Abstract
In terms of the inclusivity of democracy, both the opportunities and risks of using digital media have been highlighted in the literature. Empirical research into the use of digital media and the inclusivity of citizen participation, however, is limited. More specifically, we have a limited understand of the relation between the ‘richness’ of digital media and the inclusivity of citizen engagement The introduction of digital participation by governments during the COVID-19 pandemic presents a highly interesting situation for studying the relation between digital participation and the inclusivity of citizen engagement. This paper presents an assessment of five cases in the Netherlands to explore to what extent the media richness of digital participation affects the inclusivity of citizen engagement. Our findings present few indications for the exclusion of citizens and, in contrast, highlight the participation of more citizens when access was facilitated through digital media. The overall picture that emerges is that especially lean digital tools, webinars, enhance inclusivity in terms of access but only richer tools, interactive platforms, also facilitate participation as interaction with citizens. To our surprise, we found that hybrid forms of participation fall short in providing opportunities for inclusive interaction. We end the paper by recommending governments to realize both broad and in-depth inclusive democracy by sequential use of lean media – webinars – to boost the access to participation and rich media – platforms and offline meetings – for interactions with citizens.
Keywords
Introduction
The use of new digital technologies is seen as an important opportunity for strengthening local democracies (Feeney & Welch, 2012; Grimmelikhuijsen & Feeney, 2017; Steinbach et al., 2019) but the introduction of technologies for citizen participation proceeds only slowly. This slow introduction of digital participation is caused by dilemmas concerning privacy and inclusion, but also by a lack of clarity about the added value for democracy of digitization (Meijer, 2015). This paper highlights how the COVID-19 crisis changed this perspective on digital participation, at least for the period of the pandemic, from ‘nice to have’ to an inevitable and necessary means for maintaining democracy. We argue that studying this unique period is highly relevant for obtaining a better understanding of the value of different types of digital media for citizen participation.
At the start of the COVID-19 crisis, restrictive measures were in place to reduce the number of infections. Therefore, it was undesirable and sometimes even not permitted to meet in person. These restrictions forced local and regional governments to find other ways for democratic processes. The digital participation that local and regional governments organized during the COVID-19 pandemic was often online and sometimes hybrid (i.e. a combination of digital and in person participation). Governments experimented with new digital media for democratic processes and accelerated already existing digitalization projects (Meijer & Webster, 2020). These innovations facilitated local democratic processes but one can question whether this forced and rapid innovation sufficiently addressed all democratic requirements for citizen participation.
A key requirement of democracy is access for all citizens. Inclusivity, understood as ensuring the engagement of citizens from all social groups, is one of the central values of democracy (Smith, 2009, p. 21; Warren, 2017). However, we know that citizens differ in their skills and one of the well-known risks of digital democracy is the digital divide (Norris, 2001; Mossberger et al., 2003; Min, 2010; Van Dijk, 2020a; Van den Berg et al., 2020; Van den Berg, 2021; Chadwick et al., 2022). Especially elderly citizen and citizens with intellectual disabilities have difficulties with e-participation (Cumbie & Kar, 2016; Van den Berg et al., 2020; Van den Berg, 2021; Chadwick et al., 2022). At the same time, access to participation is facilitated for other groups, e.g. physically challenged citizens, by reducing the need to travel to specific locations. In addition, Thijssen and van Dooren (2016) claims digital democracy may attract new groups of citizens, especially younger citizens. In view of these pros and cons, hybrid participation is sometimes presented as a promising combination of the advantages of online and offline participation which may ensuring inclusivity for all citizens.
Due to the corona crisis, governments had no choice but experimenting with digital participation, sometimes in combination with offline participation. A variety of new media, ranging from webinar with few opportunities for interaction (‘lean media’) to sophisticated online platforms with all kinds of opportunities for interaction (‘rich media’), were introduced to facilitate citizen participation. This natural experiment provides a opportunity to study what happens when local and regional governments use technological innovations for citizen participation and assess these forms of democratic innovations in terms of their implications for inclusive democratic participation. This research will look into the emerging patterns of online participation during the COVID-19 pandemic to analyze practices differing in the richness of media used (Trevino et al., 1987; Ishii et al., 2019; Lappas et al., 2022) and the implications for the inclusivity of engagement. The temporary extreme situation created by the COVID-19 crisis – in the sense that there was no other option than digital participation – can generate new insights about the inclusivity of digital participation. This paper will therefore answer the following research question: how did the use of rich and lean media influence the inclusivity of citizen participation during the COVID-19 crisis?
This qualitative comparative case study contributes to the literature on digital participation by developing and testing expectations for the relation between the ‘richness’ of digital media and the resulting inclusivity of democracy in terms of access and interactions. Our research provides support for a positive assessment of the inclusion of digital participation: we found no indications for the expected exclusion of societal groups and online participation even attracted a new group of citizens. Our assessment of hybrid forms of participation also contrasts with our expectation but this time because hybrid participation did not deliver upon its promise of generating more inclusive participation and providing opportunities for inclusive interaction. We end the paper by recommending governments to apply sequential use of lean (webinars) and rich media (physical meetings) for participation, rather than applying hybrid formats, to ensure inclusivity both in terms of access and interaction.
Theoretical framework
Lean and rich forms of online participation
Citizen participation is the involvement of citizens in the decision-making process (Feeney & Welch, 2012). This is an important requirement for a well-functioning democracy (Vissers & Stolle, 2014) since giving citizens a say strengthens the legitimacy of decisions (Smith 2009; Michels, 2011). In her well-known paper, Arnstein (1969) developed a ladder with eight forms of participation, based on the power of citizens in the decision-making process, ranging from ‘nonparticipation’ (manipulation of citizens) through different forms of ‘information’ and ‘consultation’ to finally ‘citizen control’. To realize higher forms of involvement of citizens, politicians have been calling for democratic innovations (Michels & Binnema, 2016; Torfing & Triantafillou, 2011).
Democratic innovations include, but are not limited to, technological forms of participation, such as online voting and e-petitions (Michels & Binnema, 2016; Dahlberg, 2011). Throughout the last decades, the efforts to strengthen digital democracy have gained some momentum (Chadwick, 2003; Feeney & Welch, 2012; Steinbach et al., 2019). Digital democracy is defined as ‘a collection of attempts to practice democracy without the limits of time, space and other physical conditions, using ICT (…) instead, as an addition, not a replacement for traditional ‘analogue’ political practices (Hacker & van Dijk, 2000, p. 1). Digital participation or e-participation is the part of this broader development that focuses on the use of ICT to interact with citizens (Van Dijk, 2020b; Choi & Song, 2020).
Online participation is frequently just a digital copy of offline participation (Vissers & Stolle, 2014) but it can also be a new form with new forms of interaction. Research suggests that the best results come from a practice that combines face-to-face with online interactions (Hacker & van Dijk, 2000). To cover the variety of forms of online interaction, this research will look at webinars, interactive participation platforms but also at hybrid participation meetings. Webinars are online seminars with no offline audience. Interactive platforms are online means to get citizen’s input through for example polls, short surveys or a forum. Hybrid participation meetings are regular participation meetings with offline as well as online participants. These forms are different in these sense that some interactions are ‘lean’ in these sense that they provide only textual interactions whereas other forms are ‘rich’ since they also provide auditive and visual contact and more opportunities to interact.
Various theoretical approaches have used to explain differences in digital participation such as General Incentives Model, Technology Acceptance Model, Theory of Reasoned Action, Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, Diffusion of Innovation and Theory of Planned Behavior (for an overview: Choi and Song (2020)). Since this research aims to understand the implications of media choices for inclusive participation, our study will analyze online participation on the basis of media richness theory (Trevino et al., 1987; Ishii et al., 2019; Lappas et al., 2022). Media Richness Theory emphasizes that media can be qualified in terms of the richness of the interactions they support in terms of opportunities for various communicative cues and for direct interaction. Face-to-face meetings provide the richest medium and a classical postal letter is, in these terms, a poor medium. Trevino, Lengel and Daft (1987) highlight that rich media need to be used when the content of the communication is complex and emotional whereas poor media, which are considerable cheaper, can be used for simple and rational messages. On the basis of Media Richness theory, online participation can be positioned on a scale from poorer to richer media (see Fig. 1). This overview can be used to systematically analyze the implications of online only and hybrid participation for the inclusivity of democratic engagement.
Overview of richness of media for citizen engagement.
An inclusive democratic process is a process in which all social groups of citizens have a voice in decision and policy making (Michels, 2011). The inclusivity regards access for citizens differing in age, sex, ethnicity and education levels and openness of the interactive democratic process to different opinions and arguments. A lack of inclusion may have substantial consequences for the topics and the opinions that are brought forward in the participation process which can lead to problems of democratic legitimacy if the interests and preferences of particular groups are neglected. This is a real danger since the academic literature on the inclusivity of citizen participation highlights that women, young people and the lower educated are underrepresented (e.g. Mariën et al., 2010).
Digital participation is often mentioned as an opportunity for more inclusive participation, especially for younger people (Thijssen & van Dooren, 2016; Stolle & Hooghe, 2011). Although this claim seems probable in view of the way young people generally use new media, empirical research presents reasons to doubt this claim. In particular, when online interactions copy offline interactions, research shows that age bias is not reduced (Thijssen & van Dooren, 2016). Moreover, even if digital participation mobilizes young people, the overrepresentation of highly educated citizens remains (Stolle & Hooghe, 2011; Michels & Binnema, 2016). In fact, much research shows that digital participation only mobilizes the people who are already active offline (Thijssen & van Dooren, 2016; Van Dijk, 2020b; Lee & Kim, 2017).
A downside of digital participation for the inclusivity of citizen participation is the digital divide (Van Dijk, 2020a). This divide is the gap between citizens with and without access to technologies, and between citizens who can and cannot use the technologies (Hargittai, 2003). These patterns are related to the online skills of citizen, their experience and available technical means. In terms of demographic categories, especially elderly risk being at the wrong side of the digital divide. Although they often have access to the technical means (in the Netherlands almost all people have access to the internet), they encounter more problems in using these for digital engagement (Cumbie & Kar 2016). Digital participation may therefore contribute to both more inclusion (of younger people) and result in less inclusion (of elderly people) (Van den Berg et al., 2020; Van den Berg, 2021).
A more nuanced perspective on digital participation and inclusivity can be developed by considering the different dimensions of inclusion. In this paper, and in line with literature on digital services (Palkovits & Wimmer, 2003), we conceptualize inclusion in digital participation as two dimensions: the dimension of access and the dimension of interaction. Access refers to access to participation meetings and ability to participate and interaction refers to the level of interaction ranging from posing questions, to exchanging arguments and making proposals.
For each dimension, barriers can be expected from both the side of citizens and government. For example, with respect to the dimension of access, people may participate because of lack of time or no transport to the location of the event. For e-participation, people may lack digital skills or access to ICT-devices (Norris, 2001; Van den Berg et al., 2020; Van den Berg, 2021). The following indicators are used to assess the barriers in empirical research: no barriers if all can have access; low barriers if some people experience problems in getting access; medium barriers if some groups do not have access, for example because they lack basic digital skills; and high barriers if a large group of people does not have access.
With respect to the dimension of interaction, a barrier can be that citizens are present at a meeting but not invited to provide input. For digital participation, the participation tools may make it impossible for citizens to engage in interactions. The following indicators are used to assess these barriers in empirical research: no barriers if there are multiple methods for interaction including making proposals and exchanging arguments/discussion; low barriers if there are limited methods for interaction including making proposals and discussion; medium barriers if posing questions is the only form of interaction; and high barriers if there is no interaction.
Expected relations for the inclusivity of digital participation
On the basis of a discussion of the literature, we distinguished three types of media that differ in their media richness – online dissemination, interactive online platforms, and hybrid combinations of regular and online meetings. We also distinguished barriers to inclusion related to the two dimensions of digital participation: access and interaction. This overview can be used to formulate expectations about the use of media and its implications for inclusion of citizens in processes of democratic engagement. Table 1 summarizes the expectations for the relation between media and the barriers for inclusivity.
With respect to the barriers for inclusivity in terms of access, we expect to find differences between the media types. For lean media (online only meetings), we can formulate contrasting expectations. A first expectation is that inclusivity will be strengthened for young people who are traditionally less represented in in person participation. Also, for people who are not able to attend physical meetings or do not have the time to attend, online meetings lower the barrier for participating. At the same time, there are reasons to formulate a contrasting expectation. The less digitally skilled may experience barriers to attend online meetings which they do not experience for participating in rich media (physical meetings). Therefore, the expectation is that hybrid participation will be the most inclusive form, combining both online and offline and therefore being the most accessible for all citizens.
For interaction, we can build on the media richness theory which emphasizes that richer media create more opportunities for interactivity and communication about complex and emotional issues (Trevino et al., 1987; Ishii et al., 2019; Lappas et al., 2022) and therefore for inclusive participation. In terms of media richness, online dissemination, for example in the form of a webinar, is the leanest medium because it is a completely one-sided communication without any interaction. Interactive online meetings are richer, and the most rich form is the hybrid combination or regular and online meetings. Therefore, we expect that hybrid participation will be the most inclusive form, since it enables both physical and online forms of interaction.
Expected relations for the inclusivity of digital participation
Expected relations for the inclusivity of digital participation
In order to test the different expectations about the inclusivity of participation during COVID-19, we conducted a qualitative case comparison. The empirical study consisted of a qualitative research design using interviews, observations and documents of five cases in subnational governments in the Netherlands.
Overview of the five case studies
Overview of the five case studies
In selecting the cases, we made sure that the cases represented a variety in media use. As shown in Table 2, two webinars (online dissemination), two interactive platforms, and one hybrid meeting were studied. All cases are Dutch cases in subnational governments. All cases were well developed, some of which were fully new practices, others based on already existing ideas. The webinar on spatial planning (case 1) took place in a province (3.7 million inhabitants), the webinar project development (case 2) and the interactive platform for citizen conversations (case 3) took place in a municipality (municipality 1) of 212.000 inhabitants, and the interactive platform for local projects (case 4) and the hybrid participation meeting about a local forest (case 5) in a municipality (municipality 2) of 157.000 inhabitants. A further description of each of the cases follows in section 5 where we also present the findings for each case.
The Netherlands has a well-functioning digital infrastructure, a high level of digital literacy and a tradition of citizen participation (Hendriks & Michels, 2011). The extreme situation created by the COVID-19 crisis left no other option than continuing participation by digital means. The preconditions for making this work were all in place in the Netherlands. The three subnational governments chosen in this study were at the forefront of continuing democratic processes with digital means. Furthermore, the democratic structure of provinces and municipalities in the Netherlands is very similar: an executive committee is responsible for daily affairs, while accountable for their decisions to a (local or provincial) council. And, all subnational governments now consider involving citizens in political will formation and decision making as one of their key areas of attention.
Between May 2020 and September 2020, eleven respondents were interviewed. Interviews took between 30 and 60 minutes. Respondents worked for city and provincial councils, were civil servants working for teams responsible for participation projects or were civil servants responsible for technological innovations. It should be noted that all respondents worked for a subnational government which means that we have only taken the ‘government’ side of the participation projects into account. This may have influenced the outcomes in this study in the sense that respondents may have framed the participation projects and outcomes sometimes more favourable as it was in reality. To reduce this bias, observations and documents were also used to complement the data gained through interviews. The webinars from case one and two were observed, as well as the hybrid participation meetings. The participation platforms were also observed, analysing all existing projects and the responses of participants. Hereby, reactions from participants and the user-friendliness of the meetings were observed. Also, evaluations of the participation meetings from citizens as well as the subnational governments were analysed for case one and five. Thus, the citizen perspective was also part of the analysis of the cases. Nevertheless, we do not have any information on citizens who did not participate in this meeting. This forms a restriction of this research. Table 2 shows more characteristics on the five cases and the collected data for these cases.
The data from the interviews, the observations and evaluations were analysed to get a detailed and complete overview of all cases and to assess differences in inclusivity. The five cases are compared using the two dimensions of inclusiveness and the different forms of media.
This research studied five democratic innovations, varying from fully online participation meetings to hybrid forms of contact. In this section, the five cases will described and then analyzed according to the type of medium and the level of inclusion. To clarify the context in which these innovations took place, we start with a brief overview of the Dutch context regarding the corona crisis.
Context: Management of COVID-19 crisis in the Netherlands
Democratic innovations took place because of the restrictive measures the Dutch government took to control the corona virus. In the Dutch corona crisis, five phases could be distinguished between March 2020 and mid-December 2020. During the first weeks of March 2020, the Dutch government started taking measures concerning social distancing and shutting down public places. For events, only 100 attendees were allowed since the 15
Online dissemination for citizen participation
Case 1: Webinar spatial planning
Case description. For a project on liveability in a part of a Dutch province, a participation trajectory was required. Before the start of the corona crisis, citizens had the opportunity to submit ideas for this project. For the follow-up, two sessions were organized to inform citizens on the collected ideas. Hence, the purpose of this type of participation meeting was informative. Two evenings were organized at the beginning of June for residents and companies.
Medium. The province made use of an online form of participation: a webinar. While this medium had hardly ever been used before the corona crisis, it has now gained popularity and, today, it is frequently used (R1, R2). For this particular case, the two webinars were supported by a company specialized in organizing webinars. By outsourcing the organization, the costs for the province were high (6000–8000 euro’s). The webinars consisted mostly of presentations and during the webinar, citizens could ask questions through a chat function and in no other way. A team of moderators was available to answer questions. Furthermore, the organizers asked for input through several polls. The province organized smaller in-depth sessions one week after the webinars. Around 85 people participated in these sessions, all people interested were able to participate (R3).
“Our participation team aims to do and learn as much as possible now, so we can continue to use this after the corona crisis and create a better form of hybrid participation. This situation gave a huge boost to what we actually always wanted” R2.
Level of inclusion
Access. To participate, citizens had to register online for the webinar. Citizens who are not digitally skilled could call the province for assistance. The registration as well as getting into the webinar were difficult for some citizens, so the province had to put a lot of effort in making sure all citizens could participate (E1). In total, 150 people were watching the webinars live. Elderly (55
Interaction. During the webinar, citizens actively used the possibility to ask questions (O1, O2). In both webinars, more than fifty questions were asked by different participants. The province noticed that this way of posing questions appears to be more inclusive due to the fact that a group of citizens cannot dominate the meeting and not leaving room to others (R3). Polls were answered by almost all participants. Evaluations (E1) showed participants appreciated this form of participation, grading the webinars with a 4.4 out of 5. However, participants missed the opportunity for discussion. The participants in the smaller in-depth sessions, organized in response to the call for more interaction were very similar to physical sessions, but the interaction was still more limited than in physical sessions (R3). All respondents agree that interaction in the webinars as well as the smaller sessions is difficult (R1, R2, R2). This type of online sessions is mostly useful for informative participation meetings, as it cannot fully replace offline participation. Also, it requires much preparation time and money from the organizers. Nevertheless, the province sees webinars as a suitable way to share knowledge, since it attracts a broad audience.
Case 2: Webinar project development
Case description. For a project regarding the development of a local area, owners initiated various plans. These actors asked for input from citizens for their projects. The idea was to have a walk-in evening where all initiators could present their ideas. The purpose of this type of participation meeting was therefore informative. Two evenings were organized for residents at the beginning of May and June.
Medium. For this particular case, the two webinars were organized and financed by the initiators of the projects and not the municipality. The municipality was involved and became familiar with this type of meeting (R4). The webinars were accessible through the project website. The webinars consisted mostly of presentations of the projects (O3, O4). During the webinars, citizens could ask questions through a chat function and it was again not possible to ask questions in another way. During the first webinar, possibilities of giving input were presented to the citizens. During the second webinar, this input was presented with indications of how the input will be used.
Level of inclusion
Access. There were no problems with accessibility to the webinars (R3). 134 people were watching the first webinar. According to both respondents, this was a more diverse group than in former meetings, with more 30–40-year-olds. The participants were local residents living near to the projects area, but also other citizens from the municipality (O4). The webinar has been frequently viewed afterwards as well. Therefore, this type of meetings seems to be lowering the threshold for participating.
Interaction. During the webinar, citizens used the possibility to ask questions. In both webinars, around fifteen questions were asked by different participants (O3, O4). Some questions were answered during the webinar and answers to the remaining questions were made available online after the webinar. Participants were able to react to all projects via the project website and the initiators received more than a hundred reactions on the six projects. The group of participants leaving a reaction was also more diverse than experienced before (O4). The organizers stated the input they got was more useful than before, due to the time people had to let the information sink in and react. The second webinar was a follow-up to the first webinar and citizens also used the possibility to ask questions. In line with Case 1, the municipality stated this form is useful for informing citizens, but offline meetings are necessary for interaction with citizens.
Online interactive platforms for citizen participation
Case 3: Digital participation platform for citizen conversations
Case description. Before the corona crisis, the municipality had already been working on a democratic innovation, an interactive participation platform to conduct so-called ‘city talks’ with citizens, for over a year (R6, R7). The idea of the platform was to find innovative ways to reconnect with the citizens and specifically target citizens who usually do not attend traditional participation meetings (R6, R7).
Medium. The municipality had been talking with the company ‘Citizenlab’ – an organization committed to build stronger democracies by making public decision-making more inclusive, participatory, and responsive (www.citizenlab.co) – for quite some time and was planning to run a pilot. Due to the corona crisis, the municipality decided to implement the platform immediately. The goal of participation through the platform was citizen consultation by providing tools to gain information from citizens, such as small surveys, polls, voting or fora (O5).
Level of inclusion
Access. To get access to the platform, citizens had to register online. The municipality did not receive any indications that citizens considered this a barrier for participation (R7). The municipality had over four hundred registrations in September, and already over eight hundred at the end of 2020 (O5). Nevertheless, using the platform required having digital skills. The platform is as user-friendly as possible but does require some basic knowledge. However, according to the municipality, many elderly are familiar with digital developments and were able to participate (R6). Also, within this municipality there is a high record of computer usage, which indicates that most people have access to a computer. Furthermore, the municipality supported all citizens when necessary, to ensure inclusiveness. “You will be surprised that some younger people also have a hard time participating. There are also elderly who are particularly skilled online. Really do not rule out the elderly. Many of them follow developments closely. Is also a perception that we have: that they are lagging behind and cannot use digital means” (R6)
Interaction. When citizens were registered, they were able to respond to all ongoing projects. In total, since the start fifteen projects were presented on the platform (O5). These included surveys, polls, conversations or challenges for citizens. Attendance varied considerably. For one of the challenges, over two hundred people participated (O5). For other projects, such as a digital round table discussion, around thirty people participated. The municipality plans on expanding the platform and embedding the platform in her organization as a complementary tool in addition to physical meetings (R6, R7).
Case 4: Digital participation platform for local projects and decisions
Case description. Before the corona crisis, this municipality was already working on democratic innovations and had created an interactive participation platform (R8, R9). The platform was launched to involve more citizens in local projects and decisions. “Corona has given a boost and it will soon be impossible to imagine life without it. I am actually very happy with that (the digital participation platform). We always had that in mind. By adding that, you still give people who cannot come to a meeting the opportunity to respond online. That is of course a gain” (R8)
Medium. Compared to the other platform (case 3), the municipality had proceeded further in the innovation process and was already making preparations for using the platform. It was not launched earlier because the municipality wanted to start the platform with multiple projects at once (R8). Due to the corona crisis, the platform was used as an alternative for participation meetings that were originally planned as in-person meeting. The goals of participation through the platform are consultation and informing. This platform provided a variety of tools to gain information from citizens, such as small surveys, polls, Q&A’s or discussion forms (O6).
Level of inclusion
Access. The municipality aimed to make online participation as easy as possible for all citizens. On the platform, citizens could participate in almost all projects without registration (O6). Within each project, the selected tools were explained and citizens could contact the municipality if they were having difficulties accessing the platform. The disadvantage of the lack of registration is that the municipality has no information about the background of the participants, for example their age or sex.
Interaction. At the time of the research, the platform had been used for eleven projects (O6). Some projects had multiple options to deliver input. For example, for a project on making a town square more sustainable, citizens could submit ideas for the new design. This resulted in 31 operable ideas, which led to three designs created by the municipality. Afterwards, citizens could vote for their choice of preference. 631 people voted on the projects, which was considered a very high involvement for this municipality (O6). For another project, citizens were asked to deliver input on a draft plan, which resulted in fourteen reactions of citizens. The municipality is planning to keep using the platform and expand it as a tool in addition to the in-person conversations with citizens (R8).
Hybrid meetings for citizen participation
Case 5: Hybrid participation in “forest cafe”
Case description
For a local forest project, the participation trajectory’s kick-off started with all interested citizens. The idea of this introductory meeting was to explain the procedure and to retrieve some preliminary input of citizens, so the purpose of this participation meeting was mostly informative. Due to the corona crisis, physical meetings were only allowed in small groups in September.
Medium
The municipality chose for three ‘interactive forest cafes’, which were partly offline, with a maximum of twenty-four people in the physical room. All other participants were watching a livestream which was organized by an external company. This was all completely new for the municipality (R10, R11). During the meeting, online participants asked questions through a chat function. All participants also filled in a small survey during the session, to have a first round of input (O7). In the two other meetings, participants were invited to fill in the survey on forehand (O8, O9).
Level of inclusion
Access. Each session had between forty and fifty participants, half of them offline and half online (E2). The group of participants was not different from former meetings on this subject, according to R11, since there was a specific target group for this topic. Only young parents were more represented than before, probably due to the fact they could watch online. Since the online session was also recorded, citizens could watch the livestream after the session.
Interaction. Especially during the first meeting, technical difficulties affected the quality of the livestream negatively (O7). This problem did not occur any more during the follow up sessions. Although possible through the chat function, online participants did not use the possibility to ask questions frequently (O7, O8, O9). At the end of the meeting, there was room for questions. This resulted in a discussion among only the physically present participants (O7, O8, O9). Nevertheless, the online participants evaluated the meeting as pleasant and appreciated the online survey (E2). Offline participants were not enthusiastic about the online survey. They felt too much time was invested in the online elements, rather than having a good discussion (O7). Also, many citizens could not easily enter the survey, because the QR-code scanning was too difficult for them (R11). The municipality was satisfied with the meetings, but it had cost a lot of effort to organize it. It also became clear that combining offline and online may pose difficulties. “We are completing a survey and reading the results on the screen, instead of talking to each other. This could have been done at home, right? Why else do I come here?” (participant meeting)
Systematic comparison
Table 3 shows the barriers for inclusiveness for each of the five cases.
Inclusiveness of citizen participation in the five cases
Inclusiveness of citizen participation in the five cases
In the comparison between the five cases, some patterns emerge (see Table 3). With respect to the previously formulated expectations (see Table 1), the following conclusions can be drawn for the differences between the three forms of participation: webinars (as a form of online dissemination), interactive platforms and hybrid participation meetings.
A first observation is that, contrary to what we expected, webinars seem to be the most inclusive form with respect to access. The webinars attract a very broad audience with especially more citizens at the age of 30–40. Citizens are very satisfied with this form and the fact that webinars can be watched from any place at any time is proven to be successful. However, digitally less skilled citizens can have some difficulties with registration and entering the webinar. Webinars are, in line with what we expected, less inclusive with respect to interaction. This form is mostly suited for informative meetings and has no room for real discussion and extensive input. At the same time, as case 2 highlighted, this approach can still result in valuable feedback from citizens.
Secondly, the interactive platforms are inclusive for access in the sense that they also attract a broad audience, due to its low-key character. The means to participate consist of small and straightforward tasks that can be done at any place at any time. Nevertheless, this form really asks for some basic skills to understand the platform and to register, and thus is, as we expected, less inclusive for the less digitally skilled. Key factors seem to be the registration process and the use of technologies that are familiar to citizens. Noteworthy is that digital access is not primary a problem for elderly as quite a few older citizens participated. And, as we expected, compared to webinars, interactive platforms better enable interaction and are therefore more inclusive with respect to interaction for all citizens. There were even fewer barriers for interaction than was expected.
Thirdly, and this fully contradicts our expectation, the hybrid form does not seem to be more inclusive regarding access in comparison to fully online forms. This can be explained by the fact that this meeting was not a new form or format, but an offline meeting preformed online. This is proven not to attract new groups of citizens (Thijssen & van Dooren, 2016). Also, in contrast to our expectation, interaction appeared to be difficult. The combination of offline and online audience increased the barriers for interaction instead of lowering these. Moreover, online participation often was not appreciated by the offline participants.
In sum, all media forms, webinars, interactive platforms, and hybrid forms enabled broader participation and new groups to participate and, as such, there are indications for increased access to citizen participation. Especially the leanest medium, webinars, was able to attract many citizens and enhance the inclusivity of citizen engagement. On the other hand, inclusion in interaction was lower in the webinars than in the online platforms which is a richer medium. Surprisingly, also in the richest medium, hybrid participation, interaction was limited which highlights that combining online with offline is no miracle cure for inclusive participation. The overall picture that emerges is that especially lean digital tools, webinars, enhance inclusivity in terms of access but only richer tools, interactive platforms, also facilitate forms of citizen participation in terms of interaction.
Our research set out to investigate the effects of new forms of democratic participation during COVID-19 for inclusion in democratic participation. The research highlights that the COVID-19 crisis created a momentum for new forms of participation: many small and large municipalities in the Netherlands were able to rapidly transform their democratic processes to online and hybrid forms. Experimenting with new forms also created insights about how to use these instruments in the future. Webinars, for example, are frequently used by provinces as well as municipalities and this form of participation offer great potential for informative meetings that want to reach a broad audience. The interactive platforms were already in development, but a lack of urgency seemed to hold back governments to launch the platforms (Steinbach et al., 2019). The corona crisis accelerated this and now both platforms have been used for almost a year. Civil servants as well as citizens are now familiar with the platform, giving it the strength to continue to exist after the crisis. The hybrid meeting this research studied will probably be used only when necessary, considering the high costs and difficulties combining both groups in the meeting.
We presented an empirical analysis of five different cases of democratic innovation during COVID-19 in three subnational governments in the Netherlands to strengthen our academic understanding of the implications of these forms of democratic innovation for inclusive democratic participation. The focus on the Netherlands with its well-functioning digital infrastructure, high level of digital literacy and tradition of citizen participation made it possible to study well developed and different cases in terms of media use. Although the study is modest, we were able to draw a number of plausible conclusions for the relation between the richness of the media used and inclusivity of citizen engagement grounded in the selection of cases with different media forms and a combination of various data gathering methods. These conclusions are based on a small set of cases and various contextual factors may play a role. With these limitations of our research design in mind, we analysed the material for patterns that help us to reflect on our theoretical expectations.
We developed a nuanced perspective on the relation between digital participation and inclusivity by distinguishing two dimensions of inclusion, access and interaction. On the basis of the literature, we had formulated some expectations with respect to the expected barriers in access and interaction. Comparing forms of media use varying in media richness, our findings contradict these expectations in two ways. Firstly, on the basis of the literature, we expected to find hybrid forms of participation to be the most inclusive in access, combining both online and offline and therefore being the most accessible for all citizens. Our findings, however, contradict this expectation and show that there are no fundamental differences between the forms of media. All appeal to a broader group of citizens, and all throw up a slight barrier to the less digitally skilled citizens. Secondly, we expected that richer forms of interaction – with hybrid participation as the richest form – would be most inclusive for interaction, since it enables both physical and online forms of interaction. Our findings, however, do not provide support for this expectation. Of all media, interactive platforms are the best at enabling inclusive interaction with citizens. Hybrid forms are less inclusive in interaction since they create different access to the debate for the citizens actually present at the meeting and citizens who attend the meeting online.
Our study shows that we need to better understand the benefits of both forms in terms of both broad and in-depth inclusivity in democratic interactions. Combining lean media – webinars – and rich media – physical meetings – has potential but simply combining the two at the same time does not lead to better interaction. Instead, governments need to pay more attention to the design of the combined use of media for citizen participation. For example, one could organize a webinar to inform citizens or ask for input at a platform and subsequently the interested citizens can meet physically to discuss the input. In this way, a broad audience can participate in a low-key manner and all willing to spend more time can meet physically to have more in-dept participation. This way, a hybrid form of participation is created not in one meeting but as an overall strategy for the entire process of citizen participation.
To summarize, online forms of participation have arisen due to the corona crisis and seem to be embedded in all organizations. The resilience of democracy has been surprisingly strong in the face of this worldwide crisis. The fear that this would result in forms of democracy that are not inclusive to various groups of citizens has proved not to be grounded: online forms of democratic engagement managed to attract the same citizens as offline forms plus an additional group of citizens. At the same time, we found these forms to be inclusive in access but, especially webinars and hybrid forms, not so inclusive in terms of interaction and this lack of inclusivity is not limited to specific groups but to all citizens. The lesson for the future is to realize both broad and in-depth inclusive democracy by using lean media – webinars – to boost the reach of participation and following this up, sequentially, with richer media – platforms and offline meetings – for interactions with citizens.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
This research was funded through the research program ‘Corona as a stress test for local government in the Netherlands’. This research program was led by professor Geerten Boogaard (Leiden University) and financed by the Netherlands Ministry of the Interior.
Authors biographies
Roos Hofstra has an interest in democratic processes and works as a junior researcher for the Utrecht University School of Governance.
Ank Michels is associate professor at the Utrecht University School of Governance. Her research focuses on democratic innovation.
Albert Meijer is a full professor at the Utrecht University School of Governance. His research focuses on governance and democracy in an information age.