Disentangling Digital Divide and Trust

Part 2: eParticipation ImplementationsInternational audienceIn Switzerland internet voting is currently being introduced in a piecemeal fashion. Since the first trials in 2003 an increasing number of Swiss cantons is offering the digital voting channel to its citizens either living in Switzerland or abroad. So far the question whether the introduction of internet voting in Switzerland would increase the digital divide, favoring the well educated, economically better off citizens could not be answered in a conclusive way. As yet bi- and multi-variate regression analyses of survey data showed that general trust in the internet and in internet voting in particular outweigh the effect of the typical digital divide variables. There is, however, so far no study trying to disentangle the two types of variables by applying structural equation modeling. In the present study we test whether digital divide variables have a direct effect on general support of internet voting in the Swiss population or whether they should rather be treated as exogenous variables of general trust in the Internet and of internet voting in particular. We therefore put forward a structural equation model which helps us to disentangle direct and indirect effects on internet voting affinity. In order to test our model we are using the first Swiss population survey exclusively conducted on the topic of internet voting in April 2016

Group decision support practice ‘as it happens’

Historically, studies of Group Decision Support (GDS) have focused on assessing the degree to which using a GDS makes groups more effective, typically via carefully designed experiments and case study reports. More recently, we have witnessed a growing interest in getting close to GDS practitioners to see how their work is actually done in “real time,” “there-and-then.” What motivates this interest is the recognition that in order to develop better GDS practice we must first pay attention to how it is actually used by those involved in situ. By zooming in on what GDS practitioners actually do with their craft, and the critical role of these doings on generating group outputs and outcomes, a more nuanced understanding of GDS practice can be achieved. Furthermore, this understanding can inform the development of more effective GDS practitioner training and teaching materials. In this chapter we introduce a particular way of studying GDS practice, “as it happens” on the ground, based on ethnomethodology (EM). To illustrate the approach, we provide an example of its application to study GDS practice in a facilitated, computer-supported causal mapping workshop. Overall, the analysis reveals the various ways in which actual GDS practice is accomplished over time, as it happens on the ground, and with what effects. We conclude the chapter by summarizing the distinctive contribution that an ethnomethodologically informed perspective makes to GDS theory and practice, and outlining some potentially useful avenues for future research