eGovernment Workshop ’06 (eGOV06)
September 11 2006, Brunel University, West London, UB8 3PH

EVALUATING HOW EPARTICIPATION CHANGES
LOCAL DEMOCRACY

Ann Macintosh, International Teledemocracy Centre, Napier University, 10 Colinton
Road, Edinburgh, EH10 5DT, UK
A.Macintosh@napier.ac.uk
Angus Whyte, International Teledemocracy Centre, Napier University, 10 Colinton
Road, Edinburgh, EH10 5DT, UK
A.Whyte@napier.ac.uk
Abstract
Given the ever expanding use of information and communication technologies by
governments in their efforts to re-invigorate representative democracy and engage with
citizens, there is a need to better understand current eParticipation applications and learn
from these experiences. Although there appears much enthusiasm for eDemocracy initiatives
at local government level, the objectives of different systems are quite diverse, as stakeholders
tend to view them differently and have varying expectations. This paper describes methods
and results from the evaluation of eParticipation projects conducted under the UK Local e-
Democracy National Project. We argue that eParticipation evaluation is in its infancy and
there is a need to develop a coherent evaluation framework, encompassing a range of
methods and perspectives. Our evaluation of four local authority led projects demonstrates
the importance, but also the barriers to using a multi-disciplinary approach. The evaluation
results presented here start to develop an understanding of how various stakeholders perceive
local eDemocracy and, as such, how ICTs can both affect and effect local democracy.
Keywords: eDemocracy, digital democracy, eEngagement, e-Government, eParticipation,
Evaluation

1 INTRODUCTION
The potential for information and communication technologies (ICTs) to increase political
participation and address the growing democratic deficit across the USA and Europe has long
been the subject of academic debate (e.g. Barber, 1997). However only relatively recently has
there been sufficient practical design and application of ICTs to support democracy that this
‘potential’ could be considered within a real-world context (Weber et al, 2003). The term
‘eDemocracy’ captures both the intent to support democracy and studies of the outcomes and
context. Hacker and van Dijk (2000), using the term ‘digital democracy’ as opposed to
eDemocracy, discuss the emergence of the concept. They define digital democracy as
“a collection of attempts to practice democracy without the limits of time, space and
other physical conditions, using ICT or CMC1 instead, as an addition, not a
replacement for traditional ‘analogue’ political practices.” (p1)
Previous work (Macintosh 2004) gave a definition of eDemocracy as:

1
These terms were expanded earlier in the reference as Information and Communication Technology and Computer-Mediated
Communication
Ann Macintoch and Angus Whyte
Evaluating how eparticipation changes local democracy
1

eGovernment Workshop ’06 (eGOV06)
September 11 2006, Brunel University, West London, UB8 3PH

“concerned with the use of information and communication technologies to engage
citizens, support the democratic decision-making processes and strengthen
representative democracy. The principal ICT mechanism is the internet accessed
through an increasing variety of channels, including PCs, both in the home and in
pubic locations, mobile phones, and interactive digital TV. The democratic decision
making processes can be divided into two main categories: one addressing the
electoral process, including e-voting, and the other addressing citizen e-participation
in democratic decision-making.”
This paper builds on these baseline definitions and uses a working definition of
eParticipation, as the use of ICTs to support information provision and “top-down”
engagement, i.e. government-led initiatives, or “ground-up” efforts to empower citizens, civil
society organisations and other democratically constituted groups to gain the support of their
elected representatives. Effective information provision is often seen as a corollary of
effective engagement and empowerment.
The academic literature on eParticipation is growing and includes a number of papers that
start to discuss methodological frameworks for undertaking evaluation. However, although
the importance of rigorous evaluation of eParticipation projects is recognised there is little
evidence demonstrating the use of such evaluation approaches in practice. The 2001 study by
the OECD considered possible off-line methods which government could use to engage with
citizens and provided a number of ‘guiding principles’ for offline citizen engagement.
Guiding principle number 9 on ‘evaluation’ stated:
“Governments need the tools, information and capacity to evaluate their performance
in providing information, conducting consultation and engaging citizens, in order to
adapt to new requirements and changing conditions for policy-making.” (OECD
2001, p.15).
During 2003 the OECD team responsible for citizen engagement commissioned a study into
the potential of ICTs to support citizen engagement in policy-making. The resulting report
made an initial attempt to scope the eParticipation domain from a government perspective,
describe a number of eParticipation case studies in OECD member countries, and highlight
the major issues facing eParticipation. The report highlighted five major issues, one which
concerned evaluation. The report stated that a major challenge was:
“Evaluating eParticipation: Making sense of what has, or has not, been achieved;
understanding how to assess the benefits and the impacts of applying technology to
the democratic decision-making processes.” (Macintosh, 2004a)
However, there is a difficulty; the evaluation of off-line participation is still a new and
emerging area. As noted by the OECD:
“There is a striking imbalance between the amount of time, money and energy that
governments in OECD counties invest in engaging citizens and civil society in public
decision-making and the amount of attention they pay to evaluating the effectiveness
of such efforts.” (OECD 2005, p 10).
This latter report continues by explaining the “evaluation gap” as being due to the relatively
recent realisation by governments of the need to engage with citizens and therefore the
evaluation of public participation is an even newer concept. This is despite the fact that the
OECD report published four years earlier provided the guiding principle number 9 on
‘evaluation’!
The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the application of a range of methods and techniques
to evaluate local eParticipation initiatives. The aim of such an evaluation approach is to
increase understanding of eParticipation and, consequently, how to measure impact and
potential opportunity. Understanding how stakeholders perceive local eDemocracy and how
Ann Macintoch and Angus Whyte
Evaluating how eparticipation changes local democracy
2