Noella Edelmann
ABSTRACT
Social media, digital technologies, new online tools, and digital transformation processes in public sector organisations have led to the introduction of innovations and thus significant changes to public participation projects and processes. In this case study we study the impact of digital innovation on public participation processes by using the policy cycle phases. Multiple methods were used to collect expertise on how to develop participatory processes and the CoVID-19 lockdown in Austria represented an opportunity to test how to flexibly use digital tools in participation processes. The outcome provides an overview of lessons learned for designing participation processes flexibly drawing on different participation formats and digital tools.
- Andreas Fisahn. 2002. Demokratie und Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung, Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
- Elke Loeffler. 2020. Co-production of public services and outcomes, Springer.Google Scholar
- Noella Edelmann, Ines Mergel. 2021. Co-production of digital public services in Austrian public administrations, Administrative Sciences, 11(1), 22.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andrew Chadwick. 2006. Internet politics: States, citizens, and new communication technologies, Oxford University Press, USA.Google Scholar
- Christian Bason. 2018. Leading Public Sector Innovation 2E: Co-creating for a Better Society, Policy press, Bristol.Google Scholar
- Eleni Panopoulou, Efthimios Tambouris, Konstantinos Tarabanis. 2014. Success factors in designing eParticipation initiatives, Information and Organization, 24(4), 195-213.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bernd W Wirtz, Peter Daiser, Boris Binkowska. 2018. E-participation: A strategic framework, International Journal of Public Administration, 41(1), 1-12.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Harold Dwight Lasswell. 1956. The decision process: Seven categories of functional analysis, Bureau of Governmental Research, College of Business and Public Administration.Google Scholar
- Giliberto Capano, Andrea Pritoni. 2020. Policy cycle, in: The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Interest Groups, Lobbying and Public Affairs, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020, pp. 1-7.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Garry D Brewer, Peter DeLeon. 1983. The foundations of policy analysis, Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
- Peter DeLeon. 1999. The stages approach to the policy process: What has it done? Where is it going?, in: A. Sabatier (Ed.) Theories of the policy process, Westview, Boulder, 1999, pp. 19-32.Google Scholar
- C. O. Jones. 1984. An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy, Brooks/ Cole, Monterey.Google Scholar
- J.E. Anderson. 1975. Public Policy Making, Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
- Kathryn S Quick, John M Bryson. 2022. Public participation, in: Handbook on theories of governance, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022.Google ScholarCross Ref
- John M Bryson, Alessandro Sancino, John Benington, Eva Sørensen. 2017. Towards a multi-actor theory of public value co-creation, Public Management Review, 19(5), 640-654.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Peter Parycek. 2020. Integrierte Partizipation im PolicyCycle in: Kick Off Digital Particpation, Vienna.Google Scholar
- European Parliament and of the Council. 2003. Directive 2003/35/EC in, EUR-Lex.Google Scholar
- Noor Huijboom, Tijs Van Den Broek, Valerie Frissen, Linda Kool, Bas Kotterink, M Nielsen, Jeremy Millard. 2009. Public Services 2.0: the impact of social computing on public services, Joint Research Centre, European Commission.Google Scholar
- Douglas Schuler. 2010. Online deliberation and civic intelligence, Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice, 91-104.Google Scholar
- Simon Smith, Ann Macintosh, Jeremy Millard. 2011. A three-layered framework for evaluating e-participation, International Journal of Electronic Governance, 4(4), 304-321.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lukasz Porwol, Adegboyega Ojo, John G. Breslin. 2016. An ontology for next generation e-Participation initiatives.Google Scholar
- C Pérez Espés, Maria A Wimmer, José María Moreno-Jimenez, M Janssen, F Bannister, O Glassey, HJ Scholl, E Tambouris. 2014. A framework for evaluating the impact of e-participation experiences in: Electronic Government and Electronic Participation: Joint Proceedings of Ongoing Research, Posters, Workshop and Projects of IFIP EGOV 2014 and EPart 2014, IOS Press, pp. 20.Google Scholar
- Stacie Petter, William DeLone, Ephraim R. McLean. 2014. Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Independent Variables, Journal of management information systems, 29(4), 7-62.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maarja Toots. 2019. Why E-participation systems fail: The case of Estonia's Osale. ee, Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 546-559.Google ScholarCross Ref
- OECD. 2020. The OECD Digital Government Policy Framework in, OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
- John Carlo Bertot, Elsa Estevez, Tomasz Janowski. 2016. Universal and contextualized public services: Digital public service innovation framework, Government Information Quarterly, 33(2), 211-222.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bettina Höchtl, Noella Edelmann. 2021. A case study of the digital agenda of the City of Vienna: e-participation design and enabling factors, Electronic Government, an International Journal.Google Scholar
- Peter Parycek, Michael Sachs, Florian Sedy, Judith Schossböck. 2014. Evaluation of an E-participation Project: Lessons Learned and Success Factors from a Cross-Cultural Perspective in, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 128-140.Google Scholar
- Sabrina Scherer, Maria A Wimmer. 2016. A metamodel for the E-participation reference framework in: International Conference on Electronic Participation, Springer, pp. 3-16.Google Scholar
- Ursula Rosenbichler, Alexander Grünwald, Michael Kallinger, N Edelmann, Valerie Albrecht, Gregor Eibl. 2020. Grünbuch: Partizipation im digitalen Zeitalter in, Bundesministerium für Kunst, Kultur, öffentlichen Dienst und Sport, Vienna.Google Scholar
- Hans J Scholl. 2001. Applying stakeholder theory to e-government, in: Towards the E-society, Springer, 2001, pp. 735-747.Google Scholar
- Leif Skiftenes Flak, Jeremy Rose. 2005. Stakeholder governance: Adapting stakeholder theory to e-government, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1), 31.Google Scholar
- Johann Höchtl, Peter Parycek, Ralph Schöllhammer. 2016. Big data in the policy cycle: Policy decision making in the digital era, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 26(1-2), 147-169.Google ScholarCross Ref
- David Valle-Cruz, Rodrigo Sandoval-Almazán. 2022. Role and Governance of Artificial Intelligence in the Public Policy Cycle.Google Scholar
- Marijn Janssen, Natalie Helbig. 2018. Innovating and changing the policy-cycle: Policy-makers be prepared!, Government Information Quarterly, 35(4), 99-105.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christian Bason. 2013. 5. Engaging Citizens in Policy Innovation: Benefiting public policy from the design inputs of citizens and stakeholders as ‘experts’, in: Evert A Lindquist, Sam Vincent, and John Wanna (Ed.) Putting Citizens First, 2013.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Johan Christensen. 2021. Expert knowledge and policymaking: a multi-disciplinary research agenda, Policy & Politics, 49(3), 455-471.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Donald A Schön. 1983. The reflective practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books, United Staes of America.Google Scholar
- Bettina Höchtl, Thomas J. Lampoltshammer. 2019. Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen und technische Umsetzung von E-Government in Österreich, in: Jürgen; Eixelsberger Stember, Wolfgang; Neuroni, Alessia; Spichiger, Andreas; Habbel, Franz-Reinhard; Wundara, Manfred; (Ed.) Handbuch E-Government - Technikinduzierte Verwaltungsentwicklung, Springer, 2019.Google Scholar
- E-GovG. 2004. Federal Act on Provisions Facilitating Electronic Communications with Public Bodies (E-Government Act – E-GovG) in, Federal Law Gazette I 2004/10 as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 2018/104.Google Scholar
- Bundesministerium für Digitalisierung und Wirtschaft. 2017. Administration on the Net - The ABC guide of eGovernment in Austria in, Bundesministerium für Digitalisierung und Wirtschaft, Vienna.Google Scholar
- European Commission. 2022. Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2022 Austria in, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
- Bundesministerium für Digitalisierung und Wirtschaft. 2020. Beteiligung der Öffentlichkeit.Google Scholar
- Rikke Ørngreen, Karin Levinsen. 2017. Workshops as a Research Methodology, Electronic Journal of E-learning, 15(1), 70-81.Google Scholar
- John W Creswell, Cheryl N Poth. 2016. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, Sage publications.Google Scholar
- Mojtaba Vaismoradi, Sherrill Snelgrove. 2019. Theme in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis in: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, DEU.Google Scholar
- H.K. Colebatch. 2005. Policy analysis, policy practice and political science, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 64(3), 14-23.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Peter Bridgman, Glyn Davis. 2003. What use is a policy cycle? Plenty, if the aim is clear, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(3), 98-102.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christian Bason. 2017. Leading public design: How managers engage with design to transform public governance, Frederiksberg: Copenhagen Business School (CBS).Google Scholar
- Meelis Teder, Paavo Kaimre. 2018. The participation of stakeholders in the policy processes and their satisfaction with results: A case of Estonian forestry policy, Forest Policy and Economics, 89, 54-62.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Simon Smith, Ann Macintosh, Jeremy Millard. 2011. A three–layered framework for evaluating e–participation, International Journal of Electronic Governance, 4(4), 304-321.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Vereckey. 2022. 5 elements of a successful digital platform in, MT Management Sloan School.Google Scholar
- Paulo Savaget, Tulio Chiarini, Steve Evans. 2019. Empowering political participation through artificial intelligence, Science and Public Policy, 46(3), 369-380.Google ScholarCross Ref
- BMAW. 2022. Rat neue Arbeitswelten: Digitale Kompetenzen sind gefragter denn je. In https://www.bmaw.gv.at/Presse/News/Rat-neue-Arbeitswelten–Digitale-Kompetenzen-sind-gefragter-denn-je-.html.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Designing public participation in the digital age: Lessons learned from using the policy cycle in an Austrian case study
Recommendations
Public Participation Readiness Toward E-Gov 2.0: Lessons from Two Countries
ICEGOV '19: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic GovernanceNowadays, many government has programs to build inclusion and equality in the community where each individual is empowered and given equal opportunities to participate in both social and political processes. Equality in the community is a cultural ...
Promoting social participation through digital governance: identifying barriers in the brazilian public administration
dg.o '18: Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data AgePublic organizations are expanding their use of the democratic potential of information and communication technologies to promote the engagement of civil society in their organizational processes. Therefore, it is possible to perceive the transformation ...
Sustainable Co-Creation in the Public Sector: A Case Study in the Lower Austrian Federal Government
ICEGOV '22: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic GovernanceCo-creation is a social process, that aims to involve and engage stakeholders in the design or re-design of public services. In the Office of the Lower Austrian Federal Government a first co-creation process was started in order to involve internal ...
Comments