiple users atno extra cost. Hence, every information consumer is also an informationproducer on the Internet. The question is whether the availability ofpolitical information on the Internet means that people can access andmake use of that information. This article suggests that there are at leastfive limitations to the potential of the Internet to contribute to a moreinformed society.

The first line of criticism derives from the assumption that byincreasing access to and the availability of information, the Internetautomatically leads to a more informed society. The information availableon the Internet needs to be processed by the user in order to have ameaning. Without such processing, information is no more than rawdata. As Noveck (2000: 23) suggests, ‘it is not information per se whichis useful to the democrat but knowledge, information which has beendistilled and contextualised so that it can impart meaning’. People have

K A R A K A Y A P O L A T : I N T E R N E T A N D P O L I T I C A L P A R T I C I P A T I O N

437



the capacity to interpret only a certain amount of information.Improvements in the media do not alter the cognitive limits of thehuman being. In fact, there are suggestions that an excess of informationmay hamper people’s ability to make judgements (Vickers, 1965). PercySmith (1995) also suggests that the availability of information is notenough and may in fact be deleterious to democracy if people are unableto make effective use of the information available. In such situations,individuals may be overwhelmed by the volume of information andbecome dependent on others to evaluate the available information.However, there are also suggestions that information overload can beovercome by developing various coping and filtering habits (Hiltz andTuroff, 1985). Carlson (2003) argues that it is possible to improve theretrieval skills of non-professional users and hence minimize informationoverload.

As a second and related point, although the information availableabout a certain topic is increasing with the aid of the Internet, this is inmost cases a quantitative increase (Bonfadelli, 2002). So, there is anincrease in the amount and sources of information, but the range anddiversity of arguments, or the depth of thematic aspects, remains limitedas a result of media gatekeeping processes. Despite the claims that thereis no owner and that there are no gatekeepers on the Internet (Becker andSlaton, 2000), this is hard to believe. Media conglomerates such as TimeWarner and AOL were quick to shift their focus onto the Internet arenaby merging their power. Search engines also operate systematically tofavour some websites (hence information sources) against others.Although the Internet offers alternative sources of information, manypeople pursue their habits on the Internet. A survey conducted by thePew Research Center in 2004 (Cornfield and Horrigan, 2004) demon-strates that mainstream news sources dominate the online political newsenvironment. The survey shows that the majority of Internet usersreported they went to websites of traditional news organizations such asCNN or the New York Times. As Norris concludes, ‘the Web seems tohave been used more often as a means to access traditional news rather thanas a radical new source of unmediated information and communicationbetween citizens and their elected leaders’ (Norris, 1999: 89; emphasisadded). This again limits the potential of the Internet to offer alternativesources of information and to lead to a better informed society.

The third limitation of the Internet contributing to a moreinformed society derives from its unequal distribution. The Internet ismore likely to benefit those who are already advantaged in terms ofincome, skills and access to political links, all of which are important


438



predictors of participation. A look at regular Internet users demonstratesthat the majority are male,1 relatively young, well educated, with amedium to high income (National Statistics, 2003). There are alsoinequalities related to urban–rural distinctions furthered by the profit-oriented strategies of information technology companies. Since theprovision of Internet access is largely dependent on market forces, theinfrastructure is highly biased in favour of developed areas (OECD,2001). In short, lack of physical access to the Internet is an importantbarrier to a more informed society.

A fourth category of limitations derives from different motivationsin using the Internet. There are various statistics available on thepercentages of people who have access to the Internet (Foley, 2000;National Statistics, 2003). However, there are far fewer studies showingin detail what people actually do when they are online. Are they usingthe Internet for political purposes, or is it mostly for private purposes?According to the Digital Future Report produced by UCLA2 in 2004, themost popular Internet activities are email and instant messaging, generalweb surfing or browsing, reading news, hobby searches, travel informa-tion searches, tracking credit cards and playing games (Digital FutureReport, 2004). The political use of the Internet is likely to growparticularly during election times. However, a survey by Pew (Cornfieldand Horrigan, 2004) conducted during the 2004 presidential elections inthe US demonstrates that even during election time, people are morelikely to use the Internet to check candidate positions or get/send emailwith jokes about the election rather than join political discussion andchat groups or contribute money to a candidate online.

However, the distribution of these choices is not random. Better-educated people are more able to use and interpret specific mediainformation. They also possess more general knowledge on a broaderrange of public affairs topics, which enhances their recognition andacquisition of new information. As Bonfadelli (2002: 67) suggests, ‘mediacampaigns generally reach precisely those least in need of it, namely thealready motivated and informed segments’. Shah et al. (2001) suggestthat the higher the educational background, the more people use theInternet in an instrumental way, and the lower the educationalbackground, the more people seem to use the Internet only forentertainment purposes. Evidence shows that the people who makeextensive use of online political information tend to be the same peoplewho are already strongly interested in politics (Bimber, 1999; Norris,1999). As van Dijk and Hacker (2003) suggest, inequalities in physical


439



access will more or less close. The real danger arises from ‘usage gaps’(van Dijk, 2000a; van Dijk and Hacker, 2003).

At this point, it is useful to benefit from the research on the use oftelevision in order to have some clues about the possible role of theInternet for a more informed citizenry. There have been similar claimsabout printed media, radio and television: that they would enable peopleto access information more easily, which would in turn lead to a moreenlightened people. However, studies on the impact of mass mediasuggest that it has failed to inform the public at large (Tichenor et al.,1970). In fact, comments on the impact of television are varied. On onehand, there are suggestions that television is ‘political participation’senemy number one’ (Gans, 1993) because it has atomized society, it takestoo much time, increases cynicism, undermines civic literacy and so on.On the other hand, it is suggested that television has become the ‘socialbrain’ of society because the majority of people get most of their newsabout their community and world from this medium (Elgin, 1993).Using television as an example does not, however, offer an ultimateanswer about the likely consequences of the Internet in terms of increasedinformation since broadcast television is not a clear analogue to thesocially interactive Internet. However, this comparison underscores thefact that technology alone does not automatically alter levels ofinformation.

The fifth potential limitation derives from the possibility that thenarrowcasting ability of the Internet may lead to social fragmentation. TheInternet offers different sources of information due to its pluraliststructure. It is possible to find information even on the most trivial issues.However, the availability of narrowcasting for different tastes, issues andgroups may lead to people ‘knowing more about less’ (Percy Smith, 1995:22). The selective consumption of information may lead to the reinforce-ment of one’s own (possibly distorted) views, the polarization of differentgroups and a lack of shared knowledge within the community. AsBonfadelli (2002: 73) claims, ‘in comparison to the traditional media, theInternet fosters audience fragmentation and individualised informationseeking; and this could result in an increasing disintegration of individualagendas and the amount of shared knowledge’.

However, recent research carried out by the Pew Internet andAmerican Life Project in collaboration with the University of MichiganSchool of Information (Horrigan et al., 2004) demonstrates that Internetusers have greater overall exposure to political arguments, includingthose that challenge their candidate preferences and their positions onsome key issues. This is significant because it shows that growing use of


440



the Internet is useful for the creation of more informed citizens whencitizens do not use the Internet merely to seek information that reinforcestheir political preferences.

The Internet increases information availability, but this does notalter the cognitive capacity for processing information. As Bimber(1998: 7) suggests, ‘it is not simply the availability of information thatstructures engagement; it is human interest and capacity to understandmany complex issues’. ‘Attention’ is one of the most valuable resources inthe new era and the mere availability of information may not alwaysattract attention (Schultz, 2000). Moreover, the motivation to obtaininformation and to seek different perspectives is also necessary in order forpeople to benefit from the Internet as an information source. In fact, evenbefore the use of the Internet there was abundance of informationavailable through other technologies such as the television, radio and theprint media. Even if the Internet contributes to a more informed society,there is a need to explore whether this affects levels and styles of politicalparticipation. This is analysed next.

Exploring the second link: more information and more participation

Despite all these limitations, the Internet introduces opportunities forincreasing the volume and sources of information. The importantquestion is whether there is any theoretical and empirical base forclaiming that there is a positive association between levels of informationand political participation. People who are more informed about what isgoing on in politics may potentially participate more because they can seethe implications for their lives. However, it is also possible to argue thatthose who are more informed about politics could be more frustrated,which may lead to abstention from participation (Warren, 2002). Forexample, according to the relative deprivation model (Goodin andDryzek, 1980), higher levels of education and affluence lead to increasedexpectations. Citizens have a greater wish to express political demandsand a greater capacity to do so. However, their perception of govern-ments’ competence has decreased. The result is decreasing confidence inthe political system and the belief that it is not worth participating.

Looking into the established theories of political participation doesnot give us much help in exploring the link between information andpolitical participation. Such theories emphasize the role of motivation(e.g. the ‘civic volunteerism model’ of Brady et al., 1995), capacity (e.g.the ‘socioeconomic status model’ of Verba and Nie, 1972) and mobiliza-tion (e.g. the ‘social capital model’ of Putnam et al., 1993, and


441



institutionalist explanations such as Lowndes and Wilson, 2001) inpolitical participation. However, there is limited theoretical or empiricalevidence that suggests a direct link between information and politicalparticipation. One of the most comprehensive studies on politicalparticipation, Verba and Nie (1972), contends that the availability ofinformation about politics does not affect the participation levels of thepublic. On the contrary, there are suggestions that low levels ofinformation may render the electorate more ‘susceptible to emotionalappeals’ and increase their participation in politics (Converse, 1972, citedin Bimber, 1998: 6).

This is not to deny the potential of the Internet for contributing topolitical participation. The Internet potentially provides a fairly closeapproximation to a situation of perfect knowledge in which citizens knowall about policy issues. However, this possibility rests on the assumptionthat people are sufficiently interested to obtain the relevant information.It also assumes that they have the access and necessary skills to interpretthe information. The availability of technology per se is not enough toachieve such a situation. Nevertheless, availability of information that isaccessible to everyone is an important condition for political participa-tion, although it is not always sufficient. As Bimber notes, the centraltheoretical problem with the populist claim about the Internet is the‘absence of a clear link between increases in information and increases inpopular political action’ (Bimber, 1998: 3). The relation betweeninformation and political participation is an important area for moretheoretical and empirical investigation.

The Internet as a communication medium

The Internet is also praised for its ability to make communication easier,cheaper, faster and more convenient. It is argued that the expandedcommunication capacity of the Internet can lead to more frequent acts ofparticipation (Browning, 1996; Rheingold, 1991). It is also argued thatthe Internet may open new channels of communication such as the email,which may again lead to more participation (Groper, 1996). Moreover,the decentralized and pluralist nature of the Internet motivates certaincommunities such as environmentalists, illness support groups and otherissue-based groups to communicate via electronic newsletters, email lists,online chat groups and web boards. This section questions whether theInternet improves and qualitatively changes existing communicationsystems or whether it only creates a quantitative increase stemming fromthe ease and relative cheapness of communicating via the Internet. Two


442



links are explored in this section. First, does the Internet affectcommunication capacity? Second, if it does, how does this affect levelsand styles of political participation?

Exploring the first link: the Internet and communication capacity

The Internet offers convenient, cheap and innovative methods ofcommunication, which are especially attractive especially to certainsegments of the society such as youngsters and those who are house-bound due to disability, illness, age or lack of social skills. It enablescommunication irrespective of proximity, either spatial or temporal.However, in order to understand the potential of the Internet forincreasing communication capacity, it is vital to investigate differenttypes of communication. Political scientists usually ignore this multi-faceted nature of communication. This is a fundamental problem sincethe use of the Internet does not support all communication types equally.Understanding the kinds of communication supported by the Internetwill provide insights concerning the modes of political participation,which can potentially be enhanced. At this point, it is useful to considerWeare’s (2002) typology of communication. He introduces four differentforms of communication and discusses how the Internet could affect eachof them. It is important to understand these different forms ofcommunication, because each of them supports a different model ofdemocracy and a different understanding of political participation. Themost important aspect of the Internet as a communication medium is thefact that it is ‘inherently multidimensional’ (Weare, 2002) unlikeprevious media. For example, the telephone enables a ‘one-to-one’conversation while television and printed media allow ‘one-to-many’broadcasting. The Internet could support these forms as well, but itsdistinctiveness arises from supporting another dimension, which is‘many-to-many’ communication. Based on Weare’s (2002) typology ofcommunication, the following illustrates how the Internet supports fourdifferent forms of communication.

Conversation This is one-to-one dialogue such as face-to-face or telephoneconversation. Internet technology enables people to communicate rapidlyand at their own choice of time via email. The advantage of email is thatunlike telephone there is no need to have a counterpart at the other sideof the communication. Email may be sent whenever desired and there areno restrictions about office hours (asynchronous communication).


443



Information aggregation This is collection, analysis and transmission ofinformation from many people to a single agency. The best examples wouldbe elections, surveys and petitions. The Internet can contribute to thisaspect of communication because it allows online elections, polls andreferendums to be applied more rapidly, frequently and cheaply.

Broadcast This is mostly associated with mass media from one centre tomany, such as newspapers, radio and television. The main contribution ofthe Internet to this form of communication is its decentralized nature.The user is no longer a passive consumer of the information or on thereceiving side of the communication. Due to the decentralized nature,users can also become broadcasters, for example, by establishing theirown websites.

Group dialogue This means interaction among a large number of sendersand receivers. It is the most difficult form of communication because itrequires sustaining large numbers of links and high levels of coordina-tion. Seminars, conference telephone calls, newspaper discussion groupswould be examples. Online discussion groups and chat rooms exemplifythe contribution of the Internet to this type of communication. Thedistinctiveness of this type of communication is that there is commu-nication between many actors instead of a centre determining thesubject matter, time and speed of information and communication (vanDijk, 2000b).

This distinction developed by Weare (2002) shows that not allcommunication forms are affected equally by the Internet. It seems thatthe contribution of the Internet to the first two forms (conversation andinformation aggregation) is more likely to be quantitative than qual-itative. For these forms of communication, the contribution of theInternet resides not in a transformation of the nature of the communica-tion, but in its ability to make communication more convenient.Moreover, it is unlikely that the Internet can replace traditional forms ofcommunication, especially face-to-face interaction. Although the Internetis suggested as a medium to enhance interactivity, there are alsosuggestions that it diminishes the value of dialogue. Putnam (2000), forexample, suggests that virtual or mediated forms of political and socialcommunication are an inadequate substitute for traditional face-to-facesocial networks in local communities. He contends that although theInternet can be a valuable supplement to traditional forms of communica-tion, virtual contact precludes the type of face-to-face signals that buildsocial trust. Wellman et al. (2003) take a more sophisticated approach


444



and compare different societies’ attitudes towards face-to-face commu-nication. They reveal that in Catalonia, Spain, for example, the Internetis used more for acquiring information than for communication. Theirresearch shows that the interaction of physical proximity and face-to-facecontact makes Catalonia a different place from North America, wherepeople use the Internet a lot to communicate with others.

In short, the Internet increases the communication capacity in anunequal way by supporting some forms of communication more thanothers. The next question is how does this affect levels and styles ofpolitical participation?

Exploring the second link: increase in communication capacity and politicalparticipation

The Internet clearly represents a major advance in communicationstechnology. Nevertheless, it does not affect all communication activitiesequally (Weare, 2002). Some communication activities such as one-to-oneand one-to-many types were already well advanced. Evaluating thecommunication potential of the Internet in relation to different modes ofparticipation may provide a better understanding of how the Internet cansupport different modes of political participation. The Internet may bemore useful in the facilitation of certain participation modes than ofothers. For example, van Dijk (2000b) demonstrates that one-sidedparticipation modes, such as writing to officials (contacting) or signingpetitions, are more likely to be taken up online by the public than areparticipation modes that require face-to-face communication, such asattending a political meeting.

The use of the Internet supports traditional modes of participationsuch as voting (e-voting) as well as enhancing modes that have beendifficult/costly to employ such as referendums, polls and surveys(information aggregation). Although the Internet supports informationaggregation (which is crucial for voting and referendum purposes), theexperiments with electronic voting do not show a great leap towardshigher electoral turnout (Oostveen and van den Besselaar, 2004; Norris,2004). The use of the Internet may also support expressive forms ofpolitical participation by enabling individuals to set up their ownwebsites and to broadcast about their political position on certain issues(broadcasting).

However, Weare (2002) sets all these modes of participation asideand invites us to focus on the potential of the Internet for enhancingmany-to-many communication (group dialogue), because it is in this area


445



that the technology promises most. There is in fact a body of researchconcerned with exploring the horizontal communication opportunitiesbetween citizens offered by the Internet (e.g. Dahlberg, 2001; Wilhelm,1998; Wright, 2005). These studies investigate the extent to which theInternet contributes to online political deliberation and discussion. Someof these studies engage with a normative debate on the value of a strongand more deliberative democracy and explore the potential of the newtechnologies to support this model (e.g. Barber, 1984).

Although the Internet’s potential for increasing communicationcapacity is highest in the area of group dialogue, its use for enhancingparticipation modes that are based on group discussion and deliberationis limited. Rather, it seems that the policy actors prefer using the Internetfor ‘information aggregation’ through the employment of online voting,surveys and polls as well as the use of email between the public and therepresentatives.3 As Dahlberg (2001) notes, group dialogue has tocompete with more commercialized and privatized forms of participationthat are less demanding in terms of time and energy commitment. Evenwhen deliberative options for group dialogue are available, most peopleare not interested in participating in them. Dahlberg (2001) takes theUK Citizens Online Democracy initiative as an example that illustratesthat participants overwhelmingly choose direct dialogue with theirrepresentatives rather than having group dialogue with fellow citizens.This may be explained by the fact that the use and design of technologiesdepend on political choices and they cannot be isolated from theproperties of the political system they are embedded within. Since theInternet is employed within a representative/liberal model of democracy,its use is sought to support the institutions of this model such as elections(through e-voting) or contacting the representatives via email. Althoughthe technology is available for experimenting on more deliberativemodels of democracy (through online discussion groups, forums andjuries), this is not as popular as using the Internet for aggregatinginformation from individuals. However, there is still some degree ofbottom-up development in the form of online deliberative forums. Theirpotential and limitations are discussed in the third section, in relation tothe role of the Internet in affecting levels and styles of politicalparticipation by providing a virtual public sphere.

To sum up, the communication capacity of the Internet does notaffect different modes of political participation equally. Although theInternet offers much in support of certain modes of political participa-tion, particularly online group deliberation, it is mainly used for othermodes of participation particularly contacting via email and online


446



registration of individual views through electronic polls and e-voting.However, this is not to ignore some successful exceptions such as theMinnesota e-Democracy Project or the Hansard Society’s DemocracyForum in the UK. There is considerable online discussion particularlyaround clearly defined issues. There are signs that the Internet providesthe means for inexpensive and convenient participation for widelydispersed communities of shared interests and issues (Wellman et al.,2003). The issue-based character of online participation is discussed inrelation to a third facet of the Internet: the virtual public sphere.

The Internet is particularly useful for participation at the globallevel, where distance is a problem for participants. For example, followingthe 2004 elections in the Ukraine, thousands of people all around theworld were invited to sign online petitions against the results of theelections. Electronic participation at the local level, on the other hand,does not always make sense to local political actors since they do not havea big problem with proximity (Karakaya, 2005). Nevertheless, at thelocal level as well, there have been experiments in enhancing politicalparticipation through innovative experiments ranging from ‘a live chatwith your mayor’ in Kadıkoy municipality in Turkey to micro-democracyapplications in the UK (subscribe to receive regular emails or short textmessages about where you live).

The Internet as a tool for political participation is particularly usefulfor certain segments of society such as those who are geographicallydispersed (communities of interests, ethnic diasporas, issue-based com-munities) and those who cannot get about easily (disabled, singlemothers, carers). The Internet also helps people living in rural areas andpeople who prefer communicating electronically. For example, it has beensuggested that the innovative methods of electronic participation mayserve to attract more young people to politics (Coleman and Hall, 2001).In short, the potential of the Internet to enhance communication andpolitical participation is much higher for certain modes of participation(mostly information aggregation such as opinion polls, electronic surveys,contacting elected representatives electronically) and for certain types ofpeople (geographically dispersed, those who share similar interests andconcerns, those who cannot leave their houses easily).

The Internet as a virtual public sphere

So far, the article has been concerned with examining the role ofinformation and communication for affecting the style and volume ofpolitical participation. However, political participation does not take place


447



inside a vacuum. Although the liberal/individualist conceptions of democ-racy consider participation as an individual act, independent from the restof society, participation takes place within a public realm. Moreover,participation is not only about accessing a higher volume of information orexpressing individual views; there must also be the opportunity forpolitical deliberation. Democracy requires the existence of a ‘public sphere’that is independent of governmental and commercial interests and inwhich rational critical debate can take place (Habermas, 1962).

The significance of the public sphere arises from its role in providinga platform for rational critical debate rather than simple registration ofindividual views through information aggregation tools such as opinionpolls or surveys. Such debate may itself be perceived as an act of politicalparticipation. In fact, some scholars attribute great value to politicalparticipation in the form of horizontal political communication betweencitizens (Fishkin et al., 2001). What matters here is how opinions areformed rather than how they are expressed. Such rational critical debatemay also be followed by more formal modes of political participation suchas voting in elections. In both cases, as an end in itself or as a mechanismto support other modes of political participation, the existence of thepublic sphere is a necessary condition for democracy.

The question is, how can the public sphere be extended by the useof the Internet? As a corollary to this question, we can ask whether theInternet can operate as an alternative virtual public sphere. Theproliferation of the Internet introduced a plethora of online issue-basedgroups, most of which are not geographically bound. While it is possibleto suggest that these groups operate within a virtual public sphere asonline communities, many scholars claim that the potential of theInternet to operate as a virtual public sphere is limited (Dahlberg, 2001;Papacharissi, 2002; Wilhelm, 2000). This section explores two causallinks. First, does the Internet extend the public sphere or provide avirtual public sphere? Second, how does this affect levels and styles ofpolitical participation?

Exploring the first link: the Internet and the potential for extending thepublic sphere

The purpose is not to engage in a comprehensive discussion on themeaning and virtues of the public sphere, which has been dealt with bymany scholars (e.g. Calhoun, 1992; Habermas, 1962). Rather, the publicsphere is used here as a concept/metaphor for understanding the potentialof the Internet in extending rational critical debate and enhancing


448



political participation. In order to evaluate the potential of the Internetfor extending the public sphere, it is necessary to clarify the requirementsof a public sphere. For the purposes of this article, we can focus on thethree characteristics of the public sphere developed from Habermas’s(1962) theory and then evaluate the extent to which the Internet extendsthese characteristics.

First, the public sphere has to be equally open to everyone.4

Everyone has to be able to be member of the public sphere and join indeliberations so that a diversity of viewpoints can be ensured. Only inthis way can a fair and representative democratic practice be sustained.Second, within the public sphere a rational accord is reached as a result ofrational critical debate that is free from value judgements. Ideally, thepublic sphere connects people to each other so that they can engage insuch rational critical debate. The public sphere is an arena of communica-tion in which mutuality, solidarity and reciprocity are promoted. Third,the public sphere has to be independent from the intrusion ofgovernment and commercial interests and power.

Evaluating the Internet according to these criteria suggests that theInternet does not offer much for extending the public sphere or providingan alternative virtual public sphere. First of all, the Internet is notuniversally accessible by the public. On the contrary, its use is mostlylimited to people who are already better off in terms of having access torational critical public debate. Moving political discussion to a virtualspace leads to the exclusion of those who have no access to this space.5

Political debate on the Internet is not observable by everyone. Therefore,even if rational critical debate takes place online, it is not publicizedenough. As Papacharissi (2002: 6) suggests, the electronic public sphereis ‘exclusive, elitist and far from ideal’. As such, and without a solidpolicy commitment to provide access to everyone, the Internet is but anillusion of openness and universality. Nevertheless, it should be notedthat information from the virtual sphere might be diffused to other spacesthrough mass media stories and interpersonal communication.6 Accord-ing to Keane (2000) – who rejects the idea of a public sphere – theInternet is an appropriate medium to link differently sized, overlappingand interconnected public spheres.

Second, the Internet lacks the unity and the rational accord that isfundamental for the public sphere. The online discourse is on the wholetoo fragmented and decentralized to form ‘a’ public sphere. Onlinedeliberation appears to take place among like-minded people, whichresults in a fragmentation of cyber-discourse into mutually exclusivecyber-communities (Dahlberg, 2001). Special interest groups attract users


449



who want to focus the discussion on certain topics, providing opportun-ities for specialized discussion with people who have a few things incommon (Papacharissi, 2002: 17). Individuals drift in and out ofdiscussion, which leads to a lack of shared understanding of a particularissue. This fragmentation is exacerbated by the availability of informationin fragmented chunks especially as a result of the narrowcasting feature ofthe Internet.

Third, the Internet is already colonized by commercial interestslargely because of its potential for advertising revenue. There aresuggestions that capitalist patterns of production transform the Internetinto a commercially oriented media that has little to do with thepromotion of social welfare or democratic practice (Papacharissi, 2002).Even when there is no direct control over the content of online discussion,corporately supported websites have to avoid controversial issues andharsh criticisms that may scare away the sponsors. In some cases,governments provide online space for political deliberation amongcitizens.7 Although top-down initiatives may play a significant role inencouraging political participation, such deliberative forums do notcapture Habermas’s vision of rational critical debate independent fromadministrative power.

It seems that the potential of the Internet to extend the publicsphere is limited because of its unequal distribution, highly fragmentedstructure and increasing commercialization. However, there are manyonline communities whose members take part in online political debates.Although they may not form a public sphere, these online communitiesstill operate as platforms on which participants exercise their rights ascitizens and participate in online political deliberation. The next sectionexplores the extent to which these online communities affect levels andstyles of political participation.

Exploring the second link: the Internet as a virtual platform for discussionand political participation

The Internet offers certain opportunities, especially for issue-basedgroups, to come together online. Through these communities, there is apotential for capacity building, getting support and information fromother like-minded people and encouraging further political participation.It is also cheaper and more convenient to organize around onlinecommunities. The Internet offers the opportunity to easily find and gettogether with people with similar concerns. Some argue that anonymitywithin online political discussion may be liberating for some people in


450



articulating their views (Wilhelm, 1998), thereby leading to a moreenlightened exchange of ideas (Papacharissi, 2002). There are alsosuggestions that the Internet enables more enlightened deliberationcompared with face-to-face communication because participants have timeto think (Wilhelm, 1998). Users have time to compose their messagesunlike face-to-face communication in which there is often a need torespond immediately. Hence, online participants have time to reflect, tocraft their views and to arrive at more considered judgements.

Despite all of these virtues of online communities in enhancingpolitical participation, this potential is limited by at least three groupsof constraints. First, online participants are more likely to be peoplewho are already active in political participation. According to Wellmanet al.’s (2001) findings, the most active people online are already activeoffline. Online deliberation may increase the amount of participation,but this does not necessarily enhance the diversity of participationbecause participants are the ‘usual suspects’. As Dahlberg (2001) notes,online deliberation is dominated both quantitatively and qualitativelyby a few people, which is an extension of the inequalities in the offlinesocial world.

Second, as mentioned in the previous section, online politicaldiscourse tends to be too fragmented. Even if participation takes place,this happens around narrow interests and issues rather than in a waysupportive of dense and unifying communication. Online discussionforums are largely homogeneous in the sense that individual messagesadhere to a certain political affiliation, defined as endorsing or supportinga political candidate, platform, issue or ideology (Wilhelm, 1998: 320).Considering that the notion of diversity of ideas is critical to anunderstanding of deliberation, there is not much real deliberation in theseforums. Analysing the extent to which the Internet is used for democraticdeliberation, Wilhelm (1998, 2000) found that although there arehundreds of postings on email groups and online forums, the quantity ofpostings does not guarantee equal participation or vigorous exchange ofopinion. Papacharissi (2004) detected frequent occurrences of angrydebate and conflict that may intimidate participants and discourage themfrom joining in online discussions. She observed that often, onlinecommunication is about venting one’s feelings rather than rational andfocused discourse.

Third, the lack of solid commitment to online communitiescombined with anonymity and the possibility of shifting identitiesnegates the potential of the Internet as a platform for politicalparticipation.8 Because identities on the Internet are fluid and mobile, the


451



conditions that encourage compromise are lacking in the virtual sphere(Poster, 1997). In this sense, online communication lacks the advantagesof face-to-face communication such as feelings of reciprocity and trust.This is not to claim that such feelings are completely missing whencommunicating through the Internet. Research shows that computer-mediated communication is a different form of communication withdifferent interpersonal dynamics (Walther, 1996).

In short, the Internet may provide an additional space for politicaldeliberation, but its role in extending the public sphere is limitedbecause of its fragmented nature, inequalities in access and formation ofgroups around single issues rather than being a dense network thatcross-cuts various issues and identities. Instead of forming a virtualpublic sphere, according to Papacharissi (2004: 280), these onlinegroups form several ‘mini-public spheres’ that are not equally powerful,and serve to articulate diverse collective interests and concerns.Although the potential of the Internet to extend the public sphere islimited, there is still potential for enhancing political participationaround online issue groups. This is in fact in line with recentdevelopments in the levels and style of political participation. Recentresearch shows that although there is a decline in traditional forms ofparticipation such as party membership and voting in elections, peopleare still interested in participating through new forms of participationsuch as protesting around certain ‘issues’ (Pattie et al., 2003). It seemsthat the Internet supports this process of issue-based participation. Froma social shaping of technology perspective (Mackenzie and Wajcman,1999), the use of the Internet is shaped within the parameters of currenttrends in political participation.

However, it should also be noted that by careful ‘designing’ somedrawbacks of online deliberation could be overcome. Dahlberg (2001)notes that Minnesota e-Democracy has been able to shape onlinedeliberation in such a way as to overcome some of the limitationsdiscussed here and thus use the Internet as a virtual public spheremore effectively. He suggests that this was achieved by certainstructures such as the formalization of rules and guidelines, the carefulmanagement of the discussion forum, the development of self-modera-tion and restricting the number of emails sent by each person per day.Wright (2005) also emphasizes the significance of design in onlinedeliberation. He analyses two discussion boards on two local govern-ment websites, which were developed on the assumption that designaffects discussion. While Suffolk County Council’s Graffiti Wall in theUK was left relatively unstructured with no threads, as it was intended


452



to be a free-thinking space, Cumbria County Council’s discussion boardhad a structured threading system designed to focus discussion intospecific policy areas. This points at a need to experiment with differentapplications of online deliberation in order to explore the potential ofthe Internet as a public sphere and to overcome its limitations inenhancing political participation.

Conclusion

This article does not offer an ultimate verdict on the potential of theInternet for enhancing political participation. This would be a veryextensive task, requiring comprehensive theoretical and empiricalresearch. Rather, the purpose has been to investigate the explanatory linksbetween the Internet and political participation by deconstructing theInternet into its three facets. In this way, it has been possible to developa non-deterministic approach that puts the emphasis on the potential ofthe Internet as an information source, a communication medium and avirtual public sphere.

In analysing the Internet as an information source, the article arguesthat with the availability of the Internet, at least potentially, there couldbe an approximation to a situation of perfect knowledge in which citizensknow all about policy issues. However, this assumes that people areinterested enough to obtain that information. It also assumes that theyhave the access and necessary skills to process the information. Moreimportantly, from a political science perspective, even if the Internetcontributes to an informed society, the established scholarship on politicalparticipation does not offer a direct relation between information andparticipation. There is clearly a need for more comprehensive theoreticaland empirical research aimed at understanding the relation betweeninformation and political participation.

In analysing the Internet as a communication medium, the articledemonstrates that the Internet increases the communication capacity inan unequal way by supporting some forms of communication more thanothers. Hence, different modes of political participation are affectedasymmetrically by the use of the Internet. This points to a need for amore sophisticated approach in investigating the relation between thecommunication capacity of the Internet and political participation.Instead of attempting to measure whether the Internet increases thecommunication capacity or not (level of participation), research should


453



investigate what modes of political participation are affected and inwhat ways (style of participation). Moreover, the way the Internet isused for different modes of political participation is not only a technicalissue. Although the Internet offers most in supporting certain modes ofpolitical participation such as online group deliberation, it is mostlyused for other modes of participation, particularly contacting via emailand online registration of individual views. This points at a need toinvestigate the role of the social and political contexts in which the useof the Internet is shaped. The comparison made by Wellman et al.(2003) between Catalonia and North America illustrates the significanceof such contexts.

In analysing the potential of the Internet as a virtual public sphere, thearticle argues that the potential of the Internet to extend the publicsphere is limited because of its unequal distribution, highly fragmentedstructure and increasing commercialization. However, there are manyonline communities whose members take part in online political debates.Although they may not form a public sphere, these online communitiesstill operate as platforms on which participants conduct their rights ascitizens and participate in online political deliberation. Although thepotential of the Internet to extend ‘the’ public sphere is limited, there isstill potential for enhancing political participation around online issuegroups. This is in fact in line with recent developments in the style ofpolitical participation, which largely centres on certain ‘issues’ ratherthan political party loyalties. Moreover, there is a possibility that withappropriate ‘design’, some of the limitations of the Internet as a virtualpublic sphere can be overcome, which may in turn lead to enhancedpolitical participation.

The article has been concerned with exploring the explanatory linksbetween the three facets of the Internet and political participation. It hasargued that established scholarship on political participation represents avaluable resource in this endeavour. It is surprising that research onelectronic participation largely ignores this body of research and in asense attempts to reinvent the wheel. This article cannot offer anextensive review of theories on political participation, but it does, at least,point to such a need and asks how we can benefit from the existingtheories of participation in order to understand the potential of theInternet for enhancing political participation. It is not possible to analysethe role of the Internet without knowing why some people participateand others do not. It may be the case that people do not participatesimply because of matters of convenience such as lack of time or


454



proximity. In that case, the Internet may enhance participation bymaking it easier and more convenient. However, if the lack of politicalparticipation stems from a lack of resources or motivation, the potentialrole of the Internet will become less significant.

Notes

I would like to thank Vivien Lowndes for reading an earlier draft of this article.I would also like to thank anonymous reviewers for their suggestions.

1. Although more recent research shows that the gender gap has been closing.2. The Centre for the Digital Future at the University of California in Los

Angeles, USA.3. A notable exception is the Hansard Society in the UK, which tries to enhance

online public deliberation to support the parliamentary decision-makingprocess.

4. Although this was hardly the case in Habermas’s romanticized view of thepublic sphere, which did not include women or the non-property owningclasses.

5. Here, access is not only perceived as connectivity to the Internet. Digitaldivide includes social and psychological barriers as well as technical ones. Formore on the issue of digital divide, see Bonfadelli (2002) and van Dijk(2000a).

6. I would like to thank the anonymous referee for this point.7. E.g. www.ukonline.gov.uk citizens’ space.8. The counterargument suggests that anonymity in online discussions is

positive for participants (Wilhelm, 1998).

References

Barber, Benjamin (1984) Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. LosAngeles: University of California Press.

Becker, Ted and Christine D. Slaton (2000) The Future of Teledemocracy. Westport,CT: Praeger.

Bimber, Bruce (1998) ‘The Internet and Political Transformation: Populism,Community, and Accelerated Pluralism’; at: polsci.ucsb.edu/faculty/bimber/research/transformation.html (accessed 6 November 2000).

Bimber, Bruce (1999) ‘The Internet and Citizen Communication with Govern-ment: Does the Medium Matter?’, Political Communication 16: 409–28.

Bonfadelli, Heinz (2002) ‘The Internet and Knowledge Gaps: A Theoretical andEmpirical Investigation’, European Journal of Communication 17: 65–84.


455



Brady, Henry E., Sidney Verba and Kay L. Schlozman (1995) ‘Beyond SES: AResource Model of Political Participation’, American Political Science Review89: 271–94.

Browning, Graeme (1996) Electronic Democracy: Using the Internet to InfluenceAmerican Politics. Wilton, CT: Pemberton Press.

Budge, Ian (1996) The New Challenge of Direct Democracy. Cambridge: PolityPress.

Calhoun, Craig (1992) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.

Carlson, Christopher N. (2003) ‘Information Overload, Retrieval Strategies andInternet User Empowerment’, pp. 169–73 in Leslie Haddon (ed.) Proceedingsof The Good, the Bad and the Irrelevant (COST 269) 1(1); at: eprints.rclis.org/archive/00002248/

Coleman, Stephen and Nicola Hall (2001) ‘Spinning on the Web: E-Campaigning and Beyond’, pp. 8–25 in S. Coleman (ed.) 2001: Cyber SpaceOdyssey: The Internet in the UK Election. London: Hansard Society.

Cornfield, Michael and John Horrigan (2004) ‘The Internet and Campaign2004’, Pew Internet and American Life Project. Washington, DC: PewCenter.

Dahlberg, Lincoln (2001) ‘The Internet and Democratic Discourse: Exploringthe Prospects of Online Deliberative Forums for Extending the PublicSphere’, Information, Communication and Society 4: 615–33.

Digital Future Report (2004) Surveying the Digital Future: Ten Years, Ten Trends.Los Angeles: University of California.

Elgin, Duane (1993) ‘Revitalising Democracy through Electronic Town Meet-ings’, Spectrum: The Journal of State Government 66: 6–13.

Fishkin, James S., Robert C. Luskin and Roger Jowell (2001) ‘DeliberativePolling and Public Consultation’, Parliamentary Affairs 53: 657–66.

Foley, P. (2000) Whose Net? Characteristics of Internet Users in the UK, reportsubmitted to the Information Age and Policy Development, Communica-tions and Information Industries Directorate of the Department of Tradeand Industry. Leicester: Leicester Graduate Business School, De MontfortUniversity.

Gans, Curtis (1993) ‘Television: Political Participation’s Enemy Number 1’,Spectrum: The Journal of State Government 66: 26–31.

Goodin, Robert and John Dryzek (1980) ‘Rational Participation: The Politics ofRelative Power’, British Journal of Political Science 10: 273–92.

Graber, Dorris (1988) Processing the News: How People Tame the Information Tide.New York: Longman.

Groper, Richard (1996) ‘Electronic Mail and the Reinvigoration of AmericanDemocracy’, Social Science Computer Review 14: 157–68.

Habermas, Jurgen (1962) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: AnInquiry into a Category of a Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


456



Hacker Kenneth L. and Jan van Dijk (eds) (2000) Digital Democracy: Issues ofTheory and Practice. London: Sage.

Hiltz, Starr Roxanne and Murry Turoff (1985) ‘Structuring Computer MediatedCommunication Systems to Avoid Information Overload’, Communications ofthe ACM 28: 680–9.

Horrigan, John, Kelly Garrett and Paul Resnick (2004) The Internet andDemocratic Debate, Pew Internet and American Life Project. Washington, DC:Pew Research Center.

Karakaya, Rabia (2005) ‘The Internet and Citizen Participation: Exploring theBarriers to Reform in the Context of UK Local Government’, in H.Reynaert, P. Delwit, K. Steyvers and J.B. Pilet (eds) Revolution orRenovation? Reforming Local Politics in Europe. Brugge: Van den Broele.

Keane, John (2000) ‘Structural Transformations of the Public Sphere’, pp. 70-89in Kenneth L. Hacker and Jan van Dijk (eds) Digital Democracy: Issues ofTheory and Practice. London: Sage.

Lowndes, Vivien and David Wilson (2001) ‘Social Capital and Local Governance:Exploring the Institutional Design Variable’, Political Studies 49: 629–47.

Mackenzie, Donald and Judy Wajcman (1999) The Social Shaping of Technology,2nd edn. Buckingham: Open University Press.

National Statistics (2003) Internet Access. London: National Statistics; at:www.statistics.gov.uk

Norris, Pippa (1999) ‘Who Surfs? New Technology, Old Voters and VirtualDemocracy’, pp. 71–98 in E.C. Kamarck and J.S. Nye Jr (eds) Democracy-.com: Governance in a Networked World. Hollis, NH: Hollis Publisher; at;ksghome.harvard.edu/ ~ pnorris/Acrobat/WhoSurfs%20Revi-sed%202001.pdf

Norris, Pippa (2004) ‘E-Voting as the Magic Ballot for European ParliamentaryElections? Evaluating e-Voting in the Light of Experiments in UK LocalElections’, pp. 60–90 in Alexander H. Trechsel and Fernando Mendez (eds)The European Union and E-Voting: Addressing the European Parliament’s InternetVoting Challenge. London: Routledge.

Noveck, B. Simone (2000) ‘Paradoxical Partners: Electronic Communication andElectronic Democracy’, Democratisation 7: 18–35.

OECD (2001) Understanding the Digital Divide. Paris: OECD Publications.Oostveen, Anne Marie and Peter van den Besselaar (2004) ‘Internet Voting

Technologies and Civic Participation: The User’s Perspective’, Javnost – ThePublic 11(1): 61–78.

Papacharissi, Zizi (2002) ‘The Virtual Sphere: The Internet as a Public Sphere’,New Media and Society 4: 9–27.

Papacharissi, Zizi (2004) ‘Democracy Online: Civility, Politeness and theDemocratic Potential of Online Political Discussion Groups’, New Mediaand Society 6: 259–83.

Parry, Geraint, George Moyser and Neil Day (1992) Political Participation andDemocracy in Britain. London: Cambridge University Press.


457



Pattie, Charles, Patrick Seyd and Paul Whiteley (2003) ‘Citizenship and CivicEngagement: Attitudes and Behaviour in Britain’, Political Studies 51:443–68.

Percy Smith, Janie (1995) Digital Democracy: Information and CommunicationTechnologies in Local Politics, Research Report No. 14. London: Commissionfor Local Democracy.

Poster, Mark (1997) ‘Cyberdemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere’, pp.201–18 in D. Porter (ed.) Internet Culture. New York: Routledge.

Putnam, Robert (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of AmericanCommunity. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Putnam, R.D., R. Leonardi and R.Y. Nanetti (1993) Making Democracy Work:Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.

Rheingold, Howard (1991) ‘The Great Equalizer’, Whole Earth Review 71(Summer): p. 6.

Schultz, Tanjev (2000) ‘Mass Media and the Concept of Interactivity: AnExploratory Study of Online Forums and Reader Email’, Media, Culture andSociety 22: 205–21.

Shah, Dhavan V., Nojin Kwak and R. Lance Holbert (2001) ‘ “Connecting” and“Disconnecting” with Civic Life: Patterns of Internet Use and theProduction of Social Capital’, Political Communication 18: 141–62.

Tichenor, P.J., G.A. Donohue and C.N. Olien (1970) ‘Mass Media Flow andDifferential Growth in Knowledge’, Public Opinion Quarterly 34: 159–70.

Van Dijk, J. (2000a) ‘The Widening Information Gap and Policies ofPrevention’, pp. 166–90 in K.L. Hacker and J. van Dijk (eds) DigitalDemocracy: Issues of Theory and Practice. London: Sage.

Van Dijk, Jan (2000b) ‘Models of Democracy and Concepts of Communication’,pp. 30–53 in Kenneth L. Hacker and Jan van Dijk (eds) Digital Democracy:Issues of Theory and Practice. London: Sage.

Van Dijk, Jan and Kenneth Hacker (2003) ‘The Digital Divide as a Complex andDynamic Phenomenon’, Special Issue: Remapping the Digital Divide, TheInformation Society 19: 315–26.

Verba, Sidney and Norman H. Nie (1972) Participation in America: PoliticalDemocracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper and Row.

Verba, Sidney, K.L. Schlozman and H.E. Brady (1995) Voice and Equality: CivicVoluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Vickers, G. (1965) The Art of Judgement: A Study of Policy Making. London:Chapman and Hall.

Walther, Joe (1996) ‘Computer Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Inter-personal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction’, Communication Research 23:3–43.

Warren, Mark E. (2002) ‘What Can Democratic Participation Mean Today?’,Political Theory 30: 677–701.


458



Weare, Christopher (2002) ‘The Internet and Democracy: The Causal Linksbetween Technology and Politics’, International Journal of Public Administra-tion 25: 659–91.

Wellman, Barry, Anabel Quan-Haase, James Witte and Keith Hampton (2001)‘Does the Internet Increase, Decrease, or Supplement Social Capital?’,American Behavioural Scientist 45: 436–55.

Wellman, Barry, Anabel Quan-Haase, Jeffrey Boase, Wenhong Chen et al. (2003)‘The Social Affordances of the Internet for Networked Individualism’, TheJournal of Computer-Mediated Communication 8(3); at: jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue3/wellman.html

Wilhelm, Anthony G. (1998) ‘Virtual Sounding Boards: How Deliberative isOnline Political Discussion?’, Information, Communication, and Society 1:313–38.

Wilhelm, Anthony G. (2000) Democracy in the Digital Age: Challenges to PoliticalLife in Cyberspace. New York: Routledge.

Wright, S. (2005) ‘Design Matters: The Political Efficacy of Government-RunDiscussion Boards’, pp. 80–99 in Sarah Oates, Diana Owen and RachelGibson (eds) Civil Society, Democracy and the Internet: A ComparativePerspective. London: Routledge.


459



Documents

The Internet and Political Participation: Exploring the Explanatory Links