skip to main content
10.1145/2463728.2463740acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicegovConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Genres of communication in activist eParticipation: a comparison of new and old media

Published:22 October 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we examine the genres of communication in an activist case in a Norwegian municipality. As genres evolve over time, and the emergence of new genre properties is a sign of a mature technology, we compare the genres used in traditional paper-based media with the genres used in social media, to examine the maturity of social media as a medium for activist eParticipation. We also discuss the usage patterns of traditional vs. social media, and their relation to the public sphere. Our findings indicate that so far, the genres used for activism in social media are very similar to their offline counterparts, with some new genres and genre characteristics emerging. Social media is moving towards maturity, but still has a way to go.

References

  1. Macintosh, A., A. McKay-Hubbard, and D. Shell, Using Weblogs to Support Local Democracy, in E-Government: Towards Electronic Democracy2005. p. 1--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Tambouris, E., N. Liotas, and K. Tarabanis, A Framework for Assessing eParticipation Projects and Tools, in Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences2007: Hawaii. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Jackson, N. A. and D. G. Lilleker, Building an Architecture of Participation? Political Parties and Web 2.0 in Britain. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 2009. 6(3): p. 232--250.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Gray, M. and M. Caul, Declining Voter Turnout in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 1950 to 1997. Comparative Political Studies, 2000. 33(9): p. 1091--1122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Østerud, Ø., F. Engelstad, and P. Selle, Makten og demokratiet. En sluttbok fra makt- og demokratiutredningen2003, Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk. 344.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Sæbø, Ø., J. Rose, and L. Skiftenes Flak, The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly, 2008. 25(3): p. 400--428.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandtzæg, P. B. and M. Lüders, eCitizen 2.0: The Ordinary Citizen as a Supplier of Public Sector Information, 2008, Ministry for Government and Administration Reform: Oslo.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Papacharissi, Z., The Virtual Sphere: The Internet as Public Sphere. New Media and Society, 2002. 4(1): p. 9--27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Gimmler, A., Deliberative Democracy, the Public Sphere and the Internet. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 2001. 27(4): p. 21--39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Yates, J. and W. J. Orlikowski, Genres of Organizational Communication: A Structurational Approach to Studying Communication and Media. The Academy of Management Review, 1992. 17(2): p. 299--326.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Orlikowski, W. J. and J. Yates, Genre Repetoire: The Structuring of Communicative Practices in Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1994. 39(4): p. 541--74.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Shepherd, M. and C. Watters. The evolution of cybergenres. in System Sciences, 1998., Proceedings of the Thirty-First Hawaii International Conference on. 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Dahlberg, L., The Internet and Democratic Discourse: Exploring The Prospects of Online Deliberative Forums Extending the Public Sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 2001. 4(4): p. 615--633.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Habermas, J., The Public Sphere, in Jürgen Habermas on Society and Politics: A reader, S. Seidman, Editor 1989, Beacon Press: Boston.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Frazer, E., The Problem of Communitarian Politics. Unity and Conflict1999, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Castells, M., The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2008. 616(1): p. 78--93.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Merriman, J., A history of modern Europe: From the French Revolution to the Present. Vol. 2. 1996, New York: W.W Norton & Company.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Habermas, J., The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeoise society1991, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Webster, F., Information Management and Manipulation: Jürgen Habermas and the Decline of the Public Sphere, in Theories of the Information Society1995, Routledge: London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Dahlgren, P., The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation. Political Communication, 2005. 22: p. 147--162.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Poster, M., Cyberdemocracy: The Internet and the Public Sphere, in Internet Culture, D. Porter, Editor 1997, Routledge: New York/London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Gibson, R. K., W. Lusoli, and S. Ward, Online Participation in the UK: Testing a 'Contextualised' Model of Internet Effects1. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 2005. 7(4): p. 561--583.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Tewksbury, D., The Seeds of Audience Fragmentation: Specialization in the Use of Online News Sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 2005. 49(3): p. 332--348.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Calhoun, C., Community without Propinquity Revisited: Communications Technology and the Transformation of the Urban Public Sphere. Sociological Inquiry, 1998. 68(3): p. 373--397.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Muhlberger, P., Human Agency and the Revitalization of the Public Sphere. Political Communication, 2005. 22(2): p. 163--178.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Habermas, J., Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research1. Communication Theory, 2006. 16(4): p. 411--426.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Trenz, H. and K. Eder, The Democratizing Dynamics of a European Public Sphere. European Journal of Social Theory, 2004. 7(1): p. 5--25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Johannessen, M. R., Social Capital and the Networked Public Sphere: Implications for Political Social Media sites, in The Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-45)2012: Maui, Hawaii, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Putnam, R. D., Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community2000, New York: Simon & Schuster.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Svendsen, G. T. and G. L. H. Svendsen, Social Kapital - en introduktion2006, København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Ahuja, S., M. A. Pèrez-Quiñones, and A. Kavanaugh, Local conversations 2.0, in Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Social Networks: Making Connections between Citizens, Data and Government2009, Digital Government Society of North America. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Yang, S., H. Lee, and S. Kurnia, Social Capital in Information and Communications Technology Research: Past, Present and Future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2009. 25: p. 183--221.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Ellison, N. B., C. Steinfield, and C. Lampe, The Benefits of Facebook "Friends:" Social Capital and College Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2007. 12(4): p. 1143--1168.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Pasek, J., E. More, and D. Romer, Realizing the Social Internet? Online Social Networking meets Offline Civic Engagement. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 2009. 6(3&4): p. 197--215.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Turnšek, M., "The Digital Youth Revolt?" Young People and eParticipation, in Understanding eParticipation: Contemporary PhD eParticipation research in Europe, A. Avdic, et al., Editors. 2008, Örebro University Library: Örebro.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Päivärinta, T. and Ø. Sæbø, The Genre System Lens on E-Democracy. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 2008. 20(2).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Sæbø, Ø., Understanding Twitter Use among Parliament Representatives: A Genre Analysis, in Electronic Participation, E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, and H. de Bruijn, Editors. 2011, Springer Berlin/Heidelberg. p. 1--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Sæbø, Ø. and T. Päivârinta, Autopoietic cybergenres for e-Democracy? Genre analysis of a web-based discussion board, in Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Johannessen, M., Genres of Participation in Social Networking Systems: A Study of the 2009 Norwegian Parliamentary Election, in Electronic Participation, E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, and O. Glassey, Editors. 2010, Springer Berlin/Heidelberg. p. 104--114. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Yoshioka, T., et al., Genre taxonomy: A knowledge repository of communicative actions. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 2001. 19(4): p. 431--456. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Yates, J. and W. Orlikowski, Genre Systems: Structuring Interaction through Communicative Norms. Journal of Business Communication, 2002. 39(1): p. 13--35.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Kaplan, B. and J. Maxwell, Evaluating the Organizational Impact of Healthcare Information Systems, in Qualitative Research Methods for Evaluating Computer Information Systems, J. Anderson and C. Aydin, Editors. 2005, Springer New York. p. 30--55.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Marshall, C. and G. Rossman, Designing Qualitative Researh: 3rd Edition1999, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Benbasat, I., D. K. Goldstein, and M. Mead, The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 1987. 11(3): p. 369--386. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Cresswell, J. W., Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods approach2009, Los Angeles: Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Walsham, G., Doing interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems, 2006. 15(3): p. 320--330.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Genres of communication in activist eParticipation: a comparison of new and old media

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      ICEGOV '12: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance
      October 2012
      547 pages
      ISBN:9781450312004
      DOI:10.1145/2463728

      Copyright © 2012 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 22 October 2012

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      ICEGOV '12 Paper Acceptance Rate23of98submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate350of865submissions,40%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader