cedemasia

This was the CeDEM Asia 2016

Here you find photos and all blog posts (including most presentations) from the CeDEM Asia 2016.

Photos and Videos

Blogposts

cedema-sponsors

Voices from the CeDEM Asia 2016

Following ten successful conferences in Austria and two inspiring conferences in Singapore and Hong Kong, we opened a new forum in Asia for exchange of ideas, networking, and collaboration in the field of E-Democracy and Open Government.

» Find here all our blogposts and reviews from the CeDEM Asia 2016 in Daegue.

CeDEM Asia 2016 was hosted in Daegu (South Korea) from 7-9th December 2016. A lot of people joined our conference. Find here a statements from Rajit Hewagama, Ben Huffman, Astik Sinha, Pheaktra Neth, Tetsuro Kobayashi, Manuela Hartwig, Jeanette Orminski, Rich Ling, Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen, Ivo Babaja, Heike Hermans, Sayasat Nurbek, Robert Krimmer, Marko Skoric and Peter Parycek.

CeDEM Asia 2016

cedema-sponsors

CeDEMAsia2016: Panel, Day 2

 

Marko Skoric, Tetsuro Kobayashi, Muneo Kaigo: Social Media and Citizen Engagement in Asia: A Comparative Study of Five Societies

fotomarks

The presenters are part of a research team that conducts an international study to learn about political disagreement and what people do about it in social media. The study shall support the understanding of patterns of engagement. The international study analyses 6 countries: China, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, hence the study is currently titled “Citizen Engagement in Confucian Asia.”

Social media expand social networks and they go beyond face-to-face meetings; hence many thought the social media would diversify the social network of individuals. However, the opposite seems to be the case. People that actively express themselves on social media are likely to unfriend people who have different opinions. This becomes especially true during political campaigns and when users are politically active. Some people try to persuade others with different political opinions and when they fail after some time, they unfriend these people. Social media feeds look more like face-to-face conversations nowadays than 5 years ago as similar opinions are shown in the threads.

Koreans that live in Japan for long time are called Zainichi and there are about 350,000 of them. Hate speech and racism in Japan focuses on Koreans and Chinese and there are hate groups against Zainichi that got especially stronger after the World Cup in 2002 and through other events. The Matome Website is a place for hate speech and people that consume their news in such an ecosystem find themselves in a vicious circle. Firstly, they are racists or have racist tendencies, which is why they go to websites like Matome. If they consume the biased news from such a website they become even more racist. The more they use these media the more racist they become.

This corresponds to the findings that certain media attract people with certain mind-sets. In Japan, NHK is a public broadcaster and people that watch these news find racism distasteful, like users of Youtube in Japan also generally do. On the other hand, Sankei Shimbun is a media that is consumed by more racists. Matome is among the worst mass websites concerning racist users, and looking at the actual users of Matome website, one realises that they are equally spread among the different educational backgrounds.

The study is still ongoing and further results will be published in the near future.

cedema-sponsors

CeDEMAsia2016: Paper Presentations Parallel Session A, Day 2

Heike Hermann: The promises of digital political communication and the reality in South Korea

fotoherrmans

While South Koreans are frequent users of social media, politicians have not yet embraced these communication channels to engage with citizens. The most popular digital communication tool is Kakao Talk, which is used by 37 million users. Kakao Talk provides closed space for communication. Facebook and Twitter are public social media and popular in Korea, but politicians are only followed by a few numbers of people. A quarter of politicians on public social media is not or not very active. Most items posted are news items often about the politicians themselves and the posts are often not about policy. 3/4 of politicians do not respond to comments, hence politicians don’t really engage with citizens via Facebook. Most politicians have a Twitter account and two thirds actually use it. However, only 10 percent of politicians have more than 15000 followers which is not a lot considering the Korean population. Twitter is mainly used for engagement with news agents and similar.

Dal Yong Jin: Understanding of Smartphone Divide: From Digital Divide to Digital Inclusion in the Smartphone Era

fotofrasier

Over the last 20 years, Korea had great development in the ICT infrastructure. It was expected that smartphones would bridge the social and digital divide, but it has not quite been up to expectations. There are two major problems in the discourse of the digital divide: (1) Inequality in physical access to the technology and (2) the knowledge to use ICT effectively. Koreans must spend among the most money on communications. While the first divide will disappear in the future, the second divide – usage skills – is systematic and structural problem.

Ben Huffman: E-Participation in the Governance Process: Redefining its Worth and Modality

fotoben

Focus of the talk is the Philippines that made good progress in the global e-participation index. Physical access is a core factor in these rankings, but capability to make use of the access is almost equally important. In the Philippines, free internet access is facilitated to make use of governmental services. The e-government services are provided in English, but this is language barrier, as there are 2 national languages and 8 dialects in the Philippines. The e-government service might also intend to train English of the citizens, which should be realised differently. Other barriers are the need to login in at some public access points, as not all that have access to an interne access point have login data.

PRESENTATION-LINK

Robert Krimmer: Internet Voting: Elections in the (European) Cloud

fotorob

Estonia is often narrowed down to e-stonia as they have implemented and use many electronic services. The talk discusses, why do some countries use e-voting and why do some countries not use e-voting? The use of technology and innovations in voting processes happens already in ancient Greece and Rome, and the use of paper ballots is also use of technology that was not there before. Casting votes in parliaments often happens with the use of electronic devices nowadays. By using the electronic voting you change the electorate, as people from elsewhere can participate. Especially for citizens that are abroad, voting ins difficult, as they can go to embassy or send their ballot via mail (which is getting slower). Internet voting is not about democracy but it is a service to make citizens participate in elections.

cedema-sponsors

CeDEM Asia 2016: Day 2, „Motivation(s) behind Open Access Publishing” (Workshop)

Workshop „Motivation(s) behind Open Access Publishing”

oa

Workshop by Noella Edelmann & Judith Schossböck

The project outline presented in this workshop is to access the motivational factors in Open Access publishing.

Judith Schossböck presented the “green way” of publishing, which means to publish in repositories. The “golden way” means to publish in Open Access journals. She pointed out, that “the character of the electronic academic journal is changing rapidly as new technologies, reader habits, and patterns of communication evolve and the Internet is increasingly adopted as a common medium.”

The journal JeDEM – eJournal for eDemocracy and Open Government is publishing since 2009 and the editors want to evaluate the motivations of the authors to publish in an Open Access Journal. Publishing in JeDEM is free of charge.

Which research questions will be examined during their study on motivational factors in Open Access publishing?

  • Can we distinguish differences in motivation for publishing in open access across disciplines or countries?
  • What type of users are JeDEM users? How can users be classified according to their motivations? What are users’ opinions on different aspects of open access publishing, e.g. open peer review etc.?
  • How can these results help other e-publishers?

We are looking forward to their results!

cedema-sponsors