An uneven ladder

Differentiating the term of participation is an important step in analysing participation on the Net. Here the participation ladder is a helpful approach, as it shows that information itself can be an initial form of participation. There should be no doubt that broad access to information is among the strengths of the Internet. It follows, therefore, that a broad understanding of participation will automatically show that the Internet leaves clear marks on participation.

But it is equally evident: The next rungs on the ladder become increasingly narrow. In all areas, information is the most widespread form of participation. Effectively it develops at the same rate as Internet use in the population itself. But do the citizens actually take the next step towards consultation or even active participation? Studies to date suggest: not really.

Active participation on the Net appears largely to be a minority phenomenon. Therefore, a narrow understanding of participation would most likely suggest that the Internet has a weak influence on participation. This would be particularly true if participation is taken to mean the offline decision-making processes in established institutions. For instance, Internet use does not directly prompt more people to exercise their right to vote.

It is certainly true that the participation ladder is slanted. Some areas of research suggest a power law distribution within participation: A few active users engage in very strong participation, some less active users participate a little and a large number of inactive users tend to remain passive. Is this distribution on the Net any different to the offline world? Is it problematic? What are the consequences of the participation divide between the hyperactive and the tag-alongs? How does this affect the quality of participation processes?

There are a large number of unanswered questions here, also. What becomes clear, though, is that users assume a variety of different roles on the Net, and that these roles come with different degrees and also different kinds of participation. It is certainly possible that no one of these roles is superior to the others – it might indeed be a question of the right blend for participation to work properly.