Designing for Civil Society

E-methods for public engagement

The UK Local E-democracy National Project has published guidance for councillors and officials on which online tools to use for engaging with citizens. It covers Webcasts, FAQ, Blogs, Quick Polls, Surveys, Chat Rooms, Decision-making games , Discussion Forums, e-Panels, e-Petitions, e-Deliberative polling, Virtual Communities, Alert Mechanisms – email alerts and RSS Feeds.
Download of E-methods for public engagement available here. Also on the site

e-Democracy from the Ground Up
e-Democracy from the Top Down
Young People and e-Democracy

Small gripe: unfortunately - as I wrote here - the reports are only available as pdfs which makes quoting and linking to 'e-methods' like blogs, forums etc difficult. Strange for a project that is all about engagement ... but maybe a more accessible version will be available later.

Technorati Tags: e-democracy, engagement, socialtech

Councils urged to practice "ground up" e-democracy

Unless local authorities grasp the potential of 'ground up' approaches to e-democracy the result will be "more subterranean conversations where authorities are increasingly 'spoken about', rather than 'spoken to'."
This is one of the conclusions of an evaluation 'From the Ground Up' commissioned by Bristol City Council on behalf of the Local e-Democracy National Project, available here. The foreword says:

Effective local leadership is at the heart of Government strategy. Leadership involves listening and responding to the views of communities; however, “democracy” is not simply a gift to be handed down from Government to authorities to citizens. This report concerns the role that authorities must also play in facilitating ground-up, community and citizen-led approaches to democracy, if they are to be truly effective leaders.
In facilitating ground-up e-democracy, the report considers how authorities have tried to harness the power offered by communication technologies to create and stimulate new forms of “civic-space”. In this space, communities recognise the value of bringing forward issues, ideas and solutions and local authorities see themselves as central, but not dominating, stakeholders in a public conversation.

The report looks at local online 'issues forums', work with the BBC iCan project (now Action Network), a project to provide online space for the over-50s, as well as blogs for councillors and officials and other initiatives. It was written by Professor Stephen Coleman of the Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford with research support from Anne Geniets, Ildiko Kaposi, Giles Moss and John Nicholls. They conducted interviews with a range of people involved in each project.

The report is pretty dense, with a wealth of insights and quotes from nearly 120,000 words of transcription. Unfortunately it is only available - so far as I can see - as a pdf, which makes quoting difficult. Not really in the spirit of encouraging 'ground-up' participation. I hope the National Local E-democracy Project will now 'chunk it up' on their blog or forums so there is more scope for ground-up discussion.

Technorati Tags: e-democracy, engagement

AOL promises community tech case studies

Lucy Hunter in the AOL press office takes my earlier chiding in good part - AOL community awards announced, but unlinked - and emails me to explain that all will eventually be revealed. I had queried why the awards press release didn't give any of the groups publicity by offering web links

The general press release about all 30 award recipients is intended to provide a taste of the winning projects. In addition, we issue press releases about each individual projects to their local media, which includes their Web site address and details of how they plan to use the £2,000 award.
All of the Internet initiatives are in the planning stage because the purpose of the awards is to help the charities and community groups realise these projects. For some, the award is used to start a project from scratch, for others, it enables them to expand an existing online initiative. Once the projects are up-and-running, we will contact them to develop a selection of detailed case studies, which will be posted on http://www.aol.co.uk/ so that people can get a better understanding of the projects we support through the awards.

Sounds good ... and maybe a helpful nudge in the direction of further glory at the Stockholm Challenge, where Earl Mardle has expressed an interest in the AOL list.

Technorati Tags: socialtech

Participation often isn't working. Anyone listening?

A colleague of mine said the other day that "there's more policy directives on community participation than ever before, and more toolkits and consultants ... but somehow it feels as if things are getting worse and people are engaging less". The fact that "try harder" isn't working for participation comes up quite a bit in conversations I have with people in the field - and now there's some research that seems to confirm that, and help explain why.
The question now is: how much more research do we need? What do we do about it?
First the research: the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have just published Effective participation in anti-poverty and regeneration work and research, by Peter Beresford and Martin Hoban, with these key findings:

* Powerlessness is central to people's experience of poverty and disadvantage. Conventional bureaucratic and managerial 'top-down' approaches to participation have very limited success.
* Existing experience identifies barriers to people's participation at four levels: personal; political and institutional; economic and cultural; and technical. All need to be addressed for participation to work.
* People are much more likely to get involved in work if they have a strong sense that something tangible and worthwhile will come out of it.
* Supporting independent organisations which people themselves develop and control, at local level and beyond, is a vital building block for effective participation.
* Capacity building to develop people's confidence, self-esteem and understanding supports their empowerment and participation. It is not the same as skill development to equip people to work in the way that agencies traditionally work.
* Such capacity building is particularly helpful in encouraging diverse involvement and ensuring the participation of black and minority ethnic groups.

Technorati Tags: engagement, participation

A modest project in Teesside shows the way for e-democracy

I'm a long-time admirer of Steve Thompson, who has been a steelworker, writer of hit songs, and more recently inspiration and mentor behind many European-funded community media projects while based at the University of Teesside... with more here. The latest work he's developing in the village of Thorntree has the some lessons for the UK e-democracy programme.
Steve is working with Middlesbrough Voluntary Development Agency to combine the use of digital media with Planning for Real®. This is a technique for community engagement that involves people building a physical model of their neighbourhod as part of the process of exploring the issues that most concern them, and then deciding what to do.
What's new is that Steve is helping Thorntree residents add their images of the area, and their ideas and concerns through video clips. The TS3 site (it's a postcode) has a clickable picture of the base of the model, galleries for photos and videos, and several blogs.
The work has only just started, so click-throughs are limited, but to me what's important is that the project is giving a direct voice to residents using fairly basic tools and simple approaches - cleverly. I gather some of the video is done with webcams and a still camera. Where there's concern about directly showing a young person, Steve has asked them to draw a picture and talk us through that off camera. Residents are encouraged to do their own interviews - as you can see here (needs Realplayer). Steve is in the chair for once.
The approach developing in Thorntree will make it easy for people to add in other items, using their own cameras or phones. If a group wants to add to the system - which uses b2evolution - that's easy.
There are, of course, plenty of great community media examples around, some of them showcased by the Community Media Association - but I don't think there are many examples, if any, directly mixing model-building, interviews and other media. If there are, please let me know!
I think this approach could be important for e-democracy because, as I wrote recently, much of the work done so far in the UK is pretty top-down and institutional. A combination of "democracy" and "Internet" is not going to help bridge the gap of suspicion and mistrust between citizens and politicians unless the tools and approach used help start conversations around topics that interest people, in language they can understand. The TS3 approach could be a way forward.
You can see an interview I did with Steve a couple of months ago as part of some evaluation work for the Ourvideo project run by the National Computing Centre. As well as Steve, I interviewed other people who created videos for the project, and Diane Rogers from the Community Media Association.
Update: Steve emails to say that the b2evolution open source tool used on the project is being shaped by and added to with extra applications developed at the University by CMAD - the community media applications developers - "a small but very merry band". I can believe that - their online Community Challenge is particularly good fun.

AOL community awards announced, but unlinked

AOL and Citizens Online have announced the winners of the 2005 AOL Innovation in the Community Awards. Unfortunately it is difficult to find out just what they and previous winners are actually doing. The press release says:

Innovative use of the Internet has secured AOL Innovation in the Community Awards of £2,000 for 30 forward-thinking charities and community groups across the UK. The winning projects demonstrate the positive impact the Web can have in areas such as: protecting the environment; developing new writing talent; the representation of ethnic minorities; encouraging young volunteers.

There are what appear to be some very interesting projects listed, and as the release says:

Many of this year’s 30 award recipients are planning to launch schemes providing peer support, with several using audio and webcam initiatives to enable people to share experiences and get support online.

But ... I was surprised that the release didn't give any links to winners' sites. More careful reading showed most are in the planning stage. That's fine, except it makes the line about "The winning projects demonstrate the positive impact the Web can have ... " a little premature.
I then checked in to the AOL site about the awards, and found links to lists of previous winners ... but those for 2003 and 2004 didn't have winners' sites individually linked either. Have they all ticked the 'not much publicity box'? There are glowing testimonials for the impact of the awards, but it would be interesting to see for ourselves. It would also help to show - as the awards intend - how far the Net is becoming part of the day-to-day life of small groups doing great work in their communities. After all, this isn't just about making AOL look good, is it?
Update: AOL promises to publish case studies

e-Government prospers, but do the users know?

The UK government is sounding confident about progress in local councils to deliver services online - but do local people know that?

Local authorities in England are now on the home straight to meet the target to be 100% e-enabled by the end of this year, Local e-Government Minister Jim Fitzpatrick has announced. He said: 'The results from July's Implementing Electronic Government returns mark the turn into the home straight for the local e-government programme.

... from e-Government: councils reach the home straight at xPRESS Digest, with a link to the original release.

The programme has overseen a sea change in the electronic enablement of council services from just 26% in March 2002 to 77% in March 2005, with e-government already making an essential contribution towards the Government's efficiency targets.' In nearly 200 councils, citizens can now go online to submit planning applications or calculate their benefits entitlement. Near universal online coverage is now offered by councils in England for renewing library books, accessing public transport information and viewing council reports and committee minutes. Mr Fitzpatrick added: 'To provide further background, I am today releasing for publication a status report which offers a detailed analysis and regional breakdown of IEG progress. The report underlines that the December 2005 target is well within the reach of local authorities, and reaffirms the huge potential for efficiency gains. The report also points to further areas of work up to the end of the local e- government programme in March 2006. This includes additional support for councils to help them improve the take-up of e-enabled services and realise the full benefits of their investments.'

That last point is clearly significant. Egov Monitor reports that while a study of council websites shows that they are increasingly important as sources of public information and efficiency gains in service delivery, they are not being promoted sufficiently:

According to Martin Greenwood, Programme Manager for Socitm Insight, information emerging from the website take-up service suggests that councils should be doing more to promote take-up: "We know from the e-citizen national project that there is a whole population out there ready to use council websites, and that getting them to do so will bring tangible benefits in terms of efficiency gains and increased satisfaction with the council. However, it seems that councils have to date invested little in promotion, concentrating perhaps on getting the website right as a facility to offer. Now is the time to change priorities."

Is community informatics good for anyone besides academics?

Community informatics is the academic term for using technology to help build local communities ... which is, of course, a Good Thing. However, as I've written before, while it may be jolly good for academics carving out a new field, I'm not sure it always develops in ways that help the locals.
I'm grateful therefore to David Brake for alerting me to an excellent article "Is Community Informatics good for communities" by Randy Stoecker in the Journal of Community Informatics in which he reflects very honestly on his own qualms as a teacher in the field and as someone involved in non-tech community development.
Randy, who is is Professor of Sociology and Research Associate in Urban Affairs at the University of Toledo, asks:

If the goal, ultimately, is to develop strong communities, does creating a field devoted only to the application of information technology in community settings really serve that goal? The fields of Social Work, Community Development, and Public Health have, for some time now, been focusing much more comprehensively on building strong communities and building up weak ones. Should we assume that information and communication technology is such a central part of that process that it deserves a place as a separate field?
Or, are our efforts better placed in bringing Community Informatics into those other fields—to make sure that the community goals drive the technology goals rather than vice versa? In a small rural community, for example, does the technology plan need to be integrated with the sustainable agricultural plan, and the local business development plan, and the family support system plan, and the regional medical care plan, and all the other plans that are needed to lift up disinvested rural communities? And does that make the technology plan just a member of the supporting cast under the rubric of broader fields of practice and study?

How to sell e-democracy: engage

After investing £4 million in pilots and a toolkit for e-democracy, the big challenge for those running the UK local e-democracy national project is how to convince more local councils across the country of the benefits of using the Internet to engage with citizens. The project now has funding from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for marketing. Will it be hard sell, or more, well, engaging? The choice might well be influenced by how attractive the e-democracy 'brand' is, and draw on lessons from commercial marketers.
In public there is optimism that e-democracy will help refresh people's flagging interest in conventional politics. Egovmonitor reported a survey by the project showing:

Just a third (36%) of British adults know who their local councillor is, two-thirds (67%) have never met their local ward representative and only 17% have presented their views to a councillor in the last two or three years.
The Local e-Democracy project believes councils need to engage more with citizens in between elections to increase community involvement and voter participation.

... and quoted Mary Reid, chair of the project:

“New ways of voting may help in the drive to increase turnout at elections in some areas. But the watchword should actually be e-democracy. By encouraging participation in local issues outside of elections, citizens are more likely to consider voting and taking part in the overall political process, be it local or national. Key to this engagement is involvement in local democracy and councils and councillors must do more to support their citizens to take part.”

I think the project has done a great job so far - but then they have been working with pioneering officers and councillors who really do believe in the benefits of public engagement, and are willing to try new tools to achieve that. This may not apply more widely .... and I have some sympathy with our public servants. Technology can be pretty frustrating, public engagement is difficult enough with old-style techniques, and combining the two requires some special commitment and enthusiasm that may be difficult in the face of other pressures.

Online neighbourhood information may increase wealth gap

Research by Professor Roger Burrows suggests New neighbourhood information websites 'risk widening the gap between rich and poor', as xPRESS Digest reports.

A new generation of internet information services that enable house hunters to select their 'ideal' neighbourhood have the potential to widen the divide between the richest and poorest places in Britain. A report for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation warns that sophisticated new Internet-based Neighbourhood Information Systems (IBNIS) could lead to a more segregated society by not only guiding buyers to the best schools or lowest crime figures, but also helping them choose areas with the kind of existing residents they would most want as neighbours.

The BBC in Internet could widen wealth gap has a quote:

"It is entirely possible that people will start using them to sort themselves out into neighbourhoods where their neighbours are less diverse and more like themselves," said Professor Roger Burrows, who led the JRF research team from the Universities of York and Durham.
"While no one would want to prevent public access to neighbourhood information, we should recognise the potential implications for disadvantaged neighbourhoods and the people who live in them," he added.

While over at Potlatch William Davis reflects:

It strikes me that the internet is likely to do for housing markets what networked computing has done for all sorts of other markets: make them more accurate as pricing mechanisms, but also more volatile in response to shocks. For instance, technology has more or less erradicated information assymetries in bond or insurance markets, because the distribution of information is more or less perfect. Human beings still exercise judgement and develop narratives, but they no longer distribute the facts and figures, which makes for more predictable markets. The same will eventually be true for housing markets: estate agents will be responsible for developing a narrative around a certain area (as if they don't give enough chat already...) but will no longer be sources of information on the housing market, which will be entirely transparent online.
But equally, networked computing can create volatility: think of how 'hot money' flooded out of South East Asia in 1997 with unprecedented speed. The tipping point between optimism and pessimism is far more dramatic, once everyone else is more accutely aware of market tendencies, and has a speedier opportunities to act. Vicious and virtuous circles ensue. I guess what Burrows is arguing is something along these lines, that the new agility and transparency that is available to house-buyers means that those with market power can take ever better decisions, thereby further weakening the market position of those without the same power.