THE FORMATION OF PUBLIC OPINION ON THE NEED TO INCREASE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION WITH WEB 2.0 TOOLS
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
Citizen participation is an essential component of modern democratic public administration. However, it is not provided automatically but requires efforts from both public authorities and citizens themselves. The formation of public opinion on the need for citizen participation contributes to the unification of these efforts on both sides. In the context of the development of the information society, public opinion can and should be formed with Web 2.0 tools and technologies, primarily social media, which have a significant impact on the formation of public opinion in modern societies. The purpose of this article is to explore the possibility of forming public opinion on the need to increase citizen participation using social advertising on social media as a Web 2.0 tool. To achieve this, three research tasks were solved: to determine the essential features of public opinion; to consider the features of analysis and formation of public opinion; to consider the use of social advertising as a Web 2.0 tool for forming public opinion. A separate section of the article is devoted to each of the tasks. Based on the results of the study, several conclusions are drawn. The authors propose a mechanism for shaping public opinion on the need to increase the level of citizen participation, which includes the following components: identification of social groups for further interaction; monitoring of the social mood of these groups; tracking and analysis of social information targeted at these groups; studying public opinion rooted in certain social groups through establishing communication with them; analysis of public opinion in terms of its contribution to increasing the level of citizen participation; application of Web 2.0 tools to identify and analyse public opinion.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
citizen participation, public opinion, governance, public authorities, social media, social advertising, digital technologies
2. Aronson, E., Pratkanis, A.R. (2001). Age of propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of persuasion. New York: Henry Holt.
3. Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D., Akert, R.M., Sommers S.R. (2015). Social psychology (9th ed.). New York : Prentice Hall.
4. Ates, H., Bozali, S. (2005). Public Administration in the Information Age: Towards an Informatised Bureaucracy. Kocaeli Universitesi Sosyal Bilimer Enstitusu Dergisi, 10, pp. 46–48.
5. Bonsón, E., Torres, L., Royo, S., and Flores, F. (2012). Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), pp. 123–132.
6. Clarke, A., Margetts, H. (2014). Government and Citizens Getting to Know Each Other? Open, Closed, and Big Data in Public Management Reform. Policy and Internet, 6(3), pp. 393–417.
7. Dahlgren, P. (2012). Reinventing participation: civic agency and the web environment. Geopolitics, History, and International Relations, 2, pp. 27–45.
8. Feeney, M.K., Welch, E.W. (2012). Electronic participation technologies and perceived outcomes for local government managers. Public Management Review, 14(6), pp. 815–833.
9. Isin, E.F., Turner, B.S. (2007). Investigating citizenship: an agenda for citizenship studies. Citizenship Studies, 11(1), pp. 5–17.
10. Jho, W., Song, K.J. (2015). Institutional and technological determinants of civil e-Participation: Solo or duet? Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), pp. 488-495.
11. Kandahura, K.S. (2010). Vyvchennia hromadskoi dumky yak pidgruntia vidnosyn orhaniv derzhavnoi vlady z hromadskistiu [The study of public opinion as a basis for relations between state authorities and the public]. Derzhavne upravlinnia ta mistseve samovriaduvannia, 4 (7), pp. 56–64. [in Ukrainian].
12. Kavanaugh, A.L., Fox, E.A., Sheetz, S.D., Yang, S., Li, L.T., Shoemaker, D.J., and Xie, L. (2012). Social media use by government: From the routine to the critical. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), pp. 480–491.
13. Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), pp. 446–454.
14. Manzhola, P.H. (2007). Formy uchasti hromadskosti u diialnosti orhaniv vlady ta pryiniatti politychnykh rishen [Forms of public participation in the activities of authorities and political decisionmaking]. Stratehichni priorytety, 4(5), pp. 13–18. [in Ukrainian].
15. Molinari, F., Ferro, E. (2009). Framing Web 2.0 in the process of public sector innovation: Going down the participation ladder. European Journal of ePractice, 9(1), pp. 20–34.
16. Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Ossovskyi, V.L. (1999). Hromadska dumka: sproba sotsiolohichnoi interpretatsii [Public opinion: an attempt at sociological interpretation]. Kyiv: NAN Ukrainy, Instytut Sotsiolohii. [in Ukrainian].
18. Salmanov, A.T. (2013). Suspilna dumka yak poserednyk mizh instytutamy vlady ta hromadianskym suspilstvom [Public opinion as a mediator between government institutions and civil society]. Naukovi pratsi MAUP, 3, pp. 74–78. [in Ukrainian].
19. Zhao, F., Shen, K.N., Allier, A. (2014). Effects of national culture on e-government diffusion – A global study of 55 countries. Information & Management, 51(5), pp.1005–1016.