Selecting a Tool

Government engages citizens and stakeholders for one or more of the following purposes:

1. To inform – by communicating key information, policies or statements;
2. To be informed – by receiving facts, figures, experiences and views through consultation exercises;
3. To deliberate – for the purpose of reaching compromise, codesigning or promoting collaboration.

There are a range of methods that can facilitate these ends – but some are more effective than others.

Digital Dialogues was interested in web-based applications. Over the course of the project, we tested three in a policy making context. These were blogs, forums and webchats; each of which were found to have particular strengths and weaknesses as engagement tools:

Blogs

Blogs are websites that present content to users as a list of entries running in reverse chronological order (rather like a diary in appearance, but backwards). Blogs usually have one author, but they can have more. They are conventionally text-based but can incorporate audio, images and video. It is also commonplace to allow users to comment on entries if they wish.

Blogs have a ‘no-frills, no-fuss’ approach to content management. The interface is usually based on a text-editor similar to that of word processing software, requiring little or no knowledge of web programming. Authors are also able to moderate user comments through the same content management system (CMS). Some types of blog software also incorporate web statistics, allowing the author to monitor traffic to and within the blog.

Because of the widespread availability of software, its low cost and ease of maintenance, blogs have become popular with web experts and novices alike. There are many millions of blogs online, which focus on all manner of lifestyles and interests. Blogging has made an impact on politics, in the main because it has allowed citizens to directly publish their experiences, reactions and views online. Publication is quick and by linking up with other blogs can be high-profile.

‘Political blogging’ is often associated with an activist, confrontational and often anti-establishment form of discourse. However, it presents political institutions with a great many benefits and should be considered seriously as an engagement tool.

It is cost-effective and simple to use, content is concise, and users have the right-to-reply. Blogging is also very flexible; a blog could be set up to raise the profile of a ministerial role, it could be used as a tool to gather submissions to a consultation, or to report on the development of a policy. A blog could be authored by one person, or a number of different individuals or teams within a department. It could be written, but could just as easily incorporate photographs or videos.

The blogs that will work best are those where the purpose is unambiguous. A user base takes time to build, and therefore a blog should be viewed as a long term project – although its function can evolve over time (depending on the phases of a policy cycle, for example).

Another feature of a blog’s success will be its network visibility. Bloggers should be prepared to link to other blogs and resources on the web, comment on other relevant blogs, and to keep their own content up-to-date and topical.

Picking up on user comments is very much encouraged. Although, blogs are not particularly suitable for deliberation and there is not an expectation that every comment will receive a reply, authors can respond to user comments either by adding their own comments, or by highlighting themes in a distinct blog entry.

Forums

Forums (sometimes known as bulletin or message boards) are good platforms for structured, topic-based deliberation between large groups of users. Comments are presented either in a linear or clustered (threaded) format.

Content and user comments are managed much like a blog. However, where a blog does not require registration to post, a forum usually does. Forum sites, therefore, have community management tools built in. Users can participate in forums anonymously but can also share information about themselves in a profile to help other users contextualise their comments.

Deliberation often starts with broad points and the aim is to narrow down toward conclusions through interaction between the users and facilitation carried out by the site’s moderators. Deliberation is often asynchronous, meaning that users are not required to be in the same place at the same time to interact. Deliberation is structured around themes designated either by the site’s managers or its users. Comments are moderated, either before or after publication.

A condition of a successful forum is often the visibility and commitment of its moderators. In forums, moderators facilitate deliberation much like a chairperson in an offline meeting – keeping the discussion on topic, keeping the momentum, looking for actions and ensuring that the space stays inclusive to participants who may drop in and out.

Forums can be open or closed to spectators. They can be used to host deliberations of anywhere between a day and many months. It can be that a forum is opened out to general participation, but forums can focus in on particular groups of stakeholders to provide a space for detailed deliberation. Indeed, outside of politics and policy making, the most successful forums are often those maintained for special interest communities.

Webchats

Webchats differ from blogs and forums in that the interaction takes place in ‘real time’. These sites are based around instant-messaging software. In a policy context, they support question-and-answer interaction between the public and usually ministers or senior civil servants. These usually come as hour-long events, but can also be upgraded to online conference status carried out over the course of a day or more.

Webchats are popular because they feel like events and provide users with a unique interaction with decision makers. They are a useful addition to face-to-face meetings, and with audio and video-streaming technology, chats do not have to be purely text based. Some webchats can be general in their focus, but good sessions tend to focus on pre-defined themes.

The pace of real time interaction can make webchats quite difficult to manage. However, the scale of the task can be reduced by encouraging pre-registration and asking people to pre-submit questions. However, pre-submission should only be used as a guide and users should be able to submit different questions in the event. Moderation of questions and responses is possible in webchats, but should be responsive to ensure a quick turnaround.

Choosing an application

Blogs, forums and webchats can all be run as sites in their own right; however, it is also worth considering combining these applications at different stages of an engagement process. Find out, from the people you want to talk to, what type of site they would like to use and what type of interaction they are looking for. Balance this with your needs.

It is not possible to give a specific recommendation of a company or system you should use; such a recommendation would be circumstance and time dependent. Be assured, however, that there are many different vendors and a range of software available. As with any market, shop around to get the best deal; ask questions, find out what others have used. Think carefully about your needs and those of your user base, and procure on that basis.

Almost all of the Digital Dialogues sites were built using open source technology, but proprietary systems were an option. Open source software is owned by no one and can be adapted by anyone; this suited us because it meant we could customise a basic platform based on the particular requirements of our case study owners. But this did require a detailed knowledge of web design and programming. Proprietary systems are owned, sold and licensed; they look good and are ready to use straight off the shelf. Plus, they come with technical support and usually automatic software upgrades. The potential drawbacks can be the cost, and that proprietary systems tend to be generic and are rarely bespoke.

Based on current standards (at the time of writing), whether you bring in an open source or proprietary solution, look for the following content and community management functionality:

• Simple content management system for static and dynamic pages;
• Changes to design templates or entries with no need for regenerating static pages;
• User commenting and moderation;
• Choice of hidden and open comments/password protected posts;
• Optional user registration;
• User account management;
• Multiple authors – levels of users, with configurable privileges;
• Text formatting/WYSIWYG text editor for authors and users;
• Create, maintain, and update any number of static link lists;
• Embedded links in posts;
• Content upload via email or external device;
• Word and PDF document upload;
• Capacity for audio, video or photo content (either as embeds or directly on site within size limits);
• Content scheduling;
• Creation of surveys/polls;
• Spam protection;
• Printable pages;
• Threaded/unthreaded posts;
• RSS;
• Trackback;
• Archiving and search facilities;
• Site statistics;
• Full compliance with accessibility standards;
• Content and data export.

Each product will have a particular range of functions and associated costs. If in doubt, consult with a departmental IT or web team.