March 27, 2011
This post is a good example of where my work and research start to come together. Over at Public-i we have been working on a number of social media audits for clients and I have been working on a more formal framework to deliver this (white paper on this soon) and so I have been thinking more detail about the content that we are interested in when we talk about the local civic conversation.
Much of my interest in the social web stemmed from the fact that useful content started to emerge. Now – useful is an extremely subjective term but in my context I am talking about content that is both pro-social and constructive. The fact that people would set up websites to talk to and with their community is useful, the fact that I can read blogs of people who are thinking about the big political issues is useful and the fact that I am more likely to find a solution to the rather off-colour state of my wisteria on a gardening club website rather than a reference book is useful. I did say that useful is a subjective description.
My PHD research is about trying to narrow down and describe one element of this content which I am calling civic creation. This is content that is informal and user generated but is aimed at talking to your community – not just to friends, family or your peer group – it has an assumption of and desire for public-ness from the author. Even more specifically this is content which has the intent of talking about how your locality works and should work – its content which is rooted in place even if that is secondary to a particular interest or issue.
The first step therefore in finding civic is defining the geographic scope for your definition of local and this needs to be done using the language and definitions of the citizens – not of the state (more than that here). Once you have this scope then you need to look at what people are doing – you can read more about this here but I categorise participant’s behaviour into four types:
||I use social media in order to socialise with my friends and family – I just want to keep in touch with people
||I use social media in order to connect to my local community and talk about issues which I think are important to us
||I use social media to make sure that the views of my community are considered by decision makers and are part of the final decision. I want to influence things
||I want to be part of setting the agenda for my community – I want to change things
All of these behaviours exist in the local digital space and individuals and groups will move between these behaviours – its another aspect to the malleability of the social web where people participate as people usually in the full range of their interests. However I am focusing on the informal civic behaviours and the question for this post is how you go about finding evidence of the informal civic content which I am proposing should be the starting point for local democratic debate and decision making.
Intent may be descriptive but its very difficult to ascribe to someone else’s content reliably – which means it is not useful in terms of how we might find this informal civic content – its only useful in retrospect. This question of finding informal civic content is key if you are thinking about how to create a shared civic space – somewhere where you gather together the different civic voices in a community and connect them to the formal decision making process – and you can’t find content unless you have defined what it is and you know what to look for.
Its important to remember however that we are not really looking for the content – we’re looking for the people and communities who are creating the content. If we’re looking for evidence of Civic Content creation then we are looking for Civic Creators. One of the challenges in identifying any kind of informal content is the fact that identity of not public which makes it difficult to be sure that you are connecting to the right people.
Our definition of civic creation so far involves intent and is based on location but it also needs a third element – topic – and this is the way in which we find the people who form the local civic conversation.
The exception to this is of course hyperlocal communities – which I have talked about here – these are place based communities which have a public stated intent of ‘ I want to talk to my community’ and where they exist they are potentially the backbone of the local digital civic space. The issue is that they don’t exist universally and even where they do exist you cannot assume that they are representative or that there are no other forms of civic creation in the area. You need to look further than the hyperlocal in order to find a lot of your local civic conversation.
The question therefore is how to illuminate the civic activity that is going on so that you can connect to the civic creators who will form your civic space. We can’t find them just from their location (hyperlocal sites excepted) as this gives no sense of intent and we can’t search based on someone’s intention. The entry point for finding our civic creators is therefore issue based.
Topic is vary across time and doesn’t define a community – though it may dominate for a while. Topic is useful in that it helps to highlight intent and can also generate synchronous activity from participants who do not usually come together. This makes them easier to find and more likely to connect to each other when you do find them. This is not going to be an infallible method of finding civic creators – not everyone is interested in everything – but its a useful way of getting started and can provide something to build on. As places get deeper and richer digital footprints then this process will become easier – but as specific topics act as a catalyst for informal civic participation they can also be a way of finding the networks who are talking about them and drawing them into the wider civic space.
How does this differ from social media monitoring?
The main difference is the fact that we are looking for people and networks rather than content – the content (like the topic) is a means to an end. Social media monitoring focuses on finding content – how many times is you brand is mentioned and whether the mentions are positive or negative in tone. To help explain – below are the benefits listed by a well known Social Media Monitoring tool:
- Scan and sort viral posts related to your brand(s) and immediately know which online content is making an impact.
- Look out for online conversations that could be damaging to your brand(s).
- Track volume of buzz tied to a specific campaign and identify sites with the most influence in order to tailor your outreach.
- Uncover potential customers or partners at their “point of need”.
- Keep an eye on competitors and use a comparative graph to track share of voice.
These are all useful things to know and when applied to topic rather than brand then they can help us to find our civic creators – but if just limited to brand then you are not uncovering your local civic conversation – you are just finding the usual suspects. We want to use these tools to find the people, capture the individuals and then track their activities on an ongoing basis and use them to discover new community generated topics.
Social, Civic and Democratic activities
Coming back to the point however is the issue that we cannot search for content merely on the basis of intent – we need to look at actions. I have previously defined Civic activities as:
“as interactions which concern your community and take place outside of your social circle as you connect to other members of that community that you may not have a social connection with. The transition from social to civic includes the realisation that you will need to deal with a different set of people and that you will need to behave differently as a result. Civic actions are defined in terms of intent – you have a shared intention to improve your community. One major area for examination within this research is within this civic category where it is important to define and measure specific actions within this so that we can look at the the further transition from civic to democratic behaviour. There are many parallels between civic activities and the Public Sphere described by Habermas.”
And here is updated version of the long list I put together of civic behaviours online.
||Start a petitionTake part in a Participatory Budgeting process (not just play with a slider!!!)
||Instigate / Run a campaignSocial reporting (blogging / tweeting re: local issues)Managing a hyperlocal website
Organise a community meeting
||Interact with an elected representative
||Share something from the civic space with someone elseTweet civic space topics
||Rate a comment on a discussion boardRate a comment on a blogComment on the discussion board
Rate a webcast (or a meeting)
Comment on a blog
Comment on webcast
|Comment on a blogComment on a relevant discussion boardRate a comment on a discussion board
Rate a comment on a blog
Rate a video clip
Comment on video clip
||Save something to your user profile
Sign up for alerts
|Subscribe to an RSS feed etc from a social reporter
Social tagging of content
||Sign up to attend an event
Sign a petition
Create a user profile
Contacted a political party
Donated money to a civic organisation or group
Joined another civic organisation or association
Donated money to a political organisation or group
|Join a discussion forum
Taken part in a lawful public demonstration
||Watch a webcast eventAttend a formal meeting
||Not voting…..or anything else….
This list is based on the Forrester Groundswell categorization of user behavior and incorporates the civic actions used by the OII Internet report 2009. (PS Sorry the table is horrible – will work out how to format it properly at some point).
Further to this we (at Public-i) have been working on creating the following catagorisation of local civic sites:
|Active individuals broken down by:
Local / General
Local / Topic
|These are blogs, websites and twitter feeds which are created by one person and reflect their voice and opinions.
||These are sites which are party affiliated and are either created by the party, a candidate or an elected politician.
|Hyperlocal community websites
||Hyperlocal websites are set-up and run by members of the community in order to connect with and discuss local issues. They use social media tools and are probably the clearest expression of the “I want to talk to my community” intent.
||These are similar in intent to hyperlocal sites but don’t use social media tools
|Communities of interest sites
||These sites are connected to the place concerned by either the people or by the content but will be focused on a specific issue or topic. These sites are run by clubs (local sports clubs for example) or perhaps by third sector organisations (such as AgeConcern) and are included here where they meet the critieria of either place or topic.
||We look at Facebook groups, pages and individuals are a type in its own right because the different approach recommended to deal with interactions on Facebook
|Local news coverage in newspapers and radio
||These are sites that are created by mainstream media outlets and may or may not include social media elements
|Formal Civic or democratic sites
||These are the sites of government and related organisations that touch on either the place or the topic.
So – civic creation is that list of activities applied to this list of sites as bounded by location and topic.
At present finding this content is a largely manual process – or rather a series of manually managed automated steps. What I want to develop are more sophisticated semantic analysis tools that will enable us to find this content more directly – but this is a bigger project. Would welcome comments on any tools people believe already carry out this task well in the meantime please.
But let’s not forget it’s actually all about people – as stated before we are really interested in finding the people and communities who are creating the content. These are individuals who may fulfil a number of different roles which are not mutually exclusive:
- Local blogger – writing about either the location or a specific topic. This group includes citizen journalists
- Twitter user – because of the highly networked and real time information sharing qualities of twitter it is useful to look at local twitter usage when examining the local conversation
- Community or Website manager – anyone who is involved in creating/curating/convening a local or hyperlocal site constitutes a local civic creator
- Active Contributor – someone who does not necessarily act on their own but it a frequent contributor to sites and forums in the area
We know that a small percentage of people create the majority of content on the social web (Forrester, OFCOM) but these figures are all based on the vast majority of content which falls into my informal social category of content. My working assumption at present is that this percentage will be similar with respect to informal civic content as well but this is an assumption that needs testing through my data collection and analysis.
Its important to find these people as if you are going to start shaping a local civic space more actively then this are the people that you want to be working with co-productively to do this. As the idea matures they may be providing curation for the wider civic space and also could be part of the process of deciding who is included in the space in the future.
When I was shaping my data collection and trials I talked about this people as community ambassadors and you can read a fairly long post here about why I changed my mind about this role. I think its extremely important to remember that these are people who are doing something by choice and that any benefit to the democratic or civic process is at the moment a side effect rather than something that is necessarily planned for until such a time as we have connected this informal activity effectively to the decision making process.
When I started this post I was framing these individuals in terms of influence and talking about them as influential civic creators. However influence is a tricky thing to measure and I don’t want to use the term inaccurately. As part of the social media audit process we are carrying out basic Social Network Analysis on the networks that are returned from research into a localities informal civic content but without interviewing the civic creators and also looking at who they reach it is difficult to come up with an accurate measure of influence. This is slightly out of scope for my work at the moment so I am parking the thought that it would be interesting to look properly into exactly how influential these people are and instead look at how we decide who is significant in terms of forming the local civic conversation. Anyone who is highlighted here will have met the criteria for civic creation listed above but in terms of identifying who is significant I have a number of specific criteria that I am looking at here:
- Reach – do they have an audience?
- Representativeness – do they represent a larger group either as a site moderator or as a connector to offline networks?
- Responsiveness – do they listen as well as talk?
- Constructiveness – are they coming up with solutions or listing problems?
This last one is highly subjective – but I wanted to include some measure of intent beyond the “I want to talk to my community” and to extend this into “I want to change my community for the better”. This is perhaps the point on which my definition of significance hinges – for the purposes of creating an online civic space the desire to improve your local area rather than just talk about it is clearly significant. I’m not expecting a shared vision of what ‘better’ and I am in two minds as to whether its correct to use such a value laden term in here as it is important that we people maintaining as well as improving civil society. However, my final conclusion on this point is that if we are trying to create something new and knit together a local civic conversation from civic creators then significance is lent to people who want to actively change the status quo.
I don’t see this as grading to a curve – there is no limit on the number of voices that are involved locally but as I gather more data about these people I am hoping to be able to start to draw some wider conclusions about them so that its possible to start forming a view about how the behaviours compare to informal social activities online.
So – what does it all mean then?
In writing this I was aiming to put some more meat on the bones of the idea that there is an emergent type of activity that goes beyond individual content creators that can be described as ‘informal civic content’. We have seen this in studies like the network neighbourhoods community website study and we can see it in increase in citizen journalism and hyperlocal websites. There are two reasons for doing this, firstly to capture a snapshot of conversation about a specific topic and secondly to start to understand local participation in a very different way to the top down approach do traditional consultation tools and methods.
Once we have a clear view of this content and its creators then we are better able to look at how we connect this into formal decision making processes and start to connect informal and formal conversations together – and that’s where the civic spaces come into it.
March 14, 2011
Identity matters – it’s a vital piece of context in conversation whether it’s established by digital footprint or physical presence. One aspect of moving conversations from the informal to the formal sphere is the reconciliation of your online persona with your legal citizenship.
People, like places, have a digital wrapper which extends their identity from beyond their physical presence in to the online environment. This wrapper is asynchronous and pervasive but is also malleable and manageable if you choose to make it so. The more alarming consequences of this is laid out in this article on Münchausen by internet where the author describes in detail the ease with which someone can create a false identity and the impacts of them doing this. Few people take the possibilities of online identity in this direction – but its important the remember that this represents the risk of online identity – you don’t really know who you are dealing with. The question is whether or not this matters.
Your identity online is currently a dynamic and self-reflexive creation with necessary external reference to the physical world. Its part of the seduction of the online world that you do as Boyd says ‘write yourself into being’. Few people do this consciously – most react to content and follow our friends behaviours rather than actively trying to create an identity which is distinct from your offline life. As use of social media grows beyond the personal sphere where you are talking to your friends and family and into the professional and civic space where you are talking to your communities its clear that there is a growing awareness of the impact of the content that you create on your reputation and public persona – it recently cost a Caerphilly Councillor £3K plus costs.
This self-reflexivity can be seen as a consequence of modernity rather than just technology – Giddens describes it like this:
“Self identity becomes a question of reconciling the different narratives that we have in abstract systems.”
Giddens argues this from the perspective of a breakdown of traditional structures and agreed value sets rather than as a result of the network society but the effect is the same – the stories and ideas which express our sense of self may be different to different people but they collide online in a way which either requires enormous self-discipline to keep separate or a new kind of authenticity and openness in the way in which we create our self-identity.
We don’t yet know what the impact will be of having huge amounts of the narrative of your life being available to publicly look back on in years to come but its clear that we are en route to finding out as we build up the digital narrative of our lives. Of course for many people this narrative, in this country at least, is largely if not entirely on Facebook – an environment that has a publicly stated lack of belief in privacy and an commitment to openness which means that you don’t even own the data that you post there.
Whether you like it or not it is increasingly difficult to keep your personal and professional lives separate – what does this mean for your democratic identity – you citizen-self? Do you even have one?
Researchers such as Sherry Turkle (Life on Screen, 1997) have established the fact that online environments can play a central role in people’s lives with individuals considering online interactions to have at least the same significance as those that happen in their physical world. She has also explored the fact that for many people the potential for anonymity and role playing which the online world brings is its greatest attraction, with participants exploring aspects of themselves, trying out different opinions or working through problems. In this context the participation of other people is irrelevant except as a mirror to see their own actions – the issue of course is that other people are real – even if you don’t see the consequences of your actions upon them. However Turkle’s more recent work focuses on her concerns as to the implications of a life on screen. The following is take from a 2007 article she wrote for Forbes magazine called “Can you hear me now?” (she develops these themes in her recent book – more on that when I have finished it)
We have become virtuosos of self-presentation, accustomed to living our lives in public. The idea that “we’re all being observed all the time anyway, so who needs privacy?” has become a commonplace. Put another way, people say, “As long as I’m not doing anything wrong, who cares who’s watching me?” This state of mind leaves us vulnerable to political abuse. Last June I attended the Webby Awards, an event to recognize the best and most influential Web sites. Thomas Friedman won for his argument that the Web had created a “flat” world of economic and political opportunity, a world in which a high school junior in Brooklyn competes with a peer in Bangalore. MySpace won a special commendation as the year’s most pathbreaking site.
The awards took place just as the government wiretapping scandal was dominating the press. When the question of illegal eavesdropping came up, a common reaction among the gathered Weberati was to turn the issue into a nonissue. We heard, “All information is good information” and “Information wants to be free” and “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” At a pre-awards cocktail party one Web luminary spoke animatedly about Michel Foucault’s idea of the panopticon, an architectural structure of spokes of a wheel built out from a hub, used as a metaphor for how the modern state disciplines its citizens. When the panopticon serves as a model for a prison, a guard stands at its center. Since each prisoner (citizen) knows that the guard might be looking at him or her at any moment, the question of whether the guard is actually looking–or if there is a guard at all–ceases to matter. The structure itself has created its disciplined citizen. By analogy, said my conversation partner at the cocktail hour, on the Internet someone might always be watching; it doesn’t matter if from time to time someone is. Foucault’s discussion of the panopticon had been a critical take on disciplinary society. Here it had become a justification for the U.S. government to spy on its citizens. All around me there were nods of assent.”
Publicity and openness need to be considered carefully by the state and we must not risk the cyber-evangelism which Morozov and others have been writing about overwhelm a more through debate as to what online identity means with respect to democratic decision making. What does a digital citizen look like?
Citizenship is a formal legal construct that defines your relationship with the state. Its based on where you were borne and where you live – its rooted in the physical world. Citizenship brings with it rights and responsibilities and in our society is a gateway to your participation in the democratic and political life, its taught in schools and its celebrated in ceremonies where we confer it actively. However, there is little narrative of citizenship and we in fact only act in an auditable way as citizens when we vote.
Our citizenship today is formed as part of a representative democratic system – our citizenship gives us the right to vote for our representatives and in doing so we cede much of our decision making power to them. The intriguing question that comes with the social shift described by the network society – or at least by the techno-determinism of the cyber-evangelists – is whether technology offers us the the opportunity to return to a more direct form of democracy. This is a different question to the issue of online and democratic identity and so not for this piece – but it is lurking in the background….
Consultation is not democracy
There is a temptation to say ‘why bother’ when thinking about democratic identity. There have been a number of forays into widescale online consultations with a variety of identity management approaches from none at all to physical identification in order to participate in citizens panels online and these have been fed very happily into the decision making process in the way that consultation outcomes often are. I wrote a much longer piece on this a while ago here but the point to stress is that there is nothing democratic about consultation unless the elected representatives choose to listen to them – and I would argue that this makes respondents who get included in this lucky rather than democratically participative.
I would argue that the absence of a robust identity management system relegates recent treasury consultation experiments into the crowd pleasing rather than crowd sourcing category – that and the lack of integration with the actual policy process.
If Citizenship is a legal construct then at some point you need to be able to legally identify yourself to participate. We do this offline with voter registration and the electoral role – how will it work when we want to participate democratically online rather than just answer some questions on a consultation?
A sliding scale of identification
Identification is in fact a sliding scale from the weak turing test of the RECAPTCHA that proves that its a human being through to the bio metric data of iris recognition attached to my passport. The scale goes like this:
- Are you a real person?
- Are you a real person who tells us that they live somewhere relevant?
- Are you a real person who can prove that you live somewhere relevant?
- Can you prove that you are a specific person who has rights of citizenship?
Peter Cruickshank has an excellent post on this here with respect to the ECI. One of his proposed solutions is a statistical sampling approach – i am not discussing that here as its not appropriate for the smaller samples we see for most democratic conversations. As we open up democratic processes online we will need to decide where on this continuum we want identity to sit. At present most organisations stop at (2) – self reported data – to support consultation but we will need to examine whether this is far enough when you are talking about formal democratic decisions. Or put differently – should our identity management be less stringent for democracy than it is for managing our bank account?
Its perhaps not an immediate issue if you believe that Citizen participation in actual democratic processes will continue to be concerned with voting either in elections or even in referenda as the technology to support this has been tried and found to be more cumbersome in many respects when compared to the traditional methods. It may be that this is going to be a non-issue until we have a more coherent response to online identity management and yes – ID cards.
However if we want more people to participate in the minutiae of actual decision making – ie if there is a real move towards more direct democracy through mechanisms such as Participatory Budgeting then we already know that this increased participation will need to be led digitally because the ease of use and the costs of transactions. We will therefore at some point need the strengthen this process of identification to make it possible to be sure that someone is in fact who they say they are and have the legal right to influence a decision. Without this we can never be certain that our decisions are representative – it may be more difficult but its important to get this right.
Do you always want the state to know who you are?
The fact is that we have already addressed this issue within some areas of government – government gateway manages the process of your online tax return very competently. The question is whether it is appropriate to connect your transactional relationship with the state with your democratic relationship – or indeed if it is possible to consider these as being separate?
There are many many reasons why the identification of the individual to the state may inhibit your democratic interactions with that state – fear of intimidation, lack of self-efficacy or just a lack of trust in an unbiased outcome within your transactional interactions with government if you were to show a negative view. There is also the need to make it possible for civil servants to voice views that may differ from their political leaders and the need to separate their personal from their professional lives in order to ensure that they are not disenfranchised.
The fact remains that we are after all just one person – whatever web based sophistry we employ to extend this and perhaps we should therefore consider other solutions to these democratic barriers rather than an artificial construct of democracy.
How many people are we anyway?
Ultimately I do not see any alternative to connecting these identities together into one – the freedom that the social web has to date given us to experiment with different personas will, if we start to move more of the business of government online need to be reconciled at some point because the openness and transparency of the online world will not allow for anything else. It will be possible but extremely cumbersome to keep up multiple coherent identities and my prediction is that people just will not bother. The shifting norms of online behaviours will slide towards a single identity because we are after all just one person.
Or do we in fact want to present different personas in different contexts? Isn’t the reality of the self-reflexive creation of identity the fact that we undergo a constant evolution of self and the risk with the digital element of this is that we hold on to past versions of ourselves beyond the point at which they are relevant to your identity today? Life transitions such as a new school or a new job, or a new country or even a new relationship used to let us jettison past behaviours and start afresh – now we carry this narrative baggage with us in a digital world.
In the context of democratic debate this really means that we will need to adjust to the idea that people change – and that this is a legitimate behaviour even with politicians. However we also need to adjust to the fact that we hold multiple personas as we deal differently with different elements of our lives and to force us to have just one public face may not actually best reflect the reality of how we live.
Think about Facebook and the way it forces you to bring everything together – I am not sure this reflects how I want to present myself and though I see the drift in this direction I can’t help but feel that what I really want is the ability to have just one identity but to be able to present it in different ways in different contexts.
Accountability does not need to be transparent
I was very struck by a comment from Jimmy Leach about digital diplomacy – he said the foreign office are not unnecessarily secretive but they are professionally discrete – I thought this was a really important distinction. It is possible to have accountability without making your identity transparent – you can be discrete about who you really are. Screen names are common place online and serve a valuable function in allowing people to participate in instances where they actively seek to conceal who they are in ‘real life’ – have a look at Michelle Ide Smith‘s research findings for more on this. As long as we have some processes that validates these screen names against a legal real world identity then all forms of identification could be accommodated within this model and individuals would have the freedom to participate without the risks of connecting all elements of their online and offline identities together in an externally transparent way.
Is this discretion or obfuscation?
There is an inherent tension here for me – the scenario I propose above is a reaction to the fact that at the moment social norms in the political sphere do not accommodate a modern view of identity where the individual naturally and rightly changes their mind over the course of time and where the public does not have have trust in the political system (quite apart from issues of trust in the governments ability to run the technology which is quite another issue).
Ultimately this is for me another area, like online civic architecture, where I believe that government needs to start actively thinking and shaping the technological outcome – we need an active debate about citizenship that digs into our identity as citizens and starts to draw out how closely we want to associate this with the other kinds of self that we find online. The big philosophical question here (which you will be pleased to know I’m not addressing) is whether multiple online identities is exactly what is needed in order to make the ongoing self-reflexive project of identity ‘work’ in a digital world and whether it is counter productive to try and reconcile our digital selves back into an analogue state. In the meantime we need a practical solution.
So – what are we going to do about it?
While it will be interesting to sit about and ponder what might happen that’s a more old school way of doing things – I prefer to react in a more agile way and to move start to move towards an objective in stages from now on.
So what’s the objective?
We need to be able to identify people online to the extent that we are confident that they are citizens and able to participate in decision making.
In doing this we don’t want to add to the confusion of identities and the self-reflexive sense of self and so will need to allow for the use of screen names rather than insisting on real names. We are enabling people to create a democratic identity for each of their citizenships where they are building a composite picture of their democratic engagement with a democratic body such as a council that can be used both by the citizen, their fellow citizens and by the state. And there is some detail:
- Beyond this we also need to be realistic in the way that people already choose to identify themselves and interact with systems such as Facebook, Twitter and Google where people choose to make this their democratic persona.
- The key question in all of this is therefore – how do you prove you are a citizen? At a national level our proof of citizenship is our passport, at a local level we are really looking at the rather weaker test of the electoral role. So – to do this thoroughly we would need:
- An ID management system that authenticates against the electoral role and perhaps passport records
- Within this a way of managing multiple personas so that you can have different screen names within different contexts (though I would assume only one with each democratic body you are interacting with)
- The ability to authenticate social media content against this ID so that you can either attribute for example Facebook content to your democratic ID or vice versa
In real terms this is an issue that will continue to be fudged for some time – at least until there is real pressure on the online decision making process and we are forced to examine exactly how representative some of the feedback is. In which case item (1) more than likely becomes the ability to store answers to democratic ‘gateway’ questions such as your postcode so that you can infer residency. The rest of this is fairly simple to achieve.
The existence of a digital footprint effects our identity by making our actions, and views, public and audit able. It gives us the opportunity to create multiple identities online which are democratically rootless unless we start to reconcile them back to the legal fact of citizenship.
We have to move past the point where we are grateful for any participation in the conversation with the state and start to ask what happens when we really have mass participation because we risk achieving this. If we don’t have a way to ensure that these responses are representative then we are undermining the democratic processes that we are trying to promote.
March 10, 2011
This is by way of a short overview of the session I ran at CityCamp Brighton on Saturday proper post on the whole event to follow. Being chair of the judging panel meant that I could’t pitch it so I am hoping that the write up at least will be of use.
The basic premise is the fact that people do not live in postcodes or wards and they definitely don’t live in lower supra-output areas. Neither do they live in Neighbourhood Policing areas or even in Parishes a lot of the time. People live in communities and the reach and geography of these are defined by the people – not by the data. This is an essentially narrative led view of the world that requires us to view community as a living thing as opposed to a post hoc measurement.
The suggestion is that we enable people to draw the shape of their community on a map and that we then serve data back to them on the basis of where they say they live – rather than where we put them for administrative purposes.
We were lucky enough to have people in the group from the Council, Police, Community groups and actual residents so we had a productive session.
Before we go any further – this session was very much focused around communities of place not communities of interest. Though we all fully accept the fact that not all communities are geographical this was our interest for the 80 mins we had together.
Data? What data?
We started by taking a view as to what data actually exists that can be matched by whatever means to longitude and latitude so that it could be treated in this freehand way. The list was legion:
- Neighbourhood policing data – this is organised by neighbourhood policing areas
- Snap points – the Police assign incidents to common points so as not to identify specific locations
- Point data generally – anything that does have a longitude / latitude
- Ward – smallest electoral unit
- Lower Supra-Output areas and Output areas – have a look at the ONS definitions for these
- Logical operational boundaries – these are the areas that make sense for specific service delivery tasks – for example waste collection routes
- Postcode – this is where the postman thinks you live….
- Property Gazette – and this is actually where your house is….
So – the good news is that all this data is there – the question for the #opendata folks is how actually useable it all is but let’s not dwell on that problem right now……
The devil is of course in the detail
The big issue is that many of these data sets do not, and probably should not, connect to specific points and so its gathered and managed into larger sets which are not going to be congruent with the areas that people actually draw on the map – in fact this is the essence of the problem.
Our proposed solution is that we display the map areas that data sets relate to surrounding the area that has been created by the user and that they can decide the relevance for themselves. That way we are being clear about how the data works and also allowing people to choose the information that makes most sense to them.
How would it actually work?
The user would draw – either with the mouse or touch screen – the area on the map that they were interested in and then have the opportunity to save the drawing. This would then be used to query the data – basically using the map in place of the usual postcode search. Simples.
Where point data exists we will simply display this, however aggregated data will need to be returned as a whole set as you can’t necessarily break this down further.
Rather than try and recalculate statistics based on your chosen geography the tool would return all of the relevant data as an overlay to your map and you would be able to choose which ones you felt were useful. Imagine a honeycomb with your drawing a blob in the middle….
Interpreting the data
We were trying to keep a tight scope for the project and so declared data interpretation and further exploration tools out of scope – partly because we felt that a tool like this could support a lot of other tools. However we did have two immediate thoughts:
- It would be great to have traffic lights or something that would establish relvance of the data. Relevance is something of a moving target but in this case we are thinking of a measure which shows how good the fit is between the returned data set and your chosen area – ie the degree to which any stats returned fit the group you are interested in.
- We also wanted to be able to show national and regional norms against your point data. This may become statistically problematic – but not impossible.
Crowdsourcing the world
The starting point for this is a desire to show relevant data to people but our vision was that you capture these maps and use them to start to redraw the map bringing service delivery together with real communities – breaking down barriers between different parts of public sector as they all have the opportunity to view the same crowdsourced view of the world rather than their traditional boundaries.
Individuals might save multiple maps to reflect where they live, work, commute or have family which also gives us the opportunity to understand more of the narrative of people’s lives.
Does it already exist?
We don’t think so but no good idea exists in isolation so thanks to Dom Campbell for sending us these links:
What needs building?
All of it! But in an attempt to entice a little open source collborative coding this is my view of the discrete bits:
- Really nice front end for the map drawing
- Code to store the (multiple) maps against individuals and plug this into different identity management systems so that this is portable
- Code to check new maps against stored drawings and suggest a best fit
- Code that can return point data and display within the drawn maps
- Code that returns data sets as on/off layers alongside the drawn maps – which can then be saved against the map record as well
And then all of this would need to be implemented against various open / opening data sets from around the city.
If we get this far….then we would then like people to be able to raise queries / corrections against the data as well as add personal stories that can give a richer local feel but let’s not run before we can walk….
There are all kinds on interesting things you could do with GPRS for a mobile app – for example letting people walk their boundaries instead of drawing the or even letting them know which community they are in (lots to consider on that one). However in the interest of simplicity this is at the moment a browser based project.
Well – I don’t have a huge amount of time to do anything on this but I will share this and get some wider comments on it. We may of course decide to build it at public-i – we’ll be thinking about it at least.
If the interest is there then I’ll pop along to the brighton open data group and see if anyone is interested in having a go…..so let me know what you think.