Relevant Aspects for an EF3-Evaluation of E-Cognocracy
<p>Blocks and stages of the e-Cognocracy methodology [<a href="#B16-mathematics-08-00277" class="html-bibr">16</a>].</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Basic TAM model [<a href="#B18-mathematics-08-00277" class="html-bibr">18</a>].</p> "> Figure 3
<p>The DeLone and McLean model [<a href="#B31-mathematics-08-00277" class="html-bibr">31</a>].</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Theoretical EF3-framework for the Evaluation of e-Cognocracy (source: the authors).</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Hierarchy of the Cadrete experience (source: the authors)</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Estimated structural model for an EF3-evaluation of e-Cognocracy. (Source: the authors).</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. The Evaluation of e-Participation
2.1. e-Participation
2.2. e-Cognocracy
2.3. The Evaluation of e-Participation
- Democratic criteria: representation, engagement, transparency, conflict and consensus, political equality, community control;
- Project criteria: engaging with a wider audience, obtaining better informed opinions, enabling more in-depth consultation, cost-effective analysis of contributions, providing feedback to citizens;
- Socio-technical criteria: social acceptability, usefulness, usability.
3. The Evaluation of e-Cognocracy
3.1. Background
The Theoretical EF3-Framework
- (a)
- Effectiveness: a political criterion associated with strategic planning or long-term behaviour, related to aspects relevant to the resolution process (doing what is right);
- (b)
- Efficacy: an administrative criterion concerning tactical planning or medium-term behaviour, related to measuring how well the goals that are set are achieved (achieving goals); and
- (c)
- Efficiency: an economic criterion linked with operational planning or short-term behaviour that measures the best possible allocation of public resources (doing things correctly).
3.2. Relevant Aspects: The Estimated Structural Model
3.2.1. Case Study
3.2.2. Phases of the Process
- Problem formulation.
- Information and training.
- Modelling the problem: following the methodology of the analytic hierarchy process [53], one of the most widespread multicriteria techniques.
- First round of voting: Those inscribed in the citizen participation census could vote on their (cultural or sports) preferences between 1:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., on the 8 April 2010.
- Discussion: From the 8th to the 16th of April, a forum was opened on the Internet. Any citizen, even if they had not logged in for the voting process, could freely express their opinions, proposals, suggestions and ideas, and respond to the comments of the other citizens.
- Second round of voting: As in the first vote, those inscribed in the citizen participation census could vote electronically on their preferences (cultural or sports) from 12:00 midday to 7:00 p.m. on the 16 April 2010.
- Presentation of the results and closing ceremony: This took place on the 23 April 2010. The results were announced and a prize draw was held.
3.2.3. Methodology
3.2.4. Results
3.3. Estimated Structural Model
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. The Cadrete Questionnaire
- (i)
- The System of Citizen Participation:
- With the current system of citizen participation, the representatives defend my interests
- The Citizen has weight in political decision making
- Associations have weight in political decision making
- The Citizen should participate in the design of public policies
- Associations should participate in the design of public policies
- The Citizen should decide the design of public policies in conjunction with the elected representatives
- Associations should decide the design of public policies in conjunction with elected representatives
- Political powers take citizens’ opinions into account for the design public policies
- Political powers take associations’ opinions into account for the design public policies
- The Administration informs society about the existing mechanisms of citizen participation
- The Administration informs society about the decisions taken
- E-Cognocracy contributes to the creation of a better society
- (ii)
- The Creation of a Better Society:
- Participation is limited to Citizen consultation by the Administration
- Participation includes Debate/Discussion with the Citizen, but the Decision is taken by the Administration
- Participation allows the joint decision between the Administration and the Citizen
- (iii)
- Motivation:
- I cannot miss the opportunity to be part of a citizen participation initiative like this one
- I think it is a very important opportunity to express my opinions
- I believe that this initiative will allow me to enrich myself as a person
- I am interested in participating in the planning of cultural/sports activities
- I do not agree with the current management of cultural and sports activities
- (iv)
- Evaluation of the Technology Support and Applications:
- The computer equipment was adequate
- The presentation structure of the program was simple and understandable
- It was easy and comfortable to move from screen to screen (navigate)
- There were too many errors/incidents in the computer application *
- The number of screens was not excessive *
- The voting system was easy to use
- The discussion system for the incorporation of arguments was adequate
- The discussion system allowed me to know and share opinions
- I consider that my anonymity was assured throughout the entire process
- In general, I liked the design of the software application
- In general, I am satisfied with the computer application used
- (v)
- Evaluation of the Information:
- It was easy to understand
- It was suitable
- It was received on time
- There were virtually no errors
- In general, I am satisfied with the information that I have received
- (vi)
- Evaluation of the Support Staff
- They helped my involvement in the citizen participation process
- They gave me additional information
- Without the support staff, I would not have been able to participate
- Overall, I am satisfied with the help of the support staff
- (vii)
- Overall Evaluation:
- I really enjoyed participating in this initiative
- I have learned a lot from the experience
- I feel that my participation has improved my ingenuity and creativity
- The experience allowed me to feel involved in political decision making
- My perception of social belonging in my municipality has increased (identity)
- The discussions in the forum influenced my decisions
- Participating in this experience was not a waste of time
- I would participate again in a similar experience
- Other municipalities should incorporate this type of citizen participation
- E-Cognocracy improves the current democratic system
- I feel satisfied with my participation in this initiative
References
- García-Lizana, A.; Moreno-Jiménez, J.M. Economía y Democracia en la Sociedad del Conocimiento. Estudios de Economía Aplicada 2008, 26, 181–212. [Google Scholar]
- Moreno-Jiménez, J.M.; Pérez Espés, C.; Wimmer, M.A. The Effectiveness of e-Governance Experiences in the Knowledge Society. In Proceedings 13th European Conference on eGovernment (ECEG); Castelnovo, W., Ferrari, E., Eds.; Academic Conferences and Publishing International Ltd.: Como, Italy, 2013; pp. 354–363. [Google Scholar]
- Macintosh, A.; Whyte, A. Towards an Evaluation Framework for eParticipation. Transform. Gov. People Process Policy 2008, 2, 16–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aichholzer, G.; Westholm, H. Evaluating eParticipation Projects: Practical Examples and Outline of an Evaluation Framework. Eur. J. ePract. 2009, 7, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Phang, C.W.; Kankanhalli, A. A framework of ICT exploitation for e-participation initiatives. Commun. ACM 2008, 51, 128–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geissel, B. Participatory Governance: Hope or Danger for Democracy? A Case Study of Local Agenda 21. Local Gov. Stud. 2009, 35, 401–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panopoulou, E.; Tambouris, E.; Konstantinos, T. eParticipation Initiatives in Europe: Learning from Practitioners. In IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference on Electronic Participation (EPART); Tambouris, E., Macintosh, A., Glassey, O., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Computer Science series; Springer: Lausanne, Italy, 2010; Volume 6229, pp. 54–65. [Google Scholar]
- Michels, A.; De Graaf, L. Examining Citizen Participation: Local Participatory Policymaking and Democracy Revisited. Local Gov. Stud. 2017, 43, 875–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moreno-Jiménez, J.M. Las Nuevas Tecnologías y la Representación Democrática del Inmigrante. In IV Jornadas Jurídicas de Albarracín; TSJA, Memoria Judicial Anual de Aragón; Arenere, J., Ed.; Consejo General del Poder Judicial: Madrid, Spain, 2003; Volume 66, p. 22. [Google Scholar]
- Moreno-Jiménez, J.M. E-cognocracia. Nueva Sociedad, Nueva Democracia. Estudios de Economía Aplicada 2006, 24, 559–581. [Google Scholar]
- Moreno-Jiménez, J.M.; Polasek, W. E-Democracy and Knowledge. A Multicriteria Framework for the New Democratic Era. J. Multicriteria Decis. Anal. 2003, 12, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moreno-Jiménez, J.M.; Piles, J.P.; Ruiz, J.; Escobar, M.T.; Salazar, J.L.; Turón, A. Securization of policy making social computing. An application to e-cognocracy. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 1382–1388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreno-Jiménez, J.M.; Aguarón, J.; Cardeñosa, J.; Escobar, M.T.; Salazar, J.L.; Toncovich, A.; Turón, A. A collaborative platform for cognitive decision making in the Knowledge Society. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 1921–1928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreno-Jiménez, J.M.; Cardeñosa, J.; Gallardo, C.; de la Villa-Moreno, M.A. A new e-learning tool for cognitive democracies in the Knowledge Society. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 30, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreno-Jiménez, J.M.; Pérez Espés, C.; Velázquez, M. E-Cognocracy and the Design of Public Policies. Gov. Inf. Q. 2014, 31, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pérez-Espés, C.; Moreno-Jiménez, J.M. Social-Economic Approach to an eParticipation experience based on eCognocracy. In Electronic Participation: 7th IFIP WG 8.5 Intern. Conference, Thessaloniki, Greece, 30 August–2 September 2015; Tambouris, E., Panagiotopoulos, P., Sæbø, Ø., Tarabanis, K., Wimmer, M.A., Milano, M., Pardo, T., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Computer Science series; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; Volume 9249, pp. 120–131. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Delone, W.H.; MacLean, E.R. Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable. Inf. Syst. Res. 1992, 3, 60–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sartori, A. An Estimator for Some Binary-Outcome Selection Models without Exclusion Restrictions. Polit. Anal. 2003, 11, 111–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Layne, K.; Lee, J. Developing Fully Functional E-Government: A Four Stage Model. Gov. Inf. Q. 2001, 18, 122–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreno-Jiménez, J.M.; Pérez Espés, C.; Velázquez, M. E-Participation and E-Cognocracy. Next Stages in e-Participation Evolution. 2015; Private document. [Google Scholar]
- Moreno-Jiménez, J.M. E-cognocracia y Representación Democrática del Inmigrante. In Proceedings of the XVIII Anales de Economía Aplicada; University of León: León, Spain, 2004; ISBN 84-609-4715-7. [Google Scholar]
- Moreno-Jiménez, J.M.; Polasek, W. E-Cognocracy: Combining E-democracy and Knowledge Networks. Res. Comput. Sci. 2004, 8, 165–175. [Google Scholar]
- Moreno-Jiménez, J.M.; Polasek, W. E-Cognocracy and the Participation of Immigrants in E-Governance. In Electronic Democracy: The Challenge Ahead, TED Conference on e-Government; Schriftenreihe Informatik; Böhlen, Ed.; University Rudolf Trauner-Verlag: Linz, Austria, 2005; Volume 13, pp. 18–26. [Google Scholar]
- Moreno-Jiménez, J.M. Participación Ciudadana Electrónica en el Diseño de Políticas Públicas Locales; Informe Proyecto OTRI2009-0410 del Gobierno de Aragón: Zaragoza, Spain, 2009. Available online: http://aragonparticipa.aragon.es/dmdocuments/Resumen%20e-cognocracia.pdf (accessed on 18 September 2018).
- Dahl, R.A. Democracy and its Critics; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Dahl, R.A. On Democracy; Yale Nota Bene: New Haven, CT, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Habermas, J. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy; MIT Press: Cambridge, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. Development and Test of a Theory of Technological Learning and Usage. Hum. Relat. 1992, 45, 660–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delone, W.H.; McLean, E.R. The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2003, 19, 9–30. [Google Scholar]
- Rowe, G.; Frewer, L.J. Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2004, 29, 512–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henderson, M.; Henderson, P. E-Democracy Evaluation Framework. 2005; Unpublished manuscript. [Google Scholar]
- DEMO-net D51. Report on Current ICT’s to Enable Participation. DEMO-netDeliverable 5.1. 31 August 2006. Available online: http://www.ifib.de/publikationsdateien/Introducing eParticipation_DEMO-net_booklet_1.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2015).
- Mamaqui, X.; Moreno-Jiménez, J. The Effectiveness of E-cognocracy. Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. (LNAI) 2009, 5736, 417–426. [Google Scholar]
- Luna-Reyes, L.F.; Gil-Garcia, J.R.; Romero, G. Towards a Multidimensional Model for Evaluating Electronic Government: Proposing a More Comprehensive and Integrative Perspective. Gov. Inf. Q. 2012, 29, 324–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wimmer, M.A.; Bicking, M. Method and Lessons from Evaluating the Impact of E-Participation Projects in MOMENTUM. In E-Government Success Factors and Measures: Theories, Concepts, and Methodologies; Gil-Garcia, J.R., Ed.; IGI-Global Book: Hershey, PA, USA, 2013; pp. 213–233. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Adawi, Z.; Yousafzai, S.; Pallister, J. Conceptual Model of Citizen Adoption of E-government. In Proceedings of the The Second International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology (IIT’05), Dubai, UAE, 26–28 September 2005; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Swanson, E.B. Management Information System: Appreciation and Involvement. Manag. Sci. 1974, 21, 178–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schultz, R.L.; Slevin, D.P. Implantation an Organizational Validity: An Empirical Investigation. In Implementing Operations Research/Management Science; Schultz, R.L., Slevin, D.P., Eds.; American Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 1975; pp. 153–182. [Google Scholar]
- Zmud, R.W. An Empirical Investigation of Dimensionality of the Concept of Information. Decis. Sci. 1978, 9, 187–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I.; Fisbein, M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Bagozzi, R.P. Attitudes, Intentions and Behavior: A Test of Some Key Hypotheses. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1981, 41, 607–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warshaw, P.R.; Davis, F.D. Self-understanding and the accuracy of behavioral expectations. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1984, 10, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warshaw, P.R. A New Model for Predicting Behaviroal Intentions: An Alternative to Fishbein. J. Mark. Res. 1980, 17, 153–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. Am. Psychol. 1982, 37, 122–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shannon, C.E.; Weaver, W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication; University of Illinois Press: Champaign, IL, USA, 1949. [Google Scholar]
- Bollen, K.A. Structural Equations with Latent Variables; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Bollen, K.A.; Lennox, R. Conventional Wisdom on Measurement: A Structural Equation Perspective. Psichol. Bull. 1991, 110, 305–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jöreskog, K.G.; Sörbom, D. LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide; SSI Scientific Software International: Chicago, IL, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Bentler, P.M. EQS Structural Equations Program Manual; Multivariate Software, Inc.: Encino, CA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Saaty, T.L. Fundamentals of Decision Making; RSW Publicat: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Bagozzi, R.P. A Prospectus for Theory Construction in Marketing. J. Mark. 1984, 48, 11–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McDonald, R.P. Factor Analysis and Related Methods; American Educational Research Association: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, XVIII, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Participants | Census | Weight |
---|---|---|
Associations | 15 | 16 |
Citizens | 1949 * | 44 |
Politicians | 11 | 40 |
Total | 1975 | 100 |
Intensity | Definition | Explanation |
---|---|---|
1 | Equal importance | Two activities contribute equally to objective |
3 | Moderate importance | Experience and trial slightly favour one activity over the other |
5 | Strong importance | Experience and trial strongly favour one activity over the other |
7 | Very strong importance | An activity is much more favoured than the other and its dominance is demonstrated in practice |
9 | Extreme importance | Evidence in favour of an alternative over another has the highest possible order for his claim |
Participants | Census | Electronic Voting in the 1st Voting | Percentage | Electronic Voting in the 2nd Voting | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Associations | 15 | 3 | 20% | 2 | 13.3% |
Citizen | 1949 * | 37 | 1.9% | 35 | 1.8% |
Politicians | 11 | 3 | 27.3% | 4 | 36.7% |
Total weighted | 1975 | 43 | 2.17% (14.96%) | 41 | 2.08% (17.60%) |
Criteria | Associations | Citizens | Politicians | Total Vote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1st vote | Cultural | 39.33% | 57.64% | 53.35% | 52.99% |
Sports | 60.67% | 42.36% | 46.65% | 47.01% | |
2nd vote | Cultural | 54.88% | 62.56% | 50.47% | 56.58% |
Sports | 45.12% | 37.44% | 49.53% | 43.42% |
Total Messages | Total Comments | Total | |
---|---|---|---|
Sport | 24 | 81 | 105 |
Culture | 37 | 114 | 151 |
Total | 61 | 195 | 156 |
Elections | Participation Rate |
---|---|
General Elections 2004 | 80.2% |
Municipal Elections 2007 | 69.9% |
General Elections 2008 | 76.6% |
Electronic consultation 2010 | 2.08% (17.60% weighted) |
EFFICACY | * | ||
---|---|---|---|
INFORMATION | X1 | The Administration informs society about the existing mechanisms of citizen participation | 5.00 |
X2 | The Administration informs society about the decision taken | 4.70 | |
COMMUNICATION | X3 | Political powers take citizens’ opinions into account for the design public policies | 5.00 |
X4 | Political powers take associations’ opinions into account for the design public policies | 4.95 | |
DECISION | X5 | The citizens have weight in political decision making | 5.15 |
X6 | Associations have weight in political decisions making | 5.05 | |
EXPECTATIONS | X7 | Citizens should participate in the design of public policies | 7.50 |
X8 | Citizens should decide the design of public policies in conjunction with the elected representatives | 7.15 | |
EFFICIENCY | |||
INFORMATION QUALITY | X9 | In general, I am satisfied with the information that I have received | 6.90 |
SYSTEM QUALITY | X10 | In general, I liked the design of the software application | 5.95 |
EFFECTIVENESS | |||
CURRENT SYSTEM | Y1 | With the current system of citizen participation, the representatives defend my interests | 5.50 |
FUTURE SYSTEM | Y2 | E-Cognocracy improves the current democratic system | 7.90 |
E-COGNOCRACY | Y3 | E-Cognocracy contributes to create a better society | 7.70 |
INFO. | COM. | DEC. | EXP. | Efficiency | R2 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
INFORMATION | X1 | 0.99 *** | 0.98 | ||||
X2 | 0.87 *** | 0.76 | |||||
COMMUNICATION | X3 | 0.95 *** | 0.90 | ||||
X4 | 0.98 *** | 0.96 | |||||
DECISION | X5 | 0.90 *** | 0.81 | ||||
X6 | 0.78 *** | 0.61 | |||||
EXPECTATION | X7 | 0.70 *** | 0.49 | ||||
X8 | 0.97 *** | 0.94 | |||||
EFFICIENCY | X9 | 0.83 *** | 0.69 | ||||
X10 | 0.86 *** | 0.74 | |||||
INFORMATION | INF. | 1 | |||||
COMMUNICATION | COM. | 0.40 * | 1 | ||||
DECISION | DEC. | 0.26* | 0.57 ** | 1 | |||
EXPECTATIONS | EXP. | −0.10 | −0.04 | −0.26 | 1 | ||
EFFICIENCY | Efficiency | 0.29 * | −0.37 * | −0.28 * | 0.27 | 1 | |
C-FL | 0.87 | 0.93 | 0.71 | 0.72 | 0.71 | ||
Omega | 0.93 | 0.97 | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.85 |
INFO. | COM. | DEC. | EXP. | Efficiency | CUR.S. | FUT.S. | R2 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CURRENT SYSTEM | 0.31 * | 0.38 ** | 0.11 | 0.04 | 0.50 ** | 0.58 | ||
FUTURE SYSTEM | 0.14 | 0.05 | −0.45 * | 0.38 * | 0.03 | 0.40 | ||
E-COGNOCRACY | 0.37 ** | 0.51 *** | 0.41 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Moreno-Jiménez, J.M.; Pérez-Espés, C.; Rivera-Torres, P. Relevant Aspects for an EF3-Evaluation of E-Cognocracy. Mathematics 2020, 8, 277. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8020277
Moreno-Jiménez JM, Pérez-Espés C, Rivera-Torres P. Relevant Aspects for an EF3-Evaluation of E-Cognocracy. Mathematics. 2020; 8(2):277. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8020277
Chicago/Turabian StyleMoreno-Jiménez, José María, Cristina Pérez-Espés, and Pilar Rivera-Torres. 2020. "Relevant Aspects for an EF3-Evaluation of E-Cognocracy" Mathematics 8, no. 2: 277. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8020277