Disentangling engagement, participation, democracy, with added e-

Public-spirited techies believe that social software will enhance democracy and help people do good things together, but are frustrated when the wider world doesn't get this. Facilitators specialising in offline participation and other engagement processes are beginning to think there may be something in the technology, but generally don't know why or how, so leave it alone.
Of course these are gross generalisations, and there are many fine people ably mixing people-stuff and tech-stuff to social benefit. I'm trying to do that too, and so find the need to explain to myself and others what the issues are. Here's some thinking in progress, with the hope that others may be able to improve. It's a bit heavy, but I need to clear my head and create a reference for some more specific examples to follow later. Conclusion: just adding 'e' doesn't guarantee improvement.

As an overall model,  I really like the collaboration Worldviews under development by facilitator Martin Leith. He suggests it is important to understand whether we - and others - are seeing our world (organisation, neighbourhood, group) as a mechanism, a set of changing relationships, a system, or something even more organic and inherently messy. As  he shows, that influences the sort of techniques professionals may use when they intervene.
The key issues in any situation, it seems to me, are how to find out what's going on, have a say if you wish to, maybe join in, perhaps form a partnership. To do that you need to get information, communicate, influence, collaborate. That applies whether you are a concerned citizen trying to get neighbours and public bodies to tackle a local issue, a team within a company, or a cross-sector partnership of interests. You may be meeting face-to-face in groups or large events, phoning, emailing, texting, blogging and much else.... or just conversing occasionally.
When professionals join in, terms like consultation, involvement, engagement, participation, partnership crop up, often interchangably. Behind these words lie some tough old political questions about who benefits, and who controls the situation. Often it is whoever pays the professionals.....so if we are one of them we need to be pretty clear about what we are doing to people.
Here's my current thoughts on understanding what's going on. You can find what I was thinking 10 years ago (minus technology) in The Guide to Effective Participation, and more recently in The Guide to Development Trusts and Partnerships.

Participation is a collaboration in which one or more stakeholders control information and resources that others want. Those controlling interests determine how far others can gain access and influence. The ladder of participation is one model for thinking about how control is exercised.
Consultation occurs when controlling interests offer limited options from which others may choose. They then may or may not follow through in delivering on the options chosen.
Engagement and involvement simply suggest that some interactions are taking place, but don't as terms define who has what control or influence.
Democracy operates when people give power to their representatives through elections. Those representatives may or may not share the influence and control they have through further engagement. If they don't, they may feel challenged by other participatory processes that aim to give people influence.
Partnerships are a collaboration of equals, where the assumption is that control and benefits are more or less shared.

Unfortunately these differences in power and control are not often teased out, and while all sorts of participation techniques may be deployed, people can end up frustrated with little achieved. My colleague Drew Mackie puts it well in an article Dancing while standing still.
Enter technology. The techno-optimists enthuse that the Net is inherently democratic, the sceptics that it is inherently divisive because not everyone can use it.
Put briefly, it seems to me that technology may help by:

• promoting transparency. Once something is online it is out of the box. Power-holders can't control it, and those committed to involving others can spread the word in whatever way appropriate.
• enabling (some) stakeholders to get information, communicate, influence, collaborate more effectively. If activists are prepared to invest some time, effort and funds they can gain substantial influence.
• enabling connections to other interests who may have useful information, ideas and resources. Communities and groups can be parochial. The Net helps people connect with others tackling the same issues, get information and support.

Technology may hinder by:

• disadvantaging those without access, skills and confidence
• further concentrating influence with those who control the systems
• emphasising particular styles of communication (often textual)

My colleague Terry Grunwald has some excellent insights and advice on the benefits of technology for information, communication, collaboration, visibility and managing, and I plan to tie the thoughts above together with those more coherently in future.
What's pretty clear to me is that just adding e- to democracy, participation and so on doesn't guarantee improvement. However,  thinking through the pluses and minuses of adding technology to the mix should help illuminate deeper issues of power and control, as discussions on the new Digital Divide site show.
Meanwhile there are some earlier posts on engagement, facilitation, community technology, and networking that may be relevant.
I'm collecting bookmarks at del.icio.us on collaboration, engagement, participation, and social networking that may be useful.
See Lee Bryant on blogs are not the only fruit for a terrific round-up on social software.

Comments

[Carl Reynolds]

The medium is the message and it's one at a time. The e doesn't enhance the deficit per se; and the arguments about power distribution, access and control apply as much in cyberspace as they do in flesh/blood space.

The biggest deficit of cyberspace is that you can't have a conversation or dialogue with me; you can only send me a message.