Andrei Chugunov
email: chugunov@egov-center.ru

Olga Filatova
email: filatovo@gmail.com

Yuri Misnikov
email: yuri.misnikov@gmail.com

Citizens' Deliberation Online as Will-Formation: the Impact of Media Identity on Policy Discourse Outcomes in Russia

Keywords: Online deliberation, e-Participation, Media identity, Policy discourse, Validity claims, Russia, Food destruction, e-Petitions, Jürgen Habermas

The paper examines linkages between the type of the digital media that host internet discussions on publicly important issues and the outcomes of such debates viewed from the perspective of online deliberation theory and practice. The presented case-based study analyses seven online discourses that debated the destruction of western agricultural products imported to Russia after the embargo imposed by the Russian government on such food in August 2015. The study hypothesized that the digitally enabled discussions would be similar to face-to-face deliberation practices that tend to attract the like-minded people and thus reinforce the already established beliefs and worldviews among discourse participants. Specifically, it was assumed in this context that the attitude towards the policy of food destruction would differ across the media and depend on its public identity viewed from the perspective of political allegiance. The paper presents empirical evidence that supportswith some cautionthe postulated assumption.

Introduction

The notion of media's public identityunderstood as a real or perceived image of a particular media outletis not necessarily included into the process of examining and explaining the revealed reasons and multiple truths. As far as the public politics and will-formation are concerned, the endless proliferation of media resources that enable public conversations demands greater clarity about the impact of their political allegiances on discourse outcomes. In this paper we attempt to investigate whether position-taking by discourse participants is linked to the media type, especially in terms of endorsing or rejecting government policies. It is assumed that the process of political participation requires taking sides and thus forming (joining) certain solidarities among participants. Being a member of a political party or any other organised entity pursuing certain public goals typically means solidarity with the like-minded peers, particularly in the face-to-face setting. However, participation in online discourses, often anonymous, is a different type of social and personal experience providing more flexibility in choosing a preferred debating community. It is assumed that core political preferences, allegiances and motivations do not change quickly. Yet, ideally, the virtual environment of online conversation may help citizens compare differences, fine-tune the established positions and change them altogether, as a result of talking to the peers. It also implies that when a participant articulates a similar opinion on something that has already been uttered by someone else, he or she joins a virtual 'solidarity' with that participant at this discourse moment; this is something that Jürgen Habermas defineswithin the framework of his discourse ethics theory -'inter-subjective solidarities' built to share the common values expressed in the public sphere.

Research Context

We consider online discussions among ordinary Russian citizens as distinctive policy discourses in relation to whether or not the Russian authorities are right to destroy the embargoed food imported from the West. 1 Many digital discourses have emerged on the internet debating both the relevance and morality of food destruction policy, with many of them aiming to stop or amend this policy by, for example, launching e-petitions [START_REF] Chugunov | Online Discourse as a Microdemocracy Tool: Towards New Discursive Epistemics for Policy Deliberation[END_REF]. The latter have become an especially popular e-participation tool in Russia after the start of the official Russian Public Initiative [START_REF] Bershadskaya | Measurement Techniques for E-Participation Assessment: Case of Russian E-Petitions Portal[END_REF][START_REF] Bershadskaya | E-Governance and E-Participation Services: An Analysis of Discussions in Russian Social Media[END_REF] following in the footsteps of the European Citizen Initiative. We view the act of joining any e-petition or contributing to online discussions as a manifestation of political participationa public activity undertaken by ordinary citizens voluntarily to influence political authorities and decision-making [4: p. 2], [5: p. 120]. Given the growing accessibility of digital networking for ordinary citizens, opportunities for their political activism increase as well. In addition to the importance of studying policy discourses as such through the lens of public deliberation in order to understand their course and outcomes, the expanding diversity and richness of new digital media suggests taking a closer look at the impact of the media itself on discourse outcomes; that is to say, whether certain solidarities formed on certain issues differ across different media? Whether or not discourse participants prefer those media that are closer to their worldviews? Whether or not participants could be encouraged rather than discouraged joining alternative discourses advocating other, opposing views? Knowing answers to these questions may help lower the level of political polarization that inevitably increases when people prefer talking to their likeminded peers and thus further strengthen the beliefs they already have instead of enlarging the space for potential compromise and dialogue.

Judging by high approval ratings of President Putin by the public, 2 Russia does not seem to be a politically polarized society. However, the lack of competitive politics coupled with a short and not always fair history of political representation does not mean that the ordinary citizen is uninterested in public life and policy-related issues. Despite the limitations of official politics, informal citizen initiatives based on social networking are as vibrant in Russia as anywhere in the connected to the internet world. 3 It is assumed that political cultures dwell on prevailing civic cultures and comprise inseparably both individual competencies (such as knowledge, beliefs, feelings, judgements) that reflect the society's prevailing norms and values and the personalized attitudes towards the official political system (political allegiances and preferences) that citizens articulate in the course of civic activism and political participation [START_REF]The civic culture revisited[END_REF].

Theoretical foundations

Deliberation as a Civic Culture

Just as civic and political cultures overlap, the conceptualization of public deliberation is linked with the concept of political participation and democratic legitimacy of liberal democracy. However, Jürgen Habermas viewed the public sphere as a common communication space exclusively for the citizens' life-world which is separate from the 'system' occupied by the state with its 'strategic communication' powers (i.e. propaganda), as opposed to free and uncoerced communication flow among equal members of the public. Yet even highly idealized the public sphere concept has a distinctively civic character free from the state influence (e.g. a need for independent media) as a condition to realise democratic deliberation. For Habermas, (rational) deliberation constitutes the core of deliberative democracy. While many agree that citizens as discourse participants should cooperate in pursuing together the morally justified common good, the terms of such cooperation are not always clear [13: p. 9, p. 27]. For example, there is a lack of clarity with regard to the role of consensual practices. Gutmann and Thompson [START_REF] Gutmann | Why deliberative democracy?[END_REF][START_REF] Gutmann | Democracy and disagreement[END_REF] resist the traditional Habermasian emphasis on the discursively accomplished consensus. They believe that there are instances when participants cannot agree, 'no matter how respectfully they deliberate with their opponents', and no matter how morally strong the opponents' positions may be [13: p. 20]. There could be 'deliberative disagreements' that despite, for example, moral differences, discussants still can find a mutually acceptable solution by disputing one another's position in a reciprocal manner; but there could also be 'nondeliberative disagreements', when positions are mutually exclusive and could not be reconciled through reciprocal discourse. In many cases, people will not change their opinion, and therefore discussions will not 'always or even usually' end in agreement [13: p. 7].

Rules and Principles of Deliberation

Internet-based discussions this paper investigates are viewed through the concept public deliberation. There are two main notions of deliberation. The 'procedural' concept argues that for a discussion to be qualified as deliberative certain strict conditions must be met as far as the course of deliberation is concerned [START_REF] Gutmann | Why deliberative democracy?[END_REF], [START_REF] Cohen | Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy[END_REF]. The other position does not prescribe any specific rules that the discussion should follow in order to be counted as deliberative [START_REF] Bohman | Public deliberation: pluralism, complexity and democracy[END_REF][START_REF] Fishkin | Democracy and deliberation: new directions for democratic reform[END_REF][START_REF] Gastil | Political communication and deliberation[END_REF][START_REF] Mutz | Hearing the other side: deliberative versus participatory democracy[END_REF]. Joshua Cohen [START_REF] Cohen | Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy[END_REF], [START_REF] Cohen | Democracy and liberty[END_REF] represents a more cautious position by emphasising certain conditioning principles for deliberative politics such as: (a) independence (from authorities) and continuous character; (b) equality of participants, who must agree on the ground rules of deliberation; (c) commitment to mutual cooperation; (d) diversity of participants and pluralism of opinions, but excluding pronounced political or ideological biases; (e) respect for internal deliberative procedures (as the source of legitimacy); (f) ability to deliberate competently; (g) use of reason and better argument; and (h) adherence to decisions by rationally-motivated consensus (voting is accepted if no consensus is possible). Gutmann and Thompson [START_REF] Gutmann | Why deliberative democracy?[END_REF] also add the importance of deliberation scale and agenda, since only large-scale public debates discussing publicly important policy issues could count as deliberations.

In contrast, a more loosely defined approach toward deliberation admits the inclusion of smaller-scale discussion events, such as 'deliberative polls' that can discuss any issue relevant to a particular community of citizens [START_REF] Fishkin | Democracy and deliberation: new directions for democratic reform[END_REF]. Such discussions are usually moderated and short in duration. Diana Mutz [START_REF] Mutz | Hearing the other side: deliberative versus participatory democracy[END_REF] supports a more flexible interpretation of deliberation and objects Cohen's procedural model as too 'all-encompassing'. She argues that such an idealized and strictly conditioned deliberation would be virtually impossible to realize in practice as, for example, routine political conversations between neighbours, family members or co-workers would be unjustly excluded [START_REF] Gastil | Political communication and deliberation[END_REF][START_REF] Mutz | Hearing the other side: deliberative versus participatory democracy[END_REF]. For Bohman [START_REF] Bohman | Public deliberation: pluralism, complexity and democracy[END_REF], one of the major weaknesses of procedure-based deliberation lies in the lack of genuine interest in debate, which would demand the demonstration of strong commitment on the part of prospective discussants.

The bias toward the procedural side of deliberation may, for example, lead to the rationally produced argumentation that is non-dialogical and lacking the potential benefits of knowledge sharing and mutual learning. Hardly the focus on deliberation at the expense of the reciprocal 'mutual understanding' could result is a successful discourse, for deliberation should be viewed as a 'particular social activity that can be performed only through public discourse', and hence is 'imbedded in the social action of dialogue' [16: p. 32]. In this respect, Gutmann and Thompson [13: p. 3] agree that deliberation can be both procedurally strict and dialogic. The main challenge, however, is striking the right balance between the both sides of deliberation.

This paper supports a more flexible idea of deliberation as a civic and political activity, since it fits better the nature and character of online discussions among ordinary citizens. Through discursive interaction, they are capable of assuming the role of rational discussants who are willing to debate difficult and sensitive public issues in a dialogical manner. The typical participant is also often emotional and sometimes uncivil. Expressiveness is not necessarily a drawback in peer-to-peer discussions; it is rather an objective discourse trait helping to maintain communication and overcome disputes in a casual conversational manner. Citizens are well aware of what and how they are communicating. They also appreciate the importance of public debate and take participation seriously as a special civic activity and at the same time as a political participation act.

Research Design

Research Assumptions and Objectives

As mentioned above, the study's main research question is to assess the role of the media in willformation by hosting online discussions; that is, whether a particular media identityits type, public status, ownership, political allegianceshas an impact on the quality and outputs of online discources. Indirectly, knowing the answer to this question could provide some insights into (a) the degree of awareness of discource participants about the media's role and hence their decision to choose a certain media outlet (e.g. in order to further strengthen the already existing personal political preferences among the like-minded people); (b) knowing more about whether such an awareness might prevent them from participating in discources that advocate oppostite points of view on the publicly important issues that divide and polarize citizens? The topic of food destruction was found a highly dividing issue in August 2015 among the public in Russia and abroad.

The concept of public deliberation refers primarily to the pre-digital, offline context when participants debate issues in the face-to-face mode which is highly different from the anonymous environment of internet discussions. Face-to-face public discussions were championed by James Fishkin [START_REF] Fishkin | Democracy and deliberation: new directions for democratic reform[END_REF], [START_REF] Fishkin | When the people speak: deliberative democracy and public consultation[END_REF] in the form of 'deliberative polls' in the United States. But Diana Mutz [START_REF] Mutz | Hearing the other side: deliberative versus participatory democracy[END_REF] asks in this regard whether routine, real-world political activism can be truly deliberative, since people usually prefer to be 'surrounded by those who agree with them (and) thus reinforce... their own political views' since such an agreeable environment does not necessarily encourage political discussion [19: p. 3]. Bohman [16: p. 25] believes that genuine deliberation requires a more diverse and heterogeneous setting to become meaningful; in addition, it should be impersonal to be truly public (and thus more democratic). Individuals tend to exchange their opinions more eagerly if they are unaware of other participants' social identities. It is then assumed that in online debates citizens may prefer 'to debate with diverse others' [21: pp. 2-3, p.31], contrary to face-to-face discussions. If so, the very deliberaiton context might be crucial for determining its outcomes. Settings where participants are anonymous might diminish possible intimidation or confusion created by status, appearance or group pressure. Another important question that arises in this context is whether discussion can help change established opinions through a more flexible mode of side-taking.

Drawing on these considerations, the research hypothesised that in an online environment, discourse participants would tend to choose that media resource which has a distinguishable identity in terms of whether supports or opposes their own views regarding government policies. The logic behind such a hypothesis was grounded in the assumption that people would like to see their beliefs and opinionsfor example, a position supporting the government's policy of food destructionreinforced by other like-minded peers rather than diverse others; that discussions on pro-government media would approve of destroying the embargoed food, whilst the discources hosted by independent media would instead say "No" to such policies.

Research Sample

According to Denis McQuail, there are no commonly agreed media typology [23: p. 29]. As a general entry point, this study considers three main types of media by applying the following criteria of audience and thematic focus: (a) partisan, political media, (2) elitist media, and (3) the mass media. Pippa Norris [START_REF] Norris | A virtuous circle: political communications in postindustrial societies[END_REF] also mentions such characteristics, as coverage (national, regional, local), publishing frequency (daily, evening/Sunday), content quality. Media ownership plays a key role in determining thematic orientation and political allegiance. A clear focus on promoting specific content and involving particular contributors determine to a large degree the main target audience and dominant topics [38: p. 238]. Loyalty to the current political order and governing eliteeither openly when the media is owned by the government or implicitly when it controls the ownershas a direct impact on the media's editorial policy and target audience [39: p. 405]. That is especially important for a democratically immature society where the insufficient representation of certain groups in government and hence their inadequate participation in decision-making may demand additional and often informal communication channels to express their views. Digital media, with its many-to-many communication capabilities, provides such channels and somewhat offsets the democratic deficiency of the official public communication system [START_REF] Etling | Public Discourse in the Russian Blogosphere: Mapping RuNet Politics and Mobilization[END_REF]. Even for a more democratic western society, there is a challenge of overcoming the excessive reliance on mediated politics that diminishes the participatory potential of public communication instruments [START_REF] Blumler | The crisis of public communication[END_REF][START_REF] Entman | Communication the future of democracy: a conclusion[END_REF][START_REF] Hallin | Americanization, globalization, and secularization: understanding the convergence of media systems and political communication[END_REF][START_REF] Hallin | Comparing media systems: three models of media and politics[END_REF]. Based on the above considerations, as well as taking into account the research focus on examining the will-formation process as citizens' reaction to government's policy of food destruction, the presented study was designed to examine the following seven internet discussions formed the research sample, namely:

1. E-Petitions site Change.org, part 1 e-Petition '#Don'tCrushFood'; 100 first posts coded; 7 August 2015; media identity typeinternational, independent, language; Russian. The Guardian. Lead article: Russians despair at food destruction as Moscow says it is having desired effect; 7 August 2015; 100 first posts coded (out of over 2,000); media identity type -UK, independent, language: English.

The sample was randomly selected by searching the internet. The main selection criteria were as follows: (a) the dominant discussion topic must be food destruction; (b) there must be at least 70 messages posted by users after the reports; (c) at least one discussion must take place in a western country (in English); (d) presence of independent, pro-government and government-owned media outlets hosting the food destruction discussions; (e) at least one media outlet must not be connected with public politics in any obvious way.

In total, 647 messages posted by 417 unique participants on seven discussion threads were coded and analyzed to reveal the implicitly or explicitly expressed positions either supporting or rejecting government policy of destroying the embargoed food imported from the West.

Content Coding Methodology

The content coding method aimed at discovering the dominant positions expressed by discourse participants in their assessment of the government policy of food destruction. Specifically, the content analysis looked at the presence of the mutually excluding statements 'For food destruction' and 'Against food destruction'. The important aspect of the validity-based method is that it requires to disclose the intended meaning contained in the uttered message, i.e. to reveal its illocutionary force in terms of the Austian and Searlean notions of intentional 'speech acts'. The notion of the illocutionary speech act is borrowed from linguistics pragmatics as part of the philosophy of language and communication [START_REF] Austin | How to do things with words[END_REF][START_REF] Searle | Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language[END_REF]. For John R. Searle [31: p. 16; 32: p. 45], just as for Habermas, 'speaking a language is performing speech acts, acts such as making statements, giving commands, asking questions, making promises and so on'; this is done according to certain rules as an attempt to communicate an intention to obtain the hearer's recognition of a certain assertion or to convince in the truth of a particular proposition. Illocutionary acts are based on the fundamentally dialogical relationship of mutual recognition between the speaker and the hearer. The communication of meaning is not just a matter of intention, but also a 'matter of convention, when illocutionary acts capture that special aspect of saying something, which goes beyond what the sentence articulates linguistically.

The Habermasian claims to validity have a lot in common with the Searlean illocutionary force. The latter is increasingly applied in the argumentation and artificial intelligence (AI) research. The focus on argumentation underpins much of the existing scholarship on the topic of deliberation (both offline and online). In effect, argumentation is considered as deliberation itself according to Frank Fischer and Gerber Gottweis for whom deliberation is a 'procedurally governed form of collective argumentation' [33: p. 9]. They further argue that argumentation drives social relations and practices when 'concepts and ideas…shape argumentation' and turn discourse participants into knowledge agents 'to give meaning to physical and social relations' through which 'people experience the world' [33: pp. 10-11].

The AI research domain 'argument and computation aims at establishing 'inferences between propositions in the domain of discourse' that should be revealed and recorded in the spoken utterances (speech acts) along with the understanding of the 'means of persuasion used by discourse participants' [START_REF] Budzynska | Speech Acts of Argumentation: Inference Anchors and Peripheral Cues in Dialogue[END_REF]. Argumentation is viewedand analyzedhere as a special type of speech act which usually contain implicit inferences by which discourse participants influence and persuade one another in a dialogical manner. As a consequence, online deliberative processes are viewed as a series of argumentative dialogues that can be examined to map arguments by 'argument structures' created with the help of argument mapping software tools [START_REF] Snaith | Mixed Initiative Argument in Public Deliberation[END_REF]. 4Argumentation aspects are important for understanding the value of policy discourses for decisionmaking. In the similar vein, the claim validation method also includes revealing and documenting factual evidence and other forms of argumentation presented by discourse participants to make their claims more convincing. Such evidence has been collected and recorded in the process of content coding to ensure that the expressed statements and positions were indeed validated by discourse participants. However, the argumentation aspect of discourse analysis presented in this paper have not been its main objective. Moreover, this paper does not tend to support the view that exchanging arguments in a rational manner would be the main motivational factor of online discourses among ordinary citizens (that might be the case, though, for procedural debates among experts). Being a knowledge agent would entail more than presenting arguments. Citizens' discourses are moral conversations in the first place. Studying the claims to normative rightness helps maintain the emphasis on morality and social values underpinned by the Habermasian 'intersubjective solidarities'. It is believed that citizens judge government policies on ethical grounds as well, in addition to looking at the rational and argumentative sides of policy decisions.

Research Results

Coding Steps

Each discourse was analyzed by coding the content of its messages as they were posted on discussion threads in a chronological order. As explained earlier, the coding aimed at identifying the Habermasian claims for validity of the second type, i.e. claiming the normative rightness of certain worldviews and positions. The coding process comprised the following steps. Firstly, each post was assigned a unique ID so as to connect it to the post's author. 5 The second step included identification of the content type which would point at the presence of one of three basic claims to validity, i.e.: content about fact-based objective lifeworld known for all, something that is hard to disputevalidity claim type 1; content revealing value/morale-based statements about social worlds for some, not for all, something that is disputablevalidity claim type 2; content about personal sincerity, something that is deeply individuals shared with others, a proof of openness; validity claim type 3. Types 1 and 3 were needed to be identified in order to discern more clearly type 2the main aim of content coding. The next, third step, focused on the validation of the claims made. i.e. to separate those that were actually responded via agreement or disagreement. As argued above, the presence of arguments was essential as part of the validation act. The latter did not mean direct responses alone, since the objective was to validateby supporting or rejectingthe intended and often hidden meaning, its propositional (illocutionary force) the posts could contain. Posts with uncertain content were removed from the analysis, just as were personal messages that had little to do with the main discourse theme of food destruction. At the fourth stage, the validated claims were summarized to look like the moral statements about food destruction that were either disputed or agreed with by others. The list of such statements could be rather long depending how focused the discussion was. Behind each statement was a certain number of supporters exemplifying a 'social weight' attached to such statements as a measure of the statement's public significance shared by other discourse participants. The final fifth step included further aggregation of the agreed-disagreed statements into a shorter list of the broader "For" and "Against" positions.

Dominant "For" and "Against" Positions

Tables 1 and2 below summarize the aggregated position statements represented in The Guardian newspaper discourse (as an example). In the case of the Guardian discourse, there were a total of 54 distinctive statements identified, of which 25 were articulated via agreement and 29via disagreement. The most prominent was a position against food destruction which supported by 11 validated claims. The most popular "For" statement was exemplified by eight validated claims supporting the government policy of food destruction. Each "For" and "Against" side supplied different sets of argumentation to substantiate their claims. Discourse participants touched upon a wider range of issues that were not necessarily related to the theme of food destruction alone; in fact, many of them did not discuss the main topic of the lead article that opened the discussion. While it is not the best example of online deliberation quality, nonetheless it is a telling case for this particular media resource.

Position Differentiation Across Media Type

Other discourses were analyzed in a similar way to reveal the dominant position statements on which discourse participants agree and disagree when discussing the government policy of food destruction and to determine the scale of such support and rejection. Table 3 contains the coding results across the entire discourse sample. These data reveal, first of all, that discourses on the pro-government media outlets Vzglyad and the Russia Today TV channel clearly supported food destruction (55% and 72% of all validated positions accordingly), whereas the discourses hosted by independent media rejected food destruction (with the rate of 80% and above). This is an interesting case of opinion polarization suggesting that the media identity itself can be a dividing factor and can significantly, although not decisively, influence discourse outcomes. People indeed tend to participate in those discussions that generate positions similar to their own preferences, as it would happen in face-to-face discussions (according to [START_REF] Mutz | Hearing the other side: deliberative versus participatory democracy[END_REF]). On the other hand, these analytics also reveal that, in general, apart from the Russia Today TV channel (which was expected), the support to food destruction policies was rather low; even on the pro-government resources such support just slightly exceeds 50%, while on the Playground Gamers' forum is as low as 3%. Otherwise speaking, the impact of media identity has its limits and should not be over-emphasized. The Playground Gamers' discourse is especially interesting, as it is an apolitical media resource by design. Still its participants were unanimous in being against food destruction. One of the explanation of that could be the stronger presence of presumably young gamers than on other resources (it is also presumed that young people might be more critical towards authorities). This case also points at the earlier discussed close connection between civic and political activism.

These discourse outcomes point at a number of other essential for online deliberation factors, such as the focus on the discourse main topic which is measured by (a) deliberation reciprocity ("dialogicality") a percentage of all validated positions on all topics to all posts, and (b) deliberation consistencya percentage of all validated positions related to the topic of food destruction in the total number of all positions on all topics. According to these measures, all discourses (with some exception of the discussions run on the Guardian and Gamers' Forum) were dialogical and reciprocal, while the epetitions Change.org media, the Russia Today TV channel and the Gamers' Forum hosted the most focused on the main theme discussions displaying little "deliberation noise".

On surface, media identity, both objectively and as perceived by participants, seems to determine the discourse outcome. However, in reality, it might be the case that discourse participants simply prefer a particular media outlet that they are comfortable with, that generates statements and positions close to their own worldviews. It is not clear, therefore, what would be the discourse outcome on other media were the participant audiences as heterogeneous as possible. That doubt leaves the study's main research question not fully answered. More research would be needed to deeper examine the role of media in online policy discourses attracting a more diverse range of participants.

Conclusions

As argued above, the media type and its identity does have a role to play in determining deliberation outcomes. That is, the pro-government and openly government media outlets host discussions that are supportive to government policies and actions. In the same manner, independent from government control media is more critical towards authorities. However, the impact of media identity has its limits.

The study results support the conclusions of those researchers who argue that, when it comes to a political conversation, citizens prefer talking to their like-minded peers than diverse others. Hence, those who support the government on some principled and moral basissay for patriotism reasonswould turn to the media which identity is known to be, for example, pro-government. Participation in the discourses hosted by such media outlets would reinforce the already existing beliefs in favour of the authorities' actions, even if they might seem unusual, such as dumping into the soil by tractors. On the other hand, those who are critical towards the government on the differently understood moral grounds would more likely contribute to the discourses that reflect best upon their worldviews. However, these are only the general observations. The discussion on the politically neutral Gamers' Forum illustrates suggests that at least the spectrum of those criticizing the government is rather broad. We still don't know what would be the discourse outcome on the media that are equally attractive for the bearers of opposing positions and whether, as a result, their positions would be swayed. Additional studies are needed on other topics and more diverse media sample, including via focus groups and surveys, to examine the motivational side of participating in online policy discourses versus offline deliberations. Understanding better the relationships between civic and political activism in the digital realm remains an essential research agenda too.

This study has not been able to answer a great deal of other important questions, such as: how entrenched and unchangeable the articulated position statements are at the participant level; and to which extent participants themselves see their positions changeable and under which conditions they are ready to change them. Inability to answer these and other questions was a major limitation of the study. Yet we believe that the presented study contributes to the scholarship concerning online deliberation theories and practices by arguing that citizens' casual conversations online are legitimate policy discourses that can radically expand the existing level of knowledge and expertise for better policy-making [START_REF] Noveck | The rise of the citizen expert: how can data-rich technology drive better citizen engagement and make government more effective? Policy Network[END_REF].

  Governing regimes can only be morally and ethically justified if citizens are engaged in truth-tracking moral discourses to understand others[7: p. 52]. The role of public discourse is to 'uncover topics of relevance to all of society, interpret values, contribute to the resolution of problems, generate good reasons, and debunk bad ones'[8: p. 452]. Such discoveries are realized discursively, i.e. communicatively and collectively in the course of public discussion by making three types of basic claims to: (a) objective (propositional) truths, i.e. when the speaker refers to the 'totality of objects or

	existing states of affairs' in the objective world; (b) shared values (intersubjective normative rightness),
	i.e. when the speaker refers to the totality of shared interpersonal relationships of social groups; and (c)
	individual experiences (subjective truthfulness), i.e. when the speaker refers to the totality of his or her
	personal world [9: pp. 313-314], [10: p. 52]. These are the explicit speech acts carrying certain
	intentions. Using the real case of The Jerry Springer Show [11: p. 393], Habermas demonstrates how
	through claim-making a communicative action becomes 'meaningful when it engages with high moral
	standards'.
	Such discursive practices are not only defined as communicative -because participants coordinate their
	actions consensually via validity claims; they are also rational, because communication actors seek to
	motivate reciprocal discursiveness instead of influencing each other through less honest 'strategic
	communication' actions that are often accompanied by threat or coercion rather than consensual
	communication intentions [7: p. 58]. Being a rational discourse participant means being a responsible,
	reciprocal discussant. Rationality is not necessarily a formulaic robot-style exchange of arguments and
	reasons. It is also emotions, values and motivation. By claiming values and truths as they understand
	them, citizens demonstrate their communicative rationality 'in the form of uncoerced and undistorted
	interaction among competent individuals' [12: p. 12].

Table 1 .

 1 Side-taking in the Guardian discourse -10 most common "For Positions" (FP)

								FP-8: For
								defending
								the West	FP-9: For
	FP-1: For food distributio n among poor	FP-2: For food destructio n	FP-3: For accusin g Russia in not caring about its people	FP-4: For Putin's policie s	FP-5: For defending the truthfulnes s of the article	FP-6: For viewing Russia as a corrupte d country	FP-7: For considerin g food embargo as Putin's revenge against anti-Russian sanctions	and its anti-Russian sanctions as justified (blaming Russia for changing international borders) and not responsible	viewing Russia as a threat responsible for confrontatio n with a need to contain it to prevent more	FP-10: For blaming the West and its anti-Russian sanctions responsible for confrontatio n and food embargo
								for	aggression
								confrontatio
								n
	3	8	1	1	2	2	3	1	2	1
	6%	15%	2%	2%	4%	4%	6%	2%	4%	2%

Table 2 .

 2 Side-taking in the Guardian discourse -9 most common "Against Positions" (AP)

							AP-7:
			AP-3:				Against the	AP-8: Against	AP-9: Against
			Against			AP-6:	West and its	viewing	blaming the
	AP-1: Against food distribution among poor	AP-2: Against food destruction	accusing Russian government for not caring	AP-4: Against Putin's policies	AP-5: Against the truthfulness of the article	Against viewing Russia as a corrupted	anti-Russian sanctions that are responsible for	Russia as a threat responsible for confrontation	West and its anti-Russian sanctions responsible for confrontation
			about its			country	confrontation	with no need	and food
			people				and food	to contain it	embargo
							embargo
	4	11	1	1	4	1	3	1	3
	7%	20%	2%	2%	7%	2%	6%	2%	6%

Table 3 .

 3 Differentiation of For/Against position statements regarding food destruction policy by media type

		Media resource					Side-taking via claim validation (solidarity building)
										Food destruction related topics
					All validated				including
	Name	Country/Type	All posts	All unique participants	positions -all topics	All FOR/AGAINST validated positions	Position "Against food destruction" position "For food distribution/sale")	Positions "For food destruction" (including position "Against food distribution/sale")
					#	% in all posts	#	% in all positions	#	% in all FOR/AGAINST positions	#	% in all FOR/AGAINST positions
	The Guardian	UK, independent (first posts)	100	68	54	54%	26	48%	14	54%	12	46%
	Vzglyad (Delovaya Gazeta)	Russia, pro-government (first posts)	100	70	92	92%	42	46%	19	45%	23	55%
	Russia Today	Russia, pro-government (first posts)	97	58	68	70%	53	78%	15	28%	38	72%
	Change.org-1	International, independent (first posts)	100	72	69	69%	64	93%	55	86%	9	14%
	Change.org-2	International, independent (last posts)	77	69	52	68%	47	90%	37	79%	10	21%
	Novaya Gazeta	Russia, independent (first posts)	100	47	68	68%	34	50%	33	97%	1	3%
	Gamers' forum	Russia, independent (first posts)	73	33	36	49%	35	97%	32	91%	4	11%
			647	417	439		301

President Putin's Executive Order of

July 2015; the embargo is set to last until 6 August 2016more is here.[START_REF] Bershadskaya | Measurement Techniques for E-Participation Assessment: Case of Russian E-Petitions Portal[END_REF] Approval ratings reach 80% and above which is highly unusual for a functioning liberal democracy.[START_REF] Bershadskaya | E-Governance and E-Participation Services: An Analysis of Discussions in Russian Social Media[END_REF] For example, the web site of the Beautiful Petersburg movement 3 engages the public in local affairs to improve the city's environment entirely depends on active citizens.

For example, the OVA analysis tool and Arvina dialogue system were used to examine large-scale deliberation and politically complex decision-making in Scotland.

On the content coding steps and method see more in[START_REF] Misnikov | How to read and treat online public discussions among ordinary citizens beyond political mobilisation: empirical evidence from the Russian-language online forums[END_REF].

This research was supported by Russian Fund of Humanities, Grant 15-03-00715. The paper also draws on the doctoral (PhD) dissertation of Yuri Misnikov (University of Leeds, UK).


Sabrina Scherer
email: scherer@uni-koblenz.de

Maria A Wimmer
email: wimmer@uni-koblenz.de

A metamodel for the e-participation reference framework

Keywords: Participant Viewpoint, Participation Viewpoint, Data & Information Viewpoint, E-participation Viewpoint, and Implementation & Governance Viewpoint Metamodel, E-Participation, Architecture Framework, Domain Model, E-Participation Project

E-participation projects are complex socio-technical constructs integrating different concepts such as participation techniques, stakeholders, objectives, information artefacts, and technical facilities. To conceptualise comprehensive solutions of e-participation projects in a holistic wayi.e. comprehensively integrating the different concepts forming an e-participation project -, enterprise architecture frameworks are increasingly studied. Effective use of enterprise architecture frameworks demands a comprehensive conceptualisation of e-participation projects, which should embark on a common metamodel. In this paper, we study existing conceptual models structuring the e-participation domain and metamodels of enterprise architecture frameworks. From the insights of the comparative analysis, the e-participation metamodel is developed using design science research. The metamodel provides the conceptualisation and taxonomy for an e-participation reference framework to develop comprehensive architectures in e-participation projects. It is presented in a UML 2.0 diagram and involves six viewpoints: Participation Scope

Introduction

Over the past decade, several attempts have been made to conceptualise the e-participation domain [START_REF] Kalampokis | A domain model for eParticipation[END_REF][START_REF] Macintosh | Characterizing e-participation in policy-making[END_REF][START_REF] Porwol | An ontology for next generation e-participation initiatives[END_REF][START_REF] Saebø | The shape of eParticipation. Characterizing an emerging research area[END_REF][START_REF] Smith | A three-layered framework for evaluating e-participation[END_REF][START_REF] Tambouris | A survey of e-participation research projects in the European Union[END_REF][START_REF] Tambouris | A framework for assessing eParticipation projects and tools[END_REF][START_REF] Wimmer | Ontology for an e-participation virtual resource centre[END_REF][START_REF] Yusuf | A novel framework of e-participation[END_REF]. The concepts brought forward vary in their intended purposes and results. What they have in common is that they systemise the interdisciplinary research field and identify relevant concepts forming e-participation initiatives. Each of them can be seen as a kind of e-participation metamodel, understood as a conceptual definition and description of an e-participation project. The purpose of such a conceptual description can be  To define a vocabulary of e-participation usable in design and implementation [START_REF] Scherer | E-participation and enterprise architecture frameworks: an analysis[END_REF],  To model the e-participation domain [START_REF] Kalampokis | A domain model for eParticipation[END_REF],  To structure the e-participation research [START_REF] Wimmer | Ontology for an e-participation virtual resource centre[END_REF], or  To contribute to the proper understanding of the domain [START_REF] Kalampokis | A domain model for eParticipation[END_REF].

An e-participation metamodel conceptualising an architecture of an e-participation project was identified as part of a reference framework for e-participation in our earlier research [START_REF] Scherer | Reference framework for e-participation projects[END_REF][START_REF] Scherer | E-participation and enterprise architecture frameworks: an analysis[END_REF]. To derive such a metamodel, this paper analyses e-participation models and enterprise architecture frameworks. Enterprise architecture frameworks are instruments consisting of conventions, principles, and practices that guide the development of an enterprise architecture [START_REF]Systems and software engineering -Architecture description[END_REF]. An enterprise architecture is a conceptualisation of an enterprise (such as an e-participation project) with a common set of goals [START_REF]The Open Group Standard TOGAF Version 9[END_REF]. As such they can be a means to support the development and implementation of an e-participation project [START_REF] Scherer | E-participation and enterprise architecture frameworks: an analysis[END_REF]. In this paper, we perform a comparative analysis of existing conceptual models of e-participation and develop an e-participation metamodel that systematically combines the results of existing research into one comprehensive model. As the objective of this work is to construct a metamodel as an artefact that guides the design of e-participation initiatives along an enterprise architecture framework, this research applies Design Science Research. Design science research aims to design artefacts that define ideas, practices, models, frameworks, and products to support the analysis, design, implementation and use of information systems [START_REF] Hevner | Design science research in information systems[END_REF][START_REF] Peffers | A design science research methodology for information systems research[END_REF].

The remainder of the paper is as follows: Section 2 presents the comparative analysis of related work in e-participation. Subsequently, these results are further combined with a comparative analysis of metamodels of enterprise architecture frameworks in Section 3. Both sections provide the foundations for the metamodel for e-participation, which is introduced in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 provides concluding remarks.

Comparative analysis of related work in e-participation

Conceptual models present entities and their relationships, which characterise the e-participation domain. As such, they can be a means to structure e-participation projects and to identify relevant entities, their attributes and relationships. This section studies conceptual models and analyses them concerning viewpoints and entities identified.

To start with, e-participation literature often refers to the evaluation framework proposed by Macintosh and Whyte [START_REF] Macintosh | Towards an evaluation framework for eParticipation[END_REF] (referred to e.g. in [START_REF] Kubicek | Closing the Evaluation Gap in e-Participation Research and Practice[END_REF][START_REF] Porwol | An ontology for next generation e-participation initiatives[END_REF]), which distinguishes three viewpoints described as overlapping (pp. 20-21): Democratic considering criteria to understand how e-participation affects democracy, Project considering the aims, objectives, and methods of public engagement, and Socio-technical considering to what extent ICT design affects the outcomes. Kubicek and Aichholzer state that this framework "covers almost any aspect that has been mentioned in the literature as relevant or interesting in order to assess and evaluate (e-)participation" ([10] p. 30), while at the same time admitting that these viewpoints are overlapping (ibid. p. 31)i.e. Macintosh & Whyte's framework does not consider interrelations between these viewpoints. Furthermore, Kubicek and Aichholzer criticise the Project viewpoint as particularly heterogeneous, because it considers too many different aspects [START_REF] Kubicek | Closing the Evaluation Gap in e-Participation Research and Practice[END_REF]. As an example, they mention that this viewpoint includes the participation process as well as managerial objectives.

In an earlier work, Macintosh presents an analytical framework for e-participation, which emerged from work for the OECD e-government group. This framework proposes to study the characteristics of e-participation projects based on the following ten key dimensions: level of participation, stages in the policy making lifecycle, actors, technology used, rules of engagement, duration and sustainability, accessibility, resources and promotion, evaluation and outcomes, and critical success factors [START_REF] Macintosh | Characterizing e-participation in policy-making[END_REF]. This work is the basis for several further models emerging in literature over time, such as:  In 2007, Wimmer presents an ontology for an e-participation virtual resource centre with the aim to structure information available in e-participation research [START_REF] Wimmer | Ontology for an e-participation virtual resource centre[END_REF]. It bases on Macintosh's work [START_REF] Macintosh | Characterizing e-participation in policy-making[END_REF], yet reduces the core dimensions of the ontology to: stages in policy making, level of engagement, stakeholders and participation areas.  In 2008, Kalampokis et al. introduce a domain model for e-participation, which aims to represent important aspects and relationships to characterise e-participation. The authors suggest three sub-domains: ICT tool, participation process, and stakeholder [START_REF] Kalampokis | A domain model for eParticipation[END_REF]. Finally, they combine the sub-domains into one model to visualise the key relationships between them.  In 2008, Phang and Kankanhalli put forward a framework of ICT exploitation for e-participation initiatives [START_REF] Phang | A framework of ICT exploitation for e-participation initiatives[END_REF]. The framework examines how suitable various ICT tools are to achieve e-participation objectives. The work is based on Glass' work [START_REF] Glass | Citizen participation in planning: the relationship between objectives and techniques[END_REF], who analyses offline participation techniques with regards to achieving different objectives of citizen participation programs.  In 2011, Saebø et al. present an exploration of actors, activities, contextual factors, effects, and evaluation approaches addressed in the e-participation literature [START_REF] Saebø | The shape of eParticipation. Characterizing an emerging research area[END_REF]. Medaglia visualises this exploration and adopts it as a guideline to analyse how the e-participation research field develops [START_REF] Medaglia | eParticipation research: moving characterization forward (2006-2011)[END_REF].  Also in 2011, Smith et al. present a framework of e-participation analysis levels [START_REF] Smith | A three-layered framework for evaluating e-participation[END_REF] based on the generic impact analysis and measurement reference system by Millard [START_REF] Millard | eGovernment measurement for policy makers[END_REF]. This framework differentiates results by their focus on operational objec-tives=outputs, on specific objectives=outcomes, and on general objectives=impacts.  In 2014, Yusuf et al. introduce a model as the result of evaluating other frameworks [START_REF] Yusuf | A novel framework of e-participation[END_REF]. The approach categorises entities of other models such as [START_REF] Kalampokis | A domain model for eParticipation[END_REF], and [START_REF] Macintosh | Characterizing e-participation in policy-making[END_REF] in a new way and includes barriers and drivers of e-participation.  In 2016, Porwol, Ojo, & Breslin propose an ontology for next generation initiatives [START_REF] Porwol | An ontology for next generation e-participation initiatives[END_REF], which aims at facilitating operations of e-participation initiatives and improving knowledge exchange between similar initiatives. The ontology covers the views Platform, Project, and Democratic Process1 .

A comparative analysis of entities included in the models studied above shows that each of these conceptual models focusses on and considers slightly different e-participation characteristics. The models in [START_REF] Kalampokis | A domain model for eParticipation[END_REF] and [START_REF] Wimmer | Ontology for an e-participation virtual resource centre[END_REF] are comprehensive but neglect objectives and a further differentiation of participation results as [START_REF] Smith | A three-layered framework for evaluating e-participation[END_REF] provides. Porwol et al. focus on the comparison of different e-participation projects and do not consider specifics of participation processes and involvement of actors [START_REF] Porwol | An ontology for next generation e-participation initiatives[END_REF]. None of the models considered can provide a comprehensive picture of an e-participation project and, thus, cannot serve alone as an e-participation metamodel to be used to describe e-participation architectures in a reference framework. The analysis and synthesis of above conceptual models leads us to a comprehensive list of structural elements of an e-participation project, which contains: stakeholder/actor, role, stage in policy-making, level of participation, participation area, participation activity, participation technique, participation process, ICT (application/ICT, tool, tool category, and technology), channel, objective, driver, barrier, input, output, outcome, impact. Each of the elements can further be analysed. For this paper, we investigate the stakeholders and actors proposed in the conceptual models. The following stakeholder/actor types list shows the union set of entities described in the literature: academia; advisory board, industry/business (in particular consultancies); elected representative; government executive; policy maker; political party/politician; citizen/citizen group; NGO/CSO; the media. Relevant roles that stakeholders can take over in an e-participation project are put forward e.g. in Kalampokis et al. [START_REF] Kalampokis | A domain model for eParticipation[END_REF], Macintosh (describing some activities that can be interpreted as roles) [START_REF] Macintosh | Characterizing e-participation in policy-making[END_REF], Saebø et al [21]. Furthermore, Rozanski & Woods put forward relevant roles in software engineering [START_REF] Rozanski | Understanding the dynamics in e-Participation initiatives. Looking through the genre and stakeholder lenses[END_REF]. The roles, which the authors describe, can be both, internal (part of the project team) and external. The analysis of the actor/stakeholder roles results in the following list: input provider and lurker as participant; decision maker; administrator, consultant, evaluator, expert of the particular policy, facilitator, initiator, ICT developer, ICT maintainer; ICT provider, moderator, marketing/promotion, owner, project manager, and support staff.

Based on above analysis of conceptualisations of e-participation, and in particular on the works of Karalampokis et al [START_REF] Kalampokis | A domain model for eParticipation[END_REF] and Macintosh and Whyte [START_REF] Macintosh | Towards an evaluation framework for eParticipation[END_REF], we select the following four viewpoints as an initial structure of the metamodel, which separates participation from management processes and methodstherewith also clustering above number of elements in a systematic way:

 Participation Viewpoint (participation process, democratic objectives),  Implementation & Governance Viewpoint (managerial objectives),  E-participation Viewpoint (socio-technical), and  Participant Viewpoint (stakeholder, target groups). However, our experience from past e-participation projects [see e.g. [START_REF] Scherer | Enabling eParticipation of the youth in the public debate on legislation in Austria: a critical reflection[END_REF][START_REF] Scherer | A regional model for e-participation in the EU. Evaluation and lessons learned from VoicE[END_REF] shows that the list of identified elements is not sufficiently complete to design the architecture of an e-participation project. In particular, elements to design managerial aspects (e.g. risks, which may hamper the achievement of objectives) or a data architecture are missing. As EA frameworks are used in the information systems domain to design complex socio-technical systems, we therefore analyse a selection of metamodels of EA frameworks to complement e-participation conceptual models (see next section).

Comparative analysis of enterprise architecture frameworks

Multiple (enterprise) architecture frameworks exist on the market [START_REF] Matthes | Enterprise Architecture Frameworks Kompendium[END_REF] provided from commercial consultancies, industry consortia, governments or the military. The following frameworks are analysed in this research:  The Zachman Framework for Information System Architecture [START_REF] Zachman | A framework for information systems architecture[END_REF] is a reference point for many EA frameworks published later on [START_REF] Schönherr | (ed) Enterprise Application Integration[END_REF]. It presents an architecturebased systematisation of what needs to be defined and implemented in information systems development and enterprise engineering.  The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) [START_REF]The Open Group Standard TOGAF Version 9[END_REF] is an industry standard for developing enterprise architectures (EAs). It represents an international approach, commonly agreed upon by many industry players, and it complements the Zachman Framework by e.g. providing a detailed architecture development method. TOGAF is the EA framework most often used in industry [START_REF] Cameron | Analyzing the current trends in enterprise architecture frameworks[END_REF].  The Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) [START_REF]Federal enterprise architecture framework[END_REF] provides a framework for developing processes and information structures between U.S. agencies.  The Department of Defence Architecture Framework (DoDAF) [START_REF]The DoDAF Architecture Framework Version 2[END_REF] serves as standard for military information system development, but is used also for enterprise architecture development outside the military domain.  The ArchiMate Specification 2.1 [START_REF][END_REF] is an integrated architectural approach and language for enterprise modelling [START_REF] Lankhorst | Enterprise architecture at work: modelling, communication and analysis[END_REF]. The Open Group qualifies ArchiMate as "fully aligned with TOGAF"2 [START_REF] Estrem | TOGAF® framework and ArchiMate® modeling language harmonization[END_REF], even if some differences to TOGAF exist.

DoDAF states the purposes of a metamodel as (1) to define a vocabulary, (2) to specify data exchange semantics and formats, (3) to improve comprehensibility of EA data, and (4) to provide a basis for semantic precision. It proposes a conceptual data model, a logical data model and a physical exchange schema. The FEAF metamodel is called the Consolidated Reference Model [START_REF]Federal enterprise architecture framework[END_REF] and aims to provide such a reference model. The TOGAF metamodel aims to formally structure the terms for ensuring consistency and guiding organisations [START_REF]The Open Group Standard TOGAF Version 9[END_REF]. It proposes a core model ("a basic model with the minimum feature set" [START_REF]The Open Group Standard TOGAF Version 9[END_REF]) and several extensions, e.g. for process or motivation. ArchiMate [START_REF][END_REF] defines the entities used in the modelling language.

In our comparative analysis (see Table 1), we map the architecture framework metamodel entities with the elements identified in e-participation frameworks in the previous section, leading to two additional viewpoints (informed by the EA frameworks studied): Since the e-participation metamodels (cf. previous section) do not cover data, which the project will produce, store, or edit in different activities, we add the Data & Information Viewpoint. In addition, the motivation aspect (vision, objectives, etc. driving the e-participation) is not covered in e-participation metamodels, hence we add the Participation Scope Viewpoint. This way, objectives can be defined at a higher level, and can be broken down subsequently into participation objectives, socio-technical objectives and operational objectives along with relevant measures.

Location, Event

The comparison of elements of existing metamodels (Table 1) shows that it is not necessary to develop a new metamodel from scratch. However, there are two reasons for arguing the need for a customised metamodel for the e-participation domain:

1. The existing e-participation metamodels do not include some entities needed to design e-participation in a comprehensive way, 2. Existing Enterprise Architecture metamodels are too business-oriented or are not customised towards e-participation contexts.

As the e-participation metamodel should consider specific entities relevant to e-participation projects (e.g. particular stakeholder groups and roles to ease its application for e-participation experts) to effectively support the EA framework for e-participation 26], we put forward a comprehensive e-participation metamodel. This metamodel is derived from above investigations by (a) selecting common entities in existing metamodels, and (b) adapting them to the needs and specifications of e-participation.

The e-participation metamodel

Six viewpoints structure the e-participation metamodel, which are derived from the above analysis of existing metamodels and which are described in more detail below:

1. Participation Scope Viewpoint: motivation and objectives of the project. Relationships exist between these viewpoints as visualised in Fig. 1.

Participation Scope Viewpoint

The purpose of the Participation Scope Viewpoint is to capture the objectives, and to link them with measures to achieve them. Furthermore, it provides information needed by the owners to decide if they will carry out the project or not and the basis for further developments after a positive decision. Using this viewpoint makes it possible to determine the purpose of e-participation. It is also foreseen to estimate the potential impacts of e-participation throughout its lifecycle through a high-level view on how the objectives can be achieved by participation techniques. Stakeholders may be the owner and management as well as participants wishing to understand the purposes of participation. The Participation Scope Viewpoint employs scenario building to describe the participation vision. The analysis begins by determining which objectives support the vision.

A solution for achieving these objectives is defined on a high level. Therefore, any entities of other viewpoints can be associated with entities from the Participation Scope, e.g. to determine actors' requirements or objectives.

Fig. 1. Overview of the e-participation metamodel

A Vision is a mental image of the intended future [cp. inputs in 35] with regards to what the project aims to achieve and the context. A vision tackles participation levels, a policy cycle stage and participation areas. An Objective is the goal of e-participation. Objectives can be defined on different levels: general objectives (impacts), specific objectives (outcomes) and operational objectives (outputs) [START_REF] Millard | eGovernment measurement for policy makers[END_REF]. A Principle is "a qualitative statement of intent that should be met by" [33, p. 22] the e-participation architecture. Principles are "general rules and guidelines […] that inform and support the way in which an organisation sets about fulfilling its mission" [33, p. 235]. A Requirement is "a statement of need that must be realised" [34, p. 120]. An Output is an operational objective that the project generates through its construction [START_REF] Smith | A three-layered framework for evaluating e-participation[END_REF]. An Outcome is a specific objective that describes a benefit for stakeholders [START_REF] Smith | A three-layered framework for evaluating e-participation[END_REF]. An Impact is a general objective, i.e. a societal objective or public value that describes an overall goal [START_REF] Smith | A three-layered framework for evaluating e-participation[END_REF]. A Constraint is an external factor or restriction influencing the way in which the project can be realised [START_REF]The Open Group Standard TOGAF Version 9[END_REF][START_REF][END_REF].

Participant Viewpoint

The purpose of the Participant Viewpoint is to identify and manage the stakeholders, who are actively and passively engaged in the project or affected by the policy under consideration. It provides information needed to allocate roles to participants. Stakeholders of this viewpoint may be the owner and management, as well as participation analyst. Nevertheless, it is also for ICT engineers to derive access rights. The Participant Viewpoint employs stakeholder analysis. It needs to model Actor/Stakeholder, Role, Organisation type, Organisation. The enumeration Actor Type specifies the kind of stakeholder/actor, while the enumeration Organisation Type defines the kind of organisations. A Performer is any entity or complex of entities responsible to perform an activity and provide a capability [START_REF]The DoDAF Architecture Framework Version 2[END_REF]. A Stakeholder is "an individual, team, or organization (or classes thereof) with interests in, or concerns relative to, the outcome of the architecture" [START_REF]The Open Group Standard TOGAF Version 9[END_REF]. Stakeholder can be seen as "a motivational role […] that an actor may fulfil" [START_REF][END_REF]. An Actor is an organisational entity that is capable of performing behaviour [START_REF][END_REF]. An Actor Type is a particular kind of actor: citizen, elected representative, government executive, employee, policy maker, decision maker, politician, lobbyist, other. An Organisation is a self-contained unit of people and other resources with objectives [START_REF]The Open Group Standard TOGAF Version 9[END_REF][START_REF]The DoDAF Architecture Framework Version 2[END_REF]. An Organisation Type is a particular kind of organisation: academia, government, industry, political party, non-governmental organisation, media, and advisory board. A Role is the part and the contribution an actor plays in the e-participation project [START_REF]The Open Group Standard TOGAF Version 9[END_REF], as e.g. administrator, decision-maker, policy expert, facilitator, moderator, input provider, lurker.

Participation Viewpoint

The purpose of the Participation Viewpoint is the design of participation services, processes and activities necessary to carry out the e-participation project. It considers the political decision-making processes and plans how to integrate participation processes in a meaningful way. Participation analysts who are interested in planning the participation procedures are obvious stakeholders. In addition, the owners, managers, and participants who want to see how participation is carried out are stakeholders. This viewpoint employs process analysis and management. The analysis is performed in two steps [START_REF] Scherer | Hands-on guideline for e-participation initiatives[END_REF]: First, the decision-making processes are analysed. Afterwards the participation processes are planned. The planning needs to consider the participation techniques and the roles that perform activities in the processes as well as inputs and outputs. There is a need to model Event, Process, Activity, Participation Service, Channel, and Participation Technique. Furthermore, it is necessary to link Performer of related viewpoints and Objective of the Participation Scope Viewpoint. An Activity transforms input resources into output resources or changes the states of resources [START_REF]The DoDAF Architecture Framework Version 2[END_REF]. A Participation Technique is a method or instrument applied to involve or engage individuals or groups in the participation process [START_REF] Kalampokis | A domain model for eParticipation[END_REF].A Participation Service is a specific service to involve or engage target groups based on participation techniques employed. A Process is an entity that groups behaviour based on an ordering of activities [START_REF][END_REF]. Processes are differentiated in policy-making and participation processes. A Decisionmaking Process is a set of coordinated activities with certain start and end points that are performed by a government with the aim to set a policy on the political agenda, formulate a policy, decide a policy, implement a policy and/or evaluate a policy [1,[START_REF] Birkland | An introduction to the policy process: theories, concept and models of public policy making[END_REF][START_REF] Howlett | Studying public policy. Policy cycles and policy subsystems[END_REF]. A Participation Process presents the activities to engage stakeholders in policymaking processes. An Event is a state change, inside or outside the e-participation initiative, which triggers activities or processes [START_REF]The Open Group Standard TOGAF Version 9[END_REF].

Data & Information Viewpoint

The Data & Information Viewpoint describes the data, which performers produce or consume within e-participation. The purpose of the viewpoint is the development of a data and information architecture. It aims to ensure that the information relevant in e-participation project operations is managed [according to the Data and Information Viewpoint in 35].Using this viewpoint makes it possible to conceptualise the data and information. Editorial team, marketing, ICT engineer are interested in these views: The editorial team and marketing to identify participation data and information, which are to be provided. ICT architects and engineers to design appropriate applications. The Data & Information Viewpoint describes the Resources, which performers produce or consume within e-participation. The entities are Data Entity representing data and information, Data Component to store data entities, and Data Type. A Data Entity is a specific encapsulation [START_REF]The Open Group Standard TOGAF Version 9[END_REF] or information that is materialised in any medium or form and communicated or received [START_REF]The DoDAF Architecture Framework Version 2[END_REF]. It is represented in a formalised manner suitable for communication, interpretation, or processing by humans or by automatic means [START_REF]The DoDAF Architecture Framework Version 2[END_REF].

E-participation Viewpoint

The purpose of the E-participation Viewpoint is the technical representation of the applications required to implement the participation architecture, its deployment and operation. It therefore describes the general architecture of the applications: their struc-

Implementation & Governance Viewpoint

The purpose of the Implementation & Governance Viewpoint is the operational management of the e-participation project and governance of architecture implementation. It addresses the concern of determining the constraints of carrying out e-participation (e.g. of managerial or environmental nature) and evaluating the outcomes. Some likely stakeholders for the viewpoint are the project managers. The managers need to model the Budget by estimating the Costs of Resources. A Resource is something that is consumed or produced by an activity [START_REF]The DoDAF Architecture Framework Version 2[END_REF]. Resources include the underlying infrastructure necessary to construct the e-participation [START_REF] Smith | A three-layered framework for evaluating e-participation[END_REF]. Project managers define a project plan and need to work out important Events. Furthermore, Measures are defined for Objectives consolidated. The viewpoint employs risk management [a risk management framework is e.g. described in 33pp. 313-317]. Mitigation Strategies are developed for Risks identified. A Risk describes a danger, which might influence if objectives are achievable.

Conclusion

This paper studied e-participation and enterprise architecture metamodels and derived from this research a e-participation metamodel, which serves as a structure in the design and implementation of e-participation projects. The research combined a comparative analysis of literature on conceptual models structuring the e-participation domain and metamodels of architecture frameworks. Comparative analysis showed that the different attempts complement each other, but a comprehensive approach is still missing. This paper combined the elements from the different models to develop a comprehensive metamodel for e-participation, and it is structured by the following six viewpoints: participation scope, participant, participation, data & information, e-participation, and implementation & governance. The metamodel formalises the architecture of an e-participation project, the relationships between the entities, and enables an EA tool mapping. The latter is a particular additional value that the proposed metamodel provides in comparison with the existing e-participation metamodels resulting from the comparison with EA framework metamodels. Another benefit is that this metamodel integrates managerial as well as data and information aspects necessary to design the architecture of an e-participation project. Furthermore, the breaking down into viewpoints supports the stakeholders in managing the complexity, as particular stakeholders are able to focus on their concerns. The research on the metamodel is part of research work putting forward an e-participation reference framework [START_REF] Scherer | Reference framework for e-participation projects[END_REF][START_REF] Scherer | E-participation and enterprise architecture frameworks: an analysis[END_REF]. This framework is designed to guide the design and implementation of e-participation so that the architecture enables project success with optimised processes and ICT, and a lower total cost of ownership. Its target group is the group of stakeholders responsible for designing and implementing an e-participation project. The strategic, top-down perspective on the project enables project management, initiators, owners, executives and decision makers to plan, organise, and combine their activities in a comprehensive way. The metamodel provides the base vocabulary and structural concept.

2 . 3 .

 23 Participant Viewpoint: stakeholder engagement and management. Participation Viewpoint: participation services and processes. 4. Data & Information Viewpoint: production and use of data. 5. E-Participation Viewpoint: e-participation tools and support of techniques. 6. Implementation & Governance Viewpoint: operations, administration and management of the e-participation project.

  UML class diagram. Symbols represent the sources of the entities: * TOGAF, + ArchiMate, ° DoDAF, ~ Smith et al., # Kalampokis et al., § Phang and Kankanhalli, & Porwol et al.

Table 1 .

 1 Mapping entities identified in e-participation conceptual models with entities in architecture framework metamodels

	View-	Partici-	Partici-	Participation E-partici-	Data &	Imple-
	point	pation	pant		pation	Infor-	menta-
		Scope				mation	tion &
	Frame-						Govern-
	work						ance
	Initial	Input,	Actor,	Policy-mak-	Tool, Tool		Re-
	Set of	Output,	Organi-	ing Stage,	Category,		source,
	E-partic-	Outcome,	sation	Participation	Technology		Promo-
	ipation	Impact,	Unit,	Level/Area,			tion,
	Entities	Objec-	Role	Participation			Funding,
	(Sec-	tive,		Activity,
	tion 2)	Driver,		Technique,
		Barrier,		Decision-
		Guideline		making/Par-
				ticipation
				Process
	TOGAF	Require-	Actor,	Process,	Applica-	Data	Location,
	[33]	ment	Organi-	Business Ser-	tion/Tech-	Entity	Event
			sation	vice, Func-	nology
			Unit,	tion, Event	Component,
			Role		Platform
					Service,
					Service In-
					terface
	DoDAF	Guidance Actor,	Activity	System,	Re-	Condi-
	[35]		Organi-		Service,	source	tion,
			sation,		Service		Measure,
			Per-		Channel		Capabil-
			son/Or-				ity, Lo-
			ganisa-				cation,
			tion				Event
			Type
	FEAF	Goals,	Person	Functions,	IT Assets,	Data	Business
	[5]	Assessts		Services, As-	Application	Assets	Capabili-
		(Invest-		sets (Pro-	(System,	(Do-	ties,
		ments,		cesses)	Component,	main,	Measure-
		Pro-			Interface),	Subject,	ment Ar-
		grames),			Infrastruc-	Topic),	eas/Cate-
		Purpose			ture (Plat-		gories,
					form, Facil-		Risk,
					ity, Net-		Control
					work), In-
					terface
	Archi-	Require-	Busi-	Product	Application	Data
	Mate	ment, As-	ness ac-		Component,	Object
	[34]	sessment	tor,		Interface,
			Stake-		Application
			holder,		Function,
			Busi-		System
			ness		Software
			role

  ture, distributions and how they are interconnected, and a technical description of the applications. Stakeholders are the ICT engineers, suppliers, developers and administrators, i.e. those who are responsible for implementing the ICT facilities supporting the participation. When employing the viewpoint, the requirements manager analyses the Requirements considering input by all stakeholders. The ICT engineers/architects and participation analysts in charge decide on the Application Components supporting the Participation Services and Requirements. Next, the ICT engineers select appropriate Technology Components, which provide the platform for the Application Components. Afterwards, they develop the software architecture. An Application Component is a group of interacting or interdependent ICT elements, which can be functional, physical or behaviour related[START_REF]The DoDAF Architecture Framework Version 2[END_REF]. A group of integrated application components form an eparticipation tool or e-participation platform. A Technology Component is an "encapsulation of technology infrastructure"[33, p. 631].

based on the perspectives proposed in Macintosh and Whyte[START_REF] Macintosh | Towards an evaluation framework for eParticipation[END_REF]

See http://www.opengroup.org/subjectareas/enterprise/archimate [accessed 29 May 2016]