Week 1: Social media and government

  • 220 views
Uploaded on

Slides for the course "Technology in the Public Sector" at Northwestern University, MPPA program, Summer 2012

Slides for the course "Technology in the Public Sector" at Northwestern University, MPPA program, Summer 2012

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
220
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • From YouTube debates and candidate Facebook pages to breaking news on Twitter, the impact of social media is already well noted by candidates running for political office. But does activity in social media influence voters during an election? As candidates prepare their social media strategies for the 2012 elections, NM Incite took a look back at four races during the 2010 midterm elections to measure the impact of social media on voters. Is there a correlation between election winners and their social media impact? 
In three out of four races, the most frequently mentioned candidate on social media won the seat. However, the share of online buzz for each winning candidate was often higher than their percent of votes, demonstrating a strong correlation but not necessarily a causal relationship between social media and election results. For example, in the race for California’s Senate seat Barbara Boxer had the most online buzz (55%) but won by a slight smaller margin of votes (52%). Does more buzz lead to higher voter turnout? 
Overall voter turnout during the 2010 midterm election was higher on average compared to prior midterm elections, but buzz doesn’t appear to be a driver of voter turnout. In fact, the two states with higher levels of voter turnout also had the lower levels of online buzz about their candidates. In each contest, online buzz was high immediately following primaries, then dipped before peaking during the week leading up to Election Day. Which party generated the most buzz? 
Interestingly, when combining the buzz from all four races, conversation about Democrats and Republicans was split equally with each party capturing 50 percent of total buzz. This matched the split in election results, with each party winning two of the four races examined in this analysis. Methodology:
This analysis looked at 50 days of online buzz beginning 9/14/2010 and ending on election day 11/2/2010 in four statewide races (two U.S. Senate seats, two State Governors) in different states: Senate – California: Barbara Boxer vs Carly Fiorina Senate – Florida: Marco Rubio vs Kendrick Meek vs Charlie Christ Governor – Ohio: John Kasich vs Ted Strickland Governor – Maryland: Martin O’Malley vs Bob Erlich

Transcript

  • 1. technology in the public sector week 1: social media and government Northwestern University MPPA 490 Summer 2012 - Greg Wass6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 1
  • 2. • Introductions• Course overview• Learning objectives• Group projects• Grading• Questions• Social media and government6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 2
  • 3. • Course overview 1. Social media and government 2. Public safety and criminal justice IT 3. (no class) 4. Health and human services IT 5. ERP and shared services 6. Education technologies 7. Open data and big data in the public sector 8. The digital city 9. IT governance and funding 10. Group projects6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 3
  • 4. • Learning objectives – Understand current use of technology in government and education. – Complete a group project on a technology in the public sector topic of choice. – Identify trends and future direction for use of technology in public sector.6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 4
  • 5. • Grading – Participation in class and on Blackboard discussion board (25%) – Midterm exam (25%) (July 23) – Group project (plan/resources/draft/final) (25%) – Final exam (25%) (week of August 20)6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 5
  • 6. Questions?6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 6
  • 7. Social media and government: Does it make a difference?6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 7
  • 8. 6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 8
  • 9. 6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 9
  • 10. Drawing by Margaret Hagan, accessed at http://www.razblint.com 6/17/126/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 10
  • 11. 6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 11
  • 12. #ows6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 12
  • 13. “Do digital tools enhance democracy? (They)probably do not hurt in the short run and mighthelp in the long run—and they have the mostdramatic effects in states where a public spherealready constrains the actions of thegovernment.”– Clay Shirky, “The Political Power of Social Media” in ForeignAffairs6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 13
  • 14. “The instruments of social media are well suitedto making the existing social order moreefficient. They are not a natural enemy of thestatus quo.”-Malcolm Gladwell, “Small Change” in The New Yorker6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 14
  • 15. How can government use social media and“choice” to engage and involve citizens?(This is a different question from “Does socialmedia drive social change?”)6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 15
  • 16. 6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 16
  • 17. !6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 17
  • 18. 6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 18
  • 19. From The Power of Social Innovation:Are we heading towards a new kind of “socialmediated” government?6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 19
  • 20. Leveraging social media for change – Provide new, attention-grabbing ways for individuals to mobilize fellow citizens. – Devolve access to information from “experts” to citizens. – Gain access to and post providers’ performance and financial data. Source: Stephen Goldsmith, The Power of Social Innovation, 20106/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 20
  • 21. Tapping into a shared identity – Activate citizens by tapping into a shared goal or interest. – Meet people where they are (e.g., church, school) to tap into existing identity. – Mobilize families around the notion that something is wrong by showing something right. Source: Stephen Goldsmith, The Power of Social Innovation, 20106/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 21
  • 22. Building trust and commitment – Solidify a reputation for reliability. – Furnish the activated group with tools and direction to build broader public support. – Hold elected officials accountable. Source: Stephen Goldsmith, The Power of Social Innovation, 20106/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 22
  • 23. Engaging the public “…one unrepaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing.” --George L. Kelling and James Q. Wilson, “Broken Windows,” The Atlantic, March 1982.6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 23
  • 24. How can technology help increase the relative # of people who care about an issue and want to get involved (and reduce the relative # of squeaky wheels)?6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 24
  • 25. Traditionalapproach: grease6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 25
  • 26. Increasing public participation via “e-democracy” people who care people who care but and are involved who arent involvedsqueaky wheels  people who dont care6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 26
  • 27. Examples:•Crowdsourcing park design•Interactive budgeting: Cook County, Cityof Chicago•Open board appointments: Illinois•Open data, apps•Other?6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 27
  • 28. Source: OpenPlans.org6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 28
  • 29. Potential positive effects of technologicalinnovation on government:•Transparency  trust•Government as a platform, not justservice deliverer•Real public participation6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 29
  • 30. Appendix: Innovation in government6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 30
  • 31. “An innovation, to be effective, has to be simple and it has to be focused. It should do only one thing, otherwise it confuses. If it is not simple, it won’t work. Everything new runs into trouble; if complicated, it cannot be repaired or fixed. “All effective innovations are breathtakingly simple. Indeed, the greatest praise an innovation can receive is for people to say: ‘This is obvious. Why didn’t I think of it?’” -- Peter F. Drucker6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 31
  • 32. Source for graphics on following pages: The Public Innovators Playbook, Deloitte, 20096/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 32
  • 33. 6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 33
  • 34. 6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 34
  • 35. “Integrated innovation lifecycle” 6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 35
  • 36. 6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 36
  • 37. 6/18/12 technology in the public sector week 1 37