Introducing Humanism: Non-religious Approaches to Life - Week 2

I am doing a MOOC on humanism from Humanists UK. 

Here are my thoughts on week 2:

If more than one theory fits the evidence, how can we choose between them?
Different theories should make different predictions which can then be tested to identify which should be preferred.

Does science provide us with the best way of answering questions about the world? Does it provide the best way to give ourselves the highest probability of our beliefs being true?
Science is an approach which helps answer questions about the physical world. It doesn't answer questions about beliefs relating to morals or politics i.e. questions about the non-physical aspects of life.

Does a scientific understanding of nature leave any room for religion when it comes to answering questions about the natural world?
Science hasn't resolved every question relating to the natural world so there there is some uncertainty in our understanding. That uncertainty can be filled with many theories in the short term but over time science will identify the most reliable theory - basically there is room for religious possible answers until a scientific understanding has been developed.

Are there questions science will never be able to answer? If so, does this mean we need religion to provide the answers?
There are questions that science has not answered yet and is unlikely to ever do so (I have learnt to never say never!). I don't think we need religion to provide answers to those questions but religions can provide multiple answers to those questions, as can non-religious approaches.

Introducing Humanism: Non-religious Approaches to Life - Week 1

I am doing a MOOC on humanism from Humanists UK. 

Here are my thoughts on week 1:

What am I hoping to get out of the course?
Whilst i have some understanding of humanist thinking, i want to expand that understanding and be more confident in being able to discuss/argue about it publicly.

What is humanism?
Responses include:

• Living ethically, 
• not believing in a god or gods, 
• thinking of others, 
• not believing in an afterlife, 
• living our one life positively, 
• supporting human rights, 
• scepticism, 
• empathy, 
• evidence-based

The responses fall into two categories: how humanists try to live their lives (ethically, empathetically, supporting human rights, etc.) and what humanists don't believe in (no god or gods, no afterlife, no ghosts, etc.).

A humanist is someone who doesn’t think there’s any supernatural side to this universe we're living in but thinks the universe is a natural phenomenon. They believe morality comes from us, not imposed from a supernatural body. The starting point of our reality comes from our senses. It is also an evidence-based approach. There is no life after death. The meaning of our lives comes from ourselves and is therefore different for everyone. Moral decisions take place in a context of other people's feelings and the implications of the decisions. Humanism is not secularism (the belief in the separation of religion and the state) but they can overlap in many people.

What does it mean to be a human being? 
Physically we are mammals that have evolved to stand on two legs and use our hands to manipulate tools. Internally, we are self-aware and want to develop our individual interests.

International Affairs: Global Governance - Week 4

I am doing a MOOC on global governance from The Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. 

Here are my thoughts on week 4:

Blending global governance instruments
Different fields have taken different approached. Food standards have been embedded into the WTO. Labour standards have not, although the USA incorporates them into free trade agreements. different blends in different fields!

Summary
I found the MOOC quite interesting. It introduced me to new terminology (hard and soft laws) and how they are combined differently in different fields.

International Affairs: Global Governance - Week 3

I am doing a MOOC on global governance from The Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. 

Here are my thoughts on week 3:

Hard Laws and Soft Laws
A hard law is a treaty/agreement which is agreed by national bodies and contains rights and responsibilities. An example of this is the European Convention on Human Rights which is an international treaty which created a court which can penalise national bodies if judgements go against them.

A soft law is a resolution passed by an international body, which national bodies voluntarily choose to follow. An example of this is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly. Whilst it affirms a number of rights, they are not legally enforceable.

The arguments in favour of a hard law (and therefore against a soft law) include:
 - they are legally enforceable
 - there is a single interpretation of the law
 - if a national government changes, the law still has to be implemented

The arguments in favour of a soft law (and therefore against a hard law) include:
 - A national body can work towards compliance without being penalised
 - A government has to choose to comply rather than having compliance imposed on them - embedding the policy within the nation
 - Nations can customise their compliance mechanisms to suit their situation

When should hard or soft law be used?
Hard laws should be for enforcement and sanctions. Soft laws should expand and clarify the hard laws e.g. exemptions or an evolving standard that you don't want to make permanent yet. Soft laws might be all that is possible politically at a certain time.

The advantages of soft law
Soft laws can be preludes to hard laws to prepare the ground politically. They are easier to create and amend over time. You don't need hard laws if a soft law will lead to compliance e.g. Basel and banking.

International Affairs: Global Governance - Week 2

I am doing a MOOC on global governance from The Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. 

Here are my thoughts on the week 2:

What's the biggest challenge facing the world today?
War, Poverty, Climate Change, Inequality, Terrorism, or Other?
I chose inequality but they are all interrelated and can't be resolved individually.

How to address global problems?
Some problems (e.g. trade and environmental problems, or terrorism) need a multinational response
Does an emphasis on nation-state activities hinder action at a lower level (e.g. US states vs the US on climate change)? Probably, and only going to get worse

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
Sustainable Development Goal 17 calls for partnerships between governments, the private sector and civil society
https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/fact-sheets/lgbt-global-development-partnership
The LGBTI Global Development Partnership is a partnership between the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Swedish International Development
Cooperation Agency (Sida) and a range of other partners to support LGBTI human rights and development in 14 countries around the world.

Global governance and the role of nation-states
Should they give up power to larger entities? Citizens feel disconnected from nation-states already, let alone larger entities
Could they devolve powers to cities and regions? Unlikely to give up power!

What are your views on the future of the nation state?
There is pressure to integrate states to include multiple nations (e.g. the EU) but also pressure to split states into single nations (e.g. Scottish independence from the UK).
I would love to see more of the former, to create larger democracies able to stand up to global corporations and resolve global problems but i fear that populist nationalism will lead to more fragmentation and lower the effectiveness of global solutions (by many states opting out of solutions)

International Affairs: Global Governance - Week 1

I am doing a MOOC on global governance from The Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. 

Here are my thoughts on the week 1:

What is Global Governance?
My one word answer: Diplomacy
A framework of values, institutions and agreements to manage international trade and other activities
Temptation to do "deals" rather than "rules" - too much power for richer nations
"Global governance is the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs, as long as those affairs have effect or implications beyond national borders."
Visible - meetings and summits
Invisible - technical outputs of agencies

WTO Summits
Ministerial meetings catalyses other activities
Challenges - logistical and getting consensus at one time
Summits progress day-to-day activities of the WTO

Ad-hoc vs regular summits
Ad-hoc summits would include those focused on a specific topic e.g. Iranian nuclear situation.
Regular summits would include annual organisational meetings e.g. G20.
Summits/organisations combining the two categories would could include some of the summits following the Kyoto treaty (I think they are called Conferences of the Parties) in that they are annual meetings but the specific agenda for each meeting changes.

Invisible governance - standards
Internationally recognised standards - e.g. ISBN code on books - International Standard Book Number
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), a private standard setting organisation with headquarters in Geneva

Engaging Citizens - Week 4 - Innovations in Citizen Engagement

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 4:

Video 1: ICT-Enabled Citizen Engagement

What is meant by ICT? Community radio, internet, mobile phones, social media, SMS, mobile apps, crowdsourcing technology, community mapping, and social computing. 

1) How can the potential of ICTs be translated into real enhancements? Programs must go beyond access to technology and instead strengthen the capabilities of people to use ICTs in a meaningful way.How can we develop an impact chain on the link between ICTs and peoples' human development? a) Information needs assessment and existing communication ecologies. b) Who has access? c) Does this now translate into enhancements in political, economic and social rights?

2) Can ICT enhance accountability and close the feedback loop? ICT can build accountability by: Supporting the two-way flow of information, Reducing information asymmetries, Facilitating recurring interaction.

3) What is the specific value that ICT brings to citizen engagement? Radical openness, Effectiveness, Timeliness, Directness, Inclusiveness, Collaboration. 

4) What are the early lessons on how to implement ICT-enabled citizen engagement? Technology is not a panacea for development. ICT-mediated mechanisms should be designed in response to a clearly defined goal. The selection of appropriate technological solutions is critical and has to be context specific. To ensure the scalability and sustainability of ICT-enabled initiatives, the deployment of ICT tools should follow and iterative and incremental approach. 

Reflection:

In the UK there is access to ICT (internet and mobile phones) therefore ICT initiatives will be software-based e.g. Lobby a Lord (re: same-sex marriage) at UK level and Contact your Northampton Borough Councillors at a local level. These certainly show directness and timeliness.

Video 2: Identifying the Gaps between Citizens and Governments

Are central governments or local governments more responsive to citizen needs? Optimists claim that decentralisation increases citizen participation & governmental accountability, and improves allocative efficiency & generates greater equity in service distribution. Pessimists claim that decentralisation is too susceptible to elite capture (powerful individuals diverting state resources to their own ends), and lacks the resources needed to provide efficient and responsive public services. How can governments overcome the challenges of elite capture and limited capacity to create more inclusive (rather than extractive) institutions? How can the mismatch between government spending and citizens' needs be resolved? The simple adoption of participatory budgeting does not translate into automatic welfare improvements.

Reflection:

The UK is very centralised, with limited autonomy in local government (to avoid a "postcode lottery"). The voting system of First Past the Post has resulted in virtual one-party states in local government - elite capture in a sense. There is a definite distance between citizens and government, only slightly breached at election time.

Video 3: Bridging the Gaps between Citizens and Governments

E-Governance refers to the usage of ICT to:

1) Increase administrative efficiency, and

2) Improve the interface between government and citizens by increasing the transparency and accountability of government processes.

By losing sight of the human development approach, many ICT-heavy citizen engagement initiatives have fallen short.

Case study 1: Karnataka - National Rural Health Mission - combination of ICT-heavy and ICT-light approaches. Although technological capabilities made data more transparent, in this case it did not lead to improvements in data quality and, importantly, timeliness. Resulted in reinforcement of hierarchical decision making structures. In contrast, the (non-ICT) Village Health and Sanitation Committees have become a key forum to mediate between primary health centres and the communities they serve.

Case study 2: Tanzania - Giving smart phones to health workers in villages to gather data. Despite poor ICT infrastructure (low upload/download speeds), data collected was useful for planning and decision making. Two-way information flows, as well as integrating new information and data into existing bureaucratic systems, tailored to the specific context, are both critical in bridging the relationship between citizens and governments. 

Reflection:

More computers/software is not the answer to every problem. In the UK, large ICT-initiatives tend to fail or go way over budget (e.g. Universal credit). We should aim for evolution, not revolution.

Video 4: Does ICT Work in the Real World?

Technology is the medium, it's not the end in itself. It's just a way to coordinate efforts. Map your own community and pick the right tools for you. Liking on Facebook does not equal social change. Don't force technology on your community. There is a divide between "digital natives" and "digital immigrants" when approaching new technology/ICT. Digital immigrants' tend to show a lot of resistance to technology. Just make it simple. Need to be inclusive. Community of geeks and community of social activists - need people who are members of both communities. If you have financial problems, technology is key. Technology allows no room for improvisation (e.g. elections). Failure happens when you are not ready - test, improve, test again!

Reflection:

There are lots of ICT initiatives in the UK at the moment, linked to the general election (e.g. vote match). These tend to be simple and clear. I know some geeks and I know some social activists and they are definitely two different populations but there are some great people who are both.

Video 5: Course Summary

A good summary of all the previous talks.

Video 6: Course Takeaways

1. Citizen engagement, when done well, is a very powerful vehicle to create meaningful change and improve development outcomes.

2. Beyond its instrumental value, citizen engagement also holds intrinsic value and is a cornerstone of political rights and human dignity.

3. Despite the benefits that citizen engagement programs can bring, there is no template or one-size-fits-all approach that can be applied everywhere.

4. Strategic citizen engagement programs, which are long-term and multifaceted, tend to work better than tactical and short-term programs.

5. It is important not to do things just for the sake of doing them. Instead, we must start with a clear objective.

6. Technology can greatly increase the scalability and reach of citizen engagement programs, as well as increase efficiency and reduce participation costs. However, it cannot fundamentally alter the relationship between governments and citizens on its own.

7. We should not expect overnight solutions or silver bullets. Nevertheless, we should continue to experiment, share, and learn, and strive to build a more open, citizen-centric approach to government.

Reflection:

Lots for me to think about!

Quiz

1st attempt 8/10

2nd attempt 10/10 :-) 

Previous MOOC blog posts:

Engaging Citizens: A Game Changer for Development? - Week 0

Engaging Citizens - Week 1 - Theories and mechanisms

Engaging Citizens - Week 2 - Improved Policymaking

Engaging Citizens - Week 3 - Public Service Delivery

How effective are public consultations? Questions for elected representatives to consider (Engaging Citizens - Final Project)

How effective are public consultations? Questions for elected representatives to consider (Engaging Citizens - Final Project)

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.

The overall objective of the final assignment is:

To design a theoretical citizen engagement initiative to improve policymaking and/or public service delivery in your local community, city or country, and then to creatively express how this might look in the real world through the creation of a digital artefact.

Here are my answers to the five questions about the proposed initiative:

1. What are you trying to achieve?

In UK local politics, elected representatives regularly make decisions on a range of issues. Some decisions are made following public consultations (normally organised by the local council). Elected representatives are presented with the outcome of the consultation and are then expected to vote on the decision. My initiative is to produce a set of questions that elected representatives could use when considering public consultations. The aim would be to improve policymaking by empowering elected representatives to demand better public consultations to inform their decisions. I have adapted the participatory design elements and propositions identified in the paper “Putting the “Public” Back in Public Values Research: Designing Participation to Identify and Respond to Values” (Nabatchi 2012) into seven questions. The questions could be promoted online to raise awareness, with the ability for interested people to download their own version. The questions could also be used by civil society groups to give positive feedback to those bodies organising public consultations, to improve the quality of future consultations.

2. Who are the key players?

The promoter of the initiative would be one of the various local government think tanks in the UK. The questions could be used as part of a larger campaign for improving local government generally, improving the planning process, or improving the effectiveness of local councillors. The initial target audience would be elected representatives on the Planning Committee of each local authority. They could be recruited through the Local Government Association (http://www.local.gov.uk/), a politically-led, cross-party organisation that works on behalf of local councils. An alternative route would be through the political parties that they belong to (e.g. Association of Labour Councillors http://lgalabour.local.gov.uk/alc).

3. How does it work?

The initiative is simply to provide a set of questions for elected representatives to use when discussing public consultations. It is then up to the representatives to decide the appropriate time to ask the questions and how to respond to the answers. The questions would be hosted online, ideally on websites belonging to a range of organisations (both political organisations and civil society organisations). The questions could also be included in newsletters, magazines or other documents that are sent to elected representatives. Wherever the questions are available, there should also be an opportunity for the elected representative to give some feedback.

4. What are the risks and opportunities?

The main risk is that the initiative is ignored by the elected representatives, either by not being aware of its existence or not thinking that the questions are useful. A communication strategy would minimise the risk of lack of awareness. The usefulness of the questions should be tested in advance in a pilot study. The questions should be presented to a small group of elected representatives from a range of councils and of different political parties, and asking for feedback. This could be either a virtual or face-to-face event. The opportunities that could be leveraged to maximise the potential of the initiative include it being included as part of a national campaign by a civil society group with an interest in planning (e.g. the Campaign to Protect Rural England http://www.cpre.org.uk/) or organisations for elected representatives (e.g. the Local Government Association (http://www.local.gov.uk/).

5. How will you know if it is successful?

The success of the initiative could be measured in two dimensions: awareness and usefulness. The first dimension would be the awareness of the questions by the elected representatives. This could be measured directly (by surveying the elected representatives) or indirectly (e.g. measuring the number of downloads). The usefulness of the questions could be measured in the short term (did they help the representative when they were discussing the consultation?) and in the medium term (did using the questions improve subsequent consultations?). After the short term feedback, the questions could be revised to improve their usefulness. 

Previous MOOC blog posts:

Engaging Citizens: A Game Changer for Development? - Week 0

Engaging Citizens - Week 1 - Theories and mechanisms

Engaging Citizens - Week 2 - Improved Policymaking

Engaging Citizens - Week 3 - Public Service Delivery

Engaging Citizens - Week 3 - Public Service Delivery

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 3:

Video 1: The Role of Accountability in Service Delivery

Governments are meant to be elected by and serve the people. The Accountability Triangle: Poor people communicate with Policymakers who communicate with Service Providers (Long route of accountability), or Poor people directly communicate with Service Providers (Short route of accountability). Preconditions of the short route of accountability are Information (from providers) and Feedback (from citizens). Information needs to be Relevant, Localized, Accessible, Reliable and accurate, and Sustained and consistent. The benefits of feedback on service delivery include the ability to identify problems quickly, and ability to identify what is going well and who is making things work. If you ask for feedback and don't take it seriously, then you breed cynicism. Common myths of citizen engagement include: 1) Citizen engagement will solve all problems, 2) Technology is a game changer, 3) We can avoid politics. 

Reflection: My perception is that people feel that services are not accountable to them at UK and local government level. There is annual information from local government about council income and expenditure in council tax bills. I don't think there is an equivalent at UK level. There is no opportunity to give feedback on government information. There are occasional consultations on developments but nothing sustained over time. My perception is that students do feel closer to services in higher education (or at least they are regularly surveyed about them and know how to complain about them). Student feedback is sought on academic but not management issues. Could students and members of staff help make better management decisions?

Video 2: Methods and Tools for Accountability in Service Delivery

Services are normally the outputs of a cycle of Legislation, Design, Implementation, Monitoring, Evaluation, Legislation etc. Citizens can engage at all stages. Tools for accountability include: 1) Right to Information laws (used by NGOs to inform citizens about elected representatives). 2) Social audits (citizens use information from the state to place direct demands for accountability on the state i.e. at public meetings). These can raise awareness, empower citizens in engaging with the state, but addressing grievances can be slow. 3) Monitoring outcomes (regular surveys can inform debate).

Reflection: Both UK and local governments have Freedom of Information processes but not really an equivalent to social audits. NGOs (and others) can get some information but I'm not aware them collecting data to inform policy. In higher education, the Freedom of Information act also applies. Student forums are similar to social audits but I am not sure what information they actually receive (some student survey results?). External organisations do use the information (e.g. newspaper league tables, surveys of appeals and complaints etc.). The people that run the services do want student feedback but i am not sure how often the feedback loop is closed (e.g. "You said..., we did...").

Video 3: Case Study: Twaweza's Uwezo Initiative

There has been a huge increase in enrolment at primary and secondary schools in Tanzania, Kenya, and Uganda, but are children learning? 20% students in grade 7 could not pass a grade 2 test! The Uwezo initiative is a standard test across countries to measure attainment. Local residents volunteer as citizen researchers. Paid district co-ordinators organise the volunteers. Parents are given immediate feedback to encourage action to challenge low achievement in schools. However parents were not as active as expected in response. This was because they already knew the problem and were already trying to improve things on an individual basis but they felt that they had no power over teachers. However making the national information public gave parents collective power. The result was a national dialogue about the issue. 

Reflection: It is hard to apply the initiative to the UK where there is effective state education. However there are some principles to reflect on: 1) Local residents can be local data collectors. 2) Giving people information does not necessarily make people activists. 3) People already know local information but not necessarily national information. 4) National information/data makes a problem less personal and therefore more likely to be approached impartially. None of the four principles seem to be applied in UK government, local government or higher education.

Video 4: Breaking Views UNICEF Interviews Danny Sriskandarajah

African governments have traditionally had a lack of resources and lack of trust by their citizens. There has been a growth of citizen collective action to fill gaps. The role of citizens and civil society organisations has expanded over time. Some citizens have been given tools to hold state accountable (e.g. reporting that a teacher has not turned up). If there is no response by the state then frustrations build up, possibly into violence. Young people are active in using tools to hold governments accountable between formal elections.

Reflection: Even in UK, there have been some developments between elections, e.g referenda (AV and devolution at national level, council tax at local level). Higher education still uses periodic student surveys rather than students providing data on a more continuous basis. 

Quiz

1st attempt 8/10

2nd attempt 10/10

Short answer question

There was an assessment due this week - 600 words on:

Is citizen engagement a game changer for development? Argue your case by referencing the concepts, theoretical frameworks and examples highlighted in this course.

Although i would like to have attempted this, i have not had the time to do most of the reading this week, let alone additional writing. I might do a blog post on this at the end of the course, to summarise my thoughts. On reflection, I could have set some reminders and planned the assessment in advance of the deadline.

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:

Video 1: How Citizen Engagement Improves Policymaking

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?

Video 2: Strategies for Recruitment and Participation

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.

Video 3: Crowdsourcing Public Policy

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.

Video 4: Why People Participate

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:

Engaging Citizens: A Game Changer for Development? - Week 0

Engaging Citizens - Week 1 - Theories and mechanisms

Engaging Citizens - Week 1 - Theories and mechanisms

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 1:

Video 1: Citizen Engagement: History and Definitions

Citizen engagement has a long history from Athenian democracy to Islamic Shuras to modern participatory budgeting. The basic concept is that governments derive their authority from their people so have a responsibility to respond to their needs. The course defines citizen engagement as "the two-way interaction between citizens and government or the private sector that gives citizens a stake in decision-making, with the objective of improving development outcomes". The course defines citizens in a non-legal sense i.e. everyone in a geographical area (including minorities and excluded groups).The simple model of citizen engagement is: government shares information, then citizens give feedback, then finally government takes action. There is a scale of engagement from consultation to collaboration to participation to empowerment. 

Reflecting on the video, I can identify the various groups of citizens in my examples: for UK politics - all residents, for local politics - residents and workers, and for higher education - students. It is easy to identify residents and students but much harder to identify workers. I work in Coventry but don't live in the city. I have lots of opinions on local issues (mainly about transport) but I have never been asked my opinion and doubt I ever will be.

Video 2: Citizen Engagement: Theories and Mechanisms

The long-standing mechanism for citizen engagement is elections but this is a blunt instrument. A alternative mechanism is "invited spaces of participation" (e.g. making constitutions and budget making) - basically activities that take place between elections. The role of civil society organisations (NGOs) is to channel the citizen voice to elected officials. Is the value of citizen engagement an intrinsic good (i.e. an objective in itself) or an instrumental good (i.e. a tool to meet other objectives)? Mechanisms for feedback do not automatically lead to engagement.

In UK politics, there are elections but there aren't any invited spaces of participation. In local politics, there are elections and there are some invited spaces e.g. planning inquiries and council petition. In higher education, there are elections to student representative positions (in Students' Unions and as course reps). There are also regular invited spaces such as student forums and focus groups. I think all the mechanisms treat citizen engagement as an intrinsic good - engagement is beneficial to residents and students, whatever the outcome.

Video 3: Context and the Enabling Environment

Citizen engagement is not a set of activities that can be replicated in any country - the national context matters. Social accountability is the extent and capability of citizens to hold the state accountable and make it responsive to their needs. This is not the exactly the same as citizen engagement but related. There are five elements of citizen engagement: Citizen action, State action, Civic mobilization (e.g. by NGOs), Citizen-State interface, and Information. The process is iterative and non-linear. The role of the state is to be an enabling environment, offer diverse avenues of accountability, and support citizen engagement approaches. The capacity of the state to respond to citizen demands will determine the outcome of citizen engagement initiatives. The national context will include political society (the nature of the state and rule of law), the state-society relationship, civil society (the capacity and networking ability of civil society organisations), cultural norms and global factors. Drivers of citizen action include awareness and salience of issue, intrinsic motivation, efficacy, capacity for collective action, and the cost of inaction. Drivers of state action include awareness, ability to resolve issue, attitude to responding to civil society demands, intrinsic motivation, and the cost of inaction (for elected and non-elected officials). Drivers of information include accessibility, framing of the information, and trustworthiness. Drivers of interface include awareness, credibility, mediation, and capability. Drivers of civic mobilization include awareness, capability, networks and credibility.

On reflection, citizen engagement is an iterative process with multiple actors. It is easy to identify the five elements in UK politics and higher education. There is a lack of civic mobilization in local politics as political parties and campaign/resident groups are patchy.

Video 4: Rethinking The Evidence: Tactical vs. Strategic Approaches

Studies on the impact of citizen engagement show mixed results. There are basically two approaches: Tactical (short term, using one tool at a local level) and Strategic (long term, using multiple tools and scaled up from local). The tactical approach assumes that providing more information will result in local action which will stimulate national action. Studies of engagement with low impacts has shown that information is not enough, that bottom-up oversight does not limit corruption and that imposed local decision making can be captured by local elites. The strategic approach assumes that actionable accessible information can motivate action, only democratic decentralisation bring government closer to the people, and community monitoring can reduce corruption when paired with oversight from above. The concept of Voice - the aggregation and representation of the views of under-represented citizens. The concept of Teeth - the government capacity for responsiveness. There is a need for both voice and teeth - citizen engagement paired with reforms to encourage government responses.

On reflection, too many citizen engagement initiatives are tactical, box-ticking "consultations" - in UK and local politics and in higher education. We should want a strategic approach to citizen engagement - reflecting the intrinsic benefit and a long term approach. We should beware of local elites (e.g. residents' group, students' union sabbatical officers) - are they representing all citizens?

Video 5: Does Citizen Engagement Really Make a Difference?

Citizen engagement increases citizen voice and power AND helps groups work together. There is an impact at both the macro and micro levels in multiple dimensions. The barriers to citizen engagement include how citizens engage (traditional) AND how institutions respond (the biggest issue). Changing national policies takes time (15-20 years!). Citizens create their own spaces (formal and informal) to develop voice. National contexts matter.

On reflection, citizens need to see positive reinforcement of citizen engagement. Institutions must be seen to be responding. Campaigns should identify quick wins to keep up momentum. I'm glad I live in (a mostly) democratic society so change does happen (e.g. same-sex marriage in five years thanks to the Lib Dems).

Localizing Development: Does Participation Work?

John Stuart Mill said "universal suffrage and national participation are of little use unless citizens have been prepared for participation at a local level". Preparation makes citizens able to understand the public good. Mohandas Gandi described the village-republic model, emblematic of perfect democracy. The colonial legacies of decentralization was local administrative rule. In the 1950s international aid was community development. This was perceived to have failed - not sure why - elite capture or lack of partnership. In the 1960s and 1970s international aid focussed on agricultural and industrial growth. This was centralized and representative democracy (governments) rather than participatory democracy (citizens). By the 1980s top-down development was seen as performing poorly with significant environmental damage and poverty. There was a move to community-driven development. In the 1990s there were pro-democracy movements and radical redistribution of power in some countries. This resulted in democratic decentralization and better governance. Organic participation includes bottom-up social movements (including trade unions). Induced participation include top-down structures. These can be scaled up organic structures. Possible participation structures include political decentralization (local elections), deconcentration (local administration), and community-driven development (external funding of projects).

On reflection, the UK should look at supporting political decentralization at home as well as abroad!

Quiz

The MOOC includes weekly quizzes. There are ten questions. For my first attempt, I took a closed book approach and got six correct. I did some revision and tried again with a closed book approach and got nine correct. On reflection, i might try an open book approach in future weeks!

Previous MOOC blog posts:

Engaging Citizens: A Game Changer for Development? - Week 0