Digitizing Deliberation

References

• Ackerman, B. A., & Fishkin, J. S. (2004). Deliberation day. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. (D. Heller-Roazen, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Agamben, G. (2005). The state of exception. (K. Attell, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Austin, E. K., & Callen, J. C. (2008). Reexamining the role of digital technology in public administration: From devastation to disclosure. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 30, 324-341.
   Google Scholar
• Bang, H. P., & Sørensen, E. (1999). The everyday maker: A new challenge to democratic governance. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 21, 325-341.
   Google Scholar
• Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baber, W. F., & Bartlett, R. V. (2005). Deliberative environmental politics: Democracy and ecological rationality. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bertolini, L., le Clercq, F., & Straatemeier, T. (2008). Urban transportation planning in transition. Transportation Policy, 15(2), 69-72.
   Google Scholar
• Bessette, J. (1980). Deliberative democracy: The majority principle in republican government. In R. Goldwin & W. Shambra (Eds.), How democratic is the Constitution? (pp. 102-116). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Bohman, J. (2000). Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity, and democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brainard, L. A., & McNutt, J. G. (2010). Virtual government-citizen relations. Administration & Society, 42, 836-858.
   Google Scholar
• Burnier, D. (2003). Other voices/other rooms: Towards a care-centered public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 25, 529-544.
   Google Scholar
• Cappella, J. N., Price, V., & Nir, L. (2002). Argument repertoire as a reliable and valid measure of opinion quality: Electronic dialogue during Campaign 2000. Political Communication, 19, 73-93.
   Google Scholar
• Couldry, N. (2003). Digital divide or discursive design? On the emerging ethics of information space. Ethics and Information Technology, 5, 89-97.
   Google Scholar
• Elstub, S. (2010). The third generation of deliberative democracy. Political Studies Review, 8, 291-307.
   Google Scholar
• Farmer, D. J. (2005). To kill the king: Post-traditional governance and bureaucracy. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Felts, A. A. (2008). Symposium: The Internet and public affairs. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 30, 296-298.
   Google Scholar
• Greczi, E. (2007). Sustainability and public participation: Toward an inclusive model of democracy. Administrative Theory & Practice, 29, 375-393.
   Google Scholar
• Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J., & Rehg, W. (1998). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., Luskin, R. C., & Fishkin, J. S. (2003). Facilitating informed public opinion: Evidence from face-to-face and on-line deliberative polls. Working paper, Stanford University. http://pcl.stanford.edu/common/docs/research/iyengar/2003/facilitating.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Keske, C. M. H., & Smutko, L. S. (2010). Consulting communities: Using audience response system (ARS) technology to assess community preferences for sustainable recreation and tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18, 951-970.
   Google Scholar
• King, C. S., & Stivers, C. (Eds.). (1998). Government is us: Public administration in an anti-government era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Kobak, A. (2010). ARS: An innovative public engagement tool. PAS Memo-January/February. American Planning Association, 1-7.
   Google Scholar
• Lowry, M. B. (2009). Online public deliberation for a regional transportation improvement decision. Transportation, 37, 39-58.
   Google Scholar
• Mergel, I. (2010). Government 2.0 revisited: Social media strategies in the public sector. PA Times, 33, 7-10.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, H. T., & Fox, C. (2007). Postmodern public administration (Rev. Ed.). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Noveck, B. S. (2009). Wiki government: How technology can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• O'Flynn, I. (2006). Deliberative democracy and divided societies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Parkinson, J. (2006). Deliberating in the real world: Problems of legitimacy in deliberative democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Patterson, P. M. (2000a). Nonvirtue is not apathy. American Review of Public Administration, 30, 225-251.
   Google Scholar
• Patterson, P. M. (2000b). The talking cure and the silent treatment: Some limits of "discourse" as speech. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 22, 663-695.
   Google Scholar
• Price, V., & Cappella, J. (2002). Online deliberation and its influence: The electronic dialogue project in Campaign 2000. IT&SOCIETY, 1, 303-329.
   Google Scholar
• Price, V., Goldwaite, D., Capella, J., & Romantan, A. (2003). Online discussion, civic engagement, and social trust. Working paper, University of Pennsylvania.
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, P. J. (1995). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ryfe, D. M. (2002). The practice of deliberative democracy: A study of 16 deliberative organizations. Political Communication, 19, 359-377.
   Google Scholar
• Saco, D. (2002). Cybering democracy: Public space and the Internet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schooley, S. E. (2008). Appreciative democracy: The feasibility of using appreciative inquiry at the local government level by public administrators to increase citizen participation. Public Administration Quarterly, 32, 243-281.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, J. K. (2006). "E" the people: Do U. S. municipal government Web sites support public Involvement? Public Administration Review, 66, 341-353.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, G. (2003). Deliberative democracy and the environment. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Spicer, M. (2010). In defense of politics in public administration: A value pluralist perspective. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
   Google Scholar
• Traugott, M. (1992). The "deliberative opinion poll" is a well-intended but flawed idea. Public Perspective, 3, 27-29.
   Google Scholar
• Thorne, K., & Kouzmin, A. (2008). Cyberpunk-web 1.0 "egoism" greets Groupweb 2.0 "narcissism": Convergence, consumption, and surveillance in the digital divide. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 30, 299-323.
   Google Scholar
• Turning Technologies. (2008, October 22). Turning Technologies, equal voice for America's families holds largest remote polling event produced by Turning Technologies. www.turningtechnologies.com/company/pressroom/pressreleases/professional/?i=159/
   Google Scholar
• Van den Hoven, J. (2005). E-democracy, e-contestation and the monitorial citizen. Ethics and Information Technology, 7, 51-59.
   Google Scholar
• Young, I. M. (1989). Polity and group difference: A critique of the ideal of universal citizenship. Ethics, 99, 250-274.
   Google Scholar
• Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Young, I. M. (2002). Inclusion and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yuval-Davis, N. (1997a). Gender & nation. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Yuval-Davis, N. (1997b). Women, citizenship and difference. Feminist Review, 57, 4-27.
   Google Scholar