Participation 2.0 – does it really exist?

Why should the Internet influence how people participate in social interaction and the process of making decisions? Early on, authors started referring to the opportunities of, and potential for, participation that the Internet offers to broad swathes of the population (White, 1997; Davis, 1999; Hacker, 1996). This focused on the conviction that above all, the Internet would facilitate access to a broad variety and ample reservoirs of information – hence contributing to an informed, educated and motivated civic society.

Quickly, however, authors drew attention to the fact that precisely the rich diversity of the Internet may distract people from actually becoming involved (Putnam 1995), that new digital forms of participation may replace the traditional forms or that by no means would all users exploit the putatively broad online access to information to anything like an equal extent (Hargittai, 2010). But then the hope for a participative effect of the Internet received new impetus – impetus that is primarily attributable to technological developments associated with the term „Web 2.0“ and social media.

While the Internet 1.0 enabled access to a hitherto unseen breadth of information and sources, the Web 2.0 created unprecedented opportunity for independent publication of information (O’Reilly, 2006). Social media make it child’s play to post texts, photos, audio files and videos on the Internet. All users need is a few clicks to create their own Net presence, a platform to disseminate their own thoughts, analyses and opinions on the Net and hence to communicate with the world at large (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). The users connect with each other via these platforms, create networks and establish communities. In this way, the „social aspect“ became increasingly important on the Internet. A popular term here is the „participative Net“.

Therefore, participation is found in the DNA of Web 2.0 and is indeed its defining property. But what do participation and joining in actually mean on the Net? What do users participate in; which users participate; and which forms of participation can be identified? Online participation remains a recent phenomenon. It follows that much of it is murky – research on participation on the Net is still in its early stages of development. The DIVSI Milieu Study (2012) succeeded in revealing that within the German population, chasms remain in the ways in which the Internet is used – but that the attitudes and mentalities of users, their self-assurance, trust and security concerns weigh heavier than the question of technical access to the Net. Numerous non-users, also sceptical and reticent Net citizens („Digital Outsiders“), remain in digital Germany.

So is it too early to assume that the new media are changing our society? Spectacular, individual examples – from the election of President Obama to the Twitter and Facebook revolutions during the Arab Spring – created a burgeoning, utopian hope. But many of these hopes are not quite as fanciful as they may seem. New media always change the manner in which societies communicate, and hence how they function. So new media inevitably leave their marks on society. The Internet and Web 2.0 will prove no different. And the changes brought about within media technology are rarely as exciting as those found in the fabric of society. Therefore, the question is not: Facebook or Twitter? And instead: What changes do the media opportunities introduce to our attitudes and habits?

What is already clear today is that social media are used for like-minded people to make contact and to establish more or less permanent communities (Woodly, 2007; Steinfield et al., 2008; Gil de Zuniga et al., 2010). Altogether frequently, common concerns are defined and mutual action coordinated within these communities (Wilson & Peterson, 2002). So sharing experiences in online networks comes with benefits for participants that are also described as „social capital“ (Ellison et al., 2007; Adler & Kwon, 2000; Putnam, 1995). This social capital may emerge within the communities, but also in that the communities themselves form a group and become outwardly involved. Social media provide diverse platforms to define interests, and they facilitate participation in public agenda setting (Foot & Schneider, 2002; Towner & Dulio, 2011; Wattal et al., 2010).

Nevertheless, it is entirely justified to raise doubts that these observations give occasion for utopian hope. Social media can lead to fragmentation within civic society when each interest group establishes its own media biotope (Bennet & Iyengar, 2008). This may cause social disconnection and polarisation (Scheufele et al., 2006; Woodly, 2007; Nie et al., 2010). Established social institutions might start to unravel when people increasingly shun permanent forms of activism (Dahlgren, 2005). Not every form of online participation makes a successful transition into the offline world; instead they peter out in a mere manifestation of „clicktivism“ or „slacktivism“ (Morozov, 2009). An excessively imbalanced spread of participatory activity may create a situation in which just a few extremely well-connected people monopolise the online debate (Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2010; Brandtweiner et al., 2010). In Germany, also, people with high socio-economic status exhibit a greater degree of aggressive and strategic handling of new media (DIVSI, 2013a).

It becomes apparent: Not only is the research area of participation on the Internet a recent development, it is extremely broad-based and complex – at times appearing even contradictory. Convinced that new media leave their mark on the face of society and influence the habits of those living therein, the DIVSI research programme „Participation on the Net“ intends to make an academically substantiated contribution to the public debate on Internet participation. In this, the spotlight will be trained on the conditions, forms and consequences of online participation.