The Virtual Agora Project was a 3-year e-democracy project run by Carnegie Mellon University's Institute for the Study of Information Technology and Society (InSiTeS) and funded generously by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF). The research team, led by faculty members Peter M. Shane, Peter Muhlberger and Robert Cavalier, sought to develop and test software that would enable large numbers of citizens to use the Internet more effectively to learn about, deliberate and act upon community issues. (continue)

This article by Jim Snider for the National Civic Review, Fall 2003, 20-29 (2003) can be found at National Civic Review, Fall 2003, 20-29 (2003). Snider's goal in this article was to put the public meeting on the e-democracy agenda and to suggest a specific public meeting reform agenda firmly grounded in democratic theory. (continue)

In 2001, the National Science Foundation provided $2.1 million in funding for the Virtual Agora Project, a three-year exploration of the effects of online and face-to-face democratic deliberation. The project sought to shed light on deliberation's effects on individuals, the community, and decision quality as well as how best to use technology to achieve positive outcomes. Of special concern to the project was determining whether deliberation builds better citizens. This paper describes the research design of this project to stimulate future research on deliberation. (continue)

This report provides an assessment of the European Union's online initiative "Your Voice in Europe." (continue)

Blogs, decision support systems, asynchronous communication, e-government, groupware, social media... those new to online dialogue & deliberation and high-tech collaboration can feel like they need to learn a completely new language just to begin understanding their options. Utilize our glossary of terms for high-tech collaboration to help you get by. (continue)

This document is used by student monitors (not moderators) to rate the performance of groups involved in online Democracy Lab Forums. The document represents an effort to identify some of the at least partially independent dimensions of effective dialogue. Democracy Lab provides online National Issues Forums-style forums for use in high school and college classes. (continue)

This is a case study of electronic public participation - dynamics of process, participants' attitudes about process, quality of communication and results of process. (continue)

Debatepedia is the new free wiki encyclopedia of arguments and debates. As a "wiki," it enables anyone to easily present and organize the unique arguments made by third-party sources (ie. by scholars, experts, leaders,...) on both sides of a debate. By providing an innovative "logic tree" debate methodology, it enables you to organize debates in the most understandable way. Debatepedia is quickly becoming an indispensable resource for uncovering all the unique arguments in important public debates and for developing a complete and rational position. (continue)

Simply put, a Local Issues Forum is an online public commons (or town hall meeting), where any citizen, journalist, or elected official can post an idea, ask a question, make a public announcement, connect with one another, monitor public opinion, and ask for public input, and where journalists can look for story ideas or identify sources for articles. Created by e-democracy.org, Local Issues Forums utilize listserv technology. The goal of a Local Issues Forum is to give everyone a greater voice in local decisions and encourage more citizen participation in local public policy making. It also provides a forum for decision-makers to receive immediate feedback from the community on issues that must be decided or voted on. (continue)

Beth Offenbacker's blog highlights the use of technology for public participation/public involvement and decisionmaking purposes. Learn about existing tools, reports, emerging trends and a range of other resources on this subject. (continue)