Citizen speak out: public e-Engagement experience of Slovakia


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Citizen speak out: public e-Engagement experience of Slovakia

  1. 1. CITIZEN SPEAK OUT public e-Engagement experience of Slovakia Anton Shynkaruk | SAIA |Matej Bel University | Rivne Institute of Slavonic studies |
  2. 2. Theory.Citizen speak out.Mind Map
  3. 3. Theory.Network society <ul><li>N etwork S ociety </li></ul><ul><li>“… network society can be defined as a social formation with an infrastructure of social and media networks enabling its prime mode of organization at all levels (individual, group/organizational and societal). Increasingly, these networks link all units or parts of this formation (individuals, groups and organizations) ” [1] . </li></ul><ul><li>Generation Y: </li></ul><ul><li>Generation-Yers are entering their productive lives, and their different set of values and expectations will impact governments both as service delivery organizations and as employers. In particular, social networking behaviors and the greater demand for transparency clash with the traditional top-down hierarchical and one-way style of interaction that is typical of government organizations [2] </li></ul><ul><li>New media formed new social environments with interactions based on “technologies of smartmobs” and social capital (Rheingold). So called collaborative networks (Benkler) emerged where information technologies created ground for new forms of social-political support or protest based on “many-to-many communications” model. </li></ul><ul><li>_________________ </li></ul><ul><li>[1] Dijk J. van, (2005) The Network Society. Social Aspects of New Media </li></ul><ul><li>[ 2 ] Andrea Di Maio The Blurring of Government // </li></ul>
  4. 4. Theory.[Social] Web 2.0 <ul><li>Wikis </li></ul><ul><li>Blogging </li></ul><ul><ul><li>microblogging </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Social networking </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Communities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Events and Message Boards </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Widgets, gadgets, pipes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Multimedia platforms </li></ul><ul><ul><li>podcasts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>photo sharing/pictures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>video and music: aggregation, casting, sharing </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Social bookmarks and Mashups </li></ul><ul><li>Virtual worlds </li></ul>
  5. 5. Theory.[Social] Web 2.0 <ul><li>Key principles of social web 2.0: </li></ul><ul><li>Harnessing Collective Intelligence . </li></ul><ul><li>Data i s the Next “Intel Inside” . </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation in Assembly </li></ul><ul><li>Rich User Experiences </li></ul><ul><li>Software Above the Level of a Single Device </li></ul><ul><li>[1] </li></ul><ul><li>_________ </li></ul><ul><li>[1] Musser J., O’Reilly T, O’Reilly Radar Team (2007) Web 2.0 Principles and Best Practices , p.10 </li></ul><ul><li>[2] Musser J., p. 11 -12 </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 attributes : </li></ul><ul><li>m assively connected participation </li></ul><ul><li>decentralization. </li></ul><ul><li>user : u ser c ontrol , c onversation , c ollaboration , c ommunity , c rowdsourcing . </li></ul><ul><li>openness and identity. </li></ul><ul><li>l ightweight and standarts modularity. </li></ul><ul><li>emerge over time </li></ul><ul><li>active dynamic creativity . </li></ul><ul><li>[2] </li></ul>
  6. 6. Theory.e-Participation <ul><li>Theory of networked society ( Castels ) : </li></ul><ul><li>actors form metanetworks at the transnational level and create a system of ‘decentralized concentration’ with a multiplicity of interconnected tasks. </li></ul><ul><li>Castells pointed out, technologies such as telecommunications and Internet brought about the ascendancy of a ‘network society’ whose processes occur in a new type of space, which he labels the ‘space of flows’. This space, comprising a myriad of exchanges, came to dominate the ‘space of places’ of territorially defined units of states, regions and neighborhoods, thanks to its greater flexibility and compatibility with the new logic of network society. Nodes and hubs in this space of flows construct the social organization of this network society </li></ul><ul><li>Actor-network theory </li></ul><ul><li>Developed for conceptualising relations between people and material objects, or rather how those ‘actants’ own conceptualisations form shifting relationships that may be stabilized into material form. ANT treats “existing structures” as defined by social patterns institutionalized (“inscribed” in technology), and hence not necessarily confined to specific institutions such as organizations, neither determined by social practices (as technology is also “acting”). “Actor networks” are the most salient structures driving the technological development by “negotiations”. </li></ul><ul><li>_________________ </li></ul><ul><li>[1] Kubicek H., Lippa B., Westholm H. ( Eds. ) Report on state of the art approaches, relevant disciplines, key researchers, and socio-technical research issues. DEMO-net: Deliverable 6.1 </li></ul>
  7. 7. Theory.e-Participation <ul><li>e-Government </li></ul><ul><li>Connected governance </li></ul><ul><li>public engagement with the help of on-line public services, crowdsoursing, creation of open e - resources </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboration and openness of governmental data </li></ul><ul><li>Government 2.0: reduction in cost of communication with citizens </li></ul><ul><li>e-Social organization and Movements </li></ul><ul><li>e-democracy and set of necessary tools to conduct political campaigns </li></ul><ul><li>User-generated discussion of political events, search for supporters, activists, targeted campaigns </li></ul><ul><li>Social media strategies for political communication, parties’ management and marketing </li></ul>e-Citizen social protest, social activism, a form of coordination and cooperation between residents of one street, area , city Generations Y and Z Polifluental citizens Trust and community building in computer-mediated environment
  8. 8. Theory.Method <ul><li>Social network analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Social network analysis can help unveil the connections between members of a social network. In doing so, it helps reveal the dynamics that … impact heavily on how organisations’ work gets done. The ecologies of social networks are constituted by a range of different forms of relationship, from strong friendships to casual acquaintance through to functional business contact [1] . </li></ul><ul><li>1) betweenness (index of importance) in e-participation could mean facilitated access to a new set of citizen relationships, therefore it can be a source of significant power and value. </li></ul><ul><li>2) degree measures the number of connections a member of a network has; </li></ul><ul><li>3) reciprocity reveals whether both sides experience the tie in the same way, or whether the tie is actually reciprocal ; </li></ul><ul><li>4) strength : ‘Dunbar’s number’ is a law that suggests the maximum size of social network is 150, due to the constraints of our capacity for communication. But strength of tie is not always a benefit for the dynamic of a social network - weak ties can be more beneficial to a group dynamic than strong ties; </li></ul><ul><li>5) closeness (ability to influence , index of power [2] ) as a feature of nodes to be close and to influence each other. </li></ul><ul><li>_________________________ </li></ul><ul><li>[1] Bradwell P., Reeves R. (2008) Network citizens </li></ul><ul><li>[ 2 ] Centrality and power // Hanneman R . A. , Riddle M .  ( 2005 )  Introduction to social network methods </li></ul>
  9. 9. Theory.Method <ul><li>Social network analysis in social media and e-participation research </li></ul><ul><li>Akshay Java wrote about social media communities and content, “influential feeds” and the problem of trust in social media [1] (participation). </li></ul><ul><li>М. Morrison used SNA for research of “party affiliation” ( collaboration ) for members of British parliament in Twitter-communications [2] . </li></ul><ul><li>SNA could be also used for research of transparency of public authorities , in particular criteria of betweenness and closeness linked with benchmarking method for analysis of e-Gov projects. For example, D. Osimo proposed to analyze government 2.0 as a transparency system [3] . </li></ul><ul><li>_________________________ </li></ul><ul><li>[1] Java A. (2008) Mining social media communities and content . Dissertation … for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy , pages 16, 65, 91 </li></ul><ul><li>[2] Morrison M. Can we calculate party affiliation? (The Westminster edition) < > February 13, 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>[3] Osimo D. Benchmarking eGovernment in the Web 2.0 era: what to measure, and how // European Journal of ePractice , №4 August 2008 < > </li></ul>
  10. 10. Practice.EU eInclusion <ul><li>Since 2003 EU started a new phase in e-government development where “no citizen is left behind” and receives “benefit from trusted, innovative services and easy access for all”. </li></ul><ul><li>European view on government 2.0 is something different from centrality approach in the USA versus an aggregated strategy to match national developments in the EU [1] . Therefore EU projects in government 2.0 are mainly up-down strategy. One of the reason for such situation is the political culture. In the USA, citizens are more client-oriented regarding their representative bodies than in Europe. </li></ul><ul><li>_________ </li></ul><ul><li>[1] Fages R., Sangüesa R. (2007) State-of-the-art in Good Practice Exchange and Web 2.0 – P. 115, </li></ul>
  11. 11. Practice.EU eInclusion <ul><li> European egov 2.0 projects (selected) </li></ul><ul><li>Catalonian project with citizen-care-centric approach to e-government, based on concept of communities of practice as &quot;groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly&quot;. </li></ul><ul><li>Dutch Genvej gives citizens direct access to self-service solutions and personal information that Gentofte Kommune and other public instances possesses. </li></ul><ul><li>Dutch Web in de Wijk - Web in Neighbourhoods offers people identity, empowerment and networking. But authors of the project noted another feature of web 2.0 that its dynamics on a world scale are totally different from the dynamics in a local environment. E.g. Blogs are very popular on the world wide web, but seldom a success in a local community. Therefore special design for effective systems in neighborhoods is needed. </li></ul><ul><li>Danish Oresunddirekt is a cross-border information service for businesses and citizens in the Oresund Region (Danmark). Oresunddirekt is based on user-involving technologies. The current version of the web portal unites its users through a web chat forum, as well as a high emphasis on guides, searches and links. In 2009 Oresunddirekt focuses on user involvement and web 2.0. For example, the new version will allow users to contribute to a running commentary on each information article, and receive updates through RSS technology. </li></ul><ul><li>Danish is a collaborative, social network where social software is combined with open public data and public services. Citizens, businesses and public institutions can add value, share, reuse, discuss, and debate data and resources that are public as well as their own resources. </li></ul>
  12. 12. Practice.Slovakia e-Engagement <ul><li>e-Engagement conditions </li></ul><ul><li>Slovakia “…offers a mixed picture. It has average internet use, but low broadband access, high eGovernment use by business [but] low usage by citizens . Online availability and sophistication levels remain low. Slovakia’s eGovernment policy is part of a wider Information Society strategy, which focuses on the deployment of ICT (‘informatisation of society’) in government and society as a whole and to improve back office infrastructure of the administration” [1] . </li></ul><ul><li>P . Tarina described Slovak situation as significant delay of official actions in e-government development. </li></ul><ul><li>Existing Slovak e-gov services are oriented on government to business relations (taxes, social payments, permissions etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>E-participation in Slovakia meets such challenges as absence of public initiative and strong will of a leader who will influence the public; local level of e-participation is a little bit better then national level [ 2 ] . </li></ul><ul><li>Social media </li></ul><ul><li>One of the most active social-networking resource in Slovakia is Facebook . In August 2009 there were 650 000 Slovak users of Facebook , in January 2010 – more then 8 5 0 000 ( Facebook Ads statistics ), that is 30% of all Slovak Internet users. </li></ul><ul><li>_______________ </li></ul><ul><li>[1] Smarter, Faster, Better eGovernment . 8th Benchmark Measurement | November 2009 Prepared by: CAPGEMINI, RAND EUROPE, IDC, SOGETI and DTI for: European Commission, Directorate General for Information Society and Media , p. 134 </li></ul><ul><li>[ 2 ] Skokan M., Dzuppa M., Krsak B. E-participation as an important tool in political decision making – Slovak case // 6th Eastern European eGovernment Days in Prague </li></ul>
  13. 13. Practice.Slovakia e-Engagement <ul><li>Facebook (above) and Blogs (below) popularity according to Google Insights </li></ul>
  14. 14. Practice.Slovakia e-Engagement <ul><li>e-governance in Slovakia </li></ul><ul><li> – umbrella “one stop shop” project for public services in Slovakia with user focused design. </li></ul><ul><li>“ organization by theme or target group increases the ‘findability’ of information as information is organized from the user standpoint rather than the governmental one. The segmentation makes it easier for users to identify what is relevant for them within the vast piles of public sector information. It only takes one mouse-click and the user is redirected to a site that serves his purposes” [1] . </li></ul><ul><li>At the same time development of such categories as accessibility (compliance to WCAG1.0 standards), usability (layout, channels, progress tracking, help, privacy protection), user satisfaction monitoring (user feedback mechanism) was two times lower of EU average. </li></ul><ul><li>_________________ </li></ul><ul><li>[1] Smarter, Faster, Better eGovernment . 8th Benchmark Measurement | November 2009 Prepared by: CAPGEMINI, RAND EUROPE, IDC, SOGETI and DTI for: European Commission, Directorate General for Information Society and Media , p. 134 </li></ul>
  15. 15. Practice.Slovakia e-Engagement <ul><li>Evaluation of developments of Slovakia egov sites (Issuecrawler) </li></ul><ul><li>Central administration level – Ministry of Internal Affairs and Ministry of Foreign Affairs </li></ul><ul><li>Regional self-governance level - Ministry of Construction and Public Works , Ministry of Economics; Nitra, Presov and Bratislava regional portals </li></ul><ul><li>Municipal self-governance level – leaders of betweeness are Revuca , Prievidza, Vysoke Tatry, Nitra, Banovce n/Bebravou, Brezno, Dolny Kubin, Turcianske Teplice, Banská Bystrica , Poprad . </li></ul><ul><li>According to Issuecrawler a lot of official municipal pages were created by Webygroup agency , which is an advertisement partner of these pages and place links to media-portal with news and information flow , linked with selected region or city . </li></ul>
  16. 16. Practice.Slovakia e-Engagement Estimation of network presence and accessability of Slovak regional portals _________________________ [1] Index of betweenness [2] [3] [4] [5] 4,783 [5] 70,7% Košický samosprávny kraj 10,903 84,8% Banskobystrický samosprávny kraj 231,874 31,47 85,9% Nitriansky samosprávny kraj 115,33 33,91 [4] 88% www.region - Bratislavský samosprávny kraj 22,685 92,4% www.trnava - Trnavský samosprávny kraj 51 , 236 33,50 [3] 93,5% Žilinský samosprávny kraj 31,407 93,5% Trenčiansky samosprávny kraj 1 , 208 ; 129,02 [2] 37,94 94,6% Prešovský samosprávny kraj Issuecrawler estimation 2009 [1] Golden crest estimation 2009 Accessability estimation 2009
  17. 17. Practice.Slovakia e-Engagement <ul><li>According to D.Osimo to estimate web 2.0 usage in governmental projects it needs to select such questions : </li></ul><ul><li>Presence of 2.0 technology in governmental projects ; </li></ul><ul><li>Created government-related projects; </li></ul><ul><li>If such projects exist , what spheres of public activity they affect and how ; </li></ul><ul><li>The role of users ? </li></ul><ul><li>Aim of the projects : public relations or solving of transparency problems of public services ; </li></ul><ul><li>Influence of projects and way of realization : ownership , roles of users, etc. </li></ul>
  18. 18. Practice.Slovakia e-Engagement <ul><li>In spite of active development of electronic governmental services, mostly such sites can’t be defined as interactive or oriented on citizen-user . </li></ul><ul><li>All public institutions ( ministries for example ) use first of all RSS channel , some of them include forums and blogs , but later aren’t popular . </li></ul><ul><li>Public institutions are integrated with Central Portal of Public Services that helps search of information and forms, but points out on absence of opportunities for citizens to create open resources in collaborations between government and citizens . </li></ul>
  19. 19. Importance of Slovakia eGov web ( based on Issuecrawler betweeness analysis of hyperlinks between web-pages )
  20. 20. Levels of networked development for governmental (red), regional (blue) and municipal (black) web-sites in Slovakia
  21. 21. Betweenness and size of networks compared
  22. 22. Slovakia.Muni 2.0 <ul><li>Almost all Slovak cities have official Internet sites , which are included into national network e-governance system . </li></ul><ul><li>Creation of independent e-governance projects in Slovak cities and regions just started . In 2009 Bratislava, Kosice, Nitra, Levice, Martin, Turcanske Teplice started projects of electronic services and portals . </li></ul>
  23. 23. Slovakia.Muni 2.0 <ul><li>Description of city portals for Golden crest competition </li></ul><ul><li>Malacky . The official city web portal was launched in August 2008 and divided into 4 menus (City, Citizen, Entrepreneur, Visitor). The portal created opportunities for citizens to form databases (directory of companies, free advertising), possibility of communication with citizens with requests in “Questions and suggestions”, opportunity to respond in the forum, add comments to news, vote in polls, express an opinion in e-forms, create own photo gallery. The portal includes search engine and RSS channel. </li></ul><ul><li>Zilina . City launched a new, clearer and modern version of the official website. The new design included a streamlined navigation and a lot of information updated. Zilina managed to create one of the most popular versions of its web site. The new version brings new website structure with clearer division of main sections and a searchable, comprehensive update of information and content, accelerated navigation at the top of the page, through which a visitor reaches the most popular and important sections. </li></ul>
  24. 24. Slovakia.Muni 2.0 <ul><li>Official estimations of Ministry of finance of SR , Golden crest competition and Issuecrawler monitoring define different leaders in development of e-services . </li></ul><ul><li>According to these 3 estimations only 2 cities have high level of electronic municipal portal ( Banska Bystrica and Poprad ), although further analysis pointed out that these cities don’t use full opportunities for citizen engagement and integration. </li></ul>
  25. 25. Slovakia.Muni 2.0 <ul><li>Does Slovak municipal self-governance use web 2.0 technologies ? </li></ul><ul><li>Majority of regional and municipal sites include some elements of interactivity : forums , RSS , links to external information sites . </li></ul><ul><li>Only 26 from 138 cities used elements of 2.0 technology necessary for e-participation ( such criteria were used: innovations on pages , design and color scheme , amount of integrated elements , possibility for citizen participation ) </li></ul>
  26. 26. Slovakia.Muni 2.0 Slovak municipal web-pages with elements of web 2.0 design (GoogleMaps and UMapper)
  27. 27. Slovakia.Muni 2.0 <ul><li>SMS as additional service for informing citizens in Banska Stavnica , Sala , Bratislava and Banska Bystrica ( planned ) ; </li></ul><ul><li>Dubnica nad Vahom with mobile version of official page for iPhone; </li></ul><ul><li>Official site of Hnusta wasn’t 2.0 designed but used such Google tools as Gmail, Google Calendar and Google Docs as well as blogs and forums; </li></ul><ul><li>Ruzomberok , Zilina , Trnava included link to Facebook-communities on official site; </li></ul><ul><li>Ruzomberok used technology of mash-up for integration of content from other pages : facebook,, Other cities mostly used independent news services, for example Martin (, Nitra ( ), regional pages on; </li></ul><ul><li>Martin created pages – Transparent city and System of e-auctions. </li></ul><ul><li>Among other technologies Google Maps ( but only for definition of location ), system of comments to articles and news; </li></ul><ul><li>Basic CMS was CMS WebyPortal as well as Joomla! and Drupal platforms. </li></ul>
  28. 28. Slovakia.Muni 2.0: Trnava case <ul><li>Official profile was created at the end of May 2009 , in mid-January 2010 profile included 3619 users (5% of all city population) . </li></ul><ul><li>Profile include 7 discussions , although messages on the wall could be posted only by the author, users can only react and discuss city news . </li></ul><ul><li>Index of betweenness of Trnava: 2617,4 </li></ul>
  29. 29. Slovakia.Muni 2.0: Trnava case Trnava case : feedback of Facebook messages
  30. 30. Slovakia.Muni 2.0: Žilina case <ul><li>First message on October 28 , 2009 , in mid-January 2010 there were 1915 users (2%) . </li></ul><ul><li>Profile include 3 discussions , messages posted both by author and participants but such opportunity is rarely used by users . </li></ul><ul><li>Index of betweenness of Žilina : 3417,2. </li></ul>
  31. 31. Slovakia.Muni 2.0: Žilina case Žilina case : feedback of Facebook messages
  32. 32. Slovakia.Muni 2.0: Ružomberok case <ul><li>Profile was created on December 1 , 2009, in mid-January 2010 it included 2265 (8%) users . It develops quickly, in 11 days after start it included 1666 participants . </li></ul><ul><li>There are 3 active discussions . </li></ul><ul><li>Messages could be posted both by author and participants of the profile . </li></ul><ul><li>Index of betweenness of Ruzomberok : 18851,5 </li></ul>
  33. 33. Slovakia.Muni 2.0: Ružomberok case Ružomberok case : feedback of Facebook messages
  34. 34. Practice.Slovakia e-Engagement <ul><li>Political and social activity 2.0 </li></ul><ul><li>Virtual space of trust betweens party and its supporters includes several levels of activity (Facebook structure): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Level 1. political parties </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Level 1.1. moderators and administrators </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Level 2. participants </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Level 2.1. personal pages of political leaders </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Level 3. other supportive pages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Level 4. anti-pages </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Such classification allows to define activity of “friends” in social networks. As Lee Byron from Facebook wrote that “…although, most people have a large network of Facebook friends, members maintain real relationships with a much smaller collection of those friends by reading profiles, sending messages and wall posts” [1] . In total network members actively follow the postings of a smaller group; fewer people send messages to each other; and only several persons from the network will be reciprocate. </li></ul><ul><li>_____________ </li></ul><ul><li>[1] </li></ul>
  35. 35. Practice.Slovakia e-Engagement <ul><li>According Issuecrawler common web-space of Slovak parties consists of two blocks: </li></ul><ul><li>Governmental web-pages ( ) ; </li></ul><ul><li>Political, party and media web-pages . </li></ul><ul><li>Distribution of parties in such case creates two different forms of network : </li></ul><ul><li>If to consider all links ( weak and strong ), then parliament parties were closer to governmental information and that means possible comments, links, discussions etc. Most distant in such situation was governmental party SNS. Majority of non-parliament parties did not include direct links to official information . </li></ul><ul><li>Although it is important to note weak ties between blocks – if to exclude all weak ties (<1) then appeared two independent blocks where such parliament parties as KDH and Smer-SD become closer to political and media resources . Network characteristics also showed importance of opposition parties . In case of all ties the leader is KDH, without weak ties ( < 1) – SMK. </li></ul>
  36. 36. Practice.Slovakia e-Engagement Networks of Slovak parliament parties, December 2009 (Issuecrawler)
  37. 37. Practice.Slovakia e-Engagement Networks of Slovak parliament parties without weak relations <1, December 2009 (Issuecrawler)
  38. 38. <ul><li>Facebook followers of Slovak parliament parties, December 2009 </li></ul>
  39. 39. Slovakia.PoliMov 2.0: SDKU case <ul><li>SDKU as the biggest opposition party in parliament in 2009 had active communication strategy . According to IVO, supporters of this party were the most prepared to use e-technologies in democratic procedures: 55% of SDKU supporters knew about possibility of e-access to public information [1] , more then 50% of SDKU supporters agreed to use e-forms for elections . </li></ul><ul><li>High estimations of digital literacy and e-participation of SDKU supporters could be explained by network strategy of the party . Central element is official web-page of SDKU . Till the end 0f 2009 it wasn’t built according to web 2.0 and basic attention was paid to external platforms , it included links to 10 blogs of key political leaders of the party : Ivan Mikloš, Pavol Frešo, Peter Markovič, Ivan Štefanec, Jarmila Tkáčová, Magdaléna Vášáryová, Lucia Žitňanská, Tatiana Rosová, Tomáš Galbavý, Štefan Kužma . There were also links to official page of Iveta Radičová , SDKU candidate for president elections 2009 . </li></ul><ul><li>Starting from January 2010 official page was redesigned according to web 2.0 rules with accent on video , blocks , invitations to become member of the party on Twitter , Facebook , Youtube , Flickr . Facebook page was integrated into official page . </li></ul><ul><li>Blogs of leaders were hosted on 4 platforms – ,,, that allowed to expand the audience using popularity of these media-platforms : according to GoogleTrends has more then 70 000 unique visitors per day , when and – about 8 000 each . Besides has its own service of social bookmarks – . But Issuecrawler monitoring showed that difference of platforms didn’t allow blogs to interact and to have reciprocal ties , each platform has different opportunities , leaders post articles on blogs with different dynamics etc. As a result only half of bloggers-activists of SDKU were defined in the monitoring, and the common channel for them was Facebook . </li></ul><ul><li>Having profiles in Facebook, leaders use them for both communication with supporters and for reposting of blog posts, their estimation and comments, discussion . Personal and electoral profiles became the basement for SDKU activity in Facebook . </li></ul><ul><li>_________________ </li></ul><ul><li>[1] Velšic M. e-Demokracia na Slovensku © Inštitút pre verejné otázky, Bratislava 2008 </li></ul>
  40. 40. Slovakia.PoliMov 2.0: SDKU case <ul><li>In 2009 In 2010 </li></ul>
  41. 41. Slovakia.PoliMov 2.0: SDKU case SDKU Facebook profiles size according amount of followers
  42. 42. Slovakia.PoliMov 2.0: SDKU case <ul><li>In addition to official page , SDKU also used topical approach to activate citizen participation in discussion . These projects should be considered as attempts to create social initiatives of discussion of actual social questions …. </li></ul><ul><li>Project with possibility to write a proposal for improvement of government . </li></ul><ul><li>Project used integration with Youtube and Facebook . </li></ul><ul><li>Projects and describe financial situation and activity of main ministries and parliament parties which form the government . </li></ul>
  43. 43. Facebook followers of SDKU Facebook profiles, December 2009
  44. 44. Slovakia.PoliMov 2.0: SaS case <ul><li>Party Sloboda a Solidarita was created only in 2009 and at the end of 2009 reached the level of preferences for more than 5% of voters. The rapid growth in popularity can be partly explained by active information campaign, with important role to social media strategy. </li></ul><ul><li>Official SaS site included some elements of web 2.0 style and tools: multimedia, blogs, RSS. Key information channel were messages from party activists in the form of blogs, which were located mainly on Issuecrawler monitoring showed that these blogs had links to the main pages of the official party. Blogs also had reciprocal links that form the &quot;small blog-world&quot; of SaS, the majority of this network – the activists, mentioned on the official website of the party. However, two-way hyperlinked communication was found only for official pages. Facebook was also used for this network and mostly linked to R. Sulik pages and page of Referendum, initiated by SaS. </li></ul>
  45. 45. Slovakia.PoliMov 2.0: SaS case <ul><li>Small blog-world of SaS (Issucrawler) </li></ul>
  46. 46. Slovakia.PoliMov 2.0: SaS case SaS Facebook profiles size according to amount of Facebook followers
  47. 47. Slovakia.PoliMov 2.0: SaS case Facebook followers of SaS Facebook profiles, December 2009
  48. 48. Slovakia.PoliMov 2.0 <ul><li>Independent projects </li></ul><ul><li>The main example of an open approach - activity of (Aliance Fair-Play) portal for publishing information about politicians, parties, state structures. </li></ul><ul><li>Project (Bratislava) was organised as FixMyStreet project from Great Britain and every citizen will be able to report a problem from any city area of Bratislava, and then to address the authorities. Citizen could add description of the problem, locate it on the map. Any relevant information, including all communications with the authority will be published on the website. </li></ul><ul><li>Project (Banska Bystrica) aims to bring citizens closer to the work of members of city council and the way members themselves informed about current topics related to city, as well as the specific steps that as elected representatives have done for the city. Page therefore creating space for people to blend with the views and work of members. Project started on January 16, 2010 for the city of Banska Bystrica and will gradually expand to others cities in Slovakia, regional councils and parliament. </li></ul>
  49. 49. Slovakia.PoliMov 2.0 <ul><li>Slovak Facebook social initiatives </li></ul><ul><li>Peter Kunder a – Aliance Fair-Play (NGO) organised campaign called “ Červená pre Harabina ” - it was a gathering support against the election of Stefan Harabin ( former Minister of Justice) as President of the Supreme Court. The campaign was organized by a great deal through F acebook and the call within two weeks was supported around 15000 users . </li></ul>
  50. 50. Slovakia.PoliMov 2.0 <ul><li>Slovak Facebook social initiatives (selected) </li></ul><ul><li>SDKU: Zdravé Slovensko wall&ref =search </li></ul><ul><li>SDKU: </li></ul><ul><li>Podporujem dopravcov v štrajku. Mýto sa týka nás všetkých! </li></ul><ul><li>Znepokojujú ma protirómske skupiny a priatelia, ktorí ich podporujú </li></ul><ul><li>Jazykový zákon </li></ul><ul><li>Rázne odmietam, žeby bol nový &quot;Slovenský jazykový zákon&quot; diskriminačný !!! </li></ul><ul><li>Hungarian-Slovak Friendship http :// / causes /167095?m=79316211 </li></ul>
  51. 51. Slovakia.PoliMov 2.0 <ul><li>Slovak Facebook social initiatives </li></ul><ul><li>Podporujem dopravcov v štrajku. Mýto sa týka nás všetkých! </li></ul><ul><li>Followers (january 2010) – almost 79000. </li></ul><ul><li>Includes repost of news about strike and 37 discussions </li></ul><ul><li>High level of feedback and comments of articles </li></ul>
  52. 52. Slovakia.PoliMov 2.0 <ul><li>Slovak Facebook social initiatives </li></ul><ul><li>SDKU: Zdravé Slovensko </li></ul>
  53. 53. References <ul><li>Bambina A. (2007) Online social support: the interplay of social networks and computer-mediated communication. 268 p. </li></ul><ul><li>Benkler Y. (2006), The Wealth of Networks (Yale University Press, New Haven) </li></ul><ul><li>Bowman S., Willis C. (2003) We Media. How audiences are shaping the future of news and information <> </li></ul><ul><li>Bradwell P., Reeves R. (2008) Network citizens </li></ul><ul><li>Clift S. The E-Democracy E-Book: Democracy is Online 2.0 <> </li></ul><ul><li>Cranston P., Davies T. Future Connect. A review of social networking today, tomorrow and beyond - An analysis of the challenges for AIDS Communicators </li></ul><ul><li>Damodaran L., Olphert W. (2006) Informing Digital Futures. Strategies for Citizen Engagement </li></ul><ul><li>Dijk J. van, (2005) The Network Society. Social Aspects of New Media </li></ul><ul><li>eParticipation // European Journal of ePractice, Nº7 March 2009, </li></ul><ul><li>Facilitating Active Citizenship. E-Participation in the United Kingdom and Germany. A Status Report with Examples from both Countries. Prepared by e.V. / for the British Council Germany, Berlin, June 2006 <> </li></ul><ul><li>Ferlander S. (January 2003) The Internet, Social Capital And Local Community. Thesis … at the University of Stirling. Department of Psychology. </li></ul><ul><li>Gilmor D. We the Media <> </li></ul><ul><li>Handbook for Bloggers and Cyber-Dissidents <> </li></ul><ul><li>Kubicek H., Lippa B., Westholm H. (Eds.) Report on state of the art approaches, relevant disciplines, key researchers, and socio-technical research issues. DEMO-net: Deliverable 6.1 </li></ul><ul><li>Macintosh A., Tambouris E. (Eds.). Electronic Participation: 1st International Conference, ePart 2009, Linz, Austria, September 1-3, 2009, Proceedings. Springer Verlag: Heidelberg et al, LNCS # 5694, 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>McCarthy Н., Miller P., Skidmore P. (Eds., 2004) Network Logic. Who governs in an interconnected world? </li></ul><ul><li>Mossberger K., Tolbert C.J., McNeal R.S. (Eds., 2008) Digital citizenship: the internet, society, and participation. </li></ul><ul><li>Osimo D. (2008) Web 2.0 in Government: Why and How? Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. - Scientific and Technical Research series </li></ul><ul><li>Person-to-Person-to-Person: Harnessing the Political Power of Social Networks and User-Generated Content <> </li></ul><ul><li>Ratcliffe M., Lebkowsky J. (2005, eds.) Extreme democracy. On-line edition <> </li></ul><ul><li>Rigby B. Mobilizing generation 2.0: a practical guide to using Web 2.0 technologies to recruit, organize, and engage youth/Ben Rigby; foreword by Rock the Vote. </li></ul><ul><li>State of the eUnion. Government 2.0 and Onwards. Edited by John Gotze, Christian Bering Pedersen Foreword by Don Tapscott </li></ul><ul><li>Terranova T. (2004) Network Culture. Politics for the Information Age </li></ul><ul><li>The Politics-To-Go Handbook. A Guide to Using Mobile Technology in Politics <>. </li></ul><ul><li>Wyld D.C. The Blogging Revolution: Government in the Age of Web 2.0 <> </li></ul>