Tigasson, Külli-Riin, juhendajaMikko, Eneli2010-10-212010-10-212006http://hdl.handle.net/10062/15571The present thesis examined representation of risk and progress in public communication by the example of e-elections. Discourse analysis were used in the work to find out how critical- rational and constructive a debate was; what subjects and contexts were linked with discourses; if parties argued for their standpoints and how they did that, and whether something changed in social practice as a result of the debate or not. The framework of the research is the theory of risk society by Ulrich Beck according to which modern Western societies are in the middle of moving from the first stage of modernity or an industrial society towards the so-called second stage of modernity or a risk society. Unlike all former cultures and development stages of society, notwithstanding dangers they faced in many different ways, a modern society is confronted with itself in handling risks (Beck 2005: 236). According to Beck, the political system is also going through changes because of continuously increasing risks, and competent governmental control authorities and risk- sensitive public media begin increasingly take the floor and interfere in the system. Consensus existed previously regarding progress, according to which the technological progress was equalized to the social progress. In a risk society those mechanisms are changing and Beck considers involving citizens and discussing risks important. Progressive mentality has been prevailed in Estonia after the restoration of independence. The state has been introduced as a successful e-state; innovative technologies have been willingly adopted by people and came into use. Virtualization of elections or the concept of e-elections where people having the right to vote can make their choices via Internet was also proposed in connection with the increasing flow of e-services. Such an innovative step raised discussions both in media and the Parliament of Estonia during development of respective statutes. The present research examined opinion articles published in dailies, debates in the Parliament of Estonia and commentaries in Internet in 2005. A selection of texts based on the results of content analysis of seminar paper by Mari-Liis Jakobson and texts aggregated in the sample included risk and/or progress arguments. The sample included 14 texts from opinion articles of dailies and Internet commentaries to those articles. The longest debate on the 3rd of May and also debates on the 11th of May and 9th of June in the Parliament of Estonia were included in analysis. The work examined, on the basis of discourse analysis, risk and progress discourses that figured in different environments. Discourses divided into subdiscourses similarly in all environments. Three main fields differentiated in subdiscourses in case of both risk discourse and progress discourse: innovation versus counter-innovation, technological progress versus technological untrustworthiness, and progress of democracy as the third discourse. The analysis showed that discourses collided with each other and there were little intersection and constructive discussion. Manipulative tricks were often used and an argument of other party served as a basis in arguing: generally the argument was disproved by an opposite argument. Interests of an individual user (security, subjects of fraud, privacy) were mainly pointed out in the risk discourse. The analysis of social development and opportunities was represented to a lesser extent. Progress discourse depicted e-elections rather as a constructive force for society (increasing electoral activity, involvement of young people). Risk discourse gave more reasons in the context of conventionality and legality. Briefly we can say that risk discourse was more represented both in the Parliament of Estonia and opinion articles and commentaries but progress discourse prevailed nevertheless. In proof of the latter we can point out the fact that e-elections were enacted and also implemented without major changes that were requested by speakers of risk discourse. Against Beck’s risk society and on the basis of examined debate, we can say that risks are more often a subject in Estonia than before but the quality of the debate and the manner and form of dialogue in order to find results that would satisfy all parties was weak and striving to self-profit.application/pdfH Social Sciences (General)bakalaureusetöödpoliitiline kommunikatsioonvalimisede-hääletaminekommunikatsioonsuhtekorraldusThesis