Home

About

Articles & Chapters

Conference Papers

Presentations

CMU Testbed

GWU 2004 Talks

Web Survey Results

Reports & Transcripts

Grant Proposals

Podcasts

Qualitative Data
Analysis Program

eRulemaking Blog

Contact

Revised
01/11/2007

The eRulemaking Research Group published
a Web survey between June 1 and October 7, 2004

Final Web Survey Results -- Round One (June 1-October 7, 2004)
{Please note: to print these pages you must first set your browser Page Set Up to "Landscape"}

Means

**Interview time (in minutes) by Survey Disposition Code**
*INTERVIEWTIME
*DISPOSITION	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum	N
Completed	10.53	7.00	2	60	165
Incomplete	3.57	2.00	0	25	94
Total	8.00	5.00	0	60	259

Frequencies

**Survey Disposition Code**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	0	1	.3	.3	.3
	Completed	165	42.3	42.3	42.6
	Read introduction but did not get started	130	33.3	33.3	75.9
	Incomplete	94	24.1	24.1	100.0
	Total	390	100.0	100.0

**Q1 - Have you ever submitted a formal comment to a federal agency during the public comment period of a regulatory rulemaking process?**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	yes	120	30.8	45.8	45.8
	no	133	34.1	50.8	96.6
	don't know/NA	9	2.3	3.4	100.0
	Total	262	67.2	100.0
Missing	System	128	32.8
Total		390	100.0

**Q1A - How many times have you submitted formal comments during the official comment period?**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	1	30	7.7	12.0	12.0
	2-5	54	13.8	21.5	33.5
	6-10	15	3.8	6.0	39.4
	11-15	4	1.0	1.6	41.0
	more than 15	29	7.4	11.6	52.6
	don't know/NA	119	30.5	47.4	100.0
	Total	251	64.4	100.0
Missing	System	139	35.6
Total		390	100.0

**Q1B - Have you ever submitted a formal comment to a federal agency either before or after the official comment period?**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	yes	71	18.2	29.3	29.3
	no	136	34.9	56.2	85.5
	don't know/NA	35	9.0	14.5	100.0
	Total	242	62.1	100.0
Missing	System	148	37.9
Total		390	100.0

**Q1C - How many times have you submitted formal comments before or after the official comment period?**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	1	9	2.3	12.9	12.9
	2-5	38	9.7	54.3	67.1
	6-10	6	1.5	8.6	75.7
	11-15	6	1.5	8.6	84.3
	more than 15	5	1.3	7.1	91.4
	don't know/NA	6	1.5	8.6	100.0
	Total	70	17.9	100.0
Missing	System	320	82.1
Total		390	100.0

**Q1D - How many times have you submitted formal comments on someone else's comments?**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	1	12	3.1	5.1	5.1
	2-5	27	6.9	11.5	16.7
	6-10	5	1.3	2.1	18.8
	11-15	1	.3	.4	19.2
	more than 15	5	1.3	2.1	21.4
	don't know/NA	184	47.2	78.6	100.0
	Total	234	60.0	100.0
Missing	System	156	40.0
Total		390	100.0

**Q1F - How often do you submit supporting documentation for your comments?**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Never	36	9.2	16.5	16.5
	Sometimes	62	15.9	28.4	45.0
	Often	21	5.4	9.6	54.6
	Always	3	.8	1.4	56.0
	Don't know/NA	96	24.6	44.0	100.0
	Total	218	55.9	100.0
Missing	System	172	44.1
Total		390	100.0

**Q3 - Have you ever used an electronic commenting/docket system to submit a comment (as opposed to a comment submitted by email)?**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	yes	54	13.8	26.2	26.2
	no	117	30.0	56.8	83.0
	don't know/NA	35	9.0	17.0	100.0
	Total	206	52.8	100.0
Missing	System	184	47.2
Total		390	100.0

**Q3A - How many times have you used an electronic commenting/docket system to submit a comment?**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	1	9	2.3	16.7	16.7
	2-5	28	7.2	51.9	68.5
	6-10	6	1.5	11.1	79.6
	11-15	4	1.0	7.4	87.0
	more than 15	4	1.0	7.4	94.4
	don't know/NA	3	.8	5.6	100.0
	Total	54	13.8	100.0
Missing	System	336	86.2
Total		390	100.0

**Q4 - Have you ever used an electronic commenting/docket system to read information in a docket?**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	yes	119	30.5	58.6	58.6
	no	61	15.6	30.0	88.7
	don't know/NA	23	5.9	11.3	100.0
	Total	203	52.1	100.0
Missing	System	187	47.9
Total		390	100.0

**Q6_1 - What was the name of the agency or the electronic commenting/docket system that you used?**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Docket Management System (DOT)	14	3.6	12.0	12.0
	E-Docket System (EPA)	45	11.5	38.5	50.4
	United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)	4	1.0	3.4	53.8
	Regulations.gov	14	3.6	12.0	65.8
	Other (please specify below)	15	3.8	12.8	78.6
	Don't know/NA	25	6.4	21.4	100.0
	Total	117	30.0	100.0
Missing	System	273	70.0
Total		390	100.0

**Q6_2 - What was the name of the agency or the electronic commenting/docket system that you used?**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Docket Management System (DOT)	4	1.0	10.5	10.5
	E-Docket System (EPA)	9	2.3	23.7	34.2
	United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)	9	2.3	23.7	57.9
	Regulations.gov	11	2.8	28.9	86.8
	Other (please specify below)	4	1.0	10.5	97.4
	Don't know/NA	1	.3	2.6	100.0
	Total	38	9.7	100.0
Missing	System	352	90.3
Total		390	100.0

**Q6_3 - What was the name of the agency or the electronic commenting/docket system that you used?**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Docket Management System (DOT)	2	.5	11.1	11.1
	E-Docket System (EPA)	2	.5	11.1	22.2
	United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)	2	.5	11.1	33.3
	Regulations.gov	10	2.6	55.6	88.9
	Other (please specify below)	2	.5	11.1	100.0
	Total	18	4.6	100.0
Missing	System	372	95.4
Total		390	100.0

**Q6_4 - What was the name of the agency or the electronic commenting/docket system that you used?**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Docket Management System (DOT)	1	.3	25.0	25.0
	Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)	1	.3	25.0	50.0
	Regulations.gov	1	.3	25.0	75.0
	Other (please specify below)	1	.3	25.0	100.0
	Total	4	1.0	100.0
Missing	System	386	99.0
Total		390	100.0

**Q6_5 - What was the name of the agency or the electronic commenting/docket system that you used?**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)	1	.3	50.0	50.0
	Regulations.gov	1	.3	50.0	100.0
	Total	2	.5	100.0
Missing	System	388	99.5
Total		390	100.0

**Q7_1 - The electronic commenting/docket system that I used improved my ability to review comments in the docket**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly Agree	44	11.3	32.8	32.8
	Agree	37	9.5	27.6	60.4
	Disagree	6	1.5	4.5	64.9
	Strongly Disagree	1	.3	.7	65.7
	No basis for response	46	11.8	34.3	100.0
	Total	134	34.4	100.0
Missing	System	256	65.6
Total		390	100.0

**Q7_2 - The electronic commenting/docket system that I used improved my ability to respond to specific comments in my own comment**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly Agree	27	6.9	21.1	21.1
	Agree	35	9.0	27.3	48.4
	Disagree	4	1.0	3.1	51.6
	Strongly Disagree	1	.3	.8	52.3
	No basis for response	61	15.6	47.7	100.0
	Total	128	32.8	100.0
Missing	System	262	67.2
Total		390	100.0

**Q7_3 - The electronic commenting/docket system that I used makes it easier for citizens to participate in the rulemaking process**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly Agree	41	10.5	31.3	31.3
	Agree	47	12.1	35.9	67.2
	Disagree	5	1.3	3.8	71.0
	No basis for response	38	9.7	29.0	100.0
	Total	131	33.6	100.0
Missing	System	259	66.4
Total		390	100.0

**Q7_4 - The electronic commenting/docket system that I used makes it easier for citizens to understand what agencies do during rulemaking processes**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly Agree	19	4.9	14.4	14.4
	Agree	46	11.8	34.8	49.2
	Disagree	20	5.1	15.2	64.4
	Strongly Disagree	3	.8	2.3	66.7
	No basis for response	44	11.3	33.3	100.0
	Total	132	33.8	100.0
Missing	System	258	66.2
Total		390	100.0

**Q7_5 - The electronic commenting/docket system that I used makes it easier for agency officials to review and consider public comments in the rulemaking process**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly Agree	25	6.4	19.1	19.1
	Agree	38	9.7	29.0	48.1
	Disagree	3	.8	2.3	50.4
	No basis for response	65	16.7	49.6	100.0
	Total	131	33.6	100.0
Missing	System	259	66.4
Total		390	100.0

**Q7_6 - The electronic commenting/docket system that I used gives too much influence to certain groups or interests**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly Agree	4	1.0	3.1	3.1
	Agree	11	2.8	8.5	11.6
	Disagree	39	10.0	30.2	41.9
	Strongly Disagree	16	4.1	12.4	54.3
	No basis for response	59	15.1	45.7	100.0
	Total	129	33.1	100.0
Missing	System	261	66.9
Total		390	100.0

**Q7_7 - The electronic commenting/docket system that I used is an improvement over the paper commenting and docket systems of the past**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly Agree	38	9.7	28.8	28.8
	Agree	50	12.8	37.9	66.7
	Disagree	4	1.0	3.0	69.7
	Strongly Disagree	1	.3	.8	70.5
	No basis for response	39	10.0	29.5	100.0
	Total	132	33.8	100.0
Missing	System	258	66.2
Total		390	100.0

**Q7_8 - The electronic commenting/docket system that I used has helped or will help improve the overall quality of rulemaking**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly Agree	25	6.4	19.5	19.5
	Agree	37	9.5	28.9	48.4
	Disagree	9	2.3	7.0	55.5
	Strongly Disagree	1	.3	.8	56.3
	No basis for response	56	14.4	43.8	100.0
	Total	128	32.8	100.0
Missing	System	262	67.2
Total		390	100.0

**Q7_9 - The electronic commenting/docket system that I used has resulted or will result in docket comments from a broader group of people**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly Agree	25	6.4	18.8	18.8
	Agree	46	11.8	34.6	53.4
	Disagree	6	1.5	4.5	57.9
	No basis for response	56	14.4	42.1	100.0
	Total	133	34.1	100.0
Missing	System	257	65.9
Total		390	100.0

**Q7_10 - The electronic commenting/docket system that I used has resulted or will result in docket comments that are of a higher substantive quality and value to the agency**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly Agree	10	2.6	7.7	7.7
	Agree	29	7.4	22.3	30.0
	Disagree	20	5.1	15.4	45.4
	Strongly Disagree	1	.3	.8	46.2
	No basis for response	70	17.9	53.8	100.0
	Total	130	33.3	100.0
Missing	System	260	66.7
Total		390	100.0

**Q7_11 - The electronic commenting/docket system that I used has resulted or will result in docket comments that include more references to background information and supporting analyses**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly Agree	10	2.6	7.7	7.7
	Agree	32	8.2	24.6	32.3
	Disagree	9	2.3	6.9	39.2
	Strongly Disagree	5	1.3	3.8	43.1
	No basis for response	74	19.0	56.9	100.0
	Total	130	33.3	100.0
Missing	System	260	66.7
Total		390	100.0

**Q7_12 - The electronic commenting/docket system that I used has resulted or will result in docket comments that include more referrals to comments previously submitted to the same docket**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly Agree	12	3.1	9.2	9.2
	Agree	48	12.3	36.9	46.2
	Disagree	2	.5	1.5	47.7
	Strongly Disagree	1	.3	.8	48.5
	No basis for response	67	17.2	51.5	100.0
	Total	130	33.3	100.0
Missing	System	260	66.7
Total		390	100.0

**Q7_13 - The electronic commenting/docket system that I used has saved us from hiring someone to comment for us**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly Agree	1	.3	.8	.8
	Agree	6	1.5	4.6	5.3
	Disagree	23	5.9	17.6	22.9
	Strongly Disagree	12	3.1	9.2	32.1
	No basis for response	89	22.8	67.9	100.0
	Total	131	33.6	100.0
Missing	System	259	66.4
Total		390	100.0

**Q7_14 - The electronic commenting/docket system that I used allowed having someone to comment from outside DC**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly Agree	14	3.6	10.7	10.7
	Agree	43	11.0	32.8	43.5
	Disagree	7	1.8	5.3	48.9
	Strongly Disagree	2	.5	1.5	50.4
	No basis for response	65	16.7	49.6	100.0
	Total	131	33.6	100.0
Missing	System	259	66.4
Total		390	100.0

**Q7_15 - The electronic commenting/docket system that I used avoided having to come to DC to read the paper file**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly Agree	28	7.2	21.1	21.1
	Agree	39	10.0	29.3	50.4
	Disagree	5	1.3	3.8	54.1
	Strongly Disagree	1	.3	.8	54.9
	No basis for response	60	15.4	45.1	100.0
	Total	133	34.1	100.0
Missing	System	257	65.9
Total		390	100.0

**Q7_16 - The electronic commenting/docket system that I used made them aware they could comment at all, helped them understand the substantive point of the rulemaking**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly Agree	16	4.1	12.3	12.3
	Agree	39	10.0	30.0	42.3
	Disagree	10	2.6	7.7	50.0
	Strongly Disagree	1	.3	.8	50.8
	No basis for response	64	16.4	49.2	100.0
	Total	130	33.3	100.0
Missing	System	260	66.7
Total		390	100.0

**Q20 - Would you be interested in the option of receiving electronic notice that would notify you when public comments were being received on topics you designate as of personal interest?**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	yes	136	34.9	77.3	77.3
	no	24	6.2	13.6	90.9
	don't know/NA	16	4.1	9.1	100.0
	Total	176	45.1	100.0
Missing	System	214	54.9
Total		390	100.0

**Q22_1 - Do you agree with the need for more interactive features of a future system**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly Agree	58	14.9	40.0	40.0
	Agree	60	15.4	41.4	81.4
	Disagree	3	.8	2.1	83.4
	No basis for response	24	6.2	16.6	100.0
	Total	145	37.2	100.0
Missing	System	245	62.8
Total		390	100.0

**Q22_2 - Do you agree with the need for setting priorities among desired features (to determine which get developed or funded sooner)**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly Agree	34	8.7	23.6	23.6
	Agree	80	20.5	55.6	79.2
	Disagree	3	.8	2.1	81.3
	No basis for response	27	6.9	18.8	100.0
	Total	144	36.9	100.0
Missing	System	246	63.1
Total		390	100.0

**Q22_3 - Do you agree with the need for the need for background/training on the rulemaking process itself as part of the system**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly Agree	33	8.5	23.2	23.2
	Agree	68	17.4	47.9	71.1
	Disagree	15	3.8	10.6	81.7
	Strongly Disagree	4	1.0	2.8	84.5
	No basis for response	22	5.6	15.5	100.0
	Total	142	36.4	100.0
Missing	System	248	63.6
Total		390	100.0

**Q22_4 - Do you agree with the need for desirable topic/subject (cross-agency) capabilities (searches, emails notices, etc.)**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly Agree	65	16.7	45.5	45.5
	Agree	55	14.1	38.5	83.9
	Disagree	7	1.8	4.9	88.8
	Strongly Disagree	1	.3	.7	89.5
	No basis for response	15	3.8	10.5	100.0
	Total	143	36.7	100.0
Missing	System	247	63.3
Total		390	100.0

**Q22_5 - Do you agree with the need for access to past, closed rulemaking dockets**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Strongly Agree	55	14.1	37.9	37.9
	Agree	65	16.7	44.8	82.8
	Disagree	4	1.0	2.8	85.5
	No basis for response	21	5.4	14.5	100.0
	Total	145	37.2	100.0
Missing	System	245	62.8
Total		390	100.0

**Q23 - How concerned are you about submitting comments that would make public your identifying information?**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Not concerned at all	64	16.4	38.1	38.1
	Concerned just a little	56	14.4	33.3	71.4
	Concerned a lot	32	8.2	19.0	90.5
	No basis for response	16	4.1	9.5	100.0
	Total	168	43.1	100.0
Missing	System	222	56.9
Total		390	100.0

**Q24 - In rulemaking on sensitive issues (for example, domestic violence, health issues, and the like), should you have the ability to remove all your identifying information?**
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	yes	106	27.2	63.9	63.9
	no	38	9.7	22.9	86.7
	don't know/NA	22	5.6	13.3	100.0
	Total	166	42.6	100.0
Missing	System	224	57.4
Total		390	100.0

Grouped Variables

Q1_E  How extensive do your comments tend to be?

                                                             Pct of  Pct of
Category label                            Code      Count  Responses  Cases

A sentence or two                            1         10      4.1      4.4
One fairly long paragraph                    2         35     14.2     15.6
A page or so of detailed commentary          3         40     16.3     17.8
Several pages                                4         63     25.6     28.0
Don't know/NA                                5         98     39.8     43.6
                                                  -------    -----    -----
                                 Total responses      246    100.0    109.3

165 missing cases;  225 valid cases

Q2  In what capacity have you submitted your comments in the past?

                                                             Pct of  Pct of
Category label                            Code      Count  Responses  Cases

Concerned citizen                            1         63     15.3     30.1
Legal counsel                                2         20      4.8      9.6
Lobbyist                                     3         11      2.7      5.3
Business owner/interest                      4         19      4.6      9.1
Advocate/activist                            5         36      8.7     17.2
Representative of an interest group          6         33      8.0     15.8
Government official inside the proposing     7          4      1.0      1.9
Government official outside the proposin     8         15      3.6      7.2
One whose behavior would be directly con     9         20      4.8      9.6
Citizen intended to be benefited or prot    10         19      4.6      9.1
Paid representative of persons who would    11         20      4.8      9.6
Paid representative of persons to be ben    12         11      2.7      5.3
Member of an organization whose members     13         30      7.3     14.4
Member of an organization whose members     14         18      4.4      8.6
Member of an organization regularly comm    15          7      1.7      3.3
Other (please specify below)                16          8      1.9      3.8
Skip question                               17         79     19.1     37.8
                                                  -------    -----    -----
                                 Total responses      413    100.0    197.6

181 missing cases;  209 valid cases


Q5  What type of information did you read in the electronic commenting/docket system?

                                                             Pct of  Pct of
Category label                            Code      Count  Responses  Cases

Federal Register notices                     1         92     32.3     76.7
Other comments                               2         77     27.0     64.2
Intra-Agency communications                  3         36     12.6     30.0
Scientific or other supporting documenta     4         68     23.9     56.7
Other (please specify below)                 5          8      2.8      6.7
Don't know/NA                                6          4      1.4      3.3
                                                  -------    -----    -----
                                 Total responses      285    100.0    237.5

270 missing cases;  120 valid cases


Q5A  What action, if any, did you take based upon what you read?

                                                             Pct of  Pct of
Category label                            Code      Count  Responses  Cases

Responded to someone else's comment          1         28     10.6     23.7
Sent in a comment when I was not otherwi     2         24      9.1     20.3
Modified my original comment                 3         23      8.7     19.5
Downloaded a document in the docket to r     4         71     26.8     60.2
Forwarded a document to someone else         5         50     18.9     42.4
Encouraged someone else to comment           6         45     17.0     38.1
Other (please specify below)                 7          7      2.6      5.9
Don't know/NA                                8         17      6.4     14.4
                                                  -------    -----    -----
                                 Total responses      265    100.0    224.6

272 missing cases;  118 valid cases


Q19  If a federal-wide docket system were to be constructed, what types of searches 
should users be able to conduct?

                                                             Pct of  Pct of
Category label                            Code      Count  Responses  Cases

Keyword by comment text                      1        144     23.7     81.8
Keyword by affiliation or other identify     2        125     20.6     71.0
Date                                         3        115     18.9     65.3
Length                                       4         31      5.1     17.6
Boolean                                      5         91     15.0     51.7
Link to Google or other search engine        6         61     10.0     34.7
Other (please specify below)                 7         17      2.8      9.7
Don't know/NA                                8         24      3.9     13.6
                                                  -------    -----    -----
                                 Total responses      608    100.0    345.5

214 missing cases;  176 valid cases

Graph

Bar of count by q1

Graph

Bar of count by q1a

Graph

Bar of count by q1b

Graph

Bar of count by q1c

Graph

Bar of count by q1d

Graph

Bar of count by q1f

Graph

Bar of count by q3

Graph

Bar of count by q3a

Graph

Bar of count by q4

Graph

Bar of count by q6_1

Graph

Bar of count by q6_2

Graph

Bar of count by q6_3

Graph

Bar of count by q6_4

Graph

Bar of count by q6_5

Graph

Bar of count by q7_1

Graph

Bar of count by q7_2

Graph

Bar of count by q7_3

Graph

Bar of count by q7_4

Graph

Bar of count by q7_5

Graph

Bar of count by q7_6

Graph

Bar of count by q7_7

Graph

Bar of count by q7_8

Graph

Bar of count by q7_9

Graph

Bar of count by q7_10

Graph

Bar of count by q7_11

Graph

Bar of count by q7_12

Graph

Bar of count by q7_13

Graph

Bar of count by q7_14

Graph

Bar of count by q7_15

Graph

Bar of count by q7_16

Graph

Bar of count by q20

Graph

Bar of count by q22_1

Graph

Bar of count by q22_2

Graph

Bar of count by q22_3

Graph

Bar of count by q22_4

Graph

Bar of count by q22_5

Graph

Bar of count by q23

Graph

Bar of count by q24

This research project was initiated during the fall 1999 semester and was made possible with the following grants from the National Science Foundation: IIS-0429293 “Collaborative Research: Language Processing Technology for Electronic Rulemaking,“ EIA-00328914 “SGER COLLABORATIVE: A Testbed for eRulemaking Data,” SES-0322662 “Democracy and E-Rulemaking: Comparing Traditional vs. Electronic Comment from a Discursive Democratic Framework,“ and EIA-0089892 “SGER: Citizen Agenda-Setting in the Regulatory Process: Electronic Collection and Synthesis of Public Commentary.”

Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation.