首页> 外文OA文献 >Robust dialogue but limited representation: A case study of an online discussion group focused on local politics
【2h】

Robust dialogue but limited representation: A case study of an online discussion group focused on local politics

机译:强有力的对话但有限的代表性:一个关注地方政治的在线讨论小组的案例研究

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

The use of social networking technologies to discuss, organize and participate in the political process, both during and in between election cycles, seems to be gaining popularity (Davis, 2005; Rainie, 2005b). There is a growing body of literature that examines the use of the Internet and its various technologies as tools to improve the democratic process (Brunsting, 2002; Dahlberg, 2001; Harrison & Falvey, 2001; Jensen, 2003; Kavanaugh, Carroll, Rosson, Reese, & Zin, 2005; Stromer-Galley, 2002, 2003). Some researchers have studied technology???s impact on access to information, government services, officials and candidates (Harrison et al., 2005; Jensen, 2003; Kavanaugh et al., 2005) Some researchers have focused on the quality of discourse within the communities (Dahlberg, 2001; Davis, 2005; Wilhelm, 2000). Others have highlighted technology???s ability to transcend geographic, social and ideological boundaries (Hacker & Dijk, 2001; Kavanaugh et al., 2005;Stromer-Galley, 2002, 2003). What much of the research has in common is that the studies have centered on political discussion groups such as those found on USENET newsgroups (now Google groups), chat rooms, and Yahoo! groups, which are organized by political ideologies or topics generally associated with national issues. There is some research on community computer networks, but these are mostly products of a collaboration between universities, government, and citizens (Harrison, Zappen, Stephen, Garfield and Prell, 2001; Harrison, Zappen and Adali, 2005; Kavanaugh, Carroll, Rosson, Reese and Zin, 2005; Kavanaugh, Reese, Carroll, and Rosson, 2005). Needed are studies that examine citizens??? uses of web technologies to talk about local political issues. Eliasoph (1997) has argued that people avoid publicly talking about politics in their home communities. The question is: Can online discussion space focused on local politics expand participation as well as create an environment where diverse ideas and informed discussion thrives? In addition to providing insight to the academic community, the answers to these questions may assist local communities looking to foster public discussion about issues that affect the everyday lives of average people.
机译:在选举周期内和选举周期之间使用社交网络技术来讨论,组织和参与政治进程似乎越来越受欢迎(Davis,2005; Rainie,2005b)。越来越多的文献研究将互联网及其各种技术用作改善民主进程的工具(Brunsting,2002; Dahlberg,2001; Harrison&Falvey,2001; Jensen,2003; Kavanaugh,Carroll,Rosson, Reese&Zin,2005; Stromer-Galley,2002,2003)。一些研究人员研究了技术对信息获取,政府服务,官员和候选人的影响(Harrison等,2005; Jensen,2003; Kavanaugh等,2005)。一些研究人员侧重于内部话语质量。社区(Dahlberg,2001; Davis,2005; Wilhelm,2000)。其他人则强调技术超越地理,社会和意识形态界限的能力(Hacker&Dijk,2001; Kavanaugh等,2005; Stromer-Galley,2002,2003)。该研究的许多共同点是,这些研究集中于政治讨论小组,例如在USENET新闻组(现在为Google小组),聊天室和Yahoo!上找到的那些。小组,由通常与国家问题相关的政治意识形态或主题组织。对社区计算机网络进行了一些研究,但这些研究大多是大学,政府与公民之间合作的产物(哈里森,扎彭,斯蒂芬,加菲猫和普雷尔,2001年;哈里森,扎彭和阿达利,2005年;卡瓦诺,卡罗尔,罗森,Reese和Zin,2005; Kavanaugh,Reese,Carroll和Rosson,2005)。需要检查公民的研究???使用网络技术来谈论当地政治问题。埃里亚索夫(Eliasoph,1997)认为,人们避免在自己的家庭中公开谈论政治。问题是:专注于当地政治的在线讨论空间能否扩大参与度,并创造出使各种想法和知情讨论蓬勃发展的环境?除了向学术界提供见解之外,这些问题的答案还可以帮助希望促进公众讨论影响普通民众日常生活的当地社区。

著录项

  • 作者

    Baker Andrea Bridget;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2009
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 {"code":"en","name":"English","id":9}
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号