Self-efficacy as a factor in the evaluation of e‑petitions<br />Peter Cruickshank<br />Research Fellow<br />International ...
EuroPetition and overview of (e-)petitioning<br />The role of evaluation<br />Self-efficacy<br />Integrating self-efficacy...
7 September 2009<br />EDEM 2009, Vienna<br />3<br /><ul><li>Aim & objectives of project
Add EU/regional networking element to existing e-petitioning system, with feed to:
European Parliament’s PETI Petitions Committee
Commission’s Citizens Initiative
Potential for involving 5m+ in campaigns
Based on system already successfully operational in England and Sweden
Localised integration with other modules (dialogues, videos etc)
Social networking technologies as route into main system</li></li></ul><li>From local e-petitions to EuroPetitions<br />7 ...
7 September 2009<br />EDEM 2009, Vienna<br />5<br />
“	...e-petitioning by a number of public institutions and is in many ways – compared to most other forms of e-participatio...
Petitioning exists between pure representative democracy and direct democracy (bypassing representatives altogether) in a ...
E-Petitions overview<br />7 September 2009<br />EDEM 2009, Vienna<br />8<br />Process<br />Adapted from Sentucci 2007<br /...
E-Petitions overview<br />7 September 2009<br />EDEM 2009, Vienna<br />9<br />
7 September 2009<br />EDEM 2009, Vienna<br />10<br />
Help identify issues and resolve them<br />Measure progress against project objectives<br />Acceptability & uptake: Do sta...
Evaluating ICT Uptake<br />Qualitative approach<br />Qualitative here because we’re in a development environment<br />Movi...
Unlike efficacy, which is the power to produce an effect (in essence, competence), self-efficacy is the belief (whether or...
Turning to wikipedia…<br />Self-efficacy is the belief that one is capable of performing in a certain manner to attain cer...
Simple model of Self Efficacy<br />7 September 2009<br />EDEM 2009, Vienna<br />15<br />Cognitive<br />Affective<br />Self...
We see two aspects to this in the context of e-petitions<br />Computer Self Efficacy (CSE): Perceptions of:<br />Own abili...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Self-efficacy as a factor in evaluation of e-petitions

599

Published on

Published in: Education, Health & Medicine
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
599
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Self-efficacy as a factor in evaluation of e-petitions"

  1. 1. Self-efficacy as a factor in the evaluation of e‑petitions<br />Peter Cruickshank<br />Research Fellow<br />International Teledemocracy Centre<br />
  2. 2. EuroPetition and overview of (e-)petitioning<br />The role of evaluation<br />Self-efficacy<br />Integrating self-efficacy and evaluation<br />Overview<br />7 September 2009<br />EDEM 2009, Vienna<br />2<br />
  3. 3. 7 September 2009<br />EDEM 2009, Vienna<br />3<br /><ul><li>Aim & objectives of project
  4. 4. Add EU/regional networking element to existing e-petitioning system, with feed to:
  5. 5. European Parliament’s PETI Petitions Committee
  6. 6. Commission’s Citizens Initiative
  7. 7. Potential for involving 5m+ in campaigns
  8. 8. Based on system already successfully operational in England and Sweden
  9. 9. Localised integration with other modules (dialogues, videos etc)
  10. 10. Social networking technologies as route into main system</li></li></ul><li>From local e-petitions to EuroPetitions<br />7 September 2009<br />EDEM 2009, Vienna<br />4<br />
  11. 11. 7 September 2009<br />EDEM 2009, Vienna<br />5<br />
  12. 12. “ ...e-petitioning by a number of public institutions and is in many ways – compared to most other forms of e-participation – relatively mature.”<br /> Lindner & Rhiem – EDEM 2008<br />E-Petitions overview<br />7 September 2009<br />EDEM 2009, Vienna<br />6<br />
  13. 13. Petitioning exists between pure representative democracy and direct democracy (bypassing representatives altogether) in a third category ‘Advocacy democracy’<br />Carmen 2006<br />Since the policy impact is indirect (mediated by representatives), perceived fairness and openness in the process can be as important as the actual outcome:<br />“ Can anyone name an e-petition to the Prime Minister that has achieved its aims? Each time I have signed one, I have later received an email telling me why the PM cannot agree.” <br />– Letter to Telegraph, 27 May 2009<br />Raised and subsequently disappointed expectations can lead to increased disaffection with the political process.<br />E-Petitions overview<br />7 September 2009<br />EDEM 2009, Vienna<br />7<br />
  14. 14. E-Petitions overview<br />7 September 2009<br />EDEM 2009, Vienna<br />8<br />Process<br />Adapted from Sentucci 2007<br />Actors<br />Some categorisations<br />
  15. 15. E-Petitions overview<br />7 September 2009<br />EDEM 2009, Vienna<br />9<br />
  16. 16. 7 September 2009<br />EDEM 2009, Vienna<br />10<br />
  17. 17. Help identify issues and resolve them<br />Measure progress against project objectives<br />Acceptability & uptake: Do stakeholders like it?<br />Impact on democratic processes <br />Viability: Models for sustainability<br />The focus of this paper<br />Uptake by external actors (petitioners & non-petitioners)<br />Facing the challenge of getting beyond the usual suspects<br />Has implications for all three strands of the project’s objectives<br />Evaluation within EuroPetition<br />7 September 2009<br />EDEM 2009, Vienna<br />11<br />
  18. 18. Evaluating ICT Uptake<br />Qualitative approach<br />Qualitative here because we’re in a development environment<br />Moving target<br />Uncertain number of users<br />This is a general issue with eParticipation evaluation (Rose & Stanford 2007)<br />Quantitative evaluation could be added post-acceptance<br />Approaches to evaluation of uptake<br />Dominated by Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)<br />Starts from perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use<br />Problem: TAM does not take account of personal factors and environment when seeking to understand behaviour<br />Responses: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (Venkatesh et al 2003)<br />referred by MOMENTUM<br />Adds some social factors etc<br />This approach looks at the user from the outside<br />
  19. 19. Unlike efficacy, which is the power to produce an effect (in essence, competence), self-efficacy is the belief (whether or not accurate) that one has the power to produce that effect<br />Self efficacy<br />If efficacy beliefs always reflected only what people can do routinely they would rarely fail but they would not set aspirations beyond their immediate reach nor mount the extra effort needed to surpass their ordinary performances<br />Albert Bandura in Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, 1994<br />Self-belief does not necessarily ensure success, but self-disbelief assuredly spawns failure<br />Albert BanduraSelf-efficacy: The exercise of control, 1997<br />People who regard themselves as highly efficacious act, think, and feel differently from those who perceive themselves as inefficacious. They produce their own future, rather than simply foretell it<br />Albert BanduraSocial Foundations of Thought and Action: A social Cognitive Theory, 1986<br />7 September 2009<br />EDEM 2009, Vienna<br />13<br />
  20. 20. Turning to wikipedia…<br />Self-efficacy is the belief that one is capable of performing in a certain manner to attain certain goals.It is a belief that one has the capabilities to execute the courses of actions required to manage prospective situations. Unlike efficacy, which is the power to produce an effect (in essence, competence), self-efficacy is the belief (whether or not accurate) that one has the power to produce that effect. For example, a person with high self-efficacy may engage in a more health related activity when an illness occurs, whereas a person with low self-efficacy would harbour feelings of hopelessness.<br />There is a distinction between self-esteem and self-efficacy. Self-efficacy relates to a person’s perception of their ability to reach a goal, whereas self-esteem relates to a person’s sense of self-worth. For example, a person who is a terrible rock climber would probably have poor self-efficacy with regard to rock climbing, but this need not affect that person&apos;s self-esteem since most people don’t invest much of their self-esteem in this activity.On the other hand, one might have enormous skill at rock climbing, yet set such a high standard for oneself that self-esteem is low.At the same time, a person who has high self-efficacy in general but is poor at rock climbing might think that he/she is good at rock climbing, or might still believe that he/she could quickly learn.<br />Key ref: Bandura, Albert (1977), Social Learning Theory, Alexandria, VA: Prentice Hall, pp. 247, ISBN 0138167443<br />Background: Self efficacy<br />
  21. 21. Simple model of Self Efficacy<br />7 September 2009<br />EDEM 2009, Vienna<br />15<br />Cognitive<br />Affective<br />Self Efficacy<br />Self-reinforcing<br />Anxiety<br />Outcome expectations<br />(Performance)<br />Usage<br />Affect<br />Outcome expectations<br />(Personal)<br />Adapted from Compeau & Higgins 1999<br />
  22. 22. We see two aspects to this in the context of e-petitions<br />Computer Self Efficacy (CSE): Perceptions of:<br />Own ability to use technology <br />Confident using internet, confident following a widget, confident in completing an online form <br />Political Self Efficacy (PSE): Perceptions of:<br />Own ability to bring about results in dealing with public authorities<br />Confident a positive outcome will result<br />Confident nothing negative will happen as a result of engagement<br />Self efficacy gives a new set of questions to ask:<br />self-efficacy (what am I capable of; what’s holding me back)<br />expectations of performance outcomes (what will I achieve)<br />personal outcomes (how will I feel – what rewards will I get)<br />affect (why I like it)<br />anxiety (what I am worried about)<br />Using the concept of self efficacy<br />7 September 2009<br />EDEM 2009, Vienna<br />16<br />These apply particularly to the petitioner and the signatory<br />…the challenge: we’re looking for negative engagement:the citizens who could but don’t engage<br />
  23. 23. Brings focus on: <br />Users’ perception of their ability to produce an outcome (confidence)<br />As well as context, allowing exploration of environmental (social / cultural / institutional / educational) and personal factors (experience)<br />Similar to UTUAT, but with emphasis on subjective perspective<br />Results could therefore help address the ‘core critique’ <br />Or at least start collecting useful information on factors affecting takeup<br />Leading to development of appropriate ‘advocacy’ to assist equality of opportunity<br />Which happens to tie up with pragmatic experience of the Scottish Parliament<br />Using the concept of self efficacy<br />7 September 2009<br />EDEM 2009, Vienna<br />17<br />In summary, our hypothesis is:<br />CSE & PSE are related to task performance<br />
  24. 24. <ul><li>Project timeline
  25. 25. Petition lifecycle
  26. 26. Performing a petition</li></ul>7 September 2009<br />EDEM 2009, Vienna<br />18<br />Integrating evaluation into the process<br />
  27. 27. Evaluation through the project<br />2009<br />Jan<br />2009<br />Summer<br />2009<br />October<br />2010<br />March<br />2009<br />November<br />2010<br />December<br />Live running<br />Install &<br />Operate<br />Design & <br />Develop<br />Service<br />User<br />Requirements<br />& Service Spec<br />Final data collection<br />Dialogue to build data gathering into system<br />Validate system meets evaluation objectives<br />Data gathering, responding to issues<br />Establish Baseline & <br />Develop Evaluation Plan<br />Ongoing Evaluation & <br />monitoring of pilots<br />Final <br />Evaluation<br />Baseline survey (authority-held data)<br />Baseline survey (of citizens)<br />Lit review<br />User FGs<br />Partner/Representative/other stakeholder S/S Interviews<br />‘exit’ surveys<br />Interim FGs and interviews<br />System data<br />Partner monitoring data<br />Interim report<br />
  28. 28. Key points in a petition’s lifecycle<br />7 September 2009<br />EDEM 2009, Vienna<br />20<br />Hypothesis:<br />Citizens with high CSE & PSE are more likely to progress through the system<br />Adapted from Sentucci 2007<br />Key questions<br />Why do concerned citizens ‘drop out’?<br />Why don’t concernedcitizens sign?<br />Concerned citizen = someone who has contacted the council in a different context<br />... Should 100% citizen participation even be a goal?<br />
  29. 29. An e-petition in action<br />Performance<br />How many drop out? Why?<br />Why withdraw here?<br />How many don’t sign?<br />Why?<br />
  30. 30. Issue: how to move beyond the ‘usual suspects’ in e-participation<br />Want to understand reasons why concerned citizens don’t engage<br />or why they drop out<br />Self-efficacy (computer or political) may provide new insights<br />Qualitative approach is more useful in development project<br />Data collection can be built into the EuroPetition system<br />But: challenge to catch the people who only briefly engage<br />Objectively efficacious but not self-efficacious<br />Conclusion<br />7 September 2009<br />EDEM 2009, Vienna<br />22<br />
  31. 31. Thank you!<br />Peter Cruickshank – p.cruickshank@napier.ac.uk<br />International Teledemocracy Centre – itc.napier.ac.uk<br />7 September 2009<br />EDEM 2009, Vienna<br />23<br />

×