PEP-NET Online Discourse www.internet-discourse.eu
Forum: Organisation and Channels

Naoum LIOTAS, francesco vignali, Pedro Prieto-Martin, Richard Warren, Ake Gronlund, Dan Jellinek, n.edelmann, Eric Legale, nicolas desquinabo, Hannu Larsson, petert, vranova, David

The Following Questions are discussed in this area: How can eParticipation initiatives work with non-ICT channels and processes to promote and exploit better participation and engagement of all types? For example, with traditional policy and political activities through the traditional media, physical meetings, polling and voting, traditional campaigning and communication strategies, etc.
How can eParticipation contribute to promote and exploit bottom-up beneficial engagement by citizens or other actors, i.e. which arises directly from the needs of specific actors themselves and is not initiated or controlled by politicians or governments? This can include situations both in which the actors’ engagement does not involve any real transfer of influence or power from government, as well as when it does.
How can eParticipation contribute to promoting and exploiting beneficial engagement by citizens or other actors in initiatives designed or controlled by politicians or governments? This can include situations both in which the actors’ engagement does not involve any real transfer of influence or power from government, as well as when it does.

ICT Channels:
Importance of issue (setting the context)
During the last years eParticipation has emerged as a new means for engaging citizens in the political processes and as the answers to problems such as the democratic deficit, apathy and dissatisfaction of the public, low elections turnout, etc. But what exactly is eParticipation? Is it something really new? In essence eParticipation is not a new concept; it is still the “old” participation concept with the difference that in this case participation is facilitated by modern Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). However, this does not mean that eParticipation is regarded as better, more advanced or more effective than traditional participation. On the contrary, traditional participation is still needed and, in an ideal world, Participation and eParticipation are just different channels working in parallel and supplementary to one other towards the same goals. The challenge thus is to find the appropriate combination of both “e-” and “non e-” processes in order maximise participation and get the most out of any participation initiative.

Measurement and evaluation
Measuring and evaluating participation channels may be seen at first as an easy task, in the sense that participation channels, either “e-” or “non e-”, are something tangible and countable that can be fairly easily be identified and measured for a specific initiative. However, when it comes to measuring each channel’s effectiveness and its contribution to the overall results and achievements of the initiative things are not so straightforward. And the fact that channels are not utilized in isolation to each other but multiple channels may be used by the same persons at the same time complicates even more this evaluation, making it even harder to reach any conclusions on what the ideal “mix” of channels should be in order to maximize participation and inclusion. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the target groups of each initiative and their characteristics (such as available ICT possibilities in the area, age, technological literacy, habits, etc.) should play an important role to the channels selection. However, more research in this field examining in combination both “e-” and “non e-” channels is definitely needed for reaching any conclusions and making appropriate recommendations.

Approach taken in the eParticipation study
The issue of currently utilised ICT channels and their combination with non-ICT channels has been one of our interests from the beginning of the European eParticipation Study. We searched for relevant evidence during our investigation in current eParticipation initiatives and were able to identify some trends from the contacts made with the owners of these initiatives. Our evidence suggest that the most common ICT channels offered are the internet channel mainly accessed through PCs but also through mobile phones and palmtops, while public kiosks and digital TV are offered to a lesser extent. What is noteworthy is that 1/3 of owners (mainly at the local level) replied that they also utilise non-ICT channels along with ICT channels. By far the most frequent non-ICT channel utilised is public meetings; less used channels reported are public presentations/briefings, paper voting and surveys. However, there are no safe conclusions as regards to how the decision to utilise each specific channel mix has been reached, and the first impression is that planning of channels is based mostly on practical issues (i.e. easily organised, less costly channels, channels already used before the adoption of ICT solutions) not on specific strategies.


Bottom-Up:
Importance of the issue
Online social participation (including most so-called 'social networking' phenomena) has been one of the most spectacular Internet success story of recent decades. Yet Hindman's statistics on web traffic illustrate how only a minuscule percentage of blogs, for example, are classified as political as opposed to 'merely' social. Most users are apparently not attracted to eParticipation sites that are labelled as political, but it is reasonable to assume that 'politics' is practised in many other regions of the Web, even if not thought of as such. From a governance perspective, system and lifeworld cannot be so neatly distinguished, but the typical citizen “wants to practise her political freedom, right where she is, on her own conditions.” (Bang 2003: 258). Government should work with this energy rather than against it. A similar principle lies behind the UK Power of Information taskforce recommendations that government should seek creative ways of exploiting user-generated content and that public servants should go to peer support forums instead of only trying to attract users to official eParticipation sites.
On the other hand, it has to be noted that bottom-up eParticipation of a truly pan-European nature is under-developed, partly because of the fragmentation of the European public sphere and language difficulties (see issue 7).

Approach taken in the eParticipation study
In the study we use the term back region to denote aspects of eParticipation which have no direct relevance to the system’s needs, answering only to the autonomous needs of social actors. This is a way of acknowledging the power relations involved in participation processes, since the existence of back regions is an important feature of the dialectic of control in structuration theory. According to Giddens, who borrows the terms from Goffman, “back regions are zones within which agents recover forms of autonomy which are compromised or treated in frontal contexts”, which is to say that they are regions where actors, irrespective of their power positions, can think and act according to their own interpretations and ignore 'official' norms (Giddens 1984: 126-7).
Deliverable 1.4b contains some examples of bottom-up European eParticipation initiatives, for example by civil society organisations.

Measurement and evaluation
In 2008, Demos produced an 'everyday democracy index', comparing different countries according to the level of democracy that exists in informal arenas such as family life and workplaces. This was one of the rare – and only experimental – attempts to evaluate this sphere. But its focus was democracy rather than participation, and it was cross-national, not trans-national.
Many of the processes that occur in 'back regions' will have a delayed impact on 'front region' politics, making evaluation difficult except from a long historical perspective. For instance, are we able to say how emerging social practices on Facebook are influencing society, just three years after its public launch? Arguably, it takes much longer than that before we can understand the creative and collective ways in which users incorporate social technologies into their lives, let alone how this might influence the formal political system.


Top-down:
Importance of the issue
Politicians and government have an increasing online presence. So far, the predominant forms of use remain information provision, transparency initiatives, or the use of the Internet as a tool of communications policy. Use of online tools for two-way dialogue have occurred most often at the local scale. National and European authorities may have much to learn from some of the innovations pioneered by local and regional government. Yet there is surely considerable scope for government-led eParticipation at European level because of the geographical scale of Europe (the difficulty and expense of meeting face-to-face) and because of the under-development of bottom-up pan-European eParticipation (so there is less risk of 'crowding out' issues arising between bottom-up and top-down initiatives that serve similar purposes for users).
Not all top-down eParticipation needs to take place on government websites, however, and there may be an important difference between government-initiated and government-hosted eParticipation. The former could involve various types of partnership with other actors (see issue 8).

Measurement and evaluation
Thorough process evaluation and impact assessment ought to be intrinsic to best-practice government-initiated eParticipation, just as it should form a component part of all public engagement strategies. According to Involve, however: “actual cost-benefit analyses of participation are, as far as we have been able to discern, virtually non-existent” (Involve 2005: 61), and the benefits are probably underestimated, being too intangible, too long-term, and too affected by confounding variables to be captured by standard project evaluation methods. Evaluation of user experience (the intrinsic benefits) tends to be better than evaluation of real influence on policy (the instrumental benefits). Partly, this is because of multiple causation and the incremental nature of most policy-making and service-planning.

Approach taken in the eParticipation study
In the study we use the term front region to denote aspects of eParticipation which are at least partially aligned with the needs of the system, i.e. with the goal-setting strategic rationality of a governance regime. Most of the eParticipation with which we are concerned takes place in 'front regions', connected, formally or informally, to policy- and decision-making processes.



Relevant Actors:
Influence of Scientists:
It is expected that groups of scientists could act beneficially with bottom-up initiatives (as well as top-down by consulting governments), to educate on policy issues but also to help inform on impacts and needs for certain policies. eParticipation could potentially benefit by using groups of top scientists to engage and inform other citizens on policy issues and actually work as policy-makers on their fields of expertise on relevant eParticipation initiatives.

School or in general educational system may help the young generation to touch the problem not only listen the problem and by this to become more engaged.

Monopolies tend to be bad for the consumers, and the (e)Participation monopoly that, till now, public authorities have, causes that the offer of (e)Participation opportunities doesn"t much the level and quality that citizens would require. Participation is not only arbitrary, but usually also irrelevant, ineffective and manipulated.

Critics on the classification
"top-down & bottom-up & from-the-middle-and-around". The best approach for (e)Participation is to break with the very concept behind that classification.
Collaboration is not top-down, nor bottom-up. Collaboration is collaborative, it is joining the willing efforts, from wherever they come. Collaboration can not be achieved when there is a difference in level, especially since in our thought processes, we tend to regard "top" and "up" as something important while "down" and "bottom" as something not so important.

The term "bottom-up" is contradictory to the fact that as a citizen we are supposed to be "at the top". We should a better term that gives due status to our role as citizens. "Citizen initiated" would be correct - but not easy to say  "Demos-Up" might be better. The term "Citizen initiated" was suggested as an alternative.

Perhaps our definition of what actually constitutes e-participation needs to be broadened, to embrace all parts of a functioning democracy, not just the functioning of government, elections or public services. In this respect, the existence of a publicly available local news site, for example, would be a success, just because people have the ability to read about local issues. All community activity would count, whether or not it was specifically linked to politics, because it helps create stronger communities, and it also creates an environment where local people could exchange views about any issue, should they wish. The key perhaps is how these projects are run - i.e. in a neutral, non-partisan, and non-commercial way - rather than what they are about.

It was stated in the discussion that collaboration can not be achieved when there is a difference in level, especially since in our thought processes, we tend to regard "top" and "up" as something important while "down" and "bottom" as something not so important. This could well be an inherent problem in representative systems (as they are currently being implemented at least and with the direct link between representatives and their constituency being lost)? It is evident that as the educational level of the constituency rises and specialized citizens are more appropriate to answer questions than their representatives, a change needs to be made.

Furthermore it was pointed out that most official publications neglect the idea of autonomous (e)participation (bottom-up).

Critical Success Factors
Discussions should focus "real", i.e. meaningful for people.

There are some ideas coming from the article "Why Participatory Democracy Matters - And Movements Matter to Participatory Democracy", from Hillary Wainwright

The conditions Hillary mentions for the development of participation are interesting:
1.    participatory arrangements need to be open at their foundations to everyone affected by such decisions - even if only a minority participate. ...
2.    there need to be mutually agreed and openly negotiated rules.
3.    autonomy of the participatory process from the state.
4.    there must be genuine sharing of knowledge.
5.    Real resources must be at stake, resources which could make a positive difference to the lives of the community. The process must get results. It must not be seen as just another consultation exercise that leads nowhere.
6.    feasibility and legitimacy of the participatory process is enormously enhanced by the existence and electoral success of a party that believes in it.
The problem is that most people don't particularly want to know about 'politics' or 'democracy', but they do care about many specific issues and they do want to be able to express their views about them, and exchange views, as well as find out information.

Two studies on youth eParticipation have been conducted in Austria, and it is clear that their needs and their values are different to what anybody "older" than their generation is and understands. It is therefore necessary to think about with great care that there are specific generations or groups who have special needs, wants and values. In turn this impacts how they can be reached out to.
The second study showed that the adolescents cannot be lumped into a single group either. There are those who conform to the stereotypes and do not care about any form of participation, do not show interest in neither politics, public admin nor government. And then there are those who want to participate, are grateful for an oppportunity  to have their say, be honestly listened to and have some mind-blowing ideas about how to solve some issues which are important to them. This separation was also reflected on the decision makers side: those who believe the younger generation is disinterested and those who use this opportunity to access new ideas and voices.

The problem of the digital divide calls for a multichannel approach to improve the outreach. Alternatives to the online channel have to be provided (phone etc.).

There has to be clarity about aims and impacts of an eParticipation effort. This problem is illustrated by the relationship between eVoting and eParticipation.

Anonymity and eParticipation
Anonymity in eParticipation has advantages and disadvantages besides being related to technical and organisational challenges. It can be seen as a danger which can lead to  unaccountability, street politics, mob-rule, take-over by the digital elite or narrow interests, trivialisation, short-termism, too much focus on single issues and too little policy balancing, apathy, lack of trust, etc.. On the other hand it may help to encourage discussion.

Furthermore it has been pointed out that even though tools like the official eID cards could be used for identification there is also a trust issue from the participators side how have trust into the organisation running the ID system.

Demand-centric ePariticipation
There is a need to match the habits and trends of citizen engagement with technological choices in the main forum. Right now eParticipation efforts are mostly supply-centric but citizens call for the reality of demand-centricity in current e-government initiatives. The demand-centricity is not always what is called user-centricity. There is political discussion happening all the time in weblogs etc.