Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Colin Rule on October 30, 2012 at 11:08pm

Great thread, Larry -- I strongly agree that the tools of ODR are valuable in public, multiparty issues... maybe even more valuable than in transactional or two-party disputes. Bill is right, the word "dispute" in ODR is often a stumbling block. I go out of my way to use words like communication, problem, resolution instead of dispute/conflict.

On the issue of most important opportunities to use online tools for public policy issues, Jason Gershowtz and I recently did an article for ACResolution that touches on that: http://novojustice.com/files/acr12.docx

My personal feeling is that online technology is most powerful in getting wide participation in a multiparty process, a la Listening to the City or America Speaks. Technology makes engagement possible on a scale that is simply inconcievable in person.

As to concerns, I worry that technology is both cheapening and coarsening engagement with public dialogues. I've spoken to the Facebook guys about this - I've never had a productive or enlightening political conversation on Facebook, because the whole site is aimed at quick (2-3 sentence) tart posts that gain lots of likes. No room for deliberation on Facebook or Twitter -- just barbs and playing to your side. And the folks at Facebook don't care - they see adults having fights as a feature not a bug, because it draws eyeballs.

Bill's example of the frivolous results from the Obama Briefing Book exercise are a cautionary tale in the perils of cyberutopianism. Just creating a forum doesn't mean it won't be trolled. Most of my positive online multiparty experiences have come with invitation-based groups instead of creating an open forum and throwing it open for everyone to participate. I don't think the simple act of offering a forum to users doesn't guarantee deliberation, in the sense that Beth Noveck uses the term (or we use it at edeliberation.com).

I know that USIP and now the CRS are looking at social media as a bellweather for large, social disputes... check out http://www.usip.org/files/resources/pw65.pdf ... I find that fascinating. Most e-government starts out targeting efficiency improvements and data access, but the real power of ICT in eDemocracy goes way beyond data sets and online forms.

Jeff, I'm with you on Google Hangouts -- truly transformative. Just wait until we get WebRTC: http://www.webrtc.org/home

Also, don't know if you saw it, but Sam Edwards is doing a book on this topic, and he's looking for chapters: http://www.odr.info/node/97

Got to shout out to my fellow Haverford alums: Todd Edwards (brother of Sam) and Matt Leighninger were both classmates of mine in college!

rah

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ryan Soukup on October 31, 2012 at 9:05pm

Having worked on Capitol Hill and later for a lobbyist in DC, I feel as though a catch-22 exists between constituents and government.

When constituents write or call their senator or representative, they are often met with vague and opaque answers. I frequently provided political answers to tough questions, and this often infuriated constituents. Further, when the same constituents asked to speak with an aide, they were usually met with avoidance tactics. Ironically, when I worked for the lobbyist, it was amazing at how quickly I could get patched through to whomever I sought to speak with in a congressional office. The disconnect between legislative offices and constituents extends beyond this.

For instance, the Congressional Record and many other traditional documentation processes exist almost as face-saving mechanisms whereby representatives can get their views on record, so that when judgement day -- aka election day -- comes around, they can provide concrete evidence on stances, opinions, etc. But, these sources of information do not accurately provide all of the information on what representatives do throughout sessions of congress-- i.e. meetings, speaking engagements, etc.

The most egregious example of undercutting the general public surfaces with special interests. While representatives can take a stance publicly, the things they do in meetings hold more weight. The average constituent probably has no idea what special interests are meeting with their representatives daily. Furthermore, there is an entire market in DC for "political knowledge." Consulting firms hire long-time aides and others with thick rolodexes, so that they can provide insider knowledge for those willing to pay a hefty price. This knowledge helps lobbyists or other organizations plan advocacy drives and also provides a targeted list of representatives willing to introduce legislation or build support for policy.

With these examples in mind, I wonder what it will take for constituents to realize that what transpires in the public is a facade for what happens in the background. Until the public becomes aware of the true process, I feel as though no change in access can arise. It seems as though those in power are content with the level of access that currently exists.

So, I think the questions becomes: how can constituents influence policy, or feel as though they can contribute, when much of what goes on in DC happens in private meetings? The grey area suddenly becomes messy. Technology has most certainly opened up areas of government for public access, but, for instance, the Supreme Court still does not allow cameras in the courtroom. I once had the opportunity to see Brian Lamb, C-SPAN's founder, speak about the difficulties he had in just getting cameras in the House and Senate. 

In conclusion, I feel as though technology could help open access to the general public, but it would take a concerted effort to get Congress to open its hood for inspection. Voters do not have the funds or resources that the special interests hold. Even if a constituent writes a letter, emails or calls their representative, it can sometimes take weeks for a response. I think that the public should seek greater accountability. Every representative has a website, but they do not provide real-time updates. The means for greater amounts of public engagement exist, but how do we get representatives to buy into more public involvement? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bill Warters on November 1, 2012 at 1:00pm

Great observations Ryan. It seems to me that others are concerned about the issues you raise as well, as reflected in calls for greater transparency in government. One resource I found helpful in terms of some of the "figuring out who the players are" aspect is the directory maintained at Vanderbilt University of Public Policy Issues and Groups. In terms of transparency, this new website is aggregating a growing number of international efforts - Technology for Transparency. My sense is that the pressure has to come from the outside, not from members of government seeking better engagement.

Ryan Soukup said:

...With these examples in mind, I wonder what it will take for constituents to realize that what transpires in the public is a facade for what happens in the background. Until the public becomes aware of the true process, I feel as though no change in access can arise. It seems as though those in power are content with the level of access that currently exists.

So, I think the questions becomes: how can constituents influence policy, or feel as though they can contribute, when much of what goes on in DC happens in private meetings? The grey area suddenly becomes messy. ...In conclusion, I feel as though technology could help open access to the general public, but it would take a concerted effort to get Congress to open its hood for inspection. Voters do not have the funds or resources that the special interests hold. Even if a constituent writes a letter, emails or calls their representative, it can sometimes take weeks for a response. I think that the public should seek greater accountability. Every representative has a website, but they do not provide real-time updates. The means for greater amounts of public engagement exist, but how do we get representatives to buy into more public involvement? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sam Edwards on November 2, 2012 at 10:04am

Great topic Larry!  One area I see is involving a different part of the electorate in the political process.  While young people tend not to be as politically engaged in the traditional system I could see them becoming more a part of the process as it goes into their world online.  Young folks are more at home online and would probably be more likely to engage in the political process if they could do so within their "world."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sam Edwards on November 2, 2012 at 10:15am

Good points Collin.  People are mean online is a sad fact of most? many? online discussions. Finding a way to break that culture is important in this area. A platform that engenders real discussion is one of the possible solutions. Are there platforms or sites that seem to work better than others? You mentioned google hangouts another one I often see positive discussions is askmetafilter.

Also thanks for pulgging the book.  There is still time for people to submit chapter proposals. http://www.odr.info/node/97

The book covers this precise area of how digital communications are changing the relationship between citizens and states.

sam

Colin Rule said:

Great thread, Larry -- I strongly agree that the tools of ODR are valuable in public, multiparty issues... maybe even more valuable than in transactional or two-party disputes. Bill is right, the word "dispute" in ODR is often a stumbling block. I go out of my way to use words like communication, problem, resolution instead of dispute/conflict.

On the issue of most important opportunities to use online tools for public policy issues, Jason Gershowtz and I recently did an article for ACResolution that touches on that: http://novojustice.com/files/acr12.docx

My personal feeling is that online technology is most powerful in getting wide participation in a multiparty process, a la Listening to the City or America Speaks. Technology makes engagement possible on a scale that is simply inconcievable in person.

As to concerns, I worry that technology is both cheapening and coarsening engagement with public dialogues. I've spoken to the Facebook guys about this - I've never had a productive or enlightening political conversation on Facebook, because the whole site is aimed at quick (2-3 sentence) tart posts that gain lots of likes. No room for deliberation on Facebook or Twitter -- just barbs and playing to your side. And the folks at Facebook don't care - they see adults having fights as a feature not a bug, because it draws eyeballs.

Bill's example of the frivolous results from the Obama Briefing Book exercise are a cautionary tale in the perils of cyberutopianism. Just creating a forum doesn't mean it won't be trolled. Most of my positive online multiparty experiences have come with invitation-based groups instead of creating an open forum and throwing it open for everyone to participate. I don't think the simple act of offering a forum to users doesn't guarantee deliberation, in the sense that Beth Noveck uses the term (or we use it at edeliberation.com).

I know that USIP and now the CRS are looking at social media as a bellweather for large, social disputes... check out http://www.usip.org/files/resources/pw65.pdf ... I find that fascinating. Most e-government starts out targeting efficiency improvements and data access, but the real power of ICT in eDemocracy goes way beyond data sets and online forms.

Jeff, I'm with you on Google Hangouts -- truly transformative. Just wait until we get WebRTC: http://www.webrtc.org/home

Also, don't know if you saw it, but Sam Edwards is doing a book on this topic, and he's looking for chapters: http://www.odr.info/node/97

Got to shout out to my fellow Haverford alums: Todd Edwards (brother of Sam) and Matt Leighninger were both classmates of mine in college!

rah

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bernie Mayer on November 2, 2012 at 11:11am

This is a fascinating discussion.  As someone who has facilitated many public input and dialogue processes, I see many interesting upsides for ODR in this arena.  But in keeping with Ryan's very interesting observations and the resport from the Obama effort I also see a considerable potential problem as well.  Many input processes are just that--ever more elaborate efforts to provide input and the semblance of dialogue but without the genuine opportunity to have meaningful influence on policy.  In many of these efforts there are web-based input mechanisms, focus groups, public meetings, etc.  But without some effort at building a meaningful interchange between citizens and decision makers, a lot of this just for show--to allow officials to say they went to great efforts to get public input--and then to go on with their normal deal making process.  I worry that with ever more significant web-based input mechanisms, the potential for real dialogue and consensus building grows, but so does the potential for "for show" input efforts.  This is akin to what the "feedback" forums that many airlines have, for example.  Thoughts?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neva Winkle on November 2, 2012 at 11:59am

I feel there are a great number of advantages to having increased communication with the public on policy issues when it comes to reality testing policy.  There can be several situations that policy makers do not anticipate when creating a new policy, and the ability for citizens to be able to voice their opinions or troubles on the topic opens us up to a whole new area.  It can be hard for policy makers to completely cover all of the potential conflicts that a new policy can create, but when citizens have an easy and quick way to voice their concern or frustration, a more immediate response can be made by the government, rather than the often delayed response.  With the ability of citizens to communicate with their lawmakers, even with something as small as twitter or facebook, it is far easier for citizens to reach out to their government and voice their frustration or praise of an issue.  This is especially true when you are looking at local governments, where many of these policy decisions can have much faster results on the public.

 

This of course has the same dangers as has been mentioned several times here.  When using cyber communication, there will always be the presence of spammers and interest groups taking over the conversation.  But as these avenues become more comfortable to more people and officials, it should become more natural for people to reach out to their government this way.  Just in the past few days on the east coast, several citizens have been using these tools to reach out to their government to communicate where help is needed rather than attempting to call busy phone lines, and in some cases it has been extremely effective.

 

Neva Winkle

J.D. Candidate 2013

University of Nebraska College of Law

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Ziegler on November 2, 2012 at 12:46pm

Excellent discussion.  I'm reminded of a PBS Newshour clip last night about the role, and crazy amount, of social data aggregation  taking place (including from your computer!), as part of the tactical wind-down to the US elections. This 'big data' analysis also suggests possibilities in the ADR policy sphere.

I see social media, especially Twitter (via hashtags) and lesser extent Facebook, as an opportunity to collect huge amounts of data, be it opinions, ideas, etc. that can serve as input to policy makers.  The challenge is finding the right people (eg trusted persons with social media cache) who will ask the right questions, and aggregating and triangulating this data using strong social data analytics tools.

The skill set to make this happen (including ADR, policy makers, legislators, "trusted voices", social media types, data modelers, IT architecture types, social data analyzers, etc.) isn't nicely packaged, at least with any ADR service/provider I know.  Methinks the collaborative law motto of "it takes a system to change a system" is needed... though, I suspect the collective experience and wisdom of the people in this discussion group would be up to the challenge!

PS.  I really appreciate the links provided by folks here (eg Bill, Colin, Sam), as references to their comments. Lots to mull over.  One link I'll offer up is Naheed Nenshi, mayor of Calgary (Alberta), (@nenshi on Twitter) who might just be Canada's most trusted politician, due to his use of social media.  It nudges me to think...
 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Hansen on November 2, 2012 at 1:07pm

Ryan,

You bring up some interesting points about the catch-22 between constituents and government.  While I agree that Congress should make an attempt to become more open as technology improves, that idea itself raises its own issues.  Namely, what objective ways of presenting information could we use that don't already exist?  What sources of information could we use?  How should we present that info?

I focus on the idea of objective ways to present info because I've seen firsthand the problem of otherwise reliable information going through a subjective filter.  I agree that information on meetings, speaking engagements and the like would be helpful to voters, but how do we present that information?  Issuing it en-mass on a webpage would make it difficult for voters to sort through two-plus years of meetings and speaking engagements.  Likewise providing an executive summary such as percentage of time spent with each special interest or issue opens up to a subjective view of which meetings and speaking engagements fall into which category.

I think this overall is a good idea to explore, and am curious as to how others would address the issue.

Ryan Soukup said:

In conclusion, I feel as though technology could help open access to the general public, but it would take a concerted effort to get Congress to open its hood for inspection. Voters do not have the funds or resources that the special interests hold. Even if a constituent writes a letter, emails or calls their representative, it can sometimes take weeks for a response. I think that the public should seek greater accountability. Every representative has a website, but they do not provide real-time updates. The means for greater amounts of public engagement exist, but how do we get representatives to buy into more public involvement? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bill Warters on November 2, 2012 at 3:13pm

Good conversations and questions here, for sure. Matt brings up the issue of display of information and how to do that in complex policy situations or in cases where there has been a lot of previous input. One project that I think of addressing this is the Living Voters Guides and the underlying Considerit toolkit powered by open source software that is offered by Travis Kriplean and colleagues from the University of Washington. 

Ben Ziegler's comments about it taking a system to fix a system seems on track as well. I think the collaborative sharing of public engagement tools that is happening now in places like Participedia and Engagement Commons as positive steps in that direction.

Matt Hansen said:

Ryan,

You bring up some interesting points about the catch-22 between constituents and government.  While I agree that Congress should make an attempt to become more open as technology improves, that idea itself raises its own issues.  Namely, what objective ways of presenting information could we use that don't already exist?  What sources of information could we use?  How should we present that info?

I focus on the idea of objective ways to present info because I've seen firsthand the problem of otherwise reliable information going through a subjective filter.  I agree that information on meetings, speaking engagements and the like would be helpful to voters, but how do we present that information?  Issuing it en-mass on a webpage would make it difficult for voters to sort through two-plus years of meetings and speaking engagements.  Likewise providing an executive summary such as percentage of time spent with each special interest or issue opens up to a subjective view of which meetings and speaking engagements fall into which category.

I think this overall is a good idea to explore, and am curious as to how others would address the issue.

Ryan Soukup said:

In conclusion, I feel as though technology could help open access to the general public, but it would take a concerted effort to get Congress to open its hood for inspection. Voters do not have the funds or resources that the special interests hold. Even if a constituent writes a letter, emails or calls their representative, it can sometimes take weeks for a response. I think that the public should seek greater accountability. Every representative has a website, but they do not provide real-time updates. The means for greater amounts of public engagement exist, but how do we get representatives to buy into more public involvement? 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page