Lessons from the “Puzzled by Policy?” e-Participation project

1. Lessons from the “Puzzled by Policy?” e-Participation project Gyula TAKÁCSNational Infocommunications Services Company Ltd. (NISZ) Kunbábony, Hungary 12th July 2013

2. Funding: EU – Policy Support Program (PSP); 50% Call Identifier: CIP-ICT-PSP-2009-3bis Time frame: 36 months Project start: 1st Oct. 2010. Implementation: 12 partners from 9 EU MS Pilot locations: - Athens (EL)- Canary Islands (ES)- Hungary (HU)- City of Turin (IT)- EU + Slovenia (led by pilot coordinator INePA) Main project data

3. Project participants

4. Project participants

5. Objectives “PbP aims to reduce the complexity of decision making within the EU and reconnect citizens with politics and policymaking by combining successful pre-existing eParticipation tools with new widget technologies to bring policymaking on the hot topic of immigration and migration ‘to the people’ in a manner that is both fun and engaging.” (Description of Work)

6. Target users • mass of everyday citizens[target: 4 × 1500] • hard-to-reach (or: least participating)[target: 4 × 100] • young • disabled • unemployed • immigrant (least participating despite being subjects of policy in focus)

7. Methods

8. Piloting – Scope of activities • Test & localize platform • Communication efforts to involve • main stakeholders: to provide reference positions... • users (incl. the hard-to-reach) • decision makers • NGOs • reach & involve their network • consult for topics • lead debates • Facilitate debates (moderate; push forward)

9. email: 274 phone: 195 FB post: 131 meeting: 39 online article: 27 press release: 22 web banner: 12 widget: 11 workshop: 10 interview: 10 official letter: 10 local event: 10 LinkedIn post: 8 Flicker post: 7 blog: 7 focus group: 7 Piloting – Stats (first 3+ months)

10. Policy coding (EU immigr. policy)

11. Platform (join.puzzledbypolicy.eu) 2014.09.10. 11

12. ...in five languages 2014.09.10. 2014.09.10. 12 12

13. Policy Profiler 2014.09.10. 13

14. Policy Profiler – Statementslevel of agreement; perceived importance 2014.09.10. 14

15. Policy Profiler – Positions (stakeh.) 2014.09.10. 2014.09.10. 15 15

16. Policy Profiler – Positions (users) 2014.09.10. 2014.09.10. 16 16

17. U-debate – Topics 2014.09.10. 2014.09.10. 17 17

18. U-debate – Debates 2014.09.10. 2014.09.10. 18 18

19. Login / Registration 2014.09.10. 2014.09.10. 19 19

20. PP in the Widget 2014.09.10. 2014.09.10. 20 20

21. Usage statistics (2013-07-11)

22. Hard-to-reach (PP; 2013-06-20)

23. PP usage

24. What pushed forward PP usage? Launch disseminations (press!) 2012-05-10 Workshop with students of Corvinus University 2012-09-30 "Shape Immigration Policy with Just a Few Clicks" in: Civil Participation Week (CPW) – Thank You! 2013-04 Social media campaign 2013-05 eHungary Points: 'IT mentors' asked again via the Ministry of National Development

25. U-debate usage

26. U-debate usage factors approx. 18 registered users entered 43 posts plus 28 mediated posts from 6-7 guest users 2012-09 posts about emigration and illegal immigration 2013-02 FB campaign to invite posts on UBI

27. U-debate usage: number of posts by topic & thread

28. Policy makers' involvement Ministry of Interior (was helpful; now only little new content of their interest) Commissioner for Fundamental Rights (law prevents their activity) Ministry of National Development (contact point to eHungary Points) Ministry of Human Resources (interested in consultation on social integration domain) Ministry of National Economy (relevant re UBI) Ministry of Public Administration and Justice (might become relevant depending on cooperation with the Come Home Foundation: Emigration \ (H) Hungarians returning from abroad Immigration for studying purposes\ (H) Recognition of diplomas abroad Municipalities (no reply, yet…)

29. Success factors • Achieve critical mass of usersWays to "cheat": • Organize workshops for users • students, immigrants, etc. • Involve NGOs • their networks: organized, active communities • Focus on hot topics • ongoing policy process?

30. Comparison: the Facebook ecosystem • "apps on Facebook create user engagement that enables us to show ads; • Platform developers purchase advertising on Facebook to drive traffic to their apps and websites; • Platform developers use our Payment system to facilitate transactions with users; • Users’ engagement with Platform apps and websites contributes to our understanding of users’ interests and preferences, improving our ability to personalize content."

31. Challenges to sustainability • Product: Immigration tool vs. ePart platform? • The pilot project has had a thematic focus • Could other topics create unforeseen technical/organisational problems?

32. Challenges to sustainability • PP: sensitive for no. of topics • Need for expert input to create statements • Question of bias/trust: we need • independent experts for each use case OR • Web2.0 (folksonomy):U-debate could precede/prepare PP

33. Challenges to sustainability • U-debate: sensitive for number of users • critical mass (hen and egg dilemma) • users wait for each other to attend • d/m`s wait for users • users wait for d/m`s • NGO`s wait for users • easy posting (lightweight solution) vs. easy reading (semantic & language technologies) • Now posting is easy (no constraints) • New addition on its way to facilitate automatic summarization (the hard way)

34. Challenges to sustainability • Optimize for grant vs. needs(elaborate lessons vs. fail fast) • Grant applicants compete to maximize a limited, predefined set of short term, well measurable goals • During implementation, the project is relatively inflexible compared to market endeavours

35. Challenges to sustainability • Audience: exclusion vs. over-inclusion? • Example: flames in a blog sharing reports of new expatriates from Hungary • Someone wrote the motto of the blog (“The country crossed a border, so we did the same”) suggested an individualistic attitude, excluding oneself from the option of bettering the country one belongs to (a stance coinciding with recent government efforts to retain young, active people for the benefit of a stagnating domestic economy). • Many readers felt offended or enraged. They disagreed with the “tendency” of the moderator to allow such entries to appear, and implied they would leave the forum. • Is it (only) the Hungarian society that it so divided?

36. Challenges to sustainability • Audience: exclusion vs. over-inclusion? • Example: sensitive immigrants in the Spanish pilot site • certain statements in the quiz felt offensive: “Irregular immigrants should be returned to their country of origin immediately.” and “Irregular immigrants who have lived and worked in the country for many years without committing a crime should be offered legal residence” • The pilot lead used Appreciative Inquiryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appreciative_inquiryan organizational development method which focuses on increasing what an organization does well rather than on eliminating what it does badly. Through an inquiry which appreciates the positive and engages all levels of an organization (and often its customers and suppliers) it seeks to renew, develop and build on this.(PbP: "Cultural diversity is an asset")

37. Challenges to sustainability • Audience: exclusion vs. over-inclusion? • What is common?The recognition of being in minority elevating an already existing discomfort over the prospect of having one’s opportunities curbed. • Can citizens with existential fears and conflicting interests discuss policy about them without too much bias, at the same virtual table with others? • Perhaps, a policy entrepreneur or a good eParticipation tool not only needs to bring people together but also to either (temporarily) separate certain groups, or rephrase their positions in order to stimulate all.