Factors of Successful E-Petitions in Policy Making Process: A Scoping Review

Main Article Content

Paulus Israwan Setyoko Wahyuningrat Wahyuningrat Denok Kurniasih

Abstract

Efforts to continue to increase public participation in policymaking continue to be carried out as a step toward a more open government. Along with the popularity of online petitions (e-petitions) initiated by various lines of society, a systematic analysis was carried out to find out how successful an online petition (e-petitions) is as a public space in policy making. We try to provide a new perspective from a broader side of the previous partial research. This indicator of success is based on the original purpose for which the petition was published. As a result, there are three important things that are divided into two scopes of paths for achieving goals. First, the way of communication in which there is a linguistic approach is an important factor that influences how information from the petition is conveyed to the public and leads to the publicity of the petition. Second, the way of delivery is the basis for how the voice of the community is conveyed to policymakers, which is influenced by the political will of a region. Finally, media attention is a factor between the two scopes, which have dual roles as a “toa” to the public, and a messenger of policy. This review is expected to be a reference for initiators who propose policies from the community as well as a consideration for policymakers to actively involve the community's role in the policymaking process.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
ISRAWAN SETYOKO, Paulus; WAHYUNINGRAT, Wahyuningrat; KURNIASIH, Denok. Factors of Successful E-Petitions in Policy Making Process: A Scoping Review. Policy & Governance Review, [S.l.], v. 7, n. 1, p. 72-85, jan. 2023. ISSN 2580-4820. Available at: <https://journal.iapa.or.id/pgr/article/view/650>. Date accessed: 28 jan. 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.30589/pgr.v7i1.650.
Section
Articles

References

Alathur, S., Ilavarasan, P. V., & Gupta, M. P. (2012). Citizen participation and effectiveness of e-petition: Sutharyakeralam - India. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 6(4), 392–403. https://doi. org/10.1108/17506161211267536

Apriliyanti, I. D., Kusumasari, B., Pramusinto, A., & Setianto, W. A. (2021). Digital divide in ASEAN member states: analyzing the critical factors for successful e-government programs. Online Information Review, 45(2), 440–460. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-05-2020-0158

Bandeira, L. (2019). Parliamentary petitions and public engagement: an empirical analysis of the role of e-petitions.

Bochel, C., & Bochel, H. (2017). ‘Reaching in’? The potential for e-petitions in local government in the United Kingdom. Information Communication and Society, 20(5), 683– 699. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1203455

Change.org. (2015). Incluir en el AUGE la Terapia con Bomba de Insulina con Monitoreo Continuo de Glucosa. https://www.change.org/p/ ministra-de-salud-carmen-castillo-directora- de-fonasa-jeanette-vega-incluir-en-el-auge- la-terapia-con-bomba-de-insulina-con- monitoreo-continuo-de-glucosa

Christensen, L. S., Sánchez de Ribera, O., & Trajtenberg, N.(2022). A SystematicReviewofProfessionals’ Views About Community Management Policies for Individuals Convicted of Sexual Offenses. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 34(2), 127–156. https://doi. org/10.1177/10790632211000369

Chugunov, A. V., Kabanov, Y., & Zenchenkova, K. (2016). Russian e-petitions portal: Exploring regional variance in use. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 9821 LNCS, 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45074-2_9

Dalton, R. J. (2008). Citizenship Norms and the Expansion of Political Participation. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00718.x

Dumas, C. L., La Manna, D., Harrison, T. M., Ravi, S. S., Kotfila, C., Gervais, N., Hagen, L., & Chen, F. (2015). Examining political mobilization of online communities through e-petitioning behavior in We the People. Big Data and Society, 2(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715598170

Elnoshokaty, A. S., Deng, S., & Kwak, D. H. (2016). Success factors of online petitions: evidence from change.org. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2016-March(January), 1979–1985. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.249

González-Agüero, M., Vargas, I., Campos, S., Farías Cancino, A., Quezada Quezada, C., & Urrutia Egaña, M. (2022). What makes a health movement successful? Health inequalities and the insulin pump in Chile. Critical Public Health, 32(2), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2020.1808190

Gupta, B. M., & Dhawan, S. M. (2009). Status of India in science and technology as reflected in its publication output in the Scopus international database, 1996-2006. Scientometrics, 80(2), 473–490. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-008-2083-y

Hagen, L., Harrison, T. M., Uzuner, Ö., Fake, T., La Manna, D., & Kotfila, C. (2015). Introducing textual analysis tools for policy informatics: A case study of E-petitions. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 27-30-May-, 10–19. https://doi. org/10.1145/2757401.2757421

Hagen, L., Harrison, T. M., Uzuner, Ö., May, W., Fake, T., & Katragadda, S. (2016). E-petition popularity: Do linguistic and semantic factors matter? Government Information Quarterly, 33(4), 783–795. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.07.006

Hale, S. A., & Margetts, H. (2013). Petition Growth and Success Rates on the UK No . 10 Downing Street Website. 10.

Halpin, D., Vromen, A., Vaughan, M., & Raissi, M. (2018). Online petitioning and politics: the development of Change.org in Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 428–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2018.1499010

Karkin, N., & Janssen, M. (2020). Structural changes driven by e-petitioning technology: changing the relationship between the central government and local governments. Information Technology for Development,26(4), 837–855. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2020.1742078

Lindner, R., & Riehm, U. (2008). Electronic Petitions and the Relationship between Institutional Contexts, Technology and Political Participation. Parycek P, Prosser A: Edem2008. International Conference on Electronic Democracy (Proceedings), Linz, Österreichische Computer Gesellschaft, 116–126.

Macintosh, A., Malina, A., & Farrell, S. (2002). Digital Democracy through Electronic Petitioning. In Advances in digital government. Springer.

Moss, G., & Coleman, S. (2014). Deliberative manoeuvres in the digital darkness: E-Democracy policy in the UK. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 16(3), 410–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-856X.12004

Mosurska, A., & Ford, J. D. (2020). Unpacking community participation in research: A systematic literature review of community- based and participatory research in alaska. Arctic, 73(3), 347–367. https://doi. org/10.14430/arctic71080

Rosenfeld, C. (2021). Do you hear the people sign?: A critical discourse analysis of comments on a 2015 online petition opposing North Carolina’s ag-gag law. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 49(5), 515–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2021.19651817–39.

Sajida, S. (2022). Mapping Trends of Literature in Energy Policy in Indonesia: A Bibliometric Analysis. Policy & Governance Review, 6(1), 17–39.

Sharma, T. N. (2013). Structures and Mechanisms of Community Participation in School Management. Journal of Education and Research, 1(1), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.3126/jer.v1i0.7954

Sheppard, J. (2015). Online petitions in Australia: Information, oppor tunity and gender. Australian Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 480–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2015.1049512

Singh, S., Srivastava, A., Haldane, V., Chuah, F., Koh, G., Seng Chia, K., & Legido-Quigley, H. (2017). Community participation in health services development: A systematic review on outcomes. European Journal of Public Health,27(suppl_3), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckx187.429

Taylor-Roberts, L., Strohmaier, S., Jones, F., & Baker, P. (2019). A systematic review of community participation measures for people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 32(3),706–718. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12565

Vromen, A., Halpin, D., & Vaughan, M. (2022). What Kinds of Issues Do Citizens Successfully Raise via Online Petitions? In Crowdsourced Politics (pp. 73–94). Palgrave Macmillan.

Wright , S. (2012). Assessing (e-)Democratic Innovations: “Democratic Goods” and Downing Street E-Petitions. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 9(4),453–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2012.712820

Wright, S. (2016a). Populism and Downing Street E-petitions : Connective Action , Hybridity, and the Changing Nature of Organizing Populism and Downing Street E-petitions: Connective Action , Hybridity , and the Changing. Political Communication, 32(3), 414–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2014.958256

Wright, S. (2016b). ‘Success’ and online political participation: The case of Downing Street E-petitions. Information Communication and Society, 19(6), 843–857. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1080285

Zielińska-Dabkowska, K. M., Xavia, K., & Bobkowska, K. (2020). Assessment of citizens’ actions against light pollution with guidelines for future initiatives. Sustainability (Switzerland), 1 2 (12). ht t ps://doi.or g/10.3390/su12124997