//
ви читаєте...
Електронний уряд, Політологія

Інтернет і політика: підбірка посилань


Цікава підбірка посилань по інтернету у політиці з порталу i-pol. Звичайно серед величезної кількості посилань є неперевірені (можливо непрацюючі або змінені посилання).

Institutions

Oxford Internet Institute (Director: William Dutton)

The Oxford Internet Institute (OII) is one of the world’s first truly multidisciplinary Internet institutes based in a major university. Exclusively devoted to the study of the impact of the Internet on society, the OII aims to put Oxford, the UK and Europe at the centre of debates about how the Internet could and should develop. The Oxford Internet Institute was launched by a major donation from The Shirley Foundation and with public funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

The Berkman Center for Internet & Society

The Berkman Center’s mission is to explore and understand cyberspace, its development, dynamics, norms, standards, and need or lack thereof for laws and sanctions. We are a research center, premised on the observation that what we seek to learn is not already recorded. Our method is to build out into cyberspace, record data as we go, self-study, and publish. Our mode is entrepreneurial nonprofit.

Government on the Web

This site is dedicated to improving knowledge and understanding of e-government and the impact of web-based technologies on government. This site is run jointly by the LSE Public Policy Group (London School of Economics and Political Science), The Oxford Internet Institute (University of Oxford) and the School of Public Policy (University College London), led by Professor Patrick Dunleavy (LSE) and Professor Helen Margetts (Oxford and UCL). Other members of the team include Simon Bastow (LSE and UCL), Hala Yared (Oxford and UCL) andJane Tinkler (LSE and UCL).

National Centre for Digital Government (University of Massachusetts Amherst, Director: Jane Fountain)

The National Center for Digital Government (NCDG), based at the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Center for Public Policy and Administration, works to build global research capacity, to advance practice, and to strengthen the network of researchers and practitioners engaged in building and using technology and government. The goal of NCDG is to apply and extend the social sciences for research at the intersection of governance, institutions and information technologies.

Social Informatics Research Unit (York University)

Social Informatics is the critical social scientific study of information and communication technologies (ICTS), in particular the manner in which they mesh with existing social institutions and practices. SIRU is concerned with some of the big over-arching macro-sociological questions that the global spread of ICTs invokes. However, the main focus of its work is grounded in five main areas of substantive inquiry: community informatics, cultural informatics, health informatics, political informatics and spatial informatics.

In addition to carrying out theoretically informed, policy relevant and empirically grounded research SIRU is also the base for a range of other activities. It is the editorial base for the international journal Information, Communication and Society (edited by Brian Loader and Bill Dutton at Oxford Internet Institute) and the administrative base for the co-ordination of the ESRC e-society research programme. SIRU also contains a new state of the art Spatial Informatics Lab (SIL) which allows for the critical exploration of the application of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Geodemographic Information Systems (GDIS) to sociological and cultural analysis. It also houses an access point to the White Rose Grid in order to facilitate work in e-social science.

In addition SIRU runs a series of research symposia and major national and international conferences . In 2007 SIRU (as part of the wider Department of Sociology at York) will also launch two new MSc courses; one in Social Informatics and one in Management and Social Informatics (jointly with the Department of Management ). Further details will be available soon.

Changing Protest and Media Cultures. Transnational Corporate Campaigns and Digital Communication (Project manager: Sigrid Baringhorst)

The research project “Changing Protest and Media Cultures. Transnational Corporate Campaigns and Digital Communication” analyses the relation between changing media cultures and protest cultures. The main focus of research lies on computer-mediated political participation in the context of the mobilisation of transnational corporate campaigns. Having gained more and more importance since the nineteen-nineties, these campaigns aim at changing attitudes and behaviour patterns in terms of mobilizing citizens as consumer citizens. Protest action primarily targets single transnational corporations (e.g. Microsoft) resp. branches (e.g. garment industry or producers of sports wear). The development of the internet gives rise to new technologies which allow the mobilization of spatially unbounded protest networks with low costs, high speed – beyond the selection of journalistic gatekeepers, and censoring intervention of state-institutions. Apart from evaluating the effects of internet communication on the structure of protest organisations and the linking-up between the local, national, and transnational actors the project also analyses public arenas, programmes and frames of corporate campaigns as well as new forms of creating collective identity and new modes of aesthetic dramatization of political protest in the net.

Congress online project (Pew, GWU & CMF)

The Congress Online Project is a two-year (2001 – 2002) program funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts and conducted jointly by the George Washington University and the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) to examine the use of Web sites and other forms of online communications by congressional offices. The goal of the project is to improve electronic communication between Members of Congress and the public.

IBM Institute for Electronic Government

Founded in 1994, the Institute for Electronic Government is dedicated to helping government leaders understand and unleash the power of information technology to transform government in a digital society.

Centre for Democracy and Technology

The Center for Democracy and Technology works to promote democratic values and constitutional liberties in the digital age. With expertise in law, technology, and policy, CDT seeks practical solutions to enhance free expression and privacy in global communications technologies. CDT is dedicated to building consensus among all parties interested in the future of the Internet and other new communications media.

The Democracy in Cyberspace Initiative (Yale University)

The Democracy in Cyberspace Initiative of the Information Society Project (ISP) at Yale Law School wants to promote democracy by developing best practices technologies and models to strengthen democracy both on-line and off. In particular, we want to catalyze the development of technologies and processes that move beyond the “thin” ‘patron-client’ model of government where government is a procurer of goods and purveyor of services, to focus on participatory and deliberative forms of strong democratic life. We are interested in realizing technology’s potential to improve civic life and help citizens take an active and informed role in their own governance.

PoliticalWeb.Info (Kirsten Foot and Steven Schneider)

The PoliticalWeb.Info candidate web sphere analysis illustrates how candidates for House, Senate and Governor used the Web in the 2002 campaign to facilitate civic engagement, establish connections to other political Web sites through links, and provide various types of information to site visitors. Discover the relationship between candidate characteristics such as competitiveness of race, incumbency, political party and gender and the types of features available on campaign Web sites. Explore the Election 2002 Web Archive using our research-based interface.

Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet (The George Washington University)

Formerly known as the Democracy Online Project, the Institute has been established at the Graduate School of Political Management of The George Washington University. Funded by a grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts, the mission of the Institute for Politics Democracy and the Internet is to promote the development of U.S. online politics in a manner which upholds democratic values.

The UK Electoral Commission – E-voting and other Internet and elections issues

We are an independent body that was set up by the UK Parliament in November 2000. We aim to increase public confidence in the democratic process within the United Kingdom – and encourage people to take part – by modernising the electoral process, promoting public awareness of electoral matters, and regulating political parties.

International Teledemocracy Centre – Faculty of Computing and Engineering at Napier University

The International Teledemocracy Centre aims to develop and apply advanced information and communication technology to enhance and support the democratic decision-making process. Promoting the application of Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) by governments and parliaments worldwide in order that elected members and supporting staff can conduct their business more effectively and efficiently. Demonstrating how technology can contribute to more openness and accessibility in government. Encouraging and assisting the public, voluntary organisations and business to participate in government through the use of technology. ITC is part of the Faculty of Computing and Engineering at Napier University. It was set up in 1999 by Napier University in partnership with BT Scotland.

Information Revolution and World Politics – Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

The Carnegie Endowment launched the project on The Information Revolution and World Politics in January 1999. The project’s purpose is to analyze the political, economic, and social dimensions of the world-wide information revolution and their implications for U.S. policy and global governance.

Chinese Internet Research Listserve

The Chinese Internet Research Group is designed to spur cooperative and collaborative research on the internet in China, including issues of internet and telecommunications regulation, the social, cultural, and political impact of the internet, the development of the internet in China, etc. We will use this list to disseminate news, stimulate research ideas and discussion, and hopefully make each of us more productive in our own area of research on China’s internet. The moderators of this list are Randolph Kluver, Nanyang Technological University, and Jack Linchuan Qiu, Chinese University of Hong Kong.

GaDIA Network – EU COST Action no. A14 [completed]

Government and Democracy in the Information Age (GaDIA) is a research network dedicated to the study of information- and communication technology (ICT) in the “political world”. The aim of the network is to increase knowledge about how ICT enters into all or many of the political relationships in different European democracies, and how ICT is used by the different political players – the political parties, voluntary associations, interest groups, parliaments, governments and administrations.

  • Workgroup 1: Cyber democracy
  • Workgroup 2: ICT’s and political organisations
  • Workgroup 3: ICT’s and public administration
  • Workgroup 4: ICT’s, social movements and citizens
  • Workgroup 5: Regulation and control

Hansard Society E-Democracy Programme

The e-Democracy Programme is exploring the potential for interactive technologies to enhance Parliamentary democracy and create new channels of communication and participation between Parliament and citizens.
Our contributions are at the cutting edge, enabling people to try out ideas that might eventually become mainstream. Our action projects have focused on exploiting technology to facilitate broader and deeper public participation in Parliament’s policy and scrutiny work. We continue to produce seminal papers on the future of e-democracy; advise Government on its own policy; and demonstrate through practical projects, the opportunities electronic channels offer for engaging people in the democratic process.

InSITeS – Institute for the Study of Information Technology and Society

InSITeS is dedicated to the exploration of how society shapes and is shaped by information technology. Founded with the support of Carnegie Mellon’s H.J. Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, InSITeS embodies the Heinz School’s vision of interdisciplinary research and teaching that equips leaders for the public good in an information technology-infused world. Because of the particular strengths and intellectual interests shared by Carnegie Mellon faculty and students, and because the following subjects are critical to the public interest, broadly conceived, InSITeS focuses its energies around six core areas, as well as a general category of IT and Society Studies

o E-Governance and Civic Engagement

o Cybersecurity Policy

o IT and Social and Economic Development

o E-Commerce

o Privacy and Information Policy

o Telecommunications, Law, and Policy

Markle Foundation

Emerging information and communication technologies possess enormous potential to improve people’s lives. The Markle Foundation works to realize this potential and to accelerate the use of these technologies to address critical public needs. The foundation focuses its work in the program areas of Policy for a Networked Society and Information Technologies for Better Health.
Markle’s policy program seeks to advance the policy foundation that will enable the public to benefit fully from information and communication technologies (ICT). We work on ICT policies to improve national security, stimulate development in impoverished nations, and enhance innovation. We also seek to establish ICT policymaking processes that are inclusive and accountable so that the results serve the public interest.
Markle’s health program seeks to accelerate the use of information and communication technologies by patients and consumers to improve their health and healthcare.

Pew Internet and American life

The Pew Internet & American Life Project will create and fund original, academic-quality research that explores the impact of the Internet on children, families, communities, the work place, schools, health care and civic/political life. The Project aims to be an authoritative source for timely information on the Internet’s growth and societal impact, through research that is scrupulously impartial.
The basic work-product of the center will be phone and online surveys; data-gathering efforts that will often involve classic shoe-leather reporting from government agencies, academics, and other experts; fly-on-the-wall observations of what people do when they are online; and other efforts that try to examine individual and group behavior. The Project intends to release 15-20 pieces of research a year, varying in size, scope, and ambition.

Programme in Comparative Media Law & Policy @ Oxford University (Head: Damian Tambini)

  • To examine the processes of restructuring media and telecommunications structures from various perspectives;
  • To provide a framework for understanding the background, mechanisms, and prospects of the processes of media restructuring; and
  • To help provide a new generation of scholars and policymakers with a sharpened comparative insight into the problems of adjustment of technology to society.

Stanford PLC – Political Communication Lab

The lab was formed to develop and administer experimental studies of public opinion and political behavior through the use of both on-line and traditional methods. The lab is equipped to use the WWW as an experimental “site” which will attract online users as potential experimental participants. The advantages of on-line experimentation are clear in light of the explosion in the number of households with access to the internet. Moreover, available data suggest that internet users are more representative of the adult population than participants recruited at shopping malls, airports or other public facilities.

Office of the E-Envoy (UK)

The Office of the e-Envoy is part of the Prime Minister’s Delivery and Reform team based in the Cabinet Office. The primary focus of the Office of the e-Envoy is to improve the delivery of public services and achieve long term cost savings by joining-up online government services around the needs of customers. The e-Envoy is responsible for ensuring that all government services are available electronically by 2005 with key services achieving high levels of use.

The Office continues to ensure that the country, its citizens and its businesses derive maximum benefit from the knowledge economy. It works to meet the Prime Minister’s target for internet access for all who want it by 2005 and supports work across Government to develop the UK as a world leader for electronic business.

APSA ‘Information Technology and Politics’ section

The purpose of this section is to provide a forum for members with an interest in the use of computers, the Internet, and multimedia in teaching, research, and policy applications in political science and all related subfields and disciplines.

European Consortium for Communications Research

o To provide a forum where researchers and others involved in communication and information research can meet and exchange information and documentation about their work. Its disciplinary focus will be on media, (tele)communications and information research;

o To encourage the development of research and systematic study, especially on subjects and areas where such work is not well developed;

o To stimulate academic and intellectual interest in media and communications research, and to promote communication and cooperation between members of the Consortium;

o To co-ordinate information on communications research in Europe, with a view to establishing a database of ongoing research;

o To develop links with relevant national and international communication organizations and with professional communication researchers working for commercial and regulatory institutions, both public and private;

o To promote the interests of communication research within and between the member states of the Council of Europe and the European Union; and

o To collect and disseminate information concerning the professional position of communication researchers in the European region.

Intelligent Information Infrastructure Project (completed)

This project ran from October 1, 1993 to October 1, 1997.

The Intelligent Information Infrastructure Project seeks to develop an extremely general system for distributing and retrieving information that will work over major Internet protocols. The early phases involve building automated tools for managing outbound and inbound communications flows for large organizations, whether via email, distributed hypermedia, or other electronic media. After an initial phase of developing servers along these lines, the project will turn to interactive tools for wide-area communication, including a number of approaches to natural language understanding.

Colleagues

Philip E. Agre

Anne-Marie Greene

Vincent Mosco

G. Scott Aikens

Kim Gregson

Peter Muhlberger

Lasse Berntzen [blog]

Laura Gurak [see blog]

Pippa Norris

Bruce Bimber

Kenneth Hacker

Sarah Oates

David Bollier

Eszter Hargittai

Diana Owen

Mark S. Bonchek

Ronda Hauben

Han Woo Park

Bart Cammaerts

Richard Heeks

Jenny Pickerill

Manuel Castells

Kevin A. Hill

Alexandra Samuel

Peter Chen

Philip Howard

Steven M. Schneider

Steve Clift

Nick Jankowski

Dhavan V. Shah

Stephen Coleman

Douglas Kellner

Jennifer Stromer-Galley

Endre Dányi

Linda Jean Kensicki

Matthias Trénel

Michael Dartnell

Randy Kluver

Jan van Dijk

William Dutton

Brian D. Loader

Renée van Os

James Fishkin

Timothy Luke

Thierry Vedel

Kirsten Foot

Robert McChesney

Sandor Vegh

Jane Fountain

John G. McNutt

Barry Wellman

Darrell West

Literature

Journals (online)

First Monday

Cybersociology online

JCMC

Electronic Journal of eGovernment

Journal of Community Informatics

D-Lib Magazine

IT & Society

Forum: Qualitative Social Research

Public Administration & Management

CTheory.net

The Hacker Quarterly

Journal of Online Behaviour

American Communication Journal

International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT)

Directory of Open Access Journal

Journals (offline)

I-WAYS

Journal of Information Technology and Politics

Critical Studies in Media Communication

The Information Polity

Electronic Government

International Journal of Electronic Government Research

The Electronic Journal of Communication

Javnost – The Public

European Journal of Communication

Journal of E-government

Government Information Quarterly

Journal of Media & Cultural Studies

Harvard International Journal of Press / Politics

New Media & Society

Information, Communication & Society

Political Communication

The Information Society

Social Science Computer Review

Convergence

Collections of papers

Conference papers (PSA 2005). A number of paper were presented concerning e-politics. Search the conference site for the usual strings (e.g. internet, online, email etc).

Conference papers (HICSS 2005). Proceedings from the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), including mini-track on e-democracy and e-government.

Conference papers (Congress and the Internet Forum 2001). Papers from the eponymous meeting, held at the American University in 2001.

Conference papers (AoIR 2003). Papers from the conference, a number of which deal with Internet and politics – especially activism. Great resource.

Conference papers (HICSS 1998-2004).Proceedings from the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). Includes papers on IT-enabled democracy, governance and public administration (generally in Track 5). Terrific collection of interesting papers, published by the IEEE.

Conference papers (CATaC’98). C. Ess and F. Sudweeks (eds). Proceedings Cultural Attitudes Towards Communication and Technology ’98, University of Sydney, Australia, 1-17.

Special issue– Telepolis: Internet and Politics.

Conference papers. Conventions of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (1993 – ). Search for ‘polit*’ or ‘Internet’ in the Subject search.

Collection. International Teledemocracy Centre publications

Collection. Various papers on ICTs and Trade Unions (2000-2003) by Anne-Marie Greene.

Special issue. IT & Society special issue on ‘Digital Divides: past, present and future’ (2003, 1/5)

Special issue. JCMC special issue on ‘Electronic Networks and Democracy’ (2003, 8/3)

Conference papers. ECPR 29th Joint Sessions of Workshops Grenoble, France 6-11 April 2001. Workshop 3: Electronic Democracy: Mobilisation, Organisation and Participation via new ICTs

Conference papers. Innovations for an e-Society. Berlin, Germany, 17-19 October 2001. Congress Pre-Prints (10 papers on online politics)

Collection. Articles on charities online from The Guardian (list at the bottom of the article)

Collection. SOSIG – Political Communication Papers: Internet focus

Conference papers. Proceedings of the tenth conference on Computers, freedom and privacy, from the ACM Digital Library. Toronto, Ontario, Canada April 04 – 07, 2000

Collection. Harvard Faculty Seminar on Information Infrastructure and Governance – 1998-99

Collection. Talks by IIIP Project Members

Individual Papers

Ackland, R., & Gibson, R. K.. (2004). Mapping Political Party Networks on the WWW. Paper presented at the Australian Electronic Governance Conference,14-15 April 2004, Centre for Public Policy, University of Melbourne, Victoria.

Agre, P. E.. (1998).The Internet and public discourse. First Monday, 3(3).

Agre, P. E.. (1999). Growing a democratic culture. Paper presented at the Media in Transition Conference, 8 October 1999, MIT.

Agre, P. E.. (2000). Who Invented “Invented”?: Tracing the Real Story of the “Al Gore Invented the Internet” Hoax. Retrieved 11 June, 2003.

Aikens, G. S.. (1996). The democratization of systems of public opinion formation. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Technology and Society, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. June 21-22 1996.

Aikens, G. S.. (1997). American democracy and computer-mediated communication: a case study in Minnesota. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Cambridge University.

Albrecht, S.. (2003). Whose Voice is heard in the virtual public sphere? A study of participation and representation in online deliberation. Paper presented at the ICS Symposium, 17-20 September 2003, Oxford Internet Institute.

Alexander, D.. (2001). Speech at the Conference on Democracy in the Information Age, London, 25 October 2001.

Alexander, J. H., & Grubbs, J. W.. (1998).Wired Government: Information Technology, External Public Organizations, and Cyberdemocracy. Public Administration & Management: An Interactive Journal, 3(1).

Alkalimat, A., & Williams, K.. (2001). Social Capital and Cyberpower in the African American Community: A Case Study of a Community Technology Center in the Dual City. Retrieved 25 November, 2003.

Allpolitics. (1999, 26 November). Presidential candidates wage war on Internet. Retrieved 27 November, 1999.

Álvarez, I., & Kilbourn, B.. (2002).Mapping the Information Society Literature: Topics, Perspectives, and Root Metaphors. First Monday, 7(1).

Anderson, R. H., Bikson, T. K., Law, S. A., & Mitchell, B. M.. (1995). Universal access to e-mail: feasibility and societal implications (No. MR-650-MF). Santa Monica: RAND.

Armitage, J.. (1999, 3 January). Resisting the Neoliberal Discourse of Technology: The Politics of Cyberculture in the Age of the Virtual Class. Retrieved 4 November, 2003.

Åström, J.. (2001). Digital Democracy: Ideas, Intentions and Initiatives in Swedish Local Governments. Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, April 6-11 2001, Grenoble.

Åström, J.. (2001). Digital Democracy: Ideas, Intentions and Initiatives in Swedish Local Governments. In R. K. Gibson, A. Rommele & S. Ward (Eds.), Electronic Democracy: Mobilisation, Organisation and Participation via new ICTs. London: Routledge.v Ballinger, C., & Coleman, S.. (2001). Electoral Law and the Internet: some issues considered . London: The Hansard Society.

Banwart, M. C., & Kaid, L. L.. (2002). Videostyle and Webstyle in 2000: an interchannel comparison of candidate self presentation. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the APSA, 30 August 2002, Boston, MA.

Barber, B. R.. (1998). Which technology and which democracy?. Paper presented at the Democracy and Digital Media Conference, 8-9 May 1998, MIT.

Barber, B. R.. (1999). Which technology and which democracy?. Paper presented at the Media in Transition Conference, 8 October 1999, MIT, Boston.

Barber, B. R., Mattson, K., & Peterson, J.. (1997). The state of the electronically enhanced democracy . Rutgers, NJ: Walt Whitman Center.

Beamish, A.. (1995). Communities On-line: Community-Based Computer Networks. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, M.I.T., Boston.

Beierle, T. C.. (2002). Democracy On-Line: An Evaluation of the National Dialogue on Public Involvement in EPA Decisions (RFF Report No. January 2002). Washington: Resources for the Future.

Beierle, T. C.. (2003). Discussing the Rules: Electronic Rulemaking and Democratic Deliberation (Discussion Paper No. 03-22). Washington: Resources for the Future.

Beierle, T. C., & Cahill, S.. (2000). Electronic Democracy and Environmental Governance: A Survey of the States (Discussion Paper No. 00–42). Washington: Resources for the Future.

Belson, D.. The Network Nation Revisited.

Bennett, W. L.. (2003).Communicating Global Activism: Strengths and Vulnerabilities of Networked Politics. Information Communication and Society, 6(2), 143-168.

Bennett, W. L.. (2003). New Media Power: The Internet and Global Activism. In N. Couldry & J. Curran (Eds.), Contesting media power: Rowman & Littlefield.v Bentivegna, S.. (1998). Talking politics on the Net (Research Paper No. R-20). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, JFK School of Government.

Bentivegna, S.. (2002). E-campaigning in the 2001 Italy’s election. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the APSA, August 29 – 1 September 2002, Boston, MA.

Bertrand, G., Dugre, R., & Trempe, G.. (1998). “A ma sante”: to promote citizen participation in the evolution of the Quebec Health and Social Services sector. Retrieved 09 February, 2000.

Bikson, T. K., & Panis, C. W. A.. (1999). Citizens, computers, and connectivity : a review of trends. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Bimber, B.. (2001). Information Technology and the “New” Politics: Lessons from the American Experience. Paper presented at the Innovations for an e-Society. Challenges for Technology Assessment, 17-19 October 2001, Berlin, Deutschland.

Bishop, P.. (2004). E-Government to E-Democracy: ‘High Tech’ Solutions to ‘No Tech’ Problems. Paper presented at the Australian Electronic Governance Conference, Centre for Public Policy, University of Melbourne, Melbourne Victoria, 14-15 April, 2004.

Bishop, P.. (2004).(net) Working the electorate. Griffith Review, Autumn.

Blair, A.. (2000). Speech at the Knowledge 2000 Conference, London, 7 March 2000.

Blair, A.. (2001). Reply to Q 20086 (Hansard Written Answers No. Volume No. 375, Part No. 62, 29 November 2001). London: UK House of Commons.

Blakeley, C. J., & Matsuura, J. H.. (2001). E-government: is e-democracy invevitable?. Paper presented at the Innovations for an e-Society. Challenges for Technology Assessment, 17-19 October 2001, Berlin, Deutschland.

Blanco Cook, R., & Armstrong, P. I. I.. (1999, September 2-5). Point and click: should the exercise of democracy go online, and what are the implications. Paper presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the APSA, Atlanta.

Bonchek, M. S.. (1995). Grassroots in cyberspace: using computer networks to facilitate political participation. Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.

Bonchek, M. S.. (1996). Politics on the Net: Electronic Agora or Town Hall?. Paper presented at the Communications Forum, M.I.T. Media Laboratory, April 11, 1996, MIT, Boston.

Bonchek, M. S.. (1997). From broadcast to netcast: the Internet and the flow of political information. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Harvard University.

Bonchek, M. S., & Gill, J.. (1996). The Internet and retail politics.Unpublished manuscript, Boston.

Bonchek, M. S., Hurwitz, R., & Mallery, J.. (1996).Will the Web Democratize or Polarize the Political Process. WWW Journal, 1(3).

Boudourides, M. A.. (2001). New ICTs Policies. Paper presented at the Innovations for an e-Society. Challenges for Technology Assessment, 17-19 October 2001, Berlin, Deutschland.

Braham, B.. (1998). Building accessible information technology in Wisconsin. Retrieved 09 February, 2000.

Bregman, J.. (2000, 4 February 2000). Theoretical Frameworks of Deliberative Democracy. Retrieved 2 November, 2003.

Bromley, C., Curtice, J., & Seyd, B.. (2004). Is Britain Facing a Crisis of Democracy? (Working Paper Number 106). Oxford: Centre for Research into Elections and Social Trends (CREST).

Browning, G.. (1997). Updating electronic democracy. Database, 20, 47-54.

Brown-Syed, C., & Morrissey, W.. (1999).Using newsgroups headers to predict document relevance. Information Research, 5(1).

Buckingham, D.. (2005). Assessing the Media Literacy of Children and Young People: A literature review . London: OFCOM.

Bucy, E. P., & Gregson, K. S.. (1999, 1-5 September). Media participation: reconsidering civic involvement and citizen empowerment in a Hyperlinked era. Paper presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the APSA, Atlanta.

Cabinet Office. (2004). Enabling a Digitally United Kingdom: A Framework For Action (Digital Inclusion Panel Report). London: Cabinet Office.

Caldow, J.. (1999). The quest for electronic government: a defining vision: Institute for Electronic Government IBM Corporation.

Caldow, J.. (1999). The Virtual Ballot Box: A Survey of Digital Democracy in Europe . Online: Institute for Electronic Government, IBM Corporation.

Caltrans. (1990). SmartCommunities Literature Review. Retrieved 07 October 2003.

Campbell, A.. (1998, 25-27 March 1998). The social impact of the information revolution. Paper presented at the IRISS: Internet Research and Information for Social Scientists, Bristol, UK.

Campbell, K. D.. (1992). AI Lab Initiates Electronic Presidential Town Meeting. TechTalk, 28 October 1992.

Capgemini. (2005). Online Availability of Public Services: How is Europe Progressing? . Brussels: European Commission Directorate General for Information Society and Media.

Casacuberta, D.. (2000, April 4-7). The creation of an on-line community: the Spanish case. Paper presented at the Tenth Conference on Computers, freedom and privacy, Toronto.

Cerf, V. G.. (2000). Al Gore and the Internet. Retrieved 11 June, 2003.

Chapman, G.. (2000, 4 September). Nader Shows Real Byte in His Campaign Against ‘Techno-Twits’. The Los Angeles Times.

Chen, P.. (2002). Australian Elected Representatives’ Use of New Media Technologies 2002 . Melbourne: Centre for Public Policy, University Of Melbourne.

Chen, P.. (2004). e-lection 2004? New media and the campaign. Retrieved 22 November, 2004.

Chen, P., & Hinton, S. M.. (1999).Realtime Interviewing Using the World Wide Web. Sociological Research Online, 4(3).

Clark, A.. (2003). Parties and political linkage: towards a comprehensive framework for analysis. Paper presented at the PSA Annual Conference, 15 -17 April 2003, University of Leicester.

Clarke, H. D., Sanders, D., Stewart, M. C., & Whiteley, P.. (2004). Political choice in Britain. Oxford Scholarship Online: Oxford University Press.

Clift, S.. (2002). E-Governance to E-Democracy: Progess in Australia and New Zealand toward Information-Age democracy: Commonwealth Centre for Electronic Governance.

COE. (2001). Replies to the questionnaire on the democratic potential of the new communication and information services (Secretariat memorandum No. MM-S-OD (2001) 17). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

COE. (2002). Assessment of replies to the questionnaire on the democratic potential of the new communication and information services (Secretariat memorandum No. MM-S-OD (2002) 1). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

COE. (2004). Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member states on electronic governance (“e-governance”) (No. Rec(2004)). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Coleman, S. (Ed.). (2001). 2001 Cyberspace Odyssey: the Internet in the UK election. London: The Hansard Society.

Coleman, S. (Ed.). (2001). Elections in the age of the Internet: lessons from the United States. London: Hansard Society.

Coleman, S.. (2002). Hearing Voices: the Experience of Online Public Consultations and Discussions in UK Governance . London: Hansard Society.

Coleman, S., & Gøtze, J.. (2001). Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation . London: Hansard Society.

Coleman, S., Griffiths, B., & Simmons, E.. (2002). Digital jury: the final verdict . London: Hansard Society.

Coleman, S., & Hall, N.. (2001). Spinning On The Web: E-Campaigning And Beyond. In S. Coleman (Ed.), 2001 Cyberspace Odyssey: the Internet in the UK election. London: The Hansard Society.v Conklin, D. B.. (2003). The Internet, Email, and Political Activism. The Case of Tiananmen Square. Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, “Changing Media and Civil Society”, Edinburgh, 28 March – 2 April 2003.

Coomber, R.. (1997).Using the Internet for survey research. Sociological Research Online, 2(2).

Cornfield, M., Rainie, L., & Horrigan, J. B.. (2003). Untuned Keyboards: online campaigners, citizens, and portals in the 2002 elections . Washington: Pew Internet and American Life Project & IPDI.

Couldry, N.. (2003). Theorising media practice.Unpublished manuscript, London.

Craft, P. W.. (2000, April 4-7). Internet voting: spurring or corrupting democracy?. Paper presented at the Tenth Conference on Computers, freedom and privacy, Toronto.

Craver & Co.. (1999). Socially Engaged Internet Users: Prospects for Online Philanthropy and Activism . Arlington, Virginia: CMS Interactive.

Cropf, R. A.. (1994). Information networks and community knowledge structures. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the APSA, September 1-4 1994, New York.

Dahan, M.. (2003).Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Changing Public Sphere of Palestinian Israelis. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 8(2).

Dahlberg, L.. (2000). Democratic participation through the Internet: a brief survey. Retrieved 17 April, 2000.

Dahlberg, L.. (2001).Extending the public sphere through Cyberspace: the case of Minnesota E-Democracy. First Monday, 6(3), March 2001.

Dahlberg, L.. (2002).Democratic Visions, Commercial Realities?. AntePodium, 2.

Darlington, R.. (2000). The creation of the E-union. Paper presented at the Internet Economy Conference, 7 November 2000, Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics.

Dartnell, M.. (1999, 7 November 1999). Insurgency Online. Retrieved 2 November, 2003.

Dartnell, M.. (2001).Electronic Starry Plough: The Enationalism of the Irish Republican Socialist Movement. First Monday, 6(12).

Denver, D., Hands, G., Fisher, J., & McAllister, I.. (2002). Constituency campaigning in the 2001 General Election. Retrieved 22 October, 2003.

Djankov, S., McLiesh, C., Nenova, T., & Shleifer, A.. (2001). Who Owns the Media? (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2620) Dodge, M.. The geographies of cyberspace.

DOP. (1999). Democracy online survey . Washington, DC: The Democracy Online Project.

DOP. (2000). Post-Election 2000 Survey on Internet Use for Civics and Politics (Survey). Online: The Democracy Online Project.

Drake, W. J.. (2001). Democracy and the information revolution. Paper presented at the Democracy Forum 2001, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral assistance, Stockolm, Sweden, June 27-29.

Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J.. (2004). Government IT Performance and the Power of the IT Industry: A Cross-National Analysis. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of American Political Science Association, Chicago, 1-5 September 2004.

Dutton, W. H., Di Gennaro, C., & Millwood Hargrave, A.. (2005). The Internet in Britain (Oxford Internet Survey). Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute.

E-advocates. (1999). First annual e-politics survey. Retrieved 30 November, 2003.

Earnshaw, B.. (2001). Winning a seat in cyberspace: candidate web sites in the 2001 General Election. In S. Coleman (Ed.), 2001 Cyberspace Odissey: the Internet in the UK election. London: The Hansard Society.v Editorial. (1999, 11 April). Citizens in cyberspace. Boston Globe, p. A26.

E-envoy. (2002). In the service of democracy: a consultation paper on a policy for electronic democracy (Consultation paper). London: Office of the E-envoy.

Eerola, A., & Kivisaari, S.. (2001). Challenges of parliamentary technology assessment: The case of Internet-based disease management systems. Paper presented at the Innovations for an e-Society. Challenges for Technology Assessment, 17-19 October 2001, Berlin, Deutschland.

Electoral Commission. (2002). Election 2001 Review Programme – Online Campaign Regulation Review (Discussion Paper, March 2002). London: Electoral Commission.

Electoral Commission, & Hansard Society. (2004). An audit of political engagement . London: The Electoral Commission and the Hansard Society.

Electoral Commission, & Hansard Society. (2005). An audit of political engagement 2 . London: The Electoral Commission and the Hansard Society.

European Union. (2004). European elections 2004 barometer (EB Survey No. 161). Brussels: EP (DG Information) and the EC (DG Press).

European Union. (2004). Post European elections 2004 survey (EB Flash report No. 162). Brussels: EP (DG Information) and the EC (DG Press).

Evans, F.. (2000).Cyberspace and the concept of democracy. First Monday, 5(10).

Farmer, R., Spiker, J. A., & Fender, R.. (2001). How wired are they? State parties online in 2000. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, 30 August – 2 September 2001, San Francisco, CA.

Ferber, P., Foltz, F., & Pugliese, R.. (2003). Info Tech and Public Participation: The Impact of State Legislative Website Design. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the APSA, August 28 – August 31, 2003, Philadelphia, PA.

Ferguson, I.. (2005). Aust government flags Internet election campaign laws. Retrieved 21 June, 2005.

Fernback, J., & Thompson, B.. (1995). Virtual communities: abort, retry, failure?. Retrieved 26 November 1999.

Fielding, P., & Duritz, N.. (2001). Net Savvy Challengers Win Online and At the Ballot Box. In S. Coleman (Ed.), Elections in the age of the Internet: lessons from the United States (pp. 36-37). London: Hansard Society.v Fishkin, J. A.. (1999, 22 February). Deliberative polling as a model for ICANN membership. Retrieved 2 January, 2003.

Foot, K. A., & Schneider, S. M.. (2002).Online Action in Campaign 2000: An Exploratory Analysis of the U.S. Political Web Sphere. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 46(2), 222-244.

Foot, K. A., Schneider, S. M., & Xenos, M.. (2003). Online Campaigning in the 2002 U.S. Electoral Web Sphere (Working paper No. 2): Political Web Info Project.

Franklin, M., & Sander, T.. (2000, April 4-7). Deniable payments and electronic campaign finance. Paper presented at the Tenth Conference on Computers, freedom and privacy, Toronto.

Frey, T. J., & Suarez, J. F.. (2001). The Virtual Country: A Conceptual Study. Paper presented at the Innovations for an e-Society. Challenges for Technology Assessment, 17-19 October 2001, Berlin, Deutschland.

Fuchs, G., & Bubeck, B.. (2001). “Sometimes it feels quite lonely out here.” On the way towards digital democracy. An evaluation of the first virtual party congress of Bündnis 90/Die Grünen. Paper presented at the Innovations for an e-Society. Challenges for Technology Assessment, 17-19 October 2001, Berlin, Deutschland.

Fulton, B.. (2002). Leveraging Technology in the Service of Diplomacy: Innovation in the Department of State (E-Government Series No. March 2002): The PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for The Business of Government.

Fung, A., & Wright, E. O.. (1999, June). Experiments in Empowered Deliberative Democracy: Introduction. Retrieved 4 November, 2003.

Gallagher, T.. (1997). UK Citizens’ Online Democracy: a case study. Retrieved 28 February, 2000.

Gaskell, G., Allum, N., & Stares, S.. (2003). Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002 (2nd edition, 21 March 2003). Brussels: European Commission.

Gaynor, D.. (1996, Spring 1996). Democracy in the Age of Information: A Reconception of the Public Sphere. Retrieved 2 November, 2003.

Geser, H.. (2001, March 2001). On the Functions and Consequences of the Internet for Social Movements and Voluntary Associations. Retrieved 2 November, 2003.

Gibson, R. K., Lusoli, W., & Ward, S.. (2002). Online Campaigning in the UK: The Public Respond?. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the APSA, August 31 – 2 September 2002, Boston.

Gibson, R. K., Lusoli, W., & Ward, S.. (2002). UK Political Participation Online – The Public Response. A survey of citizens’ political activity via the Internet . Salford: ESRC Report.

Gibson, R. K., Lusoli, W., & Ward, S.. (2004). Phile or Phobe? Australian and British MPs and the New Communications Technology. Paper presented at the 100th Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, 2-5 September 2004, Chicago, IL.

Gibson, R. K., Lusoli, W., & Ward, S.. (2005).Online Participation in the UK: Testing a ‘Contextualised’ Model of Internet Effects. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 7(4), 561-583.

Gibson, R. K., Lusoli, W., & Ward, S. J.. (2002). Online Campaigning in the UK: The Public Respond?. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 31 – 2 September 2002, Boston.

Gibson, R. K., Lusoli, W., & Ward, S. J.. (2002). UK Political Participation Online – The Public Response. A survey of citizens’ political activity via the Internet . Salford: ESRC Report.

Gibson, R. K., & McAllister, I.. (2003). Does Cyber Campaigning Win Votes? Online Communication in the 2001 Australian Election. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, 28-31 August 2003, Philadelphia, PA.

Gibson, R. K., & McAllister, I.. (2005). Does Cyber Campaigning Win Votes? Online Communication in the 2004 Australian Election (Paper 05-09). University of California, Irvine: Center for the Study of Democracy.

Gibson, R. K., & Ward, S.. (2003). Participation, political organisations and the impact of the internet (ESRC End of Award report No. L215252036). Salford: ESRI.

Gibson, R. K., Ward, S., & Lusoli, W.. (2005). Old Politics, New Media: Parliament, the Public and the Internet. Paper presented at the Political Studies Association Conference, University of Leeds, 5-7 April 2005.

Gleiber, D. W., & Meinhold, S. S.. (1999, September 2-5). Sampling Political Attitudes Using the Internet. Paper presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the APSA, Atlanta.

Glogoff, S.. (2001).Virtual connections: community bonding on the Net. First Monday, 6(3).

Gore, A. (Writer) (1999). Vice President Gore on CNN’s ‘Late Edition’ [Broadcast interview]. Atlanta.

Greenough, M.. (2004).European Elections Overview. Netpulse, 8(12).

Grossman, M., Mulligan, D., & Dempsey, J. X.. (1999). Square pegs & round holes (Digital issues No. 4). Washington: CDT.

Guidi, L.. (1998). Bologna “civic network” service: telematics for citizens, businesses, and the third sector. Retrieved 09 February, 2000.

Hafeez, S.. (2004). UN Global E-Government Readiness Report 2004: Towards Access for Opportunity (United Nations Publication No. UNPAN/2004/11). New York: UNPAN.

Hagen, M.. (1997). A Typology of Electronic Democracy. Retrieved 21 March, 2003.

Hall, B.. (2004). The 2004 European elections in the UK – don’t mention the Parliament. Paper presented at the Electoral Commission media seminar on 26 August 2004, London.

Hall, S.. (2003, 29 August). Blair switches on email in move to engage public. The Guardian, p. 13.

Hamilton, J.. (2000). The Inter-not?. Retrieved 17 April, 2000.

Hansard Society. (2002). Technology: Enhancing Representative Democracy in the UK? . London: Hansard Society.

Hargittai, E.. (2003). The Changing Online Landscape: From Free-for-All To Commercial Gatekeeping. In P. Day & D. Schuler (Eds.), Community Practice in the Network Society: Local Actions/Global Interaction. New York: Routledge.v Hargittai, E.. (2003).Serving citizens’ needs: Minimizing Hurdles to Accessing Government Information Online. IT & Society, 1(3), 27-41.

Harpham, E. J.. (1999). Going on-line: the 1998 Congressional campaign. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the APSA, September 2-5 1999, Atlanta.

Hart, P. D., & Teeter, R. M.. (2003). CEG e-Government Survey – International (Study #6943c No. March 2003). Washington: Council for Excellence in Government.

Hart, P. D., & Teeter, R. M.. (2003). The New E-Government Equation: Ease, Engagement, Privacy & Protection (Research report No. April 2003). Washington: Council for Excellence in Government.

Hauben, M., & Hauben, R.. (1995). Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet.. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.

Hauben, R.. (1997, Fall 99). Usenet and the Internet providing the technology for a new public sphere: the challenge of our times. Retrieved 24 January, 2000.

Hayes, H.. (1998, November). Digital democracy adds up. Retrieved 27 November, 1999.

Haythornthwaite, C.. (1999). A social network theory of tie strength and media use: A framework for evaluating multi-level impacts of new media (Technical Report No. UIUCLIS–2002/1+DKRC). Champaign, IL: Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Hill, K. A., & Hughes, J. E.. (1998). Is the Internet an Instrument of Global Democratization?.Unpublished manuscript, Miami.

Hindman, M.. (2002). The liberal medium? The political correlates of Web use. Paper presented at the APSA annual meeting, August 31 – 2 September 2002, Boston, MA.

Hirst, P., & Norton, M.. (1998). Electronic Government: Information Technologies and the Citizen (No. No. 110). London: Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.

Hoffman, L. J.. (2000, April 4-7). Internet voting: will it spur or corrupt democracy?. Paper presented at the Tenth Conference on Computers, freedom and privacy: challenging the assumptions, Toronto, ON Canada.

Hogan, M., Cook, N., & Henderson, M.. (2004). The Queensland Government’s e-democracy agenda. Paper presented at the Australian Electronic Governance Conference, Centre for Public Policy, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, 14-15 April, 2004.

Horrocks, I., & Pratchett, L.. (1995). Electronic Democracy: Central Themes and Issues. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Political Studies Association, University of York, 18-20 April.

House of Commons Commission. (2003). Twenty-Fifth Annual Report (2002-2003 Report). London: The Stationery Office Limited.

House of Commons Information Committee. (2002). Digital Technology: Working for Parliament and the Public (Final report of Sessions 2001-2002 No. HC 1065). London: House of Commons.

Howard, P. E. N.. (2003).Digitizing the Social Contract: Producing American Political Culture in the Age of New Media. The Communication Review, 6, 213-245.

Howland, L., & Bethell, M.. (2002). Logged off? How ICT can connect young people and politics. London: Demos.

Hug, T.. (1997). Can “computer shocks” activate democracy?. Unpublished MA Thesis, Society, Science and Technology in Europe (ESST).

Hunter, C. D.. (1998, May). The Internet and the public sphere: revitalization or decay?. Retrieved 7 July, 2000.

Hunter, C. D.. (2002).Political Privacy and Online Politics: How E-Campaigning Threatens Voter Privacy. First Monday, 7(2).

IDEA. (2001). Democracy and the Information Revolution: Values, Opportunities and Threats (Democracy Forum No. 2001 Report). Stockholm: IDEA.

IPI. (2001). Report of the national workshop on internet voting: issues and research agenda (Report). Online: Internet Policy Institute.

Ito, J.. (2003, March 12). Emergent Democracy. Retrieved 3 November, 2003.

ITTA, & USIC. (2000). State of the Internet 2000 (Advanced News Media Release). Online: International Technology and Trade associates Inc. and US Internet Council.

Iyengar, S., Hahn, K., & Prior, M.. (2001). Has Technology Made Attention to Political Campaigns More Selective? An Experimental Study of the 2000 Presidential Campaign. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the APSA, September 2, 2001, San Francisco.

Iyengar, S., & Jackman, S.. (2003). Can Information Technology Energize Voters? Experimental Evidence from the 2000 and 2002 Campaigns. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, 28-31 August 2003, Philadelphia, PA.

Iyengar, S., Luskin, R. C., & Fishkin, J. A.. (2003). Facilitating informed public opinion: evidence from face-to-face and online deliberative polls. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the APSA, August 28 – August 31, 2003, Philadelphia, PA.

Jaffe, J. M.. (1994). Interactive Mass Media and Political Participation. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Midwest Association for Public Opinion Research (MAPOR), November 1994.

Jellinek, D.. (1998). Official UK : the essential guide to government web sites. London: HMSO.

Jensen, C., Farnham, S., Drucker, S., & Kollock, P.. (2000, Apr). The Effect of Communication Modality on Cooperation in Online Environments. Paper presented at the Conference on human factors in computing systems, The Hague.

Jensen, J. L.. (2003). The Internet as a social and political field: the consequences of capital. Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions, Media and Civil Society Workshop, Edinburgh, 28 March – 2 April 2003.

Kahn, R. E., & Cerf, V. G.. (1999, December). What is the Internet (and what makes it work). Retrieved 17 April, 2000.

Kahney, L.. (2003, May 17). Citizen Reporters Make the News. Wired.

Kalathil, S., & Boas, T. C.. (2003).Chapter 1 – The Conventional Wisdom: What Lies Beneath?, In: Open Networks, Closed Regimes: The Impact of the Internet on Authoritarian Rule. First Monday, 8(1).

Kalathil, S., & Boas, T. C.. (2003).Chapter 2 – Wired for Modernization in China, In: Open Networks, Closed Regimes: The Impact of the Internet on Authoritarian Rule. First Monday, 8(1).

Kantor, J.. (1999, 8 November). Internet voting is to democracy what Amazon.com is to books. Retrieved 27 November, 1999.

Kastenholz, H., & Wienhöfer, E.. (2001). Civic Participation and the Internet. Opportunities and Limits of Electronic Democracy. Paper presented at the Innovations for an e-Society. Challenges for Technology Assessment, 17-19 October 2001, Berlin, Deutschland.

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., & Aspden, P.. (2001).The Internet 1995-2000: access, civic involvement, and social interaction. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 404-419.

Kedzie, C. R.. (1995). Democracy and network interconnectivity. Paper presented at the INET’95 Conference, June 27-30 1995, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Klein, H. K.. (1996). Grassroots democracy and the Internet. Paper presented at the INET’95 Conference, 27-30 June 2005, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Kling, R.. (1999).What is social informatics and why does it matter?. D-Lib Magazine, 5(1), 1-28.

Kluver, R.. (2003). National variation in Web deployment: the role of political culture and media regulation in Internet politics. Paper presented at the AoIR 4.0 Conference, 16-19 October 2003, Toronto.

Kollock, P.. (1994, 31 January 1994). The Economies of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace. Retrieved 22 January, 2006.

Kollock, P., & Smith, M. A.. (1994, 31 January 1994). Managing the virtual commons: co-operation and conflict in computer communities. Retrieved 18 October, 2003.

Krueger, B. S.. (2002). A new approach to assessing the participatory potential of the Internet. Paper presented at the APSA annual meeting, August 31 – 2 September 2002, Boston, MA.

Larsen, E., & Rainie, L.. (2002). The rise of the e-citizen: how citizens use government agencies websites . Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life.

Law, S. A., & Keltner, B.. (1995). Civic networks: social benefits of on-line communities. In R. H. Anderson, T. K. Bikson, S. A. Law & B. M. Mitchell (Eds.), Universal access to e-mail: feasibility and societal implications (MR-650-MF). Santa Monica: RAND.v Le Blanc, J.. (1999, 09 December). Demand aggregation and the digital divide. The Digital Beat, 1.

Ledun, M.. (2002).La colonisation de l’expérience politique. Le cas des « portails d’information citoyenne » sur Internet. COMMposite, v2002.1.

Lee, S.-J.. (1998). Electronic democracy in the Republic of Korea. Retrieved 09 February, 2000.

Lee, T.. (2000). Comments on Pippa Norris’s ‘Who surfs?’. Retrieved 6 October, 2000.

Lenhart, A., & Horrigan, J. B.. (2003).Re-visualizing the digital divide as a digital spectrum. IT & Society, 1(5), 23-39.

Lenhart, A., Horrigan, J. B., Rainie, L., Allen, K., Boyce, A., Madden, M., et al.. (2003). The ever-shifting Internet population: a new look at Internet access and the digital divide (No. April 2003). Washington: Pew Internet and American Life.

Lessig, L., & Resnick, D.. (1999). Zoning Speech on the Internet: A Legal and Technical Model (Research Publication No. No. 1999-06). Cambridge: The Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard Law School.

Lewicki, D., & Ziaukas, T.. (2000).The Digital Tea Leaves of Election 2000: The Internet and the Future of Presidential Politics. First Monday, 5(12).

Lippert, P. J.. (1997).Internet: the new Agora?. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 5(3-4), 48-51.

Lismoen, H.. (2002, 29 April). Trade unions find new ways to attract members. Retrieved 2 November, 2003.

Livingstone, S., & Bober, M.. (2004). UK children go online: surveying the experiences of young peole and their parents . London: ESRC e-Society Programme and LSE.

Livingstone, S., Bober, M., & Helsper, E.. (2004). Active participation or just more information? Young people’s take up of opportunities to act and interact on the internet (Children go Online report). London: LSE.

Livingstone, S., Bober, M., & Helsper, E.. (2005). Internet literacy among children and young people (A research report from the UK Children Go Online project). London: London School of Economics.

Livingstone, S., van Couvering, E. J., & Thurmin, E.. (2005). Accessing, Understanding and Creating media: A review of the literature on adult media literacy. . London: OFCOM.

Loader, B. D., & Keeble, L.. (2003). Challenging the digital divide: a literature review of Community Informatics initiatives. Paper presented at the ICS Symposium, 17-20 September 2003, Oxford Internet Institute.

London, S.. (1994). Electronic democracy: a literature survey (Report). Online: Kettering Foundation.

London, S.. (1994, March 1994). Electronic democracy: an annotated bibliography. Retrieved 31 October, 2000.

London, S.. (1995).Teledemocracy vs. deliberative democracy: a comparative look at two models of public talk. Journal of Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 3(2), 33-55.

Lupia, A.. (2002). Evaluation: The Web White and Blue Network 2000 (Evaluation report). Washington: Markle Foundation.

Lupia, A., & Baird, Z.. (2003).Can Web Sites Change Citizens? Implications of Web White and Blue 2000. Ps, 36(1), 77-82.

Lupia, A., & Philpot, T. S.. (2002). More Than Kids Stuff: Can News and Information Web Sites Mobilize Young Adults?. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the APSA, August, 31 – 2 September 2002, Boston.

Lusoli, W.. (2005). Democrazia (elettronica) e definizioni. Paper presented at the Strumenti della Democrazia workshop, University of Bologna, 25 November 2005.

Lusoli, W., & Ward, S.. (2003). Digital Rank-and-File: Party Activists’ Perceptions and Use of the Internet. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, 28-31 August 2003, Philadelphia, PA.

Lusoli, W., & Ward, S.. (2003). Hunting Protestors: Mobilisation, Participation, and Protest Online in the Countryside Alliance. Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions, Media and Civil Society Workshop, Edinburgh, 28 March – 2 April 2003.

Lusoli, W., & Ward, S.. (2004).Digital Rank-and-File: Party Activists’ Perceptions and Use of the Internet. British Journal of Politics and International relations, 6(4), 453-470.

Lusoli, W., Ward, S., & Gibson, R. K.. (2003, 6 November). Directory of MPs websites.

Lyman, P., & Varian, H. R.. (2000). How Much Information. Retrieved 12 May, 2002.

Lyman, P., & Varian, H. R.. (2003). How Much Information? 2003. Retrieved 12 December, 2003.

Magnusson, A., Olrich, T. I., Gudmundsson, G. T., & Sigurdardottir, G.. (1998). Democracy and technology. Retrieved 09 February, 2000.

Mallery, J. C.. (1996). Futures of Networked Access to the White House: From Public Access Email to Deliberative Knowledge Webs. Paper presented at the Sixth Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy, March 27-30, 1996., Cambridge, MA.

Maragall, E., Pont, A., Serra, T., & Carreras, J.. (1998). Citizen’s participation through Internet. Retrieved 09 February, 2000.

Marshall, B., & Lloyd, B.. (2004). Making the case for politics. Paper presented at the EPOP Conference, 10-12 September 2004, Nuffield College, Oxford.

McChesney, R. W.. (1995).The Internet and US communications policy-making in historical and critical perspective. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 1(4).

McIntosh, A., & Harwood, P.. (2002). Virtual distance: socio-politics on the WWW. Paper presented at the APSA Annual meeting, August 28 – 1 September 2002, Boston, MA.

McIntosh, A., & Whyte, A.. (2000). Electronic Democracy and Young People. Paper presented at the International Workshop in the Swedish Parliament on Forming a Digital Citizenship in Europe, September 2000, Stockholm.

Mided, J.. (1997, 1999). The Internet and the public sphere: what kind of space is cyberspace?. Retrieved 02 February, 2000.

Miller, P.. (2002). Open Policy: Threats and opportunities in a wired world . London: Forum for the Future.

Miskin, S.. (2005). Campaigning in the 2004 federal election: innovations and traditions (Parliamentary Library Research Note No. no. 30, 2004–05). Canberra: Parliament of Australia, Department of Parliamentary Services.

Mizrach, S.. (1999). Using computers in qualitative research. Retrieved 27 November, 1999.

Mollov, M. B., Schwartz, D., Steinberg, G. M., & Lavie, C.. (2000). The Impact of Israeli-Palestinian Intercultural Dialogue: “Virtual” and Face to Face. Paper presented at the “People Across Borders”, MEViC Inaugural Conference, August 1-15, 2000.

Montgomery, K., Gottlieb-Robles, B., & Larson, G.. (2004). Youth as E-Citizens: Engaging the Digital Generation . Washington: Center for Social Media, American University.

MORI. (2004). Rules of engagement? Participation, involvement and voting in Britain (Technical report). London: Electoral Commission & Hansard Society.

MORI, & SQW Limited. (2005). UK Online Centres and E-Government (Research Report No. RR632). London: DFES.

Mosaad, M.. (2000). The Web Community. A social movement in the cyberspace?. Paper presented at the “People Across Borders”, MEViC Inaugural Conference, August 1-15, 2000.

Muhlberger, P.. (2001). Social Capital and Deliberative Theory: A Synthesis and Empirical Test. Paper presented at the APSA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.

Muhlberger, P.. (2002). Access, skill and motivation in online political discussion: the democratic digital divide. Paper presented at the Prospects for Electronic Democracy, 20-21 September 2002, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.

Muhlberger, P., & Shane, P.. (2001). Prospects for electronic democracy: a survey analysis (No. Version 1.0). Pittsburgh, PE: InSITes, Carnegie Mellon University.

Mulligan, D., & Dempsey, J. X.. (2000, April 4-7). Square pegs and round holes: applying Campaign Finance Law to the Internet – Risks to free expression and democratic value. Paper presented at the Tenth Conference on Computers, freedom and privacy: challenging the assumptions, Toronto, Canada.

NAO. (2002). Government on the Web II (Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General No. HC 764 Session 2001-2002:). London: National Audit Office.

National Infrastructure Protection Center. (2001). Cyber Protests Related to the War on Terrorism: The Current Threat . Washington: NIPC, US Department of Homeland Security.

National Infrastructure Protection Center. (2001). Cyber Protests: The Threat to the U.S.Information Infrastructure . Washington: NIPC, US Department of Homeland Security.

Netanel, N. W.. (2000).Cyberspace self-governance: a skeptical view from liberal democratic theory. California Law Review, 88, 395-498.

Neu, C. R., Anderson, R. H., & Bikson, T. K.. (1999). Sending Your Government a Message: E-mail Communication Between Citizens and Government (No. MR-1095-MF). Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Neuman, W. R.. (1999). New Media, Public Knowledge and Political Behavior. Paper presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the APSA, 2-5 September 1999, Atlanta.

Noah, T.. (1999, 19 October). Do presidential candidates use the Internet?. Retrieved 27 November, 1999.

Norris, P.. (1999). Who surfs Cafe’ Europa? Virtual democracy in the U.S. and Western Europe. Paper presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the APSA, 1-5 September 1999, Atlanta.

Norris, P.. (1999). Who surfs? New technology, old voters and virtual democracy. In E. C. Kamarck & J. S. Nye (Eds.), Democracy.com? Governance in a networked world (pp. 71-94). Hollis: Hollis Publishing.v Norris, P.. (2001). Digital Parties: Civic Engagement & Online Democracy. Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, April 6-11 2001, Grenoble.

Norris, P.. (2001). Preaching to the converted? Pluralism, Participation, and Party Websites (Faculty Research Working Papers Series). Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Norris, P.. (2002). E-Voting as the Magic Ballot? (Faculty Research Working Papers Series No. RWP02-016). Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Norris, P., & Curtice, J.. (2004). If you build a political website, will they come?. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the APSA, 31 August – 4 September 2004, Chicago.

Noveck, B. S.. (1999). Transparent space: law, technology and deliberative democracy in the Information Society. Retrieved 7 July, 2000.

Noveck, B. S.. (2001). Dimpled-Hanging-Pregnant-Chad.com: The Impact of Internet Technology on Democratic Legitimacy (Working Paper of the Research Group on the Global Future). Munich: Center for Applied Policy Research, University of Munich.

Ó Baoill, A.. (2000).Slashdot and the public sphere. First Monday, 5(9).

OECD. (2001). Citizens as partners: information, consultation and public participation in policy-making. Paris: OECD.

OECD. (2003). The e-government imperative . Paris: OECD.

OII. (2003). How much is enough for the internet? (Oxford Internet Survey). Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute.

OMB Watch. (1998). Democracy at Work: Nonprofit Use of Internet Technology for Public Policy Purposes (Nonprofits’ Policy & Technology Project). Washington: OMB Watch.

OMB Watch. (1998). Speaking Up in the Internet Age: Use and Value of Constituent E-mail and Congressional Web Sites (Nonprofits’ Policy & Technology Project). Washington: OMB Watch.

Onselen, P. v., & Errington, W.. (2004). Voter Tracking Software: the Dark Side of Technology and Democracy. Paper presented at the Australian Electronic Governance Conference, Centre for Public Policy, University of Melbourne, Melbourne Victoria, 14-15 April, 2004.

Ott, D.. (1998).Power to the people: the role of electronic media in promoting democracy in Africa. First Monday, 3(4).

Park, H. L.. (2002). Partisanship, political interest, and voting behaviour influenced by information technology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the APSA, August 31 – 2 September 2002, Boston.

PASC. (2001). Innovations in citizens participation in government (Sixth Report of Session 2000-2001 No. HC 373-i). London: House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee.

PAT. (2000). Closing the digital divide: information and communication technologies in deprived areas (Report No. URN 00/731). London: Policy Action Team 15, DTI.

Pavlik, J. V.. (2001). How New Media Have Influenced Campaign Coverage. In S. Coleman (Ed.), Elections in the age of the Internet: lessons from the United States (pp. 17-25). London: Hansard Society.v Pearce, S.. (2001). E-Democracy: Consultations in the UK Parliament. Paper presented at the Innovations for an e-Society. Challenges for Technology Assessment, 17-19 October 2001, Berlin, Deutschland.

Pedersen, K., & Saglie, J.. (2003). New Technology in Ageing Parties: Internet Use among Danish and Norwegian Party Members. Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions, Media and Civil Society Workshop, Edinburgh, 28 March – 2 April 2003.

Pedersen, K., & Saglie, J.. (2005).New Technology in Ageing Parties: Internet Use in Danish and Norwegian Parties. Party Politics, 11(3), 359-377.

Perrone, J. L.. (2001, February 2001). Webbing-Up Westminster – Part One of the UK’s Election Efforts Online. Online Journalism Review.

Peters, S.. (1998).Finding information on the World Wide Web. Social Research Update(20).

Pew. (2000). Youth vote influenced by online information . Washington: Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press.

Phillips, D. J.. (2000, April 4-7). Privacy technologies as political issues: consumption as mobilization. Paper presented at the Tenth Conference on Computers, freedom and privacy: challenging the assumptions, Toronto, ON Canada.

Pleumarom, A.. (2000). Cybersmear, cybersmother: Internet PR and “The beach” protest. Retrieved 17 April, 2000.

Poguntke, T.. (2002). Parties Without Firm Social Roots? Party Organisational Linkage (Working Paper No. 13). Keele: Keele European Parties Research Unit (KEPRU).

Poster, M.. (1995). Cyberdemocracy: Internet and the public sphere. Retrieved 2 november, 2003.

Potter, T., & Jowers, K. J.. (2005). Appendix – Cases concerning the Internet. In A. Corrado, T. E. Mann, D. R. Ortiz & T. Potter (Eds.), The new campaign finance sourcebook. Washington: The Brookings Institution.

Potter, T., & Jowers, K. J.. (2005). Election law and the Internet. In A. Corrado, T. E. Mann, D. R. Ortiz & T. Potter (Eds.), The new campaign finance sourcebook. Washington: The Brookings Institution.

Rafaeli, S., & Sudweeks, F.. (1997).Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 2(4).

Rainie, L., Cornfield, M., & Horrigan, J.. (2005). The Internet and Campaign 2004 . Washington: Pew Internet and American Life and Pew Resarch Centre for People/Press.

Redden, G.. (2001).Networking dissent: the Internet and the anti-globalisation movement. Mots Pluriels, 18(August).

Reis, F.. (2005). e-Government: Internet based interaction with the European businesses and citizens (Statistics in focus – Industry, trade and services No. 9/2005). Luxembourg: Eurostat.

Rheingold, H.. (1994). The virtual community: homesteading on the electronic frontier (Online ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Riedel, E., Gangl, A., Oxendine, A., Jackson, M., Sullivan, J. L., & Sullivan, E.. (2003).The Role of the Internet in National and Local News Media Use. Journal of Online Behavior, 1(3).

Rosenblatt, A. J.. (1999, September 2-5). Lurking About in Hyde Park With the Disembody Politic. Paper presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the APSA, Atlanta.

Ross, K.. (2004). Women Framed: The Gendered Turn in Mediated Politics. In K. Ross & C. M. Byerly (Eds.), Women and media : international perspectives. Malden, MA: Blackwell.v Rushkoff, D.. (2003). Open Source Democracy: How online communication is changing offline politics. London: Demos.

Sadow, J. D.. (1995). Plugged in: computer conferencing information’s effects on 1994 voting behaviour. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the APSA, Chicago.

Sakkas, L.. (1993).Politics on the Internet. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 1(2).

Samuel, A.. (2001). Decoding Hacktivism: Purpose, Method, and Identity in a New Social Movement. Paper presented at the Innovations for an e-Society. Challenges for Technology Assessment, 17-19 October 2001, Berlin, Deutschland.

Samuel, A.. (2001). Digital disobedience. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the APSA, August 29 – September 2, 2001, San Francisco, CA.

Sarwar, I., Stepanyuk, S., Chalenko, V., & Demyanenko, V.. (2001). Partnership as a Means of Environmental Problems Solving Between Government, Science, Technology and Society. Paper presented at the IInnovations for an e-Society. Challenges for Technology Assessment, 17-19 October 2001, Berlin, Deutschland.

Schneider, S. M., & Foot, K. A.. (2002).Online Structure for Political Action: Exploring Presidential Campaign Web Sites from the 2000 American Election. Javnost – The public, 9(2), 43-60.

Schuler, D.. (1996). Community Networks: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Paper presented at the INET’96, June 27 1996, Montreal, Ontario.

Schuler, D.. (1998). Reports of the Close Relationship Between Democracy and the Internet May Have Been exaggerated: Challenges and Opportunities for Rapprochement. Paper presented at the Democracy and Digital Media Conference, May 8-9 1998, MIT, Boston.

SDA. (2001). World Internet Project Italy (No. 8 Internet e politica). Milano: SDA Bocconi.

Segell, G.. (1997, 25 October). The role of the Internet in an establishment system of government. Retrieved 24 March, 2000.

Shade, L. R.. (2000, April 4-7). Is technology neutral?: space, time and the biases of communication. Paper presented at the Tenth Conference on Computers, freedom and privacy: challenging the assumptions, Toronto, ON Canada.

Shulman, S. W., Schlosberg, D., Zavestoski, S., & Courard-Hauri, D.. (2003).Electronic Rulemaking: A Public Participation Research Agenda for the Social Sciences. Social Science Computer Review, 21(2), 162-178.

Smith, C. F., & Webster, C. W. R.. (1995). Information Technology in the Political Parties. Paper presented at the Political Studies Association annual conference, University of York, 18-20 April.

Smith, M. A.. (1992). Voices from the WELL: the logic of the virtual commons. Retrieved 27 November, 1999.

Smith, S. A.. (1984). Communication and technology: the future of American democracy. Paper presented at the Arkansas Union Symposium Lecture Series, Fayetteville, Arkansas, September 19, 1984.

Snider, J. H.. (2003).Should the Public Meeting Enter the Information Age?. National Civic Review, Fall, 20-29.

Stateline.org. (2000, January 26). A Q&A with President Clinton.

Stöver, P., & Wüst, A. M.. (2004). Electoral Systems.Unpublished manuscript, ESS working paper, available online at http://www.europeanelectionstudies.net/Papers/EPElectoralSystems_english.pdf.

Stromer-Galley, J.. (2000).Online Interaction and Why Candidates Avoid It. Journal of Communication, 50(4).

Stromer-Galley, J.. (2002). New Voices in the Public Sphere. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Stromer-Galley, J., & Foot, K. A.. (2002).Citizen Perceptions of Online Interactivity and Implications for Political Campaign Communication. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 8(1).

Stromer-Galley, J., Foot, K. A., Schneider, S. M., & Larsen, E.. (2001). What Citizens Want, Where they Went, and What they Got Online in the U.S. Election 2000. In S. Coleman (Ed.), Elections in the age of the Internet: lessons from the United States (pp. 26-35). London: Hansard Society.

Taggart, P.. (2004). The European Parliament election in the United Kingdom (2004 European Parliament election briefing No. No. 14). Brighton: EPERN, Sussex European Institute.

Thomas, R. M.. (1999). Politics and the Internet – developed for the people, not by the people, and used by only some of the people . Washington, DC: Frederick Schneiders Research.

Thornton, A.. (2002). Does Internet create democracy?. Unpublished MA Dissertation, University of Technology Sidney, Sidney.

Tolbert, C., & Mossberger, K.. (2003). The Impact of the Digital Divide (Access and Skill) on Political Participation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the APSA, August 28 – August 31, 2003, Philadelphia, PA.

Tolbert, C., Mossberger, K., & McNeal, R.. (2002). Beyond the digital divide: exploring attitudes about information technology, political participation and electronic government. Paper presented at the APSA Annual meeting, 29 August – 1 September 2002, Boston, MA.

UCLA. (2000). The UCLA Internet Report: “Surveying the digital future” (Report). Online: UCLA Center for Communication Policy.

UK Online. (2001). UK Online annual report . London: Office of the E-envoy.

van den Hoven, J.. (1999).Knowledge and democracy in cyberspace. Etica e Politica, 2, 1-8.

Vengerfeldt, P.. (2003). Digital divide: questions beyond access. Paper presented at the EMTEL Conference, 23-26 April 2003, London.

Verba, S.. (1999). Representative Democracy and Democratic Citizens: Philosophical and Empirical Understandings, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Delivered at Brasenose College, Oxford, May 10 and 11, 1999.

Vromen, A.. (2004). ‘GenerationX’ retrieving net-based information: political participation in practice?. Paper presented at the Australian Electronic Governance Conference., Centre for Public Policy, University of Melbourne, Melbourne Victoria, 14-15 April, 2004.

Wallack, P.. (1998). Beyond information online – using the Internet to strengthen democracy. Retrieved 09 February, 2000.

Ward, K. J.. (1999).The cyber-ethnographic (re)construction of two feminist online communities. Sociological Research Online, 4(1).

Ward, S., Gibson, R. K., & Lusoli, W.. (2005). The promise and perils of ‘virtual representation’: The public view . Salford: ESRC e-Society Programme and Salford University.

Ward, S., & Lusoli, W.. (2002). Dinosaurs in cyberspace. Paper presented at the 2002 Political Studies Association Conference, Aberdeen, 5-7 April 2002.

Ward, S., & Lusoli, W.. (2004). “From Weird to Wired”: MPs, the Internet and representative politics in the UK. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Political Studies Association, 5-8 April 2004, University of Lincoln.

Ward, S., Lusoli, W., & Gibson, R. K.. (2003).Virtually Participating: A Survey of Online Party Members. Information Polity, 7(4), 199-215.

Ward, S. J., & Lusoli, W.. (2002). Dinosaurs in cyberspace?. Paper presented at the 2002 Political Studies Association Conference, Aberdeen, 5-7 April 2002.

Wasserman, E.. (1999, 21 October). The rules of engage. Retrieved 27 November, 1999.

Wasserman, E.. (1999, 14 October). Taking the voters’ pulse online. Retrieved 27 November, 1999.

Wasserman, E.. (1999, 28 October). Women get the online vote. Retrieved 27 November, 1999.

Weare, C., Musso, J., & Hale, M. L.. (1999, September 2-5). The Political Economy of Electronic Democratic Forums: The Design of California Municipal Web Sites. Paper presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the APSA, Atlanta.

Weisberg, J.. (1999, 26 October). Voting online. Retrieved 27 November, 1999.

Weisberg, J.. (1999, 28 October). Will Internet voting be good news for American democracy?. Retrieved 27 November, 1999.

Wertheimer, F.. (2000, April 4-7). The Internet and campaign finance law. Paper presented at the Tenth Conference on Computers, freedom and privacy: challenging the assumptions, Toronto, Canada.

Whiteley, P. F., & Seyd, P.. (1998). A study of Liberal Democrat party members (ESRC end of award Report No. No. R000237789). Essex: ESRC.

Wiggins, R.. (2001).Al Gore and the Creation of the Internet. First Monday, 5(10), October 2000.

Williams, C., B., Foxman, E. R., & Saraswat, S. P.. (2003). A Comparative Study of NonProfit and For Profit Web-based Issue Advocacy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the APSA, August 28 – August 31, 2003, Philadelphia, PA.

Wintershausen, M.. (2005). E is for efficiency: reaping the benefits of technology . London: SOCITM.

Yates, S. J., & Perrone, J. L.. (1998). Politics on the Web. Paper presented at the IRISS, 25-27 March 1998, Bristol, UK.

Young, S., & Chen, P.. (2005, 15 January). Downloading democracy. The Age.

Zacon, H. R.. (2003, 5 February 2003). Hobbes’ Internet Timeline. Retrieved 1 June, 2002.

Zapardiel, J. A., & Garcia, F.. (1999, 22-25 June). Why should government invest in the Internet? The experience of the Ministry of Economy and Finance in Spain. Paper presented at the INET’99 – Internet Global Summit, San Jose’, CA, USA.

Advertisements

Обговорення

Коментарів ще немає.

Залишити відповідь

Заповніть поля нижче або авторизуйтесь клікнувши по іконці

Лого WordPress.com

Ви коментуєте, використовуючи свій обліковий запис WordPress.com. Log Out / Змінити )

Twitter picture

Ви коментуєте, використовуючи свій обліковий запис Twitter. Log Out / Змінити )

Facebook photo

Ви коментуєте, використовуючи свій обліковий запис Facebook. Log Out / Змінити )

Google+ photo

Ви коментуєте, використовуючи свій обліковий запис Google+. Log Out / Змінити )

З’єднання з %s

Лабораторія громадських медіа #cmlrivne

%d блогерам подобається це: