eParticipation in Legislation Implementation 24 th November 2009 Future eDemocracy Confrerence RIBA, London CitizenScape
May 17, 2015
eParticipation in Legislation Implementation
24th November 2009
Future eDemocracy Confrerence
RIBA, London
CitizenScape
CitizenScape Interim Review, 30/01/09 www.CitizenScape.org2
CitizenScape Partners - 2 providers, 4 users
Partner Role Cty
1National Microelectronics
Applications CentreMAC
Project Manager, Coordinator, user requirements, sustainability... IE
2 Public-I Group Ltd PI Technology Platform service Provider/Evaluator. GB
3 Bristol City Council BCC ePetitioner/Viewfinder System & User Org/Field Trials GB
4 Comune di Genova CDG User Org/Field Trials IT
5 Donegal County Council DCC User Org/Field Trials – Remote Rural Area IE
6 RDA Zilina RDAUser Org/Field Trials - New Member State – less
favoured region. SK
The challenge
• How do we connect with the conversations – the participation which are already going on out on the web?
• How do we help councils create content which works in these new social spaces?
• How do we do this is a way which supports the formal decision making process so we can ensure that conversations bring results?
• How do we do this in an affordable and repeatable way?
So what is CitizenScape?
• A measurable and repeatable methodology
• A way of using the tools and techniques of web 2.0 to actively create virtual civic spaces where citizen can and will participate in democracy
• An attempt to move citizens from a passive uninformed state to one where they have taken some active part in democracy
• Some clever technology
The benefits
• Flexibility: Bring the tools you want when you want into the process
• Co-Creation: Bring in citizen content and give them ownership of the site
• Digitally native: CitizenScape is way forward which should balance the needs for Local Authorities to manage a process alongside the pressing need from online citizens to communicate in a way which works for them
• Creates a virtual town hall which will outlast the next online fad
What were we trying to find out?
Technical
• Did the technology work?
– Are we happy with usability and accessibility?– Was the scope correct – was key functionality
missing?
Community Ambassadors
• How practical is it to work with citizens in this way?
– Is it sustainable?– What resources / skills are needed?– Did we avoid the usual suspects problem?
Democratic
• Can the design of an online space and the subsequent management of that design have a measurable positive effect on the formal democratic participation of the participants?
• Are individuals who participate in social websites more likely to participate in online democracy – are they more likely 'eparticipants' than citizens who are currently participating in democracy in other ways?
• Is the co-creation of that space a decisive factor in the design in terms of bring about a positive democratic effect?
Things we have learned
Overall
• The social web is inherently self-managed and so attempting ‘choose’ the topic to engage with is very difficult
• The topic we chose was an ‘expert’ one and as such not easily related to more informal debate
• Might have worked better to develop this through NGO relationships rather than directly
14CitizenScape PEC7, London www.CitizenScape.org
Technology
• Technology really was in perpetual beta throughout – we have been working on it throughout the project and really only got the benefits in the final stages
• It is very important for the Admin to be able to control the site and react quickly to new topics
• The users responded well to the approach
• We should have prioritised the travelling widget as it reduces the need to drive people to the site
15CitizenScape PEC7, London www.CitizenScape.org
Community Ambassadors
• The community ambassadors are a good idea in principle but we need to find people who already have a social presence online
• Where you trying to work with a specific topics then you need subject based evangelists
• The role requires considerable motivation – we need to ensure that we are incentivising people to participate
16CitizenScape PEC7, London www.CitizenScape.org
Democratic impacts
• Excellent info gathered for the Bristol Noise consultation and for a number of projects in Genoa: evidence of additional engagement
• We can show increased engagement at other sites as well through volume of traffic etc
• We have involved a different group of people and we have
17CitizenScape PEC7, London www.CitizenScape.org
Things we have learned
….but didn’t do….
Social web audits
• Carry out an initial and ongoing social web audit which maps the space
• Capture the current activity which is going on in your area around social, political and community issues
• Look at geodata and local place names
• Consider folksonomy and taxonomical descriptions of issues
Engage with members
• Its difficult but essential!
• Increases credibility
• Strengthens the democratic promise of the process
• Builds capacity within the elected body
• You have to address the tension between direct and representative democracy
More work is needed
• We are continuing the evaluation and piloting of this work with the UK based Virtual Town Hall Pilot:
– www.public-i.info– Curiouscatherine.wordpress.com
• We are planning some wider European trials later in 2010
Virtual Town Hall Pilot
• Working with 5 Local Authorities to try and build permanent civic spaces for a 12 month Pilot:– Chorley– Essex County Council– Kirklees– North Lincolnshire– Redbridge
• Involving citizens at every level – including to manage and moderate content
• Looking specifically at how to involve elected representatives in this process
• Our objective is measurable increases in democratic activity