Method

The insight presented here is based on a systematic analysis of German and English-language literature. The method applied to the analysis has ramifications for the selection of studies and hence the insight that the analysis will yield – for this reason it warrants a brief description.

Systematic literature analysis is particularly well-suited to acquiring a comprehensive overview of where research stands in a particular field. In this case, „literature“ describes the sum of academic studies published (also: „publications“). Unlike in standard literature analysis, the authors do not include the studies based on their prior knowledge or preferences; instead the studies are determined largely according to the method selected (Denyer & Teranfield, 2009; Jesson, Matheson, & Lacey, 2011; Webster & Watson, 2002). In this case a key word search was conducted in a series of databases that enable an extremely broad selection of international studies across a variety of disciplines. The following four databases were used in this case:

  • ISI Web of Knowledge
  • ProQuest
  • EBSCO
  • Mendeley

These databases include studies published in reputable journals that apply a double-blind peer review process. In this, academics are installed as reviewers to assess the quality of a study submitted, without being aware of the author’s identity. By the same measure, the authors are not told who is selected as reviewer to assess the study. This process is designed to ensure that the review of a study, which ultimately decides on acceptance and publication (or rejection), possesses the requisite independence. Mendeley, the fourth database, is an exception as it does not contain a comprehensive collection of studies from certain publications; instead it represents a collection and selection of studies chosen by the platform’s users – almost exclusively academics. It was included in spite of this anomaly as it represents a kind of social online platform that survives due to participation by the users.

The following key words were used to search publication titles in English-language literature: (Online OR Internet OR Digital OR Social Media) AND (Participation OR Engagement). The search yielded 1,806 hits. A multi-stage selection procedure was applied in order to identify the studies included in this group that possess particular relevance to the research question on hand. 840 duplicate entries were deleted in the first stage. The second stage involved removal of 295 studies that proved irrelevant to the topic, meaning that despite mentioning the key words in their titles they did not address questions of participation on the Internet. The remaining studies were categorised based on areas of research. The third stage of selection featured analysis of the abstracts for each study and the removal of all studies that dealt with the use of a very specific online platform (overly narrow understanding of participation in the use of one platform) or that analysed general access to the Internet (overly broad understanding of participation in Internet use). The remaining 190 studies were analysed in their entirety.

Figure 1: Analysis methodology

Figure 1: Analysis methodology

German-language literature was analysed based on the same procedure. The key words selected here were: (Online OR Internet OR Digital OR Social Media OR Soziale Medien) AND (Partizipation OR Beteiligung). In this case the search identified 566 hits containing 45 duplicates and 341 evidently irrelevant studies or studies with an overly narrow or broad structure. Here the studies were categorised based on research areas also, and 180 studies were ultimately analysed. A public Internet search complemented the two systematic surveys in order to include current insight and associated studies. For reasons of lucidity, it is not possible for this report to include all of the studies analysed. Hence the results presented here should be considered an excerpt from the literature included, summarising the key insight acquired.