The prospects of E-democracy: an experimental study of collaborative E-rulemaking

References

• Aitamurto, T., & Chen, K. (2017). The value of crowdsourcing in public policymaking: Epistemic, democratic and economic value. The Theory and Practice of Legislation, 5(1), 55–72. doi:10.1080/20508840.2017.1282665
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Gazit, T., Bar-Ilan, J., Perez, O., Aharony, N., Bronstein, J., & Sarah Dyne, T. (2016). Psychological factors behind the lack of participation in online discussions. Computers in Human Behavior, 55(Part A), 268–277. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.009
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, D. M., & Edwards, B. C. (2015). Unfulfilled promise: Laboratory experiments in public management research. Public Management Review, 17(10), 1518–1542. doi:10.1080/14719037.2014.943272
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balliet, D., Parks, C., & Joireman, J. (2009). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(4), 533–547. doi:10.1177/1368430209105040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benkler, Y., Roberts, H., Faris, R., Solow-Niederman, A., & Etling, B. (2015). Social mobilization and the networked public sphere: Mapping the sopa-pipa debate. Political Communication, 32(4), 594–624. doi:10.1080/10584609.2014.986349
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogaert, S., Boone, C., & Declerck, C. (2008). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A review and conceptual model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(3), 453–480. doi:10.1348/014466607X244970
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandsma, G. (2013). Controlling comitology: Accountability in a multi-level system. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J., & Kelshaw, T. (2002). A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face-to-Face groups. Communication Theory, 12(4), 398–422. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00276.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chadwick, A. (2009). Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of e-democracy in an era of informational exuberance. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 5(1), 9–41.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. G. (2009). The internet and democratic citizenship: Theory, practice and policy (Vol. 1). Cambridge Univ Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2008). A systemic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge building with wikis. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 105–122. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9035-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dinour, L. M., & Pole, A. (0000). Potato chips, cookies, and candy oh my! Public commentary on proposed rules regulating competitive foods. Health Education & Behavior, 1090198117699509. doi:10.1177/1090198117699509
   Google Scholar
• Epstein, D., Farina, C., & Heidt, J. (2014). The value of words: Narrative as evidence in policy making. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 10(2), 243–258. doi:10.1332/174426514X13990325021128
   Google Scholar
• Epstein, D., & Leshed, G. (2016). The magic sauce: Practices of facilitation in online policy deliberation. Journal of Public Deliberation, 12(1).
   Google Scholar
• Farber, D. A., & O’Connell, A. J. (2014). The lost world of administrative law. Texas Law Reviews, 92, 1137–2211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farina, C. R., Epstein, D., Heidt, J. B., & Newhart, M. J. (2013). Regulation room: Getting “more, better” civic participation in complex government policymaking. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 7(4), 501–516. doi:10.1108/TG-02-2013-0005
   Google Scholar
• Farina, C. R., Newhart, M. J., & Heidt, J. (2013). Rulemaking vs. democracy: Judging and nudging public participation that counts. Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law, 2(1), 124.
   Google Scholar
• Fishkin, J. (2009). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, T., Wright, S., Cantijoch, M., Gibson, R., & Ward, S. (2014). Analysing ‘super-participation’ in online third spaces. In Analyzing social media data and web networks (pp. 197–215).
   Google Scholar
• Graham, T., Wright, S., Cantijoch, M., Gibson, R., & Ward, S. (2014). Analysing ‘super-participation’in online third spaces. In Analyzing social media data and web networks (pp. 197–215).
   Google Scholar
• Halfaker, A., Keyes, O., & Taraborelli, D. (2013). Making peripheral participation legitimate: Reader engagement experiments in Wikipedia. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Heikka, T. (2015). The rise of the mediating citizen: Time, space, and citizenship in the crowdsourcing of Finnish legislation. Policy & Internet, 7(3), 268–291. doi:10.1002/poi3.98
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herz, M. (2016). E-rulemaking’s democratic transformation: Anticipated, actual, and potential. Revue Internationale Des Gouvernements Ouverts, 3, 195–208.
   Google Scholar
• Himmelroos, S., & Christensen, H. S. (2014). Deliberation and opinion change: Evidence from a deliberative mini-public in Finland. Scandinavian Political Studies, 37(1), 41–60. doi:10.1111/1467-9477.12013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu, S. H., Chang, J.-W., & Lee, C.-C. (2013). Designing attractive gamification features for collaborative storytelling websites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(6), 428–435. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0492
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iaione, C. (2016). The co-city: Sharing, collaborating, cooperating, and commoning in the city. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 75(2), 415–455. doi:10.1111/ajes.12145
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joireman, J. A., Lasane, T. P., Bennett, J., Richards, D., & Solaimani, S. (2001). Integrating social value orientation and the consideration of future consequences within the extended norm activation model of proenvironmental behaviour. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 133. doi:10.1348/014466601164731
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, G. D. (2010). Electronic rulemaking in the new age of openness: Proposing a voluntary two-tier registration system for regulations. Gov. Administrative Law Review, 62, 1261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jørgensen, R. F. (2006). Human rights in the global information society. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Karpowitz, C., & Mendelberg, T. (2011). An experimental approach to citizen deliberation. In Cambridge handbook of experimental political science (pp. 258–272).
   Google Scholar
• Karpowitz, C., Mendelberg, T., & Shaker, L. E. E. (2012). Gender inequality in deliberative participation. The American Political Science Review, 106(3), 533–547. doi:10.1017/S0003055412000329
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenny, D. A., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Livi, S., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). The statistical analysis of data from small groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 126–137. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.126
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimbro, S. L. (2015). Increasing online engagement between the public and the legal profession with gamification. Available at SSRN 2586150.
   Google Scholar
• Kleinschmit, D., Pülzl, H., Secco, L., Sergent, A., & Wallin, I. (2018). Orchestration in political processes: Involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in forest policy making. Forest Policy and Economics, 89, 4–15. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2017.12.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klemp, N. J., & Forcehimes, A. T. (2010). From town-halls to wikis: Exploring Wikipedia’s implications for deliberative democracy. Journal of Public Deliberation, 6(2), Article 4.
   Google Scholar
• Knight, J., & Johnson, J. (1994). Aggregation and deliberation: On the possibility of democratic legitimacy. Political Theory, 22, 277–296. doi:10.1177/0090591794022002004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kraut, R. E., Resnick, P., Kiesler, S., Burke, M., Chen, Y., Kittur, N., & Riedl, J. (2012). Building successful online communities: Evidence-based social design. Mit Press, Kraut, Boston.
   Google Scholar
• Kube, M., Hilgers, D., Koch, G., & Füller, J. (2015). Explaining voluntary citizen online participation using the concept of citizenship: An explanatory study on an open government platform. [journal article]. Journal of Business Economics, 85(8), 873–895. doi:10.1007/s11573-014-0756-y
   Google Scholar
• Linders, D., & Wilson, S. C. (2011). What is open government?: One year after the directive. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, College Park, Maryland.
   Google Scholar
• Lindner, R., & Riehm, U. (2011). Broadening participation through e-petitions? An empirical study of petitions to the German parliament. Policy & Internet, 3(1), 63–85. doi:10.2202/1944-2866.1083
   Google Scholar
• Lockwood, C. D. (2014). Creating ambiguity in the void for vagueness doctrine by avoiding a vagueness determination in review of federal laws. Syracuse Law Review, 65, 395.
   Google Scholar
• Lodge, M., & Wegrich, K. (2014). Crowdsourcing and regulatory reviews: A new way of challenging red tape in British government? Regulation & Governance, n/a-n/a. doi:10.1111/rego.12048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malinen, S. (2015). Understanding user participation in online communities: A systematic literature review of empirical studies. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 228–238. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margetts, H. Z. (2011). Experiments for public management research. Public Management Review, 13(2), 189–208. doi:10.1080/14719037.2010.532970
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCluskey, M., & Hmielowski, J. (2012). Opinion expression during social conflict: Comparing online reader comments and letters to the editor. Journalism, 13(3), 303–319. doi:10.1177/1464884911421696
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendelson, N. A. (2012). Should mass comments count. The Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law, 2, 173.
   Google Scholar
• Michael, G. J. (2014). Politics and rulemaking at the copyright office. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 11(1), 64–81. doi:10.1080/19331681.2013.872073
   Google Scholar
• Moss, G., & Coleman, S. (2013). Deliberative manoeuvres in the digital darkness: E-democracy policy in the UK. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, n/a-n/a. doi:10.1111/1467-856x.12004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moss, G., & Coleman, S. (2014). Deliberative manoeuvres in the digital darkness: E-democracy policy in the UK. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 16(3), 410–427. doi:10.1111/1467-856X.12004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mucciaroni, G., & Quirk, P. J. (2006). Deliberative choices: Debating public policy in congress. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Mucciaroni, G., & Quirk, P. J. (2010). Rhetoric and reality: Going beyond discourse ethics in assessing legislative deliberation. Legisprudence, 4(1), 35–52. doi:10.1080/17521467.2010.11424700
   Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C. (2008). Is deliberative democracy a falsifiable theory? Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 521–538. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.081306.070308
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noveck, B. S. (2009). Wiki government: How technology can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. New York: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Obar, J. A. (2016). Net neutrality| Closing the technocratic divide? Activist intermediaries, digital form letters, and public involvement in FCC policy making. International Journal of Communication, 10, 24.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, K. R., & Chao, J. T. (2007). Wiki as a teaching tool. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 57.
   Google Scholar
• Peddibhotla, N. B., & Subramani, M. R. (2007). Contributing to public document repositories: A critical mass theory perspective. Organization Studies, 28(3), 327–346. doi:10.1177/0170840607076002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perez, O. (2013). Open government, technological innovation and the politics of democratic disillusionment: (e-)democracy from Socrates to Obama. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 9(1), 61–138.
   Google Scholar
• Perez, O. (2015). Fuzzy law: A theory of quasi-legal systems. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 28(02), 343–370. doi:10.1017/cjlj.2015.31
   Google Scholar
• Phang, C. W., Kankanhalli, A., & Huang, L. (2014). Drivers of quantity and quality of participation in online policy deliberation forums. Journal of Management Information Systems, 31(3), 172–212. doi:10.1080/07421222.2014.995549
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top five reasons for lurking: Improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(2), 201–223. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rauch, D. E. (2016). Two-track e-commenting. Yale Journal on Regulation, 33, 303.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raynes-Goldie, K., & Fono, D. (2009). Wiki collaboration within political parties: Benefits and challenges. Edited by Todd Davies and Seeta Pena Gangadharan, Chicago Uni Press, Chicago. In Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice (pp. 203–205).
   Google Scholar
• Rowe, I. (2014). Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 121–138. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.940365
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Royo, S., Yetano, A., & Acerete, B. (2014). E‐participation and environmental protection: Are local governments really committed? Public Administration Review, 74(1), 87–98. doi:10.1111/puar.12156
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sally, E. (1996). Public participation in environmental policy: Considering scientific, counter-scientific and non-scientific contributions. Public Understanding of Science, 5(3), 183–204. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/5/3/001
   Google Scholar
• Santana, A. D. (2013). Virtuous or vitriolic. Journalism Practice, 8(1), 18–33. doi:10.1080/17512786.2013.813194
   Google Scholar
• Shane, P. M. (2010). Empowering the collaborative citizen in the administrative state: A case study of the federal communications commission. University of Miami Student Reviews, 65, 483.
   Google Scholar
• Shkabatur, J. (2011). Cities@ crossroads: Digital technology and local democracy in America. Brooklyn Law Review, 76(4), 1413.
   Google Scholar
• Shulman, S. W. (2009). The case against mass e-mails: Perverse incentives and low quality public participation in U.S. Federal rulemaking. Policy & Internet, 1, 23–53. doi:10.2202/1944-2866.1010
   Google Scholar
• Smith, E. S., & Bressler, A. (2013). Who taught you to talk like that?: The university and online political discourse. Journal of Political Science Education, 9(4), 453–473. doi:10.1080/15512169.2013.835565
   Google Scholar
• Smith, G., John, P., & Sturgis, P. (2013). Taking political engagement online: An experimental analysis of asynchronous discussion forums. Political Studies, 61(4), 709–730. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00989.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steibel, F., & Estevez, E. (2015). Designing web 2.0 tools for online public consultation. In A. Chib, J. May, & R. Barrantes (Eds.), Impact of information society research in the global south (pp. 243–263). Singapore: Springer Singapore.
   Google Scholar
• Strandberg, K. (2015). Designing for democracy? An experimental study comparing the outcomes of citizen discussions in online forums with those of online discussions in a forum designed according to deliberative principles. European Political Science Review, 7(03), 451–474. doi:10.1017/S1755773914000265
   Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, J., Webb, N., & Muhlberger, P. (2012). Deliberative e-rulemaking project: Challenges to enacting real world deliberation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(1), 82–96. doi:10.1080/19331681.2012.635971
   Google Scholar
• Sun, N., Rau, P. P.-L., & Ma, L. (2014). Understanding lurkers in online communities: A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 110–117. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sütterlin, B., Brunner, T. A., & Siegrist, M. (2013). Impact of social value orientation on energy conservation in different behavioral domains. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(8), 1725–1735. doi:10.1111/jasp.12128
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Towne, W. B., & Herbsleb, J. D. (2012). Design considerations for online deliberation systems. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(1), 97–115. doi:10.1080/19331681.2011.637711
   Google Scholar
• Van Lange, P., Bekkers, R., Chirumbolo, A., & Leone, L. (2012). Are conservatives less likely to be prosocial than liberals? From games to ideology, political preferences and voting. European Journal of Personality, 26(5), 461–473. doi:10.1002/per.v26.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Lange, P., De Bruin, E., Otten, W., & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 733. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.733
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Lange, P., Schippers, M., & Balliet, D. (2011). Who volunteers in psychology experiments? An empirical review of prosocial motivation in volunteering. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(3), 279–284. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Lange, P. A. M., Klapwijk, A., & Van Munster, L. M. (2011). How the shadow of the future might promote cooperation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(6), 857–870. doi:10.1177/1368430211402102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Mierlo, T. (2014). The 1% rule in four digital health social networks: An observational study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(2), e33. doi:10.2196/jmir.2966
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Vugt, M., Van Lange, P. A. M., & Meertens, R. M. (1996). Commuting by car or public transportation? A social dilemma analysis of travel mode judgements. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26(3), 373–395. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199605)26:3<373::AID-EJSP760>3.0.CO;2-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vicente, M. R., & Novo, A. (2014). An empirical analysis of e-participation. The role of social networks and e-government over citizens’ online engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 31(3), 379–387. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2013.12.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, D. M. (2008). Strong regularities in online peer production. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th ACM conference on Electronic commerce, Chicago, Il, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, B. (2018). Under trump. U.S. Government moves from/open to/closed, by https://sunlightfoundation.com/author/bwillia/ Briana Williams Jan 24, 2018 Sunlight Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Xia, M., Huang, Y., Duan, W., & Whinston, A. B. (2012). Research note-to continue sharing or not to continue sharing? An empirical analysis of user decision in peer-to-peer sharing networks. Information Systems Research, 23(1), 247–259. doi:10.1287/isre.1100.0344
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yackee, S. W. (2013). Assessing regulatory participation by health professionals: A study of state health rulemaking. Public Administration Review, 73(s1), S105–S114. doi:10.1111/puar.12080
   Google Scholar
• Yackee, S. W. (2015). Participant voice in the bureaucratic policymaking process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(2), 427–449. doi:10.1093/jopart/muu007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng, Y. (2015). Explaining citizens’ e-participation usage. Administration & Society, 49(3), 423–442. doi:10.1177/0095399715593313
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar