How parliaments engage with citizens? Online public engagement: a comparative analysis of Parliamentary websites

ABSTRACT

This article explores how parliaments in Europe are adopting digital media to promote public engagement with citizens. Drawing on a meta-analysis of previous similar studies and a content analysis of parliamentary websites, the article concludes that parliaments are selective in their public engagement activities, are still mainly using ICT to report parliamentary business, and are timidly embracing the opportunities brought on by ICT to actively engage citizens. Two innovative mechanisms found in the analysis are discussed in detail: cases of online discussion forums and digital debates on social media and cases of crowdsourcing platforms that integrate citizens’ views into the law-making process.

KEYWORDS:

• Parliaments
• public engagement
• digital media
• internet
• Europe

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The use of ICTs by representatives is now well documented; however, since this does not constitute the focus of this article, please see Coleman (2001) and (Tenscher, 2014) for a report on this scholarship.

2 For more details, see supplementary table S1, S2, and S3 in the supplementary material file.

3 For instance, the provision of online surveys and opinion polls were classified by some scholars as ‘communication’ or ‘interactivity/interaction’ (Norris, 2001; Setälä & Grönlund, 2006; and Leston-Bandeira, 2016). However, although they are interactive, online surveys and polls should be classified as consultation and participation tools, as they offer effective opportunities to consult and hear people’s voices, distinguishing them from other communication tools.

4 See Supplementary Table S4 for more details.

5 There are other methods and indices, such as the Holsti’s Method, Scott’s Pi (π), and Cohen’s Kappa (κ). For a review, see Lombard et al., 2002.

6 See Supplementary Table S4 for more details.

7 For the remaining indices: information index=0.551; communication and interaction index=0.581; and consultation and participation index=0.597 These values were satisfactory, given the selection of the individual variables and their inclusion on the major dimensions was previously validated by the qualitative meta-analysis, and the KR-20 alphas were not so distant from the ideal cut-off.

8 Curiously, all parliaments provide e-mail addresses to contact MPs individually, while only half have chosen to include parliamentary groups’ e-mail addresses.

9 The lack of investment in online discussion forums pictured in the analysis might unintentionally uncover a more complex reality. Evidence indicates that some parliaments have tried to operate online forums in the past. In some cases they still advertise these on their websites, but all entries date back several years, which means that these tools are currently inactive.

10 The tool is called the ‘extended assessment procedure’ and was created by the Resolution of the National Council of 16 May 2017 (200/E). The assessment procedure for a bill usually takes place before the bill is introduced in the National Council.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia: [Grant Number SFRH / BD / 100039].

Notes on contributors

Sofia Serra-Silva

Sofia Serra-Silva is a Post-Doctoral researcher at ICS, University of Lisbon.