Core Findings from Phases 1 and 2

Having presented an overview of Digital Dialogues and documented the guidance and recommendations from the project, the next section will summarise the core findings from Phases 1 and 2. During the Digital Dialogues project, the Hansard Society developed a range of methods to evaluate the case studies. Our primary data came from participant feedback: users were encouraged to fill in short surveys before and after taking part; through their responses, we were able to observe the impact of the web deliberations on their attitudes towards political engagement and efficacy. Participants’ responses were analysed in the context of interactions on the relevant case study websites: this approach enabled us to identify issues that helped or hindered political deliberation. We also surveyed participating government departments and agencies to identify the challenges they faced and lessons learnt. Our reports for Phases 1 and 2 contained guidelines based on these evaluations; the individual case studies were presented to showcase different styles of and orientations to engagement.

We noted that many of the people taking part in Phase 1 were new to policy engagement (although they were interested in the issues being tackled and were keen to explore how new technologies could facilitate their participation). Many appreciated being given the opportunity to put their views to government officials and – in some cases – ministers. However, although online forms of engagement attracted higher volumes of interest than traditional methods, they did not sustain it; users required more interaction with government officials, a greater range of discussion themes, better networks with relevant online communities and multi-channel styles of communication. In addition, many felt that in the absence of information about the policy process, they lost motivation to continue participating.

Many participants in Phase 1 were drawn to the engagement exercises because of their familiarity with online political deliberations in non-government contexts; this meant that their feedback was invaluable in shaping the draft guidance about how new technologies could be used to support political engagement. Our recommendations focused on the need for interactivity (between participants and government officials) rather than information dissemination (1). A central point emerged: unlike traditional forms of government communication, those mediated by the internet offer an opportunity for deliberation; indeed, with the rapid development of social networking tools, this has become a minimum requirement for users (2).

One of the objectives of the second phase of Digital Dialogues was to embed a more dialogic practice within government departments. From the first phase of the pilot, we had developed an appreciation of the importance of doing so. Where successful, the earliest case studies had provided the public with direct understandings of government – the effects of mediation and ‘spin’ were greatly reduced. For example, even though the high profile blog of minister David Miliband received criticism (for being too ‘on message’ and expensive), some respondents noted that their impression of him and of the government had changed for the better on reading the blog.

Despite this potential efficacy benefit, many of the government departments and agencies participating in Phase 2 were concerned about the risks associated with online deliberation. These ranged from a lack of engagement by the public to outright hijacking by campaign groups. Such risk-aversion was framed by government officials as a reaction to public cynicism towards political processes (described earlier) (3). A second objective for Phase 2 was to highlight how these risks could be offset through well thought-out engagement practices. A final objective for Phase 2 was to explore how multi-platform websites could broaden and deepen participation.

Evaluating 12 case studies, Phase 2 of the Digital Dialogues initiative moved from a general exploration of the suitability of online forms of engagement for central government to a specific critique of their deployment. We found that well run websites developed their own momentum with people contributing infrequent but regular posts and making repeat visits (4). Meanwhile, instantaneous approaches such as the DCLG webchats with government ministers provided a useful focal point and attracted broader but more superficial participation.

Those without ministerial briefs (the SDC, FSA and Party Funding case studies) were able to develop reflexive approaches to online engagement. These provided insights into the ways that web-based deliberation can be used at different stages of the policy process, and how various platforms can be used simultaneously to achieve different styles of engagement (as in the case of the Party Funding case study, which used forums and webchats at particular stages of the consultation).

Throughout Phase 2, we saw that stakeholders were more reluctant to use online deliberations (unless they were invitation-only) when responding to consultations than were members of the public, preferring traditional forms of communication that provided privacy. Meanwhile, many of those who did engage with the case study websites were generally distrustful of politicians and the policy process before taking part; because of this, they were using the website to get their point across, but did not expect their views to be taken on board – even though they thought they should be.

For successful case study owners, progress beyond such recalcitrance was slow and hard-won; stringent ministerial briefs and a rigid application of the letter – if not the spirit – of the Cabinet Office’s Code of Consultation made the deliberative process seem protracted in some cases. However in others, clear terms of engagement, timely outcomes and input from moderators ensured that users and government departments or agencies were satisfied with the engagement site.

That is not to say that websites developed as part of a formal consultation were, by necessity, hidebound; even where they faced restrictions in terms of the subjects that could be discussed, there was still room to develop flexible engagement styles. Their ability to use them depended, in part, on their orientations to the exercise: where they were reluctant to take part in discussions, adopted heavy moderation, or did not provide enough feedback to participants, users became dissatisfied with their overall experience seeing it as a wasted opportunity. Those willing to interact with participants were able to diffuse criticism effectively, even if they did not attract large volumes of posts.

One of the challenges, then, for participating government departments and agencies was to overcome the reticence of those taking part in the deliberations. Another was to develop an engagement strategy; more people visited the case study websites than participated in discussions (many said that they benefited simply from reading other people’s comments), raising questions about the kinds of engagement that could be engendered. Moreover, the default position for some participating departments was based on a risk-assessment in which the threat of hijack gave rise to an over-zealous approach; the tendency in such cases was to clamp down on dissent rather than engage, giving rise to the kinds of user dissatisfaction described earlier.

Those government departments that devoted sufficient resources to administering their website – ensuring coordination between policy leads, communications experts and IT support – attracted positive feedback and felt that their experience was more rewarding than those which did not. Some case studies were impeded by convoluted chains of command, and were surprised about the amount of time required of staff involved in moderating and interacting with even small numbers of participants.

When effectively managed, case study teams were able to experiment with different styles of engagement and learn about the emerging role of the public in policy making. They harnessed public feedback and developed new proposals which could be tested out during the online deliberations. The iterative nature of this process – when it occurred – appealed to case study owners and participants alike. In its absence, users complained about the lack of contributions from policy officials and the poor quality of discussion between users.

A clear pattern emerged from Phases 1 and 2: online deliberation could be focused and structured (going against the grain of the hitherto anarchic styles of political web-deliberations) so long as they provided feedback and information to participants. Process, rather than outcome, was important to users; those departments that focused on the latter faced serious criticism from participants and did not see much benefit from their experience. And while online engagement did not necessarily provide the magic bullet solution to political disaffection, it was found – where successful – to initiate a process whereby public attitudes could be challenged and that new understandings could be developed about the policy area under discussion.

Notes

1. When comparing, for example, user feedback from the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) engagement exercise to that received by the government minister David Miliband’s blog, the latter was praised for the regularity of site updates; both were criticised, however, for their lack of interaction.
2. Respondents to our feedback surveys pointed out that their motivation to participate in discussion depended on the extent to which it was encouraged. Thus, in the case of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) case-study in Digital Dialogues 1, participants reported feeling disinclined to engage because the government officials running the site had a very low presence. Meanwhile, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) may have encouraged discussions, but respondents – used to the speed with which online deliberation occurred – were dissatisfied with the slow pace of official responses.
3. Everyday conversations about current affairs, however, are satirical, cynical and apathetic. This has been interpreted by some scholars as a revolt against politicians’ monopoly over political processes: see P. Bourdieu (1991), Language and Symbolic Power (Harvard: Harvard University Press); also, L.Van Zoonen (2007), Entertaining the Citizen: when politics and popular culture converge. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield).
4. The DCLG forum managed to achieve this, unlike the DWP one – in part because of the sustained presence of government officials who provided useful summaries of the discussions.