# The Use of Artificial Intelligence in eParticipation: Mapping Current Research
## 4 Results
### Mapping the Domain
#### 4.2.5 eParticipation Evaluation  
In general, only a few articles evaluate the results of eParticipation activities (see Table 5). In some studies, these evaluations are about \"Openness and Transparency\" that the implementation of a new technology [77] or a new platform [60] offers while others document problems that are caused by the lack of Openness and Transparency in existing platforms [79].  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l} \hline
**Effects** & **Paper ID** \\ \hline Deliberative & [42; 48; 55; 61; 64; 65; 69; 71; 79; 81; 86] \\ \hline Democratic & [41; 44; 50; 54; 65; 81; 85] \\ \hline Civic Engagement & [41; 44; 47; 49; 51; 53; 54; 55; 58; 60; 63; 65; 66; 68; 70; 74; 76; 78; 79; 83; 85; 86] \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: eParticipation Effects.  
As for \"quantity\", the literature almost never mentions a particularly high increase in participation. Divergent outcomes follow the implementation of digital platforms for policymaking. For instance, in [60], a notable uptake in participation after the launch of an online policy-making platform is reported. Conversely, in [77], authors observed only a marginal increase following the integration of a chatbot aimed at facilitating discussions on a similar platform. Furthermore, the dynamics of citizen participation are explored in the context of various aspects of eParticipation tools. Studies by [44] and [69] delve into the relationship between citizen engagement and the attributes of ePetitions. Similarly, ref. [80] examines citizen participation in correlation with the characteristics of government-published tweets. Interestingly, the transition to asynchronous communication within online policymaking platforms as opposed to synchronous methods does not necessarily yield increased citizen participation, as evidenced in [81].  
Various methodologies are also employed to assess the \"tone and style\" within eParticipation studies. Firstly, user questionnaires and post-implementation interviews of participation support tools or new ePetition applications serve as evaluative measures [61; 77]. Theoretical frameworks have been proposed to assess participant behavior in virtual reality environments based on qualitative dialogue principles [71]. Additionally, the content and interaction patterns within ePetitions can serve as indicators of social tension [69]. However, technological interventions in online consultation design may not necessarily enhance discussion quality and could potentially even detract from it [41; 79]. Challenges in assessing participation quality may arise from data limitations [81].  
Finally, participants' demographics are infrequently recorded in eConsultation studies [79]. One study aims to diversify discussion participants by including underrepresented social groups such as women and religious minorities [60]. In other instances, demographic data are mentioned but not extensively analyzed, merely being considered as influencing factors in urban development policy effectiveness [74] or as a parameter in proposed policy formulation support platforms [49].