Monthly Archive for December, 2009

10 Recommendations for E-Consultations

Published by Tim on December 17, 2009 in Research. 2 Comments Tags: , , .

Earlier yesterday via Twitter, I came across this paper from the December 2006 issue of the Electronic Journal of e-Government (a bit less recent, yet still valid today): On the Road from Consultation Cynicism to Energising e-Consultation (PDF, 144KB) by authors Simon Stephens, Paul McCusker, David O’Donnell, David R. Newman and G. Honor Fagan.

Abstract: A major concern in recent political discourse is that government has become both isolated from and unresponsive to its citizens. Democracy, by definition, demands a two-way flow of communication between government and civil society. ICTs have the potential to facilitate such improved flows of communication — hence, e-democracy and e-consultation. This paper initially draws on focus group discussions on the theme of e-consultation conducted amongst activist citizens on the island of Ireland. High levels of frustration, scepticism and cynicism were expressed on the form, nature and process of extant consultation processes. In follow-up demonstrations, however, the preliminary findings are much more positive suggesting that the potential exists for using e-consultation technologies to enhance democratic processes.

The following set of recommendations caught my eye as they still very much seem to apply today, three years later (page 90):

The following recommendations on future e-consultations were generated from a preliminary analysis of the eight focus group discussions/transcripts:

  1. Maximising inclusion must be central to future e-consultation.
  2. Provide pre-consultation ICT training.
  3. Create and widely circulate detailed time plans.
  4. Provide a suitable contact person to deal with queries or difficulties.
  5. Be flexible with methods and techniques.
  6. Tailor time and settings to participants’ needs.
  7. Provide structured and thoughtful feedback mechanisms.
  8. Allow freedom of access to all information collected.
  9. Provide low cost ICT.
  10. Offer technical support.

The paper closes as follows:

6. Conclusions and Recommendations
What can we learn on the future potential of e-consultation from the two sets of findings presented here? The communicative rationality of local lifeworlds (EU Commission 2003; Habermas 1996; Macintosh, 2004; McCusker et al., 2005; Morison and Newman, 2001; O’Donnell and Henriksen, 2002) may, theoretically, be communicated by citizens via e-consultation processes and technologies—with the purpose of influencing decision-making processes and public policy that directly affects them. The rationale for a radical overhaul is the democratic ideal of ‘partnership and participation’. No single actor (public, private or voluntary) has the information or resources to tackle all problems either efficiently or effectively. To enhance democracy, however, it is imperative that effective consultation takes place enabling a worthwhile transfer of ideas and concerns from the bottom-up. Although not the solution to all the current difficulties, ICT does offer the ability to dramatically improve the process in terms of access and information flow. The findings presented here range from the initial scepticism and cynicism emanating from the face-to-face focus group discussions to the much more optimistic experiential experiences of participants once they interacted with a range of e-consultation technologies in a hands-on manner. One aspect of this transition is the need to incorporate technical advances into political life in such a way as to provide citizens with a more central role in both policy-making and decision-making processes. eGovernment is defined by the Commission of the European Communities (2003) as “the use of (ICT) in public administration combined with organisational change and new skills in order to improve public services and democratic processes while strengthening support for policies”. It follows that organisational change and upskilling must be addressed by both central and local government agencies if the aspirations of present programmes are to be achieved—otherwise they will remain precisely that—mere aspirations. The preliminary findings from the demonstrations suggest that the former aspects of this are possible – whatever about their future influence on policy.
Changing the methodology of consultation may also make available to local authorities and local councillors a framework and opportunity within which to fulfil their roles as policy makers. The development of opportunities for partnership with local interest groups may assist in the formation of a bottom up approach. A variation in techniques may provide better communication, co-operation and consensus between all parties involved. Maximising the potential of ICT may enhance democracy by pooling resources, and by spreading workloads and areas of responsibility. Focusing on partnership may remove the time delays associated with individuals working in isolation. It may also assist by more clearly defining the various roles between central and local government and citizens and other interest groups or stakeholders. The use of the qualifier ‘may’ in all of our concluding sentences here is intentional and signals that there is much yet to discover and do before present aspirations on e-consultation become future working realities. That said, moving from the rather negative findings on extant consulation processes there is much that is positive in the feedback from participants on the hands-on demonstration of e-consultation technologies. The next phase of this research agenda is now happening – some of these e-consulation technologies are now in use in real consultation processes on the island of Ireland.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

What can we learn on the future potential of e-consultation from the two sets of findings presented here? The communicative rationality of local lifeworlds (EU Commission 2003; Habermas 1996; Macintosh, 2004; McCusker et al., 2005; Morison and Newman, 2001; O’Donnell and Henriksen, 2002) may, theoretically, be communicated by citizens via e-consultation processes and technologies—with the purpose of influencing decision-making processes and public policy that directly affects them. The rationale for a radical overhaul is the democratic ideal of ‘partnership and participation’. No single actor (public, private or voluntary) has the information or resources to tackle all problems either efficiently or effectively. To enhance democracy, however, it is imperative that effective consultation takes place enabling a worthwhile transfer of ideas and concerns from the bottom-up. Although not the solution to all the current difficulties, ICT does offer the ability to dramatically improve the process in terms of access and information flow. The findings presented here range from the initial scepticism and cynicism emanating from the face-to-face focus group discussions to the much more optimistic experiential experiences of participants once they interacted with a range of e-consultation technologies in a hands-on manner. One aspect of this transition is the need to incorporate technical advances into political life in such a way as to provide citizens with a more central role in both policy-making and decision-making processes. eGovernment is defined by the Commission of the European Communities (2003) as “the use of (ICT) in public administration combined with organisational change and new skills in order to improve public services and democratic processes while strengthening support for policies”. It follows that organisational change and upskilling must be addressed by both central and local government agencies if the aspirations of present programmes are to be achieved—otherwise they will remain precisely that—mere aspirations. The preliminary findings from the demonstrations suggest that the former aspects of this are possible – whatever about their future influence on policy.

Changing the methodology of consultation may also make available to local authorities and local councillors a framework and opportunity within which to fulfil their roles as policy makers. The development of opportunities for partnership with local interest groups may assist in the formation of a bottom up approach. A variation in techniques may provide better communication, co-operation and consensus between all parties involved. Maximising the potential of ICT may enhance democracy by pooling resources, and by spreading workloads and areas of responsibility. Focusing on partnership may remove the time delays associated with individuals working in isolation. It may also assist by more clearly defining the various roles between central and local government and citizens and other interest groups or stakeholders. The use of the qualifier ‘may’ in all of our concluding sentences here is intentional and signals that there is much yet to discover and do before present aspirations on e-consultation become future working realities. That said, moving from the rather negative findings on extant consulation processes there is much that is positive in the feedback from participants on the hands-on demonstration of e-consultation technologies. The next phase of this research agenda is now happening – some of these e-consulation technologies are now in use in real consultation processes on the island of Ireland.

These follow-up projects certainly deserve a follow-up.

Aneesh Chopra Explains What Citizen Participation Might Look Like

Published by Tim on December 11, 2009 in Uncategorized. 5 Comments Tags: , , , .

In a post on the White House blog today, Aneesh Chopra, Federal Chief Technology Officer and the Associate Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, follows up on some of the questions that went unanswered during the FAQ on Tuesday: Answering Your Questions on the Open Government Directive

Russ Gaskin of Washington, DC commented: [W]ould like an example of what citizen participation might look like under this directive.
Russ, I expect citizen participation initiatives to build on the outburst of creativity and experimentation we’ve seen in this space in the first 10 months of this Administration.
For example, Open for Questions gave Americans across the nation a direct line to the Administration to ask exactly what they wanted to know about the Administration’s efforts to get the economy back on track. Openinternet.gov enriched the official record on net neutrality with more than 22,000 comments.   Across the country and online, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has been seeking the best ideas for the next generation of school reform through his Listening and Learning Tour.  A Health IT Online Forum is currently drawing on the expertise of stakeholders on the front lines of healthcare delivery to uncover new strategies to accelerate the adoption of Health IT.  And, just yesterday, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy launched the Public Access Policy Forum  to better understand how the Executive Branch might best enhance public access to peer reviewed papers arising from all federal science and technology agencies.
Of course, I would be remiss not to mention the unprecedented three-phase public consultation process  (brainstorming, discussion, drafting) that shaped the Open Government Directive itself.   You can learn more about the Open Government Initiative public consultation process and other innovations in participatory decision making in the Open Government Progress Report to the American People and in the White House Open Government Innovations Gallery.
At the same time, I hope that all of you will engage in the agency public consultation processes that will shape their Open Government plans. I know that Washington does not have a monopoly on the best ideas and want your ideas for how we can make participation opportunities more meaningful for citizens.

Russ Gaskin of Washington, DC commented: [W]ould like an example of what citizen participation might look like under this directive.

Russ, I expect citizen participation initiatives to build on the outburst of creativity and experimentation we’ve seen in this space in the first 10 months of this Administration.

For example, Open for Questions gave Americans across the nation a direct line to the Administration to ask exactly what they wanted to know about the Administration’s efforts to get the economy back on track. Openinternet.gov enriched the official record on net neutrality with more than 22,000 comments.   Across the country and online, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has been seeking the best ideas for the next generation of school reform through his Listening and Learning Tour.  A Health IT Online Forum is currently drawing on the expertise of stakeholders on the front lines of healthcare delivery to uncover new strategies to accelerate the adoption of Health IT.  And, just yesterday, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy launched the Public Access Policy Forum to better understand how the Executive Branch might best enhance public access to peer reviewed papers arising from all federal science and technology agencies.

Of course, I would be remiss not to mention the unprecedented three-phase public consultation process  (brainstorming, discussion, drafting) that shaped the Open Government Directive itself.   You can learn more about the Open Government Initiative public consultation process and other innovations in participatory decision making in the Open Government Progress Report to the American People and in the White House Open Government Innovations Gallery.

At the same time, I hope that all of you will engage in the agency public consultation processes that will shape their Open Government plans. I know that Washington does not have a monopoly on the best ideas and want your ideas for how we can make participation opportunities more meaningful for citizens.

Earlier this year, a number of organizations in the participation field collaborated on several occasions to provide the White House with detailed input on exactly this question — how to make participation meaningful. The following two efforts were probably the most notable:

  • The Public Engagement Principles (PEP) Project was launched in mid-February 2009 to create clarity in our field about what we consider to be the fundamental components of quality public engagement, and to support Barack Obama’s January 21st memorandum on transparency and open government.  The following principles were developed collaboratively by members and leaders of NCDD, IAP2 (the International Association of Public Participation), the Co-Intelligence Institute, and many others. — PEP website, PDF download (1.6MB)
  • Strengthening our Nations Democracy II. On August 2-4, 2009, “experts and advocates for strengthening our nation’s democracy” came together to create new momentum and plans for bringing together the emerging democracy reform movement behind a common set of priorities. At the second Strengthening Our Nation’s Democracy conference, participants shared what they have been learning from their work across the country, and rolled up their sleeves to create collective recommendations and action steps. — PDF download (1.1MB)

Unlike the eight Open Government Data Principles, a set of guidelines developed two years ago by the Open Government Working Group (see meeting notes) which are reflected in the Open Government Directive almost verbatim, the above mentioned recommendations on participation were not explicitly included in the Directive. It remains to be seen to what degree they’ll be found in the Open Government Plans that are now being crafted at the agency level.

And the Winner Is… Transparency!

Published by Tim on December 11, 2009 in Radar. 0 Comments Tags: , .

Now that the Open Government Directive is finally out, it’s been interesting to sift through the reactions and read what people think about it.

As several people have noted (here, here), the Open Government Directive’s immediate focus — at least quantitatively — seems to be much more on transparency than on the other two pillars, participation and collaboration.

Not surprisingly, the transparency community is pretty happy (see, for example, GovFresh’s nice list of a dozen statements from some of the more well-known voices).

But what about participation? Here are three comments that seem to illustrate the overall mood pretty well, at least according to what I’ve been hearing.

Peter Levine, Director of CIRCLE, The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (2009/12/08): the Open Government Directive

Meanwhile, the “collaboration” and “participation” aspects of the president’s original memorandum were extremely promising. Real participation by citizens and real collaboration with nonprofits and communities would change government and enhance civic skills. But those sections of today’s Directive are very short and vague, and the concrete passages disappoint me. For instance:

“The Plan should include descriptions of and links to appropriate websites where the public can engage in existing participatory processes of your agency.”

“The Plan should include proposals to use technology platforms to improve collaboration among people within and outside your agency.”

“The Plan should include innovative methods, such as prizes and competitions, to obtain ideas from and to increase collaboration with those in the private sector, non-profit, and academic communities.”

I predict that organized stakeholders will dominate open online forums and will win most of the prizes and competitions, leaving most Americans with no new ways to participate. But I could certainly be wrong, and I hope I am. I also look forward to future initiatives, because I assume that the original Memorandum remains a promise that can inspire further action.

Brad Rourke, President, The Mannakee Circle Group (2009/12/09): White House Issues Open Government Directive

While the move was applauded by the transparency community (for instance, the policy director of the Sunlight Foundation referred to it as “enormous,” and indeed the list of commitments from agencies when it comes to transparency is already impressive), many in the civic participation field are less sanguine.

“I was underwhelmed,” wrote Fielding Graduate University professor emeritus W. Barnett Pearce in a post to an influential mailing list run by the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation. “[I]t seemed very much like the ‘town hall meeting’ concept – the government shows/tells/lets us look on the website to see what they are doing, and then we can line up for our three minutes/send in our comments to their email inboxes or a listserve.”

There were a few positive comments as well.

Roger Bernier, senior advisor at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2009/12/10 via the NCDD mailing list):

As a federal agency official promoting public engagement, I believe the Directive raises the bar on how we intereact with the public and could be a powerful tool for stimulating more active participatory processes. I say this because the Directive calls for changing management and administrative policies to increase public participation in agency activities and calls for the creation of new and easier methods of public engagement. Also, it recognizes the importance of agency employee engagement to help create an internal culture of participation as well as an external one.

So, a bit of a mixed bag. It seems that even though the participation community (NCDD and others) have been engaging with the White House extensively over the past few months, the real work is only about to begin.

I’d like to see a comprehensive list of all agencies that will be working on this over the coming months and their activities (incl. key people, meeting calendars, calls for public input etc.). As a field, we can’t assume that anyone at the agency level is aware of the recommendations or resources we’ve shared so far. Another coordinated effort will be needed to help put the participation piece on the right track.

2009/12/09
White House Issues Open Government Directive
http://blog.bradrourke.com/2009/12/09/white-house-issues-open-government-directive/
While the move was applauded by the transparency community (for instance, the policy director of the Sunlight Foundation referred to it as “enormous,” and indeed the list of commitments from agencies when it comes to transparency is already impressive), many in the civic participation field are less sanguine.
“I was underwhelmed,” wrote Fielding Graduate University professor emeritus W. Barnett Pearce in a post to an influential mailing list run by the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation. “[I]t seemed very much like the ‘town hall meeting’ concept – the government shows/tells/lets us look on the website to see what they are doing, and then we can line up for our three minutes/send in our comments to their email inboxes or a listserve.”
2009/12/08
the Open Government Directive
http://www.peterlevine.ws/mt/archives/2009/12/the-open-govern.html
Meanwhile, the “collaboration” and “participation” aspects of the president’s original memorandum were extremely promising. Real participation by citizens and real collaboration with nonprofits and communities would change government and enhance civic skills. But those sections of today’s Directive are very short and vague, and the concrete passages disappoint me. For instance:
“The Plan should include descriptions of and links to appropriate websites where the public can engage in existing participatory processes of your agency.”
“The Plan should include proposals to use technology platforms to improve collaboration among people within and outside your agency.”
“The Plan should include innovative methods, such as prizes and competitions, to obtain ideas from and to increase collaboration with those in the private sector, non-profit, and academic communities.”
I predict that organized stakeholders will dominate open online forums and will win most of the prizes and competitions, leaving most Americans with no new ways to participate. But I could certainly be wrong, and I hope I am. I also look forward to future initiatives, because I assume that the original Memorandum remains a promise that can inspire further action.

Participation And the Open Government Directive

Published by Tim on December 8, 2009 in Public Participation, Radar and Uncategorized. 4 Comments Tags: , .

Being eagerly awaited by many in the field, the Open Government Directive was released this morning: Open Government Directive (PDF, 84 KB)

Here’s a summary of snippets that deal with participation and engagement:

Participation allows members of the public to contribute ideas and expertise so that their government can make policies with the benefit of information that is widely dispersed in society.

[...]

3. Components of the plan

[...]

b. Participation: To create more informed and effective policies, the Federal Government should promote opportunities for the public to participate throughout the decision-making process.  Your agency’s Open Government Plan should explain in detail how your agency will improve participation, including steps your agency will take to revise its current practices to increase opportunities for public participation in and feedback on the agency’s core mission activities.  The specific details should include proposed changes to internal management and administrative policies to improve participation.

i. The Plan should include descriptions of and links to appropriate websites where the public can engage in existing participatory processes of your agency.

ii. The Plan should include proposals for new feedback mechanisms, including innovative tools and practices that create new and easier methods for public engagement.

[...]
e) Public and Agency Involvement: Your agency’s Open Government Plan should include, but not be limited to, the requirements set forth in this attachment.  Extensive public and employee engagement should take place during the formation of this plan, which should lead to the incorporation of relevant and useful ideas developed in that dialogue.  Public engagement should continue to be part of your agency’s periodic review and modification of its plan.  Your agency should respond to public feedback on a regular basis.

3. Components of the plan

b. Participation:  To create more informed and effective policies, the Federal
Government should promote opportunities for the public to participate
throughout the decision-making process.  Your agency’s Open Government
Plan should explain in detail how your agency will improve participation,
including steps your agency will take to revise its current practices to increase
opportunities for public participation in and feedback on the agency’s core
mission activities.  The specific details should include proposed changes to
internal management and administrative policies to improve participation.
i. The Plan should include descriptions of and links to appropriate
websites where the public can engage in existing participatory
processes of your agency.
ii. The Plan should include proposals for new feedback mechanisms,
including innovative tools and practices that create new and easier
methods for public engagement.
For what it’s worth, here’s how many times the key terms are mentioned in the Directive: transparency (21x), collaboration (16x), participation (14x) and engagement (3x).
Here’s the timeline:
  • Within 45 days: establish a working group that focuses on transparency, accountability, participation, and collaboration within the Federal Government. …
  • Within 60 days: create an Open Government Dashboard on www.whitehouse.gov/open.  The Open Government Dashboard (to include each agency’s Open Government Plan, aggregate statistics and visualizations)
  • Within 120 days: each agency shall develop and publish on its Open Government Webpage an Open Government Plan that will describe how it will improve transparency and integrate public participation and collaboration into its activities.
It’ll be up to the agencies to describe in more detail how they plan to embed public participation in their work.

Multi-Language Online Dialogue With Google Wave

Published by Tim on December 8, 2009 in Collaboration, E-participation and Research. 6 Comments Tags: .

Here’s one reason why I believe Google Wave (or whatever similar service will emerge in the future) holds a lot of potential for the world of e-participation:

As Bengt Feil outlined in his excellent interim summary of our e-participation wave, one potential application for using Wave are small-group online dialogues or deliberations. On the web, these participation processes can be supported with conventional chat or forum technology. However, the thing that makes Wave especially interesting is its already impressive list of bots (small applications that can be added to a wave).

According to Wikipedia, extensions are “program robots to automate common tasks and/or build gadgets to extend or change user interaction (e.g., posting blips on microblog feeds or providing RSVP recording mechanisms).”

One of these little extensions is called Translatey. Here’s how the Google Wave Bots Wiki describes what it does:

Translatey is a lightweight Multilingual Translator Based on Google Translate.
Imagine you are chatting with friends from different countries, where no one speaks other’s language ? Yes, now this is possible using Translatey.
To add Translatey, simply add: translatey@appspot.com to your contacts and whenever you want it to help, just add it to your wave as a prticipant, enjoy speaking your own language, and let Translatey do the translation job.
[...]
Translatey has a built-in Auto-Detect feature, used in Google Translate, which allows Translatey to detect the creator’s language. Example, If I chose French to translate to, then I can write in ANY language, and Translatey will detect my language and translate it to French.

Translatey is a lightweight Multilingual Translator Based on Google Translate.

Imagine you are chatting with friends from different countries, where no one speaks other’s language ? Yes, now this is possible using Translatey.

To add Translatey, simply add: translatey@appspot.com to your contacts and whenever you want it to help, just add it to your wave as a prticipant, enjoy speaking your own language, and let Translatey do the translation job.

[...]

Translatey has a built-in Auto-Detect feature, used in Google Translate, which allows Translatey to detect the creator’s language. Example, If I chose French to translate to, then I can write in ANY language, and Translatey will detect my language and translate it to French.

I tried out the Translatey bot earlier today. Here’s a screenshot of a little chat I had (with myself) that mimicked a conversation between a German speaker and an English speaker:

Translatey

Not perfect, but I’m sure you can see the potential here. As I had mentioned on the wave a few weeks back, this type of real-time translation could be really useful whenever you need to engage people across borders or language boundaries.

For example, the European Union currently has 27 member states and supports 23 or so official languages. Hiring interpreters can be cost-prohibitive for many projects. However, with tools like these Wave extensions a good deal of multi-language dialogue might become feasible if the help of an interpreter is not required. One could use Wave for the 80 percent where the quality a translation bot provides is good enough, and use interpreters only for the other 20 percent.

Translation is  just one example of how bots can support collaboration on Wave. Who knows, maybe there’s even room for a bot that supports some very basic online facilitation or moderation processes. Once again, this could help bring more e-participation projects to scale and allow the real facilitators to focus on those conversations where they are needed the most.

Anonymity in Public Participation

Published by Tim on December 3, 2009 in Ideas and Research. 4 Comments Tags: .

Following their recent informal survey, Lucas Cioffi just shared a comprehensive list of arguments why requiring citizens to register on government websites with their real names may not always be such a good idea: Protect Anonymous Comments Online

Here’s the comment I just left:

Nice list of arguments.

I wonder what opportunities there are to design systems that offer more flexible ways of dealing with identity. For many of the participation scenarios I’m aware of, neither a strict real name requirement nor a complete laissez-faire approach seem to provide the right structure.

As an alternative, an online participation system might well require participants to sign up with their real name or even verify their identity (as part of their account information). Yet participants could choose if and to what extent they want to share their real identity with the other participants or the general public (via their profile and privacy settings). In case the system was hosted by a neutral third party provider, participants might even be able to shield their private information from the convener organization.

This approach would also allow us to differentiate between various activities participants are asked to engage in. Some processes would require real names, other might work better if participants stayed anonymous.

Finally, participants could be empowered to choose as a group which level of anonymity (or revealed identity) they prefer. For example, a group of participants engaging in small-group dialogue could choose to reveal their real names only if and when all of them have expressed that they are comfortable with it.

I think it’s worth exploring these dynamics.

Please leave a comment if you’ve come across any online tools that deal creatively with this tension between anonymous and identified participation.