Comments on: Our “Tech-Savvy Citizenry” Session

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:49:22 +0000

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.

By: bradrourke

bradrourke — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:16:50 +0000

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.

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:05:45 +0000

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!

By: bradrourke

bradrourke — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:03:08 +0000

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.

By: Greg Nelson

Greg Nelson — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:57:05 +0000

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