With user testing it’s easy: the client pays a company an extortionate amount of money to test their product; or, if it’s being done on the cheap, buys lunch for a few folk and tests the product on them instead. People might even do the testing as a favour, but that requires them to have some level of emotional attachment to whoever’s doing the asking.

With public consultation the reward is harder to quantify, but it still needs to be there.

On Tuesday evening I was involved in giving some feedback on a local council web initiative. I wasn’t paid or fed, and I had no emotional attachment to the consultant (the council). I do, however, have an emotional attachment to the group that was being consulted and so I am quite happy to have taken part. But had I been consulted directly I would not have been happy at being told that my suggestions would be ‘added to the log’ and ‘may or may not be used’. In fact I would have been angry: they’d taken up my evening and wouldn’t even be bothered to let me know if and how they used my suggestions. (And no, I see no reward in simply helping the council as I have little faith in its ability to do things well.)

Many public consultations seem to treat their participants as free user testers, which seems something of a paradox. Some reward (which could be simply the satisfaction of doing someone a favour) is important. If there’s no payback – fee, lunch, feedback, satisfaction, etc – then the participant will probably feel used and alienated.

The same goes for ‘digital engagement’ initiatives; which tend, in essence, to be attempts at consultation.

Last night I went to a panel discussion on ‘Connecting with constituents: MPs and Digital Engagement’, chaired by Andy Williamson of the Hansard Society. On the panel were Jon Kingsbury of Nesta who talked about the new MyMP iPhone app (funded partly by Nesta and partly by Public Zone), Tim Hood of Yoosk and Paul Hodgkin of Patient Opinion.

All three initiatives aim to listen to people and feed their input effectively into the public processes, while also making them a valued and engaged part of those processes. There are in fact lots of online initiatives trying to do this, but I’m not sure many of them have really grasped the importance of payback. MyMP doesn’t seem to have considered it (I may be wrong of course). When I posed the question to the panel last night, Yoosk appeared to put faith in the conversation developing to the point where the participants felt bonded enough in some way (as part of a network perhaps) for payback to occur naturally. Maybe that will happen, but it seems a bit of a gamble.

Patient Opinion was apparently the only of the three initiatives to have understood the importance of payback (feedback, in this case: they gather stories from people and are starting to post outcomes of those stories). It seems telling that Patient Opinion was set up by a doctor – not a politician, charity or think tank – and was the only initiative last night that didn’t claim to connect citizens directly with elected representatives or public figures.

The problem seems to be that perennial one of the Web: lots of people have great ideas for layering technology on top of society, and rush to deliver them. What doesn’t seem to happen is a questioning of the underlying processes; it’s all very well encouraging conversation, but what do you do with it?

Someone asked why on earth there were all these different tools available when there should simply be one in the obvious place: Parliament’s own website. One reply was that if people don’t trust a site or organisation (or they don’t have a connection with it) they won’t use its tools, and so these third-party tools are crucial to engagement. While I agree with that I also agree with an assertion made by Andy Williamson: people already have social tools (Facebook, Twitter, etc) that they use to talk about general stuff of interest to them, and when those conversations wander into politics it is in those spaces that they’re conducted; in general people won’t seek out a dedicated site or application for holding those conversations.

Last night the old adage seemed to ring truer than ever: meet people where they are. And having a voice is great up to a point, but feedback – or reward – is critical in the end.

Note: in this post I use the definition of ‘consultant’ as that of someone who asks questions, not someone who gives professional advice.

• Possibly related posts

  1. The Digital Inclusion Champion hasn’t convinced me that she understands what she’s championing
  2. ‘Digital Citizens and Democratic Partipation’: discussion outcomes
  3. Socitim’s ‘Better Connected 2010′ report: what did it say? Join the discussion at Moseley Exchange

I only organised three and still haven’t managed to blog about two of them yet. Still, they were good: Simon Whitehouse talked about ‘Policy options for geographic information from Ordnance Survey‘ and Ordnance Survey OpenData, I looked at the Hansard Society’s recent report ‘Digital citizens and democratic engagement‘ and Stuart Harrison discussed SOCITIM’s ‘Better Connected 2010′ report on council websites.

So would you like me to organise another set of these? There’s been a suggestion that we look at Digital Britain, although it’s more relevant now to discuss it in the context of the new, controversial Digital Economy Act. We could also look at the digital engagement policies of whoever’s in power after the election.

If I do do more of these I will want to stick firmly to the theme of digital civic engagement, but I’m happy for them to be more focussed on public policy if that’s where people want them to go.

Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

• Possibly related posts

  1. Spreading knowledge of research into digital engagement
  2. ‘Digital citizens and democratic engagement’ report: what does it say? Come and discuss it at Moseley Exchange
  3. Ordnance Survey OpenData: what is it? Come and discuss it at Moseley Exchange

Socitm is the membership association for ICT professionals in Local Authorities and the public and third sectors. Their Better Connected report, now in its twelfth year, compares local authority websites against a set of criteria designed to:

“…provide an informed view of the quality of the experience that members of the public are likely to have when engaging with local government through a website. We do this by examining how well each site deals with common queries and situations.”

Considering that claim, it seems a shame that in order to acquire a legitimate copy of the report itself you must pay £400 to subscribe to Socitm Insight. (You can, however, download a free spreadsheet showing how each council was ranked.)

So Stuart has kindly agreed to share his thoughts on the report with anyone who’s interested.

The discussion is being held in Moseley Exchange at 6.30pm on Monday (26 April).

If you intend to join us please take a moment to register on our Eventbrite page just turn up.

Update:

I’m going to try live-streaming the audio on Bambuser, and if I can find time I hope to release the audio mapped to any slides that Stuart might use. I might also get round to live blogging it here.

• Possibly related posts

  1. Would you like more digital engagement knowledge-sharing events?
  2. ‘Digital citizens and democratic engagement’ report: what does it say? Come and discuss it at Moseley Exchange
  3. Ordnance Survey OpenData: what is it? Come and discuss it at Moseley Exchange

Local council officers, bloggers and activists were brought together to help ‘generate ideas and understanding about what is needed to drive the local public data initiative at a local level’.

The release of raw data allows people to develop tools that the custodians of that data either don’t have the time, skills or remit to, or would never have dreamed of doing anyway. The Crime Statistics Quiz, for example, tests your perception of crime in your local area against the official statistics.

Releasing data also enables members of the public to point out errors, such as incorrectly mapped bus stops. This presents a good opportunity for citizens and state to work collaboratively for the the benefit of society.

Obstacles though are complex and numerous: risk aversion, personal agendas (such as job retention), concerns about quality control and fear of how the data might be used are just some of the challenges that need addressing. But challenges they are, and everyone on Monday seemed more than happy to confront them.

By the end of the day we had come up with a list of things we thought were needed (this list is from my personal notes and not the official record of the meeting):

• Data disclaimer for everyone to use;
• Clarity and guidance on the release of data;
• More clarity on ‘derived data’ (what it is, etc);
• Training;
• Repeats of this sort of workshop event;
• Business case;
• Stories of good stuff being done, that everyone can relate to, and presented accessibly;
• Research on usage and numbers;
• Budgetry incentives;
• New legislation, or better use of existing legislation, to encourage the opening up of data;
• Untangling of overlapping and seemingly contradictory legislation;
• A statutory right to data.

I have set up a blog for those involved to continue collaborating on this work: http://localdata.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk.

This post is a slightly revised version of one I posted on the Citizenship Foundation website.

• Possibly related posts

  1. Arguments for open local data
  2. Local Authority Mapping Collective
  3. A council might publish open data, but how does it encourage good use of that data?

My MP is standing down, so I used TheyWorkForYou to see how her successor had voted on particular issues in Parliament. I didn’t like what I saw, so I used YourNextMP to contact the other potential candidate who I might be willing to vote for.

The message ran:

I’m as yet undecided who to vote for in the General Election. I would therefore very much like to know how you would have voted on the following issues:

[list of issues that have been debated in Parliament and that I'm interested in]

A simple ‘for’, ‘against’ or ‘abstain’ will do, but please give your personal view and not simply the party line.

Twenty minutes later I had an email with those issues listed and, next to each one, his voting preference.

I was very impressed. And I liked what I saw. And if he wins the seat I shall keep an eye on him using TheyWorkForYou, The Public Whip and YourNextMP.

• Possibly related posts

  1. Talk About Local unconference 2010: Election coverage discussion
  2. The Digital Inclusion Champion hasn’t convinced me that she understands what she’s championing
  3. ‘Digital Citizens and Democratic Partipation’: discussion outcomes

I hadn’t had time to plan properly (and still haven’t got around to blogging about Simon’s Ordnance Survey OpenData presentation from last week) but we still managed to have a long and interesting discussion.

The report, published in February, looked at two sample groups:

• 2,003 individuals who are already online
  (This data was from the end of 2008: a lot has changed since then)
• 58 ‘digital leaders’ (individuals with a strong interest in social media and politics)
  (This data was from 2009, and sourced via Twitter; I suspect the people surveyed are already operating within the same networks as each other)

Key points from the report’s Conclusion include:

• For those already online, the internet makes it easier to take part in democracy;
• What [the digital leaders] group is doing today, we can expect to see migrate across to the wider online public tomorrow;
• Citizens do not want the passive, broadcast-only relationship with their MPs that has existed until now, they wish to communicate and engage, to track and contribute to the democratic debate;
• Higher levels of engagement and wider participation in the democratic process will happen when citizens feel that they are a central part of it.

The discussion raised concern about the basis for some of the conclusions, which seemed to be presumptions rather than borne from the research.

For example, where was the evidence that what the enthusiasts are doing today will be taken up by the wider online public? (I have since put this to Andy Williamson, the report’s author, who says in a Twitter message that it was ‘based on models of tech adoption theory’.)

Recommendations

The report makes a number of recommendations:

For Parliament

• Wherever systems are being updated:
  • implement open data standards;
  • ensure that public-facing APIs are made available for publicly accessible data; and
  • ensure data is freely available and not restricted by copyright or other restrictive forms of licensing.
• Continue to develop multiple social media and other delivery platforms in recognition that there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ platform or tool and that the public increasingly expects data to be pushed to the services they use, not pulled from a central website or repository.
• Ensure that opportunities are taken for digital media to be used as tools for transparency, outreach and public engagement and not simply for broadcast.
• Review the resourcing requirements for effective social media use amongst Members.
• Ensure that there is timely and appropriate training available and clear guidelines on social media usage.

For MPs

• MPs must listen and respond as well as publish. Citizens want to engage in dialogue about the issues that concern them so communication with them has to be two-way.
• Social media allows MPs to keep a closer eye on the issues that are important for their constituents, these are vital tools in the rich democratic milieu and all MPs should be using them.

For citizens

• Demand two-way digital interaction with your MP and insist that they communicate digitally and proactively.
• Use email, websites and social media to draw MPs’ attention to important issues and use the power of social media to insist that MPs come to the debate on citizen’s terms.

Many of these sentiments are not new, and will certainly be familiar to anyone in the ‘digital leaders’ demographic as they probably helped arrive at them.

Therefore what interests me is whether the recommendations of this report are having any impact on policy makers. Andy Williamson tells me the reaction has been very positive, and that the report helps strengthen the case for more engagement that is being made by those in parliament who are very keen on it.

• Possibly related posts

  1. ‘Digital citizens and democratic engagement’ report: what does it say? Come and discuss it at Moseley Exchange
  2. Would you like more digital engagement knowledge-sharing events?
  3. Releasing local data: what are the challenges?

It’s not the easiest report to make sense of: I would have liked fewer paragraphs full of percentages and more helpful and meaningful presentations of their findings. But it’s interesting, and I will try to unpack some of it by Monday.

The discussion is being held in Moseley Exchange at 6.30pm on Monday (19 April). It’s free to Moseley Exchange members and £3 on the door to non-members.

Anyone is welcome. If you intend to join us please take a moment to register on our Eventbrite page.

Update

The report’s author, Andy Williamson, has very kindly agreed to be online to answer questions.

• Possibly related posts

  1. Ordnance Survey OpenData: what is it? Come and discuss it at Moseley Exchange
  2. Spreading knowledge of research into digital engagement
  3. Socitim’s ‘Better Connected 2010′ report: what did it say? Join the discussion at Moseley Exchange

Martha Lane Fox:

“… Government is going to move most of its services onto the web … so that it can start talking to people in a more interactive way, I guess…”

BBC Breakfast presenter (Bill Turnbull?):

“… What does that mean?”

Martha Lane Fox:

“I’m not a politician, I’m only independent champion, and I’ve raised this challenge to get the ten million people who’ve never used the internet online by the Olympics…”

The rest of the interview is about how she needs to encourage people online for economic reasons, but it didn’t give me the impression that she’s thought very hard about the social and civic implications of being online.

I’m sure she’s doing a great job, but it feels a bit like the blind leading the blind. In my view the person who’s championing digital civic engagement really should be more critically aware of the arguments around it.

Martha Lane Fox on BBC Breakfast, 29 March 2010

• Possibly related posts

  1. National Digital Inclusion conference 2009: day 1
  2. National Digital Inclusion Conference 2009
  3. Digital Economy Bill: my email to Lynne Jones MP

‘let’s get some interested people together and help design the future of digital deliberative democracy for the government. It’ll be faster, better and, with any luck, more pubby’.

As you know, I’m very interested in looking at how we can be using the internet for effective citizenship; so I’m definitely up for this. If you are too, please leave a comment on Ben’s post.

Visit Building Britain’s Digital Future: ‘a chance to reinvent deliberative democracy for the modern age’

• Possibly related posts

  1. 31 Days to Building a Better Blog
  2. Digital Economy Bill: my email to Lynne Jones MP
  3. Would you like more digital engagement knowledge-sharing events?

In April I’ll be running three low-key pilot events here in Birmingham, where each time one person will share their knowledge of a report that they’ve read. They’re aimed particularly at people whose line of work expects them to be knowledgeable in this area, but anyone is welcome.

I’m calling them ‘pilots’ because if they don’t work I won’t have committed to anything long-term. I’m also a bit worried about them not being free to attend: the room I’m using needs to be paid for so I’m having to charge a £3 entry fee. I don’t have any real problem with that, but I think people have grown to expect this sort of thing to be free.  (I’m not making any money out of this, I’m simply spreading the financial burden.)

The events are taking place in Moseley Exchange on three Mondays in April, from 6.30pm.

1. Monday 12 April
   Simon Whitehouse will talk about ’Policy options for geographic information from Ordnance Survey‘ and Ordnance Survey OpenData (eg about implications for public bodies opening up their data, the sort of new products that might be created, and pulling maps into your own blog posts).
   More information on Simon’s session [external link]
2. Monday 19 April
   I (Michael Grimes) will share my understanding of the Hansard Society’s recent report ‘Digital citizens and democratic engagement‘.
3. Monday 26 April
   Stuart Harrison will give a flavour of SOCITIM’s recent ‘Better Connected’ report on council websites.

Registration details (Eventbrite)

• Possibly related posts

  1. Would you like more digital engagement knowledge-sharing events?
  2. ‘Digital citizens and democratic engagement’ report: what does it say? Come and discuss it at Moseley Exchange
  3. Socitim’s ‘Better Connected 2010′ report: what did it say? Join the discussion at Moseley Exchange