Berkshire Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction · human computer interaction (HCI)?...

10
562 ❘❙❚ BERKSHIRE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION IEEE professional communication society international professional communication conference (pp 125–135). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Educational Activities Department. Barrett, L. F., & Barrett, D. J. (2001). An introduction to computerized experience sampling in psychology. Social Science Computer Review, 19(2), 175–185. Buyukkokten, O., Kaljuvee, O., Garcia-Molina, H., Paepcke, A., & Wino- grad, T. (2002). Efficient web browsing on handheld devices using page and form summarization. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 20(1), 82–115. Elting, C., Zwickel, J., & Malaka, R. (2002). Device-dependant modal- ity selection for user-interfaces: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on intelligent user interfaces (pp. 55–62) New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Gupta, S., Kaiser, G., Neistadt, D., & Grimm, P. (2003). DOM-based content extraction of HTML documents. In Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 207–214). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Lee, W. B., & Grice, R. A. (2003). An adaptive viewing application for the web on personal digital assistants. In Proceedings of the 21st annual international conference on documentation (pp. 125–132). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Long, A. C., Landay, J., Rowe, L. A., & Michiels, J. (2000). Visual similarity of pen gestures. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 360–367). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Mackay, W. E., Pothier, G., Letondal, C., Bøegh, K., & Sørensen, H. E. (2002). The missing link: Augmenting biology laboratory notebooks. In Proceedings of the 15th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology (pp. 41–50). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Melnick, D., Dinman, M., and Muratov, A. (2003). PDA Security: In- corporating Handhelds into the Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. Myers, B., Lie, K. P., & Yang, B.-C. (2000). Two-handed input using a PDA and a mouse. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 41–48). New York: As- sociation for Computing Machinery. Swindells, C., Inkpen, K. M., Dill, J. C., & Tory, M. (2002). That one there! Pointing to establish device identity. In Proceedings of the 15th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and tech- nology (pp. 151–160). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Wobbrock, J. (2003). The benefits of physical edges in gesture-mak- ing: Empirical support for an edge-based unistroke alphabet. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors and com- puting systems (pp. 942–943). New York: Association for Com- puting Machinery. POLITICAL SCIENCE AND HCI What are the linkages between political science and human computer interaction (HCI)? Consideration of this question begins with an explication of po- litical science as a field of inquiry. Political scientists study politics, in its many forms. Politics is defined in various ways, but most definitions share the central idea that politics is the process through which power and influence are used to promote certain val- ues and interests, especially in those domains of life that are viewed as subject to legitimate public control. Political science is a set of concepts, tech- niques, and theories whose objective is to increase the clarity and accuracy of our understanding of pol- itics. It seeks to describe (what is), explain (why it is), and prescribe (what should be) regarding political phenomena. Political science is a borrower discipline, adapting concepts and findings from many fields to enrich its understandings, and it is a discipline in which there is some internal debate about appro- priate methods and assumptions. The dominant per- spectives emphasize the use of scientific methods to produce shared knowledge about politics. Since the early 1970s, political science has become increasingly interested in the implications of infor- mation technologies (ITs) and communications tech- nologies for politics. There has been particular attention on analyzing the impacts of ITs on political processes and institutions,as well as the effects of ITs on individual and group political behavior. In con- trast political science has engaged in little explicit con- sideration of human computer interaction. One way to organize a discussion of such interactions is the straightforward taxonomy presented in Table 1. It specifies the intersections between key actors whose political interactions are mediated or affected by IT. These actors are government, citizens, and business (private sector) entities. This article focuses on four of the broad interests within political science that in- tersect with HCI concerns: political participation in democratic systems, life in the political community, public management, and international relations. Political Participation in Democracies Political participation is the activity of individuals or groups who wish to influence the actions or selec- tion of those who have political power. The activi- ties of citizens can range from contacting government Political Science and HCI from the Berkshire Encyclopedia of Human–Computer Interaction available at www.berkshirepublishing.com

Transcript of Berkshire Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction · human computer interaction (HCI)?...

Page 1: Berkshire Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction · human computer interaction (HCI)? Consideration of this question begins with an explication of po-litical science as a field

562 ❘❙❚ BERKSHIRE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION

IEEE professional communication society international professional communication conference (pp 125–135). Piscataway, NJ: IEEEEducational Activities Department.

Barrett, L. F., & Barrett, D. J. (2001). An introduction to computerizedexperience sampling in psychology. Social Science Computer Review,19(2), 175–185.

Buyukkokten, O., Kaljuvee, O., Garcia-Molina, H., Paepcke, A., & Wino-grad, T. (2002). Efficient web browsing on handheld devices usingpage and form summarization. ACM Transactions on InformationSystems, 20(1), 82–115.

Elting, C., Zwickel, J., & Malaka, R. (2002). Device-dependant modal-ity selection for user-interfaces: An empirical study. In Proceedingsof the 7th international conference on intelligent user interfaces (pp.55–62) New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

Gupta, S., Kaiser, G., Neistadt, D., & Grimm, P. (2003). DOM-basedcontent extraction of HTML documents. In Proceedings of thetwelfth international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 207–214).New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

Lee, W. B., & Grice, R. A. (2003). An adaptive viewing applicationfor the web on personal digital assistants. In Proceedings of the 21stannual international conference on documentation (pp. 125–132).New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

Long, A. C., Landay, J., Rowe, L. A., & Michiels, J. (2000). Visualsimilarity of pen gestures. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conferenceon human factors in computing systems (pp. 360–367). New York:Association for Computing Machinery.

Mackay, W. E., Pothier, G., Letondal, C., Bøegh, K., & Sørensen,H. E. (2002). The missing link: Augmenting biology laboratorynotebooks. In Proceedings of the 15th annual ACM symposium onuser interface software and technology (pp. 41–50). New York:Association for Computing Machinery.

Melnick, D., Dinman, M., and Muratov, A. (2003). PDA Security: In-corporating Handhelds into the Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Myers, B., Lie, K. P., & Yang, B.-C. (2000). Two-handed input usinga PDA and a mouse. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference onhuman factors in computing systems (pp. 41–48). New York: As-sociation for Computing Machinery.

Swindells, C., Inkpen, K. M., Dill, J. C., & Tory, M. (2002). That onethere! Pointing to establish device identity. In Proceedings of the15th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and tech-nology (pp. 151–160). New York: Association for ComputingMachinery.

Wobbrock, J. (2003). The benefits of physical edges in gesture-mak-ing: Empirical support for an edge-based unistroke alphabet. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors and com-puting systems (pp. 942–943). New York: Association for Com-puting Machinery.

POLITICAL SCIENCE AND HCI

What are the linkages between political science andhuman computer interaction (HCI)? Considerationof this question begins with an explication of po-

litical science as a field of inquiry. Political scientistsstudy politics, in its many forms. Politics is definedin various ways, but most definitions share thecentral idea that politics is the process through whichpower and influence are used to promote certain val-ues and interests, especially in those domains oflife that are viewed as subject to legitimate publiccontrol. Political science is a set of concepts, tech-niques, and theories whose objective is to increasethe clarity and accuracy of our understanding of pol-itics. It seeks to describe (what is), explain (why it is),and prescribe (what should be) regarding politicalphenomena. Political science is a borrower discipline,adapting concepts and findings from many fieldsto enrich its understandings, and it is a disciplinein which there is some internal debate about appro-priate methods and assumptions. The dominant per-spectives emphasize the use of scientific methods toproduce shared knowledge about politics.

Since the early 1970s,political science has becomeincreasingly interested in the implications of infor-mation technologies (ITs) and communications tech-nologies for politics. There has been particularattention on analyzing the impacts of ITs on politicalprocesses and institutions, as well as the effects of ITson individual and group political behavior. In con-trast political science has engaged in little explicit con-sideration of human computer interaction.One wayto organize a discussion of such interactions is thestraightforward taxonomy presented in Table 1. Itspecifies the intersections between key actors whosepolitical interactions are mediated or affected by IT.These actors are government, citizens, and business(private sector) entities. This article focuses on fourof the broad interests within political science that in-tersect with HCI concerns: political participation indemocratic systems, life in the political community,public management, and international relations.

Political Participation in DemocraciesPolitical participation is the activity of individuals orgroups who wish to influence the actions or selec-tion of those who have political power. The activi-ties of citizens can range from contacting government

Political Science and HCIfrom the Berkshire Encyclopedia of Human–Computer Interaction

available at www.berkshirepublishing.com

Page 2: Berkshire Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction · human computer interaction (HCI)? Consideration of this question begins with an explication of po-litical science as a field

POLITICAL SCIENCE AND HCI ❚❙❘ 563

agencies and officials to voting, holding public of-fice, and/or engaging in protest. Such participationoccurs in all political systems and is a central featurein virtually all conceptions of democratic politicalprocesses. This section considers the findings of po-litical scientists regarding political participation (C2Gin Table 1) in relation to IT. In particular it consid-ers IT as a possible mechanism for citizen mobiliza-tion, the impacts of IT on party politics, and the useof IT as a means for contacting government officialsand agencies.

IT and Citizen MobilizationEmpirical research indicates that rates of politicalparticipation in the United States and other demo-cratic countries are generally declining. The research

also reveals that levels and types of participation areassociated with the individual’s political beliefs, age,gender, socioeconomic status (SES), and unique en-vironmental conditions. How does IT affect thesepatterns? There are two main perspectives in polit-ical science regarding the relationship between com-puting (especially networked IT) and politicalparticipation: the mobilization perspective and thereinforcement perspective.

The mobilization perspective holds that the In-ternet encourages participation by facilitating accessto political information and providing new meansto contact representatives, contribute to politicalcampaigns, organize protest or campaign activi-ties, sign electronic petitions, vote in elections, andso on. The Internet, in this view, enables people to

G2G

Public Management

• intergovernmental relations

• public policy making

International relations

• cyberwarfare

G2C

Public Management

• service provision

• information provision

G2B

Public Management

• government contracts

• regulation

International Relations

• globalization

C2G

Political Participation

• contacting

• voting

• social movements, NGOs

Public Management

• requests for government services

C2C

Political Psychology

• political cognition

• deliberation

• identity/group formation

Political participation

• political associations/groups

B2G

Public Management

• privatized public services

• information reporting

Government

Citizens

Business

ACTO

R

Government Citizens BusinessTARGET

G2G

Public Management

• intergovernmental relations

• publicpolicy making

International relations

• cyberwarfare

C2G

Political Participation

• contacting

• voting

• socialmovements, NGOs

Public Management

• requests rr for government services

B2G

Public Management

• privatized ii public services

• information reporting

Government

G2B

Public Management

• government contracts

• regulation

International Relations

• globalization

Business

T A B L E 1 . Conceptualization of Politics: IT Linkages, with Selected Examples

Page 3: Berkshire Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction · human computer interaction (HCI)? Consideration of this question begins with an explication of po-litical science as a field

564 ❘❙❚ BERKSHIRE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION

assemble their online worlds of political engagementon their own time and from their own homes andoffices, transcending the spatiotemporal barriers thatoften discourage people from actively engaging inpolitics. To the extent IT use is not correlated withhigher SES, increasing age, and male gender, it alsoreduces the differential impacts of these traits onhigher participation.

The reinforcement perspective agrees that ITcan facilitate political participation. However,from this perspective, IT primarily serves as an en-abler for those who are already politically mobilized.Such people tend to be those who are advantaged insocioeconomic terms, and they also tend to be thoseon the advantaged side of the current “digital divide.”Thus, it is concluded that IT has actually increasedthe gap between those who are politically active andthose who are not, thereby reinforcing existing in-equalities in participation.

There is some empirical evidence in support ofeach perspective. On the one hand, some evi-dence points to the emergence of new online con-figurations of political mobilization. The insurgencypresidential campaigns of Democrat Howard Deanin 2003–2004 and Republican John McCain in 2000were dramatically boosted by their websites, whichcollected tens of millions of dollars, especially fromthose less politically active in offline political set-tings. To some extent these new participants dis-played more comfort in an online political world.The human computer interaction of such websiteshas a significant effect. For example, Dean’s earlysuccess in fund-raising and mobilizing support werelinked to a website with an attractive, easy-to-usegraphical interface, enabling even inexperiencedusers to learn about the candidate’s positions, con-tribute money, read or contribute to weblogs, andorganize and join local support groups. On the otherhand, Richard Davis (1998) and Bruce Bimber(2003), among others, present evidence that sup-ports the reinforcement perspective, revealing thatthose in positions of power or with higher SESuse IT far more extensively and effectively for po-litical purposes. Moreover, neither Dean norMcCain was ultimately successful, as other candi-dates with greater political resources adopted theirIT strategies.

These competing perspectives point to a com-plex relationship between political participation andHCI. Elements of HCI can both enable and constrainparticular users regarding their interactions withgovernment and other political actors. However, whatusers do when computer-mediated political activityis available is not only a product of the technologi-cal and software environment. It is also contingenton political and social factors—on both psycho-logical and structural levels—supplying IT users withreasons and differential opportunities to participate.

Political Parties and IT Political parties are a key linkage mechanism betweencitizens and the political system. Parties serve as acommunication conduit between leaders and fol-lowers, organize political information in under-standable bundles, and encourage participation.Helen Margetts (2000) uses the term cyberparty torefer to political parties that actively utilize the In-ternet to mobilize citizens. The Internet can reachcitizens at relatively low cost and thus reduce the in-equalities in the capacity of different parties to linkwith interested individuals and groups. A large main-stream party such as the Republican Party in theUnited States or a fringe party such as the NaturalLaw Party can each maintain a constant online pres-ence for a fraction of the cost of a national adver-tising campaign on broadcast media.

Also, political parties can choose to cast theirmessage in more pointed terms over the Internet,which, in contrast to broadcast media, is seen mainlyby a relatively selective segment of loyal support-ers. Historically, much of the information flow hasbeen from the party to the individual rather thanfostering a rich dialogue between parties and theirsupporters or among supporters in ways thatcould facilitate greater within-party democracy. Cer-tain HCI designs could alter this pattern. However,to this point few parties, not even cyberparties, haveconstructed their IT interfaces in a manner that mightreduce centralized party control over either the con-tent or functioning of the party.

Contacting GovernmentContacting politicians or government agencies is an-other important source of participatory input into

Page 4: Berkshire Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction · human computer interaction (HCI)? Consideration of this question begins with an explication of po-litical science as a field

POLITICAL SCIENCE AND HCI ❚❙❘ 565

the political system. Effective e-mail communica-tions between citizens and government are an im-portant means of citizen input into the politicalprocess. And the political responsiveness of gov-ernment (G2C) is linked to its handling of citizencontacts. Recent research suggests that U.S. Congressmembers are struggling under a growing deluge ofe-mail from constituents and other political activistsand that their staffs currently cannot manage this vol-ume of citizen input. In contrast a related survey con-cludes that most local elected officials in the UnitedStates not only believe they are handling the e-mailthey receive but also report favorably that this e-mailhelps them stay in closer touch with constituents.Animportant need of elected officials and governmentpersonnel is the design of automated systems thatscreen incoming e-mail (e.g., many elected officialswill respond only to constituents) and that formu-late an appropriate response based on content analy-sis of the message (e.g., noncontroversial replies tomessages raising a policy issue or referrals to specificpublic agencies on requests for service).

Life in the Political CommunityOther computer-mediated citizen-to-citizen activ-ities (C2C) have significant political consequencesbeyond the more familiar forms of political partic-ipation. In the early nineteenth century, Alexis deTocqueville observed a close connection betweenAmerican associational life (i.e., participation inclubs, social groups, etc.) and the health of itsdemocratic politics. Robert Putnam (2000) links arecent decline in associational life with declines inmost forms of political participation. These declineshave provoked substantial discussion about whetherthe Internet and virtual communities can invigor-ate or even supplant face-to-face forms of associa-tional life.

More broadly, there is growing enthusiasm re-garding online deliberation as a mechanism for shap-ing and discussing public policy issues. Numerousonline groups have formed to discuss political eventsin many regions, including some sponsored by gov-ernment, such as the Public Electronic Network(PEN) in Santa Monica and Network Pericles inGreece. Such online forums can expand policy dis-

cussions beyond the limited numbers who can as-semble in one place at one time, and they canbring to bear considerably more extensive informa-tion and data to illuminate the topic. However, thereare major design challenges around how to en-courage open discussion and yet also moderate con-tent and destructive personal attacks.

These concerns relate to at least three C2C top-ics at the intersection between the psychological com-ponents of political behavior and human computerinteraction: how individuals acquire and process in-formation about their political world from networkedcomputer sources, develop and maintain online iden-tities, and selectively attend to online content.

A magazine ad, run by the Burroughs Corporation inOctober 1964, trumpets the advantages of the B 200computer, noting that the system will be in action dur-ing the television coverage of the 1964 presidentialelection. Photo courtesy of Marcy Ross

Page 5: Berkshire Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction · human computer interaction (HCI)? Consideration of this question begins with an explication of po-litical science as a field

566 ❘❙❚ BERKSHIRE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION

Collective Intelligence The ease with which individuals can discover, cre-ate, share, and merge ideas, information, and doc-uments online creates a fertile environment in whichthinking becomes a more distributed process of cog-nitive interaction involving a diversity of sources andviewpoints (what Pierre Lévy [1997] refers to as “col-lective intelligence”) and less the product of a soli-tary individual. Some suggest that online politicaldiscussion, including such forms as weblogs andwikis, might result in a more productive and demo-cratic process of opinion formation on public affairs.However, critics cite the reduced responsibility foradvocacy when there is anonymity, the disconnectbetween reasoned deliberation and the high speedwith which online exchanges typically occur, and thepossibility that undesirable “groupthink” processesmight actually be exacerbated by such virtual in-terfaces. The content on these open, relatively an-

archic systems is the product of multiple, iterative,asynchronous, and distributed contributions. Thus,they raise many intriguing HCI issues concerninghow to facilitate searching, integrate diverse con-tributions, and control content on the site.

IT and Identity Politics The Internet mediates the cognitive interface betweena user and his/her political world in ways thatmight have significant consequences in shaping theindividual’s identity, political beliefs, and associationswith others. Unlike face-to-face encounters duringwhich identities are marked by a person’s physicalpresentation of self, online identities take their shapefrom the markers individuals choose to disclose aboutthemselves and transmit to others. Sherry Turkle(1995) describes how, during personal website con-struction, the user carefully crafts and projects to theworld a particular image of who he/she is. This en-

❘❙❚ Washington Tales of the InternetFormer Vice President Al Gore may always have to live down the claim attributed to him that he invented the Internet. What

he actually said in a CNN interview in 1999 was the following:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative

in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic

growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system. (Urban Legends Reference Page

2000)

The media jumped on Gore’s choice of words, and in response Vint Cerf (called by some “The Father of the Internet”

for his work on Arpanet and the Internet) explained the vice president’s role as follows:

VP Gore was the first or surely among the first of the members of Congress to become a strong supporter of ad-

vanced networking while he served as Senator. As far back as 1986, he was holding hearings on this subject (super-

computing, fiber networks . . .) and asking about their promise and what could be done to realize them. Bob Kahn,

with whom I worked to develop the Internet design in 1973, participated in several hearings held by then-Senator

Gore and I recall that Bob introduced the term “information infrastructure”’ in one hearing in 1986. It was clear that

as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology

and issues that surround it. (Urban Legends Reference Page 2000)

President Bill Clinton seems to have been at the opposite end of the spectrum, as a report from The Independent, a

British newspaper, pointed out in 2004:“Officials at the Bill Clinton Presidential Library have revealed that, while the archives

will eventually contain almost 40 million e-mails sent by his staff, there are only two sent by the former president during

his eight-year tenure at the White House.” (Buncombe, 2004). One was a test message, the other a message of congratula-

tions to Senator John Glenn (a former astronaut) while he was on a space shuttle mission in 1998.

Marcy Ross

Sources: Buncombe, A. (2004, January 28). Clinton’s legacy to the Internet age: One e-mail. The Independent. Retrieved January 28, 2004, fromhttp://news.independent.co.uk

Urban Legends Reference Page—Questionable Quotes (Internet of Lies). (2000). Retrieved March 19, 2004, from http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm

Page 6: Berkshire Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction · human computer interaction (HCI)? Consideration of this question begins with an explication of po-litical science as a field

POLITICAL SCIENCE AND HCI ❚❙❘ 567

ables individuals to gain recognition from onlinegroups with which they affiliate and even to exploresocially marginalized identities. The political and so-cial consequences of such interactions are fertile ar-eas for further research.While some optimists see thissituation as creating a new sense of freedom for users,others raise concerns that this potential underminesthe ability to create meaningful identities that can bea basis for the formation of virtual communities withdeep and authentic attachments.Will new graphicalinterfaces, streaming video, and so on be designed inways that more directly represent the individual’sphysical and personal qualities on line, and thus moreclosely resemble face-to-face interaction?

Bridging and Bonding Finally, the Internet delocalizes users from their phys-ical surroundings and brings them in contact witha wider online world of virtual interactions. Tradi-tionally, newspapers and other broadcast media haveserved a community-creation function by providinggroups of people with both a common source ofinformation and a perspective for framing the issuesof the day. Today, the Internet can operate in a sim-ilar but significantly more decentralized fashion. Farmore than other broadcast media, the Internet allowsa user to carve out a community of one’s choosing.This is significant for political scientists who makea distinction between interpersonal connections thatfoster bonding between like-minded individuals andthose that foster bridging between persons and groupswith divergent identities and interests.

It has generally been assumed that effectivedemocracy, indeed any form of functional politics,needs both bonding and bridging mechanisms,but it is particularly reliant on those that bridge dif-ferences. Cass Sunstein’s (2001) survey of websitesyields an image of the Web that he describes as the“daily me,” where people can surf their interestsselectively, without the risk of encountering chal-lenges to their beliefs. A subsequent study that moreexplicitly investigates the bridging and bonding prac-tices of Internet users found that while most onlineusers did both, there was a tendency to favorbonding with like-minded groups. The risks to bridg-ing might increase as IT systems and search enginesincreasingly provide end users with greater capac-

ity to select only sources and information that re-inforce their preferences (that is, biases). The emerg-ing artificial-intelligence–based systems that learnan individual’s preferences and then automaticallyprovide only supportive materials seem even moreproblematic if exposure to diversity is valuable fordemocratic politics.

Public Administration and ManagementPublic administration is a subfield of political sci-ence that has generally considered how the publicsector and its employees function to do the businessof government—to make and implement policydecisions. This encompasses aspects of G2C, C2G,G2G, G2B, and B2G, as well as internal governmentoperations.

A list of the stages of public policy analysiscaptures many of the crucial activities that are asso-ciated with the field of public administration. Thesestages are as follows: agenda setting, problem for-mulation, information gathering, generation and as-sessment of policy alternatives, policy selection, policyimplementation, and evaluation. At every stage ofthe policy process, well-designed IT systems can pro-vide a rich information base and powerful toolsfor analysis. Policymakers are increasingly reliant oncomputer-based search engines, databases, and de-cision supports that enable policy actors to measureconditions; analyze trends; undertake projections;perform modeling, simulation, and cost-benefitanalyses; monitor changes; and so on. A key area ofHCI challenges is the development of improvedvisualization techniques for data displays and datasearches. The development of more powerful andmultifunctional geographic information systems(GISs), viewed by some as the “killer application”in support of most stages of the public policy process,is another domain with major possibilities for HCIresearch. There are also many applications of com-puter-supported cooperative work (CSCW) andother groupware on which improved software andinterfaces could enhance communication, coordi-nation, and decision making by groups who makeand implement public policy.

Page 7: Berkshire Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction · human computer interaction (HCI)? Consideration of this question begins with an explication of po-litical science as a field

568 ❘❙❚ BERKSHIRE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION

Government–Citizen Links Many e-government applications emphasize G2C—applications that deliver government services to cit-izens, presumably in a more efficient and effectivemanner. Governments in advanced democraticsocieties, with the Scandinavian countries at theforefront, are expanding web portals that enable cit-izens and other clients to identify and contact thegovernmental unit they need in order to locate in-formation or engage in a transaction. First-Gov inthe United States and ukonline.direct.gov.uk in GreatBritain are among the most ambitious national-levelattempts to facilitate identification of and con-nection to the relevant government agency. Evennondemocracies such as China and Cuba areimplementing e-gov schemes that link users withgovernment.

A major HCI challenge is how to design user-friendly computer interfaces that enable the averagecitizen— an individual with only modest under-standing of the complex structures and functions ofgovernment— to navigate government websites inorder to locate comprehensible information and in-teract with appropriate agencies. There is also rapidgrowth in the applications that allow citizens andclients of government to complete C2G and B2Gtransactions online, whether paying a traffic ticket,applying for a permit, completing a government pur-chase order, submitting a report, or any of themyriad of operational activities that occur be-tween government and either a citizen or a business.Thus, governments are experimenting with web por-tals that aim for greater ease of use by employing im-proved keyword search engines, frequently askedquestions (FAQs), graphic displays, touch screens,and multilanguage interfaces.

Government–Government Links In most advanced democracies, the internal admin-istrative processes of governments— generally G2Gor intragovernmental linkages are characterized bythe features of a “Weberian” (after the research of so-ciologist Max Weber) bureaucracy. The hallmark fea-tures of such bureaucracies include hierararchicalorganization, specialization of labor, and specificrules of behavior insuring rational, consistent ac-tion. Such bureaucratic behavior, while generally pre-

dictable, has been strongly criticized as lacking inflexibility and responsiveness and as producing“stovepipe” agencies that fail to coordinate and sharefunctions with each other. Thus advocates of the “newpublic management” envision a more flexible, co-operative, and entrepreneurial style of governmentadministration.

Various applications of IT, especially web-basedsystems and other modes of information sharing,are assumed to be crucial facilitators of a re-formed, increasingly virtual government in whichtraditional boundaries between bureaucratic unitsare bridged. This occurs as web-based systems resultin pervasive cross-unit information sharing and morefluid forms of cooperative behavior, both verticallyamong actors within a unit and horizontally acrossunits (G2G). The current obstacles to the successfuldesign and implementation of such systems are gen-erally grounded in bureaucratic and political resist-ance more than in sociotechnical issues. However,there are challenging HCI issues in the creation offunctional, interoperable information systems withinwhich data generated and used by multiple agencieswith different operating routines and different in-formation needs are of high quality, are easily shared,and increase productivity.

Government–Business Links While e-government’s interfaces with citizens havepolitical importance, the government–business as-pects of e-gov (G2B and B2G) arguably have thegreatest economic significance. Governments haveextensive dealings with private businesses as bothcustomers and suppliers, and the systems of bidding,purchasing, and payment are now highly automated.In addition many businesses are subject to govern-ment regulation and need approvals, licensing, anddiverse forms of information from government.Thus, there is a particular effort to make the digitaltransactions between government and business moretransparent, efficient, and easier to use. There arealso concerns regarding authenticity, digital signa-tures, widespread use of Smart Cards, and so on. Andgiven the public disclosure laws regulating govern-ment behavior, there are many challenges in insur-ing that privacy and confidentiality are assured atthe same time as public accountability is maintained.

Page 8: Berkshire Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction · human computer interaction (HCI)? Consideration of this question begins with an explication of po-litical science as a field

POLITICAL SCIENCE AND HCI ❚❙❘ 569

International RelationsTraditionally, international relations, one of the mainsubfields of political science, has focused primarilyon the interactions between “states” (countries). Itexamines how individual states behave in relation toother states; how sets of states engage in a varietyof cooperative, competitive, and conflictual behav-iors; and how the international system of states func-tions. The Internet bears a special relationship to thefield of international relations because its precursorwas the Department of Defense’s Cold-War–eraAdvanced Research Project Agency program(ARPANET) to create a communications networkthat could survive a nuclear attack.

IT applications support some of the conventionalcapabilities of states in the international system. Statesutilize IT to manage their personnel (e.g., diplomats,military) outside of the state’s borders, to commu-nicate with other states, to gather intelligence aboutthe actions of other states, and to expand their ca-pacity for engaging in conflict (e.g., weapons guid-ance systems).

Information Age Warfare Recently, IT has become a much more potent forcein the international system. Substantial funding in-volving HCI issues has been directed to creation ofthe “electronic battlefield.” Success in shaping the be-havior of other states, both by the use force and alsoby the threat to use force, is increasingly linked to thestate’s ability to engage in “network-centric warfare.”In this approach all members of the military forceare connected to a robust and extraordinarily richdigital network of shared information. From the cen-tral field commander to the bomber pilot to the footsoldier, everyone is continuously provided with theinformation and visualization tools enabling each tooperate with field awareness, speed, synchronizationof action, lethality, and survivability that are un-matched in the history of warfare. Insuring theease of use and the effective interfaces among all thisdigitized equipment for everyone in the network, aswell as improving the functionality of all the smartweapons systems, provides extensive HCI challenges.The major military powers have allocated high lev-els of research and development support to this area.These capabilities have been applied most fully and

successfully by the U.S. military in the Iraq inva-sion of 2003.

Globalization More broadly, current applications of IT have beenat the center of a set of technologies that are reshapingthe international system. IT has dramatically in-creased the speed, scale, and distance at which in-formation can be transmitted. This development hasaffected the world economy in powerful ways, by ac-celerating and intensifying the flow of goods, capi-tal, and people and by facilitating the multinationalfunctioning of firms. It has also affected culture andbehaviors, as diverse ideas have penetrated every cor-ner of the world. These and associated phenomenaare generally summarized as globalization.

Among the most significant political impacts ofglobalization is the reduction of the power and au-tonomy of the state. Globalized IT makes it more dif-ficult for a state to maintain its sovereignty—the rightof the state to control all activities within its borders.Major economic actors (e.g., transnational corpo-rations and international regimes such as the WorldTrade Organization) now use IT to manage opera-tions that are largely unconstrained by national gov-ernments or borders. A rapidly expanding numberof transborder groups and social movements are alsoutilizing IT to recruit members and coordinate po-litical actions that pressure national governments orserve as alternatives to governments. These rangefrom humanitarian groups, such as the InternationalCampaign to Ban Landmines (whose founder re-ceived the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for her Internet-based campaign against landmines), to violentgroups, such as al-Qaeda.

Thus, sovereign states and other transborder ac-tors are all attempting to use IT as a key resource inthe competitive struggle for advantage and controlwithin the international system. The forms of humancomputer interaction will be critical in determining,on any given international issue, which actors are bestable to take advantage of this powerful resource. Manypublic and private actors are deeply concerned aboutsuch HCI-related issues as the security of their owninformation systems, the growing dangers of cy-berterrorism, and the positive and negative uses ofencryption. And many political regimes, especially

Page 9: Berkshire Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction · human computer interaction (HCI)? Consideration of this question begins with an explication of po-litical science as a field

570 ❘❙❚ BERKSHIRE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION

the less democratic ones like China, Singapore, andmany Middle Eastern countries, struggle with theneed to maintain IT interfaces that are open to theglobal economy but limit their citizens’ online ac-tivities and access to information.

Stability or Transformation? Both political scientists and those who are engagedin HCI work share a need to understand morefully the relationships between information tech-nology and politics. Some posit that the appropri-ation of information technology capabilities bypolitical actors will produce “politics as usual” be-cause those with political power will use that powerto structure the ways in which IT is designed and ap-plied. Others suggest that the emerging informationtechnologies are creating new political beliefs andbehaviors and new political relationships that willfundamentally reshape the interactions between gov-ernments, citizens, and private sector actors. It seemsclear that those designing the interfaces between po-litical actors and the information technology sup-porting those actors will contribute importantly toshaping the politics of the coming decades. It isless clear what political values the technology-in-usewill serve. Will those in the HCI field be primarilyinfluenced by issues of technical possibility and so-ciotechnical design? Or will they alternatively (oralso) be influenced by a vision of how IT should af-fect political phenomena? In either case, will polit-ical scientists and HCI professionals be able todiscover and be guided by a rich understanding ofthe implications of IT systems for politics?

James N. Danziger and Michael J. Jensen

See also Digital Government; Online Voting

F U R T H E R R E A D I N G

Alberts, D. S., Gartska, J. J., & Stein, F. P. (2001). Understanding in-formation age warfare (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Command andControl Research Program.

Alison, J. E. (2002). Technology, development, and democracy: Inter-national conflict and cooperation in the information age. Albany,NY: State University of New York Press.

Anderson, D. M., & Cornfield, M. (2003). The civic web: Online poli-tics and democratic values. Lanham, MD: Rowman and LittlefieldPublishers.

Barber, B. R. (1998). A passion for democracy: American essays. Prince-ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Becker, T., & Slaton, C. (2000). The future of teledemocracy. West-port, CN: Praeger.

Bimber, B. (2003). Information and American democracy: Technologyin the evolution of political power. New York, NY: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Brawley, M. R. (2003). The politics of globalization. Toronto, Canada:Broadview Press.

Brewer, G., & de Leon, P. (1983). The foundations of policy analysis.Chicago: Dorsey Press.

Budge, I. (1996). The new challenge of direct democracy. Cambridge,UK: Polity.

Danziger, J. N. (2003). Understanding the political world: A compara-tive introduction to political science (6th ed.). New York: Longman.

Davis, R. (1998). The web of politics. London: Oxford University Press.de Tocqueville, A. (1945). Democracy in America. New York: Knopf.

(Originally published 1835)Dreyfus, H. L. (2001). On the Internet. New York: Routledge.Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technol-

ogy and institutional change. Washington, DC: Brookings Insti-tution Press.

Gibson, R., Nixon, P., & Ward, S. (Eds.). (2003). Political parties andthe Internet: Net gain? New York, NY: Routledge.

Goldschmidt, K. (2001). Email overload in Congress: Managing acommunications crisis. Congress Online Project. Retrieved Octo-ber 1, 2003, from www.congressonlineproject.org/emailoverload.pdf.

Hill, K. A., & Hughes, J. E. (1998). Cyberpolitics: Citizen activism in theage of the Internet. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Kamarck, E. C., & Nye, J. S., Jr. (Eds.). (2002). Governance.com: Democ-racy in the information age. Washington, DC: Brookings Institu-tion Press.

Larson, E., & Raine, L. (2002). Digital town hall: How local officialsuse the Internet and civic benefits they cite from dealing with con-stituents online. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrievedon October 1, 2003, from www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=74.

Lévy, P. (1997). Collective intelligence: Mankind’s emerging world incyberspace. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

Margetts, H. (2000). The cyber party. Paper to the Democratic Au-dit, London School of Economics.

Norris, P. (2001). The digital divide: Civic engagement, informationpoverty, and the Internet worldwide. New York: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Norris, P. (2002). The bridging and bonding role of online commu-nities. The Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics. Retrievedon October 1, 2003, from http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~.pnorris.shorenstein.ksg/ACROBAT/Bridging.pdf.

Osborne, D., & Gaebler, N. (1992). Reinventing government. New York:Penguin.

Poster, M. (2001). What’s the matter with the Internet? Minneapolis,MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of Ameri-can community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Sunstein, C. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-sity Press.

Page 10: Berkshire Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction · human computer interaction (HCI)? Consideration of this question begins with an explication of po-litical science as a field

PRIVACY ❚❙❘ 571

Tsagarousianou, R., Tambini, D., & Bryan, C. (Eds.). (1998). Cyber-democracy: Technology, cities and civic networks. New York, NY:Routledge.

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet.New York: Simon and Schuster.

Verba, S., Schlozman, K., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civicvolunteerism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press.

PRIVACYPrivacy, often defined as the state of being free fromobservation, is a matter of concern for many peoplein this information age. Widely used technologiessuch as the personal computer, wireless tele-phones, local area networks, global positioningsystems, and the Internet have augmented theamount, types, frequency, and accuracy of informa-tion that governments, corporations, and others canobtain about people. For example, recent surveyshave found that U.S. companies use electronic tech-niques to observe, store, and analyze the on-the-jobbehavior of at least 26 million employees. Nearlythree-quarters of major U.S. companies respondingto a survey administered by the American Man-agement Association said that they record and re-view employees’ telephone calls, e-mail messages,and Internet activities.

A large body of research suggests that many peo-ple worry about these new capabilities. A 1991 sur-vey by the Society for Human Resources Managementfound that 48.8 percent of participating companieshad handled at least one employee complaint con-cerning an organizational invasion of privacy.Marketing research has suggested that companies of-ten inaccurately judge the intensity of consumers’reactions concerning the use of personal informa-tion. Many software manufacturers have had to with-draw products or features of products after hearingan outcry from consumers about invasive data col-lection of viewing or purchasing habits. Corporatedecision-makers appear to underestimate the per-ceived harm of sharing personal employee informa-tion with other parties. Numerous legal actions inthe United States have sprung from perceived viola-tions of privacy—for example, Dallas v. England

(1994); Shahar v. Bowers (1993); Soroka v. DaytonHudson Corp. (1991); Thorne v. El Segundo (1984).

Many institutions fail to plan appropriately forthe privacy implications of computerized collection,storage, and distribution of data until legal action orcommercial harm threatens them. One researcherprovided documentation suggesting that a majorityof Fortune 500 companies lacked sufficient securitycontrols over the personal data they collect. U.S.legal protections for privacy, such as the Privacy Actof 1974, which pertains to government uses of per-sonal data, have done little to protect personal in-formation as companies use it in the private sector.In order to understand how to strike an appropriatebalance between the beneficial functions of new tech-nologies and the privacy rights of individuals it isimportant to consider the legal, philosophical, eco-nomic, technical, and social aspects of privacy.

Legal and Philosophical PerspectivesDespite the simplicity of the dictionary definition,philosophers continue to wrestle with the conceptof privacy, and social scientists sometimes measureand study invasions of privacy without explicitlydefining the term. Practical guides to privacy exist,such as the fair use principles in the 1977 U.S. pri-vacy commission report and the Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development (OECD)guidelines for data protection, but these documentsprovide little guidance to those who wish to un-derstand exactly what privacy means to people. Partof the difficulty with defining privacy stems from itscultural embeddedness. Shaped by environment andupbringing, individuals base their expectations andbeliefs about privacy on their culture. Even withinone country, for example, the United States, opin-ions about privacy and preferences for it vary widely,because they depend, in part, on religion, occupa-tion, socioeconomic status, and area of residence.Nonetheless, people in Western societies share a coreset of values that include the right of individuals tokeep some or many aspects of their lives and activ-ities out of the view of the public, the press, privatecorporations, and the government.

berkshire
Rectangle
berkshire
Rectangle