Centre for Digital Citizenship Institute of Communications Studies The Internet, Web2.0 and ‘having your say’ Ann Macintosh Professor of Digital Governance “ Now is the time to shift our view of computers from communications medium to negotiation medium, from knowledge processing to interest processing” Carl Adam Petri, 1962

Can digital technologies help citizens to participate in government as well as to elect it?

Overview  Context: the need for deliberative engagement  What’s gone before: a decade of online public engagement  Socio-technical challenges  On-going research

Context: Three starting points Hay, C Why we hate Politics. Cambridge. Polity Press. Stoker, G Why Politics Matters: Making Democracy Work. Palgrave Macmillan Fishkin, J.S Democracy and deliberation. Yale University Press. Dryzek, J.S Deliberative democracy and beyond. Oxford University Press Blumler, J.G. & M. Gurevitch The New Media and Our Political Communication Discontents: Cyberspace. Information, Communication & Society 4(1) Dahlgren, P The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2)

Potential for technology to enhance democracy Not a new research area: e.g.  Dutton, W. H.: Political Science Research on Teledemocracy. Social Science Computer Review 1992  Hague, B. N., & Loader, B. D. Digital democracy: An introduction e.g. Recent survey:  Panopoulou E., Tambouris E., Tarabanis K.: eParticipation initiatives: How is Europe progressing? European Journal of ePractice 2009 Real-world online engagement initiatives

Example from 2002 Macintosh A. & Smith, E Citizen Participation in Public Affairs. Proceedings of 1 st International Conference on Electronic Government eGOV2002. France.

2002 example: forum

Example from 2007 Fagan, H., McCusker, P., Murray, M., Newman. D.R. & O’Donnell, D. (2007). Evaluation of the Houses of the Oireachtas Pilot e-Consultation for Proposed Broadcasting Bill.

2007 example: forum

2010 Example: Web2.0 /

Potential for technology to enhance democracy –> so far not realised Expecting too much of government & politicians Macintosh, A., Coleman, S. & Schneeberger, A. (2009). eParticipation: The Research Gaps. In Macintosh, A. & Tambouris, E. (Eds), Electronic Participation: Proceedings of First International Conference, ePart 2009, LNCS (pp.1-11). Germany: Springer-Verlag. ISSN Expecting too much of technology Expecting too much of citizens

Complexity of policy development How do you tackle urban deprivation? How do you end international drug trafficking? What do you do about climate change? Rittel, H.W.J., and M. M. Webber Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4: Not easily defined No clear stopping rules No right or wrong approach No clear measures of success An iterative process Solution are discovered Each are unique Level of detail a matter of judgement Strong moral & political pressure against failure.

Complexity of policy development R. Roger (2009) Mapping Public Web Space with the Issuecrawler. In Brossard C. & Reber B. (Eds.), Digital Cognitive Technologies: Epistemology and Knowledge Society. London: Wiley Policy issues discussed on social network sites

Some socio-technical questions  Make sense of unstructured text  Know what critical questions to ask  Identify which issues are important  Facilitate reasoned contributions  Determine relationships between contributions to policy development How to

Argument mapping: making sense of complex problems Visualisation language

Example from Scottish Parliament: Banning smoking in public places

Example from Scottish Parliament Renton, A. & Macintosh, A. (2007). Computer Supported Argument Maps as a Policy Memory. The Information Society Journal, 23(2),

IMPACT : Integrated Method for Policy making using Argument modelling & Computer assisted Text analysis  Argument mining – machine learning & data mining algorithms, to support reconstruction of arguments from information sources.  Policy modeling & analysis – computational models of argumentation, to enable comparison between effects of different policy proposals.  Polling tool – computational models of argumentation, where questions are generated automatically from existing debate.  Argument analysis, tracking & visualization Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press.

Summarising The need for online deliberation around policy development Current socio-technical design does not meet this need Social networking sites are changing the shape of discussion on policy issues Argumentation systems have the potential to provide a deliberative environment

Conclusions  Coleman, S. & Blumler, J. G. (2009). The Internet and Democratic Citizenship. New York: Cambridge University Press  Macintosh, A., Gordon, T. F. & Renton, A. (2009). Providing Argument Support for eParticipation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, (JITP).6(1),  Okada, A., Buckingham Shum, S. & Sherborne, T. (Eds.), (2008). Knowledge Cartography: Software Tools and Mapping Techniques. T. Springer: Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing Series On-going research on how argumentation systems can add value to participatory policy development “How can vast numbers of people engage in collective talk without the voices of individuals being drowned out by the noise of the crowd?”

Centre for Digital Citizenship Institute of Communications Studies Thank you