• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Panos & chris   overview of e petitioning in english local authorities
 

Panos & chris overview of e petitioning in english local authorities

on

  • 1,070 views

Current status of UK local authority ePetition facilities by Brunel University

Current status of UK local authority ePetition facilities by Brunel University

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,070
Views on SlideShare
991
Embed Views
79

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0

3 Embeds 79

http://davepress.net 49
http://particitech.com 27
http://petitioninsight.com 3

Accessibility

Categories

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

    Panos & chris   overview of e petitioning in english local authorities Panos & chris overview of e petitioning in english local authorities Presentation Transcript

    • Where are we? An overview of ePetitioning tools in English local authorities SALAR Study Visit – 16/03/2011 Panos Panagiotopoulos & Christopher Moody
    • Coming up …
      • Motivation
      • Study methodology and results
      • Further reflections and observations
      Slide
    • Motivation
      • EPetitioning the most popular form of online participation in the UK, according to the Oxford Internet Survey.
      • Institutional “confusion” and political uncertainty.
      • No systematic evaluation of the ePetitioning duty impact for LAs.
      • The first opportunity to assess a nation-wide eParticipation policy at such scale.
      Slide
    • What we did - methodology
      • Designed a framework of 20 features that describe the implementation of LA ePetitioning websites.
      • Validated the framework with the help of four experts (including Fraser) + pilot run with 33 LAs.
      • Added 6 additional variables representing other common eParticipation activities on LA websites.
      • Applied this framework on the 353 English LAs websites using a web content analysis methodology. (6 coders were involved)
      • Statistically analysed 348 usable results including background institutional factors such as size, population, and political orientation (on going).
      Slide
    • What we found - overview
      • Indication of minimum levels of compliance, promotion and innovation, yet 279 out of 353 ePetitioning websites span all over England now .
      • Little actual use of ePetitions – some systems really well hidden under council websites.
      • Adopters and non-adopters do not perform systematically better in other eParticipation activities, although the more effort on ePetitions the better they score in other eParticipation activities.
      Slide
    • If implemented, how well hidden? Slide
    • Providers market share
      • In-house or no information: 19.1% (53)
      • Moderngov: 29.5% (82)
      • MySociety: 12.9% (36)
      • Public-i: 12.6% (35)
      • Web-Lab: 7.6% (21)
      • Limehouse: 2.2% (6)
      • Other (e.g. Firmstep): 16.2% (45)
      Slide
    • Support characteristics
      • Forum or space to discuss petitions: 2.5% (7)
      • Agree/Disagree feature: 2.5% (7)
      • System in use before December 2010: 10.1% (28)
      • Links to useful information (e.g. Council material): 10.1% (28)
      • Notification services for new petitions (e.g. RSS feed, mailing lists): 33.7% (94)
      • Contact details within ePetitions: 40.1% (112)
      • Evidence of encouraged feedback: 4.7% (13)
      Slide
    • How many petitions?
      • No petitions open at all: 69.2% (193)
      • 1-5 open petitions: 27.3% (76)
      • More than 5 - up to 15 open petitions: 3.7% (10)
      • Not a single petition completed yet: 84.2% (235)
      • Calculating average numbers of signatures not useful at this stage.
      Slide
    • (e)Petitioning process
      • Evidence of paper petitions archived online: 19.8% (55)
      • Accepting ePetitions from other online sources: 3.2% (9)
      • Different threshold for online and paper petitions: 4.3% (12)
      • Explicit privacy statement: 30.1% (84)
      • Instructions and assistance measured on a 0-3 scale:
        • Scored 0 or 1: 62.6% (174)
        • Scored 2 or 3: 37.4% (104)
      • Thresholds for ordinary petitions:
        • No threshold: 64.4% (179)
        • 1-50 signatures: 28.8% (80)
        • More than 50 up to 500: 6.8% (19)
      Slide
    • Other eParticipation activities
      • Webcasting council meetings: 16.6% (57)
      • Official use of social media: 67.4% (232)
      • Online forums or other community engagement websites: 9.3% (32)
      • Online participation in council consultations: 42.7% (147)
      • Online budget feedback: 16.6% (57)
      • Online surveys: 51.6% (178)
      Slide
    • Observations and limitations
      • Is there actually a quality response process? What do thresholds really imply?
      • No information on whether the initiative was promoted or not locally.
      • No information over traditional paper process.
      • What do citizens actually expect or are willing to support?
      • Although framework mostly objective, data collection mistakes might have occurred.
      Slide
    • Summary and further discussion
      • 279 LA petitioning websites, but have yet to become embedded in local institutions.
      • Emerging question: so, what is the impact of ePetitioning?
      • What should we do? Also with government and Parliament petitions and ePetitions.
      • Enacting eParticipation: bureaucratically controlled or engagement from the grassroots? EPetitioning popular because combines both, but as an advocacy form of participation requires a fair and politically neutral process.
      Slide
    • CISR PhD workshop - 15/02/2011 Slide Thank you very much… Panagiotis . Panagiotopoulos @ brunel . ac . uk or [email_address] We gratefully acknowledge Fraser Henderson for funding this study and further offering his ideas. Many thanks also to Dr T. Elliman, as well as our coders: Harry Bath-Barranco, Arthur Faulkner, Hubert Andrzejczyk and George Xydopoulos.