1 / 27

Web 2.0 and Citizen Participation : The Taiwan Experience

Explore how Web 2.0 influences citizen engagement with a focus on Taiwan's National Policy Think Tank Online and Vision 2020 platforms. Evaluate the effectiveness of Web 2.0 for government in promoting e-participation, collective intelligence, and collaboration.

jtracey
Download Presentation

Web 2.0 and Citizen Participation : The Taiwan Experience

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Web 2.0 and Citizen Participation : The Taiwan Experience Evaluation on National Policy Think Tank Online and Vision 2020 Ching-Heng Pan, Ph.D. Research Fellow, Taiwan e-Governance Research Center

  2. How does Web 2.0 make sense to the government ? Develop an evaluation framework Discover factors affecting online participation in the policy process Research Objectives

  3. WHAT IS WEB 2.0 ANYWAY? 3

  4. The Weband e-Government Past Present Future 4

  5. Web2.0Core Competencies • Services, not packaged software • Architecture of Participation • Cost-effective scalability • Remixable data source and data transformations • Software above the level of a single device • Harnessing collective intelligence • Source：O’Reilly (2005) 5

  6. 3 Dimensions of Web2.0 Source: Osimo (2008)

  7. Decentralized, disseminated Web2.0 Practices Dynamic, growth, resourcing, external supports Coherence, morality, human resources Inside organization Outside of organization Goal setting, planning, productivity, efficiency Stabilization, control, information management, communication Centralized, integrated 7

  8. Level of e-Participation L H 8

  9. Conceptual Framework • Web2.0 • Values User as producer Collective intelligence Perpetual beta Extreme ease of use • E-participation e- Info disclosure e- Public consultation e- Decision making process 9

  10. Evaluate Web2.0 &e-Participation 10

  11. Evaluate Web2.0 &e-Participation (con’d) 11

  12. National Policy Think Tank Online (NAPTTO) • Stated objectives: • Policy information dissemination • Inform the public about formulating policies • Policy Forum • Use the platform to communicate with the public, collect policy information, and increase compliance • Policy Research • Provide research reports or resources for making the policy 12

  13. People Wiseman Public Discussion House Policy Pitcher’s Plate 13

  14. 14

  15. Vision 2020 • “What do you expect to see in year 2020?” • Sponsored by the government; maintained by the contractor • Several celebrities’ blogs at one website. Channels with different themes (e.g., human rights, environmental protection, politics, health…) hosted by celebrities (e.g., journalist, DJ, professors, grassroots, writers, etc.) • Open forum 15

  16. 16

  17. 17

  18. Main Research Questions Recap • Does NAPTTO and/or Vision2020 website show Web 2.0 characteristics? • Does NAPTTO and/or Vision2020 website facilitate citizen participation? And How? 18

  19. CONTENT ANALYSIS… 19

  20. NAPTTO Vision 2020 Registered membership required to comment and respond Users leaving comments can observe the counts of viewers and responses Business model: Several Blog Channels. Registration not required to join forum.Multimedia better utilized. “PK” Arena allows votes and comments. Discussion Board allows more detailed comments and dialogue. NAPTTO vs. Vision 2020: User as producer 20

  21. NAPTTO Vision 2020 Seemly issue-oriented design. Controlled by contractors. Issue not generated by the public or tagging. Attempts to collaborate with social networking websites to expand publicity. Two thematic parts： Policy Pitcher’s Plate – policy information: Issues designed by REDC and contracted research teams. People Wiseman – policy consultation: all registered members may comment NAPTTO vs. Vision 2020: Collective Intelligence 21

  22. NAPTTO Vision 2020 Registration required to participate – a barrier. Easily understood Flash such as growing tree representing the popularity of the issue Easy to participate (vote, comment, respond); no registration required. Good download /flip page speed, about 2-4seconds. Registration is optional. To register, only user name, password, and email are required. Other personal information optional. Privacy better protected. NAPTTO vs. Vision 2020: Extreme ease of use 22

  23. Survey study design • Online Surveys: Users on NAPTTO and Vision 2020. • Pair-up comparisons。 Online survey to NAPTTO users A: NAPTTO users B: Vision 2020 users C: Both websites users Online survey to Vision 2020 users 23

  24. Preliminary Findings • Different interface designs soliciting different user behaviors: • NAPTTO: users expect more government responses (Designed with stronger sense of government website) • Vision 2020: users expect more policy discussions; to know what others think. (designed with stronger sense of social network website) 24

  25. Preliminary Findings • Vision 2020: higher percentage of users “acquainted” with one another • NAPTTO users less satisfied with responsiveness to questions/comments. • Does Web 2.0 really fit in the government? • Tradeoff: government identity vs. “social” networking; • top-down vs. bottom-up; 25

  26. Unfinished business… • Application of Web 2.0: where you stand depends on where you sit • Elected officials • Appointed officials • Legislators • Bureaucrats, technocrats 26

  27. Thank you!! 27

More Related