Sunday, 29 March 2015

Engaging Citizens - Week 2 - Improved Policymaking

I am studying an online course called Engaging Citizens: A Game Changer for Development? and trying to blog as I go. Although the course is focussed on international development, I want to try to apply the ideas to UK politics (both national and local) and also to student engagement in higher education.



Here are my thoughts on week 2:

Public engagement in policy making is the key to unlocking citizen capacities within government decision-making. Thick engagement tactics involve large number of people, in small groups, learning, deciding and acting. They are intensive, informed and deliberative (e.g. town hall meetings, wikis, participatorial budgeting). Thin engagement tactics are faster, easier, more viral (e.g. petitions, facebook likes). Best approach is probably a combination of both tactics. A large critical mass of participants is usually crucial for affecting policy. 
How does participation improve policy making? 
1) People become more informed about issues
2) Engagement can bridge divides
3) Engagement increases the accountability of elected officials
4) Sustained engagement (global south) is generally better than temporary engagement (global north)

Reflection: UK political campaigns tend to use thin tactics (e.g. 38 degrees petitions) but is that because the thick tactics are less visible to me? I'm not sure what happens in local politics - local petitions? In higher education, focus groups can have huge impacts but are they representative? Does anyone ever check unless they want to challenge the outcomes?


Four questions to think about:
1) Who should participate and how will participants be recruited? Recruitment strategies include promotions via broadcast media, pro-actively via networks, and random lottery.
2) How will participants interact with each other and with decision makers? One-way, two-way or deliberative? Features of deliberative communication include being focused on problem solving, open and accessible conversations, careful reflections, weighing alternatives, and making decisions based on facts and values.
3) What information do participants need? High quality information that contains context and history, is neutral and objective, and includes all perspectives.
4) How will participation impact policy decisions, problem-solving efforts, or other kinds of public action?
There is a spectrum of public participation: Inform -> Consult -> Involve -> Collaborate -> Empower.
Six common participation scenarios: Inform the public, gather feedback, generate new ideas, support volunteerism and problem-solving, policy decisions, and plan a budget.

Reflection: National politics only informs, local politics informs and consults, whilst higher education informs, consults and involves. Basically, the smaller the population, the easier it is to organise participation.


What makes citizen engagement work? 
1) Start with a problem. 
2) Think of engagement as a way of expanding the tool kit available to solve problems. 
3) Don't only ask for opinions, ask for suggestions. 
4) Use citizens to gather data. 
5) Consider task-based engagement. 
6) Try crowdfunding. 
7) Employees and civil servants can also be engaged. 
8) Share what you know by opening data. 
9) Hold live events in real space. 
10) Create incentives for people to participate. 
11) Implement what you learn. 
12) Crowdsource wisely, not just broadly. 

Reflection: In the UK, national and local governments rarely use any of the approaches. Where there is engagement, it is always about opinions and not solutions. That is also true for political parties. When I used to organise student engagement activities in a students' union, I used two of the approaches at most. My current employer (a university) does try staff engagement (not just staff surveys but also Dragons' Den style events) but I don't know how effective they are.


Most theories relating to participation are based on the rational choice approach - people will only participate when the benefits of participating (the outcomes of event) are greater than the costs of participating (material and opportunity costs). People are more likely to participate if they can see that participating makes a difference. However, knowing that participation makes a difference is not the only factor determining participation. Studies have shown that online participation lowers the cost of participation and increases participation by previously unengaged citizens (e.g. younger). However there is a paradox of increased participation by both lowered and increased costs! Therefore there must be other factors that increase participation - thought to be "good citizenship"  and "a sense of belonging". 
Techniques to increase participation: 
1) Show results and communicate them, 
2) Design multiple channels of interaction, 
3) Provide multi-tiers of participation, 
4) Get personal, target and customise, 
5) Reinforce sense of civic duty and collectiveness, 
6) Get pre-commitment from citizens, 
7) Learn to experiment, and experiment to learn.

Reflection: I knew most of the theory and have certainly tried to apply the seven techniques when I could. In UK national and local politics, it is generally left to the political parties to get out their vote, rather than there being a general "please vote" campaign. In student elections, it is also normally left to the candidates to get people to vote. "None of the above" or "Re-open nominations" options do not encourage people to vote. There should be centrally funded campaigns to encourage voting.


Quiz
The MOOC includes weekly quizzes. There are ten questions. For my first attempt, I took a closed book approach and got ten correct!


Previous MOOC blog posts:

No comments:

Post a Comment