Effective Online Engagement: Challenges and Efforts
To achieve an optimum outcome, the government always strives to conduct effective online engagement. Nevertheless, often the indicators are not attained, even though deliberation has been planned carefully and carried out according to plan. Some challenges that are still considered to be obstacles to achieving online engagement success are:
Skepticism
Public skepticism in online deliberation is often seen as the biggest challenge that must be faced by the authorities. Several things can cause skepticism. Mossberger in Chadwick(2008) stated that skepticism in giving opinions on online platforms often occurs because of unfamiliar participants, or in other words, they tend not to express their voice when strangers are around. Another opinion that sourced from research in the U.S found that citizens wanted to influence public policies but doubted the efficacy of the political process, believed politics would serve only narrow interests, and hate the conflict in online platforms (Bennett. Et al., 2013). Furthermore, some skeptical behavior might come from the Dunning — Kruger effect. This effect occurs when one lacks sufficient knowledge of a topic to accurately judge the depth of one’s own ignorance on that topic (Torcello, 2016).
The Digital divide
Davis (2010) stated that the digital divide is still the barrier that threatens to increase public participation. It is indeed a classic opinion nowadays, but the fact that Davis’s statement in 2010 is still happening until now means that this problem is real and not an easy thing to resolve.
Sometimes people think that infrastructure is easy. Government just has to stick to their long-term plans to build the internet connection across the country gradually. However, Rice in Chadwick(2008) mentioned that the problem of digital is not only the absence of the internet infrastructure, but also the inability to pay, the need for access, or even just ignorance that there is a magical thing called the internet now. In fact, people who are unable to access information technologies or who are without the skills to use them run the risk of being excluded from possible social, educational, cultural, and economic benefits.
In New Zealand itself, as the world’s fifth-richest country (Stuff NZ, 2019) and one of the highest rates of Internet access in the world in 2002 (Statisics NZ, 2004), the digital divide still exists. The digital divide report concluded that the most critical variables identified as influencing connectivity levels were household income, the level of educational qualification, and household age composition (Statistics NZ, 2004).
Difficulty in judging the effectiveness
The definition of effective is very diverse. Effectiveness assessment is even more complicated. In Indonesia, based on my job as an internal auditor, the evaluation of the effectiveness of a programme is very challenging. This happens for two reasons: difficulties in formulating indicators of success and evaluation plans are forgotten. Many policies compiled by Ministries do not include an evaluation plan from the beginning, so the evaluation can only be done retrospectively with the consequence of the lack of evidence obtained to conduct an assessment. Not to mention that the indicators of success are just rubbish; it is not specific, cannot be measured, not relevant, not given a time limit, and even too naïve so that it is impossible to achieve. The task of the evaluator becomes increasingly strenuous, and optimal conditions are increasingly difficult to achieve.
And, what should the government do?
The three constraints in online deliberation are not easy to overcome. It is influenced by multi-parties and can only be addressed by involving these parties.
To lower public skepticism, trust is the first thing that the government must gain. The online engagement process is a cycle. This cycle starts from listening, adopting values and principles, preparing strategic and plans, developing the content, implementing , then evaluating and giving feedback (Wright, 2018), so that trust-building through transparency, publication, and communication must start from the time of online engagement planning, by truly “listening to what the public wants.” The policy-maker also must ensure that the chosen deliberation model can minimise the uncontrollable debate, and place the moderator in each discussion, so that deliberation runs more effectively.
A framework is also needed in developing engagement plan to find out how far the public impact is expected from engagement. The IAP2 framework is a framework that the government can use in an engagement plan. The trust that government wanted is reflected in IAP2 spectrum, where to reach the highest level of public impact (empower), there are steps that government should do before: provide public the information (inform), obtain public feedback (consult), work with public throughout the process (involving), and, to partner with them in each aspect, including shape alternatives (collaborate) (IAP2). The steps that used in the spectrum is also a “way” that can be used to make the public believe the government.
Besides online engagement, policy-maker can do a mixed-mode to embrace people who are skeptical of strangers in the online world and the victims of the digital divide. Eppel in EngageTech Forum (2018) stated that effective engagement uses both online and offline methods. The offline method can be a more rational option for the authorities rather than merely imposing full online-based on everything in carrying out its policies.
In addition to the offline scheme, to lower the digital divide, the government must campaign for the importance of using the internet. This campaign can be carried out when doing offline deliberation and aimed at people who do not know and think they do not need the internet. Also, the internet must be considered as public goods, so the government must provide it in all schools and public places for free.
To solve the effectiveness assessment issue, Rowe (2010) mentioned that the government must adopt one framework and stick to it in designing an evaluation approach.” Some frameworks might propose outcome-based criteria, and others propose process-based criteria or a mixture of both, but at least just pick one. Methods are needed that allow evaluators to determine whether a particular engagement has reached the threshold of acceptance associated with their chosen criteria. This evaluation design must also be set at the same time as the engagement plan, not after the engagement is implemented, so that besides it serves as a bridge between evaluation and program planning, it also can be updated on an ongoing basis to reflect program changes and priorities throughout the implementation.
References
Bennett, E., Cordner, A., Klein, P., Savell, S., & Baiocchi, G. (2013). Disavowing Politics: Civic Engagement in an Era of Political Skepticism 1. American Journal of Sociology, 119(2), 518–548. https://doi.org/10.1086/674006
Davis, A. (2010). New media and fat democracy: the paradox of online participation1. New Media & Society, 12(5), 745–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809341435
Eppel, E., et al. (2018). The Policy Project. EngageTech Foirum 2018: New Zealand.
IAP2. Core Values, Ethics, Spectrum — The 3 Pillars of Public Participation. Retrieved from https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/pillars/Spectrum_8.5x11_Print.pdf
Chadwick, A., & Howard, P. (2008). Political engagement online: Do the information rich get richer and the like-minded more similar? In Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics (pp. 160–172). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203962541-18
Rowe, G., Marsh, R., & Frewer, L. (2004). Evaluation of a Deliberative Conference. Science, Technology & Human Values, 29(1), 88–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243903259194
Stuff NZ. (2019). Feeling wealthy? You should be. Retrieved from https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/116750610/feeling-wealthy-new-report-shows-you-should-be
The digital divide 2004 . (2004). Wellington, N.Z: Statistics New Zealand.
Torcello, L. (2016). The Ethics of Belief, Cognition, and Climate Change Pseudoskepticism: Implications for Public Discourse. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 19–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12179
Wright, S. Planning Cycle 1: Listen, Values & Principles : presentations at E-engagement Class. (2018). Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington
