Our "Tech-Savvy Citizenry" Session

As many of my friends know, I’ll be leading a session with Joe Peters of Ascentum at the upcoming “No Better Time” conference on participatory democracy. The session I’m a part of is called “Tech-Savvy Citizenry.”

Here is the session description:

A tech-savvy citizenry: New media for public participation, policy deliberation, and social change

Facebook and other social networks. Online video. Twitter. Online neighborhood forums. Technology is already reshaping deliberative democracy. What are the most promising tools and resources now available, and where is the potential for future innovation? What technologies work best for local democracy, for national democracy, for community organizing, and so on? In this session, we’ll examine what’s hot, what’s tried and true, and what’s tried – and failed. We’ll also consider the kinds of skills citizens need – and students should acquire – in order to be active participants in a tech-savvy democracy.

There are a lot of ways someone could go with this, and we’ve gone back and forth. The session is still evolving, but I am pretty excited about where we have ended up so far.

The No Better Time conference is July 8-11
The No Better Time conference is July 8-11

I wanted to get some of my thoughts down to set the stage and also to help me clarify my ideas. Disclaimer: All this is provisional and Joe and I might jettison it at the last minute and just hold class outside!

Tools, Purpose

At my Facebook discussion on this subject, Hildy Gottlieb makes a good point: “Where I see groups do well, their planning sees technology as just one of many tools to use in creating an engaged citizenry. Where I see it done less than well, folks are focusing first on the tools.”

It’s tempting to think about the session as a survey of the “tools available.” But there are a few pitfalls there. First, we are not experts in all social media (far from it). Second, it could throw us into the trap that Hildy describes, where we let the tail wag the dog. Third — and this is not a small concern — it could get pretty dry.

So we needed a different way to “cut” the session. We hit upon rooting the whole thing in purpose. There is a range of intentions we might have when we engage the public:

  • Educate
  • Advocate
  • Gather Input
  • Organize
  • Engage

While we can use social media tools in with any one of these purposes in mind, we very well might use them in different ways, depending on what we are up to. So, for instance, if my purpose is to educate people, I will use my blog in a very different way than I would if my purpose is to gather input in order to make a decision.

Just A Tool

Here’s a great illustration in a post by Hildy:

Imagine this conversation.

“I am thinking about getting a phone. Who should I call? What should I say to them? How long before the phone will help us reach our goals?”

Sounds silly, of course – but that is really what we are asking when we ask, “What should I talk about on Twitter or Facebook or MySpace?”

Just like a telephone, Social Media is simply a tool (or more accurately a group of tools) that can help facilitate engagement.

So this brings us to an important point: While it’s important to know how to use the tools, it’s more important for people to get a sense of what to use the tools for.

Building A Framework

We also are well aware that there are going to be some very savvy people at the conference. They may well have a range of familiarity when it comes to social media tools, but they will have a strong grounding in civic participation and dialogue. We can use that!

So we began thinking, what if we put enough on the table, so to speak, so that we can get people involved in creating a simple (and provisional) framework that everyone can walk away with.

In other words, we would develop — there in the room, on the fly — some ideas about what it might look like to use blogs (or Facebook, or Twitter, or YouTube, etc.) for organizing vs. for advocacy vs. for engagement.

So, that’s the broad brushstrokes of what we will be doing next week in New Hampshire. If you are attending the No Better Time conference, consider coming to our session! It will be Thursday afternoon at 1:30.


Posted

in

,

by

Comments

5 responses to “Our "Tech-Savvy Citizenry" Session”

  1. I agree. IAP2’s spectrum is just one possible approach to add structure to a tool/process mapping of sorts, and their focus is slightly different (and probably a bit more narrow) than what you’ve outlined above. For example, they put little to no emphasis on advocacy as far as I’m aware.

    No matter what the approach, though, I think it’s important to develop these kinds of frameworks. One challenge I see with many of the projects I’ve been following over the past couple of years is that they often seem unaware of the limitations of their tools of choice.

  2. bradrourke

    Tim, I did see your Slideshare and I thought it was good! The IAP2 spectrum is good too and I see ways they can map onto one another.

    One difference I see is that the IA2 spectrum seems geared towards answering why government might want to work with the public, and the ones we have set out are agnostic about what kind of organization is doing the engagement (gov or non-gov in other words).

    Joe and I do plan to bring some materials (ideas, really) developed around the purposes we’ve set out, but we’re not meaning them to be prescriptive in any way.

  3. In terms of evaluating a tool’s usefulness for serving a range of purposes, IAP2’s Spectrum of Public Participation (download PDF) might be another good starting point. Here’s how they slice things:

    Inform — To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions.

    Consult – To obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions.

    Involve – To work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered.

    Collaborate – To partner with the public in each aspect of the decision including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution.

    Empower – To place final decision-making in the hands of the public.

    For a high-level comparison of five recent e-participation efforts at the input gathering or “consult” level, see my presentation: Off-the-Shelf E-Participation? Five Recent Examples

    Look forward to discussing this in more detail at the conference next week!

  4. bradrourke

    Greg, looking forward to seeing you!

    Bring these challenges so we can make sure we talk about them as a group — they are archetypal, I think.

  5. Greg Nelson

    I will be attending your session. It was what I suggested to Matt in November at the Orlando gathering. It’s taking a lot of effort, but I’m beginning to understand how to use wikis and some other social media. Still haven’t figured out Twitter. My two biggest challenges in Los Angeles are (1) finding a simple “how to” guide to social media that I can make available to our neighborhood councils and City Hall, where the use of communication technology stopped with e-mail, and (2) understanding how to connect the dots for the neighborhood councils by showing them how these tools, which are understood by many to just be a way that teenagers gossip, can be used to help them accomplish their goals.

    Greg Nelson

Leave a comment