top of page
Bibliographical References

Asher, M., Bandeira, C. L., & Spaiser, V. (2017). Assessing the effectiveness of the e-petition procedure through Twitter conversations. doc174.pdf ( <>


Baker, J. (1993). Statutory Interpretation and Parliamentary Intention. The Cambridge Law Journal, 52(3), 353-357. 


Bauer, T. K. & Bender, S. (2004). Technological Change, Organizational Change, and Job Turnover. Labour Economics, 11 (3), 265-291


Bentivegna, S. (1998). Talking Politics on the Net. Research Paper R-20. The Joan Shorenstein Center, Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Boehme-Neßler, V. (2019). Digitising Democracy: On Reinventing Democracy in the Digital Era - A Legal, Political and Psychological Perspective. Springer Nature Switzerland AG.


Borup et al. (2006). The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18:3-4, 285-298, DOI: 10.1080/09537320600777002


Bernard, A. B. & Jones, C. I. (1996). Technology and Convergence. The Economic Journal, Volume 106, 1037-1044.


Boudreau M.C., & Robey, D. (2005). Enacting Integrated Information Technology: A Human Agency Perspective. Organization Science, 16 (1), 3-18.


Bowman, N. D., Westerman, D. K. & Claus, C. J. (2012). How demanding is social media: Understanding social media diets as a function of perceived costs and benefits – A rational actor perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 2298-2305.


Clemens, E. S. and Cook, J. M. (1999). Politics and Institutionalism: Explaining Durability and Change. Annual Review of Sociology 25:441-466.

Coleman, S. (1999). The New Media and Democratic Politics. New Media & Society. 1(1):67-74. doi:10.1177/1461444899001001011

Coleman, S & Gøtze, J. Bowling Together. (2001). Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation. Hansard Society. 


Coleman, S.  (2004) Connecting Parliament to the Public via the Internet. Information, Communication & Society, 7:1, 1-22, DOI: 10.1080/1369118042000208870


Cordella, A. & Iannacci, F. (2010). Information systems in the public sector: The e-Government enactment framework. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 19 (2010) 52–66


De Faria, C. F. S. (2013). The open parliament in the Age of the Internet: Can the People Now Collaborate with

Legislatures in Lawmaking? Brasilia, Documentation and Information Center: Edições Câmara.


Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.


Fountain, J. E. (2006). Enacting Technology in Networked Governance: Developmental Processes of Cross-Agency Arrangements. National Center for Digital Government Working Paper Series. 16, 1-45.


Gamm, G., & Shepsle, K. (1989). Emergence of Legislative Institutions: Standing Committees in the House and Senate, 1810-1825. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 14(1), 39-66. Retrieved October 24, 2020, from


Garson, G.D. (2003). Technological Teleology and the Theory of Technology Enactment: The Case of the International Trade Data System. Social Science Computer Review, 21 (4), 425-431.


Goodin, R. E. (1996). Institutions and their Design. In Robert E. Goodin, (editor), The Theory of Institutional Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-53


Grafton, C. (2003). "Shadow Theories" in Fountain's Theory of Technology Enactment. Social Science Computer Review, 21(4), 411-416.


Griffith, J. & Leston-Bandeira. (2012). How are Parliaments Using New Media to Engage with Citizens. The Journal of Legislative Studies, Vol.18, Nos.3–4. pp.495–512


Jones, M. (2004) Policy legitimation, expert advice, and objectivity: ‘opening’ the UK governance framework for human genetics, Social Epistemology, 18:2-3, 247-270, DOI: 10.1080/0269172042000249318


Kapur, D. & Mehta, P. B. (2006). The Indian Parliament as an Institution of Accountability. Democracy, Governance and Human Rights Programme Paper Number 23. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.


Kotanidis, S. (2020). Parliament's Right of Legislative Initiative. European Parliamentary Research Service.


Leonardi, P. M. & Barley, S. R. (2008). Materiality and Change: Challenges to Building Better Theory About Technology and Organizing. Information and Organization, Volume 8, 159-176.


Leston-Bandeira, C. (2004). From Legislation to Legitimation: The Role of the Portuguese Parliament. London and New York: Routledge.


Leston-Bandeira, C. & Norton, P. (2005). Parliamentary Institutions: Basic Concepts.

Project VIE/02/007 Strengthening the Capacity of People’s Elected Bodies in Viet Nam. Office of the National Assembly, United Nations Development Programme.


Leston-Bandeira, C. (2007). The Impact of the Internet on Parliaments: a Legislative Studies Framework. Parliamentary Affairs, 60(4), 655-674.


Luce, R. (2006). Legislative Principles: The History and Theory of Lawmaking by Representative Government. Clark, New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd.


Luna-Reyes, L. F. & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2013). Understanding the Co-Evolution of Institutions, Technology, and Organizations: The Enactment of the State Government Portal of Puebla. The Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, 214-223.

Malina, A. (1999). Perspectives on Citizen Democratization and Alienation in the Virtual Public Sphere. In Hague, B. N. & Loader, B. D. (editors), Digital Democracy: Discourse and Decision Making in the Information Age. London: Routledge, pp. 23-38.

March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering Institutions. New York: The Free Press.

Martin, L. W. & Vanberg, G. (2011). Parliaments and Coalitions: The Role of Legislative Institutions in Multiparty Government.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Miller, L. (2009). E-Petitions at Westminster: the Way Forward for Democracy? Parliamentary Affairs. Volume 62, Issue 1, pp. 162-177.


North, D. (1991). Institutions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97-112.


Norton, P. (1990). Parliaments: A Framework for Analysis. West European Politics, 13(3), 1-9.

DOI: 10.1080/01402389008424803


Palthe, J. (2014). Regulative, Normative, and Cognitive Elements of Organizations: Implications for Managing Change. Management and Organizational Studies, 5(2), 59-66.


Panagiotopoulos, P., Sams, S., Elliman, T. & Fitzgerald, G. (2011). Do social networking groups support online petitions? Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 20-31.


Peters, B. G. (2019). Institutional Theory in Political Science: The New Institutionalism. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.


Schech, S. (2002). Wired for Change: The Links Between ICTs and Development Discourses. Journal of International Development, 14, pages 13-23.


Schellong, A. (2006). Extending the Technology Enactment Framework. Program on Networked Governance. Harvard University. 1-9.>


Schwartz, E., Spiller, P., & Urbiztondo, S. (1994). A Positive Theory of Legislative Intent. Law and Contemporary Problems, 57(1), 51-74. doi:10.2307/1191985


Scott, W. R. (2003). Institutional carriers: reviewing modes of transporting ideas over time and space and considering their consequences, Industrial and Corporate Change, Volume 12, Issue 4, Pages 879-894.


Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities. 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.


Shahryarifar, S. (2016). A Defence on the Prominence of Rational Actor Model within Foreign Policy Analysis. Khazar Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 19(1), 22-29.


Smith, M. L. (2006). Overcoming Theory-practice Inconsistencies: Critical realism and Information Systems Research. Information and Organization 16, pages 191-211.


Waldron, J. (2009). Representative Lawmaking. Boston University Law Review. Volume 89, pages 335-355.


West, D. (2004). E-Government and the Transformation of Service Delivery and Citizen Attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15-27.

bottom of page