1.0 Introduction

The Internet is undoubtedly the fastest growing technology of the past decade. It has surpassed even the television as the most rapid implementation of a technological invention into the home (Nua Internet Surveys October 1999). It has become part of just about every aspect of daily life from business to entertainment to education.

Like many technologies, it has become widely accepted and fervently utilized within a very short period of time after becoming available to the public. No one could have predicted that a technology that first appeared when it was used by the United States Military to relay information safely and securely, would come to be considered the greatest advancement in communication of the 20th century (Nua Internet Surveys October 1999).

But again, like much technological advancement, the Internet has grown without constraint over the last several years. It has become common-place in a very short amount of time. The trend seems to be to apply the technology of the Internet to every aspect of daily activity, from the very complex to the mundane. No matter what the activity or endeavour, someone is trying to put it on the Internet. But is this the way to go? Should we assume that no matter what the activity, that it will be improved if it is somehow connected to the expanding technology of the Internet?

Concern over the affects of technological advancement of any kind on our society is not new. It can be seen in books, film, and art of past years and today, that impacts of technology on our culture is of great interest to people. The emotion often portrayed within many of these art forms is fear. Artists depict a wave of technology that has taken on a mind of its own and we as a society are being swept along with it. This is a fantasy image of technological advancement, but not particularly far from the truth.

There is a spectrum of views on technological progress. At one extreme is the technophile (Nardi & O'Day 1999: 17). The technophile sees the advancement of technology as a purely beneficial activity. Nothing should hold back the progress of technology and scientific experimentation. Wherever and whenever technology can be incorporated into daily life, it should be. The argument of the technophile is that a computer or a machine can do whatever a human can do and it can do it faster, more accurately, and overall, better. They feel to limit technology is to limit our advancement as a society. The technophile feels no one should fear technological progress. Although it is inevitable, unavoidable, and unstoppable, it also beneficial, rewarding and profitable.

On the opposite end of this spectrum of attitudes is the dystopian (Nardi & O'Day 1999: 17). The dystopian considers technological advancement to be the downfall of our society. They believe social interaction and traditional activities and art forms are being sacrificed for the advancement of machines. They feel that we should turn our backs on any form of technological advancement and refuse to further it.

There is a common thread, however, within these two extreme attitudes. Both technophile and dystopian believe that the force of technological breakthroughs is inevitable, it is something that cannot be controlled by people. If this is true, then we have two options: go with it or ignore it.

Those who chose to believe all technology brings us closer to "enlightenment" tend to become blinded by the sheer capabilities of technology. There is a curiosity, a thrill to see what is possible. The experts who are behind these advancements tend to further this feeling of inevitability and sheer potential in society. They describe the entire process as though it were a natural occurrence, not one controlled by people.

Those who chose to have no part of the advancing technologies are viewed as "digging in their heels" and holding back social and scientific achievement. Also, they are reminded everyday, as technology further creeps into their lives, that it is difficult to not accept some forms of technological advancement.

Then there are those who go along for the "uncontrollable" ride. They think they have no choice but to do so because of the infringement of technological advancement on their profession, their education or their daily lives in general. Those who are not technologically educated are neither incorporating technology into every aspect of their lives, nor are they turning their backs completely on it. Because of their lack of technological abilities, they also tend to think they don't have the expertise to offer guidance and direction within the technological world.

Society must come to recognize that technological advancement is not a "force of nature", but instead something that can be controlled (Nardi & O'Day 1999: 14). People invent it, people design it, people use it and people have control over it. And not just the technological people in the labs, but everyone.

Technology is something that affects daily life, everything from relationships, family, work, education, leisure, and politics. Something that impacts everything we do so greatly should be under greater scrutiny before decisions on how it advances are made (Nardi & O'Day 1999: 13). Yet, we seem to mystified by it, unable to aggressively make changes and decisions about it.

We must create more discussion, more conversation and more honest and real debate over the role technology will have in our society. We should begin to change the question from "Can we use technology here?" to "Should we us technology here?". Technology should support human behaviour and activity, not override it.

Though "technology" is the general term used in the above paragraphs, the word "Internet" could be substituted. As said before, the most talked about technology of today is the Internet. It is a new form of interaction that is becoming as standard to communication as the telephone. It has few limitations in terms of communication. It can be used to relay information, it provides a venue for feedback, and it can also be used as a one-on-one, realtime, and often visual communication tool.

It is therefore no surprise that the Internet is being incorporated into nearly every activity where access to information, feedback and discussion are important. Things like commerce, entertainment, art, and culture are the drivers behind the Internet's popularity (Gralla 1997).

This thesis will investigate the idea of incorporating the use of the Internet into the activity of obtaining public input. Since the Internet has been established as a new communications tool, it follows that it could provide a supplementary method for facilitating public participation.

This thesis will not only ask "Can the Internet be used here?". It will also ask "Should the Internet be used here?". It will not assume from the start that the Internet is the answer to the problems that currently exist in public participation methods.

It will show where and how the Internet can be used successfully in the realm of public participation. The overall steps taken to achieve this will be as follows:

1. Background research of the Internet and Public Participation
2. Investigation of current problems and shortcomings of traditional public participation methods as well as identification of new problems that can occur with an Internet application.
3. Determine how Internet applications may begin to solve these problems and the specifics of what form these applications would take and;
4. Identification of where the Internet would successfully fit into the process.

A collection of existing case studies, which have attempted some form of Internet Public Participation, will also be investigated as examples.

This thesis will not be highly technical. I am not an Internet expert. The main reason I chose this topic was to show that the determination of how Internet technology develops and is used is not a topic to be discussed only by technological experts. It was also chosen to hopefully show that the workings of the Internet can be learned and mastered quickly and easily even by those who are not technologically educated.

The Internet is an exciting and innovative communications tool. However, like any other tool, it should only be used for a particular job, when it is the right tool for that job. It should not be used for its own sake merely because it is part of an increasing popular technology. This thesis will determine if and when it is the right tool for the job of improving public participation within the planning process.

[toc] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Appendices] [Bibliography]