Skip to main content
×
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 18
  • Cited by
    This (lowercase (translateProductType product.productType)) has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Trevisan, Filippo Hoskins, Andrew Oates, Sarah and Mahlouly, Dounia 2018. The Google voter: search engines and elections in the new media ecology. Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 21, Issue. 1, p. 111.

    Bang, Henrik and Halupka, Max 2017. Contentious connective action: a new kind of life-political association for problematizing how expert systems operate. Information, Communication & Society, p. 1.

    Theocharis, Yannis and Lowe, Will 2016. Does Facebook increase political participation? Evidence from a field experiment. Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 19, Issue. 10, p. 1465.

    Papa, Venetia and Milioni, Dimitra L. 2016. “I don’t Wear Blinkers, All Right?” The Multiple Meanings of Civic Identity in theIndignadosand the Role of Social Media. Javnost - The Public, Vol. 23, Issue. 3, p. 290.

    Koc-Michalska, Karolina Lilleker, Darren G and Vedel, Thierry 2016. Civic political engagement and social change in the new digital age. New Media & Society, Vol. 18, Issue. 9, p. 1807.

    Graham, Todd Jackson, Daniel and Wright, Scott 2015. From everyday conversation to political action: Talking austerity in online ‘third spaces’. European Journal of Communication, Vol. 30, Issue. 6, p. 648.

    WORTHY, BEN 2015. THE IMPACT OF OPEN DATA IN THE UK: COMPLEX, UNPREDICTABLE, AND POLITICAL. Public Administration, Vol. 93, Issue. 3, p. 788.

    Koc-Michalska, Karolina and Lilleker, Darren G. 2015. Public Affairs and Administration. p. 1307.

    Mukhongo, Lusike Lynete 2015. Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Third Edition. p. 6419.

    Sudulich, Maria Wall, Matthew and Baccini, Leonardo 2015. Wired Voters: The Effects of Internet Use on Voters’ Electoral Uncertainty. British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 45, Issue. 04, p. 853.

    Theocharis, Yannis Lowe, Will van Deth, Jan W. and García-Albacete, Gema 2015. Using Twitter to mobilize protest action: online mobilization patterns and action repertoires in the Occupy Wall Street, Indignados, and Aganaktismenoi movements. Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 18, Issue. 2, p. 202.

    Couldry, Nick 2015. The myth of ‘us’: digital networks, political change and the production of collectivity. Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 18, Issue. 6, p. 608.

    Koc-Michalska, Karolina Gibson, Rachel and Vedel, Thierry 2014. Online Campaigning in France, 2007–2012: Political Actors and Citizens in the Aftermath of the Web.2.0 Evolution. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, Vol. 11, Issue. 2, p. 220.

    Koc-Michalska, Karolina and Lilleker, Darren G. 2014. Evolving In Step or Poles Apart?. International Journal of E-Politics, Vol. 5, Issue. 1, p. 41.

    Welp, Yanina and Breuer, Anita 2014. ICTs and democratic governance: The Latin American experience. p. 51.

    Koc-Michalska, Karolina Lilleker, Darren G. Surowiec, Pawel and Baranowski, Pawel 2014. Poland’s 2011 Online Election Campaign: New Tools, New Professionalism, New Ways to Win Votes. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, Vol. 11, Issue. 2, p. 186.

    Theocharis, Yannis 2013. The Wealth of (Occupation) Networks? Communication Patterns and Information Distribution in a Twitter Protest Network. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, Vol. 10, Issue. 1, p. 35.

    Vaccari, Cristian 2013. From echo chamber to persuasive device? Rethinking the role of the Internet in campaigns. New Media & Society, Vol. 15, Issue. 1, p. 109.

    ×
  • Print publication year: 2012
  • Online publication date: July 2012

2 - Recent Shifts in the Relationship between the Internet and Democratic Engagement in Britain and the United States

Summary

Introduction

The internet is evolving into one the most significant enablers of political innovation since the emergence of mass democracy. Over the past decade, few areas of social and political life have escaped its influence. Because of the potentially huge scope of the internet (see Chadwick and Howard 2009b; Chadwick 2006), this chapter has two interrelated objectives. First, following a brief explication of concepts, it discusses significant recent shifts in what we know, or should seek to know, about the internet's role in promoting political knowledge and political engagement, with reference to some important strands of literature from the United States and Britain. Second, it generates some hypotheses about the likely effects of recent changes in the online environment, through discussion of British and U.S. examples of what is widely called web.2.0. The broad argument is that continuing to frame research in this area in terms of traditional understandings of engagement, participation, and deliberative democracy risks missing the significance of three key forces in the contemporary political context of these two countries: granularity, informational exuberance, and by-product political learning.

Web 2.0, Granularity, and Informational Exuberance

Though widely used, the concept of web 2.0 has eluded precise definition. Originally the creation of Silicon Valley technologists, web 2.0 has long since escaped the business community and is an idea that loosely organizes a variety of concerns across a range of scholarly disciplines. O’Reilly is widely regarded to have been the first to popularize the term in 2003. His technology-focused approach defined web 2.0 in terms of seven key principles: “the web as platform,” “harnessing collective intelligence,” “data is the next ‘Intel inside,’” “the end of the software release cycle,” “lightweight programming models,” “software above the level of a single device,” and “rich user experiences” (O’Reilly 2007, 18, 22, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34). Chadwick and Howard (2009a) begin from these technological principles but explicate their relevance for politics and suggest the following formulation: “the internet as a platform for political discourse; the collective intelligence emergent from political web use; the importance of data over particular software and hardware applications; perpetual experimentalism in the public domain; the creation of small scale forms of political engagement through consumerism; the propagation of political content over multiple applications; and rich user experiences on political websites” (Chadwick and Howard 2009a, 4).

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Digital Media and Political Engagement Worldwide
  • Online ISBN: 9781139108881
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139108881
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *
×