Does SMS Make Engagement More Inclusive?

Posted on December 16, 2013 by Roshan Bliss

This cross-post from NCDD Member Tiago Piexoto’s tech and participation blog DemocracySpot reminds us that, as more and more public engagement efforts make use of SMS to reach broader audiences (like the Text, Talk, Act project of the NCDD-supported Creating Community Solutions initiative), we should keep asking “how well is this working?” That’s why we encourage you to read Tiago reflections on the results of a recent study looking at SMS participation’s impact on inclusiveness of engagement in Uganda, which holds useful insights for us here in the US. You can find his thoughts below or see the original here.

The Effect of SMS on Participation: Evidence from Uganda

I’ve been wanting to post about this paper for a while. At the intersection of technology and citizen participation this is probably one of the best studies produced in 2013 and I’m surprised I haven’t heard a lot about it outside the scholarly circle.

One of the fundamental questions concerning the use of technology to foster participation is whether it impacts inclusiveness and, if it does, in what way. That is, if technology has an effect on participation, does it reinforce or minimize participation biases? There is no straightforward answer, and the limited existing evidence suggests that the impact of technology on inclusiveness depends on a number of factors such as technology fit, institutional design and communication efforts.

If the answer to the question is “it depends”, then the more studies looking at the subject, the more we refine our understanding of how it works, when and why. The study, “Does Information Technology Flatten Interest Articulation? Evidence from Uganda” (Grossman, Humphreys, & Sacramone-Lutz, 2013), is a great contribution in that sense. The abstract is below (highlights are mine):

We use a field experiment to study how the availability and cost of political communication channels affect the efforts constituents take to influence their representatives. We presented sampled constituents in Uganda with an opportunity to send a text-message to their representatives at one of three randomly assigned prices. This allows us to ascertain whether ICTs can “flatten” interest articulation and how access costs determine who communicates and what gets communicated to politicians. Critically, contrary to concerns that technological innovations benefit the privileged, we find that ICT leads to significant flattening: a greater share of marginalized populations use this channel compared to existing political communication channels. Price matters too, as free messaging increase uptake by about 50%. Surprisingly, subsidy-induced increases in uptake do not yield further flattening since free channels are used at higher rates by both marginalized and well-connected constituents. More subtle strategic hypotheses find little support in the data.

But even if the question of “who participates” is answered in this paper, one is left wondering “as to what effect?”. Fortunately, the authors mention in a footnote that they are collecting data for a companion paper in which they focus on the behavior of MPs, which will hopefully address this issue. Looking forward to reading that one as well.

Video review of JCRC’s Year of Civil Discourse

Posted on December 14, 2013 by Sandy Heierbacher

I’m thrilled to share with you this wonderful video overview of Rachel Eryn Kalish‘s work on the Jewish Community Relations Council’s Year of Civil Discourse initiative. Congratulations, Eryn, on your incredible work with the Community Relations Council in Northern California.

Eryn is a long-time supporting member of NCDD, and we’re so very proud of her!

The Year of Civil Discourse (YCD) Initiative was designed to elevate the level of discourse in the Jewish community when discussing Israel. This innovative project is a joint effort of the Jewish Community Relations Council and the San Francisco-based Jewish Community Federation, in partnership with the Board of Rabbis of Northern California.

YCD envisions an inclusive Jewish community where people from across the political spectrum can come together, discuss challenging topics, inspire and empower one another, leading to a stronger and more vital Jewish community. YCD will provide Jewish community members, institutions, and leaders with the tools to have respectful, vibrant, engaging conversations about Israel and emerging controversial issues.

Randi Dodick Fields serves as Project Coordinator, Rachel Eryn Kalish is Project Facilitator, and Abby Michelson Porth is Associate Executive Director of the JCRC. (Eryn and Abby founded Project Reconnections, the catalyst to the Initiative.)

Funders for the Year of Civil Discourse Initiative included the Jewish Community Endowment Fund, the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund, and the Walter and Elise Haas Sr. Fund.

Why are BAD Words %$&#@!?

Posted on December 13, 2013 by Andy Fluke

I recently stumbled across the following video and was fascinated with some of the statistics presented in the first few minutes (does your community swear more than others? Looking at you Ohio!). But the entire video is equally fascinating. I’ve never been bothered by what others consider offensive language. They’re just words afterall… or are they? When civility is key to a successful dialogue, understanding the language of incivility becomes a necessary skill in every facilitator’s toolkit.

Michael, in the video above, mentions a lecture given by experimental psychologist Steven Pinker, also available on YouTube. It’s headier stuff than the Vsauce video, but worth a watch for those interested in the pschology of language. Pinker defines swearing as a window to a person’s emotions, and examines language as a window into human nature.

I would love to hear about how our community deals with “bad words”? Are they discouraged (or even forbidden) in your engagement processess? Or have you learned to work with them in a way that avoids disruption? Or are they even encouraged? Leave a comment and let us know!

Community Engagement Fellowship at Merrimack College

Posted on December 12, 2013 by Roshan Bliss

We wanted to share an announcement we saw recently about a graduate fellowship program we think some of our NCDD members might be interested in. Merrimack College’s Masters of Education program is offering a year-long, full tuition fellowship that focuses on community engagement – perfect for folks seeking to gain more theoretical grounding as well as experience in engagement. You can learn more from the announcement below or visit the fellowship page here.

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

I am pleased to announce that applications have opened for our 2014-2015 M.Ed. Community Engagement Fellowship programs. This is a full-tuition, 36-credit graduate fellowship leading to a Master’s in Community Engagement in one year. This program focuses on diversity, social justice, community development, and organizational change. Students gain a broad understanding of civic engagement in the nonprofit sector and pursue careers as nonprofit leaders, social change activists, and leaders in the national service learning movement. I would be grateful if you could pass this information on to your colleagues and interested individuals who may be interested in learning more about this program.

Highlights of our fellowship program:

The year-long fellowships cover all tuition costs.
Students take courses in the summer and evenings throughout the semesters as they engage in a site-based residency, gaining unparalleled hands-on field experience.
Students have a site mentor and a college supervisor throughout the fellowship.
Fellowships are open to all academic majors and backgrounds; bachelor’s degree is required.
Students earn a Master’s degree in one year.

Learn more about the Community Engagement program at Merrimack College:

Community Engagement Fellowship (one year program)
Community Engagement (full or part time program at your own pace)

Learn more at www.merrimack.edu/academics/graduate/fellowship-programs/community-engagement.php.

Group Decision Tip: Right to be wrong

Posted on December 12, 2013 by Craig Freshley

In principle, in relations among equals, people have a right to be wrong.

Often it is only by being wrong for a while – trying on an opinion that doesn’t fit — that one comes to realize what is truly right. Without the freedom to be wrong one is often in tension, discontent with the present, wishing for a different way.

When I think you are wrong and I am right, the question is not “How can I make you change?” but rather, “Given our different opinions, how shall I move forward peacefully?”

Practical Tip: If we disagree and I think you are wrong and I am right, it works well for me to say my opinion but it doesn’t work well for me to talk down to you or think bad of you. It works well for me to hear your opinion with a genuine desire to understand but it doesn’t work well for me to shut you down or write you off.

Let us acknowledge our different opinions but move forward anyway. Rather than stall and fight, let us either live with our differing opinions for a while, try on more opinions, and continue our dialogue with mutual respect; or let us go our different ways in peace.

Just like you have a right to be wrong, so do I, and it works well to be always mindful that perhaps I am.

Government Crowdstorming with the Public

Posted on December 11, 2013 by Susanna Haas Lyons

What ever you call it, crowdstorming, ideation, or online idea generation, it’s my observation that this technique is the second most often used online method for governments to engage the public, after social media (like Facebook and Twitter). Government hosted crowdstorming is usually focused on generating ideas, and sorting them by public preference via votes.

The latest uses of these tools move away from asking the public to contribute many, many ideas for the government to sort through and perhaps act on. Ideation is now commonly used for internal engagement where government employees can make suggestions for improving the workplace and work products. Ideation is also being used in challenge competitions where government agencies use prizes to stimulate innovation to advance their core missions.

Why So Popular?

Nonetheless, it’s a useful tool to gain public input in early stages of policy development or program design. Why is it so popular? Well, here’s a few thoughts:

Easy to participate at any level of commitment. You can vote on an idea, comment or submit an idea yourself
Transparent without the risk of needing to engage with everything you hear. Good moderation recognizes participation, encourages participants to define their ideas and why they are important, and ignores ranters/ragers/trolls.
Shared ownership with the community. The community decides what’s most popular. The convener decides what they are going to do with those ideas (e.g. host an ideaslam for the top 10, use a public list of criteria to select 3 out of the top 10 to receive funding, etc.)
Proven. It’s easier to convince your leadership or colleagues to take a risk by engaging the public online when others have done it before you.

Resources

Thinking about doing it yourself? Here’s a few great resources from IBM’s Center for the Business of Government:

Using Crowdsourcing In Government 2013
Federal Ideation Programs: Challenges and Best Practices 2013. This is about internal/ employee ideation by the US federal government, but there is still some interesting stuff here
Using Online Tools to Engage The Public. 2011
Assessing Public Participation in an Open Government Era. 2011

Top Five Considerations

Shaun Abrahmson, author of the book Crowdstorm: The Future of Innovation, Ideas, and Problem Solving, recently shared with the Huffingon Post his top five things to think about in setting up a project:

1. A great question – Solve a real problem, make it easy to communicate and share, and make it clear to potential participants

2. Rewards – How will you reward the best – sometimes tricky mix of good, attention, money, experience and stuff (games)

3. Recruiting – Your outcomes are only as good as your ability to reach and motivate loads of people who might be able to solve your problem

4. Choosing the best – You need to be clear on this so you can deliver fairly on your promises

5. Delivery – If you want to be able to work with crowds again, you need to be able to not just deliver rewards, but put the ideas/plans/prototypes into action (very often this is where crowdstorming fails)

Tools

There are lots of tools you can use for online crowdstorming including: IdeaScale, UserVoice, Spigit, Delib Dialogue App, Bubble Ideas, Salesforce Ideas, Mindmixer, Thoughtstream, OpenIdeo and more.

Examples

Here’s a small list of government-led ideation projects asking the public for their ideas. Know of others? Please leave them in the comments.

Government of BC Education Plan. 2012

USA Federal Communications Commission. 2010

UK Coalition Government’s Your Freedom Project, which was the world’s biggest ever political crowdsourcing project, gathering 10,000′s ideas from over 40,000 people, and with over 500,000 visits to the site
and the lessons learned from Delib, their engagement shop

City of Vancouver, Talk Green To Us. 2011
(not supported anymore so the layout is weird but the content is the same)

The following three were hosted by National Academy of Public Administration, which is a Congressionally chartered, non-profit, non-partisan institution

Open Government Dialogue on behalf of the Obama Administration. 2009
Lots was learned from this one, the highest profile test at that time

The National Dialogue On Health Information Technology and Privacy on behalf of the Bush Administration’s Office of Management and Budget
Disclosure: I worked on this
Video overview

The National Dialogue on Green and Healthy Homes on behalf of National Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning and the Department of Housing and Urban Development

Manor Labs, Texas

Improve San Francisco, 2010

Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygene. 2012
and a description from the vendor, Spigit

City of Seattle. Share YOUR ideas for a better Seattle. 2010

Government of Ireland, Your Country, Your Call. 2010

Opportunity to Contribute to IIAS Study Group

Posted on December 11, 2013 by Roshan Bliss

We hope that you will consider taking advantage of a significant opportunity that NCDD Sustaining Member Dr. Tina Nabatchi shared with us recently from the International Institute of Administrative Sciences. Her study group is seeking paper submissions, and it could be a great way for some of you NCDDers to contribute to the field while also getting your work out there. For more information, read the full announcement below or find the original here.

Call for papers for the IIAS study group on ‘Co-production of public services’

The IIAS Study Group on ‘Coproduction of Public Services’ is organizing its second open meeting. Our aim is to create and nurture an intellectual platform for the theoretical discussion and empirical analysis of coproduction and its implications for the organization and management of public services.

Topic
Coproduction refers to the involvement of both citizens and public sector professionals in the delivery of public services. Although countries differ in the extent to which citizens play a role in the provision of public services, the idea of coproduction is gaining ground around the world. Financial crises, austerity in public finances, and growing doubts about the legitimacy of both the public sector and the market, have led numerous governments to involve and cooperate with citizens and civil society in the production of public services. Unfortunately, practice is leading both theory and research, and there is a need to bring together theoretical insights and empirical data to enable a better understanding of public service coproduction. Specifically, this study group is interested in:

Coproduction in different national and policy contexts. What ideological and normative stances about the role of government shape the debate on coproduction? What variations are seen across the policy fields in which coproduction takes place? What variations are seen in national (western and non-western) structures of service provision, and what factors explain this variation?
The organization and structure of public service organizations. Do existing structures enhance or work against coproduction? How can public service organizations be better structured to utilize coproduction processes and approaches?
Challenges of coproduction for the work of public sector professionals. How can professionals find ways to meaningfully interact with people using and coproducing services? What are the (dis)incentives for professionals in promoting and using coproduction?
The role, capacity, and willingness of citizens to engage in coproduction. What characteristics distinguish citizen-coproducers from passive service recipients? What motivates citizens to engage in coproduction?
The potential benefits and pitfalls of directly involving citizens in the production of public services. What is the impact of coproduction on efficiency, democratization, responsiveness, accountability of public service delivery?
The way in which coproduction is accommodated in public law and/or constitutional law. How do various legal frameworks support (or not) coproduction? How can law be enhanced to further and sustain coproduction activities?
The relationship between public spending and coproduction. What financial models can be used to nurture coproduction? Can coproduction compensate for the withdrawal of public spending in times of financial crisis, or does collaboration with citizen-users demand additional resources?
What are the implications of a service-recipient/coproducer dominant approach to public services for the further study of public administration? What insights can be brought in from other disciplines, such as political science, law, economics, psychology, sociology and history? What insights can be gathered from complementing research on coproduction with research on active citizenship, service management and customer engagement, or citizen self-organization?

Meeting Format
The meeting will open with keynotes by Prof. Elio Borgonovi, Professor of Economics and Management of Public Administration at the Bocconi University and Prof. Tony Bovaird, Professor of Public Management and Policy at the University of Birmingham.

The meeting will consist of individual paper presentations and conclude with a round table discussion about the study group’s plan for future intercontinental collaboration in coproduction research.

The goal of the study group is to shed light on the current theory, research, and practice of coproduction. Therefore, we welcome both theoretical and empirical papers on all topics addressed above. We also invite scholars to use a variety of disciplinary analyses: public administration, political science, law, economics, psychology, sociology, and history among others. Interdisciplinary papers are also welcomed.

As a study group of IIAS, we seek to establish an intercontinental discussion, and therefore invite scholars from both western and non-western settings to submit paper abstracts. Submissions are particularly encouraged from doctoral students working on the topic of coproduction.

Output
The study group co-chairs aim at providing outlet for papers presented at the meeting, most likely through a special issue in an international public administration journal. A special issue of IRAS (International Review of Administrative Sciences) is in process, as a result of the successful first meeting of the study group, which was held in The Hague last May.

Moreover, the study group aims at setting up close intercontinental collaboration among coproduction scholars beyond the scope of this meeting, including the development and sharing a database of international cases on coproduction and strategies to enable effective interaction between professionals and citizen-users in the production of public services. In addition to special issues of international journals, the study group is exploring the possibility of a book project at the closing of its three-year (2013-2015) collaboration.

Date and Location
The meeting of the Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services will take place in Bergamo, Italy from May 20 to 21, 2014.

Cost
The registration fee is 100 Euro. Participants are responsible for their own travel and accommodations.

Submissions
Please submit abstracts (maximum 600 words) by March 15th, 2014 to mariafrancesca.sicilia@unibg.it and t.p.s.steen@cdh.leidenuniv.nl.

Participants will be notified of acceptance by March 31st. Full papers should be submitted by May 10th.

Organization
The IIAS study group on ‘Coproduction of Public Services’ is co-chaired by Trui Steen (Leiden University, the Netherlands and KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse University, US) and Dirk Brand (University of Stellenbosch, South Africa). The second meeting of the study group is organized by Mariafransesca Sicilia (University of Bergamo, Italy).

Will Crowdsourcing Revolutionize Government?

Posted on December 11, 2013 by Roshan Bliss

Our partners at the Davenport Institute recently shared a fascinating article via their Gov 2.0 Watch blog on the growing use of “crowd-sourcing” to seek the public’s help with government tasks. This innovative approach is definitely a way to engage the public, just not in the form we’re used to seeing. Read more below or find the original post here.

John M. Kamensky, Sr. Fellow with the IBM Center for the Business of Government offers insight on how governments are embracing crowd-sourcing and how it can be used to best effect:

Most government leaders are restlessly on the search for new ideas, for innovation, for whatever is next. It may be their good luck that this is shaping up to be a Golden Age for engaging citizens, customers and employees. For evidence of this, one need look no further than the rapidly expanding use of “crowdsourcing.” This social-media tool is going mainstream in many communities as a source of innovative ideas.

. . . In the government sphere, crowdsourcing is an approach that uses online tools to break a problem down into manageable tasks and engages people to voluntarily help produce those results, according to Daren C. Brabham, a scholar at the University of Southern California who is following this phenomenon.

You can read more here.

New CommunityMatters Conference Call Series Starts Thursday

Posted on December 10, 2013 by Roshan Bliss

We are excited to share that our partners at CommunityMatters, in collaboration with the Citizens’ Institute on Rural Design, are launching a new conference call series on moving community projects from planning through completion called “Making it Happen”. Their first call, “Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper”, will take place this Thursday, December 12th from 4-5pm Eastern Time. We highly encourage you to register now! You can read more about the call below, find the original post on the CM blog, or find more info on the series here.

Start with Petunias: A Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper Approach to Community Action

Raise your hand if this sounds familiar:

You’ve just finished a great community design or planning process. Hundreds of people participated, you came up with dozens of brilliant ideas for fixing your Main Street or revitalizing a run-down park, you drew up spiffy designs, and everyone is jazzed.

There’s just one problem: you don’t have the money to do much of anything. And your volunteers are tired. Oh, and you don’t even really know what to do first. (Make that three problems.)

We get it. You’re not alone. So where do you start? With the petunias.

Welcome to the school of Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper community action (“LQC”). When you’re just starting to implement designs and projects you need to build momentum, earn some quick wins, and make the most of every single dollar and volunteer hour. That means picking some ridiculously easy, cheap, and non-controversial projects that you can get done immediately and that will help build support for something bigger.

“Many great plans get bogged down because they are too big, too expensive, and simply take too long to happen,” writes the Project for Public Spaces (PPS). “Meanwhile the high cost of missed opportunities for economic development – and public life – continue to add up.”

Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper thinking and action can change all of that.

Here’s how it works: Forget trying to raise five-, six-, or seven-figure sums to implement all of your streetscape improvements right away. Instead, go spend $15 at a garden center, grab a helper, and transform one weedy corner with some new planter boxes. Once people see what a difference that can make, it won’t be hard to get $100 bucks and enough volunteers to create a sidewalk café for a day, showcasing the potential of the space. And when people see how cool that is, it won’t be long until you have $1,000 and to buy some tables and chairs and create a pop-up pedestrian plaza. And if that works? Then you think about shelling out more money and making it permanent.

Fun, right? But more than just fun, LQC is actually cutting-edge strategy. By choosing the right actions first, and testing things in an experimental and incremental way, you can have a surprisingly large impact while saving resources and building support for longer-term actions. LQC lets you hone in on the actions that will actually work the best for a place and the people who use it. And it lets you actually make places livelier, prettier and more functional fast – long before you could accomplish traditional big-budget projects.

On the December CommunityMatters conference call, in partnership with the Citizens’ Institute on Rural Design, you’ll learn about the LQC model and how to apply it in your town.

PPS recommends a three-phase process:

Start with amenities (like seating or gardens) and public art, which can quickly transform a space and encourage people to return.
Then add events and “interventions” (such as temporary bike lanes or street closures) that can help test design solutions before fully implementing them.
Finally, use “light development” (adaptive reuse, temporary structures, and building facelifts) to make changes quickly and relatively inexpensively.

But, there are somewhat messier stories from real communities that have moved from ideas to action.

Take Elkhorn City, Kentucky. Tim Belcher, a local attorney and President of the Elkhorn City Area Heritage Trust, has helped bring two Citizens’ Institute on Rural Design workshops to this town of just over 1,000 people. Elkhorn City wanted to find ways to increase tourism and economic development, and they focused on two of their biggest assets: whitewater paddling (they are located on the Russell Fork of the Big Sandy River) and theater (they are home to the renowned Artists Collaborative Theater). The community honed in on key action steps, experimented with small programs and events to build momentum, and leveraged that early work to attract more funding and complete more projects than many cities 50 times their size.

Still not sure how your community’s long-term plans can be transformed into a quick-and-dirty to-do list? Hundreds of other communities have paved the way, and their ideas are there for the taking. Start with “Spontaneous Interventions”, an exhibit at the recent Venice Biennale. Brendan Crain, Communications Manager at the Project for Public Spaces, was a member of the curatorial team for that project and will join us on the line to share LQC lessons and ideas from around the world. You can also get great ideas and advice from the Tactical Urbanism guides (Volumes 1 and 2).

So go ahead. Put that plan back on the shelf (for the time being) and just go buy some petunias. Read up on Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper community action at the Project for Public Spaces. Join us on December 12 to learn how to make your community stronger in a flash.

Think you have this LQC approach in the bag? This call is for you budding experts, too! Tell us about your Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper success when you register for the call. We’ll ask a few people to share their story on the line!

This call is the first in a three-part series co-hosted by CommunityMatters and the Citizens’ Institute on Rural Design (CIRD). The series is designed to help any community move from a design or planning process into taking action.

Free Copies of “The Practice of Peace”

Posted on December 9, 2013 by Roshan Bliss

We recently saw a post on LinkedIn from the good people at the Open Space Institute about a great opportunity that we wanted to share. They are giving away copies of The Practice of Peace by Harrison Owen, one of the creators of Open Space Technology! But this offer will only last until December 31st, so make sure to get your copy today! You can find out more below read the original post here.

The Open Space Institute in the US has generously received a donation of 2,000 copies of “The Practice of Peace” books by Harrison Owen and is distributing them for just the cost of shipping and handling.

One box of 34 books shipped domestically is $50. Shipping internationally starts at $145. We can confirm international shipping for your country before you place your order.

The Institute will not be continuing this offer past December 31st when our storage contract with the distribution company ends, and the remaining books will be “recycled.”

The Practice of Peace is a very special and comprehensive book on what Open Space has brought and continues to bring to the world. It is even more relevant and timely today than when it was first published.

Please consider if you have friends, colleagues, organizations and communities which would benefit from learning more about Open Space, the power of self-organization and genuine peace. Please help us get as many as possible out the door and not to the dumpster!

To order, please visit the OSI US website at http://osius.org/content/practice-peace-books.

Civic Studies

An intellectual community of researchers and practitioners dedicated to building the emerging field of civic studies

Category Archives: From the Community