Civic Participation on Digital Platforms

 
PIIS013216250013854-2-1
DOI10.31857/S013216250013854-2
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Occupation: Head of Political Governance Department
Affiliation: St. Petersburg State University
Address: Russian Federation, St. Petersburg
Occupation: Associate Professor of Political Governance Department
Affiliation: St. Petersburg State University
Address: Russian Federation, St. Petersburg
Journal nameSotsiologicheskie issledovaniya
EditionIssue 7
Pages101-112
Abstract

The role of digital platforms as intermediaries in the interaction of citizens and political institutions is investigated. The aim of the study is to identify the relationship between the ecology of the use of platforms, the activity of their use and the trust in political institutions. The testing of hypotheses is based on the data of a field study in 2019 - a survey of 1200 citizens in the 10 most developed regions of Russia in terms of the use of digital public services. It was revealed that the use of platforms and trust in institutions are mainly influenced by three factors – efficiency, safety and affordance. The use of platforms is determined to a greater extent by affordance than efficiency and security, then the trust in institutions is more influenced by efficiency and security. At the same time, the actual technical parameters of use, expressed in the affordances, have an impact only in the early stages of interaction, yielding in the future to efficiency and safety.

Keywordscivic participation, collaboration, digital platforms, trust, legitimacy, efficiency, security, affordances
AcknowledgmentThis work was supported with a grant from the Russian Science Foundation (grant 19-18-00210 «Political ontology of digitalization: Study of institutional bases for digital forms of governability»).
Received19.07.2021
Publication date21.09.2021
Number of characters29162
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 663

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Volkova N.A. (2019) Latour's Return of Modes of Existence to «Radical Empiricism»: From Prepositions to Affordances. Sociologija vlasti [Sociology of Power]. Vol. 31. No. 2: 92–115. (In Russ.)

2. Levashov V.K., Grebnyak O.V. (2020) The Digital Culture of Russian Society and State. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 5: 79–89. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.31857/S013216250009401-4

3. Smorgunov L.V. (2020) Institutions of Digital Platform Affordance and Government Governability. Juzhno-rossijskij zhurnal social'nyh nauk [South Russian Journal of Social Sciences]. No. 3: 6–19. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.31429/26190567-21-3-6-19

4. Comunello F., Mulargia S., Parisi L. (2016) The «proper» way to spread ideas through social media: exploring the affordances and constraints of different social media platforms as perceived by Italian activists. The Sociological Review. Vol. 64. No. 3: 515–532. DOI: 10.1111/1467-954X.12378

5. Gil-Garcia R., Dawes Sh., Pardo T. (2018) Digital government and public management research: finding the crossroads. Public Management Review. Vol. 20. No. 5: 633–646. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2017.1327181

6. Kübler D., Rochat Ph., Woo S.Y., Van der Heiden N. (2019) Strengthen governability rather than deepen democracy: why local governments introduce participatory governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences. Vol. 86. No. 3: 409–426. DOI: 10.1177/0020852318801508

7. Latour B. (2005) Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

8. Marsh S., Patrick A., Briggs P. (2008). Social Issues of Trust and Digital Government. Information Security and Ethics. In: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. Hershey: IGI Global: 2905–2914.

9. Neff G., Jordan T., McVeigh-Schultz J., Gillespie T. (2012) Affordances, Technical Agency, and the Politics of Technologies of Cultural Production. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. Vol. 56. No. 2: 299–313. DOI: 10.1080/08838151.2012.678520

10. Santos M., Faure A. (2018) Affordance is Power: Contradictions Between Communicational and Technical Dimensions of WhatsApp’s End-to-End Encryption. Social Media + Society. Vol. 4. No. 3: 1–16. DOI: 10.1177/2056305118795876

11. Scarantino A. (2003) Affordances Explained. Philosophy of Science. Vol. 70. No. 5: 949–961. DOI: 10.1086/377380

12. Smorgunov L., Popova O., Tropinova E. (2020) Citizens’ Attitudes to e-Government: A Study Across Ten Russian Regions. In: Alexandrov D.A., Boukhanovsky A.V., Chugunov A.V., Kabanov Y., Koltsova O., Musabirov I. (eds). Digital Transformation and Global Society. DTGS 2020. Communications in Computer and Information Science. Vol. 1242. Cham: Springer: 250–262. DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-65218-0_19

13. Van Dijck J., Poell T., De Waal M. (2018) The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World. New York: Oxford University Press.

14. Zammuto R., Griffith T., Majchrzak A., Dougherty D., Faraj S. (2007) Information Technology and the Changing Fabric of Organization. Organization Science. Vol. 18. No. 5: 749–762.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up