Doing IT Ourselves: citizen produced websites and their relationship to public services

8/8/2019 Doing IT Ourselves: citizen produced websites and their relationship to public services

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/doing-it-ourselves-citizen-produced-websites-and-their-relationship-to-public 1/89

Doing I.T. Ourselves:

Citizen-produced websites and their relationship to public services

Benjamin Welby

M.Sc. Public Administration

2010

Institute of Local Government Studies, School of Government and Society

University of Birmingham

Date of Submission: 1 st September 2010 Wordcount: 15,309



Page | ii

Abstract This dissertation explores the citizen-state relationship and questions whether it is changing in

response to the emergence of citizen produced websites. As the internet has matured, core characteristics

of collaboration, transparency and flexibility have emerged. It is the contention of this dissertation that

these changes have implications for the relationship between the public sector and private citizens. It

considers the concepts of democracy, the provision of public goods and services and the cultures of the

internet. The research is based on four case studies of citizen produced websites namely FixMyStreet.com,

BCCDIY.com, OpenlyLocal.com and ArmchairAuditor.co.uk. Complementing these sites is consultation

conducted with the residents of Hull that identified their attitudes towards the digital sphere. The

dissertation finds that these websites are not being produced everywhere but argues that there is national

resonance to what has happened already and concludes that they evidence a change in the relationship

between citizen and state. It is the contention of this work that these websites are the embodiment of the

coalition's ideal for Big Society that sees active citizens accepting the responsibility for local issues. The

success, or otherwise, of this approach will depend on whether the public sector is willing to accept the

mantle of leadership and do what is necessary by publishing data by default, engaging with concerned

citizens and embracing the innovative approaches of the internet.



Page | iii

AcknowledgementsMy thanks go to the people behind FixMyStreet.com, BCCDIY.com, OpenlyLocal.com and Armchair

Auditor as well as all those who completed the survey into web attitudes. Special thanks also go to Hull City

Council for providing me with access to the data and giving me the opportunity to study this MSc in Public

Administration.

I am grateful to the various people from different public sector organisations that I spent pockets of

time with at Priorsfield for sharing their experiences and providing stimulating debate. I would also like to

thank the academic staff at the Institute of Local Government Studies and my supervisor Dr John Raine.

Over the two years of working with Hull City Council I have been exposed to different parts of the

organisation and seen how the competing complexities of national and local government tie together. This

dissertation is the product of those experiences within the Schools’ Finance, Streetscene P erformance, Web

Steering and Private Housing teams.

The author would like to thank all those concerned individuals who are going out of their way to

challenge the public sector and encourage those of us who are paid out of public funds to achieve greater

things at work. Twitter has connected me with a geographically disparate community of public servants and

private citizens who aren’t content to maintain the status quo. They are an inspiration and their authorities

are lucky to have them either behind the scenes, or challenging from the open.

My biggest thanks goes to Christine, my wife, it is not exaggerating to say that without her this

dissertation would never have been finished!



Page | iv

ContentsAbstract .............................................................................................................................................................. ii

Preface/Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. iii

Contents ............................................................................................................................................................ iv

List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................................... vList of Illustrations ............................................................................................................................................. vi

1. Introduction & Literature Review................................................................................................................. 1

1.1. The nature of democracy .................................................................................................................. 2

1.2. Providing public services ................................................................................................................... 5

1.3. Cultures of the internet ..................................................................................................................... 7

1.4. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 9

2. Method & Methodology............................................................................................................................. 10

2.1. Rationale and Approach .................................................................................................................. 10

2.2. Strengths & Weaknesses ................................................................................................................. 14

2.3. Ethical Issues .................................................................................................................................... 15

2.4. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 15

3. Findings and Analysis.................................................................................................................................. 16

3.1. FixMyStreet.com.............................................................................................................................. 16

3.2. BCCDIY.com ..................................................................................................................................... 20

3.3. OpenlyLocal.com ............................................................................................................................. 24

3.4. ArmchairAuditor.co.uk .................................................................................................................... 28

3.5. Hull's Web Survey ............................................................................................................................ 32

3.6. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 40

4. Conclusion & Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 41

4.1. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 41

4.2. Recommendations, or 'what does this mean for service delivery?' ............................................... 45

4.3. Further Research ............................................................................................................................. 46Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................................... 48

Appendices ...................................................................................................................................................... 54

Appendix 1: Web Survey ............................................................................................................................ 54

Appendix 2: Telephone Survey .................................................................................................................. 54

Appendix 3: Face to Face Survey ............................................................................................................... 54

Appendix 4: Survey Data ............................................................................................................................ 54



List of TablesFigure 1: Definitions of Democracy (adapted from Hendriks 2010, p. 22) ....................................................... 3

Figure 2: Models of democracy (Hendriks, 2010, pp. 2-28) .............................................................................. 4

Figure 3: The rise of governing by netowrk (Goldsmith, 2000, p . 20) ............................................................. 6

Figure 4: Total survey responses ..................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 5: Average Age ...................................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 6: Why didn’t you use hullcc.gov.uk? ................................................................................................... 33

Figure 7: What is your preferred means of contacting the council? ............................................................... 34

Figure 8: What kind of internet user are you? ................................................................................................ 34

Figure 9: What was the main purpose of your visit? ....................................................................................... 35

Figure 10: What service area were you interested in? ................................................................................... 36

Figure 12: Summary of hullcc.gov.uk being rated from very dissatisfied to very satisfied ............................. 36

Figure 11: How did you find the process of obtaining that information? ....................................................... 36

Figure 13: Which of these areas would you like to see the council develop or improve? .............................. 37

Figure 14: Usage of social media tools ............................................................................................................ 38

http://userfs/StaffFS/cf151/w2k/BW/Dissertation%20Final%20Edit%203%20all%20yellow!.docx%23_Toc271027788

http://userfs/StaffFS/cf151/w2k/BW/Dissertation%20Final%20Edit%203%20all%20yellow!.docx%23_Toc271027788



Page | vi

List of IllustrationsIllustration 1: FixMyStreet.com ....................................................................................................................... 16

Illustration 2: BCCDIY.com ............................................................................................................................... 20

Illustration 3: OpenlyLocal.com ....................................................................................................................... 24

Illustration 4 ArmchairAuditor.com ................................................................................................................. 28



Page | 1

1. Introduction & Literature ReviewIn recent years there have been numerous websites designed to deliver or augment public services.

These sites have occasionally been prompted by dissatisfaction with existing services and sometimes they

have come from a desire to improve access to democracy but in the majority of cases they have been

developed to support the public sector, not to attack it. These sites question whether online service should

be entirely the responsibility of 'the state' and attempts to draw out the lessons for local authorities in how

they approach, and embrace, those concerned citizens with the requisite skills to do it themselves.

Having worked in a number of areas directly affected by these websites the issue of how local

authorities respond to what they cannot control has inspired this work. Over the last 18 months it has

become clear that the potential exists for local authorities to save significant money by using the internet

effectively. What these sites suggest is that the burden of developing those channels does not need to be

met internally. However, whether such expertise is available across the country is questionable. In order to

test the hypothesis that 'citizen produced websites are increasingly important to public service provision and

are consequently reshaping the relationship between citizen and state' this dissertation considers four case

studies and the attitudes of residents in Hull.

The dissertation begins with a literature review that considers the theoretical and conceptual

context for this debate. It distils discussions about the nature of democracy, considers the nature of public

service delivery and then addresses the role of the internet and the cultures it promotes. Following an

explanation of the methodological approach and a discussion of the quality, and limitations, of the research

the findings are presented. The case studies of FixMyStreet.com, BCCDIY.com, OpenlyLocal.com and

ArmchairAuditor.co.uk are complemented by quantitative and qualitative research completed in Hull

providing the basis for subsequent analysis. Conclusions on this research, the recommendations for local

authorities and the options for further study bring the dissertation to its completion.

This is a dissertation that does not seek to consider the impact of the internet and technology on

democracy. It does not seek to examine whether the 2010 election was the first internet election as it was

claimed in the build up. It does not look to test the emerging model of Big Society and critique its potential

for delivering services and protecting the vulnerable. This dissertation considers the current position of



Page | 2

citizen-led websites in the British landscape by focusing on four particular examples of this trend. It asks

what those websites mean for the attitudes of local authorities towards the public as providers, not just

customers and it tests the implications of those ideas with primary research completed with residents of

Hull. At its heart is the question – what does the fact that ordinary people are making unsolicited websites

that deliver services mean for the relationship between citizen and state?

This dissertation is concerned with the relationship between the public and their services and the

implication of citizen-produced, web-based activity. These ideas flow out of a wider discussion on the

nature of democracy, the provision of public goods and services and the culture of the internet. As a result,

this literature review provides a theoretical and conceptual background to the case studies examined in this

work.

1.1. The nature of democracyBritain is a democratic monarchy. Her Majesty Elizabeth I is our head of state but the nation is

governed by members elected as representatives for their constituents using a first past the post system. At

a local level a similar system exists for the election of councillors. This means we have limited power and

influence over daily decision making; our engagement with democracy is indirect. However, such a system

would not meet with approval from some of those who have attempted to define democracy. Figure 1

demonstrates that what democracy actually means is open to debate.

Lane & Ersson (2003, p. 3) A political regime where the will of the people ex ante becomes the law of the

country (legal order) ex post

Beetham (1994, p. 28) A political concept, concerning the collectively binding decisions about the rules and

policies of a group, association or society (...) embracing the related principles of

popular control and political equality

Hadenius (1992, p. 2) A political system in which ‘public policy is to be governed by the freely expressed will

of the people whereby all individuals are to be treated as equals’

Popper (1945, p. 69) A type of government in which ‘the social institutions provide means by which the

rulers may be dismissed by the ruled’

Dahl (2000, p. 37-38) A constitution in conformity with one elementary principle, ‘that all the members are



Page | 3

to be treated as if they were equally qualified to participate in the process of making

decisions about the policies the as sociation will pursue’

Schumpeter (1943, p. 269) That institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals

acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people's vote

Goodin (2003, p. 1) A matter of making social outcomes systematically responsive to the settled

preferences of all involved parties

Finer (1999, p. 1568) A state where political decisions are taken by and with the consent, or the active

participation even, of the majority of the People

Lincoln (1863) Government of the people, by the people, for the people

Churchill (1947) No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all- wise…democracy is the worst form

of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time

Figure 1: Definitions of Democracy (adapted from Hendriks 2010, p. 22)

In the 2010 general election the outcome was not decisive despite a 4% increase in the turnout to

65.1% (BBC, 2010b). The Liberal Democrats took 23% of the vote but only 57 seats whilst Labour, who

polled 29%, had 258 leaving the Conservatives with 307 seats on the strength of 36.1% of the vote (Ibid).

The first coalition government since World War Two, between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats,

entered government on the strength of 59% of votes cast; however, those 17.5 million votes only represent

an electoral mandate from 39% of the country 1. This result came against the backdrop of campaigns against

a ‘broken voting system’ and renewed calls for Proportion al Representation (38 Degrees, 2010; Take Back

Parliament, 2010; Vote For A Change, 2010).

Such questions are not new. In 1774, fifty-eight years before the 1832 Reform Act, Edmund Burke

formulated two models of representative democracy: delegate and trustee. The delegate model of

democracy is closer to an understanding of direct democracy. In this model those who are elected make

decisions on behalf of the public, as their delegate rather than for them as someone with more knowledge.

They do not have the autonomy to act out their own ideas, theirs is a power delegated from the public who

1 The total Conservative and Liberal Democrat vote was 17,563,328 of a total vote of 29,691,380. This represented a65.1% turnout. The total electorate eligible to vote in the 2010 general election was 45,608,879. This percentage isobtained by dividing the total Conservative and Liberal Democrat vote by the total electorate and multiplying by 100.



Page | 4

are not themselves in a position to govern. In the trustee model the responsibility of governance is placed

in the hands of an elected ‘trustee’ and requires them to use t heir personal judgement to act in the best

interests of the community even if that means ignoring the wishes of their electors. After winning the

election Burke declared that ‘your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he

betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion’ (Burke, 1906). He was not returned when

the people of Bristol next visited the ballot box and this indirect, trustee, model remains central to British

politics.

Kemp (1943) and Lucas (1976) have argued that representative government was the most viable

option available with participation in the democratic process being about wider discussion and debate, not

the narrow focus on Westminster. Haskell (2001) has developed those ideas and argued that representative

democracy safeguards the nuances of the public interest and ensures due process rather than simple

majority rule. However, recent academic thought and literature stands in support of direct and deliberative

forms of democracy with a number of academics, including Mark Warren (1999a; 1999b; 2002), Iris Young

(2000) and Michael Saward (2000) proposing that limiting direct participation dilutes democracy.

Figure 2: Models of democracy (Hendriks, 2010, pp. 2-28)

Hendriks (2010) proposes a summary of four different forms of government (represented in Figure

1), indicating that Britain is a Pendulum democracy. We have a form of government based on majority rule



Page | 5

but it is an indirect and representative model where the responsibility for providing public goods and

services has been handed to our elected representatives. This conflicts with recent consultation carried out

by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG, 2009) which states that 'it is fundamental

to local governance that citizens have the right to influence the decisions that affect their lives and their

communities'. Our involvement with the democratic process of decision making may be restricted but

recent studies have suggested that rather than striving for political influence in the main debating hall

people are instead ‘working around the state’ (Laycock, 2004, p. 266). Perhaps this offers an opportuni ty for

the 'large and untapped pool of people who would like more say in what happens in their area' to exert

their right without requiring political revolution (DCLG, 2009).

1.2. Providing public servicesIn such a situation where councillors and MPs are not directly delivering services how do they

ensure they get what they voted for in Parliament and that we got what we voted for at the ballot box?

How does central government relate to the local and how do we, as citizens, relate to them both? In

analysing these relationships the principal-agent model offers a tool for understanding the dynamics of

trust and accountability. According to Lane (2000, p. 132) the theory applies to ‘human interaction

that…*involves+…an agreement between at least two persons according to which one (the agent) is

instructed to take action on behalf of another (the princ ipal)’ and places the relationship within government

by arguing that ‘government is the principal and the bureau chiefs…the agents’.

Although elected members govern through bureau chiefs they do so because of the power

delegated to them at the ballot box by the electorate. Consequently local government activity becomes an

agent of twin principals: not only centrally elected representatives but Mr and Mrs Griffiths of Starkey

Crescent as well. Williams and Giardina (1993, p. 161) suggest that this means

‘ the decision-making process can be described as a network of principal-agent relations:electorate/elected public officials, elected public officials/bureaucracy’.

This produces ‘an exchange agreement where both governors and the governed exchange part of their

power but one in which both parties need the other…*ensuring government carries its function+…on

condition that powers are not exceeded and that the agent is accountable’ (Hughes, 1998, p. 230).



Page | 6

Over time different approaches have been taken to ensure that the agent produces what the

principal wants: fair and equitable treatment of all. The idea of Traditional Public Administration (TPA),

based on the Weberian principles of the bureau, has given way to New Public Management (NPM). And

whilst Olsen (2006), Schofield (2001) and Du Gay (2000) reject the complete dismissal of the ideals

underpinning TPA, NPM is seen to completely discredit what has gone before (Hughes 2003). The

subsequent impact of Modernising Government (Cabinet Office, 1999) was to cement existing ideas of

outsourcing and partnership working that had been a feature of John Major's government and develop

them further into ideas of network governance (Bovaird, 2009 (February lectures), Goldsmith & Eggers,

2004).

Figure 3 demonstrates a comparison of these models with the rigid, hierarchical model of TPA giving

way to greater public-private collaboration and, as capabilities to manage networks increased, to deliver the

ideal of 'joined-up government' through more effective partnership working and, ultimately, ideas of co-

production (Hajer & Wagenaar, 2003; Goldsmith & Eggers, 2004; Bovaird, 2007).

Figure 3: The rise of governing by netowrk (Goldsmith, 2000, p . 20)

The debate over network governance and co-production has looked at how formal public sector

agencies would work together to solve wicked issues (Agranoff, 2007). However, this has sometimes

bypassed the public as a potential network, strengthening the divide between public sector and private

citizen.



Page | 7

1.3. Cultures of the internet This dissertation presents case studies of situations where the 'principal' has found themselves

wanting greater participation in the delivery of goods and services. This has not been in a formal, electoral

way but as an extension of an online culture where people pool skills, experience and resources in a

completely natural and relational way. 70% of UK households have access to the internet, two thirds of the

country are engaged in 'social computing' and 44.2% of the population have active user accounts on

Facebook (Office for National Statistics, 2009; Li & Bernoff, 2008; eMarketer, 2010).

Where the internet goes next is providing significant food for thought. For some, the internet has

been blown out of all proportion; it is simply a tool that lets us do what we did slightly better and has no

greater significance. Others argue that the real impact of the internet is yet to be felt and it will take some

time before it is second nature for the majority of people (Edgerton, 2008). Keen (2008) and Carr (2008)

suggest that it is having a significant but negative influence on the way we discern truth. They contend that

expertise has been displaced by a wall of amateur noise. The fourth school celebrates the rise of the

amateur and is entirely positive about the internet. In bringing more diversity and choice as consumers or

providing new and interesting models of community and collaboration the future of the internet is bright

and entirely positive (Anderson, 2007; Shirky, 2008; Benkler, 2006). Finally there are those who think that

the open, collaborative web has been a good thing but it is a passing phase. Eventually, Zittrain (2009)

argues, we will need the corporations the internet has rejected to step in and retake control.

If the open, collaborative web is only a passing phase it is certainly having a significant impact on

contemporary life. The internet has changed the way we access and acquire knowledge. News footage

travels around the globe in seconds changing the focus of both politics and society. We can pay our bills and

make our complaints virtually and in real time across a myriad of different websites. But arguably the most

significant impact has been on the blurring of the line between public and private in how we live our lives.

Every day millions of people share the banal, and the poignant; the exciting and the mundane; the real and

the exaggerated through a host of digital networks and communication channels. However, not everybody

is producing or interacting with content but many more are consuming it. Howe (2008) credits Bradley

Horowitz of Yahoo with identifying the 1:10:89 principle of online activity which suggests that in every



Page | 8

hundred people one will create something, ten interact with that new creation and the remaining 89 merely

consume it (Howe, 2008).

Leadbeater (2009) refers to our world as ‘web -infected’ by combined product of peasant, academic,

hippie and geek resulting in what he calls 'we-think'. Such a trend, Lessig (2008) argues, represents a

conflict b etween two cultures. He suggests that the historic, and prevalent ‘read -only’ culture in which

people consume what they were given is being overtaken by a ‘read -write’ idea where people are not

simply consumers but producers with value in their shared creativity (Ibid, p. 28-29). This is a challenge to

the business world, and commercial copyright in particular with the suggestion being that the rise of the

amateur alongside technological transformation has enabled faster, cheaper, smarter and easier means of

working (Lowe, 2008). Li and Bernoff identify this as the groundswell, ‘a social trend in which people use

technologies to get the things they need from each other, rather than from traditional institutions like

corporations’ (2008, p. 9).

When seen in the light of our earlier discussions about democratic participation and the provision

of public goods and services these internet cultures of collaboration and openness question the classic

understanding of citizenship and the relationship between principal and agent. Clay Shirky’s Here Comes

Everybody (2008) discusses in depth the opportunities that exist for people to pick up and run with new

ideas and forms of participation. He suggests that ‘the scope of work that can be done by noninstitutional

groups i s a profound challenge to the status quo’ (Ibid, p.48). In its use of open source software and greater

interactivity with the American people the Obama administration has begun to develop this idea of 'Gov2.0'

(Lathrop & Ruma, 2010; Obama, 2009). In Britain, the first 100 days of the coalition built on the outgoing

government's commitment to publishing open government data in support of transparency and to

stimulate innovation (Cameron 2010; Brown 2009). Furthermore, our new government have used crowd

sourcing in support of the Big Society vision that the public should be able to contribute money saving ideas

and reshape legislation (Her Majesty's Treasury, 2010; Telegraph, 2010a; Telegraph, 2010b; Her Majesty's

Government, 2010).

Rather than NPM approaches to government, or institutionalised control over what is heard and

consumed, the open source, collaborative and crowd sourced cultures of the internet offer something



Page | 9

different. It is argued that this leads to the co-production of services outside the state's leadership and

control requiring a new paradigm in approaching public services; a communicative approach under the

moniker 'We-Gov'. (McCormick, 2010; Campbell, Goldsmith & Tumin, 2010; Boland & Coleman, 2008).

1.4. ConclusionThis literature review has considered the existing structures of governance and the way in which the

delivery and management of public services has altered as a result of changing ideologies before addressing

the ‘web -infected’ culture in which we live and noting the potential for this to affect current models of

service delivery.

The historic idea that political democracy means an arms-length principal-agent relationship rooted

in the ideal of public service having responsible for service delivery is coming under scrutiny. Some modern

Britons want something more. Where once they may have felt powerless to do anything about the

prevailing political norms the twenty-first century citizen is able to use the internet to alter the shape of

public service delivery. Following the 1:10:89 principle we must recognise that not everyone will be

motivated, or skilled enough, to design and publish their own website but, if somebody else did, it would be

readily available to other interested parties.

The nature of this discussion is not one of politics but it is heavily informed by them. The electoral

pressure over our political structures has resulted in plans to hold a referendum in 2011 (Gay &

Woodhouse, 2010). At the same time, the rhetoric of Big Society has given fresh impetus to the idea of co-

production whilst the commitment to publishing open data confirms its significance to the coalition

government. The distinctions between citizen and state are being reconfigured and irrespective of the

referendum, there are increasing opportunities for concerned citizens to make a point and influence or

deliver services themselves providing a model of democratic participation that is more than what happens

at the ballot box. Through the use of case studies and research from the people of Hull we will explore

these developments and attempt to answer the following research questions:

How have citizens produced websites that provide public services?

What do these sites mean in the context of the debate about democracy?

Are citizen produced websites important to the future of public service delivery?





Page | 11

face and round table discussion 2. Throughout the research period the use of social bookmarking and a

private blog have enabled these contributions to the debate to be recorded alongside my developing

thoughts and ideas on an ad hoc basis (Borg, 2001; Janesick, 1999).

2.1.1. Case Study The four websites that have been chosen represent a period of three years in the history of online

civic engagement by those outside government and their selection was informed by the findings of the

earlier research phase. Initially the examples of FixMyStreet.com and BCCDIY.com were identified as

suitable examples for consideration. However, as the research continued it seemed logical to include the

experience and contribution of OpenlyLocal.com and, most recently, ArmchairAuditor.co.uk in order to

create a broad-based sample that allows for contrast and comparison between cases.

All qualitative research depends on whether the ‘findings are grounded in empirical material’ (Flick,

2009, p. 15). The case studies have been researched empirically using observation of the sites as they have

developed. This has provided an understanding of the circumstances around their creation and their

interaction with existing state led activity. Having first been alerted to the impact of FixMyStreet.com on

service delivery in April 2009 I was aware of the debate and, 'on the spot' as different ideas were

formulated and sites were launched providing real-time overview to developments in the field.

The websites are different examples of citizen-led activity in areas that in theory were the

responsibility of the state to provide. They have been done unbidden, at no cost to the public purse. In

examining these case studies it is hoped to shed some light on all the research questions established earlier.

In order to do so the following questions were asked of each site to provide a background for analysis:

What is the site and what is its purpose?

Who set it up and why did they do that?

How does the site work in practice?

2 An unconference is a participant led gathering on a theme or purpose. It differs from the classic conference model inthat they are run for free, the agenda and schedule is set in the morning by the attendees and use round tablediscussion rather than lecture style sessions.



Page | 12

2.1.2. Survey As part of the process to improve the council's web presence Hull City Council measured the online

attitudes and browsing habits of Hull's residents. This allowed me to consider these issues on wider scale

than a restricted sample might have achieved. The survey provided access to a large urban environment

with a history of deprivation that regularly ranks highly in the wrong league tables. However, it is also home

to a technologically advanced telecommunications infrastructure and a highly active digital community

which has spawned the successful digital conference Hull Digital Live. Against this backdrop Hullcc.gov.uk

was recently awarded only 2 stars (out of a possible 4) in the annual review of council websites, a reduction

in its rating in previous years (SOCITM, 2010).

This quantitative research adopted a cross-sectional approach by providing a snap shot of the city's

attitudes. Although the council had conducted previous consultation it was not effective as a tool of

comparison as the research which was carried out was limited in scope and could not constitute a

longitudinal study as there was no attempt to track individuals over time. Furthermore, because the council

was particularly interested in the attitudes of those who did not access the internet such as the elderly, or

those from a poorer social background it meant the survey was conducted over the telephone and face to

face as well as through hullcc.gov.uk meaning three variants of the survey were used, a further departure

from the previous research.

The questionnaire asked a selection of up to 31 questions that were dependent on the answers

respondents gave and whether they were accessing it via hullcc.gov.uk, over the telephone or face to face.

Paper versions of these surveys are available as Appendices 1 to 3. Although I set the questions the final

surveys were designed in light of pilot work with a selection of staff within the Customer Service,

Communication & Marketing, Museum Education, Streetscene, ICT and Policy & Strategy service areas. The

questionnaire used a combination of closed and open questions as well as Likert scales, multiple choice and

single option questions. The raw quantitative data is included at Appendix 4. The free text responses

provided useful information to the council but the quantity of information they contained has meant

choosing to focus only on the quantitative data..



Page | 13

The web survey was added to hullcc.gov.uk and in this way was made available to all visitors of

hullcc.gov.uk irrespective of where they lived and, because we could not predict who would visit the

website we made the decision to give 50% of visitors in a particular time period the opportunity to

complete it by appearing in an in-page pop-up that asked visitors if they wanted to complete the survey. If

they said yes it would take them to the survey after completing their visit if no then the survey would never

present itself to that visitor again.

Kingston Communications handled the telephone survey as part of the council's call centre

contract. Callers to the city's 300300 helpline were asked if they would be happy to complete a survey and,

if so, they received a phone call later that day to follow their enquiry up. The sampling within this part of

the survey was therefore self-selecting. In the first place it was restricted only to those who contacted the

council via the telephone and, of those, only members of the public who expressed a desire to be included.

To complete the offline survey the council commissioned Force 7 on the basis that they would

target make use of the city's Customer Service Centres to ensure that the views of those without access to

the internet provided balance to the responses gathered elsewhere.

Figure 4: Total survey responses

The surveys ran concurrently with Kingston Communications and Force 7 instructed to poll a

minimum of 500 respondents to provide an offline sample size of 1,000. The web survey targeted 1,000

responses to provide a total sample of 2,000. After running for 4 weeks there had been a total of 1,847

responses. As can be seen from Figure 4, 938 responded via the website and a combined total of 909 from

the offline surveys. Although Force 7 failed to reach their target there was a good balance between those

399

938

510

Offline Online0

200

400

600

800

1000

Face to Face Web Telephone



Page | 14

who accessed the survey online, and those who accessed it though offline channels allowing Hull City

Council to bring the consultation period to a close.

2.2. Strengths & WeaknessesNo research can ever lay claim to perfection. And whilst it is good to acknowledge the strengths of

the research contained in this dissertation it is important to reflect critically on the processes used and the

activity recorded.

In terms of the consultation in Hull there are inevitably certain limitations in the data. By choosing

to use only the quantitative data and discount the qualitative responses I have purposefully limited the data

being considered in this research. The concerns and issues contained within them had operational

resonance and the dissertation is not negatively impacted by their exclusion. Neuman, (2006, p. 222)

suggests that the researcher can never know ‘whether the cases selected represent the population’ and

with the data collection outsourced to Force 7 and Kingston Communications this adds a further variable

into both the sampling process and the execution of the survey. However, by targeting those who have

visited the website, contacted the council via the telephone or accessed services offline it is hoped that this

purposive sampling has targeted knowledgeable individuals by identifying those relevant to the research

topic rather than necessarily being representative of the population (Flick, 2009). Arguably the size of the

sample was a strength of this research as it offset these limitations in the data and provided a wide ranging

picture of use across the city, both genders, all ages and different access channels.

The empirical research into the website case studies found its strength in the public way in which

those sites were birthed and the access to the discussions which took place via social networks, forums and

blogs. Moreover, because these phenomena took place outside of Hull and away from my working

environment it was possible to be a detached observer rather than an involved public servant. Nor was I

involved as a private citizen as I live outside Hull meaning that my expectations of a council could remain

separate from my working environment. This allowed me to appreciate the nuances of the situation from

within an organisation and lend balance to my personal perspective.



Page | 15

However, this meant that I was not party to the discussions behind the scenes in those locations

where citizen produced websites had local significance such as Birmingham. Moreover, despite my hoping

to have structured discussions it proved impossible to do so with either stakeholders from those authorities

or the individuals who had contributed to the design and delivery of their websites.

2.3. Ethical IssuesThe research contained within this dissertation does not touch on sensitive ethical issues. However,

in approaching the consultation Hull City Council were legally obliged to comply with data protection

legislation. Consequently, all personal data relating to those who conducted the survey was separated from

their responses. Contact details have been securely stored and used only to follow up those who expressed

a desire for further involvement in the council's web design project.

2.4. ConclusionThis research is not perfect. It would have benefited from greater access to the narrative, ideas and

opinions as understood by individuals involved with the citizen produced websites contained within this

dissertation whichever side of the public sector/private citizen axis they represent. Nevertheless, it is

believed that the overview provided by four separate studies is more important than the personal

motivations or the characters involved. As a result this research treats the sites and what they represent as

important rather than the developers behind them, save to recognise that they are produced by

independent, concerned amateurs rather than public sector employees.

Furthermore, those websites which demonstrate the themes and allow the issue to be explored do

not stand alone. By using quantitative research produced through consultation with residents of Hull we can

test the emerging ideas in one of the largest urban environments in the country. This will provide an

opportunity for us to weigh the impact of the case studies and draw conclusions about the value of citizen

produced websites, the implications they have for the relationship between citizen and state and identify

opportunities for future research and discussion.





Page | 17

FixMyStreet.com was developed by the charity MySociety.org. Their primary mission is 'to build

Internet projects which give people simple, tangible benefits in the civic and community aspects of their

lives' (FixMyStreet.com). Examples of their other work include TheyWorkForYou.com a site to track the

activity of your local MP and WhatDoTheyKnow.com a public portal for making and publishing Freedom of

Information Requests.

The site came about through frustration with the existing provision available through council

websites. Often the reporting mechanisms were hidden away and difficult to use. Furthermore, in order to

report a problem you'd need to know the council which was responsible for that location. Instead,

supported by the Young Foundation and funded by the Department for Constitutional Affairs Innovations

Fund, this project has produced a single website that can be used by anybody, anywhere in Great Britain so

long as they can find the problem on a map.

3.1.3. How does the site work in practice? In the first six months the site received 3,000 reports and as of August 29 th 2010 a total of 119,000

reports had been logged. However, only 35% are marked as fixed which suggests that councils are not

responding to the issues being raised (BBC, 2009a). However, of the 77,000 with an unknown status, 68,000

are categorised as 'old problems' that may have been resolved a long time ago without anyone providing an

update. This is one of the biggest challenges to FixMyStreet.com as the status of a problem relies on either

the person who submitted the complaint, or the council, to go back and provide an update. On receipt of a

problem an email is sent to the relevant council but this does not necessarily integrate with the systems

used by the councils. Whilst the council may respond to the report it does not necessarily mean they will

update FixMyStreet.com.

King and Brown (2007) provided a critique of how councils responded to FixMyStreet shortly after

its launch. They found that local government officers were concerned at the duplication of what was

available on their own websites and that they felt it was difficult to manage expectations regarding when a

problem might be resolved. Although FixMyStreet.com offers a council the facility to provide an update to

residents using the comments function a number of councils have noted that this creates an additional



Page | 18

administrative burden that could be avoided if a resident used their website in the first place (McGuire,

2010).

However, some councils have chosen to explore how they might adopt FixMyStreet.com. In Barnet,

for example, they are running a version that uses the council's template. It can be accessed from the

homepage or directly at http://barnet.fixmystreet.com and provides a dashboard of recent problems

reported, and fixed. During August the council have fixed 56 problems that were reported through the site.

Furthermore, because it covers the country and uses open source technology others have developed

functionality to plug into FixMyStreet.com. A good example is Stuart Harrison, webmaster at Lichfield

District Council, who has built both a mechanism for reporting problems via Twitter (called Fix My Tweet)

and a mobile version of the FixMyStreet.com website. Those tools are not just restricted to his local

residents but, should they wish, have enabled every council to deploy a mobile problem reporting platform.

Other volunteers have produced apps that work with the Iphone and on Android smartphones. Very few, if

any, councils offer such mobile access to problem reporting through their own websites.

3.1.4. AnalysisFixMyStreet.com represents the first example of citizen produced websites considered in this

dissertation. Although it was built using government funds it is now operated independently by

MySociety.org. Arguably it provides a better service to the public than the efforts of local authorities despite

being produced by a civil society organisation. Whilst 50% of problems logged on the site have an unknown

status the example of Barnet suggests that those councils who embrace it can provide a transparent and up

to date snapshot of problems that have been reported.

FixMyStreet.com was designed for local people to easily report problems. It was also built for local

authorities. Not to draw attention to their failings but to simplify the act of reporting problems so that

people might avoid duplication, subscribe to local updates and do it online rather than through costlier

offline access channels. It demonstrates the economies of scale in providing a single national tools for

something common to all councils as well as economies of scope in that any additional functionality can be

accessed by all irrespective of where it was initially developed.

http://barnet.fixmystreet.com/

http://barnet.fixmystreet.com/



Page | 19

The success in the approach FixMyStreet.com provides is seen in the fact that it has been adopted

by some councils to act as their mechanism of choice for reporting all problems. It is not a niche pressure

site that can be ignored by councils meaning that those who have developed their own solutions are

considering how it might provide true integration across their operating procedures. This site questions the

ability of councils to provide appropriate online services and some have responded negatively by continuing

to invest in their own solutions. This means that the public sector has continued to invest resources in

solutions that do not provide the joined up, transparent and feature rich approach offered by

FixMyStreet.com.



Page | 20

3.2. BCCDIY.com

Illustration 2: BCCDIY.com

3.2.1. What is the site and what is its purpose? BCCDIY.com was launched in September 2009 and describes itself as 'an unofficial website, aimed at

providing a useful service to people in Birmingham based on the contents of the Birmingham City Council

website, combined with other tools and services' (BCCDIY.com). It uses the content found on the official

website but has provided additional functionality such as the addition of local imagery, events and news.

The purpose of BCCDIY.com was to provide a site that was 'easier to navigate, better customisable

depending on the area you live in and more accessible to users with disabilities' (Birmingham Post, 2009a).

The site was built using open source software and its name highlights the adoption of a 'do it yourself'

attitude towards the information it contains. This means that instead of containing 'locked down'

information it embodies the knowledge of city residents who are able to change things that might be

wrong, add additional information or provide useful functionality such as integration with FixMyStreet.com

(Ibid).

3.2.2. Who set it up and why did they do that? In the summer of 2007 Birmingham City Council announced that they were going to be replacing

their old website. Two years later there was no new website which prompted local resident Josh Hart to find

out what was happening using HelpMeInvestigate.com (HelpMeInvestigate.com, 2009; joshuahart.co.uk,

2009). A freedom of information request was submitted to the council and their response on 31 st July 2009

stated that the project had begun in March 2005 with an estimated 7 month duration at a proposed cost of



Page | 21

£580,000. However, the council's response concluded that the estimated date of delivery was now August

2009 and the estimated cost of the site would now be £2.803m (WhatDoTheyKnow.com, 2009).

This prompted the Tax Payers Alliance to ask ‘why the costs involved have been allowed to escalate

so massively’ (Birmingham Post, 2009b). On September 7th

2009 the new site was launched to widespread

disgust particularly via Twitter (Birmingham Post, 2009a). This prompted Glyn Evans, director of business

transformation to defend the site as being designed for a majority of residents, ‘not the Twitterati'

(BiminghamPost, 2009a).

This only served to agitate Birmingham's 'strong and vocal social/digital media scene' but rather

than continue to engage in fruitless criticism of the council Stef Lewandowski decided that the most

appropriate response was to see whether the people of Birmingham could follow their words with action

and build their own site (steflewandowski.com, 2009).

Within 24 hours he had put something together which provided a solid foundation for further

development that was 'not perfect, but...simple' (Birmingham Post, 2009c). A week later a hack day was

hosted at which sixty or seventy people attended (Eventbrite.com, DIYCouncil.com). Further functionality

was added, and novel ways of gathering the information the council wouldn't provide were used (When’s It

Bin Day?, 2009). After a couple of weeks there was an accessible site that 'didn't do everything, but what it

did do it did quite well' (DIYCouncil.com).

Clearly the driving force behind the project was Stef Lewandowski but it would not have been

possible without the effort put in by the volunteers who attended the hack day and subsequently

contributed to improving and developing the website.

3.2.3. How does the site work in practice? Since the initial burst of enthusiasm the collaborative, 'do it yourself' approach has not produced

the additional functionality, or the updated content that was believed to be possible. The last recorded

update to the site was on October 16 th 2009, four weeks after the site was launched and no money has

been pledged to support the running costs of the site (BCCDIY.com; Pledgie.com). Furthermore, the

collaborative environment for sharing ideas and making suggestions has seen only 3 updates since February



Page | 22

2010, the most recent of which was June 6 th 2010 (BCCDIY.pbworks.com). This is despite simple user tasks

no longer working when you browse around BCCDIY.com.

The new Birmingham City Council website has bedded in and although the city's digital community

remain disappointed at the result of spending almost £3m, volunteers who produced BCCDIY.com have not

provided a serious challenge to the council website. Indeed, the fact that the community based,

collaborative approach was unsustainable supports the investment the council made in the redesign of their

new website. Nevertheless the council commissioned a review into the episode. The 64 page review is fairly

damning about the tools the council bought and the design of the site as well as making no mention of how

the council involved its expert citizens about what they want from their website (Service Birmingham,

2010). BCCDIY resulted from that exclusion.

3.2.4. AnalysisIn Birmingham the council spent a lot of money and took a long time to deliver a new

website. In a couple of weeks the local development community produced something that worked and was,

in their opinion, more useable than the official site.

However, since its launch little further effort has been made and, whilst it can be held up as an

example of citizen activity, it is clear that this example of community led citizen production was

unsustainable and did not provide a serious alternative to the council's offering unlike the organisation led

citizen production of FixMyStreet.com.

One analysis of BCCDIY.com would be to dismiss it as being a twenty first century example of writing

an angry letter and to suggest that it was purely done to make a point. The fact that the site was not

updated is therefore predictable: once that point was made, there was no reason to continue developing

the site.

The counter argument to this is found in the words of Stef Lewandowski who saw the production of

the site as more positive than writing angry tweets because it was ' about what we as citizens of a city

expect from our local government through the web' ( steflewandowski.com, 2009). Although BCCDIY.com

may be dormant he has shifted his focus to every council site in the country and is attempting to build a



Page | 23

national community of developers who can experiment and explore different approaches and tools for

supporting and improving council websites at DIYcouncil.com.

The BCCDIY.com case study stands as a lesson to councils that the public has the ability to use the

internet to good effect whether in producing something, connecting with interested individuals or

publicising an embarrassing story. Birmingham's new website remains an overly expensive investment but

whilst cutting spending is important councils need to engage with their expert citizens and ask them to help

design services (Telegraph, 2010c). Perhaps Bristol City Council have taken the experience of Birmingham as

their motivation for investigating ways they might work with the local development community rather than

in isolation from them (Eventbrite.com).



Page | 24

3.3. OpenlyLocal.com

Illustration 3: OpenlyLocal.com

3.3.1. What is the site and what is its purpose? Launched in September 2009 with information from 12 councils, OpenlyLocal.com now contains a

directory of 159 councils comprising 9,964 councillors who sit on 5,852 committees and 48,334 committee

meetings. It provides access to 321 hyperlocal sites, an open data scoreboard containing over 270,956

pieces of data and a breakdown of council spending using 148,983 financial transactions.

It has a dual purpose. Firstly, from the perspective of the casual viewer it provides easy to use

access to local democracy offering information about local councillors, subscriptions to updates relating to

them or their committees as well as keyword alerts for particular areas of local concern. Secondly, it

champions the cause of local open government data (countculture.wordpress.com, 2009). OpenlyLocal.com

is at the forefront of the open data agenda. It scrapes content from local authority websites before turning

that rough information into structured data and combining it with other relevant datasets. The finished

article is then made available for reuse in a variety of formats as open and linked data.

3.3.2. Who set it up and why did they do that? Chris Taggart is an open government and transparency activist who set up OpenlyLocal.com in

September 2009. Having previously worked on Parliamentary data he was keen to explore the possibilities

at a local level where the understanding of democracy is often opaque and access to records limited

(countculture.wordpress.com.2009). He found that accessing a comparable level of information was 'fraught

with difficulties as there is no single source of data' and OpenlyLocal.com is his attempt at solving that

problem (Ibid).

However, his motivation is more than simply aggregating information. He believes that championing

the cause of local data can generate awareness of local issues, encourage community involvement, bring



Page | 25

shared knowledge, increase efficiency, promote transparency and renew the relationship between local

authorities and the public (Taggart, 2009). Furthermore, he fears that the decline of local media has the

potential to increase the disconnect between the public at their elected representatives at a time where the

tightening of budgets and the potential cutting of services necessitates openness and the involvement of

the community (Ibid).

3.3.3. How does the site work in practice? OpenlyLocal.com initially contained basic information relating to councillors, committees,

committee membership, and minutes for those committee meetings. In the 12 months since it launched it

has become a local hub of statistics, data and news relating to any given neighbourhood.

It has remained committed to its original aims of providing a platform of open governmental data

that supports and enhances local community action. The site now contains a directory of all the hyperlocal

websites in the country and provides tools to those citizen journalists that enable them to display

OpenlyLocal.com data on their websites.

However, whilst it contains an impressive amount of information the site is still limited in its content

by the way in which local authorities are publishing their information. There are 434 local authorities in the

United Kingdom but OpenlyLocal.com has only been able to collate the information relating to 159 whilst

the site's data scoreboard is only able to list 23 councils as having provided their data under a truly open

license allowing it to be reused as widely as possible. Whilst open government data has increased in

importance in the last twelve months the efforts of OpenlyLocal.com has so far only connected with those

individuals who understand the ideologies and are aware of the emergent trends. Unfortunately a number

of councils continue to see transparent government, freedom of information requests and open data as a

burden rather than a very natural part of local governance.

3.3.4. Analysis

“the raw data should be made available as soon as possible... As a lower priority, nice user interfaces should be made to it - if interested communities outside government have not already done it”

Tim Berners-Lee – Putting Government Data Online (2009)



Page | 26

Tim Berners-Lee requested that government publish its raw data, and that it do so as quickly as

possible. Whilst the national launch of data.gov.uk, a central repository of government datasets, is worthy

of celebration the progress at local level has been much slower. OpenlyLocal.com has attempted to further

the debate and has at least provided a nice user interface for the data it has obtained. Prior to this site

there was no easy way of comparing structured data from one part of the country with another. However,

the difficulties he has had in obtaining democratic information (only 37% of councils are represented after

12 months) suggests local authorities are performing poorly in helping members of the public to engage

with their elected representatives.

OpenlyLocal.com is more than simply a portal for local democracy. By aggregating information from

a number of sources contextual information about expenditure, crime, health and demography is added to

the details of a councillor. Because the data is completely open it means that the information and tools

available to developers, and novices, is easy to access and publish elsewhere. This is particularly beneficial to

hyperlocal citizen journalists who can ensure their readers are better informed and have greater awareness of

the issues facing their local areas.

Chris Taggart is eager to work with local authorities to improve the way in which they are publishing

and treating raw data. This accounts for the Open Election Project which encouraged all councils to publish

their 2010 local election results in a way that was 'machine-readable' and allow remote indexing and

interrogation. The support for local authorities has continued following the coalition government's

commitment to publishing spending data with OpenlyLocal.com being a source of best practice as well as a

watchdog to ensure councils are not simply paying lip service to their obligations or being exploited by

private sector suppliers (OpenlyLocal.com, 2010; countculture.wordpress.com, 2010).

OpenlyLocal.com was launched at the same time as BCCDIY was being produced in frustration at

Birmingham City Council's failure to involve concerned, expert citizens in ways that could have ensured the

service available to the public met expectations. Where that citizen produced site was attempting to

reinvent an entire council web presence, Chris Taggart's website is a mechanism for aggregating multiple

sources of information to provide a meaningful overview of data relating to a particular locality. Both sites

are attempting to repackage existing council information in ways that are more meaningful and accessible



Page | 27

to local residents. The fact that this activity was taking place independently of one another in separate parts

of the country is proof that there is definitely an interested community outside government of concerned

citizens willing to invest time and effort into producing useful resources for others.

OpenlyLocal.com is the work of a single activist who believes that there should be greater

transparency to government and easier access to public data but he is approaching the topic with patience

and in a way that provides insights for all those involved with the process whether ordinary resident,

hyperlocal activist, private company or local council.



Page | 28

3.4. ArmchairAuditor.co.uk

Illustration 4 ArmchairAuditor.com

3.4.1. What is the site and what is its purpose? ArmchairAuditor.co.uk takes raw financial data published by the Royal Borough of Windsor and

Maidenhead (RBWM) and provides a user friendly interface for people to investigate what their council has

been spending with external suppliers. Currently it covers 115 different services, 1,938 suppliers and 10,439

individual payments.

This means that a visitor can access a high-level view of amounts spent by each service area and the

totals paid to particular suppliers as well as being able to drill down into the detail of an individual payment.

In each occasion there are comment threads allowing for contextual information to be added, questions

asked and opinions shared. Built with open source tools using open data published by RBWM,

ArmchairAuditor.co.uk has been made available to anyone who wishes to take the source code, add their

local data and produce versions for any other councils.

3.4.2. Who set it up and why did they do that? The man responsible for this citizen produced website is Adrian Short. It is not his first citizen

produced, government focused activity as previously he was responsible for the Mash The State campaign

which encouraged councils to make better use of a technology called RSS to provide remote access to real-

time updates and combine it with the use of QR codes (square barcodes) to add virtual context to physical

objects (MashTheState.org.uk; mashthestate.wordpress.com).

Mash The State represented a challenge to local authorities to improve their own websites and

understand the simplicity of existing web technologies but ArmchairAuditor.co.uk is a completely

independent service produced at the government's behest. Writing at the height of the expenses scandal



Page | 29

and year before the election David Cameron wrote about his vision of a new politics central to which was

the public scrutiny of data:

'we will extend this principle of transparency to every nook and cranny of politics and public life,because it's one of the quickest and easiest ways to transfer power to the powerless and prevent

waste, exploitation and abuse'. (Guardian, 2009)

Following the election the coalition government has moved quickly to put this into action stipulating that all

councils must publish external spending over £500 and inviting us all to be part of 'an army of armchair

auditors' (Pickles, 2010).

ArmchairAuditor.co.uk is motivated by a desire to help people look at the data which has been

released so that they can make their own minds up about what is going on because 'when people are

informed they have more power...[and are]...more involved in democracy [by having] a close idea of what's

going on on a daily basis' (adrianshort.co.uk, 2010).

3.4.3. How does the site work in practice? ArmchairAuditor.co.uk has a specific focus on providing an overview of data in RBWM but does not

claim to provide an analysis or to draw conclusions about patterns of spending within the authority. It is

currently the only example of this raw data being used by private citizens to build such a tool. However, by

providing a signpost to raw data across the country, and making the source code for the site available

according to open source principles the building blocks are in place for it to be deployed elsewhere.

Supporting innovation in the presentation of data and providing opportunities to the private are

two of the motivations behind the release of open government data. For the residents of RBWM this has

meant they have two tools to help them understand what local spending consists of. The publishing of their

raw data has facilitated the creation of ArmchairAuditor.co.uk but they also present the information using a

commercial product called Spotlight on Spend. The two sites can be compared and contrasted in terms of

the features they provide and the interface they offer but whichever site you prefer the positive reception

of ArmchairAuditor.co.uk has brought it to the attention of local, and national media (adrianshort.co.uk,

2010).



Page | 30

3.4.4. AnalysisRaw data is overwhelming and 10,000 row spreadsheets are generally only of niche interest.

Likewise there is significant disillusionment with our existing model of politics and the behaviour of those in

power. However, they do not act as a barrier to individual passions about government spending – whether

it's too much in the wrong places, or not enough elsewhere. ArmchairAuditor.co.uk is motivated by a desire

to put useful information into the hands of the public, free from interpretation and without spin.

Sometimes that means entirely innocent items of expenditure suddenly become highly embarrassing when

reduced to a spreadsheet (as in the case of Woking Borough Council and their £18,254 spend on lingerie

which was actually a refund of rates (Get Surrey, 2010)). However, openly commentable, transparent

environment allows for that context to be provided, and offers a challenge to local authorities to increase

the contextual information on what they spend.

Adrian Short suggests that in twelve months more will be known by the public about public

spending than those within government did last year. By giving people tools to 'surf through the froth of

data, make sense of it and get into informed conversations with their neighbours and the people spending

the money you're creating a genuine power shift from the government to the governed' (adrianshort.co.uk,

2010 – Radio 4 interview article). It is hard to argue with the analysis that this represents a significant

change in the dynamic between the principal and the agent.

RBWM published their data and a member of the public chose to build a collaborative tool to

present that data and facilitate local residents in evaluating, auditing and challenging the council on its

external expenditure. Although ArmchairAuditor.co.uk complements the commercial product purchased by

the council it is questionable whether Spotlight on Spend provides additional functionality that made the

investment worthwhile. Because of this it is possible that as more councils publish raw data they will adopt

the Armchair Auditor platform as their free, open source, mechanism for contextualising their raw data.

ArmchairAuditor.co.uk is not a political website, it does not include any democratic information, it

does not provide any way of transacting with the council and is not built using tools or information that

constitute fundamental parts of a council website, nor is it making a point about existing council websites

and the quality of their provision. This is an example of a citizen produced website that has been



Page | 31

encouraged, and facilitated, by local authorities and in that respect provides a logical progression through

these four case studies. FixMyStreet.com is a site built by a non governmental organisation to deliver

particular services. BCCDIY.com saw disillusioned Birmingham residents produce something new and

competing. At the same time OpenlyLocal.com was scraping together a national resource of democratic

data from inaccessible locations and providing both challenge and encouragement to local authority

approaches to transparency. ArmchairAuditor.co.uk stands on the shoulders of these three sites. It is

facilitated by changing attitudes towards open government data and the recognition that concerned citizens

are building tools that stimulate local democratic engagement and foster informed participation in local

debates.



Page | 32

3.5. Hull's Web SurveyThis dissertation considers the impact of citizen produced websites on the relationship between the

citizen and state. Having considered four case studies this consultation provides an insight into the digital

outlook in Hull, a city without any citizen produced websites.

3.5.1. Demographics and internet habitsThere were 1,847 responses to the survey. 510 over the telephone, 938 through the website and

399 via face to face questionnaires. This provides a balanced sample between online users and their offline

counterparts. The average age of respondents was 40 for women and 41 for men. Amongst face to face

respondents the average age was lower and telephone users provided the eldest group as can seen in

Figure 5 (Web Q.20, Telephone Q.26, Face to Face Q.26).

Figure 5: Average Age

In general, the same questions were asked of all participants but the survey was designed to gather

context specific data too. Consequently, for those accessing the survey offline amongst offline participants

the question was asked why they had not used the internet. Figure 6 shows that almost 1 in 2 respondents

stated it was because they did not use the internet, a quarter favoured human interaction while a third

group felt the internet would be unsuitable for meeting their needs (Telephone Q.5, Face to Face Q.6).

45

38 36

49

43

32

300300 Web Face to Face0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Female

Male



Page | 33

Telephone Face to Face Total

Don't use the internet 39% 45% 42%

Prefer human interaction 27% 20% 24%

Didn't think I could access it online 15% 10% 13%

8 minor reasons 19% 25% 21%

Figure 6: Why didn’t you use hullcc.gov.uk?

Those who did not use the internet accounted for 378 of the 1,847 people polled. Although 22% of

them had no interest in ever changing that and only 23 were interested in training it does suggest that a

sizeable majority of the 'digitally excluded' would go online given the right circumstances (Telephone Q.6,

Face to Face Q.9). Those who used the internet were asked to identify all the ways got online. 85% of

respondents used broadband and usually connected in their homes but the survey supported suggestions

that being connected on the move is increasingly important with 26% of respondents using mobile

broadband, a mobile dongle or public wifi. Furthermore, amongst face to face respondents 28% of internet

users did so through their mobile phones (Web Q.1 and Q.2, Telephone Q.11, Face to Face Q.11 and 12).

Figure 7 shows the result of a question identifying the preferences of respondents when contacting

the council. Despite the level of internet access, digital forms of communication such as using the internet

or sending an email accounted for less than a quarter of responses. Unsurprisingly the vast majority of

those completing the survey through the call centre identified the telephone as their preferred method

alongside 42% of those polled face to face making this the most popular method. Unexpectedly only 7% of

responses indicated that they preferred personal, face to face interaction when contacting the council (Web

Q.12, Telephone, Q.4, Face to Face, Q.4).





Page | 35

3.5.2. Council interactionTo establish the main reasons people contact the council we asked participants to select the

purpose of their last interaction with Hull City Council. 44% of people had contacted the council looking for

information, including 61% of web users. As Figure 9 shows, the focus was on reporting or requesting

something over the phone whilst face to face respondents were most likely to pay for something or log

some feedback. These figures indicate that whilst Hull residents go online to find information they prefer to

use other channels to transact with the council (Web Q.7, Telephone Q.1, Face to Face Q.1).

Figure 9: What was the main purpose of your visit?

As a follow up we offered a selection of 23 different areas of the council and asked them to choose which

one they wanted to contact. Figure 10 shows the top 5 which between them account for 58% of enquiries.

Whilst housing, rubbish and council tax related concerns were the dominant issues on the telephone those

visiting the website were considerably more likely to be looking for information about leisure facilities whilst

a similar amount of face to face and web visitors wanted to know about housing and jobs (Web Q.8,

Telephone Q.2, Face to Face Q.2).

26%30%

24%

5%

15%

61%

2% 2%6%

2%

28%27%

8%11%

14%11%

28%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

300300

Web

Face to Face



Page | 36

Telephone Web Face to Face Total

Housing 25% 12% 13% 16%

Rubbish 32% 4% 9% 13%

Jobs 4% 12% 12% 10%

Leisure Facilities 0% 17% 3% 10%

Council Tax 19% 4% 8% 9%

Figure 10: What service area were you interested in?

3.5.3. Website SatisfactionIn order to assess the

experience of using the website we

asked participants whether they had

achieved success in visiting the website.

Those visitors who said they had were

asked to rate their experiencing using a

Likert scale from 'very difficult' to 'very

easy'. As Figure 11 shows, an

overwhelming majority of people found

it easy or very easy. Those who couldn't

achieve what they had wanted were asked about what they did instead. The findings suggested that 1 in 20

of all visitors to hullcc.gov.uk leaves the site disappointed and takes no further action, 1 in 20 of all visitors

contact the council call centre whilst 1 in 50 of those who can't achieve anything will write a letter to the

council (Web Q.9, Telephone Q.14-16, Face to Face Q.16-18).

With visitors to the website this question was developed using another Likert scale to rate 11

specific areas of the website. The breakdown is provided at Figure 12 but in total, 59% of all responses were

satisfied or very satisfied whilst 17% were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very satisfied

7% 10% 24% 41% 18%

Figure 12: Summary of hullcc.gov.uk being rated from very dissatisfied to very satisfied

Verydifficult

Difficult Neither Easy Very easy0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

300300

web

FacetoFace

Figure 11: How did you find the process of obtaining thatinformation?



Page | 37

However, the nuances behind those percentages suggest 'satisfied' is not synonymous with 'without room

for improvement'. Whilst 64% of people were satisfied, or very satisfied, with the 'look and feel' of the site,

23% of people were at the other end of the spectrum in their rating of the site's navigation. Furthermore,

although 63% responded positively in terms of 'finding what I want', 22% had a negative opinion of the

site's search functionality (Web Q.13).

The survey also asked for participants to identify areas of the site to improve. Of 1,508 responses,

32% said that the site was fine as it was. Figure 13 provides a breakdown of all responses and the

proportions attributed by each access channel to the different areas. Of those who completed the survey

online seven areas were criticised by more than 1 in 4 respondents (Web Q.14, Telephone Q.13, Face to

Face Q.21).

Figure 13: Which of these areas would you like to see the council develop or improve?

32%

27%

23%

22%

21%

19%

18%

16%

15%

9%

8%

8%

7%

6%

6%

42%

28%

9%

28%

37%

30%

30%

29%

28%

27%

24%

23%

11%

11%

10%

11%

35%

19%

24%

16%

16%

6%

5%

8%

10%

6%

8%

8%

It's fine as it is

Search

Structure

Look and feel

Content

More transactional services

Subscription to relevant information

Geographical information

Customer accounts

Greater use of audio or video

Blogs

Use of social media

Contribute your own content to the site

Do not visit

Other

Total Telephone Web Face to Face



Page | 38

Moreover, there was only limited enthusiasm for the council to explore the use of 'web 2.0' tools

and services such as greater use of audio or video, councillor and officer blogs or the ability for visitors to

contribute their own content to the site (whether as a comment or an image). In terms of social media

usage a breakdown of the popularity of different sites can be seen in Figure 14 Facebook was the most

widely used site with 55% of web users having an account but less than 1 in 4 of them wanted to council to

have a presence in that environment. In general the interest in these services was low with only 3 of 16

different 'web 2.0' services or functionality used by more than 1 in 5 of those consulted (Web Q. 16). A note

of caution is provided about the fluidity in the use of online tools by the decision of the local newspaper to

close the fourth most popular service, ThisIsYourMail, shortly after this research was completed.

Users of a service Proportion of those using a service

who wanted the council to do so too

Facebook 55% 23%

Youtube 36% 24%

Discussion Forums 22% 60%

ThisIsYourMail 18% 39%

Blogs 15% 51%

Twitter 15% 36%

MySpace 14% 33%

Wiki 13% 39%

Subscriptions 11% 67%

Flickr 10% 41%

Comments 8% 66%

Linked-In 7% 46%

Aggregation 7% 55%

Bebo 7% 54%

Friendfeed 4% 71%

Yammer 4% 65%

Figure 14: Usage of social media tools



Page | 39

3.5.4. AnalysisThe survey demonstrates that there is significant awareness and usage of the internet. 55% of all

respondents have Facebook accounts, 85% of those accessing the internet do so from their homes, 81% of

those completing the survey use the internet with only 4% of those suggesting that usage is reluctant and

tentative. Furthermore, 55% of all respondents have Facebook accounts and 36% of them use Youtube.

This does not mean that the entire population of the city is actively using the internet. The survey

demonstrated that 20% of respondents do not use the internet and of those, 22% had no interest in getting

online. In addition, only 23 were interested in receiving training. Even amongst those who used the internet

regularly it appears that there are not high expectations of the council website. Despite a 2 star review from

SOCITM (2010) a majority of visitors declared themselves to be satisfied, or very satisfied, with the council's

web presence. Furthermore, when asked how the site could be improved, 32% said it was fine as it was.

Users were clearly more interested in the site working well rather than adding ‘bells and whistles’

Nevertheless, the reaction of 25% of responses demonstrates that a desire for the council to

achieve its digital potential exists in the city. Whilst some residents believed that the use of emergent web

tools would detract from the delivery of services they represent an opportunity to add the functionality

which 1 in 4 people felt was missing. For some of those participants they wanted to be able to contribute

their own content and have access to a more relational and responsive means of communicating with the

council suggesting that there is an appetite for greater transparency and openness from Hull City council.

In other parts of the country local digital experts have taken it upon themselves to add those tools

when the council has failed to deliver it but in Hull this has not happened. This suggests that the internet is

not widely understood as offering an opportunity for democratic participation with only 24% of those

surveyed identifying the internet as their preferred access channel.

Perhaps if the council took five years to deliver a new website and spent almost £3m this would

motivate local residents as it did in Birmingham. Certainly this consultation has provided the council with

the opportunity to ensure that citizen produced activity does not take place for the wrong reasons. With

over 300 people leaving their contact details and wanting to be involved in developing the website this

provides the platform for co-production.





Page | 41

4. Conclusion & RecommendationsAt the start of this dissertation three research questions were proposed in order to test the

hypothesis that 'citizen produced websites are increasingly important to public service provision and are

consequently reshaping the relationship between citizen and state'. This concluding chapter will present the

conclusions formed on the basis of exploring those questions before providing some recommendations and

highlighting opportunities for future research.

4.1. Conclusion

4.1.1. Doing It OurselvesThis dissertation has looked at recent developments in Britain that have taken place as a result of

different individuals deciding that rather than leave the delivery of public services to the state, they 'do it

ourselves'. FixMyStreet.com is a site, initially funded by central government, which to all intents and

purposes delivers a seamless public service. BCCDIY.com comes from the opposite end of the spectrum

where a community of disillusioned locals developed something to make a point and to demonstrate that

the nature of participation could no longer be considered as simple as attendance at a ward forum.

OpenlyLocal.com was born at almost the same time with the aim of promoting local democracy and

providing access to elected members and their work. Over time it has become one of the leading resources

for local residents and a champion of transparency and openness in local government. The final site,

ArmchairAuditor.co.uk sees the relationship between citizen and state coming full circle. Although Adrian

Short is an independent activist who has built a website he has done so with data designed to be reused at

the behest of central government. Such websites are not commonplace but the open source approaches

underpinning them all mean that the potential exists for numerous localised duplicates to appear as and

when data is published or concerned citizens hope to make a difference in their communities.

However, the evidence from Hull shows that citizen production is not happening everywhere

making it premature to celebrate the existence of a national network of concerned citizens building

websites motivated by higher ideals. Such a network is improbable, and unnecessary. Of the sites

considered in this research two of them, FixMyStreet.com and OpenlyLocal.com are sites built to cover the

entire nation. By pooling the functionality and information related to specific issues these sites are useful to



Page | 42

anybody in the country. Moreover, BCCDIY.com has spawned a similar approach for council websites. Stef

Lewandowski is currently working on DIYCouncil.com which takes the principles underpinning BCCDIY.com

and applies them to all council websites across the country meaning that citizen produced websites do not

need to be produced by a local resident to have local resonance. ArmchairAuditor.co.uk presents a different

model. Adrian Short's website is not a national window onto local government spending but he has

published the technical information that makes it work on an open source basis. This means that the

machinery can be picked up and put down anywhere, by anyone subject to the release of local data. Until

Hull City Council begins to publish open data it would be unfair to conclude that the absence of citizen

produced websites in Hull is down to a lack of active citizenship amongst the city's population.

4.1.2. Brave New World The 2010 general election raised questions about the nature of representative government with

large numbers of people wanting to effect change to the first past the post system so that their votes might

exert greater control. Following their coming to power the coalition have committed to reconsidering the

nature of democracy in Britain. Whilst they have formally confirmed that there will be a referendum they

have also advocated the use of crowd sourcing to encourage wider participation in the democratic process.

Furthermore, the publication of raw data has demonstrated that the government wants to give raw data to

the public so that they can do things with it. This is not a coalition innovation but they have moved swiftly

to build on Labour’s foundations.

Whilst this may be motivated by political ideology and issues of transparency it would be naïve to

ignore the fact that the economic condition of the country has provided the perfect conditions for

government to look for members of the public to do things for themselves. Prior to the election we heard

the idea that large government institutions would be replaced by a ‘Big Society’ empowering local

communities and individuals (BBC, 2010a). Coupled to rhetoric concerning an impending ‘Age of Austerity’

the new government has made a clear statement about identifying ways of doing more for less. Through

FixMyStreet.com, BCCDIY.com and OpenlyLocal.com, sites which precede the election, people were already

getting involved with service delivery but they have had to find ways of accessing information that was not



Page | 43

readily available. ArmchairAuditor.co.uk, on the other hand, is exactly the kind of ‘Big Society’ contribution

anticipated when government published that data.

The individuals involved with these sites are sharing what they’ve done and welcoming the

contributions of others to identify ways to save the public purse some money. Sometimes these people

have an axe to grind, sometimes they’re public servants but, in the case studies we have c onsidered, they

have all been concerned citizens. However, for residents of Hull these sites have had a minimal impact. Are

citizen produced websites a niche movement whose significance is overstated? Indeed, further questions

must be asked about civil society groups without an electoral mandate, about the exclusion of those who

are not digitally enabled and about the potential for those who shout loudest to exert a disproportionate

influence.

What is clear is that these questions will not go away. The ver y idea of ‘citizenship’ is coming under

scrutiny in today’s increasingly globalised culture where societal and communal boundaries are blurred. A

local authority understands citizenship to be narrowly defined according to geographical space and their

area of activity. However, the public may expect to find public transport timetables or NHS information

through a local authority's website alongside signposting toward events in neighbouring boroughs or

counties. The examples of FixMyStreet.com and OpenlyLocal.com (and DIYCouncil.com) demonstrate this

non-parochial attitude and indicate that much of what a council does is the same as any other when it

comes to putting it online. This means that developers in one part of the country are building things that

can be used by anybody anywhere. Furthermore, by opening the code to other volunteers it means a useful

addition can be made for one location that can be applied elsewhere as in Lichfield’s mobile interface.

ArmchairAuditor.co.uk is focused on one location but provides a platform that can be applied anywhere, by

anyone.

Their activity has taken place for free, in support of good governance and motivated by the

altruistic attempt to benefit both citizen and state. As such it is the very definition of ‘active citizenship’.

However, such activity is a challenge to local authorities who have hitherto enjoyed complete control over

their message, their content and their exposure to risk. In general local authorities have not been effective

at providing transparent insights into their inner workings, nor have they provided opportunities for the



Page | 44

public to engage with the council by presenting stories in interactive ways such as blogs, videos or podcasts.

Furthermore, the example of Tameside Council restricting Twitter accreditation to traditional news outlets

suggests that they do not regard those responsible for hyperlocal blogs as valid contributors to discussions

of the political sphere (Guardian, 2010).

Our representative democracy is not made redundant through this technological advance but it

does provide the opportunity to facilitate other modes of participation. For example, the 'crowd-sourcing'

of ideas, feedback and criticisms during the drafting of policies can heighten participation in the policy

design process and, through highlighting this via a council's digital presence (whether on its website or

elsewhere), involve a wider audience. Rather than simply being the purview of legislators or officers these

ideas can provide open and collaborative policy design.

BCCDIY.com demonstrates that should a council fail to meet expectations there are competent

individuals willing to lead their peers and produce viable alternatives. Whilst this is less likely to happen

with hospitals or rubbish collection the Free Schools proposal of the coalition government which allows

motivated groups of people to challenge existing educational structures by forging their own public services

is an example of direct democracy couched within a representative model of trusteeship (Conservatives,

2010).

4.1.3. The principle of ‘WITH’ The communication revolution has made it possible for citizens to take control of their public

services where they are absent or in need of improvement. The relationship between citizen and state has

been altered by a technological revolution that has enabled people to self-organise, share experience and

maintain geographically dispersed networks of practice and expertise. The capacity for people to put

together a website and present multiple sources of data in easy to access and simple to understand ways

has taken the ownership and control of knowledge away from the historic seats of power. Instead, normal

citizens have become the curators of government with sites such as the ones discussed in this dissertation

springing up to cover a myriad of purposes.

Such behaviour is a threat to the autonomy of local authorities and the continued acceptance of

our current framework of governance. Whilst public service provision will continue with, or without, these





Page | 46

product, work with these developers to co-produce one site that works even better. There is nothing to lose

by standing on the shoulders of others.

Go, Go open data. The government produces significant amounts of data. Nationally this has been

recognised in the provision of over 3,500 datasets at data.gov.uk. The initial expectation of government for

councils to publish all external spending over £500 represents the first step in a process that shows no signs

of abating. So far only 23 councils have begun to publish open data and eight of those have done so with

licensing arrangements that are not truly in keeping with the spirit of the open data agenda. Most of what

happens within a council could be made available to the public through a Freedom of Information Request,

why not save them the trouble?

Think Big Society. There is a danger that if councils follow these recommendations, embrace open

source software, open their data and invite people to collaborate that nobody will respond. Not every

resident is going to make something and not all local people are going to visibly interact with it. In fact, the

1:10:89 principle of co-production suggests that you might never know about the majority of people

choosing to spectate and finding the benefits in the creativity of another. However, not all members of the

public attend public meetings; limited numbers respond to public consultation and turnout at elections is

low. Citizen produced websites might not be produced by large numbers of people. However, if 1% of your

community want to make something, and 10% of them want to discuss what that something means and

recommend how it might be improved then local authorities have to be ready to respond. As the ‘Age of

Austerity’ bites, the success or othe rwise of the Big Society project will depend on how successful local

authorities are at cultivating relationships with their concerned citizens whether they have already been

active such as those involved with the case studies, or have yet to wake up such as those in Hull.

4.3. Further Research12 months ago three of the four case studies considered in this dissertation did not exist. The rate

of change in technology is staggering and this is matched by the speed with which data activists are

transforming the way members of the public understand information. The last year has also seen significant

change at the heart of national government and locally the impact of spending cuts looms large.

Understandably, therefore, local government has not been at the forefront of emerging innovation. This



Page | 47

dissertation sits within the debate between democracy on one side, the impact of technology on another

and the role of private citizens on the third.

This dynamic would benefit from further research in three areas. Firstly, the impact of open data on

local authorities. By January Hull City Council and the other 410 councils that have yet to publish spending

data will have taken their first steps into sharing open data. Using the 23 early adopters as a starting point

this represents an opportunity for longitudinal research to test the consequences of open data and explore

what happens to the relationship between councils and their public when these innovative ideas become

part of mainstream local governance.

Secondly, Stef Lew andowski’s follow up project to BCCDIY.com, DIYCouncil.com is still in an

embryonic stage and is very much his solo project. The quality of information it displays and the

functionality it offers reflect that it was produced in 30 hours of spare time effort. If the project takes off

and more people offer to participate then this would provide another case study detailing the development

and impact of citizen produced websites. Indeed, on his website he says ‘it would be great…if we can get

something academi cally significant or publishable from this project’ (DIYCouncil.com).

Finally, a significant area of discussion and research is the emerging nature of the coalition

government’s Big Society. This dissertation was written as that idea began to take shape and it would be

interesting to look more closely at the role played by technology in conjunction with ordinary members of

the public to safeguard the vulnerable and identify the priorities as the public sector deals with the impact

of sizeable spending cuts. This dissertation argues that the ideas and attitudes exhibited by the concerned

citizens towards delivering public goods and services represent a successful approach that should be

adopted and encouraged by local authorities. The emergence of Big Society offers an opportunity to

consider whether that is an accurate assessment.



Page | 48

Bibliography38 Degrees. (2010). 38 Degrees | Mend Our Voting System . Retrieved July 20, 2010, from 38 Degrees:http://labs.38degrees.org.uk/wall/reform

Agranoff, R. (2007). Managing Within Networks: Adding Value to Public Organisations. Basingstoke:Palgrave MacMillan.

Anderson, C. (2007). The Long Tail: How Endless Choice is Creating Unlimited Demand. London: RandomHouse.

BBC News. (2010b). BBC | Election 2010 | Results . Retrieved June 5, 2010, from BBC News:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/

BBC News. (2010a, July 19). BBC News - David Cameron launches Tories' 'big society' plan . Retrieved July 19,2010, from BBC News: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10680062

BBC News. (2009, November 26). BBC News - Government e-petitions give power to the people . RetrievedJuly 12, 2010, from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8380736.stm

BCCDIY. (2009). bccdiy / Front Page . Retrieved July 13th, 2010, from BCCDIY: http://bccdiy.pbworks.com/

BCCDIY. (2009, October 16th). BCCDIY Recent Edits - BCCDIY . Retrieved July 13th, 2010, from BCCDIY:http://bccdiy.com/page_versions.rss

Beetham, D. (Ed.). (1994). Defining and Measuring Democracy. London: SAGE Publications.

Benkler, Y. (2006). Wealth of Networks: how social production transforms markets and freedom. NewHaven: Yale University Press.

Birmingham Post. (2009c, September 23). Birmingham Post - Latest news - Volunteers build 'improved' version of Birmingham City C . Retrieved September 23, 2009, from Birminghampost.net:www.birminghampost.net/news/newsaggregator/2009/09/23/volunteers-build-improved-version-of-birmingham-city-council-s-website-65233-24757557/

Birmingham Post. (2009b, August 4). Birmingham Post - News - Politics News - Cost of new Birmingham City Council website spirals to . Retrieved September 8, 2009, from Birminghampost.net:http://www.birminghampost.net/news/politics-news/2009/08/04/cost-of-new-birmingham-city-council-website-spirals-to-2-8m-65233-24307674/

Birmingham Post. (2009a, September 8). Birmingham Post - News - West Midlands News - Birmingham City Council website goes live at last . Retrieved September 8, 2009, from BirminghamPost.net:http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-news/2009/09/08/birmingham-city-council-website-goes-live-at-last-65233-24633547/

Boland, L., & Coleman, E. (2008). New Development: What Lies Beyond Service Delivery? LeadershipBehaviours for Place Shaping in Local Government. Public Money & Management , 28 (5), 313-318.

Borg, S. (2001). The research journal: a tool for promoting and understanding researcher development.Language Teaching Research , 5 (2), 156-177.



Page | 49

Brown, G. (2010, March 22). Speech on Building Britain's Digital Future | Number10.gov.uk . RetrievedMarch 22, 2010, from Number10.gov.uk:http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/number10.gov.uk/news/speeches-and-transcripts/2010/03/speech-on-building-britains-digital-future-22897

Burke, E. (1906). Speech to the electors of Bristol. In The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Burnham, D. P., Gilland, K., Lutz, W. G., & Layton-Henry, Z. (2008). Research Methods in Politics. London:Palgrave MacMillan.

Cameron, D. (2010, May 31). Letter to Government departments on opening up data | Number10.gov.uk. Retrieved May 31, 2010, from Number10.gov.uk: http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/statements-and-articles/2010/05/letter-to-government-departments-on-opening-up-data-51204

Campbell, D., Tumin, Z., & Goldsmith, S. (2010, March). From the Now Wave, to the Next Wave: publicservice deliver in a networked world . Harvard Kennedy School ASH Center for Democratic Governance andInnovation.

Carr, N. (2008). The Big Switch: Rewiring the World from Edison to Google. London: W. W. Norton & Co.

countculture. (2008, September 27th). Open local data and all that - countculture . Retrieved July 15th,2010, from countculture: http://countculture.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/how-often-do-mps-turn-up-for-work/

countculture. (2009, July 10th). Opening up local government data – a local TheyWorkForYou -countculture . Retrieved August 1st, 2010, from countculture:

http://countculture.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/they-work-for-you-local/

Dahl, R. A. (2000). On Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Daily Telegraph. (2010, June 29th). Our ideas can end Whitehall's culture of waste - Telegraph . RetrievedJuly 14th, 2010, from Telegraph:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/7860216/Our-ideas-can-end-Whitehalls-culture-of-waste.html

Daily Telegraph. (2010, August 16th). To cut costs, councils should embrace open data and 'community coders' - Telegraph . Retrieved August 16th, 2010, from Telegraph:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/conradquiltyharper/100050692/to-cut-costs-councils-should-embrace-open-data-and-community-coders/

Daily Telegraph. (2010, July 9th). Your Freedom: Nick Clegg calls on public to help repeal bad laws -Telegraph . Retrieved July 14th, 2010, from Telegraph:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7865227/Your-Freedom-Nick-Clegg-calls-on-public-to-help-repeal-bad-laws.html

Department of Communities and Local Government. (2009). Strengthening Local Democracy Consultation.

Edgerton, D. (2008). The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History since 1900. London: Profile Books.



Page | 50

eMarketer. (2010, August 25). Facebook usage still rising in Europe, but UK growth slows . Retrieved August25, 2010, from eMarketer: http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?R=1007888

Eventbrite. (2010). A Roundtable Discussion about Bristol City Council's Future Web Platform - Eventbrite .Retrieved August 1st, 2010, from Eventbrite: http://bccweb.eventbrite.com/

Eventbrite.com. (2009, September). BCC DIY Hack Day - BCCDIY - Birminghamuk - Eventbrite . RetrievedSeptember 23, 2009, from Eventbrite: http://bccdiy.eventbrite.com/

Flick, U. (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research (4th ed.). London: SAGE Publications.

Garman, D. N., & Piantanida, M. (2009). The Qualitative Dissertation: A Guide for Students and Faculty. London: SAGE Publications.

Gay, O., & Woodhouse, J. (2010, July 28). Referendum on electoral reform. Retrieved July 28, 2010, fromHouse of Commons Library: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-05142.pdf

H M Treasury. (2010). How can we re-think government to deliver more for less? - HM Spending Challenge .Retrieved July 13, 2010, from HM Spending Challenge: http://spendingchallenge.hm-treasury.gov.uk/

Hadenius, A. (1992). Democracy and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hajer, M., & Wagenaar, H. (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hart, J. (2009, July 3rd). Help Me Investigate Birmingham.gov - Josh Hart . Retrieved July 13th, 2010, fromJosh Hart: http://joshuahart.co.uk/2009/07/03/help-me-investigate-birminghamgov/

Haskell, J. (2001). Direct democracy or representative government? Dispelling the Populist Myth. Oxford:Westview.

Help Me Investigate. (2009, July 2nd). When can we expect a new birmingham.gov website? on Help MeInvestigate . Retrieved July 13th, 2010, from Help Me Investigate:http://helpmeinvestigate.com/investigations/49-when-can-we-expect-a-new-birmingham-gov-website

Hendriks, F. (2010). Vital Democracy: A Theory of Democracy in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

HM Government. (2010, July 9th). Your Freedom - HMG . Retrieved July 14th, 2010, from HMG:

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/

Howe, J. (2008). Crowdsourcing: how the power of the crowd is driving the future of business. London:Random House Publishing.

Hughes, O. (1998). Public Management & Administration: An Introduction. Basingstoke: MacMillan Press.

Hunter, D. A., & Brewer, D. J. (2005). Foundations of Multimethod Research: Synthesizing Styles. London:SAGE Publishing.

Janesick, V. J. (1999). A Journal About Journal Writing as a Qualitative Research Technique: History, Issues

and Reflections. Qualitative Inquiry , 5 (4), 505-524.

Keen, A. (2008). The Cult of the Amateur. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing Ltd.



Page | 51

Kemp, S. A. (1943). Democracy and the individual. London: Oxford University Press.

King, S. F., & Brown, P. (2007). Fix My Street Or Else: Using the internet to voice local public serviceconcerns. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. 232 , pp. 72-80. Macao: ACM.

Lane, J., & Ersson, O. S. (2003). Democracy: A Comparative Approach. London: Routledge.

Lane, J.-E. (2000). New Public Management. London: Routledge.

Lathrop, D., & Ruma, L. (Eds.). (2000). Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency and Participation inPractice. O'Reilly Media.

Laycock, D. (2004). Representation and democratic theory. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Leadbeater, C. (2009). We-Think. London: Profile Books.

Lessig, L. (2008). Remix. London: Penguin.

Lewandowski, S. (2009, September 22nd). Why build a new site for Birmingham City Council? - Stef Lewandowski . Retrieved July 13th, 2010, from Stef Lewandowski:http://steflewandowski.com/2009/09/why-build-a-new-site-for-birmingham-city-council/

Li, C., & Bernoff, J. (2008). Groundswell: winning in a world transformed by social technologies. Boston:Harvard Business Press.

Lucas, J. (1976). Democracy and Participation. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

McCormick, P. (2010). Tinkering with Justice 2.0: opportunities for citizen shaped innovation. Gov 2.0 Expo. Washington DC.

Mysociety.org. (n.d.). Frequently Asked Questions - FixMyStreet . Retrieved 07 12, 2010, from FixMyStreet:http://fixmystreet.com/faq

Mysociety.org. (n.d.). TheyWorkForYou.com . Retrieved 07 12, 2010, from TheyWorkForYou.com:http://theyworkforyou.com

Mysociety.org. (n.d.). WhatDoTheyKnow.com . Retrieved 07 12, 2010, from WhatDoTheyKnow.com:http://whatdotheyknow.com

Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social Research Methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. London: PearsonPublications.

Obama, B. (2009, January 21). Transparency and Open Government | The White House . Retrieved April 4,2010, from The White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/transparency-and-open-government

Office for National Statistics. (2010, August 27). National Statistics Online | Internet Access . RetrievedAugust 27, 2010, from National Statistics Online: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=8

Openly Local. (n.d.). UK Councils Open Data Scoreboard - Openly Local . Retrieved August 1st, 2010, from

Openly Local: http://openlylocal.com/councils/openPapacharissi, Z. A. (2010). A Private Sphere: democracy in a digital age. Cambridge: Polity Press.



Page | 52

Pledgie. (2009, September 29th). Donate to BCCDIY - Pledgie . Retrieved July 13th, 2010, from Pledgie:http://pledgie.com/campaigns/6257

Popper, K. R. (1945). The Open Society and its Enemies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Qualman, E. (2009). Socialnomics: how social media transforms the way we live and do business. Hoboken:

John Wiley & Sons.

Quinn, M. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. London: SAGE Publications.

Rousseau, J. J. (1762). The Social Contract or principles of political right.

Saward, M. (2000). Democratic Innovation: deliberation, representation and association. London:Routledge.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1943). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Allen & Unwin.

Service Birmingham. (2010). Web CMS Review Post Implementation. Birmingham: Service Birmingham.

Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody: how change happens when people come together. London:Penguin.

Short, A. (2010, August 13th). Armchair Auditor interview with Eddie Mair on BBC Radio 4 PM - AdrianShort . Retrieved August 13th, 2010, from Adrian Short: http://adrianshort.co.uk/2010/08/13/armchair-auditor-interview-with-eddie-mair-on-bbc-radio-4-pm/

Sifry, M. L. "You Can Be The Eyes and Ears": Barack Obama and the wisdom of crowds. In D. Lathrop, & L.Ruma (Eds.), Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency and Participation in Practice (pp. 115-122). O'

Reilly Media.

Society of Information Technology Managers, (SOCITM). (2010). Better Connected.

Taggart, C. (2009, September 17). Opening up Local Government Information - A presentation to theAdvisory Panel on Public Sector Information (APPSI).

Take Back Parliament. (2010). Take Back Parliament . Retrieved July 20, 2010, from Take Back Parliament:http://www.takebackparliament.com

The Guardian. (2009, May 25th). A new politics: Electoral reform | David cameron | Comment is Free - The

Guardian . Retrieved May 25th, 2009, from The Guardian:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/25/david-cameron-a-new-politics1

The Guardian. (2010, March 8). Bloggers excluded from council's Twitter accreditation | Media |guardian.co.uk . Retrieved March 8, 2010, from Guardian.co.uk:http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2010/mar/07/tameside-council-twitter-accreditation

Vote For A Change. (2010). Support a Hung Parliament | Vote For A Change . Retrieved July 20, 2010, fromVote For A Change: http://www.voteforachange.co.uk

w3. (2009, June 30th). Putting Government Data online - Design Issues . Retrieved July 20th, 2010, from w3:

http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/GovData.html





Page | 54

Appendices

Appendix 1: Web Survey

Appendix 2: Telephone Survey

Appendix 3: Face to Face Survey

Appendix 4: Survey Data



APPENDIX 1: ONLINE SURVEY

Page | 55

Hull City Council website consultation

We would like your views on our website and the information andservices you access through it. We also want to understand more

about the people who use it.

This survey will take around 10 minutes to complete and includesthe opportunity to become involved in further consultations about

our website.

1. Where do you normally access the internet? Please tick all that apply At home At work/school On a public computer Via mobile Elsewhere

please state

2. Which methods do you use to connect to the internet? Please tick all that apply I use a broadband connection I use a mobile phone/smartphone I use a dial-up connection I use a public Wi-Fi connection I use a mobile network dongle Other

please state

3. How did you hear about www.hullcc.gov.uk? I knew the site previously Family/friends told me about it I used a search engine A council officer suggested I use it I saw the address on a form/in a leaflet Through my local library I saw the address on other council

advertising I work for the council

I followed a link from anothergovernment website

Unsure/Can't remember

I followed a link from elsewhere Other I guessed at the address

Please state

4. What kind of internet user are you? Tentative and reluctant user (very basic skills, very rare usage) Casual user (basic skills, use as and when it's necessary) Regular user (range of skills, and comfortable using the internet on a regular basis) I couldn't live without it

5. How often would you say you contacted Hull City Council either for information or torequest a service?

Every day Every few months

At least once a week Only in emergencies/very rarely Every month




Page | 56

6. In the last year, how often have you visited www.hullcc.gov.uk? Every day Very rarely At least once a week Never Every few months

7. What was your main purpose in visiting hullcc.gov.uk, was it to... pay something make a complaint/provide feedback book something find information report something just browse request something Other (please state) apply for something

8. What service were you interested in? Adult and further education Leisure facilities (such as gym

membership, libraries) Benefits Parking Community safety Planning Councillors and democracy Public transport Council tax (but not council tax benefit) Roads and streetlights Electoral register Rubbish and recycling (such as missed

bin collection) Environmental health (such as food

standards, health inspection) Schools information

Events and what's on (such as theatresand halls)

Social care and health

Licensing Trading standards Housing (but not housing benefit) Youth activities Jobs Other (please state)

9a. On your last visit to www.hullcc.gov.uk did it provide what you were looking for? Yes Can't remember No

9b. On a scale of 1-5 where 1 is very difficult and 5 very easy, how easy was it to do what youwanted?

1 Very difficult 2 Difficult 3 Neither easy nor difficult 4 Easy 5 Very easy

9c. Given that the website did not provide a solution, how did you resolve your problem? Didyou

ring 300300 write an email to the council make no further effort write to the council through the post contact a councillor directly I can't remember visit a Customer Service Centre (CSC) do something else visit a library

Please state

10. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 means very unlikely and 5 very likely, how likely would you be touse www.hullcc.gov.uk for the same purpose in future?

1 Very unlikely

2 Unlikely 3 Neither unlikely nor likely

4 Likely 5 Very likely




Page | 57

11. Using the same scale, how likely would you be to use www.hullcc.gov.uk instead of300300 for a different purpose in future?

1 Very unlikely



12. What is your preferred way of contacting the council? By post Over the telephone By email Via the internet Depends why I need to contact you Other (please state) In person

13. Please rate the following areas on a scale of very dissatisfied to very satisfied Very

Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very

satisfied First impression of our website Look and feel Getting around thesite/navigation

Search Finding what I want Mapping Booking things Reporting Applying Paying Final impressions Please specify

14. Which of the following areas would you like to see the council develop or improve? Pleasetick as many as apply

Structure of website (for example the names by which we refer to services and serviceareas)

Better content (for example the way in which pages are written, or the information theycontain)

Design (for example the layout of the pages and the colour scheme) Search facility (for example the results it returns) More transactional services (for example reporting missed bin collections, applying for

licences, paying and booking)

Customer accounts to enable you to log and track service requests, store payment details,receive information on your areas of interest etc. Information on your chosen areas of interest sent to you (for example by email or text without

visiting the site) Ways to access information through social media and networks (Twitter, Facebook and

similar services) Blogs (from council officers, elected members and other contributors) Geographical information ('Find my nearest' function) Greater use of audio or video Contribute your own content to the site (pictures, comments, news, events) It's fine as it is Other

Please state




Page | 58

15. What specific additional services would you like to access through www.hullcc.gov.uk?Please tell us.

16. Which of these do you use and which would you like to see Hull City Council make

more use of in future? Please tick all that apply Currently use

Would like to see HCC use

Aggregator sites Bebo Blogs Discussion Forums Facebook Friendfeed Linked-In Myspace

Subscription services This Is Your Mail Twitter User Generated Content Wikis Yammer Youtube Anything else please specify

17 Is there anything else you would like to suggest or comment on?









APPENDIX 2: TELEPHONE SURVEY

Page | 62

5. If you didn't visit www.hullcc.gov.uk to access this information or service was this becauseyou...

don't use the internet tried the website but found it difficult touse

didn't think that the information/servicecould be accessed online

were not at a computer and sawsomething that needed dealing withimmediately so rang 300300

prefer the human touch previously had been frustrated by thewebsite

tried the website first and theinformation/service is not available

Other (please state)

tried the website first and could not findthe information/service

6. What are the barriers to your usage? I don't feel comfortable using the internet I have never used the internet and don't

want to in the future

The cost of internet access Other (please state)

7. Would you be interested in hearing about any training the council is running or alternativeways to access the internet?

Yes No

In that case, please could I take your contact details? We will not use this information forany other purpose.NameAddress 1Address 2TownPostcodeContact number

9. Could we ask you a few more questions about your internet usage habits? This is to helpus improve the service we offer through our website

Yes No

10. What kind of internet user are you? Tentative and reluctant user (very basic skills, very rare usage) Casual user (basic skills, use as and when it's necessary) Regular user (range of skills, and comfortable using the internet on a regular basis) I couldn't live without it

11. Which methods do you use to connect to the internet? Please tick all that apply I use a broadband connection I use a mobile phone/smartphone I use a dial-up connection I use a public Wi-Fi connection I use a mobile network dongle Other

please state

12. In the last year, how often have you visited www.hullcc.gov.uk? Every day Very rarely

At least once a week Never Every few months

Why have you never visited hullcc.gov.uk before?




Page | 63

13. How did you hear about www.hullcc.gov.uk? I knew the site previously Family/friends told me about it I used a search engine A council officer suggested I use it I saw the address on a form/in a leaflet Through my local library I saw the address on other council

advertising I work for the council

I followed a link from anothergovernment website

Unsure/Can't remember

I followed a link from elsewhere Other I guessed at the address

Please state

14. On your last visit to www.hullcc.gov.uk did it provide what you were looking for? Yes Can't remember No

15. On a scale of 1-5 where 1 is very difficult and 5 very easy, how easy was it to do what youwanted?

1 Very difficult 2 Difficult 3 Neither easy nor difficult 4 Easy 5 Very easy

16. Given that the website did not provide a solution, how did you resolve your problem? Didyou

ring 300300 write an email to the council

make no further effort write to the council through the post contact a councillor directly I can't remember visit a Customer Service Centre (CSC) do something else visit a library

Please state

17. Thinking about the reason you contacted 300300 today.

On a scale of 1-5, where 1 means very unlikely and 5 very likely, how likely would you be touse www.hullcc.gov.uk for the same purpose in future?

1 Very unlikely 2 Unlikely 3 Neither unlikely nor likely


18. Using the same scale, how likely would you be to use www.hullcc.gov.uk instead of300300 for a different purpose in future?

1 Very unlikely






Page | 64

19. How can we improve www.hullcc.gov.uk? Please say yes or no to each suggestion. Structure of website (for example the names by which we refer to services and service

areas) Better content (for example the way in which pages are written, or the information they

contain) Look and feel (for example the layout of the pages and the colour scheme) Search facility (for example the results it returns) More transactional services (for example reporting missed bin collections, applying for

licences, paying and booking) Customer accounts to enable you to log and track service requests, store payment details,

receive information on your areas of interest etc. Information on your chosen areas of interest sent to you (for example by email or text without

visiting the site) Ways to access information through social media and networks (Twitter, Facebook and

similar services) Blogs (from council officers, elected members and other contributors)

Geographical information ('Find my nearest' function) Greater use of audio or video Contribute your own content to the site (pictures, comments, news, events) It's fine as it is Other

Please state

20. Is there anything we can do to encourage you to use www.hullcc.gov.uk again?

21. What specific additional services would you like to access through www.hullcc.gov.uk?Please tell us.

22. Is there anything else you would like to suggest or comment on?




Page | 65

About You

To help us process and understand the answers we have receivedfrom these questionnaires, we would like to ask you a few more

questions about who you are. This is because the council iscommitted to ensuring that all its services are delivered fairly.

These remaining questions will help us understand more about thepeople who have completed the questionnaire and identify and

explore the differences in view between groups of people.

You do not have to fill them in but if you do, the information youprovide will be kept confidential and will be stored securely.

23. Could we ask you a few more questions along those lines? Yes No

24. Which of the following are relevant to you? This question will help identify the profile ofvisitors to our website. Please tick all that apply

I live in the area I'm looking for information for myself I work in Hull I'm looking for information in relation to

work I work for Hull City Council I'm looking for information on behalf of a

friend or family member

I'm planning to visit Hull Prefer not to say I'm planning on moving to Hull Other I'm a local councillor in Hull

Please state

25. What is your postcode? This will help us to understand if people who live in your area havedifferent views to people who live in other areas of the city

26. What is your gender identity? Male Female

Is there anything further about your gender identity you would like to tell us?

27. What is your date of birth? (mm/yyyy)

28. Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or impairment which haslasted, or is expected to last at least 12 months? (Please include conditions such asdyslexia or epilepsy). Please select one option.

Yes limited a lot Yes limited a little No

29. Does this health problem, or impairment, impact upon your use and enjoyment of theinternet?

Yes No




Page | 66

30. Could you give us some more detail? (For example, do you use a mouse? Do you useassistive technologies such as a screen reader or magnifier? Do you need to change thewebsite (text size, colour scheme) so that you can use it properly?)

31. Which of the following best describes your ethnic background? White English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern

Irish/British Asian or Asian British Indian

White Irish Asian or Asian British Pakistani White Gypsy or Irish Traveller Any other Asian background (please

state) Any other white background (please

state) Mixed/multiple ethnic group white and

Asian Black or black British African Mixed/multiple ethnic group white and

black African Black or black British Caribbean Mixed/multiple ethnic group white and

black Caribbean Any other black or black British

background (please state)

Any other mixed/multiple ethnic group

background (please state) Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi Arab Asian or Asian British Chinese Any other ethnic background (please

state)Please state

32. Would you like to be involved in any further consultation about our website? If so, couldwe take some contact details for use in the future?

We don't mind what you give us whether telephone, email, postal address or all of them.

And it's important to remember that we will not use this information for any other purpose.

NameAddress 1Address 2TownPostcodeContact numberE-mail address





APPENDIX 3: FACE TO FACE SURVEY

Page | 68

Q3 How often do you contact Hull City Council either for information or to request a service?Please select one option.

Every day ..................................................................................................................................... At least once a week .................................................................................................................. Every month ................................................................................................................................ Every few months ....................................................................................................................... Only in emergencies/very rarely ...............................................................................................

Q4 What is your preferred way of contacting the council? Please select one option.By post ......................................................................................................................................... By email ....................................................................................................................................... Depends why I need to contact you ........................................................................................ In person ...................................................................................................................................... Over the telephone ..................................................................................................................... Via the internet ............................................................................................................................ Other (please state) ...................................................................................................................

Q5 Do you use the internet?Yes (go to Question 9) ............................................................................................................... No (go to Question 6) .................................................................................................................

Q6 What are the barriers to your usage?I don't feel comfortable using the internet ............................................................................... The cost of internet access ....................................................................................................... I have never used the internet and don't want to in the future ............................................ Other (please state) ...................................................................................................................

Q7 Would you be interested in hearing about any training the council is running or

alternative ways to access the internet?Yes ................................................................................................................................................ No (go to Q23) ............................................................................................................................

Q8 Please could I take your contact details so that the council can let you know of anytraining or access initiatives they are running? We will not use this information for anyother purpose.NameAddress 1Address 2Town

PostcodeContact number

Go to Q23




Page | 69

Q9 Why didn't you visit the council website (www.hullcc.gov.uk) to access thisinformation/service? Please tick all that apply.

I didn't think that the information/service could be accessed online ................................... I prefer the human touch ........................................................................................................... I tried the website first and the information/service is not available ................................... I tried the website first and could not find the information/service ...................................... I tried the website but found it difficult to use ......................................................................... I was not at a computer and saw something that needed dealing with immediately so rang 300300 ................................................................................................................................

I was not at a computer and was near a Customer Service Centre ................................... Previous bad experience of the website ................................................................................. Other (please state) ...................................................................................................................

Q10 Would you be happy to answer some questions about your internet usage habits so thatwe can improve the service offered through our website (www.hullcc.gov.uk)?

Yes ................................................................................................................................................

No (go to Q23) ............................................................................................................................

Q11 Where do you usually access the internet? Please tick all that apply.At home ........................................................................................................................................ At work ......................................................................................................................................... Through a public computer ....................................................................................................... Via mobile internet ...................................................................................................................... Elsewhere .................................................................................................................................... Other (please state) ...................................................................................................................

Q12 Which methods do you use to connect to the internet? Please tick all that apply.I use a broadband connection .................................................................................................. I use a dial-up connection ......................................................................................................... I use a mobile network dongle .................................................................................................. I use a mobile phone/smartphone ............................................................................................ I use a public Wi-Fi connection ................................................................................................ Other (please state) ...................................................................................................................

Q13 What kind of internet user are you? Please select one optionTentative and reluctant user (very basic skills, very rare usage) ........................................ Casual user (basic skills, use as and when it's necessary) .................................................

Regular user (range of skills, and comfortable using the internet on a regular basis) ....

I couldn't live without it ...............................................................................................................

Q14 In the last year, how often have you visited our website (www.hullcc.gov.uk)?Every day ..................................................................................................................................... At least once a week .................................................................................................................. Every few months ....................................................................................................................... Very rarely .................................................................................................................................... Never (please explain) (go to Q19) ..........................................................................................




Page | 70

Q15 How did you hear about our website (www.hullcc.gov.uk)?I knew the site previously .......................................................................................................... I used a search engine .............................................................................................................. I saw the address on a form/in a leaflet .................................................................................. I saw the address on other council advertising ......................................................................

I followed a link from another government website ............................................................... I followed a link from elsewhere ............................................................................................... I guessed at the address ........................................................................................................... Family/friends told me about it .................................................................................................. A council officer suggested I use it .......................................................................................... Through my local library ............................................................................................................ I work for the council .................................................................................................................. Unsure/Can't remember ............................................................................................................ Other .............................................................................................................................................

Q16 On your last visit to our website, did it provide what you were looking for?

Yes ................................................................................................................................................ No (go to Q18) ............................................................................................................................ Can't remember (go to Q19) .....................................................................................................

Q17 On a scale of 1-5, where 1 is very difficult and 5 very easy, how easy was it to do what youwanted?

1 2 3 4 5 n/a

Q18 Given that the website did not provide a solution, how did you resolve your problem? Didyou

ring 300300 .................................................................................................................................. make no further effort ................................................................................................................. contact a councillor directly ....................................................................................................... visit a Customer Service Centre (CSC) .................................................................................. visit a library ................................................................................................................................. write an email to the council ..................................................................................................... write to the council through the post ........................................................................................ I can't remember ......................................................................................................................... do something else (please specify) .........................................................................................

Q19Now thinking about our earlier example of the last time you contacted the council.

On a scale of 1-5, where 1 is very unlikely and 5 is very likely, how likely are you to visitour website for the same purpose in the future?

1 2 3 4 5 n/a

Q20 And, on the same scale, how likely are you to visit our website for a different purpose inthe future?

1 2 3 4 5 n/a




Page | 71

Q21 How can we improve our website (www.hullcc.gov.uk)? Please tick all that apply.Structure of website (for example the names by which we refer to services and service areas) ..............................................................................................................................

Better content (for example the way in which pages are written, or the information they contain) ................................................................................................................................

Look and feel (for example the layout of the pages and the colour scheme) ...................

Search facility (for example the results it returns) .................................................................

More transactional services (for example reporting missed bin collections, applying for licences, paying and booking) ..................................................................................................

Customer accounts to enable you to log and track service requests, store payment details, receive information on your areas of interest etc. ....................................................

Information on your chosen areas of interest sent to you (for example by email or text without visiting the site) .............................................................................................................

Ways to access information through social media and networks (Twitter, Facebook and similar services) ..................................................................................................................

Blogs (from council officers, elected members and other contributors) ............................. Geographical information ('Find my nearest' function) ......................................................... Greater use of audio or video ...................................................................................................

Contribute your own content to the site (pictures, comments, news, events) ................... It's fine as it is .............................................................................................................................. Other (please state) ...................................................................................................................

Q22 Is there anything else you would like to suggest, or comment on?




Page | 72

About you

To understand the answers we receive from this questionnaire, wewould like to ask a few more questions.

These questions will aid us in exploring the views expressed bydifferent groups of people and will help to ensure we deliver all our

services fairly.

You do not have to fill them in but if you do, the information youprovide will be kept confidential and will be stored securely.

Q23 Would you be happy to answer a few more questions?

Yes ................................................................................................................................................ No (go to end of the survey) .....................................................................................................

Q24 Which of the following are relevant to you? Please tick all that apply.I live in the area ........................................................................................................................... I work in Hull ................................................................................................................................ I work for Hull City Council ........................................................................................................ I'm planning to visit Hull ............................................................................................................. I'm planning on moving to Hull ................................................................................................. I'm a local councillor in Hull ....................................................................................................... I'm looking for information for myself .......................................................................................

I'm looking for information in relation to work ......................................................................... I'm looking for information on behalf of a friend or family member ..................................... Prefer not to say ......................................................................................................................... Other (please state) ...................................................................................................................

Q25 What is your postcode? This will help us to understand if people who live in your areahave different views to people who live in other areas of the city. Please write in the spaceprovided below.

Q26 Are you? Please select one option.

Male .............................................................................................................................................. Female ......................................................................................................................................... Other .............................................................................................................................................

Please provide any further information about your gender if you wish

Q27 What is your date of birth? Please write in the space below (mm/yyyy)

Q28 Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or impairment whichhas lasted, or is expected to last at least 12 months? (Please include conditions such asmental health issues or problems related to ageing). Please select one option.

Yes limited a lot ........................................................................................................................... Yes limited a little ........................................................................................................................ No (go to Question 30) ..............................................................................................................





APPENDIX 4: SURVEY DATA

Page | 74

Where do you usually access theinternet?

Multiple Choice QuestionTotal300300 Total Web

Total Faceto Face Total

Home 802 241 1043Work/School 348 72 420Public computer 97 57 154Mobile 86 47 133Elsewhere 12 3 15

1345 420 1765

Which methods do you use toconnect to the internet?

Multiple Choice QuestionTotal300300 Total Web


Broadband 235 806 231 1272Mobile/Smart phone 5 94 76 175Mobile dongle 49 108 12 169Public Wi-Fi 10 95 26 131Dial-up 10 33 15 58Other/Unknown 0 28 1 29

74 358 130 562

How did you hear abouthullcc.gov.uk?

Single Choice QuestionTotal300300 Total Web


Previous user 14 399 36 449Search engine 62 274 69 405I work for the council 11 102 6 119

Link from elsewhere 2 59 14 75From a form or leaflet 31 20 7 58Friends or Family 16 5 27 48On council adverts 12 11 11 34Library 2 27 3 32Other 7 13 5 25Link from government website 1 16 6 23Council officer 12 4 4 20Unsure 8 7 5 20Guessed address 6 1 3 10

184 938 196 1318

What kind of internet user are you?



Regular user (range of skills, andcomfortable using the internet on aregular basis) 130 494 97 721I couldn't live without it 45 321 77 443Casual user (basic skills, use asand when it's necessary) 102 102 77 281Tentative and reluctant user (verybasic skills, very rare usage) 17 21 21 59

294 938 272 1504

How often do you contact Hull CityCouncil?




Page | 75



Only in emergencies or very rarely 184 304 178 666Every few months 159 262 124 545Every month 106 162 48 316At least once a week 55 146 16 217Every day 6 53 5 64

510 927 371 1808

In the last year how often have youvisited hullcc.gov.uk?



Every few months 61 223 79 363At least once a week 29 239 13 281Very rarely 91 82 92 265Every month 0 223 0 223Never 110 0 79 189

First visit 0 96 0 96Every day 3 55 6 64291 918 263 1472

Why didn't 300300 callers use thewebsite?

Single Choice Question

Total300300callerswho didn'tuse thewebsite

Percentageof 300300callers(110responses)

Percentageof allcallers(510responses)

Percentageof callersthat identifyas webusers (294responses)

300300 meets their needs better 16 15% 3% 5%Had never visited hullcc.gov.uk, orknew about it 71 65% 14% 24%Others 23 21% 5% 8%

110 510 294

What was the main purpose of yourvisit



find information 131 573 111 815report something 154 17 35 206request something 123 17 45 185Other 60 65 32 157pay something 27 52 57 136

just browsing n/a 97 31 128apply for something 9 69 37 115make a complaint/provide feedback 1 16 47 64book something 5 32 17 54

510 938 399 1847




Page | 76

What service were you interested in?

Single Choice QuestionTotal300300

TotalWeb

TotalFace toFace Total

Trading standards 1 1 - 2Licensing 3 1 4 8Electoral register 2 12 2 16

History - 20 - 20Parking 7 4 11 22Planning 4 19 2 25Youth activities - 16 9 25Community safety 1 7 18 26Social care and health 5 22 4 31Adult and further education - 26 17 43Environmental health (such as foodstandards, health inspection) 13 12 18 43Public transport 6 12 27 45Roads and streetlights 15 10 20 45Councillors and democracy 3 36 10 49Schools information 1 34 21 56Benefits 14 28 17 59Events and What's On 0 116 29 145Council tax (but not council tax benefit) 95 35 33 163Leisure facilities (such as gymmembership, libraries) 2 159 10 171Jobs 20 112 49 181Other (please state) 27 104 59 190Rubbish and recycling (such as missedbin collection) 164 42 37 243Housing (but not housing benefit) 127 110 52 289

On your last visit to hullcc.gov.uk did itprovide you with the information you werelooking for?


TotalWeb


Yes 130 619 136 885No 22 213 32 267I wasn't looking for anything in particular 106 106Can't remember 16 24 40

168 938 192 1298

How easy, or difficult did you find it to gethold that information?


TotalWeb


Very difficult 1 9 2 12Difficult 2 32 9 43Neither 10 151 21 182Easy 59 255 57 371Very easy 58 172 46 276

130 619 135 884




Page | 77

What did you do instead?


TotalWeb


Do something else 4 90 3 106Ring 300300 13 28 23 64Make no further effort 1 40 14 55

Write an email 1 18 3 22Visit a library 0 19 1 20Visit a CSC 1 8 4 13Talk to a Councillor 0 4 5 9I can't remember 2 0 3 5Use the post 0 2 2 4

22 209 58 298

How likely are you to usewww.hullcc.gov.uk for the same purposein the future?


TotalWeb


Very unlikely 98 42 33 173Unlikely 33 40 23 96Neither 51 116 48 215Likely 65 342 67 474Very likely 47 398 54 499

How likely are you to usewww.hullcc.gov.uk for a different purposein the future?


TotalWeb


Very unlikely 109 42 34 185Unlikely 34 57 26 117Neither 48 173 59 280Likely 62 417 65 544Very likely 41 249 57 347

What is your preferred way of contactingthe council?


TotalWeb


Telephone 475 144 168 787Depends 2 393 34 429Email 3 208 32 243Internet 11 120 70 201In person 16 39 72 127By post 3 26 15 44Other 0 8 6 14




Page | 78

Please rate the following areas on a scale of very satisfied tovery dissatisfied (online question only)One answer per row Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very satisfied Subtotal N/A Grand TotalFirst impression of our website 46 79 190 451 163 929 9 938Look and Feel 43 99 194 444 144 924 14 938Getting around the site/navigation 73 138 150 390 174 925 13 938Search 84 116 185 358 156 899 39 938Finding what I want 58 103 176 388 190 915 23 938Mapping 52 82 240 306 116 796 142 938Booking things 31 29 173 175 82 490 448 938Reporting 32 34 172 153 62 453 485 938

Applying 35 29 168 165 68 465 473 938Paying 29 22 162 137 81 431 507 938Final Impression 55 96 154 385 225 915 23 938

538 827 1964 3352 1461 8142 2176 10318

Which of the followingareas would you liketo see the councildevelop or improve?(online question only) Of which

Multiple ChoiceQuestion Number Structure Content Design Search Transactionality Account Subscription SocMed Blogs Map AV UGC It's Fine Other

Structure 283 164 168 185 126 113 73 57 55 122 55 54 7 9

Content 273 164 165 185 124 104 86 61 66 121 64 61 12 10

Design 284 168 165 174 130 106 74 59 52 121 63 63 12 10

Search 343 185 185 174 141 115 92 62 56 142 60 61 11 14

Transactionality 262 126 124 130 141 145 88 55 63 133 53 51 12 8

Account 218 113 104 106 115 145 82 57 53 108 48 47 10 10

Subscription 253 73 86 74 92 88 82 50 47 78 42 45 8 10SocMed 96 57 61 59 62 55 57 50 44 54 42 43 10 5

Blogs 104 55 66 52 56 63 53 47 44 56 44 42 15 4

Map 229 122 121 121 142 133 108 78 54 56 58 58 12 5

AV 106 55 64 63 60 53 48 42 42 44 58 47 12 5User GeneratedContent (UGC) 106 54 61 63 61 51 47 45 43 42 58 47 10 7

It's Fine 265 7 12 12 11 12 10 8 10 15 12 12 10 1

Other 46 9 10 10 14 8 10 10 5 4 5 5 7 1

2868




Page | 79

How can we improve hullcc.gov.uk? (300300 and face to face question only)

Multiple Choice Question

TotalResponses(300300)

Total Responses(Face to Face) Total

Structure of website (for example the names by which we refer to servicesand service areas) 10 55 65Better content (for example the way in which pages are written, or theinformation they contain) 13 37 50Look and feel (for example the layout of the pages and the colour scheme) 12 37 49Search facility (for example the results it returns) 13 44 57More transactional services (for example reporting missed bin collections,applying for licences, paying and booking) 13 14 27Customer accounts to enable you to log and track service requests, storepayment details, receive information on your areas of interest etc. 2 7 9Information on your chosen areas of interest sent to you (for example byemail or text without visiting the site) 3 12 15Ways to access information through social media and networks (Twitter,Facebook and similar services) 0 18 18Blogs (from council officers, elected members and other contributors) 0 13 13Geographical information ('Find my nearest' function) 1 18 19Greater use of audio or video 0 23 23Contribute your own content to the site (pictures, comments, news, events) 1 6 7It's fine as it is 144 81 225Other 30 19 49Have not visited, do not visit hullcc.gov.uk 96 33 129No Response 0 167 167

338 232 570

Currently Use Total users who would like HCC to use a serviceAggregator Sites 79 37Bebo 69 33Blogs 165 70Discussion Forums 262 125Facebook 614 118Flickr 113 40Friendfeed 40 27Linked-In 77 32MySpace 144 44Subscription 125 66ThisIsYourMail 188 65Twitter 161 49UGC 97 51Wiki 148 48

Yammer 35 22Youtube 397 83




Page | 80

Which of the following are relevant toyou?

Multiple Choice QuestionTotal300300

TotalWeb


Live in the Area 450 668 276 1394Work in Hull 186 338 161 685

Work for HullCC 21 165 8 194Planning to visit 1 30 13 44Planning on moving 2 14 3 19Local councillor 0 4 0 4Information (for myself) 79 336 106 521Information (for work) 8 153 11 172Information (for friend) 8 82 28 118Other 9 18 14 41

Postcodes represented

Total300300

TotalWeb


AB31 0 1 0 1BB8 0 1 0 1BD7 0 1 0 1BD8 0 1 0 1BL9 0 1 0 1BN2 0 1 0 1BT7 0 1 0 1CR3 0 1 0 1CV3 0 1 0 1CV4 0 1 0 1DE23 0 1 0 1DH4 0 1 0 1DH9 0 1 0 1DL10 0 1 0 1DL14 0 1 0 1DN1 0 0 1 1DN11 0 1 1 2DN14 0 2 0 2DN15 0 1 0 1DN17 0 1 0 1DN18 0 6 4 10

DN19 0 1 0 1DN21 0 1 0 1DN3 0 1 0 1DN32 0 1 0 1E17 0 1 0 1EH55 0 1 0 1EI1 0 1 0 1EX17 0 1 0 1FY8 0 1 0 1G26 0 1 0 1G40 0 1 0 1G43 0 1 0 1

HP3 0 1 0 1HU1 2 23 9 34HU10 1 12 7 20




Page | 81

HU11 4 10 4 18HU12 3 20 6 29HU13 3 4 16 23HU14 0 3 8 11HU15 0 8 15 23HU16 2 9 3 14HU17 1 24 3 28HU18 0 4 1 5HU19 0 3 1 4HU2 14 14 4 32HU20 0 2 0 2HU3 49 63 26 138HU4 25 45 14 84HU5 93 156 37 286HU6 67 78 25 170HU7 54 85 31 170HU8 58 73 20 151HU9 79 98 21 198

IS17 0 1 0 1KY1 1 0 0 1LA2 0 1 0 1LE1 0 1 0 1LE2 0 1 0 1LN11 1 0 0 1LN2 0 2 0 2LS20 0 0 0 0LU6 0 1 0 1ME3 0 1 0 1ME5 0 1 0 1NG24 0 1 0 1

NG34 0 1 0 1NN9 0 1 0 1Non UK 0 9 0 9OX2 0 1 0 1PO12 0 1 0 1S41 0 1 0 1SA48 0 1 0 1SE6 0 1 0 1SK7 0 1 0 1SS2 0 1 0 1TN39 0 1 0 1W6 0 1 0 1WD24 1 0 0 1WF2 0 1 0 1WV3 0 1 0 1YO12 0 1 0 1YO15 0 2 1 3YO16 0 3 0 3YO23 0 1 0 1YO25 0 4 0 4YO30 0 1 0 1YO42 0 1 0 1YO43 0 3 0 3

YO7 0 1 0 1YO8 0 1 0 1




Page | 82

Gender

Total300300

TotalWeb


Female 322 507 165 994Male 147 394 169 710

469 901 334 1704

Average Age

300300 Face toFaceFemale 45 36Male 49 32

Age and Gender

Total300300

Total300300Male

Total300300Female

TotalWeb

TotalWebMale

TotalWebFemale

TotalFacetoFace

TotalFace toFaceMale

TotalFace toFaceFemale Total

TotalMale

TotalFemale

Under 21 17 3 14 57 18 39 82 47 35 156 68 8821-30 69 17 52 166 59 107 72 36 36 307 112 19531-40 94 28 66 156 61 95 39 25 14 289 114 17541-50 107 30 77 147 77 70 43 21 22 297 128 16951-60 90 30 60 124 64 60 23 7 16 237 101 13661-70 44 15 29 56 33 23 19 5 14 119 53 6671-80 30 17 13 10 6 4 5 4 1 45 27 1881-90 9 2 7 4 2 2 3 1 2 16 5 11Over 90 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

461 143 318 720 320 400 286 146 140 1467 609 858




QUESTIONS FOR 300300 and OFFLINEparticipants only:Why didn't you use the website?

Total300300


300300 easier/quicker 9 0 9

didn't think that the information/servicecould be accessed online 76 40 116Dissatisfied with previous experience 7 8 15don't use the internet 200 178 378Didn't know about the site/don't visithullcc.gov.uk 17 0 17Other (please state) 27 52 79prefer the human touch 138 81 219tried the website but found it difficult touse 2 6 8tried the website first and could not findthe information/service 3 8 11tried the website first and theinformation/service is not available 15 13 28were not at a computer and sawsomething that needed dealing withimmediately so rang 300300 16 14 30was not at a computer and was near aCSC 0 8 8

510 399 909

What are the barriers to your usage?

Total300300


I don't feel comfortable using the internet 75 20 95I have never used the internet and don'twant to in the future 56 28 84Other (please state) 20 13 33The cost of internet access 46 14 60

197 75 272

Documents

Doing IT Ourselves: citizen produced websites and their relationship to public services