A community around using social tech for social impact
Digital engagement governance – a dichotomy between hyperlocal or partnership managed
I’ve just started working on a project where we’ll be exploring digital engagement methods, using social media alongside offline forms of engagement such as neighbourhood panels. The aim of the project is to improve community cohesion in a semi-rural community. The project is being developed as a partnership between the County Council, District Council, community centres, a rural development agency, housing associations, the Police and the Fire & Rescue Service.
The partners are all relatively new to the concept of digital engagement but are aware that any form of social media (e.g. blogs or social networking sites) requires governance and moderation. In the initial meeting I presented what I think of as a ‘governance dichotomy’ which we, as public service providers, should be open to when we consult with the community. By this I mean that we may end up with either a community led or a partnership managed approach to governance, depending on what the community and partnership jointly decide will work best.
I outlined the pro’s and con’s (as I saw them) to the partners as follows.
Council / partnership managed approach
Pro’s:
* A level of moderation and facilitation control
* Less reliance on volunteers, who are often transitory and hard to coordinate
* Focus on specific issues relevant to public service providers
* Council hosts system and data – reliable and secure
* Potential for integration with other systems, workflow etc.
Con’s:
* Top down = undemocratic
* Resource intensive to moderate
* Not as sustainable longer term when funding runs out
* Lack of focus on community interests may disenfranchise the community
* Liability and data protection issues
* Technology less flexible and higher support costs
Community led/managed approach
Pro’s
* Democratic and self-moderating
* Sustainable model – owned by the community
* Building community skills in digital media and citizen journalism
* Public service providers have no liability
* Low / no cost technology and flexibility to try a range of different tools
Con’s
* Lack of control, public service providers not engaged due to fear of criticism
* Reliance on a few motivated individuals, could be hijacked by one community group
* Lack of motivation / interest from community in digital media
* Lack of community access to internet and skills in digital media production
* Unclear how to intervene if there are tensions or conflict arises
* Reliance on continuing existence of providers of platforms / tools
In the last year or so there has been an explosion of hyperlocal blogs, web sites, networks, searches and aggregators appearing as well as a number of funding programmes and initiatives such as Talk About Local and Local 2.0. The hyperlocal movement enables ‘bottom up’ democracy and fits the government’s community empowerment agenda perfectly. But in many instances hyperlocal blogs and networks are popping up without any intervention from local government whatsoever. They are often initiated by a few committed residents and offer:
* platforms for collaborative publishing and distribution of local news and information;
* the ability to connect people with shared interests and locations through groups and networks;
* the ability to support activism on local issues.
My perception is that developing and maintaining a successful hyperlocal online resource will require commitment, coordination (of volunteers), skills (e.g. researching, investigating, writing, communicating, technology), time and local knowledge. Tenacity and a willingness to work with a diverse cross-section of community members will also be invaluable.
Local authority or partnership managed approaches range from those that have a more ‘top down’ approach to consultation and governance, for example Ask Bristol and Redbridge Conversation, to those that are more ‘bottom up’ and democratic in their approach, such as the partnership initiative Talk2Croydon.
My perception is that a successful partnership managed approach will require funding and resources (to ensure sustainability and sufficient promotion), flexibility (to respond to community needs) and a clear partnership agreement. In addition strong links with the community are required to ensure sufficient trust and representative participation.
The current feeling among the stakeholders in the partnership is that a community led approach would be desirable to ensure greater buy-in and sustainability longer term. However, as we enter into the consultation phase of the project it will be interesting to see which model of governance is identified as being both feasible and desirable.
Another key factor is that the area in which we are running the project suffers from socio-economic deprivation and has a significantly lower percentage of internet usage per household, as opposed to the national average.
If you have any thoughts, comments or fresh perspectives on this ‘dichotomy’ (especially anything backed up by research) I would be very glad to hear about it! I will be conducting some qualitative research throughout the project into stakeholder perceptions and attitudes, as part of a personal MSc research project.
The partners are all relatively new to the concept of digital engagement but are aware that any form of social media (e.g. blogs or social networking sites) requires governance and moderation. In the initial meeting I presented what I think of as a ‘governance dichotomy’ which we, as public service providers, should be open to when we consult with the community. By this I mean that we may end up with either a community led or a partnership managed approach to governance, depending on what the community and partnership jointly decide will work best.
I outlined the pro’s and con’s (as I saw them) to the partners as follows.
Council / partnership managed approach
Pro’s:
* A level of moderation and facilitation control
* Less reliance on volunteers, who are often transitory and hard to coordinate
* Focus on specific issues relevant to public service providers
* Council hosts system and data – reliable and secure
* Potential for integration with other systems, workflow etc.
Con’s:
* Top down = undemocratic
* Resource intensive to moderate
* Not as sustainable longer term when funding runs out
* Lack of focus on community interests may disenfranchise the community
* Liability and data protection issues
* Technology less flexible and higher support costs
Community led/managed approach
Pro’s
* Democratic and self-moderating
* Sustainable model – owned by the community
* Building community skills in digital media and citizen journalism
* Public service providers have no liability
* Low / no cost technology and flexibility to try a range of different tools
Con’s
* Lack of control, public service providers not engaged due to fear of criticism
* Reliance on a few motivated individuals, could be hijacked by one community group
* Lack of motivation / interest from community in digital media
* Lack of community access to internet and skills in digital media production
* Unclear how to intervene if there are tensions or conflict arises
* Reliance on continuing existence of providers of platforms / tools
In the last year or so there has been an explosion of hyperlocal blogs, web sites, networks, searches and aggregators appearing as well as a number of funding programmes and initiatives such as Talk About Local and Local 2.0. The hyperlocal movement enables ‘bottom up’ democracy and fits the government’s community empowerment agenda perfectly. But in many instances hyperlocal blogs and networks are popping up without any intervention from local government whatsoever. They are often initiated by a few committed residents and offer:
* platforms for collaborative publishing and distribution of local news and information;
* the ability to connect people with shared interests and locations through groups and networks;
* the ability to support activism on local issues.
My perception is that developing and maintaining a successful hyperlocal online resource will require commitment, coordination (of volunteers), skills (e.g. researching, investigating, writing, communicating, technology), time and local knowledge. Tenacity and a willingness to work with a diverse cross-section of community members will also be invaluable.
Local authority or partnership managed approaches range from those that have a more ‘top down’ approach to consultation and governance, for example Ask Bristol and Redbridge Conversation, to those that are more ‘bottom up’ and democratic in their approach, such as the partnership initiative Talk2Croydon.
My perception is that a successful partnership managed approach will require funding and resources (to ensure sustainability and sufficient promotion), flexibility (to respond to community needs) and a clear partnership agreement. In addition strong links with the community are required to ensure sufficient trust and representative participation.
The current feeling among the stakeholders in the partnership is that a community led approach would be desirable to ensure greater buy-in and sustainability longer term. However, as we enter into the consultation phase of the project it will be interesting to see which model of governance is identified as being both feasible and desirable.
Another key factor is that the area in which we are running the project suffers from socio-economic deprivation and has a significantly lower percentage of internet usage per household, as opposed to the national average.
If you have any thoughts, comments or fresh perspectives on this ‘dichotomy’ (especially anything backed up by research) I would be very glad to hear about it! I will be conducting some qualitative research throughout the project into stakeholder perceptions and attitudes, as part of a personal MSc research project.
Tags: digitalengagement, governance, hyperlocal
Add a Comment
-
Comment by Michele Ide-Smith on November 22, 2009 at 8:26pm - Thanks David - I had read Carl's post briefly last week but just went back for a more thorough read. I recently re-wrote our web strategy and was struck by how much our strategic thinking has changed over the last couple of years. The focus is much more about our 'online presence' and engagement, rather than just information and service delivery.
-
Comment by David Wilcox on November 22, 2009 at 7:10pm
-
Very interesting post by Carl Haggerty on his blog last week in which he ponders:
"I have been thinking about council websites, specifically around the issues of – whether we need them, what management of them should look like, how we structure them, and which audiences we are really trying to serve. Some of this was prompted by an excellent post by Sarah Lay from Derbyshire on “Do Councils need websites” and some by various conversations that have been happening recently and building on from a previous post of mine about social media points the way for corporate website development.
"I started to wonder what council websites would look like and how they would have evolved, if we didn’t have the drive from eGovernment, to make all of our services (including information) 100% e-enabled. I’m sure some would have developed into real community based websites and portals with a good blend of transactional service and online community. My key point here is, without any external pressure, would councils have taken a more community based approach to their websites instead of being forced to deliver services online that offered no value initially."
I'll invite Carl to join us here
-
Comment by Michele Ide-Smith on November 22, 2009 at 11:40am
- Hi Catherine. Thanks for getting in touch. I will read up about your project. I think we could definitely benefit from sharing the learning from what we are doing! I am also aware that similar research/work is being carried out by Talk About Local, the Young Foundation (Local 2.0) and Networked Neighbourhoods. I will write another post when we have finished the community consultation/research phase. I have also posted this article on my own blog. I am going to be interviewing different stakeholders for my MSc project to understand the different perspectives towards digital engagement better - but won't get a chance to interview all stakeholders (or else I'd need to do a PhD!).
-
Comment by Catherine Howe on November 22, 2009 at 11:02am -
Hi there - very interested in this project as it is very much in the same space as one I am running (http://curiouscatherine.wordpress.com/virtual-town-hall-pilot/). We are getting pilot sites up and running with 5 councils which has been fascinating.
I completely agree that the key here is vibrant hyperlocal communities - otherwise there is nothing for democracy to engage with.
Will be watching what you are doing about governance with great interest as we have been keen to keep this very light in order to foster a sense of co-creation - we will see if this works!!
-
Comment by Steven Clift on November 3, 2009 at 2:09pm -
Our experience is that no matter the population base you need at least 100 people for the following reasons:
1. Critical mass required in an online space to likely have someone willing to reply - otherwise the space seems dead
2. Forces you to actually do outreach ... the first 50 are easy, the next 50 force the organizers to do real outreach and map out the "who who" networks in a community to say "who is missing"
3. 100+ people can say from then beginning they were there and this broadens the sense of community ownership and a realization that the value generated by the space itself is on the shoulders of those gathered (versus typical passive media consumption)
Because our software default is e-mail delivery, those on dial-up can participate just fine. People who don't want e-mail or want a digest can change their settings. So, if we get them on paper, they never actually have to visit the website to participate. To publish all they need to know what to do is press reply-to-all.
In terms of our rural experiences, the Cass Lake area is well under 5,000 with only 800 in the town (which doesn't have a web site). At this level, think "community" Issues Forum not just political issues like in our big city forums. You see a mix of community life and issues which I recommend ... from so and so died to an issue before the tribal council. They had sign-up sheets at the post office, the food shelf, etc. Check out: http://e-democracy.org/cl ... and compare with another rural county but a growing retirement area on Lake Superior next to Canada (~5 hour drive from Minneapolis) where the county government has used the forum to answer questions about an upcoming broadband referendum: http://e-democracy.org/cc
In terms of governance, we are in the process of lightening our model some. We do recommend a start-up committee/task force and support forums with an internal "place-team" group behind the scenes. But ultimately we are in the business of support the local volunteer Forum Manager. We support them with a uniform set of baseline rules and process for adopting a local charter (usually in consultation with interested forum participants in the start-up phase), we host the forum technologically, we have self-directed educational materials, and bring them into a mutual support network with the 25 other volunteer forum managers across our network. Since the volunteer Forum Manager does the work, they lead the "self-governance." Unlike government, commercial, or individual control we limit their power by empowering them to enforce civility rules, etc. Also with real names absolutely required, this eliminates 80% of the nasty BS on forums, the rules/forum management the next 15% and we have a 5% error rate (of sorts.) To perfect a truly living online space civility wise would be so expensive as to make it impossible. We also have mapped out post-posting accountability versus extremely labour intensive and centralising pre-moderation. In short, you can lose your right to participate in the future based on a simple system of warnings for violating the rules. Seems to work fine in our four UK communities. Because the UK's libel laws are not as protective to online hosts, we do have policies on request to remove libelous material.
Lastly, an Issues Forum could be run along side some online citizen journalism efforts. Getting the community to produce "news" is 10x the work of getting them to share announcements and discuss news/gov decisions/etc., but if you have that capacity, original news is a great way to bring people in.
Say, here are a couple sample fliers and sign-up sheets. And definitely listen to the Issues Forum manager interviews for their perspectives on start-up in smaller population areas.
-
Comment by Michele Ide-Smith on November 3, 2009 at 12:02pm
-
David - thanks for the link to the videos from localgovcamp. Very useful to get more insight about things I've been following online.
Steve - one quick question. Do you have any stats on the percentage take up of the issues forums in relation to the total population of localities where issues forums are running successfully with 100+ users? I am wondering if it's feasible that we could get 100 people in a relatively small area (population of about 20,000) where internet usage is quite low. I think it's possible with the outreach capacity we have, but would appreciate any views you have. I also like the email aspect of the issues forums as internet skills are also quite limited in the area we are working.
-
- I think framework and roles is a good way to go - see Steph Gray on roles if you haven't before. There's still the issue of who designs the framework, and sets the rules ... just the council/partners, or with community interests? "Not invented here" is a powerful barrier to engagement :-)
-
Comment by Michele Ide-Smith on November 3, 2009 at 8:14am
- I can see how the word "governance" is perhaps too reminiscent of "government" and doesn't sit too well with the ethos of community empowerment! Either way, there is a need for some "rules" of engagement (so people feel comfortable, know how to get involved, where they stand and how to deal with conflict). I also think it's important to have a particular group to take on a role of host and keep online discussions active and on track. That's more what I was getting at. Lots of links to follow up today thanks!
-
- Doing some connecting, at another level, interesting tweet from Martin Howitt "no-one is saying it explicitly, but it seems governance is dead: empowerment, guidance, and responsibility are the watchwords". He was at the Gartner Symposium, and works with Devon County Council enterprise architects, along with Carl Haggerty. Carl is piloting use of social media inside Devon CC, working across into the community. Video here with others from localgovcamp.
-
Comment by Steven Clift on November 2, 2009 at 10:43pm
-
If you have resources for outreach - in-person leveraging the events of your partners - and can ID a community volunteer to serve as the Forum Manager, an Issues Forum can be set up quite easily. It doesn't have all the flash of a blog or Ning site, but because the model is designed as an interactive community at its heart, it doesn't require the labour a news-centric site requires to generate news.
The real challenge with our model is getting 100+ signed-up (again paper sign-up sheets work best) and creating a culture where people both post announcements and are willing to discuss things online.
E-Democracy.org is interested bringing in a few new UK communities with some modest funding into our network to help us share back our latest and greatest lessons.
Yes, David, 15+ flipping years. Great videos from the TAL Unconf - just listened to them all while doing the dishes. Will be posting on my Newswire.
About
Blog posts by email
© 2010 Created by David Wilcox on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of Social by Social to add comments!
Join Social by Social