View
945
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Current status of UK local authority ePetition facilities by Brunel University
Citation preview
Where are we?An overview of ePetitioning tools in
English local authorities
SALAR Study Visit – 16/03/2011
Panos Panagiotopoulos &
Christopher Moody
SALAR Study Visit – 16 /03/2011 Slide 2
Coming up …
• Motivation
• Study methodology and results
• Further reflections and observations
SALAR Study Visit – 16 /03/2011
Motivation
• EPetitioning the most popular form of online participation in the UK, according to the Oxford
Internet Survey. • Institutional “confusion” and political uncertainty. • No systematic evaluation of the ePetitioning duty
impact for LAs.• The first opportunity to assess a nation-wide
eParticipation policy at such scale.
Slide 3
SALAR Study Visit – 16 /03/2011
What we did - methodology
1. Designed a framework of 20 features that describe the implementation of LA ePetitioning websites.
2. Validated the framework with the help of four experts (including Fraser) + pilot run with 33 LAs.
3. Added 6 additional variables representing other common eParticipation activities on LA websites.
4. Applied this framework on the 353 English LAs websites using a web content analysis methodology.
(6 coders were involved)
5. Statistically analysed 348 usable results including background institutional factors such as size,
population, and political orientation (on going).
Slide 4
SALAR Study Visit – 16 /03/2011
What we found - overview
• Indication of minimum levels of compliance, promotion and innovation, yet 279 out of 353 ePetitioning websites span all over England now.
• Little actual use of ePetitions – some systems really well hidden under council websites.
• Adopters and non-adopters do not perform systematically better in other eParticipation activities, although the more effort on ePetitions the better they score in other eParticipation activities.
Slide 5
SALAR Study Visit – 16 /03/2011
If implemented, how well hidden?
Slide 6
SALAR Study Visit – 16 /03/2011
Providers market share
• In-house or no information: 19.1% (53)
• Moderngov: 29.5% (82)
• MySociety: 12.9% (36)
• Public-i: 12.6% (35)
• Web-Lab: 7.6% (21)
• Limehouse: 2.2% (6)
• Other (e.g. Firmstep): 16.2% (45)
Slide 7
SALAR Study Visit – 16 /03/2011
Support characteristics
• Forum or space to discuss petitions: 2.5% (7)
• Agree/Disagree feature: 2.5% (7)
• System in use before December 2010: 10.1% (28)
• Links to useful information (e.g. Council material): 10.1% (28)
• Notification services for new petitions (e.g. RSS feed, mailing lists): 33.7% (94)
• Contact details within ePetitions: 40.1% (112)
• Evidence of encouraged feedback: 4.7% (13)
Slide 8
SALAR Study Visit – 16 /03/2011
How many petitions?
• No petitions open at all: 69.2% (193)
• 1-5 open petitions: 27.3% (76)
• More than 5 - up to 15 open petitions: 3.7% (10)
• Not a single petition completed yet: 84.2% (235)
• Calculating average numbers of signatures not useful at this stage.
Slide 9
SALAR Study Visit – 16 /03/2011
(e)Petitioning process
• Evidence of paper petitions archived online: 19.8% (55)
• Accepting ePetitions from other online sources: 3.2% (9)
• Different threshold for online and paper petitions: 4.3% (12)
• Explicit privacy statement: 30.1% (84)
• Instructions and assistance measured on a 0-3 scale:
Scored 0 or 1: 62.6% (174)
Scored 2 or 3: 37.4% (104)
• Thresholds for ordinary petitions:o No threshold: 64.4% (179)
o 1-50 signatures: 28.8% (80)
o More than 50 up to 500: 6.8% (19)
Slide 10
SALAR Study Visit – 16 /03/2011
Other eParticipation activities
• Webcasting council meetings: 16.6% (57)
• Official use of social media: 67.4% (232)
• Online forums or other community engagement websites: 9.3% (32)
• Online participation in council consultations: 42.7% (147)
• Online budget feedback: 16.6% (57)
• Online surveys: 51.6% (178)
Slide 11
SALAR Study Visit – 16 /03/2011
Observations and limitations
• Is there actually a quality response process? What do thresholds really imply?
• No information on whether the initiative was promoted or not locally.
• No information over traditional paper process.
• What do citizens actually expect or are willing to support?
• Although framework mostly objective, data collection mistakes might have occurred.
Slide 12
SALAR Study Visit – 16 /03/2011
Summary and further discussion
• 279 LA petitioning websites, but have yet to become embedded in local institutions.
• Emerging question: so, what is the impact of ePetitioning?
• What should we do? Also with government and Parliament petitions and ePetitions.
• Enacting eParticipation: bureaucratically controlled or engagement from the grassroots? EPetitioning popular because combines both, but as an advocacy form of participation requires a fair and politically neutral process.
Slide 13
CISR PhD workshop - 15/02/2011 Slide 14
Thank you very much…
Panagiotis.Panagiotopoulos@brunel.ac.ukor
Panagiotis.Panagiotopoulos@gmail.com
We gratefully acknowledge Fraser Henderson for funding this study and further offering his ideas.
Many thanks also to Dr T. Elliman, as well as our coders: Harry Bath-Barranco, Arthur Faulkner, Hubert
Andrzejczyk and George Xydopoulos.
Recommended