One of the main goals of this web site is to understand civic participation. We continually wonder, why do people get involved or why are they reticent to? What can change a person's mind or push them to act? Last week on Twitter, @participatory linked to an interesting paper overviewing various models of participation written by researchers and academics. Needless to say, it has given us a lot to think about. An even 30 models are reviewed with quotes from the authors, graphics of the models and some criticism.

The authors are no intellectual slouches, either. Quotes that explain and add context to the models are well curated. For example, Roger Hjart said in 1992,

It might be argued that ‘participation’ in society begins from the moment a child enters the world and discovers the extent to which she is able to influence events by cries or movements. This would be a broader definition of participation than can be handled in this essay, but it is worth bearing in mind that through these early negotiations, even in infancy, children discover the extent to which their own voices influence the course of events in their lives. (…) This essay, however, focuses entirely on children in the public domain: school, community groups, other organizations or informal groups beyond the family.

The ascendency of the Internet has had its own effect on views of civic engagement. For example, in a report authored by the New Zealand government, the metaphor of the Internet takes center stage

The defining feature of what many are calling Web 2.0 is the ability of users to create, share and link content as they develop communities. We need a new visual map of these interactions -- one which takes into account not only online relations between citizens and with government but also how they relate to offline interactions. The image below attempts to portray these new interconnections, or Participation 2.0, as being facilitated by the Internet -- but extending beyond it.