F Trevisan_E-campaigning Forum Mar 2012

Filippo TrevisanUniversity of Glasgow

[email protected]

E-Campaigning Forum 2012St. Anne’s College, Oxford

21 March 2012

Export with Care: Lessons from the Experiences of Disability Organisations with e-Campaigning in Britain and America

2

The Project: Online disability rights activism at a time of turmoil Why disability rights organisations?

The controversy over the Welfare Reform Bill in the UK (2011-12), three macro-types of online campaigning actors:

a) Formal disability organisations (both charities and member-led groups)

b) “Digitised” activists (e.g. Disabled People Against Cuts)

c) Digital Action Networks (e.g. The Broken of Britain)

Their structure, function, and online strategies are both informed and influenced by what happens above and below them (Chadwick, 2007)

Political parties /Elected representatives

Disability Nonprofits

Disabled People’sMovement

3

International comparison:UK vs. USANational governments firmly in control of disability

policySimilar rates of internet users amongst the disabled

population (UK, 41%: OXIS, 2011; USA, 52%: Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2011)

Both experience disability policy “crises” in 2011-12: the Welfare Reform Bill (UK) and cuts to Medicaid (USA)

USA as online politics “trend-setter,” UK as “early” European adopter

Different histories of disability activismDifferent principles around which movement

organised, although independent living and equality are common goals

Political environment differences: strong vs. loose parties

4

Organisation pools for comparisonUK USA

5

Methods Digital strategy survey: index of interactivity

opportunity (McMillan, 2002):a) Direction of communication (one- vs. two-

way)b) Amount of control devolved to users

Interviews with digital strategists, communication officers, and government relations executives of 26 organisations in both countries

One-to-onecomms

Communitycomms

Infobroadcast

Citizen-drivencampaigning

Accessibilityfeatures

6

Coalition vs. Fragmentation:UK

& 30+ others

USA

7

What does “membership” mean in the digital era?US organisations enjoy a disproportionately high

number of Facebook supporters:

US: 1.5k 1+ millionUK: 500 27k

BUT: what’s the value of online “membership” to these organisations?

- USA: online participation as a path to “formal” (paid for) membership, “there is no such thing as online membership, active, in person participation is key.” (US disability-specific non-profit)

- UK: online participation as “extended” membership at a time of political turmoil

8

Social media: “mildly terrifying” or “a force for change”? USA:

“social media are potentially empowering for our constituents, but the lack of control is also mildly terrifying for us,”(US disability-specific non-profit)

“there is a tension between the open nature of Facebook and our exclusive relation to our members”(US pan-disability non-profit)

UK: “on social media people are free to criticise – this is revitalising for a typically ‘Victorian’ organisation like ours”(UK disability-specific charity)

“messages received through Facebook definitely influenced decision-making and inspired action: the decision to organise local Hardest Hit marches for October [2011] came out of this”(UK disability-specific charity, Facebook admin for “The Hardest Hit”)

9

Offline vs. Online Action: USA: A hierarchy of offline vs. online

“One person showing up on Capitol Hill is equivalent to 10,000 emails”(US disability-specific non-profit)“[online participation] can’t beat a real conversation with a legislator, […] to get things done in [Washington] DC you need a lot of leverage, and you don’t get that online”(US pan-disability non-profit)

UK: The rising value of online action“online protest is key for our people, who couldn’t make the march and whose voices otherwise couldn’t be heard”(UK disability-specific charity)“I don’t think digital is a substitute for face-to-face participation, but they are of equal value as they let new people join in who wouldn’t be able to otherwise”(UK disability-specific charity)

10

Email is king, but why isn’t it enough against the Welfare Reform Bill?

Advantage: accessibility of email vs. social networking sites Side effect: classic clicktivism tools (e-petitions, postcards, etc.) in

steep decline in both countries

Factors behind these preferences: different party systems; “extraordinary” nature and magnitude of UK crisis calling for experimentation with new online repertoires

Email action network

Classic Clicktivism

Clicktivism+ Innovative tools (DYI campaigns kit, virtual

protest pages, etc.)

USA 80% 21% 76% 21%

UK 50% 33% 26% 50%

11

Personal stories as a “trademark” of online campaigning:

YET key differences:

USA:top priority (clicktivism+), embedded in history of successful American disability rights advocacy (court cases, Congress testimony), barely co-ordinated and no follow-up

UK:traditionally controversial, re-discovered through social media both as contributions to mediated advocacy efforts (e.g. consultation responses, meetings with policy-makers, etc.), AND as tools for potential supporters to “make sense” of complex policy issues

12

Disability organisations in cyberspace at a time of crisis: The ‘4 Cs’ MatrixSystemic:Constitutional arrangement (strong vs. loose

parties, centralised vs. federal system, legislative tradition)

Competition levels in disability activism (collaboration precedents, history of disability politics)

Case-specific:Crisis nature (political+policy vs. policy-only)Catalyst issue (ideological & unifying vs.

resource-focussed & divisive)

13

Welfare Reform Bill vs. Medicaid online campaigns:

Crisis Catalyst Constitutional Arrangement

Competition Levels CampaignFeatures

UKPolitical +

policyIdeological (unifying)

Strong partiesCentralised

Parliament as key legislator

Pre-existing coalitionon welfare issues

Internet as useful “space” for impromptu,

temporary unity

High interaction(2-way comms)High innovation

(virtual protest pages)High coordination (online coalition)High integration

(Online/offline of equal value)

USAPolicy-

onlyResource-focussed (divisive)

Loose partiesFederal

Congress and Courts as key legislators

Pre-existing collaboration on civil

rights issuesBUT

Deep rifts amongst disability-specific groups

Low interaction(top-down comms)

Low innovation(email)

Low coordination (fragmentation)Low integration (offline/online

hierarchy)

14

“If anything, at least now disabled users feel lesspowerless and have a way to vent theirfrustration”(UK digitised activist group)

[email protected]

(This project was possible thanks to the support of the ESRC, Award Nr: ES/G01213X/1 )