icegov2012 proceedings

structure of the forum as well as the look and feel and some of the
Social Media technologies. The next stage of the project will
bring better integration with Facebook and Twitter (Facebook app
and dedicated Twitter web app). The Semantic Web technologies
will be applied in order to enable easy deliberation data exchange,
more effective discussion data browsing and transparency. We
consider developing a mobile app for greater social inclusion and
live transport reports. We plan to investigate further the impact of
non-digital dissemination methods on the digital part of the
initiative. Ideally we hope to get a dedicated column in a local
newspaper where we could publish the results on a regular basis.
This will help to make the non-digital dissemination more
sustainable. We also consider the use of popular paper leaflets
enriched with QR codes pointing to the relevant sections of the
portal. This way the paper medium can be linked directly to the
digital equivalent.
5. CONCLUSION
Modern digital participation tools, due to sociological
circumstances and dependencies, are not yet an effective
substitutefor the classic solutions and, to the date, are not able to
replace them completely. Instead, the modern digital and nondigital
solutions should be complementary in a seamless loop.
eParticipation, in order to be successful, needs to take what is best
from the traditional communication channels and enrich it with
modern technologies for greater efficiency and range. This
research shows that broad social inclusion is crucial for successful
participation. The presence of key stakeholders from local
government, business, and organizations guarantees constructive
and engaged participation. The multichannel citizen-to-decisionmaker
communication ensures richer and less biased deliberation
where citizens feel rewarded for their contributions and are
willing to participate more.
6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work supported by SFI under grant number SFI/08/CE/I1380
(Lion 2) and the Cloud4SOA Project under grant 257953.
7. REFERENCES
[1] D. M. Boyd and N. B. Ellison. Social network sites:
Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 13(1), 2008.
[2] Y. Charalabidis, G. Gionis, E. Ferro, and E. Loukis. Towards
a Systematic Exploitation of Web 2 . 0 and Simulation
Modeling Tools in Public Policy Process. Ifip International
Federation For Information Processing, pages 1–12, 2010.
[3] C. Colombo. e-Participation Experiences and Local
Government in Catalonia : An Explanatory Analysis. Ifip
International Federation For Information Processing, pages
82–94, 2010.
[4] Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for
Public Administration and Development Management. E-
Participation and E-Government: Understanding the Present
and Creating the Future. Group, (July 2006), 2007.
[5] R. E Freeman. Strategic management: A stakeholder
approach, volume 1. Pitman, 1984.
[6] eEurope Advisory Group. e-Inclusion:New challenges and
policy recommendations. Current, 2005.
392
[7] J. B. Horrigan. On Demand Citizens: e-government at high
speed. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2005.
[8] Z. Huang and L. Brooks. Evaluating Usability of Web-Based
Electronic Government : Users Perspective. pages 456–465,
2011.
[9] M. S. Islam and S. Business. Towards a sustainable e-
Participation implementation model. October, (October):1–
12, 2008.
[10] A. Joinson. The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology.
Oxford handbooks. Oxford University Press, 2007.
[11] M. M. Kamal. An analysis of e-Participation research:
moving from theoretical to pragmatic viewpoint.
Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy,
3(4):340–354, 2009.
[12] R. Kies. Promises and Limits of Web-deliberation. Palgrave
Macmillan, 2010.
[13] J. Kuzma. Asian government usage of web 2.0 social media.
European Journal of ePractice (9). pp. 1-13. ISSN 1988-
625X, 2010.
[14] M. Lane and P. Coleman. Technology ease of use through
social networking media. Journal of Technology Research,
2010.
[15] A. Macintosh. Characterizing e-participation in policymaking.
Annual Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences (HICSS’04) - Track 5 - Volume 5, Washington,
DC, USA, 2004. IEEE Computer Society.
[16] A. Macintosh. Challenges and barriers of eParticipation in
Europe? 2007.
[17] E. Monte Lutz, SVP-Digital Public Affairs. The social pulpit.
Edelman, 2009.
[18] Public engagement for Better Policy and Services. OECD
Studies on Public Engagement, 2009.
[19] N. Roberts. Public Deliberation in an Age of Direct Citizen
Participation. The American Review of Public
Administration, 34(4):315–353, Dec. 2004.
[20] J. Rose and O. y. Sæ bø. Designing Deliberation Systems.
The Information Society, 26(3):228–240, May 2010.
[21] O. Sabo, J. Rose, and L. Skiftenesflak. The shape of
eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area.
Government Information Quarterly, 25(3):400–428, July
2008.
[22] O. y. Sæ bø, L. S. Flak, and M. K. Sein. Understanding the
dynamics in e-Participation initiatives: Looking through the
genre and stakeholder lenses. Government Information
Quarterly, 28(3):416–425, July 2011.
[23] S. Scherer and M. A. Wimmer. A Regional Model for E-
Participation in the EU : Evaluation and Lessons Learned
from VoicE. Ifip International Federation For Information
Processing, pages 162–173, 2010.
[24] Carnegie UK Trust. Futures for civil society, 2007.