Our space epart2014

890 views

Published on

Published in: Science
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
890
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • http://www.ep-ourspace.eu/
    https://www.joinourspace.eu/
  • Implementation of an innovative communication platform for democratic participation
    Creating a community that focuses on discussing political issue that are relevant for young people.
    Forward the results of the deliberation process to decision makers and institutions.
    To make young people familiar with decision makers, governmental/political institutions and the decision making process.
    A sustainable and inexpensive platform and the evaluation therof.


    Übernommen aus dem Projektantrag / Arbeitsprogramm.
  • Wie wurde in den 4 Pilot-Countries versucht User zu bekommen? 4 verschiedene Herangehensweisen erlauben es verschiedene Marketing/Engagement-Techniken zu testen und zu analysieren. In CZ (DUHA = Dachorganisation von verschiedenen Jugendparlamenten/-politische Jugendgruppen) und UK (BYC=Britsh Youth Council ) waren die politischen Jugendorganisationen Teil des Konsortiums. In Griechenland mussten das Cafe Babel (Jugendmagazin) und die NTUA (Uni) erst die Kontakte zu Jugendlichen suchen und finde (wie in AT).
  • Die orangenen balken zeigen wie weit fortgeschritten eine diskussion war (in welche phase).
    Bestbewerte themen kamen in phase 2. Auch themen, die vom Konsortium stark promoted wurden kamen direkt in phase 2. Ebnenso wurden die themen der Entscheidungsträger direkt in phase geschickt.
    Hier gab es die möglichkeit ‚kommentare‘ oder ‚lösungsvorschläge‘ zu schrieben. Diese konnten bewertet werden (+/-). Die bestbewertenden lösungsvorschläge wurden in phase 3 geschickt.
    Hier wurde nur über 3-5 lösungsvorschläge abgestimmt.
    Hier gab es eine zusammenfassung der Deliberation insbesondere mit darstellung des besten ergebnisses.

    Top Views of a topic: CZ: 13.791 “Tuition Fees”,  3.393 “Homosexual couples should be entitled to adopt children” ___ GR 8.629 “Abolition oft he obligatory military service in Greece” 15.552 “Immigration, fear instincts and Golden Dawn (Right Wing Party)”

    Top comments/proposals (kommentare/lösungsvorschläge) in a discussion: CZ:  75 “Tuition Fees”,  46 “Homosexual couples …” ___ GR:  110 “The dilemma between Euro or drachma” 217 “Immigration, fear instincts and Golden Dawn “

    Top thumbs (+/-) in phase 2: CZ:  52 “Homosexual …” ___GR 341 “Abolition oft he obligatory military service in Greece” , 141 “Immigration, fear instincts and Golden Dawn”

    Top thumbs in phase 3: CZ: 82 “Vote at 16”, 59 “Tuition Fees”, ___  22”  The dilemma between Euro or drachma”
  • Moderation war eigentlich in den Diskussion selbst kaum notwendig. Es gab die Möglichkeit diskriminierende/beleidigende/et. Posts zu melden. Die wurden dann durch die Moderatoren der jeweiligen Srach-Variante von OurSpace bei Bedarf gelöscht. Der User erhielt eine Begründung der Löschung.
    Einige User, die mit dem Konsortium stark in Kontakt waren, haben ihre eigenen Themen stark vorangetrieben. Auch im Kontext des iPad-Contests in den letzten 4 Monaten hat sich hier die intensität von einigen User verstärkt. Es gab 4 iPads: 2 nach Zufallsprinzip vergeben, 2 erhielten die 2 aktivsten User. Es gab Punkte für posten, liken, Thema eröffnen.
    Open Source: https://github.com/pbrigdenatc/ourspace ... http://www.ep-ourspace.eu/Toolkit.aspx
  • Projektbeginn war 1.7.2010.
    Internal Test Stage waren nur die techniker. Externa Test Stage mit 200 usern (50 pro Land) die ein gewisses test programm absolvierten. Erkenntnisse dienten der verbesserung der platform. Pilot Open Stage wurde um 6 Moate verlängert (eigentliches Projektende wäre 30.6.2013 gewesen).
  • Das gilt für die gesmate platfrom
  • Für EU gibt es keine User, weil die die summer aller anderen user sind. Für die anderen werte (Thread=Diskussion Thread / Topic) (Post = Kommentar/Lösungsvorschlag) (Thumb = like +/-) gibt es neben den 4 piloten in landessprache auch die eu-ebene (vor allem in englischer sprache).

    (Threads = Topic)
  • Das gilt für die gesamte platform.
    EU in den beiden unteren grafiken bezieht sich auf die EU-Variante der platfrom. Es gab eine Variante für die Piloten (AT, CZ, GR, UK) und eine für EU. Die EU war lange etwas versteckt und nur wenig promotet. Erst gegen ende haben wir die EU-Variante sichtbarer gemacht, was sich auch in den grphen wiederspigelt.

    Bei new users per month (oben) sieht man gut die verschiedenen promo-aktivitäten in den jeweiligen piloten. GR in Winter 2013 mit Massenmedien (TV), Österreich am Ende mit multiplen Promo-Aktivitäten (Schulen und online-campagne).Man sieht auch, dass die online campagne in AT am ende viel user aber wenig aktivität auf der platform brachte. Engagement für Participation ist was ganz anderes als Engagement für Regisrtation. Die CZ zB haben gute Participation (posts, thumbs) aber wenig neue user.
  • Hier sieht man, dass die Pilot-Länder auch die meisten user brachten. Griechenland war mit abstand am aktivsten.
  • Ausgehend vom Model MacIntosch wurde der Political, Technical und Social Level übernommen/entwickelt. Es war nur eine kleine anpassung and die bedürfnisse des projekts. Die Indicatoren zu den verschiedenen Levels richteten sich nach den Objectives und Expected Outcomes des Workprogramms/Antrags.

    Das System wurde nach einem review erweitert: Der Methodological Level wurde von den Reviewern gewünscht um zu erfassen, wie deliberation model, dissemination und engagement funktioniert.
  • Mit den Indicator-Categories werden die Results und Otucomes geprüft. (Detail zu den Indicator Categories sieht man in den jeweilgien Indicatoren).
  • Festgehalten in Arbeitsprogramm/Antrag
  • Festgehalten in Arbeitsprogramm/Antrag
  • Basierend auf Outcomes und Expected Results

  • e.g. 300 MPs contacted in GR, one commented on phase 4) – anonymous


    Experts, users and decision makers agree:
    Topics on the platform are relvant (because they are created by the users).
    The platform has potential for political engagement but opinions are indifferent about the impact on political work.
    It is hard to get decision makers feedback (as continuous contacts/reminders by the consortium are needed).
    Users want more participation of decision makers. Activity level is very different in participating countries:
    Austria: one third of MEPs, 1 Secretary of State and 1 Regional Politician
    Greece: 0

  • Mit der Android App konnte man nicht ativ werden. Man kontne nur schauen.

    Users are satisfied with technical features (tools serve the purpose).
    Users liked the improved design in the final assessment (initially critical user groups (techies) argued about design and navigation).
    Mobile access was irrelevant (as functionality was limited – passive viewing only).
    Suggestions for improvement:
    Enhance visibility, interconnectivity & network aspect „Add option that allows members to create groups, like political parties, etc.” (GR, Questionnaire)
    More options in personal profile (similar to upcoming social networks)
    Improve guidance
    Modern design
  • Die pink-farbenen sachen erklären, was man machen kann. Unten im balken kann man lunks und rechts die schritte durchklicken.
  • Effectiveness of integrating multiple communication tools
    Digital connections between users
    Quality of discussion (discourse analysis)

    Registration:
    One click registration through Facebook is popular.
    Entering personal data is a hurdle.
    Participating decision makers face time limits
    active participation and discourse takes a lot time from all parties.
    Various and mass media promotion channels generate a diversity of users, gender and countries (opinion plurality: esp. AT, und GR)
    Tone of discussion: friendly and on an equal level (esp. with Decision Makers)
    Cross-country deliberation: language as major hurdle; required a lot of effort in communication and promotion actions by the consortium.
  • Aim of the project was well received and appreciated.
    The 4-phases deliberation model was understood
    but guidance by moderators was necessary.
    Engagement actions were continuously improved. There was steady growth of users and activity.
    Variety of dissemination strategies/methods and holistic, country and user-group specific approaches are necessary:
    Combination of on- and offline actions. Offline events needed an internet connection as transition of offline to online media is otherwise difficult.
    Political youth organisations quickly bring active users but hardly attracted users beyond their direct outreach.
    Marketing and promotion take a lot of effort and must fit the target group (70 % of users were between 16 and 24 years old).
  • Looking at all those activities and developments on the platform throughout the pilot operation, it becomes visible that peaks in platform activity (new postings and thumbs) were visible best during Test Stage in April 2012, afterwards at the beginning of the Opens Stage around September, and January and summer 2013, and October 2013. This is due to a holistic continuous strategy in all pilot countries focusing on different engagement techniques but with a clear concentration on steady engagement from the beginning of the year 2013. The main peak is visible in January and February 2013, as in particular platform engagement in terms of new posts and thumbing went up during this time, which was related to the first Greek TV spot, but also to continuous promotion strategies in the other pilot countries. Late spring and early summer 2013 were still strong periods, e.g. with the live offline debates in the Czech Republic (also in October and November 2012) and the Yo!-Fest promotion in the UK. Paid online campaign in Austria and workshops with pupils, and workshops in November 2013 in Greece explain the high user registration rate in those months.
  • A wide variety of promotion activities brings also those users to the platfrom that are not initially interested in politics. Reaching only out to an interested audience shows limits in user growths.
    Language is the major obstacle in cross-country deliberation. Automatic translation tools have limits. International discussions were usually held in English and only a few posts replied in another languge.
    The EU-discussions were only active when promoted intensely. Users were more interested in their language version of the platfrom.
    Registration was mandatory for all activities, but typing your data is a major hurdle. Registration through Facebook-Connect was more appreciated. However, not all activities in an e-participation schould require user registration.
  • Different phases/stages of e-particpation are part of all such models. The priniciples of the 4-stages model was understood.
    The potential of the structured and outcome-oriented deliberation was recognised by most users.
    Some detailed aspects of the process where not noticed by many users: e.g. the difference between a comment and a proposal in phase 2 (discussion phase).
    Moderation is important in such a process.
    Guidance and design must support the usage of the features. Continous minor changes of the platform improved the understanding of the users. Collaboration with users from the very beginning will increase the success of a platform.
  • Users think that the impact of the platform on decision makers is only inspirational.
    Decision makers commented that such platforms are important to get feedback from the people.
    Users were sceptical if such a platform could increase trust in politics. Users are interested in discussing general standpoints, but complex issues and concrete legislation cannot be discussed in details on such a youth-oriented platform.
    Only those users that are highly interested in politics continued to engage in discussions. User that are not interested might stay for a comment but hardly return.
    Users wonder why they should discuss on OurSpace while they could do that directly in their social networks.
  • Our space epart2014

    1. 1. Lessons learned from the OurSpace project Peter Parycek, Michael Sachs, Florian Sedy, Judith Schoßböck Danube University Krems (Austria) Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    2. 2. Agenda oAbout OurSpace oProject Results: Overview oEvaluation Methodology oDetails on the Evaluation Methodology oProject Results: Details oLessons Learned Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    3. 3. About OurSpace Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    4. 4. Main objective(s) oCross-boarder eParticipation platform for youth deliberation • Creating a community: focus political topics • Include decision makers and institutions • Learning process: make young people familiar with • decision makers, • governmental/political institutions and • the decision making process. Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    5. 5. Challenges oInvolvement of • Young people • Decision makers • Public institutions / non government organisations oOutcome oriented discussion • 4 Phases deliberation model oDiscussions with 4 languages • Moderation and automatic translation option oIntegration of Social Media and Networks • Facebook connect, social media marketing Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    6. 6. 4 Pilots in 4 Countries o4 different approaches to participation and user engagement • AT (Danube University Krems): Workshops in schools, youth events, internet-communities • CZ (DUHA): Political youth organisation that mainly used a combination of political offline events with the web platform, stands at youth events, TV and radio • GR (Cafe Babel and NTUA): Mass media, political media, workshops at universities and schools • UK (BYC): Political youth organisations that mainly used their existing network to reach the youth via the internet Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    7. 7. Deliberation Process in 4 Phases 1. Suggest and rate topics 2. Discuss a topic and provide comments and proposals (solutions); rate comments and proposals 3. Rate the pre-selected best proposals 4. Show results and get feedback from relevant bodies and persons. (up to 10 different organisations) Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    8. 8. Sustainability oA self moderated platform • Theme can be suggested by users • Users shall take over moderation oSoftware • Open Source • Modular Tools for quick adaptation • Low costs Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    9. 9. Project Results: Overview Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    10. 10. Schedule 1 March 2011 1 April 2012 1 January 2012 Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP) 31 December 2013 1 September 2012
    11. 11. Results Overview: Platform activity oPlatform data 3630 4113 4749 4831 6035 6068 543 566 Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP) 45 20 o Project end 31 December 2013 o Engagement campaign ended mid February 2014 o Platform activities ended March 2014
    12. 12. Results Overview: Progress 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Platform Activity Threads Users Thumbs Posts Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    13. 13. Platform data per country Until 1 Feb 2014 Users Threads Posts Thumbs EU - 168 543 606 AT 863 44 210 471 CZ 594 127 1.504 2.444 GR 1.600 163 2.228 2.269 UK 1.027 56 298 271 Total 4.084 390 4.240 5.455 Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    14. 14. Progress per month per country 385 810 712 375 1035 Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    15. 15. Results Overview: Google Analytics o In February 2014, the platform had since the beginning • 52.000+ visitors, • 29.000+ unique visitors, • 338.000+ page visits and oThe average user looked at • 6+ pages and stayed for • 6+ minutes. Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    16. 16. Evaluation Methodology Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    17. 17. Developed on the basis of … Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP) o Macintosh, A. & Whyte, A. (2008). Towards an Evaluation Framework for eParticipation. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 2(1), 16-30. (GRAPHIC) o Lippa, B. (ed.) (2008): D13.3 DEMO-net booklet eParticipation Evaluation and Impact, Available at: ics.leeds.ac.uk/.../DEMOnet_bookl et_13.3_eParticipation_evaluation. pdf o Aichholzer, G., Westholm, H., 2009, Evaluating eParticipation Projects: Practical Examples and Outline of an Evaluation Framework, European Journal of ePractice, No. 7, March, 27-44.
    18. 18. 4 levels, 11 indicator categories oPolitical level • Relevancy and popularity of selected deliberation themes • Effectiveness of communicating the trial results to decision makers and relevant public bodies • Degree of influence on decision-making process and political actions oTechnical level • Platform and tools usability • Platform Purpose suitability oSocial level • Effectiveness of integrating multiple communication tools • Digital connections created between users • Quality of discussion and deliberation process oProject / Methodological level • Effectiveness of the deliberation model (Method) • Effectiveness of dissemination activities (Engagement) • Effectiveness of user engagement tactics (Engagement) Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    19. 19. Methods oShort Questionnaire • 7 questions for registered users only • Permanently on the platform • 76 responses in LimeSurvey oLong Questionnaire • 20 (+4 demographic) questions • Final 2 month of the project • 420 responses in GoogleForm oInterviews • 12 users • 6 decision Impact on users groups • 3 e-part experts oDiscourse and media analysis • Discussion and language analysis • Relevance and popularity of themes oMonitoring Tool • Planning and coordination of engagement actions • Regular assessment of engagement strategies and impact oData • Platform data, Google Analytics • Data from newsletters, social media, etc. oFocus Group • OurSpace consortium • Final project month • Analysis of entire data and project Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    20. 20. Application of the methodology o A total of 11 indicator-categories were measured with 51 indicators. o Each indicator was measured with at least one tool. o Benchmarks were mostly defined before the evaluation (quantitative). Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    21. 21. Details on the Evaluation Methodology Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    22. 22. Relation of Indicator Categories to results and expected outcomes O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 O7 Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 PC1 PC1 PC3 TC1 TC2 SC1 SC2 SC3 MC1 MC2 MC3 Objectives – Indicator-Categories – Expected Results
    23. 23. List of objectives # List of objectives of the OurSpace project Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP) O1 Establishing the relevant OurSpace Network comprising of the members of the OurSpace consortium, including also, key players outside of the consortium, a fact that will bring forward new policy proposals and will provide relevant feedback to the public. O2 Successfully Deploy an Innovative communication area for democratic participation: Setting‐up a web based platform which will allow the youngsters from different countries to discuss and share common issues and create online debates O3 Strengthening and enhancing transparency and accessibility of dialogue: Formalising the online deliberation process with a particular emphasis on cross‐border deliberation and their inherent cultural, lingual and other challenges O4 Engage a broad range of young EU citizens to participate by using the tool to deliver true value through collaborative participation. Organizing events & communication channels in order to strengthen and further explore OurSpace network to a wider‐audience O5 Feed the results of the debates to the relevant National & EU governmental organisations: Creating a feedback framework that will deliver results to the decision‐makers and will encourage them to respond back to youngster via the platform O6 Evaluate the levels of success of the project trials: Conducting an overall evaluation of the pilots’ efficiency and added value O7 Create a sustainable strategy for project achievements and outcomes: Using the outcomes to understand the best practices for achieving positive impact
    24. 24. List of expected results # List of expected results of the OurSpace project R1 Tool to reduce the complexity of EU decision making processes is in place R2 Citizens are more informed through the use of ICT R3 Capacity is enhanced on the existing ICT framework R4 Opinions Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP) R5 Educate young people in the role of the European parliament and associated democratic actors R6 Improved trust in politics and balance expectations R7 Improve the role and function of the Youth Parliament and its democratic actors (actually youth organisations) R8 Sustained involvement of young people in the decision making process across EU R9 Improved access to youth opinion for across EU decision makers
    25. 25. List of indicator categories # List of Indicator categories PC1 Relevancy and popularity of selected Deliberation themes PC2 Effectiveness of communicating the trial results to the relevant public administration Bodies PC3 Degree of influence on the decision-making and policy formation process TC1 Platform and tools Usability TC2 Platform Purpose suitability SC1 Effectiveness of integrating multiple communication channels (web, mobile, social media) in a single, community-oriented platform SC2 Digital (or close-up) connections created between OurSpace Users / young citizens that are politically active SC3 Quality of discussion and deliberation process MC1 Effectiveness of the deliberation model MC2 Effectiveness of dissemination activities MC3 Effectiveness of user engagement tactics / Role of Youth organizations Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    26. 26. Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP) Indicator Categories & Indocators
    27. 27. Example: Details on Indicator Category TC1 and the respective Indicators TC1.1-TC1.3 Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    28. 28. Project Results: Details Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    29. 29. Feedback loop for improvements oBased on an continuous analysis the project work OurSpace was improved throughout the project: • Platform: e.g. Design and navigation. • Engagement: e.g. Landing page designed to make registration easier. Pilot operators discussed best and worst practices and adopted their strategies. Promotion with iPad contest. • Inclusion of decision makers: e.g. Make the tool useful to them. Create their own topic and ask the youth to comment (instead of decision makers commenting on youth opinions on random topics). Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    30. 30. Result Overview: Political Level (I) oExperts, users and decision makers agree: • Topics on the platform are relevant • The platform has potential for political engagement but opinions are indifferent about the impact on political work. oIt is hard to get decision makers feedback oUsers want more participation of decision makers. Activity level is very different in participating countries: • Austria: one third of MEPs, 1 Secretary of State and 1 Regional Politician • Greece: 0 Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    31. 31. Example of improvements: Decision makers featured on front page Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    32. 32. Result Overview: Political Level (II) Long Questionnaire: Does OurSpace provide content that interests you? Yes Rather yes Neutral Rather no No Responses AT 48 % 21 % 19 % 5 % 8 % 166 CZ 42 % 36 % 1 % 16 % 5 % 98 GR 44 % 33 % 14 % 7 % 2 % 88 UK 30 % 48 % 16 % 3 % 3 % 61 ALL 43 % 31 % 13 % 8 % 5 % 413 Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    33. 33. Result Overview: Political Level (III) Long Questionnaire: Do you think that platforms like OurSpace are good to get involved or more interested in politics? Yes Rather yes Neutral Rather no No Responses AT 46 % 27 % 14 % 7 % 7 % 169 CZ 58 % 23 % 7 % 2 % 9 % 43 GR 25 % 42 % 25 % 5 % 4 % 85 UK 42 % 47 % 6 % 2 % 3 % 64 ALL 40 % 35 % 13 % 6 % 7 % 357 Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    34. 34. Result Overview: Technical Level oUsers were satisfied with technical features oUsers liked the improved design oMobile access was irrelevant  as functionality was oSuggestions for improvement: • Enhance visibility, interconnectivity & network aspect „Add option that allows members to create groups, like political parties, etc.” (GR, Questionnaire) • More options in personal profile (similar to upcoming social networks) • Improve guidance • Modern design Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    35. 35. Example of improvments: Page guide implemented Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    36. 36. Result Overview: Social Level oRegistration: • One click registration through Facebook is popular. • Entering personal data is a hurdle. oLimited face2face meetings • takes a lot time from all parties. oVarious and mass media promotion channels generate a diversity of users oTone of discussion: friendly and on an equal level esp. with Decision Makers oCross-country deliberation: language as major hurdle Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    37. 37. Example of improvments: Reaching various diverse users TV-Spot Workshops and Youth Events Updated Flyers Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    38. 38. Result Overview: Social Level (II) Long Questionnaire: Are you satisfied with OurSpace as a platform for political debate? Yes Rather yes Neutral Rather no No Responses AT 34 % 34 % 20 % 4 % 8 % 166 CZ 47 % 30 % 16 % 5 % 2 % 43 GR 24 % 43 % 24 % 5 % 5 % 88 UK 32 % 38 % 17 % 8 % 5 % 63 ALL 33 % 36 % 21 % 6 % 5 % 363 Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    39. 39. Result Overview: Social Level (III) Long Questionnaire: Did you get more interested in the work of a politician that you met/that posted on OurSpace? Yes Rather yes Neutral Rather no No Responses AT 18 % 25 % 30 % 10 % 17 % 167 CZ 17 % 28 % 16 % 19 % 21 % 43 GR 6 % 14 % 42 % 15 % 22 % 85 UK 21 % 19 % 37 % 6 % 16 % 62 ALL 15 % 22 % 32 % 12 % 18 % 357 Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    40. 40. Result Overview: Methodological Level oThe 4-phases deliberation model was understood • but guidance by moderators was necessary. oEngagement actions were continuously improved  There was steady growth of users and activity. oVariety of dissemination strategies/methods and holistic, country and user-group specific approaches are necessary: • Combination of on- and offline actions. Offline events needed an internet connection as transition of offline to online media is otherwise difficult. • Political youth organisations quickly bring active users but hardly attracted users beyond their direct outreach. • Marketing and promotion take a lot of effort and must fit the target group (70 % of users were between 16 and 24 years old). Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    41. 41. Example of improvments: Online youth sites instead of newspaper Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    42. 42. Platform Activity & Engagement Test Stage Opening Events (esp. CZ) TV-spot in GR, offline events in CZ, referendum in AT Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP) Yo!-Fest in Brussels (mainly UK), TV spot in GR iPad-Campaign, school workshops and decision makers involvement in AT
    43. 43. Lessons Learned Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    44. 44. Discussions o Different levels of activity in pilot countries: • Concerning discussions, users from CZ and GR were most active: • Controversial discussions in GR. • Active political youth organisation in CZ. • Active participation of decision makers AT, CZ and UK. • Not in GR because they didn‘t want to expose themselves to difficult and heated discussions. o Controversial and heavily promoted topics were most successful on the activity level. Especially in GR discussions were long and intense. o Moderation of topics: • Online (in particular reminders for MEPs, changing comments into proposals, sometimes to delete a reported post) • Offline (e.g. workshops – guidance on „how it works“) Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    45. 45. Inclusiveness and transparency o Variety of promotion activities leads to a diverse group • brings also those users to the platform that are not initially interested in politics. Reaching only out to an interested audience shows limits in user growths. o Language is the major obstacle in cross-country deliberation. • Automatic translation tools have limits. International discussions were usually held in English and only a few posts replied in another language. o The EU-discussions were only active when promoted intensely. • Users were more interested in their language version of the platform. o Registration via Facebook & Co is important: • Registration was mandatory for all activities, but typing your data is a major hurdle. Registration through Facebook-Connect was more appreciated. • However, not all activities in an e-participation should require user registration. Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    46. 46. Deliberation model oThe principles of the 4-stages model was understood. oThe potential of the structured and outcome-oriented deliberation was recognised by most users. oSome detailed aspects of the process where not noticed by many users: e.g. the difference between a comment and a proposal in phase 2 (discussion phase). oModeration is important in such a process. oGuidance and design must support the usage of the features. • Continues minor changes of the platform improved the understanding of the users. • Collaboration with users from the very beginning will increase the success of a platform. Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    47. 47. Barriers oUsers think that the impact of the platform on decision makers is only inspirational. oDecision makers commented that such platforms are important to get feedback from the people. oUsers were sceptical if such a platform could increase trust in politics. oUsers are interested in discussing general standpoints, but complex issues and concrete legislation cannot be discussed in details. oOnly those users that are highly interested in politics continued to engage in discussions. oUsers wonder why they should discuss on OurSpace while they could do that directly in their social networks. Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
    48. 48. Thank you ! www.joinourspace.eu Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)

    ×