15.7.2014
Lutz
First Monday, Volume 19, Number 7 - 7 July 2014
This paper presents a systematic literature review of the current state–of–research on online
participation. The review draws on four databases and is guided by the application of six topical
search terms. The analysis strives to differentiate distinct forms of online participation and to
identify salient discourses within each research field. We find that research on online participation
is highly segregated into specific sub–discourses that reflect disciplinary boundaries. Research on
online political participation and civic engagement is identified as the most prominent and
extensive research field. Yet research on other forms of participation, such as cultural, business,
education and health participation, provides distinct perspectives and valuable insights. We
outline both field–specific and common findings and derive propositions for future research.
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Introduction
Online participation: The concept
Method: Systematic literature review
Online political participation and civic engagement (OPP&C E)
Online business participation (OBP)
Online cultural participation (OC P)
Online education participation (OEP)
Online health participation (OHP)
C onclusion
1. Introduction
A recent review of theoretical perspectives in communication and Internet research identified
“online participation” as one of six emerging global themes (Rice and Fuller, 2013). Rice and
Fuller found that the number of articles addressing participation increased dramatically in the
previous decade — in fact, among the six identified themes, the topic of participation experienced
the strongest growth in interest. Yet, many studies lack a clear understanding or definition of
online participation. Furthermore, among studies addressing online participation, few subtopics
dominate the agenda — most notably aspects of political participation and civic engagement.
Such findings call for a differentiated, more comprehensive look at online participation and a
further clarification of the concept. In this contribution, we present the results of a systematic
literature review on online participation. We address the following research questions: “Which
forms of online participation can be distinguished in current research? What are salient
discourses and the current state–of–research on each form of online participation?”
Accordingly, the first goal of our paper is to distinguish different forms of online participation and
identify relevant sub–discourses. Second, we discuss the current state–of–research for each
identified form. Third, we conclude the paper by presenting some research propositions that may
serve as guidance for future empirical research. Thereby, this study will serve to address the
current lack of common understandings, definitions and conceptual frameworks in the field of
online participation research — and allow for a more comprehensive perspective on the diverse
forms and aspects of online participation.
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
1/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
2. Online participation: The concept
What is “online participation”? Despite its popularity, the concept still remains rather vague and
ill–defined. To date, there is no established or widely accepted and applied definition of the term.
In fact, many studies on online participation suffer from a lack of a clear conceptual and
theoretical foundation (Hoffman, 2012). In a recent discussion of the concept of online political
participation, Gadras and Greffet [1] note how difficult it is “to distinguish between participating,
discussing, engaging and other activities such as reading, particularly, but not specifically, in an
online context.” Jenkins [2] proposes that participation — both on and off the Web — constitutes
“a property of culture”. Accordingly, a “participatory culture” is suggested to be one “1) with
relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement; 2) with strong support for
creating and sharing one’s creations with others; 3) with some type of informal mentorship
whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novices; 4) where members
believe that their contributions matter; 5) where members feel some degree of social connection
with one another”.
Although not expressly defining the concept of “online participation”, Jenkins’ description
encompasses a number of elements or definitional dimensions frequently encountered in online
participation research. We propose that three such dimensions are of critical importance to the
concept of “online participation”: (1) The creative dimension: online participation is commonly
associated with the creation and sharing of content on the Web; (2) The social dimension: the
creation and sharing activity is commonly embedded in some form of social group or community;
and, (3) The motivational dimension: online participation is commonly associated with the pursuit
of a social purpose.
In current definitions, one of these dimensions may feature more prominently than others. A
number of contributions focus on content creation and sharing (Hargittai and Walejko, 2008). Its
creative nature clearly distinguishes online participation from mere consumption or aimless
surfing on the Web: Online participation entails an increased level of activity, effort, or action. It
is more resource–intensive than mere consumption [3], it also requires a more extensive skill set
(Hargittai, 2002; van Dijk, 2005).
Yet, it is easy to grasp the equal importance of the social and motivational dimensions of online
participation if we consider the question of what Internet “participants” actually participate in.
Whether Internet users sign political petitions on the Web, are engaged in fan groups, edit
Wikipedia articles, create and upload artistic Vimeo videos, or answer a question on an online
health forum; all of these activities can be seen as a form of online participation because they
are geared towards a broader audience, some kind of social group or community (Schradie,
2011). Thereby, online participation goes beyond computer–mediated interpersonal
communication (Hoffman, 2012). A definition provided by Wikipedia (2014) even focuses strictly
on the social embeddedness of online participation: “Online participation is used to describe the
interaction between users and online communities on the Web.”
Finally, the concept of online participation implies a motivation to affect others, to influence or
change the status quo, even if only in a very minor way. This dimension is the most apparent in
the context of political participation. Verba, et al. [4], for example, define political participation as
an “activity that is intended or has the consequence of affecting, either directly or indirectly,
government action”. In a similar vein, Park and Perry [5] define (civic) participation as
“individual and collective engagement in public affairs”. As Jenkins (2006) points out, online
participants need to believe that their contribution matters, that someone or something will be
affected by their contribution.
For the purpose of this paper, we propose the following definition of “online participation”
encompassing all three dimensions discussed above: Online participation is the creation and
sharing of content on the Internet addressed at a specific audience and driven by a social
purpose. It should be noted that all three definitional dimensions are not necessarily equally
salient in all forms of online participation. Users can, for example, participate online by e–mailing
a complaint to a politician, which, at first glance, constitutes a mere act of interpersonal
communication, but is clearly driven by a social purpose. C reating crowdsourced art, instead,
may not follow an instantly apparent social purpose, but engages a social audience in a clearly
creative act. Finally, running a blog on feminist culture may not address a very clearly defined
audience, yet constitutes a both creative and purpose–driven use of the Internet.
Over the past years, many studies have shown that socio–demographic variables influence
individuals’ ability to access the Internet and use online media (DiMaggio, et al., 2003; van Dijk,
2006; Hargittai, 2002, 2010; Hargittai and Hinnant, 2008; van Deursen and van Dijk, 2010; van
Dijk, 2005; Zillien and Hargittai, 2009). Increasingly, though, research interest is turning to the
question of what individuals actually do once they’re online: How (inter)active, productive or
capital–enhancing are various Internet uses? Which users are especially prone to using the Web
in a capital–enhancing manner? In other words, research interest is migrating from the ‘digital
divide’ to the so–called ‘participation divide’ (Blank and Reisdorf, 2012; C orrea, 2010; Hargittai
and Walejko, 2008; Schradie, 2011). Van Deursen and colleagues (2014) discuss how active and
participatory Internet uses lead to increased economic, social and cultural benefits.
While these findings indicate that online participation can have important social consequences,
recent studies also indicate that the effect of socio–demographic antecedents on online
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
2/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
participation (as well as its outcomes) may actually vary by the form of participation under
observation (Blank, 2013; Hoffmann, et al., 2014; van Deursen, et al., 2014). In other words:
The ‘participation divide’ may differ in width and shape depending on the social domain of
participation. Accordingly, research is beginning to explore the multidisciplinary nature of online
participation: A 2014 pre–conference on the current state of digital divide research organized by
the International C ommunication Association (IC A) featured sessions focusing on domains of
Internet use as varied as education, entertainment or health. In summary, all of these recent
developments document the rising importance of the ‘online participation’ construct in Internet
and communication studies. They also document the complexity of the issue at hand and the
variety of perspectives applied to it.
By systematically reviewing the current literature on online participation, this study will provide
an overview of the state–of–research on online participation. It will differentiate forms of online
participation currently under observation and identify both distinct questions or findings and
common themes emerging across disciplinary boundaries. Aside from suggesting promising
avenues for future research, this study is also intended to contribute to the understanding and
definition of the concept of ‘online participation’ and the development of a theoretical foundation
or framework underlying this dynamic research domain (cf., Rice and Fuller, 2013). Defining the
concept is one important step in this direction. Identifying sub–fields of research and common
themes is another.
3. Method: Systematic literature review
A systematic literature review requires the specification of conceptually guided keywords. These
keywords are then used to search fitting databases and to reveal a holistic corpus of literature on
a given topic. Out of this population, the authors select the relevant studies based on clearly
defined criteria (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009; Jesson, et al., 2011; Webster and Watson, 2002).
For the literature review presented in this paper, we searched four databases: ISI Web of
Knowledge (WOK), ProQuest, EBSC Ohost, and Mendeley. WOK is often used for systematic
literature reviews because it is relatively comprehensive (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009). However,
we opted for adding other databases to assure maximum coverage of current research. Both
ProQuest and EBSC Ohost allow the search of a number of distinct databases. We used the meta–
search option that aggregates results across all databases. Finally, Mendeley was included to
allow for a more user–centered literature selection.
Only peer–reviewed journal articles and conference proceedings in English were considered.
Again, the four chosen databases were assumed to guarantee a broad and exhaustive overview
of the peer–reviewed literature. Of course, focusing on the peer–reviewed literature necessarily
excludes a number of more recent studies and important contributions contained in the grey
literature. A more comprehensive overview of these contributions would be possible by
employing tools such as Google Scholar. For an overview of the sub–domains of online
participation research as well as salient discourses within these domains, the peer–reviewed
literature was held to sufficiently represent the state–of–research.
Six keywords were employed in the search process and applied to the studies’ titles: “(online
OR Internet OR digital OR social media) AND (participation OR engagement)”. The first
four terms were intended to focus the search results on research addressing online or Internet
phenomena, the second two terms further focused the search results on studies addressing any
form of participation. Overall, the terms were chose so as to yield as wide a choice of studies as
possible potentially pertaining to online participation. Other, additional search terms, such as
“Web” or “Web 2.0” were considered, but eventually dropped for the sake of parsimony as their
inclusion did not add to the identified research corpus.
Applying the search terms to the studies’ titles alone constitutes an important limitation of the
review. A number of contributions would by necessity be excluded from the review if their titles
did not indicate that they address some aspect of online participation. This approach was chosen
because, first, it resulted in a number of hits large enough to be considered a reliable
representation of the research field, and because, second, an application of the search terms to
both the studies’ titles and abstracts resulted in an exponential increase in hits overwhelmingly
not pertaining to the issue at hand (i.e., the quality of the search results was significantly
lowered, necessitating even more selective interventions by the authors, rendering the analysis
less replicable).
We conducted the literature search over a period of 10 days in mid–February 2013 and included
all articles published between 1990 and 2013. The coding was subsequently conducted by three
experienced communication and Internet researchers, with discussions and resolution of critical
cases. A student assistant helped in the first phase of the literature review, downloading the
papers and removing doubles, but was not involved in the synthesis of the results.
In a first step, we collected the meta–information of the identified population of articles. This
search approach resulted in 1,788 hits (ISI: 500; EBC SO: 533; ProQuest: 463; Mendeley: 292).
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
3/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
In a second step, we merged the search results across the databases, in the course removing
840 multiple entries (remaining sample=948). In a third step, we scanned all titles and abstracts,
removing 295 clearly irrelevant papers, i.e., studies not addressing any form or dimension of
online participation (remaining sample=653). In a fourth step, papers were categorized according
to their overall field of inquiry, resulting in five distinct research areas: political/civic participation
(286), business participation (63), cultural participation (21), education participation (219), and
health participation (64). Overwhelmingly, studies could clearly be attributed to one of the areas
both by keywords employed in their titles and abstracts (i.e., “health”, “school”, “student”,
“music”, “customer service”, etc.) and by publication outlet. In some cases, studies featured a
topical overlap, in which cases the research team scanned the entire article and assigned the
study according to the field to which the study targeted its core contribution.
In a fifth step, we downloaded and analyzed the remaining papers. In this process, the number
of papers was further reduced based on two aspects: One group of papers addressed Internet
access in general, and preconditions of Internet use such as skills and literacy. We deemed these
questions too broad to contribute to the research question at hand. Another group of papers
focused very narrowly on ways and means to increase user engagement in specific online
platforms. We deemed this understanding of “engagement” as “platform use” too narrow and
excluded these papers. This left 194 articles, 132 of which are on political participation & civic
engagement, 15 on business participation, 15 on cultural participation, 20 on education
participation, and 12 on health participation (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Article sample according to participation category.
Figure 2 shows the development of research on each form of online participation over time. It
confirms that online participation has quickly gained attention in the past years. Yet our initial
findings also document the dominance of political & civic participation in current online
participation research.
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
4/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
Figure 2: Development of published articles on different forms of participation over time (articles of
2013 not considered for figure).
In order to address our research question, we will proceed to discuss each of the identified forms
of online participation and describe the salient discourses and state–of–research for each field of
inquiry, starting with political & civic participation.
4. Online political participation and civic engagement (OPP&CE)
With a total of 132 identified articles, this is by far the most extensive field of inquiry when it
comes to online participation. This chapter will provide an overview of key findings on online
political participation and civic engagement (OPP&C E). For the sake of clarity, not all identified
articles will be discussed in detail, but a table listing all articles is provided in the Appendix (Table
A).
4.1. Definitions and conceptual demarcations
While there is no generally accepted definition of online participation in this field, a number of the
identified articles rely on a definition of participation provided by Verba, et al. [6], which
conceptualizes the term as an “activity that is intended to or has the consequences of affecting,
either directly or indirectly, government action”. Yet, many of the identified studies lack a
systematic definition of participation. Some studies apply broader definitions that include acts like
voluntary and community work. Such activities are frequently summarized as “civic
engagement”: “C ivic engagement refers to citizens’ individual and collective involvement in
public affairs” [7]. We find that political participation and civic engagement are often investigated
as a composite construct in empirical studies. Accordingly, we consider political participation and
civic engagement a common field of inquiry.
A broad spectrum of online activities figures under the label of OPP&C E: In some cases, the
mere search for information — such as googling a politician’s name — is already seen as a form
of OPP&C E (e.g., di Gennaro and Dutton, 2006). Some studies address generic activities that are
possible off–line as well as online, such as signing petitions, others look at forms restricted to the
online world, like creating a political blog. OPP&C E is commonly operationalized as an index of
several activities that may include (but is not restricted to): political information search and
consumption, donating money, writing an e–mail message to a government representative or
politician, connecting with like–minded individuals in online communities, sharing photos, videos
or sound material, protests, boycotts, and e–voting (Best and Krueger, 2005; C alenda and
Meijer, 2009; C ogburn and Espinoza–Vasquez, 2011; de Zúñiga, et al., 2012; di Gennaro and
Dutton, 2006; Emmer, et al., 2012; Hoff, 2006; Hoffman, 2012; Jugert, et al., 2013; Kahne, et
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
5/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
al., 2012; Kaufhold, et al., 2010; Kavanaugh, et al., 2008; Krueger, 2002; Livingstone, et al.,
2005; Oostveen and Besselaar, 2004; Oser, et al., 2012; Rojas and Puig–i–Abril, 2009; Vissers,
et al., 2012; Ward, et al., 2003). It is apparent that the activities covered by OPP&C E differ
substantially in institutionalization as well as resource intensity. This provides a challenge to
comparisons across studies or meta–analyses.
As Figure 1 shows, the research corpus on OPP&C E is by far the largest of the five identified
forms of online participation. In some cases, online participation is even equated with OPP&C E.
Despite this apparent popularity in research, most empirical analyses find that OPP&C E is not a
very common activity among citizens (di Gennaro and Dutton, 2006). Of course, the prevalence
of OPP&C E depends upon its operationalization, i.e., the activities subsumed under the concept —
and also on the country surveyed. Most data on the prevalence of OPP&C E is available for the
U.S. Here, 16 percent of the population have published political pictures or videos online during
the last 12 months, and 34 percent have carried out one of these four activities online: signing a
petition, contacting a member of parliament, writing a letter to the editor, or publishing a news or
blog commentary (Smith, 2013).
Regrettably, such current numbers are missing for many other countries. However, some
evidence indicates lower levels of OPP&C E outside of the U.S. A study by Emmer and colleagues
(2012), for example, shows that German citizens’ off–line political participation far outweighs
their online participation. Most citizens are not engaged in political discussion and other forms of
participation on the Internet. However, the authors also describe a notable increase for some of
the surveyed activities between 2002 and 2010. Overall, the prevalence of most OPP&C E
activities in Germany is still in the single–digit percentages (Köcher and Bruttel, 2011).
Many empirical articles focus on traditional forms of engagement, such as voting or donating
money, i.e., forms of engagement not exclusive to the online world. New(er) forms, such as
writing blogs or sharing political videos, are less researched. Still we observe an increasing focus
on OPP&C E through social media in the past five years. Of the 132 articles in this cluster, 92
analyze general Internet use, 20 focus on social media, and 20 consider applications, such as
campaign Web sites (Park and Perry, 2008) or e–voting (C arter and Bélanger, 2012). The
earliest article on social media applications in our sample dates back to 2008 (Breindl and
Francq, 2008).
4.2. The Internet’s effect on participation and the discourse on slacktivism
A key research focus in this field, covering disciplines such as political science, sociology,
communication and Internet studies, is the Internet’s effect on citizens’ participatory practices. In
general, we can distinguish three perspectives on the topic (Anduiza, et al., 2009; de Zúñiga, et
al., 2009; Gibson, et al., 2005; Uslaner, 2004; Ward, et al., 2003): Optimists claimed that the
Web would enhance engagement and encourage wider sections of the population to participate
politically. Thus, the Internet would strengthen democracy and political engagement. This
“mobilization thesis” concurs with early cyper–optimist views (Rheingold, 1993; Turkle, 1995).
Pessimists, on the other hand, warned that Internet use would displace time previously dedicated
to political and civic engagement (Putnam, 2000). Realists, in turn, expect the Internet to have
little effect on participatory practices (Bimber, 2001). Active citizens would embrace the Internet
for their purposes, while those not participating off–line would not bother engaging online, either.
Non–participants would tend to use the Internet for non–participatory purposes, such as
entertainment. Instead of bringing new population segments (e.g., lower educated, youth) to
participate, the Internet could ultimately even reinforce existing divides (Norris, 2001). The
realist perspective has also been termed “normalization hypothesis”.
Empirical investigations tend to find a positive effect of Internet use on off–line political
engagement (Bakker and de Vreese, 2011; di Gennaro and Dutton, 2006; Moy, et al., 2005).
This finding has proven robust across different cultural contexts (Hwang, et al., 2006; Kwak, et
al., 2006; Wang, 2007). Also, civic engagement was found to be positively influenced by Internet
use (Stern and Dillman, 2006). A meta–analysis by Boulianne (2009) of 38 studies in the field
reveals hardly any negative effects but a clear and strong positive effect is not identified, either,
lending support to the normalization hypothesis. Similarly, Anduiza, et al. (2009) discuss the
effects of Internet use on both online and off–line political participation. Their literature overview
suggests a stronger link between Internet use and online political participation than off–line
political participation. In line with the vast majority of quantitative studies, the few qualitative or
case–based investigations in the field indicate a positive relationship between Internet use and
political or civic engagement (e.g., C ollin, 2008; Davis, 2010).
Increasingly, studies analyze political behavior on social media, for example social network sites
or blogs (C onroy, et al., 2012; de Zúñiga, et al., 2012; Macafee and De Simone, 2012; Rojas and
Puig–i–Abril, 2009). C onsequently, a debate is emerging on which online activities should actually
be considered “true” participation — and which ones can be considered mere symbolic
participation or “slacktivism” (Ritzi, et al., 2012). According to some voices, clicking a “like”
button on Facebook does not constitute actual participation and merely serves to appease one’s
conscience — or even constitutes an act of self–staging (Morozov, 2011). Empirical results do not
support the slacktivism thesis, though: Vitak, et al. (2011) show that low–threshold forms of
political participation, such as liking political content on Facebook, are not only widespread
among American students but also go hand in hand with more resource–intensive forms of
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
6/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
participation, like engaging in a political organization. C onroy, et al. (2012) find a positive
connection between political group membership on the Internet and off–line political engagement.
Generally, research on social media largely confirms previous findings on general Internet use,
and finds a positive rather than negative effect of new media use on PP&C E (de Zúñiga, et al.,
2009; de Zúñiga, et al., 2010).
Our analysis reveals a number of challenges in current research on OPP&C E: A methodological
challenge for most empirical studies concerns the isolation of Internet effects, something nearly
impossible to achieve with survey data. Additionally, early studies tended to apply very broad
measures of Internet access and use, e.g., time spent online. However, later research found that
some Internet uses can be considered more participatory, social and active, than others (e.g.,
information vs. entertainment). Thus, participation studies should differentiate Internet uses
when analyzing participatory effects (cf., Dutta–Bergman, 2006; George, 2005; Hampton, et al.,
2011).
Using the Internet for information purposes, such as news consumption, has been shown to be
positively associated with both online and off–line participation, whereas consuming media for
entertainment purposes is negatively related to participation (Bakker and de Vreese, 2011; de
Zúñiga, et al., 2012; Holt, et al., 2013; Wang, 2007). In a similar vein, Moy, et al. (2005) identify
seven types of Internet use: information, e–mail, household, political, consumer, social, and
community uses. Of these, only information, e–mail, political, and community uses are positively
associated with all forms of civic engagement. Active and social forms of using the Web also
seem to foster and supplement civic engagement. Dutta–Bergman’s (2006) study shows that
users who were active in online discussion forums in the wake of 09/11 were more active in
neighborhood and local communities.
4.3. Antecedents of OPP&CE
A range of studies show that a participatory use of the Web is unequally distributed in the overall
population (Albrecht, 2006), leading to a participation divide (Hargittai and Walejko, 2008). Not
all citizens are equally likely to participate politically or civically — a finding that is true for both
off–line and online participation. Demographics are helpful in differentiating political interest and
participation (Best and Krueger, 2005). Di Gennaro and Dutton (2006) find that while online and
off–line participants share some similarities, they do not completely overlap. Online participants
are more partisan and less trusting in traditional media than off–line participants (Kaufhold, et
al., 2010).
Looking at gender differences, most studies find that men politically participate more actively
than women (C alenda and Meijer, 2009) — off–line as well as online (Albrecht, 2006; di Gennaro
and Dutton, 2006; Gibson, et al., 2005). The gender effect may well be moderated by political
interest, though, as studies indicate that males score higher in this regard (Gibson, et al., 2005;
Wang, 2007). Age is another important predictor of online and off–line participation (Bridges, et
al., 2012; Burwell, 2010; Dahlgren, 2011; Jugert, et al., 2013; Kissau and Hunger, 2008; Macafee
and De Simone, 2012; Theocharis, 2011; Vromen, 2008). In fact, a number of studies in this
research field focus on young citizens (Bakker and de Vreese, 2011; Bennett, et al., 2011; C ollin,
2008; Kann, et al., 2007; Kaun and Guyard, 2011; Lariscy, et al., 2011; Livingstone, 2008;
Spaiser, 2012). C urrent debates on political apathy and insufficient knowledge among
adolescents often serve as the starting point for such inquiries.
Since age tends to impact political participation positively (Wang, 2007; Gibson, et al., 2005), but
negatively impacts Internet use, the overall effect of age on online political participation is
ambivalent. Di Gennaro and Dutton (2006) show that younger citizens rely more heavily on
online than off–line participation. According to Oser, et al. (2012), among politically active
citizens, those using the Internet for participation are younger. Institutional barriers to off–line
participation (voting age, developmental correlates, political interest) may explain why young
people’s political engagement is strongly driven by the Web and its affordances (C ollin, 2008).
Still, even among youth, male, higher status and better educated citizens are more politically
engaged online than their female, lower status and less educated counterparts (Livingstone, et
al., 2005). Education and income, both indicators of SES, positively impact off–line and online
political participation (Gibson, et al., 2005; Kwak, et al., 2006; Wang, 2007). The digital divide
literature identifies social status as an important predictor of Internet use (Hargittai and Hinnant,
2008; Hargittai, 2002; van Dijk, 2006). Hargittai and Walejko (2008) find that those with higher
social status tend to use the Internet more heavily for content production. C ontrolling for SES,
Web experience positively affects online political engagement (Gibson, et al., 2005). Experience
and self–efficacy increase diversity of Internet use, also in terms of political content (Livingstone,
et al., 2005; di Gennaro and Dutton, 2006). Best and Krueger (2005) find that online political
participation is best predicted by Internet skills and online mobilization, while civic skills and off–
line participation do not foster online participation.
Table 1: Summary of literature on OPP&CE.
Definition
Online engagement in public affairs and
online activities geared towards
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
7/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
influencing government action.
Internet effects; new forms of
Conceptual
engagement; participation divides; online
foci
— off–line link (slacktivism).
Exemplary
activities
Signing e–petitions; writing political blogs;
donating money online.
Despite extensive research attention only
limited prevalence: single to low double–
digit percentages, depending on country
and operationalization. Focus on
demographic and political antecedents;
Antecedents
Gender: men show higher rates of
and
OPP&C E than women; Age: ambivalent
prevalence
net effect; Education and SES: positive
effect but (partly) mediated through
online skills; Political interest: positive
effect (possibly mediator for socio–
demographic effects).
Outcomes
Internet use is weakly but positively
related to off–line political participation
and civic engagement; various forms of
Internet use have differing effects on off–
line engagement: active and information–
rich uses most strongly affect the off–line
sphere; newer, less institutionalized forms
of OPP&C E offer opportunities for young
citizens and those at the margins of the
political system to engage.
Exemplary
studies
Best and Krueger (2005), C alenda and
Meyer (2009), di Gennaro and Dutton
(2006), Moy, et al. (2005)
Number of
studies
132
5. Online business participation (OBP)
5.1. Definitions and conceptual demarcations
A second cluster of studies addresses Internet users’ online engagement in business affairs.
Accordingly, online business participation (OBP) encompasses online participation geared towards
corporations. Most articles on OBP focus on the relations between companies and customers —
often from a corporate point of view. Therefore, studies in this area tend to have a marketing
focus. The small number of publications in this field shows that the management and business
literature on Web use is seldom framed within a participation discourse. Of the initial list of 63
papers in this stream, 48 papers were excluded because of a narrow focus on user engagement
in specific platforms, or management opportunities to increase platform engagement. This finding
documents a functional perspective — only few studies recognize that the subject at hand is part
of a larger social phenomenon.
5.2. Customer participation: co–creation, prosumers and shifting power relations
Eleven of the identified papers focus on customer participation in business processes. Some of
them address customer engagement in the sense of customer service improvements. These
studies explore how new media can strengthen the exchange relationships between businesses
and their customers in the vein of relationship marketing (Dabholkar and Sheng, 2012; Sashi,
2012). More extensive customer engagement has been addressed under labels such as “co–
creation” or the “prosumer”, combining consumption with productive input (C haney, 2012;
Ramaswamy, 2008; Sawhney, et al., 2005). The underlying hypothesis states that digital media
facilitate the interaction of producers and consumers and allow for collaborative value creation.
Thus, such participation goes beyond a mere customization of products or services (cf., C hang,
et al., 2009). New media enable creative customer input into the development (“open
innovation”), design, and production of business offers (Franquet, et al., 2011; Ramaswamy,
2008).
The literature tends to stress the benefits for businesses and consumers made possible by new
media. Whether these changes also constitute a shift in control or power is barely problematized.
This may be seen as surprising as consumer participation does appear to shift control from the
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
8/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
corporation to the consumer (C hang, et al., 2009; Riegner, 2007). The accessibility of new media
and their role as a public platform for interest groups require companies’ attention. Here, power
asymmetries can be reduced and interactions can potentially become more dialogue–oriented
(Sawhney, et al., 2005).
As for empirical findings, new media are shown to allow for a wider variety of customer
engagement, increasing interactivity and richness in the exchange relationships. Some studies
notice that customer participation entails a shift in value creation — commonly increasing the
benefit received by the customer, in some cases decreasing the benefit for the business
(C haney, 2012), in others providing new sources of value creation (Franquet, et al., 2011). This
shift does not need to be material in nature, as participation can also increase customer
satisfaction and trust (Dabholkar and Sheng, 2012; C hang, et al., 2009; Sashi, 2012). One study
suggests that power realignments due to consumer participation may be moderated by
consumers’ sense of belonging to the organization they engage with (“organizational citizenship”;
Yen, et al., 2011).
5.3. Stakeholder involvement and word–of–mouth
Only few studies investigate stakeholder groups beyond customers. However, we do find
analyses of how critical stakeholder groups use new media to advocate for their interests via
word–of–mouth communication (Riegner, 2007; C haney, 2012). A number of studies address the
concept of “advocacy” — but only in the sense of word–of–mouth promotion: it is achieved when
“delighted or loyal customers share their delight or loyalty in interactions with others in their
social networks and become advocates for a product, brand, or company” [8]. Only one study
addresses potential dangers in businesses misusing or opposing customer word–of–mouth online
(C ampbell, et al., 2012).
One article explores the potential of online media for stakeholder engagement in a more
traditional sense: Adams and Frost (2006) analyze the use of online tools for communicating
social and environmental performance to stakeholders in Australia, Germany and U.K. They find
that businesses’ online tools and corporate Web sites are primarily geared towards customers
and shareholders, but not towards other stakeholder groups. By contrast, stakeholder groups
recognize the potential of new media to articulate their voice. They use social media to exchange
information and critically monitor companies’ behavior (Kane, et al., 2009). Social media,
especially, allow communities to share knowledge and monitor corporate behavior, while
simultaneously shortening the available response time for corporations. Finally, one study shows
that frequent use of the Internet increases the likelihood of shareholder participation (Bogan,
2008). The Internet provides access to financial information and also facilitates access to the
capital market (online banking/brokerage).
5.4. The creative industries
A small subset of studies focuses on creative industries, such as journalism or the music
industry. C reative industries are especially receptive to changes in consumer–producer
interaction caused by new media as their output consists of a combination of creativity and
productive resources — the latter being directly affected by changes in media technology
(Franquet, et al., 2011). Therefore, digital and social media constitute a disruptive innovation for
creative industries, including journalism (Nguyen, 2006). New media enable the creation and
distribution of content to a broad public. Thereby, users become potential media producers
(C haney, 2012). This disruption of traditional business models is explored in the context of music
piracy, the self-promotion of semi–professional producers and citizen journalism (Nguyen, 2006).
Such activities lead to a shift of revenue streams from traditional players to new actors. New
forms of creative participation do not have to be detrimental to established actors, though. Again,
the inclusion of customers into the production process can increase their attention and loyalty —
adapting the business model accordingly can open up new business opportunities and revenue
streams (C haney, 2012).
5.5. Antecedents of OBP
Studies on OBP rarely consider demographic antecedents of participation. C ustomer interaction,
participation in co–creation, and the independent production of creative output depend on
different interests, motivations, and skills. Psychological drivers play an important part in shaping
user readiness to participate in business affairs. Information systems studies have shown that
perceived usefulness and ease of use strongly affect users’ intention to adopt new media in a
professional capacity (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000; Venkatesh, et al., 2003).
Furthermore, attitudes shape people’s willingness to engage. Those with an open–minded attitude
towards technology and a playful approach should be more likely to interact with companies
online than those riddled with concerns, e.g., about online privacy. Finally, social–cognitive
studies indicate that self–efficacy acts as an important driver in fostering online engagement
(C ompeau, et al., 1999). Again, a number of studies apply these findings to the analysis of user
engagement in specific online platforms — a field of inquiry not considered in this review.
Table 2: Summary of literature on OBP.
Online participation in business affairs and
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
9/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
Definition
engagement geared towards
corporations.
C ustomer service; relationship
marketing; co–creation, crowdsourcing
Conceptual
and open innovation; word–of–mouth
foci
marketing; stakeholder engagement;
creative industries.
Exemplary
activities
Participating in open innovation and idea
contests; co–creation; recommending or
criticizing corporations on social media.
No representative data on prevalence due
to insufficient conceptualization; focus on
Antecedents
psychological antecedents (e.g., self–
and
efficacy) and perceived platform and Web
prevalence
site attributes (e.g., usefulness, ease of
use).
Outcomes
Increased interactivity and richness in
stakeholder relations can increase trust
and customer satisfaction; new media
provide new tools for critical engagement
of corporations, but online engagement
also creates buy–in effects (organizational
citizenship); online participation
constitutes a disruptive innovation for
some business models (e.g., creative
industries).
Exemplary
studies
C haney (2012), Sashi (2012), Kane, et al.
(2009), Nguyen (2006), C ampbell, et al.
(2012)
Number of
studies
15
6. Online cultural participation (OCP)
6.1. Definitions and conceptual demarcations
A number of studies address the creative self–expression of Internet users. We subsume these
studies under online cultural participation (OC P). The activities considered in this field of inquiry
are very diverse, ranging from the production and sharing of music to the shared creation of
identity in online communities. C ultural participation is frequently related to productive Internet
uses. In this domain, participants create something — although this “something” can vary
drastically in nature. In most cases, creative engagement in this domain does not serve
commercial purposes (Ryu, et al., 2009). Some authors consider the creation of meaning,
understanding or insights a creative act, with new media facilitating the processing or adaptation
of content (Deuze, 2006). The question of what activity constitutes a creative act can be seen as
contentious, since new media facilitate the reconfiguration of existing content (remixing, mash–
ups, bricolage). Finally, cultural participation can be directed at a broad spectrum of objects —
such as music, movies, philosophy, religion, or fandom.
6.2. Online communities: Belonging, identity and fan culture
Online communities are a key subject of studies in OC P. Empirical analyses find that engagement
in creative communities tends to follow a power law distribution: Few very active users create the
majority of content, some active participants complement this content with occasional
contributions, and the vast mass of users just consumes content (Nov, et al., 2009). Ewing
(2008) provides a useful typology of participants in creative communities. It rests on established
online terminology and describes six groups: lurkers, newbies, regulars, elders, legacy (former
elders that gradually “retire” from the community but still command respect), and trolls. Of
particular interest are elders, i.e., community members at the upper end of the productivity scale
who are essential to the order and vibrancy of a community. By moderating others’ contributions,
they contribute to the identity and functionality of a community. They determine its purpose and
tone (Ewing, 2008). With activity also comes power: decisions of censorship, exclusion of other
members and the promotion of certain topics are mainly carried out by elders (Holt and Karlsson,
2011).
The longer members engage in online communities, the more important they perceive their
membership: in time, social use motives supersede functional ones (C ook, et al., 2009; Nov, et
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
10/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
al., 2009). A key purpose of creative online communities is seen in social support and identity
formation — through mutual acts of self–assurance (Ewing, 2008; Rajagopalan, 2011). Such
aspects of OC P are particularly important for marginalized social groups, such as sexual or
religious minorities (Alon and Brunel, 2007). Their OC P can lead to higher levels of self–
acceptance, more self–confidence, and the reduction of perceived isolation (McKenna and Bargh,
1998). In this sense, surfing the Web and the search for a fitting community can be regarded as
acts of self–discovery and identity formation (Helland, 2002).
Yet, online communities also serve as a production and distribution tool for more tangible cultural
artefacts. Here, friends, supporters and fans exchange ideas, support each other and organize.
Thereby, functional use motives do play an important role, especially for initial engagement. An
interesting example of the increasing importance of social uses for community members are
online fan communities. C ase studies show that fans perceive a strong feeling of belongingness
to their community, even if they are far removed from their object of admiration (Bennett,
2012). Some communities tend to take on a life of their own, i.e., the exchange, support and
identification within the community become more important to its members than the initial object
of discussion (Rajagoplan, 2011).
While communities play a key role in OC P studies, empirical analyses have found that online
engagement is only rarely transferred to the off–line world (Nonnecke, et al., 2006). Online
communities have a thematic focus beyond which members share few similarities. Nevertheless,
more active participants in online communities perceive themselves as more satisfied and more
advantaged than passive members (Nonnecke, et al., 2006). The positive outcomes of OC P —
especially social benefits — are perceived more strongly by members of marginalized groups
(Alon and Brunel, 2007), in some cases leading to higher activity levels (Helland, 2002).
6.3. Antecedents of OCP
Many studies in this field of inquiry rely on qualitative methods. There are only few quantitative
studies of antecedents of OC P. Analyses have found a negative correlation between age and
online engagement (Grace–Farfaglia, et al., 2006; Ho, et al., 2008). Higher levels of experience
and self–efficacy, in turn, drive online engagement (Ryu, et al., 2009). C ultural participation is
often associated with high levels of use complexity, leading to a large participation divide in this
area (Ho, et al., 2008). Some studies apply established theories of media use to OC P, like uses
and gratifications: Here, functional motives can be distinguished from social motives (Alon and
Brunel, 2007). Because the creation of meaning plays an important part in OC P research,
motives of identification and belongingness often figure prominently in such inquiries (McKenna
and Bargh, 1998). Research shows that functional motives often explain users’ first contact with
online communities. Over time, however, they tend to develop a sense of affiliation, and social
motives displace functional ones (Ewing, 2008). Users with a high sense of belonging engage
more often in online discussions, and with increasing experience and duration of membership,
the depth and richness of their contributions increases (Nov, et al., 2009). Finally, cultural drivers
of OC P have been identified. National cultures differ in their conduciveness to online participation
(Grace–Farfaglia, et al., 2006). Also, social marginalization is proposed as a driver of OC P: social
pressure on marginalized groups increases their ideological polarization, corresponding with
rising communication and mobilization needs (Farrell, 2011).
Table 3: Summary of literature on OCP.
Definition
Participation in creative self–expression
and engagement in predominantly non–
commercial productive Internet uses.
Online communities; cultural artefacts;
Conceptual
social identity; community roles; use
foci
motives; fan culture.
Exemplary
activities
C reating and sharing music, movies or
poetry online; expressions of social
identity; participation in online fan
communities.
Power law distribution of activity: only few
users are heavily engaged in online
communities; Age: younger users show
Antecedents higher levels of OC P; Use motives: OC P
and
is often initially driven by functional
prevalence motives which are then gradually
replaced by social motives; social
marginalization is held to increase
engagement/OC P.
Social inclusion, belonging and identity
formation are considered key outcomes
of OC P — again, this outcome is held to
be of heightened importance for members
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
11/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
Outcomes
Exemplary
studies
of socially marginalized groups; functional
outcomes may include attention of peers,
critical feedback and public promotion;
active participants perceive more benefits
and higher levels of satisfaction than do
“lurkers”; while social support is a key
outcome of OC P, online relations prove
difficult to transfer to the off–line world.
Nonnecke, et al. (2006), McKenna and
Bargh (1998), Helland (2002), Grace–
Farfaglia, et al. (2006), Deuze (2006)
Number of
studies
15
7. Online education participation (OEP)
7.1. Definitions and conceptual demarcations
Online education participation (OEP) is the subject of the second biggest research stream in our
analysis after OPP&C E. We understand OEP as individuals’ participation in educational activities
based on online media. A large number of studies in this domain analyze specific platforms or
instruments of online learning. Our analysis, however, was geared more towards the overall
participatory effect of new media in the domain of education. Optimistic observers expect a
strong impact of new media on learning and education: “Providing learning anytime, anyplace
and to anyone” (Robinson and Hullinger, 2008). A U.K. study shows that only 20 percent of the
overall population use the Internet for educational purposes (White and Selwyn, 2012). At the
same time, another study conducted in the U.K. finds that 90 percent of all students aged 9 to 19
use the Internet to look for information in a learning context (Livingstone and Bober, 2004).
Internet use has been shown to be more widespread among students than among teachers
(Erstad, 2006). An American study found that 76 percent of teachers use new media for teaching
purposes, but mostly to understand their students’ activities and to collect information (Asselin
and Moayeri, 2011). Students, in turn, use the Internet for a wider variety of learning–related
activities (Erstad, 2006).
7.2. Student–centered learning and institutional challenges
The Internet reduces barriers to information access and facilitates autodidactic leraning
(Robinson and Hullinger, 2008). Interactive media, especially, allow for new forms of learning,
educational interactions and institutional settings. C omputer–mediated learning can overcome
some disadvantages of traditional (presence) learning, e.g., social pressure or intimidation
(Davies and Graff, 2005; Rambe, 2012). Overall, the Internet is held to weaken traditional
hierarchies in learning institutions and empower the learners/students (Erstad, 2006; Kidd,
2011). These technological and social effects are reflected in current pedagogic theories.
Some authors describe teachers’ new role as facilitators who only sporadically intervene in the
students’ largely self–regulated learning processes (Duncan, et al., 2012). Student–centered
learning has become an important keyword of pedagogy in the Internet age (Arbaugh, 2000;
Hrastinski, 2008). New media support the exchange amongst learners and support collaborative
forms of education (McBrien, et al., 2009). Hence, new forms of co–created learning and
knowledge sharing emerge, characterized by transparency and comparability. Not only are
learners becoming more independent and self–reliant, “empowerment” may even turn traditional
hierarchies on their heads, e.g., when students start evaluating and grading their teachers in
public online forums (Asselin and Moayeri, 2011). Accordingly, OEP can be said to imply a power
shift in education.
7.3. OEP versus off–line learning
Studies on OEP show that the affordances of the applied technologies influence the effect of
online learning. Synchronous platforms are distinguished from asynchronous ones. Synchronous
communication has been shown to positively impact learning success (Duncan, et al., 2012),
leading to higher levels of involvement (Hrastinski, 2008). Furthermore, research indicates that
students in online courses exhibit more engagement than those in off–line courses (Robinson and
Hullinger, 2008). In many cases, online participation also leads to better test results compared to
off–line courses (Davies and Graff, 2005; Stewart, et al., 2011). The fact that online courses are
more self–regulated and require more self–discipline might explain this finding. When online and
off–line elements are offered simultaneously, the participation in online options has no negative
effects on off–line participation (Stewart, et al., 2011).
Many of these findings still imply a hierarchical learning relationship between teachers and
students. More far–reaching consequences arise when existing structures are challenged, with
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
12/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
the Internet fostering the collaboration among learners. Students then create social capital in
networks of learning (Hrastinski, 2009), with individual learners possessing significant autonomy
(McBrien, et al., 2009). Thereby, students, their decisions and collaboration, are shifted to the
center of the learning experience (Arbaugh, 2000; Erstad, 2006; Hrastinski, 2008). The Internet
allows for the mutual exchange between students even when it is not desired by the education
providers, as recent controversy about online teacher or professor evaluations shows (Rambe,
2012).
C ritical studies point to the Internet’s potential for distraction and a reduction of attention spans
(Rambe, 2012). Some investigate the question of whether online learning — without mutual
exchange or presence learning — leads to social isolation. Students in online courses indeed
experience less frequent personal exchange than their colleagues in off–line courses (Rabe–
Hemp, et al., 2009). Thanks to the affordances of more recent Web tools, however, distance
learning is becoming more social and interactive than in the pre–digital age (McBrien, et al.,
2009).
7.4. Antecedents of OEP
Empirical studies find that young students participate more actively in OEP than older ones. This
is especially true for creative or productive forms of Internet use (C orrea, 2010). As for gender,
male users report higher levels of perceived competence and self–efficacy than their female
counterparts. This does not imply that OEP is a male–dominated field, though. On the contrary,
women use online courses more often than men (C aspi, et al., 2008). Female students also
communicate more actively in online learning environments and make more use of collaborative
functionalities (Arbaugh, 2000; Erstad, 2006; Robinson and Hullinger, 2008).
A specific challenge to OEP is the development of the necessary competencies or skills. Higher
levels of self–efficacy and a playful attitude towards technology foster OEP (Spence and Usher,
2007). Aside from digital literacies, other important competencies include creativity and critical
analysis — e.g., of the quality and credibility of online content (Kimber and Wyatt–Smith, 2010).
Because OEP depends on autonomy and independence, a “literacy of empowerment” — the
ability to create, collaborate and critically participate — has been proposed as a key asset in OEP
(Asselin and Moyaeri, 2011). Traditional asymmetries in competencies between teachers and
students are challenged in OEP as teachers may be more reluctant to use new technologies
(Erstad, 2006). Schools tend to be relatively inflexible institutions, with pedagogical concepts and
curricula only changing slowly (Livingstone, 2010). Empowerment and participation do not
necessarily correspond to how these institutions function (Kidd, 2011).
Table 4: Summary of literature on OEP.
Definition
Participation in educational activities
based on online media.
Student empowerment; student–centered
Conceptual
learning; synchronous/asynchronous
foci
technologies; distance learning; literacy.
Exemplary
activities
Taking online courses; using collaborative
online tools in school.
The prevalence of OEP is limited to the
proportion of the population engaged in
some form of educational activity; among
students, the Internet can be shown to be
a key learning tool; teachers are catching
Antecedents up in their use of the Internet. Some
socio–demographic antecedents of OEP
and
prevalence are considered: Age: young students
participate more actively in OEP than
older ones; Gender: higher levels of
perceived competence and self–efficacy
among males, but female students exhibit
higher levels of engagement.
Outcomes
OEP is associated with high levels of
learning engagement and has been shown
to positively affect learning success;
strengthening of student autonomy and
facilitation of student–centered learning;
studies have found only little substitution
effects between online and off–line
learning; purely online learning
experiences are associated with reduced
levels of social exchange, yet distance
learning is becoming more interactive due
to online media.
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
13/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
Exemplary
studies
Livingstone (2010), Livingstone and Bober
(2004), C orrea (2010), White and Selwyn
(2012), Hrastinski (2008; 2009)
Number of
studies
20
8. Online health participation (OHP)
8.1. Definitions and conceptual demarcations
We conceptualize online health participation (OHP) as the engagement in health–related issues on
the Internet. In questions of health, the Web has become a crucial information source — users
can easily access an enormous variety of health information at any time. A large part of the
population searches for health information at least occasionally (Schubart, et al., 2011). Hence,
users can improve their understanding of their own health — and thus their judgment of sensible
treatment methods — due to online media. Some individuals have taken to describing their own
health–related experiences online, others comment on or rate health services. At the same time,
active participation in self–help groups is still an exception (van Uden–Kraan, et al., 2011),
possibly because certain syndromes that stimulate the need for active online exchange have only
limited prevalence.
8.2. Patient empowerment and self–help
Empowerment is an important keyword in the discussion on OHP, with users being empowered in
a number of ways: On the one hand, OHP increases patients’ level of information. They also
obtain new options for judging their own health situation. Thus, Internet users can take on a
more active and self–determined role in the treatment of diseases. C ritical voices note that
empowerment of patients can also be risky, e.g., in the case of self–diagnosis and –treatment.
Some health professionals perceive the new self–confidence and the Internet–supported
knowledge of their patients as irritating (van Uden–Kraan, et al., 2008). On the other hand,
empowerment not only occurs in the exchange with health services providers, but first and
foremost among affected patients. Studies on OHP often focus on examples of self–help. Similar
to OC P, online communities receive significant attention. Only a small minority (less than 10
percent of users) has been shown to use online self–help groups — still, these groups constitute
an interesting case of online engagement (van Uden–Kraan, et al., 2011), as interactive self–help
on the Internet leads to new forms of health care: decentralized and bottom–up.
In OHP — like in OC P — functional use motives can be distinguished from social motives. Users
often turn to the Internet in search of information, while motives of support and exchange are far
less widespread (Ginossar, 2008; van Uden–Kraan, et al., 2009). Users suffering from a disease
or from subjective social isolation are most likely to engage in online self–help groups (Rodgers
and C hen, 2005). Subjective insecurity, low self–competence and a lack of information also
motivate users to participate actively on the Internet (Han, et al., 2012). Since some diseases
entail social stigmata, the affected users perceive the mutual help and emotional support
provided in self–help forums as a strong benefit. These patients appreciate the opportunity to
express their thoughts and experiences (Ginossar, 2008; van Uden–Kraan, et al., 2009). Patients
engaged in OHP often possess a certain expert status and take a stand for their health–related
interests. The more actively they engage online, the likelier they are to report good coping with
their disease, a better general mood, and more optimism in the evaluation of their health
expectations (Høybye, et al., 2010; Rodgers and C hen, 2005). By contrast, less engaged users
tend to avoid confronting their disease and perceive more fatalism (Høybye, et al., 2010).
Empowerment is not only an objective consequence of online engagement, but also a matter of
attitude. Engaged patients often feel they make better health–related decisions and demand
more autonomy in their treatment (van Uden–Kraan, et al., 2009), they become more informed
consumers (Sandaunet, 2008). These positive outcomes of OHP are facilitated by social Internet
uses. Thus, the social dynamics of online community membership impact individuals’ sense of
self (Sandaunet, 2008). Sometimes, forms of activism can emerge out of such dynamics, for
example when group members propagate their interests to the outside world (Ginnosar, 2008;
van Uden–Kraan, et al., 2008).
Finally, some studies also consider online offers for relatives and friends of patients. Here too,
engaged users report higher levels of subjective well–being than non–users (Tanis, et al., 2011).
Studies find that in the realm of OHP, online contacts are rarely transferred to the off–line world
(Rodgers and C hen, 2005). While online, a mutual cause may suffice to create a feeling of
belongingness, this may not be a sufficient basis to form friendships in the off–line world. This
finding is especially relevant since users who look for and find their support network primarily on
the Internet tend to retreat from off–line relationships (Epstein, et al., 2002).
8.3. Antecedents of OHP
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
14/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
Age has been found to be an important driver of OHP, with young users engaging more
frequently than older users. Similarly, the more experienced users are, the more active their
engagement (Han, et al., 2012; Rodgers and C hen, 2005; Steinmark, et al., 2006). Users’
attitudes towards the Internet also affect their OHP. The Web lowers access barriers to self–help
offers — and anonymity makes it easier to use such options. However, to use them, users need
to trust the medium Internet. The higher their levels of online privacy concerns, the lower the
likelihood of OHP (Han, et al., 2012).
In OHP, gender seems to act in the reverse direction compared to other forms of participation,
such as OPP&C E, with women participating more actively than men (van Uden–Kraan, et al.,
2011). SES has been shown to affect individuals’ chances of healing — independently of their
Internet use (Høybye, et al., 2010). Lower SES patients report lower levels of well–being due to
their illness compared with their high SES counterparts (Epstein, et al., 2002). Higher SES also
corresponds with more online participation. Thus, OHP may compound pre–existing inequalities in
health care and healing probabilities. At the same time, lower SES users profit more from their
online participation: They value the information and communication options of the Internet
particularly highly (van Uden–Kraan, et al., 2009). The effect of household size on OHP remains
unclear. Young users from single households tend to exhibit high levels of activity (Han, et al.,
2012). At the same time, users tend to be more strongly engaged when they are encouraged by
their social environment (van Uden–Kraan, et al., 2011).
Table 5: Summary of literature on OHP.
Definition
Engagement in health–related issues on
the Internet.
Health information; patient
Conceptual
empowerment; treatment outcomes; self–
foci
help and support forums.
Exemplary
activities
Seeking out health–related information
and information on treatment options;
discussing health–related issues in self–
help forums; participating in support
groups; online engagement in campaigns
(e.g., breast cancer awareness).
While information seeking is a widely
accepted practice, only few users engage
in online forums and support groups.
Some demographic antecedents are
considered: Age: younger users engage
more frequently than older users;
Gender: female users engage more often
Antecedents
than males; SES: higher SES leads to
and
more OHP; Attitudes towards the
prevalence
Internet: trust positively affects OHP while
privacy concerns inhibits OHP; Motives:
functional motives are important in the
initiation of OHP; subjective insecurity is
also a driver of OHP; subjective suffering
from a health issue increases likelihood of
OHP.
Outcomes
Lower SES users perceive more
subjective benefit from OHP than higher
SES ones; patients are empowered to
play a more active role in their health
care; medical professionals feel that OHP
makes patients more critical and
demanding; OHP fosters coping with
diseases and decreases fatalism.
Exemplary
studies
van Uden–Kraan, et al. (2008; 2009;
2011), Sandaunet (2008), Rodgers and
C hen (2005)
Number of
studies
12
9. Conclusion
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
15/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
9.1. Synthesis
Online participation is a thriving research area that — like its object of study — is constantly
evolving. Thus, our analysis should be understood as a summary of the current state of research
on the matter. We were able to differentiate forms of online participation considered in current
research and identify differing foci, discourses and findings. By differentiating and exploring
distinct forms of online participation, this study provides an overview of the research field and
allows for a more comprehensive approach to the social phenomena related to online
participation. It should help facilitate common understandings and conceptualizations of these
phenomena across the identified research streams — and thereby further accelerate the
academic exploration of crucial questions such as antecedents, activities, levels and outcomes of
online participation.
To date, the various research streams identified in our analysis remain largely unconnected.
Disciplinary boundaries prevail and disciplinary perspectives dominate the respective analyses.
Researchers in each field show little interest in transferring previous findings from other domains.
There is no identifiable common research program on online participation — we expect that
researchers do not identify primarily as participation scholars, but rather as management,
education or health communication scholars. Accordingly, we find a wide variety of definitions
and conceptual frameworks applied to the issue. We also find some redundancy, as findings from
one domain are replicated in other domains. At the same time, the differentiation of research
streams provides opportunities to learn from specific insights generated in one area or the other.
We will highlight four overarching or recurring issues identified in the identified domains.
(1) One recurring discourse we found in a number of research streams is the one on
“empowerment”. Empowerment entails user access to online information and conversation. By
sharing and discussing information, users not only gain knowledge, but also self–confidence.
Accordingly, established authorities — such as doctors, teachers or politicians — are called into
question. Traditionally hierarchical relations, e.g., in health care or education, are shaken up by
increasingly self–confident and self–organizing users. We find that OPP&C E and OBP researchers,
especially, could profit from these findings by considering more subtle forms of empowerment.
Like medical professionals and teachers, government officials, politicians and managers may well
face ever more informed, engaged and demanding stakeholders in the future — a change that
may not become instantly apparent when focusing on voting behavior, engagement in traditional
political parties or customer service issues alone.
(2) In some cases, empowerment also calls established business models into question. We find
this effect in education, health, business and cultural participation. Examples such as citizen
journalism show that the Internet provides users with new opportunities of self–directed value
creation. Established providers, in turn, find that the provision of services is no longer their
prerogative. Just as lay users start reporting and commenting on current affairs, students self–
organize their learning experience and patients find information and support online. These
developments need not be disruptive alone, as some institutions strive to incorporate stakeholder
input into their value proposition. Findings in OBP indicate that engaging stakeholders may lead
to increased identification, loyalty and satisfaction. It remains largely unclear how political,
medical or educational institutions will adapt to the empowerment of their stakeholders, though.
(3) A third recurring topic concerns the antecedents of online participation. Here, we noticed
differing perspectives depending on the research area. Whereas demographic characteristics,
user skills, interests and self–efficacy are crucial antecedents in the OPP&C E and OHP clusters,
other areas focus more on user interests and use motivations, e.g., in OC P and OEP. In certain
areas, the discourse on the antecedents of participation is more pronounced (OPP&C E) than in
others, that, in turn, focus more on consequences (e.g., OEP). Here, we see learning potential for
all the identified clusters. Research on OPP&C E could profit from a stronger consideration of user
motivations and perceptions. Research on OEP, OBP or OC P, on the other hand, could focus
more on users’ backgrounds, education, or social capital. Overall, debate on the “participation
divide” should be differentiated by the identified areas of online participation as antecedents may
have different effects depending on the form of participation under consideration.
(4) Finally, we find significant interest in the question of the online — off–line transfer of
participation, i.e., the question of whether users can transfer their online participation beyond the
digital sphere. The empirical results provide weak positive evidence in favor of an off–line
impact, especially in OPP&C E (Boulianne, 2009). In many cases, online participants report
benefits from their engagement, e.g., in the context of patient support forums that help
individuals cope with illnesses, or in the education area, where participation in online courses
allows for more individualized and flexible learning. Yet, a number of case studies found that
social relations or support networks created online are difficult to transfer to the off–line sphere,
as common interests may be sufficiently strong to support an online community, but not to
nurture real world friendships. So in some respects, online participation appears limited to the
digital sphere.
9.2. Limitations
When interpreting the findings from our analysis, some limitations should be taken into
consideration. First and foremost, the findings presented in this study are determined by the
applied research process, including the choice of keywords and databases. These specifications
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
16/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
are necessary to structure and distill the extensive literature. While we are confident that the four
chosen databases provide a comprehensive overview of the peer–reviewed English literature,
and the chosen search terms allow for a broad access to the issues addressed in various
disciplines, the application of the search terms to the studies’ titles clearly limits the scope of the
search results. We acknowledge that a number of important contributions in the respective fields
are not included in this overview simply because their titles don’t make them instantly
recognizable as pieces of online participation research. The research process was designed to
allow for a broad overview of the current state of research, to allow for an identification and
differentiation of research fields and sub–discourses. Thereby, in each individual field discussed
in this review, breadth was chosen over depth. Experts in the respective fields will easily identify
individual studies missing from the review. In fact, each individual field identified in this analysis
would warrant its own systematic literature review.
Since — as we have seen — the topic of online participation is attracting significant attention and
the overall research field is growing at a dynamic pace, the existing body of literature is already
too large for us to provide an exhaustive overview. However, due to the standardized research
process, we managed to identify a broad selection of pertinent studies, included in the analysis
independent of the publication outlet, authors’ origin or position within the field. For the less
developed research fields, such as business or cultural participation, this approach is necessary
in order to gain a clear understanding of the relevant discourse. For other, more established
fields, such as political participation, future reviews might want to weigh search results by
centrality or citation frequency (which would also allow for a broader approach, such as applying
search terms to titles and abstracts).
Another limitation of our study is its focus on peer–reviewed journal or conference proceedings
publications. In some domains, other publication formats, such as books, constitute important
contributions to the field and should be considered in field–specific reviews. C hoosing peer–
reviewed publications only allowed for a comparison across various disciplines, with the
consideration of conference proceedings ensuring that more recent, evolving discourses were not
being neglected. Finally, we only analyzed publications in English, neglecting other important
(research) languages, such as French, Spanish, or German. This language selection may result in
a cultural bias — more specifically a distinct Anglo–centric perspective on the issues at hand.
9.3. Propositions for future research
Finally, we derive a number of propositions from our analysis that may serve to guide future
research into online participation. We try to identify propositions that are applicable across all
five forms of online participation identified in the review. As we have seen, some research fields
are more coherent and advanced than others (most notably the field of OPP&C E). Accordingly,
current research interests vary from field to field. In the case of OPP&C E, we find that, due to
techniques applied in recent election campaigns, opportunities provided by big data analyses are
increasingly gaining attention (Ausserhofer and Maireder, 2013; Bruns and Burgess, 2011;
C onover, et al., 2013). Yet, this research interest has not yet spilled over into the other identified
research fields. In other words, we will focus on propositions that we deem salient to the overall
research domain of online participation — across all the identified forms of participation. Many of
these propositions concern the development of a robust theoretical framework necessary for
online participation research in all current and further, future domains and disciplines.
Proposition 1: Online participation should be clearly
defined as an activity distinct from information and
communication.
A surprising number range of studies do not provide a definition of online participation. In fact,
we did not find any conceptualization that is equally considered in various research fields.
Frequently, acts of information search or communication are subsumed under participation or
engagement (Hoffman, 2012), while, again, these concepts are not clearly differentiated. One
notable approach is to conceptualize online participation as online content creation and sharing.
Several studies on the participation divide have applied this understanding (C orrea, 2010;
Hargittai and Walejko, 2008). Future studies should strive for a clear(er) conceptual
understanding and definition of online participation. We provide a working definition of online
participation in this study that we deem applicable to all the identified fields. Yet, further
conceptual and empirical work should serve to further refine our understanding of the concept.
Proposition 2: Research on online participation should be
aware of its diversity and consider various forms or areas
of participation.
A rather obvious conclusion of this literature review is that research on online participation could
benefit from a more multi– or cross–disciplinary perspective. In many respects, academic
institutions (including journals and conferences) are not conducive to cross–disciplinary research.
Yet we find that the fragmentation of online participation research into distinct fields or streams
leads to both unnecessary gaps within fields and redundancies across fields. To date, online
participation strictly adheres to disciplinary boundaries with OPP&C E dominating the overall
picture. Yet research from the other identified fields could help interpret existing findings and
generate ideas for new research opportunities. Researchers of online participation from various
disciplines still have to create mutual awareness of their work — and foster an understanding of
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
17/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
their common research agenda.
Proposition 3: Research on online participation should
apply more mixed methods, relational and longitudinal
approaches.
Most studies reviewed either rely on quantitative, explanatory methods based on survey data
(mostly regression) or on qualitative, descriptive approaches (mostly case studies). Few
conceptual studies complement this rather uniform picture. Therefore we find a lack of mixed
methods approaches and data sources beyond surveys and interviews. We detected only few
studies analyzing observational data. Social network analysis could be a valuable framework to
research participation within a relational perspective that transcends actor–centric views and
accounts for individuals’ social embeddedness. Finally, a systematic process–oriented perspective
based on longitudinal data could complement the cross–sectional studies currently dominating the
field.
Proposition 4: Research on online participation should be
more theory–based and cumulative.
Research on online participation is seldom based on strong social theories, such as social
exchange theory, Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, Foucault’s genealogical approach, rational
choice/game theory, social cognitive theory, or social capital theory. This lack of a strong
theoretical foundation inhibits an overarching and cumulative research agenda and inhibits the
interpretation and transfer of results. Of course, the research field can still be considered
relatively young, so many studies are explorative in nature. Still, in order to further flourish, the
field should strive for a more distinct theoretical basis.
Proposition 5: Research on online participation should
transgress geographical boundaries.
Until now, most research on online participation published in English and in peer–reviewed
journals has focused on the English–speaking world — or at least on the “Western” world. At the
same time, initial findings show that online participation depends heavily on the specific social,
political and cultural context (C alenda and Meijer, 2009; George, 2005). National cultures can be
more or less conducive to online participation. Therefore, the field could profit from a more
cross–cultural perspective that compares online participation in different social contexts.
C omparisons could also serve to contextualize overly optimistic or pessimistic perspectives on
the issues at hand.
About the authors
Christoph Lutz is a Ph.D. student in media and communication at the University of St. Gallen
(Switzerland). His dissertation focuses on online participation and his other research interests
include social media in science and public administration, online privacy and trust, and digital
serendipity.
E–mail: christoph [dot] lutz [at] unisg [dot] ch
Christian Hoffmann is an assistant professor at the Institute for Media and C ommunications
Management, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland, and a lecturer at the University of Applied
Sciences in Business Administration Zurich. His research is focused on online communication,
social media and political communication.
E–mail: christian [dot] hoffmann [at] unisg [dot] ch
Miriam Meckel is a professor for communication management and director of the Institute for
Media and C ommunications Management, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland. Her research
focuses on online communication, social media, corporate communications and the
transformation of journalism.
E–mail: miriam [dot] meckel [at] unisg [dot] ch
Acknowledgements
We thank Robin Poëll for his support during the first phase of the literature review.
Notes
1. Gadras and Greffet, 2013, p. 260.
2. Jenkins, 2006, p. 7.
3. Hoffman, 2012, p. 219.
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
18/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
4. Verba, et al., 1995, p. 7.
5. Park and Perry, 2008, p. 191.
6. Verba, et al., 1995, p. 7.
7. Park and Perry, 2008, p. 191.
8. Sashi, 2012, p. 264.
References
C arol A. Adams and Geoffrey R. Frost, 2006. “The Internet and change in corporate stakeholder
engagement and communication strategies on social and environmental performance,” Journal of
Accounting & Organizational Change, volume 2, number 3, pp. 281–303.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/18325910610690090, accessed 25 June 2014.
Steffen Albrecht, 2006. “Whose voice is heard in online deliberation? A study of participation and
representation in political debates on the Internet,” Information, Communication & Society,
volume 9, number 1, pp. 62–82.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691180500519548, accessed 25 June 2014.
Anat Toder Alon and Frédéric F. Brunel, 2007. “Dynamics of community engagement: The role of
interpersonal communicative genres in online community,” Research in Consumer Behavior,
volume 11, pp. 371–400.
Eva Anduiza, Marta C antijoch and Aina Gallego, 2009. “Political participation and the Internet: A
field essay,” Information, Communication & Society, volume 12, number 6, pp. 860–878.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691180802282720, accessed 25 June 2014.
J.B. Arbaugh, 2000. “An exploratory study of the effects of gender on student learning and class
participation in an Internet–based MBA course,” Management Learning, volume 31, number 4,
pp. 503–519.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1350507600314006, accessed 25 June 2014.
Marlene Asselin and Maryam Moayeri, 2011. “Practical strategies: The participatory C lassroom:
Web 2.0 in the classroom strategies,” Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, volume 19, number 2,
pp. 1–7.
Julian Ausserhofer and Axel Maireder, 2013. “National politics on Twitter: Structures and topics of
a networked public sphere,” Information, Communication & Society, volume 16, number 3, pp.
291–314.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.756050, accessed 25 June 2014.
Tom P. Bakker and C laes H. de Vreese, 2011. “Good news for the future? Young people, Internet
use, and political participation,” Communication Research, volume 38, number 4, pp. 451–470.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650210381738, accessed 25 June 2014.
W. Lance Bennett, 2012. “The personalization of politics: Political identity, social media, and
changing patterns of participation,” ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, volume 644, number 1, pp. 20–39.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002716212451428, accessed 25 June 2014.
W. Lance Bennett, C hris Wells and Deen Freelon, 2011. “C ommunicating civic engagement:
C ontrasting models of citizenship in the youth Web sphere,” Journal of Communication, volume
61, number 5, pp. 835–856.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01588.x, accessed 25 June 2014.
Samuel J. Best and Brian S. Krueger, 2005. “Analyzing the representativeness of Internet
political participation,” Political Behavior, volume 27, number 2, pp. 183–216.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-005-3242-y, accessed 25 June 2014.
Bruce Bimber, 2001. “Information and political engagement in America: The search for effects of
information technology at the individual level,” Political Research Quarterly, volume 54, number
1, pp. 53–67.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591290105400103, accessed 25 June 2014.
Grant Blank, 2013. “Who creates content? Stratification and content creation on the Internet,”
Information, Communication & Society, volume 16, number 4, pp. 590–612.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.777758, accessed 25 June 2014.
Grant Blank and Bianca C . Reisdorf, 2012. “The participatory Web: A user perspective on Web
2.0,” Information, Communication & Society, volume 15, number 5, pp. 537–554.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.665935, accessed 25 June 2014.
Shelley Boulianne, 2009. “Does Internet use affect engagement? A meta–analysis of research,”
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
19/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
Political Communication, volume 26, number 2, pp. 193–211.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584600902854363, accessed 25 June 2014.
Yana Breindl and Pascal Francq, 2008. “C an Web 2.0 applications save e–democracy? A study of
how new Internet applications may enhance citizen participation in the political process online,”
International Journal of Electronic Democracy, volume 1, number 1, pp. 14–31.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJED.2008.021276, accessed 25 June 2014.
Frank Bridges, Lora Appel and Jens Grossklags, 2012. “Young adults’ online participation
behaviors: An exploratory study of Web 2.0 use for political engagement,” Information Polity,
volume 17, number 2, pp. 163–176.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/IP-2012-0271, accessed 25 June 2014.
Axel Bruns and Jean Burgess, 2011. “#ausvotes: How Twitter covered the 2010 Australian
federal election,” Communication, Politics & Culture, volume 44, number 2, pp. 37–56.
C atherine Burwell, 2010. “Rewriting the script: Toward a politics of young people’s digital media
participation,” Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, volume 32, numbers 4–5,
pp. 382–402.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10714413.2010.510354, accessed 25 June 2014.
Davide C alenda and Albert Meijer, 2009. “Young people, the Internet and political participation:
Findings of a Web survey in Italy, Spain and The Netherlands,” Information, Communication &
Society, volume 12, number 6, pp. 879–898.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691180802158508, accessed 25 June 2014.
C olin C ampbell, Niall Piercy and Daniel Heinrich, 2012. “When companies get caught: The effect
of consumers discovering undesirable firm engagement online,” Journal of Public Affairs, volume
12, number 2, pp. 120–126.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pa.1413, accessed 25 June 2014.
Lemuria C arter and France Bélanger, 2012. “Internet voting and political participation: An
empirical comparison of technological and political factors,” ACM SIGMIS Database, volume 43,
number 3, pp. 26–46.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2351848.2351851, accessed 25 June 2014.
Avner C aspi, Eran C hajut and Kelly Saporta, 2008. “Participation in class and in online
discussions: Gender differences,” Computers & Education, volume 50, number 3, pp. 718–724.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.08.003, accessed 25 June 2014.
Damien C haney, 2012. “The music industry in the digital age: C onsumer participation in value
creation,” International Journal of Arts Management, volume 15, number 1, pp. 42–52.
C hia–C hi C hang, Hui–Yun C hen and I–C hiang Huang, 2009. “The interplay between customer
participation and difficulty of design examples in the online designing process and its effect on
customer satisfaction: Mediational analyses,” CyberPsychology & Behavior, volume 12, number
2, pp. 147–154.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0170, accessed 25 June 2014.
Derrick L. C ogburn and Fatima K. Espinoza–Vasquez, 2011. “From networked nominee to
networked nation: Examining the impact of Web 2.0 and social media on political participation
and civic engagement in the 2008 Obama campaign,” Journal of Political Marketing, volume 10,
numbers 1–2, pp. 189–213.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2011.540224, accessed 25 June 2014.
Philippa C ollin, 2008. “The Internet, youth participation policies, and the development of young
people’s political identities in Australia,” Journal of Youth Studies, volume 11, number 5, pp. 527–
542.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676260802282992, accessed 25 June 2014.
Michael D. C onover, Emilio Ferrara, Filippo Menczer and Alessandro Flammini, 2013. “The digital
evolution of Occupy Wall Street,” PLOS One, volume 8, number 5, e64679, at
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0064679.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064679, accessed 25 June 2014.
Meredith C onroy, Jessica T. Feezell and Mario Guerrero, 2012. “Facebook and political
engagement: A study of online political group membership and offline political engagement,”
Computers in Human Behavior, volume 28, number 5, pp. 1,535–1,546.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.012, accessed 25 June 2014.
Eric C . C ook, Stephanie D. Teasley and Mark S. Ackerman, 2009. “C ontribution,
commercialization & audience: Understanding participation in an online creative community,”
GROUP ’09: Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work,
pp. 41–50.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1531674.1531681, accessed 25 June 2014.
Teresa C orrea, 2010. “The participation divide among ‘online experts’: Experience, skills and
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
20/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
psychological factors as predictors of college students’ Web content creation,” Journal of
Computer–Mediated Communication, volume 16, number 1, pp. 71–92.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2010.01532.x, accessed 25 June 2014.
Pratibha A. Dabholkar and Xiaojing Sheng, 2012. “C onsumer participation in using online
recommendation agents: Effects on satisfaction, trust, and purchase intentions,” Service
Industries Journal, volume 32, number 9, pp. 1,433–1,449.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2011.624596, accessed 25 June 2014.
Peter Dahlgren, 2011. “Young citizens and political participation: Online media and civic cultures,”
Taiwan Journal of Democracy, volume 7, number 2, pp. 11–25.
Jo Davies and Martin Graff, 2005. “Performance in e–learning: Online participation and student
grades,” British Journal of Educational Technology, volume 36, number 4, pp. 657–663.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00542.x, accessed 25 June 2014.
Aeron Davis, 2010. “New media and fat democracy: The paradox of online participation,” New
Media & Society, volume 12, number 5, pp. 745–761.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444809341435, accessed 25 June 2014.
Fred D. Davis, 1989. “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology,” MIS Quarterly, volume 13, number 3, pp. 319–340.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/249008, accessed 25 June 2014.
David Denyer and David Tranfield, 2009. “Producing a systematic review,” In: David Buchanan
and Alan Bryman (editors). Sage handbook of organizational research methods. London: Sage,
pp. 671–689.
Mark Deuze, 2006. “Participation, remediation, bricolage: C onsidering principal components of a
digital culture,” Information Society, volume 22, number 2, pp. 63–75.
C orinna di Gennaro and William Dutton, 2006. “The Internet and the public: Online and offline
political participation in the United Kingdom,” Parliamentary Affairs, volume 59, number 2, pp.
299–313.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsl004, accessed 25 June 2014.
Paul DiMaggio, Eszter Hargittai, C oral C eleste and Steven Shafer, 2003. “From unequal access to
differentiated use: A literature review and agenda for research on digital inequality,” In: Kathryn
Neckerman (editor). Social inequality. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 355–400, and at
http://www.eszter.com/research/pubs/dimaggio-etal-digitalinequality.pdf, accessed 25 June
2014.
Keith Duncan, Amy Kenworthy and Ray McNamara, 2012. “The effect of synchronous and
asynchronous participation on students’ performance in online accounting courses,” Accounting
Education, volume 21, number 4, pp. 431–449.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2012.673387, accessed 25 June 2014.
Mohan J. Dutta–Bergman, 2006. “C ommunity participation and Internet use after September 11:
C omplementarity in channel consumption,” Journal of Computer–Mediated Communication,
volume 11, number 2, pp. 469–484.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00022.x, accessed 25 June 2014.
Martin Emmer, Jens Wolling and Gerhard Vowe, 2012. “C hanging political communication in
Germany: Findings from a longitudinal study on the influence of the Internet on political
information, discussion and the participation of citizens,” Communications: European Journal of
Communication Research, volume 37, number 3, pp. 233–252.
Yakov M. Epstein, Helane S. Rosenberg, Theresa V. Grant and Nancy Hemenway, 2002. “Use of
the Internet as the only outlet for talking about infertility,” Fertility and Sterility, volume 78,
number 3, pp. 507–514.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(02)03270-3, accessed 25 June 2014.
Ola Erstad, 2006. “A new direction?” Education and Information Technologies, volume 11,
numbers 3–4, pp. 415–429.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-006-9008-2, accessed 25 June 2014.
Tom Ewing, 2008. “Participation cycles and emergent cultures in an online community,”
International Journal of Market Research, volume 50, number 5, pp. 575–590.
Justin Farrell, 2011. “The divine online: C ivic organizing, identity building, and Internet fluency
among different religious groups,” Journal of Media and Religion, volume 10, number 2, pp. 73–
90.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15348423.2011.572438, accessed 25 June 2014.
Rosa Franquet, Maria Isabel Villa and Ignacio Bergillos, 2011. “Audience participation in online
news websites: A comparative analysis,” Observatorio, volume 5, number 3, pp. 223–242, and at
http://obs.obercom.pt/index.php/obs/article/view/464, accessed 25 June 2014.
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
21/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
Simon Gadras and Fabienne Greffet, 2014. “Guest Editorial: Towards a comprehensive approach
of online political participation,” International Journal of Electronic Governance, volume 6,
number 4, pp. 258–269, and at http://www.inderscience.com/editorials/f145710116289312.pdf,
accessed 25 June 2014.
C herian George, 2005. “The Internet’s political impact and the penetration/participation paradox
in Malaysia and Singapore,” Media, Culture & Society, volume 27, number 6, pp. 903–920.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0163443705057678, accessed 25 June 2014.
Rachel K. Gibson, Wainer Lusoli and Stephen Ward, 2005. “Online participation in the UK: Testing
a ‘contextualised’ model of Internet effects,” British Journal of Politics & International Relations,
volume 7, number 4, pp. 561–583.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2005.00209.x, accessed 25 June 2014.
Homero Gil de Zúñiga, Nakwon Jung and Sebastián Valenzuela, 2012. “Social media use for news
and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation,” Journal of Computer–
Mediated Communication, volume 17, number 3, pp. 319–336.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x, accessed 25 June 2014.
Homero Gil de Zúñiga, Eulàlia Puig–i–Abril and Hernando Rojas, 2009. “Weblogs, traditional
sources online and political participation: An assessment of how the Internet is changing the
political environment,” New Media & Society, volume 11, number 4, pp. 553–574.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444809102960, accessed 25 June 2014.
Homero Gil de Zúñiga, Aaron Veenstra, Emily Vraga and Dhavan Shah, 2010. “Digital
democracy: Reimagining pathways to political participation,” Journal of Information Technology &
Politics, volume 7, number 1, pp. 36–51.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19331680903316742, accessed 25 June 2014.
Tamar Ginossar, 2008. “Online participation: A content analysis of differences in utilization of two
online cancer communities by men and women, patients and family members,” Health
Communication, volume 23, number 1, pp. 1–12.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10410230701697100, accessed 25 June 2014.
Patricia Grace–Farfaglia, Ad Dekkers, Binod Sundararajan, Lois Peters and Sung–Hee Park,
2006. “Multinational Web uses and gratifications: Measuring the social impact of online
community participation across national boundaries,” Electronic Commerce Research, volume 6,
number 1, pp. 75–101.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10660-006-5989-6, accessed 25 June 2014.
Keith N. Hampton, C hul–joo Lee and Eun Ja Her, 2011. “How new media affords network
diversity: Direct and mediated access to social capital through participation in local social
settings,” New Media & Society, volume 13, number 7, pp. 1,031–1,049.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444810390342, accessed 25 June 2014.
Jeong Yeob Han, Jung–Hyun Kim, Hye Jin Yoon, Minsun Shim, Fiona M. McTavish and David H.
Gustafson, 2012. “Social and psychological determinants of levels of engagement with an online
breast cancer support group: Posters, lurkers, and non–users,” Journal of Health Communication,
volume 17, number 3, pp. 356–371.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2011.585696, accessed 25 June 2014.
Eszter Hargittai, 2010. “Digital na(t)ives? Variation in Internet skills and uses among members of
the Net generation,” Sociological Inquiry, volume 80, number 1, pp. 92–113.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00317.x, accessed 25 June 2014.
Eszter Hargittai, 2002. “Second–level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills,” First
Monday, volume 7, number 4, at http://firstmonday.org/article/view/942/864, accessed 25 June
2014.
Eszter Hargittai and Amanda Hinnant, 2008. “Digital inequality: Differences in young adults’ use
of the Internet,” Communication Research, volume 35, number 5, pp. 602–621.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650208321782, accessed 25 June 2014.
Eszter Hargittai and Gina Walejko, 2008. “The participation divide: C ontent creation and sharing
in the digital age,” Information, Communication & Society, volume 11, number 2, pp. 239–256.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691180801946150, accessed 25 June 2014.
C hristopher Helland, 2002. “Surfing for salvation,” Religion, volume 32, number 4, pp. 293–302.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/reli.2002.0406, accessed 25 June 2014.
Shirley S. Ho, Waipeng Lee and Shahiraa Sahul Hameed, 2008. “Muslim surfers on the internet:
Using the theory of planned behaviour to examine the factors influencing engagement in online
religious activities,” New Media & Society, volume 10, number 1, pp. 93–113.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444807085323, accessed 25 June 2014.
Jens Hoff, 2006. “Virtual capital? Internet competence and political participation in Denmark,”
MedieKultur: Journal of media and communication research, volume 22, number 40, at
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
22/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
http://ojs.statsbiblioteket.dk/index.php/mediekultur/article/view/1320, accessed 25 June 2014.
Lindsay H. Hoffman, 2012. “Participation or communication? An explication of political activity in
the Internet age,” Journal of Information Technology & Politics, volume 9, number 3, pp. 217–
233.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2011.650929, accessed 25 June 2014.
C hristian Hoffmann, C hristoph Lutz and Miriam Meckel, 2014. “C ontent creation on the Internet:
A social cognitive perspective on the participation divide,” paper presented at the 2014 Annual
C onference of the International C ommunication Association (Seattle); version at
https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/Publikationen/229450, accessed 25 June 2014.
Kristoffer Holt and Michael Karlsson, 2011. “Edited participation: C omparing editorial influence on
traditional and participatory online newspapers in Sweden,” Javnost, volume 18, number 2, pp.
19–36, and at http://javnost-thepublic.org/article/2011/2/2/, accessed 25 June 2014.
Kristoffer Holt, Adam Shehata, Jesper Strömbäck and Elisabet Ljungberg, 2013. “Age and the
effects of news media attention and social media use on political interest and participation: Do
social media function as leveller?” European Journal of Communication, volume 28, number 1,
pp. 19–34.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323112465369, accessed 25 June 2014.
Mette Terp Høybye, Susanne Oksbjerg Dalton, Jane C hristensen, Lone Ross, Katrin Gaardbo
Kuhn and C hristoffer Johansen, 2010. “Social and psychological determinants of participation in
Internet–based cancer support groups,” Supportive Care in Cancer, volume 18, number 5, pp.
553–560.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-009-0683-6, accessed 25 June 2014.
Stefan Hrastinski, 2009. “A theory of online learning as online participation,” Computers &
Education, volume 52, number 1, pp. 78–82.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.009, accessed 25 June 2014.
Stefan Hrastinski, 2008. “The potential of synchronous communication to enhance participation in
online discussions: A case study of two e–learning courses,” Information & Management, volume
45, number 7, pp. 499–506.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2008.07.005, accessed 25 June 2014.
Hyunseo Hwang, Michael Schmierbach, Hye–Jin Paek, Homero Gil de Zúñiga and Dhavan Shah,
2006. “Media dissociation, Internet use, and antiwar political participation: A case study of
political dissent and action against the war in Iraq,” Mass Communication and Society, volume 9,
number 4, pp. 461–483.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327825mcs0904_5, accessed 25 June 2014.
Henry Jenkins, 2006. “C onfronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the
21 C entury,” at http://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/ JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF,
accessed 18 April 2014.
Jill Jesson with Lydia Matheson and Fiona M. Lacey, 2011. Doing your literature review:
Traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles: Sage.
Philipp Jugert, Katharina Eckstein, Peter Noack, Alexandra Kuhn and Alison Benbow, 2013.
“Offline and online civic engagement among adolescents and young adults from three ethnic
groups,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence, volume 42, number 1, pp. 123–135.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9805-4, accessed 25 June 2014.
Joseph Kahne, Nam–Jin Lee and Jessica Timpany Feezell, 2012. “Digital media literacy education
and online civic and political participation,” International Journal of Communication, volume 6, at
http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/999, accessed 25 June 2014.
Gerald C . Kane, Robert G. Fichman, John Gallaugher and John Glaser, 2009. “C ommunity
relations 2.0,“ Harvard Business Review, volume 87, number 11, pp. 45–50, and at
http://hbr.org/2009/11/community-relations-20/ar/1, accessed 25 June 2014.
Mark E. Kann, Jeff Berry, C onnor Gant and Phil Zager, 2007. “The Internet and youth political
participation,” First Monday, volume 12, number 8, at
http://firstmonday.org/article/view/1977/1852, accessed 25 June 2014.
Kelly Kaufhold, Sebastián Valenzuela and Homero Gil de Zúñiga, 2010. “C itizen journalism and
democracy: How user–generated news use relates to political knowledge and participation,”
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, volume 87, numbers 3–4, pp. 515–529.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107769901008700305, accessed 25 June 2014.
Anne Kaun and C arina Guyard, 2011. “Divergent views: Social media experts and young citizens
on politics 2.0,” International Journal of Electronic Governance, volume 4, numbers 1–2, pp. 104–
120.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJEG.2011.041710, accessed 25 June 2014.
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
23/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
Andrea Kavanaugh, B. Joon Kim, Manuel A. Pérez–Quiñones, Joseph Schmitz and Philip Isenhour,
2008. “Net gains in political participation: Secondary effects of Internet on community,”
Information, Communication & Society, volume 11, number 7, pp. 933–963.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691180802108990, accessed 25 June 2014.
Jenny Kidd, 2011. “Enacting engagement online: Framing social media use for the museum,”
Information Technology & People, volume 24, number 1, pp. 64–77.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09593841111109422, accessed 25 June 2014.
Kay Kimber and C laire Wyatt–Smith, 2010. “Secondary students’ online use and creation of
knowledge: Refocusing priorities for quality assessment and learning,” Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, volume 26, number 5, pp. 607–625, and at
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/kimber.pdf, accessed 25 June 2014.
Kathrin Kissau and Uwe Hunger, 2008. “Political online–participation of migrants in Germany,”
German Policy Studies, volume 4, number 4, pp. 5–31, and at
http://www.spaef.com/article/992/Political-Online-Participation-of-Migrants-in-Germany, accessed
25 June 2014.
Renate Köcher and Oliver Bruttel, 2011. 1. Infosys. Studie. Social Media, IT & Society. Frankfurt
am Main: Infosys Limited, at http://www.infosys.com/de/newsroom/pressreleases/documents/social-media-it-society2011.pdf, accessed 25 June 2014.
Brian S. Krueger, 2002. “Assessing the potential of Internet political participation in the United
States: A resource approach,” American Politics Research, volume 30, number 5, pp. 476–498.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X02030005002, accessed 25 June 2014.
Nojin Kwak, Nathaniel Poor and Marko M. Skoric, 2006. “Honey, I shrunk the world! The relation
between Internet use and international engagement,” Mass Communication and Society, volume
9, number 2, pp. 189–213.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327825mcs0902_4, accessed 25 June 2014.
Ruthann Weaver Lariscy, Spencer F. Tinkham and Kaye D. Sweetser, 2011. “Kids these days:
Examining differences in political uses and gratifications, Internet political participation, political
information efficacy, and cynicism on the basis of age,” American Behavioral Scientist, volume
55, number 6, pp. 749–764.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764211398091, accessed 25 June 2014.
Sonia Livingstone, 2010. “Digital learning and participation among youth: C ritical reflections on
future research priorities,” International Journal of Learning and Media, volume 2, numbers 2–3,
pp. 1–13.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ijlm_a_00046, accessed 25 June 2014.
Sonia Livingstone, 2008. “Learning the lessons of research on youth participation and the
Internet,” Journal of Youth Studies, volume 11, number 5, pp. 561–564.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676260802283016, accessed 25 June 2014.
Sonia Livingstone and Magdalena Bober, 2004. “Taking up online opportunities? C hildren’s uses
of the Internet for education, communication and participation,” E–Learning, volume 1, number 3,
pp. 395–419.
Sonia Livingstone, Magdalena Bober and Ellen Helsper, 2005. “Active participation or just more
information? Young people’s take–up of opportunities to act and interact on the Internet,”
Information, Communication & Society, volume 8, number 3, pp. 287–314.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691180500259103, accessed 25 June 2014.
Timothy Macafee and J.J. De Simone, 2012. “Killing the bill online? Pathways to young people’s
protest engagement via social media,” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
volume 15, number 11, pp. 579–584.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0153, accessed 25 June 2014.
J. Lynn McBrien, Phyllis Jones and Rui C heng, 2009. “Virtual spaces: Employing a synchronous
online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning,” International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, volume 10, number 3, at
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/605/1264, accessed 25 June 2014.
Katelyn Y.A. McKenna and John A. Bargh, 1998. “C oming out in the age of the Internet: Identity
‘demarginalization’ through virtual group participation,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, volume 75, number 3, pp. 681–694.
Evgeny Morozov, 2011. The Net delusion: The dark side of Internet freedom. New York: Public
Affairs.
Patricia Moy, Edith Manosevitch, Keith Stamm and Kate Dunsmore, 2005. “Linking dimensions of
Internet yse and civic engagement,” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, volume 82,
number 3, pp. 571–586.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107769900508200306, accessed 25 June 2014.
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
24/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
An Nguyen, 2006. “Journalism in the wake of participatory publishing,” Australian Journalism
Review, volume 28, number 1, pp. 47–59.
Blair Nonnecke, Dorine Andrews and Jenny Preece, 2006. “Non–public and public online
community participation: Needs, attitudes and behavior,” Electronic Commerce Research, volume
6, number 1, pp. 7–20.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10660-006-5985-x, accessed 25 June 2014.
Pippa Norris, 2001. Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet
worldwide. C ambridge: C ambridge University Press.
Oded Nov, Mor Naaman and C hen Ye, 2009. “Analysis of participation in an online photo–sharing
community: A multidimensional perspective,” Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, volume 61, number 3, pp. 555–566.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21278, accessed 25 June 2014.
Anne–Marie Oostveen and Peter van den Besselaar, 2004. “Internet voting technologies and civic
participation: The user’s perspective,” Javnost, volume 11, number 1, pp. 61–78.
Jennifer Oser, Marc Hooghe and Sofie Marien, 2012. “Is online participation distinct from offline
participation? A latent class analysis of participation types and their stratification,” Political
Research Quarterly, volume 66, number 1, pp. 91–101.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1065912912436695, accessed 25 June 2014.
Hun Myoung Park and James L.Perry, 2008. “Do campaign Web sites really matter in electoral
civic engagement? Empirical evidence From the 2004 post–election Internet tracking survey,”
Social Science Computer Review, volume 26, number 2, pp. 190–212.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894439307309026, accessed 25 June 2014.
Robert D. Putnam, 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
C ara Rabe–Hemp, Susan Woollen and Gail Sears Humiston, 2009. “A comparative analysis of
student engagement, learning, and satisfaction in lecture hall and online learning settings,”
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, volume 10, number 2, pp. 207–218.
Sudha Rajagopalan, 2011. “Shahrukh Khan as media text: C elebrity, identity and emotive
engagement in a Russian online community,” Celebrity Studies, volume 2, number 3, pp. 263–
276.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2011.609333, accessed 25 June 2014.
Venkat Ramaswamy, 2008. “C o–creating value through customers’ experiences: The Nike case,”
Strategy & Leadership, volume 36, number 5, pp. 9–14.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10878570810902068, accessed 25 June 2014.
Patient Rambe, 2012. “C onstructive disruptions for effective collaborative learning: Navigating
the affordances of social media for meaningful engagement,” Electronic Journal of e–Learning,
volume 10, number 1, pp. 132–146.
Howard Rheingold, 1993. The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier.
Reading, Mass.: Addison–Wesley.
Ronald E. Rice and Ryan P. Fuller, 2013. “Theoretical perspectives in the study of communication
and the Internet, 2000–2009,” In: William H. Dutton (editor). Oxford handbook of Internet
studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 353–377.
C ate Riegner, 2007. “Word of mouth on the Web: The impact of Web 2.0 on consumer purchase
decisions,” Journal of Advertising Research, volume 47, number 4, pp. 436–447.
C laudia Ritzi, Gary S. Schaal and Vanessa Kaufman, 2012. “Zwischen Ernst und Unterhaltung —
Eine empirische Analyse der Motive politischer Aktivität junger Erwachsener im Internet,” at
http://www.hsu-hh.de/politiktheorie/index_XOQGMOIlQ10DTTXq.html, accessed 25 June 2014.
Shelly Rodgers and Qimei C hen, 2005. “Internet community group participation: Psychosocial
benefits for women with breast cancer,” Journal of Computer–Mediated Communication, volume
10, number 4.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00268.x, accessed 25 June 2014.
Hernando Rojas and Eulalia Puig–i–Abril, 2009. “Mobilizers mobilized: Information, expression,
mobilization and participation in the digital age,” Journal of Computer–Mediated Communication,
volume 14, number 4, pp. 902–927.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01475.x, accessed 25 June 2014.
Min–Ho Ryu, Seongcheol Kim and Euehun Lee, 2009. “Understanding the factors affecting online
elderly user’s participation in video UC C services,” Computers in Human Behavior, volume 25,
number 3, pp. 619–632.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.013, accessed 25 June 2014.
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
25/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
Anne–Grete Sandaunet, 2008. “The challenge of fitting in: Non–participation and withdrawal from
an online self–help group for breast cancer patients,” Sociology of Health & Illness, volume 30,
number 1, pp. 131–144.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.01041.x, accessed 25 June 2014.
C .M. Sashi, 2012. “C ustomer engagement, buyer–seller relationships, and social media,”
Management Decision, volume 50, number 2, pp. 253–272.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741211203551, accessed 25 June 2014.
Mohanbir Sawhney, Gianmario Verona and Emanuela Prandelli, 2005. “C ollaborating to create:
The Internet as a platform for customer engagement in product innovation,” Journal of
Interactive Marketing, volume 19, number 4, pp. 4–17.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dir.20046, accessed 25 June 2014.
Jen Schradie, 2011. “The digital production gap: The digital divide and Web 2.0 collide,” Poetics,
volume 39, number 2, pp. 145–168.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2011.02.003, accessed 25 June 2014.
Jane R. Schubart, Heather L. Stuckey, Ambika Ganeshamoorthy and C hristopher N. Sciamanna,
2011. “C hronic health conditions and Internet behavioral interventions: A review of factors to
enhance user engagement,” CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, volume 29, number 2, pp.
81–92.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/NC N.0b013e3182065eed, accessed 25 June 2014.
Aaron Smith, 2013. “C ivic engagement in the digital age,” Pew Research Internet Project (25
April), at http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/04/25/civic-engagement-in-the-digital-age/, accessed
25 June 2014.
Viktoria Spaiser, 2012. “Empowerment or democratic divide? Internet–based political
participation of young immigrants and young natives in Germany,” Information Polity, volume 17,
number 2, pp. 115–127.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/IP-2012-0268, accessed 25 June 2014.
Dianna Spence and Ellen Usher, 2007. “Engagement with mathematics courseware in traditional
and online remedial learning environments: Relationship to self–efficacy and achievement,”
Journal of Educational Computing Research, volume 37, number 3, pp. 267–288.
Andrew P. Steinmark, Ellen A. Dornelas and Edward H. Fischer, 2006. “Determinants and barriers
to participation in an Internet based recovery program for cardiac patients,” Journal of Clinical
Psychology in Medical Settings, volume 13, number 4, pp. 353–357.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10880-006-9046-3, accessed 25 June 2014.
Michael J. Stern and Don A. Dillman, 2006. “C ommunity participation, social ties, and use of the
Internet,” City & Community, volume 5, number 4, pp. 409–425.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6040.2006.00191.x, accessed 25 June 2014.
Martyn Stewart, Tim Stott and Anne–Marie Nuttall, 2011. “Student engagement patterns over the
duration of level 1 and level 3 geography modules: Influences on student attendance,
performance and use of online resources,” Journal of Geography in Higher Education, volume 35,
number 1, pp. 47–65.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2010.498880, accessed 25 June 2014.
Martin Tanis, Enny Das and Marieke Fortgens–Sillmann, 2011. “Finding care for the caregiver?
Active participation in online health forums attenuates the negative effect of caregiver strain on
wellbeing,” Communications, volume 36, number 1, pp. 51–66.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/comm.2011.003, accessed 25 June 2014.
Yannis Theocharis, 2011. “Young people, political participation and online postmaterialism in
Greece,” New Media & Society, volume 13, number 2, pp. 203–223.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444810370733, accessed 25 June 2014.
Sherry Turkle, 1995. Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Eric M. Uslaner, 2004. “Trust, civic engagement, and the Internet,” Political Communication,
volume 21, number 2, pp. 223–242.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584600490443895, accessed 25 June 2014.
Alexander van Deursen and Jan van Dijk, 2010. “Internet skills and the digital divide,” New Media
& Society, volume 13, number 6, pp. 893–911.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444810386774, accessed 25 June 2014.
Alexander van Deursen, Jan van Dijk and Ellen J. Helsper, 2014. “Who benefits most from being
online? An empirical investigation of outcomes of online engagement,” paper presented at the
2014 Annual C onference of the International C ommunication Association (IC A), Seattle (22–26
May).
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
26/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
Jan van Dijk, 2006. “Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings,” Poetics, volume
34, numbers 4–5, pp. 221–235.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004, accessed 25 June 2014.
Jan van Dijk, 2005. “Skills access,” In: Jan van Dijk (editor). The deepening divide: Inequality in
the information society. London: Sage, pp. 71–93.
C ornelia F. van Uden–Kraan, C onstance H.C . Drossaert, Erik Taal, Willem M. Smit, Hein J.
Bernelot Moens and Mart A.F.J. van de Laar, 2011. “Determinants of engagement in face–to–face
and online patient support groups,” Journal of Medical Internet Research, volume 13, number 4,
pp. e106, at http://www.jmir.org/2011/4/e106/, accessed 25 June 2014.
C ornelia F. van Uden–Kraan, C onstance H.C . Drossaert, Erik Taal, Erwin R. Seydel and Mart
A.F.J. van de Laar, 2009. “Participation in online patient support groups endorses patients’
empowerment,” Patient Education and Counseling, volume 74, number 1, pp. 61–69.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.044, accessed 25 June 2014.
C ornelia F. van Uden–Kraan, C onstance H.C . Drossaert, Erik Taal, Bret R. Shaw, Erwin R. Seydel
and Mart A.F.J. van de Laar, 2008. “Empowering processes and outcomes of participation in
online support groups for patients with breast cancer, arthritis, or fibromyalgia,” Qualitative
Health Research, volume 18, number 3, pp. 405–417.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732307313429, accessed 25 June 2014.
Viswanath Venkatesh and Fred D. Davis, 2000. “A theoretical extension of the technology
acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies,” Management Science, volume 46, number 2,
pp. 186–204.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926, accessed 25 June 2014.
Viswanath Venkatesh, Michael G. Morris, Gordon B. Davis and Fred D. Davis, 2003. “User
acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view,” MIS Quarterly, volume 27,
number 3, pp. 425–478, and at http://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol27/iss3/5/, accessed 25 June
2014.
Sidney Verba, Kay Lehman Schlozman and Henry E. Brady, 1995. Voice and equality: Civic
voluntarism in American politics. C ambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Sara Vissers, Marc Hooghe, Dietlind Stolle and Valérie–Anne Mahéo, 2012. “The impact of
mobilization media on off–line and online participation: Are mobilization effects medium–
specific?” Social Science Computer Review, volume 30, number 2, pp. 152–169.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894439310396485, accessed 25 June 2014.
Jessica Vitak, Paul Zube, Andrew Smock, C aleb T. C arr, Nicole B. Ellison and C liff Lampe, 2011.
“It’s complicated: Facebook users’ political participation in the 2008 election,” Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, volume 14, number 3, pp. 107–114.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0226, accessed 25 June 2014.
Ariadne Vromen, 2008. “Building virtual spaces: Young people, participation and the Internet,”
Australian Journal of Political Science, volume 43, number 1, pp. 79–97.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10361140701842581, accessed 25 June 2014.
Song–In Wang, 2007. “Political use of the Internet, political attitudes and political participation,”
Asian Journal of Communication, volume 17, number 4, pp. 381–395.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01292980701636993, accessed 25 June 2014.
Stephen Ward, Rachel Gibson and Wainer Lusoli, 2003. “Online participation and mobilisation in
Britain: Hype, hope and reality,” Parliamentary Affairs, volume 56, number 4, pp. 652–668.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsg108, accessed 25 June 2014.
Jane Webster and Richard T. Watson, 2002. “Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing
a literature review,” MIS Quarterly, volume 26, number 2, pp. xiii–xxiii, and at
http://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol26/iss2/3/, accessed 25 June 2014.
Wikipedia, 2014. “Online participation,” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_participation,
accessed 18 April 2014.
Patrick White and Neil Selwyn, 2012. “Learning online? Educational Internet use and participation
in adult learning, 2002 to 2010,” Educational Review, volume 64, number 4, pp. 451–469.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.626123, accessed 25 June 2014.
Hsiuju Yen, Sheila Hsu and C hun–Yao Huang, 2011. “Good soldiers on the Web: Understanding
the drivers of participation in online communities of consumption,” International Journal of
Electronic Commerce, volume 15, number 4, pp. 89–120.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/JEC 1086-4415150403, accessed 25 June 2014.
Nicole Zillien and Eszter Hargittai, 2009. “Digital distinction? Status–specific types of Internet
usage,” Social Science Quarterly, volume 90, number 2, pp. 274–291.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00617.x, accessed 25 June 2014.
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
27/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
Appendix
Table A: Article overview OPP&CE.
Authors
Title
Year Journal/Outlet Volume Number
Albert, I.O.
Whose e–governance? A
critique of online citizen
engagement in Africa
African Journal of
Political Science
2009
and International
Relations
3
4
Albrecht, S.
Whose voice is heard in
online deliberation? A study
Information,
of participation and
2006 Communication &
representation in political
Society
debates on the Internet
9
1
Anduiza, E.
Online political participation
in Spain: The impact of
traditional and Internet
resources
2010
7
4
Anduiza, E.;
C antijoch, M.
and Gallego, A.
Political participation and
the Internet
Information,
2009 Communication &
Society
12
6
38
4
Journal of
Information
Technology &
Politics
Good news for the future?
Communication
Bakker, T.P. and
Young people, Internet use, 2011
Research
de Vreese, C .H.
and political participation
Balnaves, M.
and Allen, M.
E–governance as digital
ecosystem: A new way to
think about citizen
engagement and the
Internet?
Bateman, P.J.;
Gray, P.H. and
Butler, B.S.
C ommunity commitment on
Information
participation in online
2010 Systems
communities
Research
22
4
Bean, C .
The Internet and
democratic engagement in
Australia
2011
30
3
Bennett, W.L.
The personalization of
politics: Political identity,
social media, and changing
patterns of participation
ANNALS of the
American
2012 Academy of
Political and
Social Science
644
1
Bennett, W.L.;
Wells, C . and
Freelon, D.
C ommunicating civic
engagement: C ontrasting
models of citizenship in the
youth Web sphere
2011
61
5
Best, S.J. and
Krueger, B.S.
Analyzing the
representativeness of
Internet political
participation
2005 Political Behavior
27
2
Black, L.W.
Blog, chat, edit, text, or
tweet? Using online tools to
advance adult civic
engagement
New Directions
for Adult and
2012
Continuing
Education
2012
135
Borge, R.
Online and offline
participation at the local
level
Information,
2009 Communication &
Society
12
6
Boulianne, S.
Does Internet use affect
engagement? A meta–
analysis of research
2009
26
2
Breindl, Y. and
Francq, P.
C an Web 2 .0 applications
International
save e–democracy? A study
Journal of
of how new Internet
2008
Electronic
applications may enhance
Democracy
citizen participation in the
political process online
1
1
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
Fifth International Conference on e–
2009 Government (ICEG), Boston
(October)
Social
Alternatives
Journal of
Communication
Political
Communication
28/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
Young adults’ online
participation behaviors: An
exploratory study of Web
2.0 use for political
engagement
2012 Information Polity
17
2
Small Group
Research
33
5
32
4
Information,
C alenda, D. and Young people, the Internet,
2009 Communication &
Meijer, A.
and political participation
Society
12
6
C arrara, S.
Towards e–EC Is? European
Perspectives on
participation by online Pan– 2012 European Politics
European mobilization
and Society
13
3
C arter, L. and
Belanger, F.
Internet voting and political
Advances in
participation: An empirical
2012 Information
comparison of technological
Systems
and political factors
43
3
C hadwick, A.
Explaining the failure of an
online citizen engagement
initiative: The role of
internal institutional
variables
8
1
2
1
12
1
Bridges, F.
Social movement
Brunsting, S.
participation in the digital
and Postmes, T. age: Predicting offline and
online collective action
Burwell, C .
2002
Review of
Rewriting the script: Toward
Education,
a politics of young people’s 2010
Pedagogy, and
digital media participation
Cultural Studies
Journal of
Information
2011
Technology &
Politics
International
Electronic government and
Journal of
C hen, Y.–C . and online engagement: C itizen
2006 Electronic
Dimitrova, D.
interaction with government
Government
vie Web portals
Research
C hristou, G.
Internet–mediated
participation beyond the
nation–state
C ogburn, D.L.
and Espinoza–
Vasquez, F.K.
From networked nominee to
networked nation:
Journal of
Examining the impact of
2011 Political
Web 2.0 and social media
Marketing
on political participation and
civic engagement in the
2008 Obama campaign
10
1
C ollin, P.
The Internet, youth
participation policies, and
the development of young
people’s political identities
in Australia
2008
Journal of Youth
Studies
11
5
C onroy, M.;
Feezell, J.T. and
Guerrero, M.
Facebook and political
engagement: A study of
online political group
membership and offline
political engagement
2012
Computers in
Human Behavior
28
5
Dahlgren, P.
Young citizens and political
participation: Online media
and civic cultures
2011
Taiwan Journal of
Democracy
7
2
Davis, A.
New media and fat
New Media &
democracy: The paradox of 2009
Society
online participation
12
5
17
3
11
4
Social media use for news
de Zúñiga, H.G.;
and individuals’ social
Jung, N. and
capital, civic engagement
Valenzuela, S.
and political participation
Perspectives on
2011 European Politics
and Society
Journal of
Computer–
2012
Mediated
Communication
Weblogs, traditional sources
online and political
de Zúñiga, H.G.;
New Media &
participation: An
2009
Puig–i–Abril, E.
Society
assessment of how the
and Rojas, H.
Internet is changing the
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
29/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
political environment
de Zúñiga, H.G.;
Digital democracy:
Veenstra, A.;
Reimagining pathways to
Vraga, E. and
political participation
Shah, D.
Journal of
Information
2010
Technology &
Politics
7
1
38
3
59
2
C ommunity participation
Journal of
and Internet use after
Computer–
Dutta–Bergman,
September 11:
2006
Mediated
M.J.
C omplementarity in channel
Communication
consumption
11
2
The antecedents of
community–oriented
Dutta–Bergman,
Internet use: C ommunity
M.J.
participation and
community satisfaction
Journal of
Computer–
2005
Mediated
Communication
11
1
Access to the Internet in
Dutta–Bergman, the context of community
M.J.
participation and
community satisfaction
2005
7
1
Earl, J.
Information,
2012 Communication &
Society
15
4
de Zúñiga, H.G.
and Valenzuela,
S.
The mediating path to a
stronger citizenship: Online
and offline networks, weak
ties, and civic engagement
Di Gennaro, C .
and Dutton, W.
The Internet and the public:
Parliamentary
Online and offline political
2006
Affairs
participation in the United
Kingdom
Private protest?
2010
Communication
Research
New Media &
Society
Social media and political
participation: Are Facebook,
Effing, R.; Van
2011 Proceedings of ePart 2011
Hillegersberg, J. Twitter and YouTube
and Huibers, T. democratizing our political
systems?
Emmer, M.;
Wolling, J. and
Vowe, G.
C hanging political
communication in
Germany: Findings from a
longitudinal study on the
influence of the Internet on
political information,
discussion and the
participation of citizens
Communications
— European
2012 Journal of
Communication
Research
Social butterflies and
Journal of
politics: Exploring the link
Information
Evans, H. K. and
between sociability and
2012
Technology &
Ulbig, S.
political engagement, online
Politics
and off
The new generation of
Evans–C owley,
Planning Practice
public participation:
2010
J. and Hollander,
and Research
Internet–based participation
J.
tools
37
3
9
4
25
3
Fenton, N. and
Barassi, V.
Alternative media and
Communication
social networking sites: The
2011
Review
politics of individuation and
political participation
14
3
George, C .
The Internet’s political
impact and the
penetration/participation
paradox in Malaysia and
Singapore
2005
Media, Culture &
Society
27
6
Gibson, R.K.;
Lusoli, W. and
Ward, S.
Online participation in the
UK: Testing a
‘contextualised’ model of
Internet effects
2005
British Journal of
Politics and
International
Relations
7
4
Grant, W.J.;
Moon, B. and
Busby Grant, J.
Digital dialogue? Australian
politicians’ use of the social
network tool Twitter
Australian Journal
2010 of Political
Science
45
4
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
30/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
Hagemann, C .
Participation in and contents
of two Dutch political party
2002 Javnost
discussion lists on the
Internet
Haller, M.; Li,
M.–H. and
Mossberger, K.
Does e–government use
contribute to civic
engagement with
government and
community?
2011 APSA 2011 annual meeting paper
Hampton, K.N.;
Lee, C .–J. and
Eun J.H.
How new media affords
network diversity: Direct
and mediated access to
social capital through
participation in local social
settings
2011
New Media &
Society
13
7
Hand, L. and
C hing, B.B.
“You have one friend
request”
2011
Administrative
Theory & Praxis
33
3
Hargittai, E. and
Walejko, G.
The participation divide:
C ontent creation and
sharing in the digital age
Information,
2008 Communication &
Society
11
2
Hoff, J.
Virtual capital? Internet
competence and political
participation in Denmark
2006 Politik
9
2
Hoffman, L.H.
Participation or
communication? An
explication of political
activity in the Internet age
Journal of
Information
2012
Technology &
Politics
9
3
Holt, K.;
Shehata, A.;
Stromback, J.
and Ljungberg,
E.
Age and the effects of news
media attention and social
European Journal
media use on political
2013 of
interest and participation:
Communication
Do social media function as
leveller?
28
1
Hwang, H.;
Schmierbach,
M.; Paek, H.–J.;
de Zúñiga, H.G.
and Shah, D.
Media dissociation, Internet
use, and antiwar political
Mass
participation: A case study
2006 Communication
of political dissent and
and Society
action against the war in
Iraq
9
4
Iglezakis, I.
The development of e–
governance and the issue
Journal of
of digital inclusion in Greece
2008 Information, Law
with particular regard to the
& Technology
constitutional right of e–
participation
1
1
Jennings, M.K.
and Zeitner, V.
Internet use and civic
Public Opinion
engagement: A longitudinal 2003
Quarterly
analysis
67
3
Jensen, M.J.;
Danziger, J.N.
and Venkatesh,
A.
C ivil society and cyber
society: The role of the
Information
Internet in community
2007
Society
associations and democratic
politics
23
1
Jiang, M. and
Xu, H.
Exploring online structures
on C hinese government
portals: C itizen political
participation and
government legitimation
2009
Social Science
Computer Review
27
2
Jugert, P.
Offline and online civic
engagement among
adolescents and young
adults from three ethnic
groups
2013
Journal of Youth
and Adolescence
42
1
Kahne, J.
Digital media literacy
International
education and online civic
2011 Journal of
and political participation by
Communication
political participation
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
9
2
6
31/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
Katz, J. and
Halpern, D.
Political and developmental
correlates of social media
participation in
government: A global
survey of national
leadership Web sites
International
2013 Journal of Public
Administration
36
1
Kaufhold, K.;
Valanzuela, S.
and de Zúñiga,
H.G.
C itizen journalism and
Journalism &
democracy: How userMass
generated news use relates 2010
Communication
to political knowledge and
Quarterly
participation
87
3
Kavanaugh, A.;
Kim, B.J.;
Pérez–Quiñones,
M.A.; Schmitz, J.
and Isenhour, P.
Net gains in political
participation: Secondary
effects of Internet on
community
Information,
2008 Communication &
Society
11
7
Kenski, K. and
Stroud, N.J.
C onnections between
Internet use and political
efficacy, knowledge, and
participation
Journal of
2006 Broadcasting &
Electronic Media
50
2
Kim, B.J.
C ivic engagement and
Internet use in local
governance: Hierarchical
linear models for
understanding the role of
local community groups
2011
Administration &
Society
43
7
Kim, S.–H.
Media use, social capital,
and civic participation in
South Korea
2007
Journalism &
Mass
Communication
Quarterly
84
3
Kirk, R. and
Schill, D.
A digital agora: C itizen
participation in the 2008
Presidential debates
American
2011 Behavioral
Scientist
55
3
Kissau, K. and
Hunger, U.
German Policy
Political online–participation
2008
Studies
of migrants in Germany
4
4
Krueger, B.S.
Assessing the potential of
Internet political
participation in the United
States: A resource
approach
30
5
Krueger, B.S.
Government surveillance
Social Science
and political participation on 2005
Computer Review
the Internet
23
4
Kwak, N.; Poor,
N. and Skoric,
M.M.
Honey, I shrunk the world!
The relation between
Internet use and
international engagement
9
2
Lariscy, R.W.;
Tinkham, S.F.
and Sweetser,
K.D.
Kids these days: Examining
differences in political uses
American
and gratifications, Internet
2011 Behavioral
political participation,
Scientist
political information
efficacy, and cynicism on
the basis of age
55
6
Lee, G. and
Kwak, Y.H.
An open government
maturity model for social
media–based public
engagement
Government
2012 Information
Quarterly
29
4
Leung, L.
User–generated content on
the Internet: An
examination of
gratifications, civic
engagement and
psychological
empowerment
2009
New Media &
Society
11
8
2008
Journal of Youth
Studies
11
5
Livingstone, S.
Learning the lessons of
research on youth
participation and the
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
2002
American Politics
Research
Mass
2006 Communication
and Society
32/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
Internet
Livingstone, S.;
Bober, M. and
Helsper, E.J.
Active participation or just
more information?
Macafee, T. and
De Simone, J.J.
Information,
2005 Communication &
Society
8
3
Killing the bill online?
Cyberpsychology,
Pathways to young people’s
2012 Behavior, and
protest engagement via
Social Networking
social media
15
11
Macnamara, J.
E–electoral engagement:
How governments use
social media to engage
voters
Australian Journal
2012 of Political
Science
47
4
Meijer, A.;
Burger, N. and
Ebbers, W.
C itizens4C itizens: Mapping
participatory practices on
the Internet
2009
Electronic Journal
of e–Government
7
1
Mercea, D.
Digital prefigurative
participation: The
entwinement of online
communication and offline
participation in protest
events
2012
New Media &
Society
14
1
Min, S.–J.
Journal of
Online vs. face–to–face
Computer–
deliberation: Effects on civic 2007
Mediated
engagement
Communication
12
4
Moe, H.
Everyone a pamphleteer?
Reconsidering comparisons
Media, Culture &
of mediated public
2010
Society
participation in the print age
and the digital era
32
4
82
3
11
1
66
1
27
3
26
2
6
3–4
28
3
Moy, P.;
Linking dimensions of
Manosevitch, E.;
Internet use and civic
Stamm, K. and
engagement
Dunsmore, K.
2005
Journalism &
Mass
Communication
Quarterly
Oostveen, A.–M. Internet voting technologies
and van den
and civic participation: The 2004 Javnost
Besselaar, P.
user’s perspective
Oser, J.;
Hooghe, M. and
Marien, S.
Is online participation
distinct from offline
participation? A latent class 2013 Political Research
Quarterly
analysis of participation
types and their stratification
Towards unions 2.0:
Panagiotopoulos,
Rethinking the audience of
P.
social media engagement
New Technology,
2012 Work and
Employment
Park, H.M. and
Perry, J.L.
Do campaign Web sites
really matter in electoral
Social Science
civic engagement?
2007
Computer Review
Empirical evidence from the
2004 post–election Internet
tracking survey
Pasek, J.
Realizing the social
Internet? Online social
networking meets offline
civic engagement
Pautz, H.
The Internet, political
participation and election
German Politics &
turnout - A case study of
2010
Society
Germany’s
www.abgeordnetenwatch.de
Pereira, G.C .
e–Participation: Social
media and the public space
Engaging youths via e–
participation initiatives: An
Phang, C .W. and
investigation into the
Kankanhalli, A.
context of online policy
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
Journal of
Information
2009
Technology &
Politics
Proceedings of the 12th International
2012 Conference on Computational
Science and Its Applications (ICCSA)
Proceedings of the International
Working Conference on Social
2006 Inclusion — Societal and
Organizational Implications for
33/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
discussion forums
Polat, R.K.
The Internet and political
participation: Exploring the
explanatory links
Quintelier, E.
and Vissers, S.
Information Systems
Communications
— European
2005
Journal of
Communication
20
4
The effect of Internet use
on political participation: An
Social Science
2007
analysis of survey results
Computer Review
for 16–year–olds in Belgium
26
4
Rojas, H. and
Puig–i–Abril, E.
Mobilizers mobilized:
Information, expression,
mobilization and
participation in the digital
age
Journal of
Computer–
2009
Mediated
Communication
14
4
Saglie, J. and
Vabo, S.I.
Size and e–democracy:
Online participation in
Norwegian local politics
2009
Scandinavian
Political Studies
32
4
29
1
Are government Internet
portals evolving towards
Government
more interaction,
Sandoval–
2012 Information
Almazan, R. and participation, and
Quarterly
Gil–Garcia, J.R. collaboration? Revisiting the
rhetoric of e–government
among municipalities
Scammell, M.
The Internet and civic
engagement: The age of
the citizen–consumer
Political
2000 Communication
17
4
Shah, D.V.;
C ho, J.;
Eveland, Jr.,
W.P. and Kwak,
N.
Information and expression
Communication
in a digital age: Modeling
2005
Research
Internet effects on civic
participation
32
5
Shah, D.V.;
C ho, J.; Nah, S.;
Gotlieb,M.R.;
Hwang, H.; Lee,
N.; Scholl, R.M.
and Mcleod,
D.M.
C ampaign ads, online
messaging, and
participation: Extending the
communication mediation
model
2007
Journal of
Communication
57
4
Shah, D.V.;
Schmierbach,
M.; Hawkins, J.;
Espino, R. and
Donavan, J.
Nonrecursive models of
Internet use and
community engagement
questioning whether time
spent online erodes social
capital
2002
Journalism &
Mass
Communication
Quarterly
79
4
Journal of
2012 Broadcasting &
Electronic Media
56
3
Skoric, M.M.
Bowling online, not alone:
Online social capital and
political participation in
Singapore
Journal of
Computer–
2009
Mediated
Communication
14
2
Spaiser, V.
Empowerment or
democratic divide?
Internet–based political
participation of young
immigrants and young
natives in Germany
2012 Information Polity
17
2
Spyridiou, P.L.
and Veglis, A.
Political parties and Web
2.0 tools: A shift in power
or a new digital
bandwagon?
International
Journal of
2011
Electronic
Governance
4
1
Stanley, J.W.
and Weare, C .
The effects of Internet use
on political participation:
Evidence From an agency
online discussion forum
2004
36
5
Secretly political: C ivic
Shklovski, I. and
engagement in online
Valtysson, B.
publics in Kazakhstan
Access, skills, economic
opportunities, and
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
Administration &
Society
Canadian Journal
34/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
Stansbury, M.
democratic participation:
C onnecting four facets of
the digital divide through
research
2003 of Information
and Library
Science
27
3
5
4
Stern, M J. and
Dillman, D.A.
C ommunity participation,
social ties, and use of the
Internet
2006
City &
Community
Suarez, D.F.
Nonprofit advocacy and
civic engagement on the
Internet
2009
Administration &
Society
41
3
Sylvester, D.E.
and McGlynn,
A.J.
The digital divide, political
participation, and place
2010
Social Science
Computer Review
28
1
Tapia, A.H. and
Ortiz, J.
Network hopes:
Municipalities deploying
wireless Internet to
increase civic engagement
2010
Social Science
Computer Review
28
1
Theocharis, Y.
Young people, political
participation and online
postmaterialism in Greece
2011
New Media &
Society
13
2
2003
Political Research
Quarterly
56
2
Trench, B. and
O’Donnell, S.
The Internet and
democratic participation:
Uses of IC Ts by voluntary
and community
organisations in Ireland
1997
Economic and
Social Review
28
3
Turner–Lee, N.
The challenge of increasing
civic engagement in the
digital age
Federal
2011 Communications
Law Journal
63
1
Uslaner, E.M.
Trust, civic engagement,
and the Internet
2010
21
2
Vaccari, C .
The news media as
networked political actors
Information,
2011 Communication &
Society
14
7
VanFossen, P.J.
The electronic republic?
Evidence on the impact of
International
the Internet on citizenship
2006 Journal of Social
and civic engagement in the
Education
U.S.
21
1
Velasquez, A.
Social media and online
political discussion: The
effect of cues and
informational cascades on
participation in online
political communities
2012
New Media &
Society
14
8
Vissers, S.;
Hooghe, M.;
Stolle, D. and
Mahéo, V.–A.
The impact of mobilization
media on off–line and
online participation: Are
mobilization effects
medium–specific?
2011
Social Science
Computer Review
30
2
Vromen, A.
Building virtual spaces:
Young people, participation
and the Internet
Australian Journal
2008 of Political
Science
43
1
Walgrave, S;
Bennett, W.L.;
Laer, J.V. and
Breunig, C .
Multiple engagements and
network bridging in
contentious politics: Digital
media use of protest
participants
2011 Mobilization
16
3
Wang, H.;
C hung, J.E.;
Park, N.;
McLaughlin, M.L.
and Fulk, J.
Understanding online
community participation: A
technology acceptance
perspective
2011
39
6
Unraveling the effects of
Tolbert, C .J. and
the Internet on political
Mcneal, R.S.
participation
Political use of the Internet,
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
Political
Communication
Communication
Research
Asian Journal of
35/36
15.7.2014
Lutz
Wang, S.–I.
Political attitudes and
political participation
Ward, S.;
Gibson, R. and
Lusoli, W.
Online participation and
mobilisation in Britain:
Hype, hope and reality
2007 Communication
2003
Parliamentary
Affairs
Does the Internet increase,
Wellman, B.;
decrease, or supplement
American
Quan–Haase, A.;
2001 Behavioral
social capital? Social
Witte, J. and
networks, participation, and
Scientist
Hampton K.
community commitment
17
4
56
4
45
3
13
3
Wells, C .
C itizenship and
communication in online
youth civic engagement
projects
Information,
2010 Communication &
Society
Wigand, F.D.L.
Gov 2.0 and beyond: Using
Social Media for
Transparency, Participation
and C ollaboration
Third International Conference on
2011 Networked Digital Technologies (NDT
2011)
Wojcieszak, M.
“C arrying online
participation offline” —
Journal of
Mobilization by radical
2009
Communication
online groups and politically
dissimilar offline ties
59
3
Woo–Young, C .
Online civic participation,
Media, Culture &
and political empowerment:
2005
Society
Online media and public
opinion formation in Korea
27
6
Xenos, M. and
Moy, P.
Direct and differential
effects of the Internet on
political and civic
engagement
Journal of
Communication
57
4
Science,
2006 Technology and
Human Values
31
3
Democracy and the
Zavestoski, S.;
environment on the
Schulman, S.W.
Internet: Electronic citizen
and Schlosberg,
participation in regulatory
D.
rulemaking
2007
Editorial history
Received 15 March 2014; revised 18 June 2014; accepted 24 June 2014.
Dieses Werk ist lizenziert unter einer C reative C ommons Namensnennung–Nicht kommerziell 4.0
International Lizenz.
Beyond just politics: A systematic literature review of online participation
by C hristoph Lutz, C hristian Pieter Hoffmann, and Miriam Meckel.
First Monday, Volume 19, Number 7 - 7 July 2014
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i7.
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/5260/4094
36/36