E-Participation

Dr. Jakob Svensson

& Mag. Judith Schossböck

ICT4Democracy Summer School

Keynote – March 12 2014

New Delhi, India

Todays Keynote

Participation – History and introduction to a loaded concept

Bringing the E to participation

Evaluating E-participation

Case study: Results and

lessons learned

Questions

What is participation?

What is participation?

A rights and a duty

An equal right to participate in a democracy – but it is also ourduty

Important for the ”social contract” / ”civic bond”

The historical development of participation

a) The Greek agora where people met and discussed with each other

b) Development of religions (where political membership become dependent of a common faith)

c) The development of autonomous city states in Europe

d) The development of nationalism and the national state that followed from the French revolution

e) The creation of the welfare state for the institutionalism of social rights

Development of participation

Not only about political rights – and a relation to a state and common identity – this is also about social equality

T.H. Marshall

Development of participation?

T.H. Marshall

Citizenship builds upon our equal right to participation –however capitalist societies are far from equal

At the same time – it is the argument that we have the right to be different and develop our individualities – that capitalist then use to justify that society becomes unequal.

Marshall discussions of social rights was a way to make the idea of every citizens equal right, more equal in reality

Development of participation

Wide vs. narrow participation (Verba & Nie, 1972)

Maximalist vs. minimalist participation (Carpentier, 2011)

(can be traced back to Elitist (Schumpeter) vs. Participatory(Pateman) ideals of democracy)

Different forms of participation

The idea is that participation may occur outside of Parliamentaryinstitutions if we understand participation as the actto influence public decision makers (Verba & Nie, 1972)

Lately participation has come to indicate the actto influence society in general (Esaiasson & Westholm, 2006)

Activities that school citizens democratically and make themcapable to govern over themselves (Pateman 1970)

which is close to the definition of empowerment as recognizing your power tocreate/induce change (Lennie & Tacchi, 2013) – which in turn resonates withSens (1999) understands development as a freedom which lends itself towardsthe capacity of individuals to assess and transform, their situations.

Different forms participation

Tripartite delineation of participation (Svensson, 2011)Depending on where it is initiated and towards where it is directed

1) Parliamentary initiated participation (from within Parliament)

2) Activist initiated participation (initiated outside the Parliament but directed towards it - Both single-issue adhoc movements and more long-lived so-called social movements (demand – Laclau, 2005)

3) Popular cultural participation (Cultural Public Sphere – Hermes, 2006)

Different forms of participation

Tripartite delineation of participation (Nilsson, 2005)Depending on its relation to parliamentary institutions

1) Integrated forms of participation (Elections and political party membership)

2) engrafted forms participation (civic/ users committees)

3) Independent forms of participation (village communities, political consumption)

Different forms of participation

Participation today

Parliamentary initiated participation

legitimacy crisis

Activist initiated and popular cultural participation

Lifepolictics – Giddens

Suppolitics – Beck

Mundane citizenship - Bakardjieva

Participation today

Participation vs engagement (Dahlgren 2009, 2013)

Engagement is the subjective/ individual prerequisite for participation

Participation vs interaction Participation is always linked topower and the political (Carpentier, 2011; Dahlgren, 2013)

What is Participation

Parliamentary initiated participation

Internet as a magic elixir (Strommer-Galley, 2000)

Strategic communication Instrumental uses (in campaigns)

Deliberation Communicative uses (engaging citizens in dialogues)

Image-Management Expressive uses (negotiating your image as a politician)

Bringing the E to participation

Activist initiated participation Internet as a tool for organization of participation and for mobilizing

participation – smart mobs (Rheingold, 2002)

Issue engagement (Verba et al., 1995) – you engage in issues that affects to (personally and emotionally) and issues that are controversial – more passionate than pragmatic participation. Participation needs a certainamount of emotional investment (Melucci, 1996)

Connective action (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012) – messages memes that can easily be personalized and spread

Clictivism and Slactivism

Bringing the E to participation

Popular cultural initiated participation

Pop-up (Manchester United, Docu-Soaps)

Smaller parts of affinity portals to which political discussions are directed

Bringing the E to participation

From “techno-optimism” to realism

Ann Macintosh, Angus Whyte, (2008)

“Further research is needed in two main areas; first, on the applicability (where) of eParticipation tools to particularcontexts, and second, to integrate fieldwork methods to assess social acceptance of eParticipation (why) and represent the diversity of views obtained from citizens, community groups and other stakeholders.”

• Cognitive impact (agenda setting, by whom?)

• Idea of direct impact on policy making

• Agenda setting in hybrid media environment

Evaluating E-participation

• AT

• CZ

• GR

• UK

Discussion in 4 languages and pilots in four countries

Integration of Social Media and Networks

Involvement of Young people

Decision makers and institutions

ePart for young people in the EU

• Creating a e-participation platform and community on EU level

• Forward the results of the deliberation process to decision makers and institutions.

• To make young people familiar with decision makers

• Features:Mobile communication channels, Facebook Integration, Google Translate

Large scale e-participation – aims

1. Topic creation: Suggest a theme and rate a theme

2. Discussion: Discuss a theme and provide comments andproposals; rate comments

3. Voting: Vote for the proposals

4. Summary and results: Show results and get feedbackfrom relevant bodies and persons.

4 stages deliberation model

4.189 registered participants (03/14)The averge user looks at

6+ pages and stays for6+ minutes.

Dedicated online campaigns, selected topic campaigns and topicpromotion on banners, Video advertisement in mass media, social media promotion (regular means of marketing no effect)

Topic campaigns

Points system for motivation

Gamification elementsGamification Elements

• Likes

• Thumbing

• Voting for Proposals

• “Lurkers”

• Inclusiveness and transparency

– Moderators inform users about reasons for deleting content

– User diversity: throughout political spectrum

– Empowerment: Users and decision makers are same users

Low participation threshhold

Thumbing

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Platform Activity

Threads Users Thumbs Posts

Methodology

– Online Questionnaires

• Feedback Questionnaire (310 filled out, 76 counted)

• Long Questionnaire (420 responses)

– Interviews with decision makers and users (21)

– Discourse Analysis

– Focus Group (December 2013)

– Platform Data and Google Analytics

– Facebook Data

Evaluation of E-Participation Projects

4 evaluation levels

• Political

– 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

• Technical

– Platforms and tools usability

– Platform purpose suitability

Methodology based on Macintosh

• Social

– Effectiveness of integrating multiple evaluation tools

– Digital connections created between users

– Quality of discussion and deliberation process

• Methodological

– Effectiveness of dissemination activities

– Effectiveness of user engagement tactics

Methodology based on Macintosh

Users:

• Do you think platforms like OurSpace are got to get involvedor more interested in politics?

• Did you get more interested in the life of a politician?

• Do you think they can improve trust in politics?

• Do what extent do you feel empowered?

Decision makers:

• Did the platform have an influence on daily political work?

• Did the platform have an influence on policy making?

Political level

”...In the work of a politician”

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

• Most users did not find that the platform could improve trust in politics and politicians, however, a lot of them were rather indifferent (35%).

• Czech users slightly varied: 81% found that the platform has helped them to improve their trust in politics and politicians.

• Greek users: 18% said it could help them.

”...level of trust improvement”

”...empowerment...”

• Majority of users feeling empowered or very empowered (59%) by the platform.

• Different levels of user activity in pilot countries

– Thumbing more often in AT than UK

– Most active users in CZ

– Most registrations in Greece

• Decision maker participation

– Positive response in Austria (40% of MEPs)

– No decision maker participated in Greece

Comparative perspective

• Language and cultural conditions still major obstacle in cross-country deliberation

• Gender was no barrier(e.g. female politicians very active,diverse user group)

• EU Legislation difficult

• Transferring people from established media (e.g. Facebook monopol, leaflets)

Barriers in cross-country e-part

• Young people are generally very positive regarding e-participation as a tool for political engagement and informeddecision making

• Potential for empowerment and decision making processesout of classical institutions

• They are criticial regarding political impact on policies

• Engagement beyond politically active target group is difficult

• Sen (capabilities) young people need guidance (vs. „Digital Natives“)

Lessons Learned

Questions?

Thank you for listening!

jakob.svensson@im.uu.se

judith.schossboeck@donau-uni.ac.at