PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12123246

Case study: public consensus building on the Internet.

Abstract

Many groups or organizations advocating different special interests or policies now promote and conduct grassroots movements online through their own web sites. On the basic assumption that collective activities on the Internet are another form of social phenomenon, the process of public consensus-building on the Internet, and the ways in which various functions available on the Internet were strategically used to facilitate the public's involvement and participation were examined. The Frame Alignment Process was adopted as a conceptual framework for this study. Based on this framework, four related but not identical processes--"frame bridging," "frame amplification," "frame extension," and "frame transformation"--were elaborated, and various functions on the Internet facilitating this frame alignment process were examined. The Electronic Frontier Foundation's successful online campaign to prevent the passage of the Communication Decency Act of 1996 was chosen as a real-world case to elaborate a frame alignment process and the effective use of various functions on the Internet.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Hyun Soon Park. 2002. Case study: public consensus building on the Internet.. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493102760147231

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Reporting data on homeopathic treatments (RedHot): a supplement to CONSORT.

When homeopathy is tested in clinical trials, understanding and appraisal is likely to be improved if published reports contain details of prescribing strategies and treatments. An international Delphi panel was convened to develop consensus guidelines for reporting homeopathic methods and treatments. The panel agreed 28 treatment- and provider-specific items that supplement the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement items 2, 3, 4 and 19. The authors recommend these for adoption by authors and journals when reporting trials of homeopathy.

Consensus↗

Agreement between Cochrane Neonatal Group reviews and clinical guidelines for newborns at a Copenhagen University Hospital - a cross-sectional study.

AIM: To assess the agreement between Cochrane Neonatal Group reviews and clinical guidelines of a University Neonatology Department, to evaluate the reasons for potential disagreements and to ascertain whether Cochrane reviews were considered for the guidelines development. METHODS: The recommendations in the reviews and guidelines were compared and classified as being in 'agreement', 'partial agreement' or 'disagreement'. The guideline authors were interviewed for reasons about disagreement and whether Cochrane reviews were considered during the guideline development. RESULTS: Agreement between reviews and guidelines was found for 133 interventions (77%), partial agreement for 31 interventions (18%) and disagreement for nine interventions (5%). Six interventions were recommended in the guidelines, but not in the reviews. Three interventions were recommended in the reviews, but not in the guidelines. Use of consensus statements, evidence on surrogate markers, observational studies, basic immunology and pathophysiological knowledge, expert opinion, economical constraints, reservations about the external validity and unawareness of reviews were reasons for disagreement. Cochrane reviews were rarely (22%) used during the guideline development. CONCLUSION: We found agreement between more than three quarters of Cochrane reviews and neonatal guidelines. However, few important disagreements occurred. Reviews were only used for guideline development in about a fifth of cases.

Consensus↗