Digital solutions can complement real world participation — but mustn’t exclude
After public meetings can resume, digital participation will likely grow as a complement to offline events. This will broaden citizen engagement — but we have to be careful it doesn’t freeze people out
Co-authored by: Kelly McBride and Anthony Zacharzewski
Necessity is the mother of invention, and the coronavirus crisis has driven a huge amount of invention. In our field as in others, it has acted as an accelerant of processes that were already underway, breaking down objections to change by forcing people to adopt new behaviours. Now, as economies start to reopen and normality of a sort resumes, the restart will be into the new world, not the old.
We have been extending our efforts to understand how different tools and approaches can work together to get the most out of online tools while preserving the most of what makes in-person deliberation valuable.
We have been putting this into practice in our current projects, including the Scottish Citizens’ Assembly. This process, commissioned by the Scottish Government to deliberate on the future of Scotland, is two-thirds of the way through a face-to-face process involving over 100 participants and is moving toward developing recommendations. Participants have so far mainly engaged online to read updates and to access reports and briefings in between meetings.
Assessment is crucial before implementing digital solutions
The Assembly’s independent secretariat did not immediately move to putting the remaining meetings online, but has been keeping in touch with members while waiting to see how the situation unfolds. This thinking time has allowed us to consider some of the practicalities of taking deliberative spaces online — thoughts that we have included in a new publication with our friends at newDemocracy in Australia.
In Scotland, to ensure that solutions are informed by what participants wanted and needed, the secretariat ran a participant survey to gauge interest in different activities and to find out individual barriers to online participation. The results showed a continuing desire to engage, but raised concerns about how the technology can be usable for all. This is particularly important in this Assembly where a significant number of participants come from remote and rural areas, including islands, where connectivity can be poor. One of the early challenges will be finding online methods and designing processes that meet those specific technological challenges without disadvantaging participants or reducing the volume of some voices.
Although the extent of online activities remains to be determined, at the very least there will be opportunities to build on the learning that had already begun, through provision of learning materials, presentations, Q&As, and facilitated small group discussions.
Potential challenges of moving deliberative spaces online
In our report, we highlighted some of the main elements of design needed if we do take our final meetings online. Some of the most important are:
- Focus on shorter sessions, spread over a longer time. We all know how hard it is to stare into a laptop, even if the meeting is interesting.
- Smaller groups, ensuring participants aren’t sitting for long spells without talking.
- Learning together in small groups where possible, rather than watching presentations. The flexibility of online formats to shift time and allow bite-sized contributions can really make a difference here.
- One session, one tool. Ensure that you aren’t switching participants between tools in the same session, in the same way that you wouldn’t add a coffee break halfway through a presentation.
One of the challenges is how to ensure that people can craft recommendations and take decisions in an all-online format. We will also be adapting the format, while the world may be changing participants’ outlooks. How will coronavirus have affected our participants? Will the priorities they held last month be the same now? We will need to be prepared to reopen the process design a little, so we give space to discuss the impact of coronavirus, and revisit earlier conclusions.
In any process that uses tools for digital participation, we also need to be aware of many of the challenges highlighted by existing research around digital exclusion. Many barriers are systematic, and these are not all challenges that democratic innovators can address alone.
In Scotland, following in the steps of a Digital Participation Charter and Scottish Government funding that has supported projects to tackle digital exclusion since 2014, COVID-19 ramped up a response from cross-sector collaborators to organise support for those most at risk and digitally excluded, coordinated through the No One Left Behind Digital Scotland programme.
The way forward
Intentional and rapid cross-sector collaboration to tackle exclusion, and to demonstrate practice that is inclusive and equitable, is necessary and should be a continuous effort. We must avoid assumptions and be conscious that ‘build it and they will come’ does not always ring true. Digital participation requires a concerted effort of engagement and trust-building. It’s important to understand who is and is not participating, and the reasons why.
Collaboration and user research will assist the design, building, refinement, and testing of online processes and tools to meet participants’ needs. We are glad to be part of the international conversation on these issues, and happy to share our learning and ideas as we go.
Kelly McBride is the Director of Open Government and Deliberative Democracy, and Anthony Zacharzewski is Director General of The Democratic Society. Feel free to contact us via: www.demsoc.org / Tweets @demsoc / hello@demsoc.org
Are you a practitioner delivering a representative deliberative process fully or partially online? The OECD has put together this survey for practitioners about what they are doing, how, and why. Answers are publicly available from the moment they are submitted in this viewable Airtable database (except for the name, job title and email of the individual filling out the form).
This post is part of the Digital for Deliberation series. Read the other articles:
Digital for deliberation: Catching the deliberative wave
We are opening a discussion on the use of digital tools for deliberative processes, in collaboration with our colleagues working on digital government and public sector innovation.
How can digital tools support deliberation? Join the conversation!
The series will focus on three overarching questions: (1) How can digital tools support representative deliberative processes? (2) What are the limits of using digital tools for representative deliberative processes? (3) In what other contexts could these learnings be applied?
Designing an online citizens’ assembly: A practitioner perspective
One of the core elements of a citizens’ assembly is to create the space for people to meet face-to-face. That is where the magic of citizens’ assemblies lies. Why go online then? Marcin Gerwin offers some ideas.
Engineering for deliberative democracy
Just as the architecture of a meeting hall affects whose voice can be heard, the design of our digital tools provides and forecloses certain political possibilities. Jessica Feldman outlines where engineering decisions need to be made.
Designing text-based tools for digital deliberation
Understanding and measuring the influence of certain features on the quality of online text-based deliberations can help us make better design decisions.
Online deliberation: Opportunities and challenges
Lyn Carson in conversation with Graham Smith about what we know and don’t know about transferring face-to-face deliberations to an online environment.
The digital participatory process that fed into the French Climate Assembly
The online contributions from the wider public on the Decidim platform enriched the work of the in-person assembly, writes Eloïse Gabadou.
Digital parliaments: Adapting democratic institutions to 21st century realities
The coronavirus crisis should be a catalyst for institutionalising the use of digital tools in parliament, argues French MP Paula Forteza.
Public discussions on Covid-19 lockdown in Scotland
Reflections from government on the challenges of digital engagement by Niamh Webster.
Digital tools to open the judiciary: A perspective from Argentina
Pablo Hilaire writes that by promoting conscious uses of digital technologies in favour of open justice, we have learnt that to facilitate and promote deliberation and participation online, we need to put citizens at the centre, from the design to the collection of data and feedback.
Please note that this is a moderated forum that is subject to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy of the OECD website. The views expressed and arguments employed herein are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the OECD or its member countries. The Organisation cannot be held responsible for possible violations of copyright resulting from the posting of any written material on this website. Your comments to posts are valuable; please contribute in a civil and constructive way. OECD reserves the right to delete or edit any comments before they are published. The OECD Secretariat will not respond systematically to each contribution. Note that the views expressed can be personal views.
