Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ferber, P.
Right arrow Articles by Pugliese, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Interactivity Versus Interaction: What Really Matters for State Legislature Web Sites?

Paul Ferber

Rochester Institute of Technology

Franz Foltz

Rochester Institute of Technology

Rudy Pugliese

Rochester Institute of Technology

The Internet, not unlike previous communication technologies, has been predicted to dramatically change the nature of democracy. The interactive nature of Web sites, in particular, is seen as the basis for a new cyberdemocracy. Although the definition of interactivity is less than precise, an evaluation of state legislature Web sites finds them lacking many features that could be considered interactive. Furthermore, the degree of a site’s interactivity was not strongly correlated to a site’s use. Web sites can also foster interaction, both on- and off-site, through interactive and noninteractive features. When sites were examined for their potential to foster interaction, there was a strong relationship with site use. The current focus on interactivity may obscure the potential to promote interaction and lead to an overemphasis on interactive features that are sometimes nothing more than high-tech gimmicks.

Key Words: interactivity • Internet • state legislatures • interaction

Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 25, No. 5, 402-411 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0270467605279080
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Bulletin of Science Technology SocietyHome page
A. Reetz Narro
Webmasters Reveal the Rules: Do Regulations Compromise Legislators' Online Communication With Constituents?
Bulletin of Science Technology Society, December 1, 2009; 29(6): 483 - 492.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Bulletin of Science Technology SocietyHome page
P. Ferber, F. Foltz, and R. Pugliese
Cyberdemocracy and Online Politics: A New Model of Interactivity
Bulletin of Science Technology Society, October 1, 2007; 27(5): 391 - 400.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Bulletin of Science Technology SocietyHome page
P. Ferber, F. Foltz, and R. Pugliese
Community Networks and Public Participation: A Forum for Civic Engagement or a Platform for Ranting Irate Malcontents?
Bulletin of Science Technology Society, October 1, 2006; 26(5): 388 - 397.
[Abstract] [PDF]