Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Collaborative behaviours in e participation
Collaborative behaviours in e participation
Collaborative behaviours in e participation
Collaborative behaviours in e participation
Collaborative behaviours in e participation
Collaborative behaviours in e participation
Collaborative behaviours in e participation
Collaborative behaviours in e participation
Collaborative behaviours in e participation
Collaborative behaviours in e participation
Collaborative behaviours in e participation
Collaborative behaviours in e participation
Collaborative behaviours in e participation
Collaborative behaviours in e participation
Collaborative behaviours in e participation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Collaborative behaviours in e participation

555

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
555
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
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
  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/krazydad/3870810/
  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/s2art/47846964/
  • The development of the Internet and it’s services like www, it is absolutely overwhelming : It took almost 40 years from the invention Internet to the change in our societies. But especially the last 5 years the change in society has increased enormously . Whilst in the beginning the information supply was the main driving force => this changed to social relationships . Today: Social relationships are the main motive for internet use , to find friendship and romance; Social relationships provide support, information and opportunities for new connections. Web is becoming more and more social; the new information filter are our social relationships. Welcome in the social web . The internet has not only profoundly changed the way people communicate and behave , BUT also their expectations regarding politics. So institutions have to start to enter the social web. But after the first experiences we can see the tensions : => in many cases, citizens as well as politicians or administrative officials are disappointed by the promises offered by e-participation (Chadwick, Coleman, Blumler). The main question is: Why are some many stakeholders disappointed . If we have a look to e-participation initiatives and especially research (e.g. the EU-funded FP6), they main focus is on technology. BUT successful e-participation projects in the future, we will require a better understanding of human behavior in the online environment . And this is the focus of this paper. And the onging PhD of Noella. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.flickr.com/photos/kotsifi/5395565103/sizes/l/in/photostream/
  • Tapscott & Williams called it: “ culture of generosity is the backbone of the internet ” Relationships and contributions should not always be seen simply as due to pure altruism . Cause, altruistic motivation alone cannot always explain why people will engage in prosocial behaviour or participate in online groups: in the Open Source environment: Contributors view their participation as an investment from which they expect future returns . But there are also users who participate without receiving direct or indirect monetary expectations.  They contribute because of indirect rewards such as: (monetarization) status and personal visibility external promotion And to be upp to date = subjective value of information . The internet provides a platform for just about anyone to contribute , and everyone benefits by having many different angles on a news, connections, events or topic. --------------------------------------------------------------- Why do they produce? One explanation is that the characteristics of the internet such as anonymity and reduced observable social cues are encouraging discussions and generating interesting arguments (e.g. Jennings & Zeitner 2003) Others believe that it is the benefits obtained from their community; Input is linked to the predicted Output (Butler et al. 2002), That the input is related to the amount of fun users have in their community or crowd (Nov 2007). The internet provides the infrastructure , which supports and encourages high levels of altruism. Eg: such as volunteerism , providing assistance and emotional support (Amichai-Hamburger 2008; Barnes 2008). These behaviours are known as prosocial behaviour (Eisenberg & Miller 1987). [Forms of prosocial behaviour that occur online are: (NOELLA DISKURS) consensus and collective action (Rheingold 2002), reciprocation (Adamic et al. 2003), contribution of time and effort (Butler et al. 2002).] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.flickr.com/photos/zyphichore/152189649/sizes/o/in/photostream/
  • How to govern participation or collaboration or ? The Netiquette guides the user and helps to user.The Netiquette often also expresses the expectations of the platform provider how users should interact. Secondly we find explanations for user behaviour in the motivation theory : all behaviour is motivated in some way!  What are the motivations for behaviour actions on your platform OR non activity  why do they not participate or continue to participate. People will engage in a particular behaviour in order to achieve a desired end . Motivations and goals determine (1) how online tools will be used (2) and determine the behaviours participants choose to engage in. The participants’ expectations and motivations will (1) structure the outcome (2) and enable and constrain experiences and payoffs . Relationships between users may motivate and lead to people connecting and taking collective action (Melucci 1996). It is important to understand the role of motivation as it is one of the factors that may lead to lack of participation and collaboration , but also to disenchantment, a negative attitude to government or those in power, and low levels of use of government sites (Maier & Reimer 2010). 3. The third aspect is the communication concept and discussion process/model design , which highly influence user behaviour. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.flickr.com/photos/the-g-uk/3984515835/sizes/o/in/photostream/
  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/s2art/47846964/
  • There are a number of different ways to collaborate online , from small individual acts such as posting a hyperlink to participation in online communities . Hyperlinking , which historically began as a citation mechanism, is now part of a huge network, an industry, which affects the size and shape of the public sphere by facilitating the wide sharing of information (Halavais 2008). Hyperlinking has shifted the dynamics of human conversation (Hespos 2008), Hyperlinks express social relationships in the public space for others to see. (Adamic 2008), Hyperlinks are guiding users and their attention by letting others know what matters to them and what they believe may matter to others (Hargittai 2008, Weinberger 2008). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.flickr.com/photos/85791047@N00/2954783299/sizes/m/in/photostream/
  • Networks are the organising principle of modern society (Castells 1996) and hyperlinks are “ becoming the currency and connective tissue of the networked society ” (Turow & Tsui 2008, p. 48). As part of everyday life, hyperlinks are “ created and situated in a political-social context ” (Turow & Tsui 2008, p.21) and who argues that, suggests that (in Turow & Tsui 2008, p. 48). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.flickr.com/photos/artbystevejohnson/4930184748/sizes/l/in/photostream/
  • Haythornthwaite defined the difference between crowds and communities and described it as two ends of a spectrum: Where are the successful administration & policy making portals? one single customer has saved Dell $ 1 million in support costs in 1 year: 10,000 fixes  viewed 2.5 million times Communities: Communities form and define knowledge through the continued efforts of known participants . Each community has different patterns of contribution (participation , aggregation and evaluation) in their organizational structures. Heavyweight = The members have a high commitment to the community and are willing to learn about the topic, equipment, methods, and norms of production around this domain of knowledge. Crowdsourcing Crowdsourcing is about harnessing the knowledge and talents of many (relatively) anonymous individuals through online systems , Crowdsourcing contributions range from isolated, minimal, discrete, objective and often anonymous contributions (e.g., the NASA ClickWorkers) Crowdsourcing projects are described as “lightweight”, because: the types of input are limited and the visibility of individual contributors and contributions is not very high ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.flickr.com/photos/jdhancock/3574716051/sizes/z/in/photostream/
  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/s2art/47846964/
  • Opportunities : Openness will improve government and public administrations’ efficacy, capacity and legitimacy . Collaboration can help modernise government service delivery Interaction with citizens . They provide opportunities for citizens to be active: participate in networks and be involved in dialogues . For governments, participation and collaboration offers the opportunity to gain access to new ideas and expertise as well as a profounder and deeper understanding of citizens . In Open Government concepts, public value no longer needs to be provided by government alone, but can be provided by any combination of public agencies, the private sector, community groups or citizens . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.flickr.com/photos/lifeasart/271753099/sizes/o/in/photostream/
  • The Limits of Online Collaborative Behaviours The internet is a social environment, and for many, it is a normal way of life (Joinson et al. 2007). Limitation of knowledge Limitation of time Still the Limitation of language especially in Europe The traditional organisational structure of public administration is that of a hierarchical, closed entity . This closed, hierarchal government is increasingly becoming untenable , but public administration has not yet found its new role in this virtualized environment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.flickr.com/photos/lukeibis/5105170502/sizes/l/in/photostream/
  • Risks associated with using technology for participation and collaboration (Van der Laar 2010) Bad quality: high numbers of participants involved in collaborative work does not necessarily mean high quality results an overload of initiatives and other opportunities , low levels of commitment and low levels of interest. Digital divide due to the reliance on the internet a chaos of useless information  less reliable news, manipulated public opinion. Keen fears that the internet and activities such as crowdsourcing lead to a degeneration of democracy , where democracy is ruled by mob and rumour , and the topics are no longer politics, economics and foreign affairs, but amateurs discussing their own favourite topics . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajmarx/2715050889/sizes/l/in/photostream/
  • 1) Mismatch: consume more than contribute In a wide range of settings, people contribute less than the optimal amount of public goods and consume more than their fair share of common resources (Ledyard 1995). According to Nielsen (2006, 2009), user participation follows a “90-9-1 rule”, where 90% of users are lurkers (i.e., read or observe, but don't contribute), 9% of users contribute from time to time, and 1% of users participate a lot and account for most contributions, often replying just minutes after a post has been made. 2) Opinion sway, majority and minority group effects Participation and deliberation in online groups may have a number of effects such as opinion sway, majority and minority group effects . Powerful social and psychological forces work against the notion of the ‘weak ties ’ – people prefer advice from like-minded people, do not like disagreement, try to avoid the discomfort of unpleasant experiences, and adjust their own attitudes to avoid cognitive dissonance (Sunstein 2006). 3) Hierarchical structures vs. virtualized environment The traditional organisational structure of public administration is that of a hierarchical, closed entity. This closed, hierarchal government is increasingly becoming untenable, but public administration has not yet found its new role in this virtualized environment 4) EParticipation & Collaboration need transparency Any collaboration model requires a certain degree of transparency . Participation can be seen as a traditional form of participating in a joint activity to find common solutions for problems and challenges that are affecting a number of people or the society as a whole. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.flickr.com/photos/redvers/532077498/sizes/o/in/photostream/
  • Transcript

    • 1. Collaborative Behaviours in E-Participation Noella Edelmann, Peter Parycek
    • 2. 1. Why & How?
    • 3. Why Now? “ Welcome in the social web” Clay Sharky Not a hype  it fulfills natural human social needs! 1. Phase linking information 2. Phase linking social relationships
    • 4. Why do they produce? culture of generosity is the backbone of the internet Tapscott & Williams 2006 investment for future returns + status + personal visibility + external promotion + to be up-to-date + BUT
    • 5. How to govern participation?
      • netiquette
      • all behaviour is motivated
      • process & model design discussion/deliberation/participation/collaboration
    • 6. 2. Hyperlinks, Communities & Crowds
    • 7. Hyperlinking …
      • affects the size and shape of the public sphere,
      • expresses social relationships,
      • has shifted the dynamics of human conversation.
    • 8. hyperlinks are becoming the currency and connective tissue of the networked society
    • 9.
      • continued efforts of known participants
      • high commitment of individual to the collective,
      Community vs. Crowd
      • talents of many (relatively) anonymous individuals
      • isolated, minimal, discrete, objective and often anonymous contributions
      •  they do not have to engage directly with each other
    • 10. 3. Opportunities, Limits, Risks & Tensions
    • 11. Opportunities
      • Improvement of efficacy, capacity and legitimacy
      • Modernization of government service delivery
      • Interaction with citizens
      • Activation of citizens to participate in networks and dialogues
      • Access to new ideas and expertise
      • Profounder and deeper understanding of citizens.
      • Public value through any combination of public agencies, the private sector, community groups or citizens
    • 12. Limits
      • internet not normal way of life
      • knowledge
      • time
      • culture &
      • language (especially in Europe)
    • 13. Risks
      • quality?
      • an overload of initiatives
      • too many other opportunities
      • low levels of commitment & interest
      • digital divide
      • chaos of useless information
      • manipulated public opinion
      • democracy is ruled by mob and rumour
    • 14. Tension:
      • consume more than contribute
      • opinion sway, majority and minority group effects
      • Hierarchical structures vs. virtualized environment
      • E-Participation & Collaboration need transparency
    • 15. Thanks! Noella, Peter

    ×