The Health Canada Policy Toolkit for Public Involvement in Decision
Making
Level 3 Technique:
An Introduction: Computer-Assisted Participation I
What Is It?
Computer-assisted participation refers to a category of structures
and strategies, in which email and Internet-based communication
are used to enhance public involvement in decision making. A number
of specific computer-assisted participation techniques are presented
in this toolkit.
Relatively early in the development of Internet communications,
one leading observer gave the following overview of the unique
potential of this grouping of public engagement resources:
Interactive communications supports all forms of dynamic communications
- one-on-one, small group, mass broadcasting and a wholly new
form of many-to-many interactive mass communications. One of
its most powerful characteristics is that it can enrich communication
by combining all other forms of communication - text, audio,
graphics and video - in a single message. It does so without
regard to the distance or time differences between people, since
it can store and hold messages until the receiver chooses to
view and respond to them. It offers powerful and timely access
to information and knowledge, which opens up a vast array of
opportunities.
The most important aspect of interactive communications is that
it inspires engaged participants rather than passive listeners
or viewers [emphasis added]. Its unique potential is that it
empowers every participant to be a publisher or producer of information
as well as a consumer. Experience with the Internet, commercial
services like America Online, electronic bulletin board systems,
and local networks indicate that this is what people want most,
by a large margin.
Morino Institute, The Promise and Challenge of a New Communications
Age, 1995.
At least one U.S. clearinghouse on electronic democracy rates
computer-assisted participation techniques on a three-point scale,
representing a continuum from citizen input to more or less binding
decision-making authority.
How It Works
The step-by-step practicalities of computer-assisted participation
may vary from one technique to the next. For the most part, computer-assisted
participation exercises use email, websites or telephone hook-ups
with computer-assisted voting to involve a wider group of citizens
in deliberative processes. Questions and background information
may be distributed in advance in electronic form or broadcast via
local television. At some point, participants generally have the
opportunity to express a viewpoint or cast a vote on the issue
under discussion, so that their input is incorporated in the broader
decisionmaking process.
Here are just a few examples of computer-assisted participation
in action:
- In Honolulu in 1987, citizens participating by telephone played
a decisive role in shaping the outcome of an electronic public
hearing on a proposed public works project. Live testimony demonstrated
a dramatic difference in opinion between the 100 participants
in the city council amphitheatre and the estimated 10,000 home
viewers who tuned in for at least part of the hearing. Nearly
7,500 citizens voted on the initiative by dialing one of two
phone numbers attached to a computerized voting system. City
councillors defeated the proposal by a three to one margin.
- One online networking initiative generated broad public participation
as a result of extensive coverage in local media, and is now
using a combination of email and media announcements to involve
citizens in a series of moderated online conferences on specific
issues.
- A number of non-profit organizations and community coalitions
in the United States have organized electronic town hall meetings
to broaden public participation in governance and civic networking.
Published summaries of specific projects stress the value of
using the latest computer technologies to reinvigorate local
communities, support and strengthen community leadership, and
bring people together to discuss and solve neighbourhood problems.
One initiative, based on a networking system developed by the
Media Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is designed
to "support activities taking place in real proximal communities
as opposed to virtual communities." With terminals in homes,
community centres, health centres, schools and religious institutions,
the system shows " how local neighbourhood infrastructure can
be advanced by information technologies."
- Advocates and practitioners of computer-assisted participation
generally give less credence to structures designed to disseminate
content or foster informal communication, with no mechanism empowering
communities, informing the policy process or ensuring that community
voices are heard and heeded.
- Internet-based communications can also be used to foster offline
communications. In Los Angeles, like-minded participants use
an electronic bulletin board to organize face-to-face "salons" and
discussion groups on specific issues. And in one experiment in
North London, 23 households on a single street used state-of-the-art
PCS and modems supplied by a major software manufacturer to form
a "virtual neighbourhood" - much to the resentment of the 67
other households that were left out of the project.
Please turn to the toolkit entries on interactive World Wide Web/electronic
conferencing, online discussion groups and list servers and televoting
for more detailed information on specific aspects of computer assisted
participation.
When Is It Most Useful?
Computer-assisted participation is a valuable tool for reaching
out to public audiences, fostering interaction among citizens on
specific issues, and ensuring that public views and concerns are
captured in policy decisions.
Logistics and Limits
Successful use of specific techniques may hinge on access to technology
and technological expertise, and on an ability to distribute background
materials to a large participant group in advance of a consultative
or deliberative exercise. To some extent, it may be possible to
bridge this gap using the community access terminals funded by
two Industry Canada programs, Canada's SchoolNet and the Community
Access Program. However, depending on the breadth and diversity
of a target audience, it may be necessary to combine computer-assisted
participation with other public involvement techniques that rely
on printed materials and face-to-face interaction.
Cost Implications
Cost items associated with different computer-assisted participation
techniques may include technology and related support, space rental
and local logistics for any live meetings associated with the process,
and preparation and distribution of background documents.
Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up
Like other public engagement techniques, computerassisted participation
creates the expectation that citizens' views and concerns will
be reflected in public policy decisions. Although the available
literature makes no reference to specific follow-up measures, participants
in a computer-assisted participation exercise would likely appreciate
periodic updates, in print or electronic form.
Timelines
No time frame is specified in the available literature, but the
planning period for a computer-assisted participation exercise
should be sufficient to allow for public notice, preparation and
distribution of any advance documentation, and acquisition and
testing of technology. The length of the actual discussion process
could range from several hours, for a public meeting transmitted
by cable television, to one or more weeks, for a moderated discussion
group.
Potential Pitfalls
By definition, as noted above, most forms of computer-assisted
participation exclude community members with limited access to
computers, email and the Internet, or who are not comfortable expressing
themselves in an online environment. Although use of the Internet
has been growing explosively, and demographic limitations are not
as clear cut as they once were, online audiences still tend to
be disproportionately male, white and wealthier than non-users.
World-wide, Internet use is still centred primarily in the wealthiest
countries, and English remains the dominant language.
Communities that experiment with computer-assisted participation
may also encounter institutional resistance - while the Honolulu
electronic public hearing was deemed a huge success from a public
participation standpoint, the local council never repeated the
experience.
Electronic communication can be an extremely effective mechanism
for sustaining a debate or a deliberative process that is already
under way, but may not be the best means of launching the discussion
or setting its initial parameters. For issues that are complex,
painful or value-laden, computer-assisted participation may not
be an adequate substitute for live discussion groups, though they
may help prepare the ground for a live session or extend the discussion
beyond a single day. With controversial topics, an online moderator
can play a crucial role in keeping discussion on track, without
unduly impeding the free flow of ideas.
Computer-assisted participation can be quite time consuming for
anyone involved in moderating an ongoing discussion - and therefore
quite expensive, unless the moderator is a volunteer. As noted
elsewhere in this toolkit, the legal implications of allowing some
types of information to be posted have not yet been clarified by
the courts - but attempts to control or censor the free flow of
electronic information can generate ferocious opposition and sustained
mistrust.
|
