[Workshop] Time-Space Distanciation Between Governments and Citizens: Computer-Supported Collaboration in e-Participation
On November 1, three students and myself organization a workshop on e-Government in the context of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. This was a student-led workshop per one of the requirements of the CSCW course taught by Margaret-Anne Storey at UVic. Below is a post one of my collaborators assembled, reflecting the overall discussions that took place during the three-hour workshop. The website with more info is located here.
Guest lecture: Value-Added Decision-Making Through Engaged Consultation
John Bird
We were lucky enough to have John Bird in to open our workshop on eParticipation. As a man heavily involved in the educational system and his community as a whole, he shared his experiences where an eParticipation tool could have facilitated cooperation, collaboration and deliberation between opposing groups. His thought-provoking stories provided some practical applications of eParticipation systems and examples of real-life issues that could arise in participation and deliberation. He emphasized the fact that disengagement is nothing new – it has been an ongoing issue in society. We are not only faced with youth disengagement, but our population as a whole. What IS new is the means of communication and the platform on which civic engagement and participation shows promise.
Building a Platform for ‘Cyber Citizens’: Design and Evaluation Frameworks for e-Participation
Elyse Regan
We discussed the motivation behind eParticipation and the need for coherent frameworks for design and evaluation in order to better understand current implementations and improve upon them. A general framework was presented and some strategies on realizing the benefits of eGovernment and eParticipation were discussed. Specifically, we examined the possibility/reality of needing a neutral 3rd party to stand between government and citizens, to ensure the interests and rights of all stakeholders are fairly upheld. A discussion with the group revealed some important questions to consider: How to we define ‘neutral’? What does this 3rd party look like (government funded or publicly run)? How do we deal with security issues? A number of influential factors that were brought to light became topics of discussion and debate throughout the workshop.
Challenges and Approaches of E-Participation in a CSCW Environment
Omar Alaqeeli
In this segment of our workshop, we discussed the challenges and approaches in e-participation and we exercised a short activity. The audience has broke up into four groups and each group had presented their brainstorming and received questions. Challenges regarding technical, demographics, democracy issues have been discussed along with approaches to resolve them.
12 Million Angry Men (and Women): Social Decision Support Systems for e-Participation
Jenn Bird
This talk focused on a potential model for a Social Decision Support System that may be used to facilitate integration of these diverse views into a general social knowledge base.
Panel Discussion: “Research Directions: E-Participation Approaches and Collaborative Tools — Their Viability and Influence in Public Policy-Making”
Evert Lindquist, David Miller, Adrian Schröter, Arber Borici
The panelists were invited to discuss on research directions and challenges of all the aforementioned e-participation-related issues. Evert, as an expert in public policy and deliberative democracy, spoke on public engagement. He posited the question of how to work with user communities so that technology professionals can come up with appropriate, user-centric technological solutions. He claimed that public engagement used to be at higher rates in the 1980s (at least in Canada), whereby technology was nowhere near as advanced as it is today. Another resonating point Evert made was his advice for us, software engineers, to be historical, i.e. to look at the flow of facts and events of the past pertaining to public participation and to thereby discern where we can possibly make a difference. David was more pragmatic; he claimed that is essential for us to look at existing patterns of public engagement and to augment them appropriately. For it would otherwise be constituted as a “cynical take at the problem”, in the sense that others’ views and accepted standards are (unintentionally) disregarded. Adrian pressed upon the fact that the government is the entity responsible for making information available to the public. Arber focused on the discursive approach to e-participation, in the sense of deliberative democracy. He made reference to Fung’s Democracy Cube to conclude that actors can participate at different levels of influence. In turn, Evert alluded to the fact that deliberative democracy approaches have historically been limited to local deliberations, rather than global ones.
Resources
You can find additional information, such as the goals and objectives of our workshop, on our website.
Designing Mediating Spaces Between Citizens and Government
Government 2.0 – Hype, Hope, or Reality?
Transforming Government People Process Policy
e-Participation, a discursive approach
