:::

ICTs and political life 資訊科技與民主政治

12月 01, 2011 0 Comments Edit Post

image

Robbin, A., Courtright, C., & Davis, L. (2004). ICTs and political life. Annual review of information science and technology, 38(1), 410–482.


1. Introduction

  • 目標:協助讀者從ICTs與政治文化、機構與行為的研究中,辨識虛無與真實、粗略與更真實的假設。
  • 回顧範圍:1990s到2002年之間重要的英文研究
    • 撇開政治經濟面的議題
  • 文章架構:民主政治理論基礎(17p)→ICTs對政治影響的分類(7p)→回顧相關研究(25p)

2. Theory and Concepts

2-1-1. Theories of Information and Communication Technologies (ITCs)
  • 電子通訊技術:e-mail、virtual forums and communication 網路論壇、real-time online events 線上會議、Web sites、digital libraries、archives、databases,以及相關支援設施。
  • ICTs的特色:ICTs provide two-way channels for those who seek or receive information and also permit many-to-many communications. 提供一般大眾創造與傳播資訊的機會。
2-1-2. How ICTs Frame Political Life
  • Technological determinism (科技決定論):Bellamy & Taylor (1998)總結關於ICTs用在governance(統治)上的看法:
    • 樂觀:科技烏托邦論 optimistic (technological utopianism)
    • 悲觀:科技反烏托邦論 pessimistic (technological dystopianism)
  • Co-evolution 科技與社會共進化論:ICTs as socio-technical interaction networks, not tools or objects that can be analyzed separately from their users (Kling, 2000a, 2000b).
2-2. Normative Democratic Theory (What Ought to Be) and Concepts 正規的民主理論與概念

We can only comprehend how technology affects democracy when we understand the character and nature of democracy itself (Barber, 2001, p. 1)

當我們了解民主的本質的時候,我們才能理解科技怎樣影響民主。

Democracy 民主的定義非常混亂

  • a "starting point, the ideal of a political system" (Cardoso, 2001, p. 5).
  • Democracy's central virtues are participation (參與), citizenship (公民權利與義務), and political activity (政治活動) (Barber, 1984).

根據政府教科書的分類,民主可以分成substantive democracy跟procedural democracy兩種:

Substantive Democracy 意識上的民主
  1. Substantive democratic theory "focuses on the substance of government policies" (Janda, Berry, & Goldman, 1995, p. 37).
    • Principles of civil liberties 公民自由原則: guarantees of freedom of behavior
    • civil rights 公民權益: "powers or privileges that government may not arbitrarily deny to individuals"
  2. 意識型態的討論有所侷限: "political ideology of the theorist tends to explain what democracy really requires in substantive policies,"
    • assessments about the information "haves and have nots".
Procedural Democracy 程序上的民主
  1. the governance structures of procedural democracy that concern political processes.
  2. 理想的民主有以下四個原則:
    1. 參與審議:extensive participation in deliberations about government decision making by members of a political community,
    2. 政治平等:reasonable political equality,
    3. 遵守規則:general adherence to majority rule, and
    4. 選舉義務:accountability of elected public officials to the electorate

程序民主依照參與的方式不同,又可分成兩種類型:直接民主與代議民主

Participatory democracy 直接民主
  • 政治哲學家Jean Jacques Rousseau(盧梭): "general will of the people" 人民的普遍意志
  • 強勢民主 Strong democracy connects individuals as "competent and responsible" (擁有能力與責任的人民) citizens to their communities, individuals "who define their interests in terms of their communities" to "find an expression of self that encompasses both individuality and sociability" through "civic education and participation" (Barber, 1984, pp. xv-xvii).
  • 政治行為:
    • civic participation and engagement (全民參與), which Janda et al. (1995, p. 216) define as "actions of private citizens by which they seek to influence or to support government and politics;" and
    • public deliberation (公開審議) to affect public policy "through [reasoned] debate, discussion and persuasion" as "a normative ideal and test for democratic legitimacy" (Bohman, 1996, pp. 2,3).
  • 限制:只能用在地方層級,無法用於國家等級。
    it was impractical for the large task of creating democracy at a national level and unrealistic in large, complex societies and with a "physically dispersed electorate" (Stromer-Galley, 2000a, p. 45)
Representative democracy 代議民主
  • “government by the people” 由一群人來管理眾人
    • 表現型態包括Pluralism (多位元首)與Corporatism (政府組織,或interest groups 黨派)
    • 少數菁英擁有較多資源與保護
  • 質疑:Privatization and reliance on the private for-profit and nonprofit sectors have fostered the new consumer paradigm of public management (Bellamy & Taylor, 1998; Fountain, 2001a, 2001b) and reduced accountability to the citizenry.
  • 大多數民眾並沒有參與政治的意願與能力:Large numbers of people do not participate in the political process or civic life; civic engagement and trust have declined; and most people lack the necessary political skills and resources, such as time and money, are not well informed about political issues, and have low levels of interest in politics.
  • crisis of democracy (民主的危機):民主理論與實務運作上的差距。開發中的國家特別明顯。

為了避免民主的危機,西方社會倡導civil society公民社會來對抗代議民主

Civil Society 公民社會
  • 政府與民眾之間的關係:Civil society is the realm of "organized social life" of "citizens acting collectively in the public sphere" that mediates the relations between the state (government) and the private sphere (individuals, family life, market) (Diamond, 1994, p. 5).
    • 延伸成為governance(統治)的概念,作為國家決策的民主型態、政策與經濟交流的系統(如EU歐盟)
  • A reinvigorated civil society公民社會的復甦:倡導公民參與的政治社群、反對政治。這些概念傾向於支持ICTs。
  • 公民社會的概念:Encarnacibn (2002, pp. 120-121) 概述三種方式
    • 對抗高壓政權的口號:as a "slogan" to mobilize against oppressive regimes;
    • 描述社會現象的名詞:a "quasi-scientific term to describe and explain certain social phenomena or social organization at the macro-level”; and
    • 上述兩種用法的準則:a normative or prescriptive ideal of an ethical order, which fuses the first two uses.
  • 問題:
    • 西方社會與非西方社會基於不同的政治型態、歷史等情境
    • 希望有純志願者、非政府、非利益團體參與,但通常都會牽扯政治立場
    • 公民社會真的能促進民主嗎?當團體發生衝突時,公民社會將變得脆弱

Encarncion (2002) 認為公民社會概念上的缺陷,造成理論與實務使用上的限制。

Governance Theory 全民監督理論
  • Governance has become a "catch all for any set of recommendations that seeks to enhance the capacity of the state to govern" (Reilly, 2002a, online) and reflects ongoing debates about substantive policies and procedures to ensure inclusion in decision making.
  • 1990s年代時西方的討論從"government 政府" 轉移到了 "governance 監督" 上,並成為21世紀早期的新興議題
    • 融合代議民主,成為public administration’ role in governing the state (全民監督政府的角色)
    • 為了達到全民監督,專家找尋deliberation-promoting tactics促進公開審議的策略
    • 黨派成為的目的是為了促進民眾對於全民監督的信任:In this deliberative democracy model, interest groups act as intermediaries that promote trust among citizens and in public administration, or, at the very least, promote trust among participating organizations (Oberg, 2002);
  • 全民監督的質疑論:公開政府資訊真的對於提昇民主有幫助嗎?

3. E-Political Lift 數位政治生活

  • 政治生活應用ICTs的方法
    • 理想的審議民主:to reclaim the ideals of participatory and deliberative democracy,
    • 糾正代議民主的錯誤to correct the failures of representative democracy, and
    • 重新定義政府關係 to redefine the governance relationships between civil society and political institutions: between people and their governments
  • ICTs的特色:透過網路改善通訊、降低成本
    • 民眾可以更簡單與頻繁地交流
    • 可以跟地方層級的候選人溝通,也可以跟國家級的決策制定者溝通

以下分成三類:E-government、E-governance與E-democracy

3-1. E-Government (Digital Government, Teledemocracy)
  • 透過ICTs促進全民監督:The use of the terms e-government and digital government is most often associated with the concept of state governance, referring to the modernization effort by public administration through ICTs designed to "support the efforts t o transform [reinvent] the operation and effectiveness of government" (Pardo, 2000, online; see also Garson, 2000)
  • Consumer democracy 消費者民主:the renewal of citizenship and democracy… "an explicit democratic value to consumerist initiatives by emphasizing the need to empower users as direct stakeholders in the material outcomes of public administration" (Bellamy & Taylor, 1998, p. 91)
3-2. E-Governance (Digital Governance)
  • the e-governance literature focuses on government infrastructure modernization and customer services.
  • E-governance focuses on how demands are aggregated; the institutional, organizational, and citizen relationships; the role that the state plays in mediating the competing interests; and how ICT "structures or channels will be used to aggregate demands and used to respond to demands" (Reilly, 2002a, online).
3-3. E-Democracy (Teledemocracy, Digital Democracy, Cyberdemocracy)
  • 作為電子溝通的工具:E-democracy is the use of information and communication through electronic channels for political communications:
    • 政府與組織:between government and organizations in the civil society;
    • 政府與公民:between government and citizen, whether mediated by institutions in the civil society or directly between government and citizens;
    • 組織之間:between organizations in the civil society;
    • 組織與公民:between these organizations and citizens; and
    • 公民之間:between citizens as they engage in political life
  • 虛擬政治系統 E-democracy implies a networked, interactive, transparent “Virtual political system

4. Review of Research on E-Government, E-Governance, and E-Democracy

4-1. 從ICTs的應用方式分類
E-Government 數位政府
  • 範圍:
    • the relationship between government and the citizen or between government and groups in the civil society and
    • the subject of the article is government's role as service provider and the citizen's or group's role as consumer of these services in the context of government's responsiveness and accountability
  • 網站比較研究類型
    • 在美國,大部分都是e-government研究,並限於網站評估:檢驗網站是否能夠成為滿足市民資訊取用與線上洽公需求的one-stop shops
    • 國家、地方政府、聯邦政府的網站是否是消費者導向customer-oriented或efficiency-driven paradigm 有效率的結構 (Ho, 2002)
    • 大型國際研究:比較多個國家的網站服務。
      • Accentrue (2001)比較22國家網站,分類三種數位政府:1. 最低層次線上消息、2. 與人民互動、3. 可線上繳稅
      • West (2002)比較198國家的1197個網站的資訊可用度、服務提供與公開取用性,發現最好的國家包括臺灣、南韓、加拿大、美國等。
    • 最大型的跨國際研究:the United Nations Online Network in Public Administration and Finance (2002)研究169個國家
      • 有32國家有使用類似e-government的網站
      • 有64國家強調呈現:時常更新、提供有用資訊、網站連結
      • 有57國家提供互動功能:線上論壇與討論區
      • 有17國家提供隱私安全交易:包含記錄與付款功能
    • 個別單一國家的研究較少
  • 公民使用e-government的觀點:研究數量較少,但還是有重要的研究。
    • Larsen & Rainie 發現美國2002年早期有58%成年人使用政府網站來獲取資訊或洽公,比起前兩年的數量都還多上很多。
    • Taylor Nelson Sofres (2001)調查27國家共29077個受訪者,發現1/5最近有在政府網站搜尋資訊;9%下載過表單;6%用過線上金流交易;過半使用者對線上使用交易與個人資訊抱持不信任態度。
  • 網站變革:唯一一篇co-evolution的研究
    • Marchionini (2002)長期研究美國勞工統計局的網站,發現網站越來越好用、有組織化,而使用者也越來越多元並對網站期望越深
  • 質疑與批評:許多研究認為e-government受限於行政、財政、技術、法律挑戰等問題
    • Musso & Weare (2000)認為大多數網站只有表面上經營公民關係,少數網站提供資訊與通訊管道,而這無法促進民主政治。
    • 人們不能理解其價值:the Inter-Parliamentary Union (in Norris, 2001) also conclude that the potential for political government-citizen interactions online is usually unrealized, with priority given to information provision, citizen-as-consumer transactions, and business-government transactions instead of interactions with citizens.
    • 落後國家中,人們不期待ICT協助政治,而特別容易受到批評
E-Governance
  • 範圍:The relationship between governments and citizens in the context of administrative rule making, policy, or similar decision-making processes, including the procedures surrounding Internet voting.
  • Openness 開放度,政府組織資訊的透明化:
    • La Porte, Demchak, & de Jong, 2002 研究15國家,發現開放度與民眾互動之間有低度相關,但卻找不到其他外部變項。他們認為開放性是一種「unique aspect of organizational behavior」
  • ICT的錯誤應用:
    • 許多國家傾向將ICTs作為top-down(由上而下)的資訊傳播與方便的選舉工具,而取代了政府與民眾的交流。
    • 然而,美國政黨網站的互動有增加的趨勢。 (Stromer-Galley, 2000b, p. 112)
  • 使用者觀點:
    • Kohut & Rainie (2000) 發現美國2000年有18%民眾在線上尋找選舉新聞資訊,民眾觀看新聞網站比候選人跟政黨網站還多。
  • 網路投票研究:
    • 美國仍在網路投票的實驗階段,大多都是mock vote偽票問題。
    • 因此興起了資料安全、隱私、投票者認證、不平等的近用以及公民動機等研究議題。
E-Democracy
  • 範圍:
    • civic engagement with government institutions or public deliberation among citizens
    • the substance of government policies or services is specifically the focus of public discussion.
  • ICTs無用論
    • 儘管許多研究都發現有e-democracy,但更多研究指出了問題:
      • 不平等取用 lack of universal access to e-democracy tools,
      • 缺乏互動 lack of sufficient interactivity built into Web sites,
      • 低參與度 low levels of civic interest and engagement, and
      • 不禮貌 incivility.
    • 都市自發計畫:建立雙向溝通與公開討論的線上平台 (Bryan, 1998)
      • broad-based participation is still lacking and
      • will depend more on promoting civic education and motivation than on the availability of ICTs and Web sites
    • 許多研究者都發現線上公開審議是uncivil(野蠻的)且fragmented(破碎的),而且只有少數網站鼓勵民眾參與政治討論。
  • 網路使用與政治參與的關係
    • Larsen & Rainie (2002)發現有6800萬人拜訪美國網站,1/3使用網站聯絡政府官員,1/5參與線上演講活動。
    • Coles (2000, 2001, 2003)每年的研究發現使用網際網路去理解政治的情況逐年增加。
  • National Geographic Society (1998) 發現在網路使用與公民政治參與有相關,但不知因果關係
    • 不平等的ICTs取用:Norris (2002)認為ICTs傾向於加劇於積極參與政治或消極迴避之間的鴻溝。
    • Wilhelm (2000)指出ICTs應用於民主的四個挑戰:
      1. 近用障礙:barriers to entry into the public sphere,
      2. 能力不平等:unequal ability of people to share in the public sphere,
      3. 科技破壞民主決策的危機:the potential for the "rhythms and speeds" of technology t o undermine democratic decision making, and
      4. 不明顯的公共空間:the disappearance of the public sphere under the pressures of market forces that suppress or eliminate citizen entry
  • 線上政治論壇 online political forums 影響地方政府
    • 提供年輕人能夠持續討論政治、建立他們自己「國會」的空間
    • Klein (1999)發現線上論壇的確能克服許多面對面會議的障礙,並促進市民結合為一個小型的當地社群而影響政府。
    • Kinder (2002)跨國地方政府調查,發現歐洲城市有一定程度的市民透過ICT參與地方決策,包括線上投票、市民活動與會議。
    • Gronlund (2003)長期調查瑞士鄉鎮,發現有各種形式的線上民主:開放式論壇、線上廣播、聊天室、市民提案、市民代表委員會、議題討論會議與投票。
  • 開發中國家的限制
    • Abbott (2001)研究發現中國與馬來西亞普遍缺乏ICT的取用能力 (limited ICT acces),新加坡則是政府限制公開審議 (government attitudes)
    • 同時還有反民主團體阻止政府使用線上活動。
4-2. Conceptualizations of the Role of ICT in E-Government, E-Governance, and E-Democracy
  • 樂觀派:ICTs Will Increase Government Efficiency, Improve Governance, or Enhance Democracy
  • 中立派(ICTs需要規劃):ICTs Have Democratic Potential but Require Policy and Planning to Ensure the Success of Online Political Initiatives
  • 政治主角派(政治文化才是主要影響ICT發展的因素):Political Culture and Practice Are the Prime Shapers of ICTs' Potential, Involving Long-Term Change
  • 悲觀派:ICTs Are Embedded in Broader Structural Relations Within Society and Reflect or Reinforce Its Inequalities and Complexity
  • 效果放大派:The Use of ICTs in Governance Is Not Only Complex in Terms of Inputs, but Also Entails Ambiguous Outcomes and Unintended Consequences
  • 無用派:ICTs Are Not Necessarily an Appropriate Vehicle for Enacting or Enhancing Political Participation
  • 意見保留派:It Is Too Soon to Gauge whether ICTs Assist in Governmental Efficiency, Better Governance, or Enhanced Democracy
4-3. Review of Sources of Data and Methods Used by Researchers
  • Web Sites網站:
    • 內容分析:著重分析網站設計者與機構如何使用ICTs達成governance(監督)的目的
    • 比較研究:地方、聯邦、國家、跨國比較
    • Web sphere analysis 網站空間研究:分析網站資料結構組織與使用者設計之間的關係。(類似現在談的Information Architecture)
  • Documents 相關文件:
    • 補足網站分析:網站中的政策檔案
    • 宏觀的分析:新聞報導與相關網站
    • 前人研究的分析:Tambini (1999)藉由分析前人研究進行跨國比較
  • Stakeholders 相關人士:
    • 政府相關的ICT活動人士,包括policy officials政策官員、civil servants 公務員、administrators、businesses、political parties 政黨、non-governmental organization、individual citizens
      • 調查他們參與政治相關活動的觀點
      • 大多關注政策決定者與網站設計者,而非市民
    • 常用於大規模調查:the Pew Internet and American Life Project調查市民參與線上政府的研究
  • Multiple Data Sources and Methods 多重資料來源與方法:
    • 常見於當地ICT輔助政治活動中:利用訪談、文件分析、網站分析或研究者直接參與等方法
      • 通常都是先導研究階段而只有暫時性的結論
    • 長期研究文件變化與記錄ICT活動的複雜性

5. Where Do We Go from Here?: Recommendations for a Research Agenda

研究上的問題
  • 激情影響研究結果
    • 科技決定論:大多研究都想像ICT對於政治的影響,而輕率地提出結論
    • 最近幾年,研究逐漸趨向更複雜、細微的理論與發現
  • 許多研究者對於民主政治的概念混亂,所以本文大部分篇幅都在解釋概念
    • 研究者需要更嚴謹的釐清e-government, e-governance, e-democracy之間的概念
  • 囫圇吞棗使用理論與提出假設:例如把西方社會套用到全世界中。
  • ICTs支持者偏好虛擬世界而忽視實際政治運作。
  • 研究方法有待加強:
    • 與其使用單一研究法,不如用multiple triangulated methods三角驗證法
    • 資料一次性的蒐集,不如長時間的觀察。
研究建議
  • 需要更嚴謹的檢驗與證據。rigorously examines normative claims and empirical evidence on how citizens evaluate participatory democratic procedures
  • 應持續長期、重複的研究:一次性資料蒐集的發現有限
  • Social network formation 社會網絡、資訊社會研究:
    • 不應該是科技決定論,而是更複雜的連接系統。complex connected systems have indeterminate and unpredictable outcomes and consequences (Perrow, 1999; Watts, 2003)
    • 從歷史與情境中搭配interpretive epistemology解釋性認知論框架,描繪宏觀與微觀的流程與互動

感想

  • 原本以為民主政治跟圖資領域關係不大,但事實上,將「民主政治」替換成「圖書館」,就會發現圖資界的研究也有驚人的「科技決定論」傾向
    • 許多館員對於科技的態度仍是「有用」、「沒用」的二元論;學生則多抱著科技樂觀論,而容易忽視實際運作的限制。
    • 許多研究(像是圖書館如何運用科技)常以一次性資料蒐集、憑著想像就下了粗糙的結論。
    • 本文在2004年就建議應該提昇研究的複雜度,到現在我們仍應力圖振作。
  • 這仍是一篇早期研究的回顧,究竟ICTs是怎麼影響社會,光是這樣仍看不出個所以然。但是ICT與政治立場的概念解釋、研究方法的分析則是相當有參考價值,建議也很中肯。

作者努力地將混亂的文獻作一個有架構的整理,可是看起來還是很吃力 OTL

0 意見:

留言工具: