Future E Government Conference 2009
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Future E Government Conference 2009

on

  • 578 views

Citizenscape research update

Citizenscape research update

Statistics

Views

Total Views
578
Views on SlideShare
575
Embed Views
3

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

2 Embeds 3

http://www.linkedin.com 2
http://www.slashdocs.com 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Future E Government Conference 2009 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. 24 th November 2009 Future eDemocracy Confrerence RIBA, London CitizenScape
  • 2. CitizenScape Partners - 2 providers, 4 users CitizenScape Interim Review, 30/01/09 www.CitizenScape.org Partner   Role Cty 1 National Microelectronics Applications Centre MAC 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 RDA User Org/Field Trials - New Member State – less favoured region. SK
  • 3. 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?
  • 4. 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
  • 5. www.genova.citizenscape.net Interim Review, Brussels, 30th Jan 2009 www.CitizenScape.org
  • 6. www.donegal.citizenscape.net Interim Review, Brussels, 30th Jan 2009 www.CitizenScape.org
  • 7.  
  • 8. 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
  • 9. What were we trying to find out?
  • 10. Technical
    • Did the technology work?
      • Are we happy with usability and accessibility?
      • Was the scope correct – was key functionality missing?
  • 11. 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?
  • 12. 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?
  • 13. Things we have learned
  • 14. 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
    CitizenScape PEC7, London www.CitizenScape.org
  • 15. 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
    CitizenScape PEC7, London www.CitizenScape.org
  • 16. 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
    CitizenScape PEC7, London www.CitizenScape.org
  • 17. 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
    CitizenScape PEC7, London www.CitizenScape.org
  • 18. Things we have learned ….but didn’t do….
  • 19. 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
  • 20. 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
  • 21. 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
  • 22. 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
  • 23. Thank you!!! Any questions? [email_address]
  • 24. www.bristol.citizenscape.net Interim Review, Brussels, 30th Jan 2009 www.CitizenScape.org
  • 25. www.zilina.citizenscape.net Interim Review, Brussels, 30th Jan 2009 www.CitizenScape.org