lessons from the “puzzled by policy?” e-participation project

Puzzled by Policy: Helping you to be part of the EU (CIP-ICT-PSP-2009-3bis)Funded by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)

Lessons from the “Puzzled by Policy?”

e-Participation project

Gyula TAKÁCSNational Infocommunications Services Company Ltd. (NISZ)

Kunbábony, Hungary12th July 2013


Main project data

Funding:Funding: EU – Policy Support Program (PSP); 50%EU – Policy Support Program (PSP); 50%Call Identifier:Call Identifier: CIP-ICT-PSP-2009-3bisCIP-ICT-PSP-2009-3bis Time frame:Time frame: 36 months36 monthsProject start:Project start: 1st Oct. 2010.1st Oct. 2010.Implementation:Implementation: 12 partners from 9 EU MS12 partners from 9 EU MSPilot locations:Pilot locations: - Athens (EL)- Athens (EL)

- Canary Islands (ES)- Canary Islands (ES)- Hungary (HU)- Hungary (HU)- City of Turin (IT)- City of Turin (IT)- - EU + Slovenia EU + Slovenia (led by pilot coordinator INePA) (led by pilot coordinator INePA)


Project participants

11 CoordinatorCoordinator National University of Ireland, Galway National University of Ireland, Galway –– Digital Enterprise Research Digital Enterprise Research InstituteInstitute

NUIGNUIG IrelandIreland

22 ParticipantParticipant Zavod InZavod Inšštitut za elektronsko participacijotitut za elektronsko participacijo INePAINePA SloveniaSlovenia

33 ParticipantParticipant Athens Technology Centre S.A.Athens Technology Centre S.A. ATCATC GreeceGreece

44 ParticipantParticipant CittCittàà di Torino di Torino CoTCoT ItalyItaly

55 ParticipantParticipant Greek Research and Technology Network S.A.Greek Research and Technology Network S.A. GRNETGRNET GreeceGreece

66 ParticipantParticipant 21c Consultancy Ltd.21c Consultancy Ltd. 21C21C UKUK

77 ParticipantParticipant European University InstituteEuropean University Institute EUIEUI ItalyItaly

88 ParticipantParticipant LUSA LUSA –– Agência de Not Agência de Notíícias de Portugal SAcias de Portugal SA LUSALUSA PortugalPortugal

99 ParticipantParticipant Cyntelix Corportation BVCyntelix Corportation BV CCBCCB NetherlandsNetherlands

1010 ParticipantParticipant Universidad La Laguna Universidad La Laguna ULLULL SpainSpain

1111 ParticipantParticipant Dimos Athinaion Epicheirisi Michanografisis S.A.Dimos Athinaion Epicheirisi Michanografisis S.A. DAEMDAEM GreeceGreece

1212 ParticipantParticipant National Infocommunications Service Company Ltd.National Infocommunications Service Company Ltd. NISZ NISZ HungaryHungary


Project participants


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)


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)


Methods

Approach Technique Instrument

“Inform” Immigration policy analyzed, coded, quizzified; stakeholders mapped

Policy ProfilerPolicy Profiler (PP) on the PlatformPPPP in the WidgetWidget, going viral in social media

“Consult” Structured debate forumforum

U-debateU-debateon the Platform

“Empower” Series of feedbacksfeedbacks between the represented and the representing ones

Consultation reportsConsultation reports, response lettersresponse letters, liaising with decision makers


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)


Piloting – Stats (first 3+ months)

• 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


Policy coding (EU immigr. policy)

Generic dimensions

Topical dimensions Number of immigrants

Rights of immigrants• Issues

(1) Immigration for employment purposes• Immigration policies oriented towards skilled workers should be

encouraged as a means of fostering economic growth.+ 0

• ... + +

(2) Immigration for studying purposes

(3) Immigration for family reunification

(4) Integration, long-term residence and naturalization• Immigrants from outside Europe should be required to accept our

culture and values.0 -

(5) Illegal immigration, readmission and return policies


23.04.21. 11

Platform (join.puzzledbypolicy.eu)


23.04.21. 1223.04.21. 12

...in five languages


23.04.21. 13

Policy Profiler


23.04.21. 14

Policy Profiler – Statementslevel of agreement; perceived importance


23.04.21. 1523.04.21. 15

Policy Profiler – Positions (stakeh.)


23.04.21. 1623.04.21. 16

Policy Profiler – Positions (users)


23.04.21. 1723.04.21. 17

U-debate – Topics


23.04.21. 1823.04.21. 18

U-debate – Debates


23.04.21. 1923.04.21. 19

Login / Registration


23.04.21. 2023.04.21. 20

PP in the Widget


Usage statistics (2013-07-11)

PP (Platform)

PP (Widget)

PP (Total)

uDebate posts

uDebate Unique Users

Registered Users

Greece 894 287 1.181 126 25 151

HungaryHungary 1.0421.042 110110 1.1521.152 157157 2020 7272

Italy 875 177 1.052 104 23 74

Spain 1.895 114 2.009 416 310 1.227

English/Other

555 75 630 363 18 89

All 5.261 763 6.024 1.166 396 1.621


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

Born in other

countries

Unem-ployed

>50 or <18

years of age

Finished only

primary school or

less

All hard-to-reach

users (min.)

Total planned for pilot

operation

Differ-ence

AllAll 350 227 514 51 1.142

(~ 20%)

400 + 742

Hun-Hun-garygary

4040(+ 13 (+ 13

"emigrant")"emigrant")

66 8888 2121 162162

(25% of those (25% of those w/ known w/ known

demography)demography)

100100 + 62+ 62


PP usage

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

100020

12-0

1-20

2012

-02-

19

2012

-03-

20

2012

-04-

19

2012

-05-

19

2012

-06-

18

2012

-07-

18

2012

-08-

17

2012

-09-

16

2012

-10-

16

2012

-11-

15

2012

-12-

15

2013

-01-

14

2013

-02-

13

2013

-03-

15

2013

-04-

14

2013

-05-

14

Date

PP

usa

ge

(cu

mm

ula

ted

)

1

2

3

4

5

Sco

re (

mo

vin

g a

vera

ge

of

last

20

day

s)

Testing only

WidgetAnonymous

Registered users c o r e


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!Thank You!

• 2013-04– Social media campaign

• 2013-05– eHungary Points: 'IT mentors' asked again via the Ministry of National

Development


U-debate usage

• U-debate usage

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

12.0

1.13

12.0

2.13

12.0

3.13

12.0

4.13

12.0

5.13

12.0

6.13

12.0

7.13

12.0

8.13

12.0

9.13

12.1

0.13

12.1

1.13

12.1

2.13

13.0

1.13

13.0

2.13

13.0

3.13

13.0

4.13

13.0

5.13

Date

Po

sts

External user

Mediated

PbP internal


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


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

Topic Loc Thread PostsPosts: ext'l

Interaction of immigration policy with other domains E Unconditional Basic Income and immigration 42 34

Immigration for employment purposes H Professions and migration 21 10

Immigration for employment purposes H Migration of entrepreneurs 17 6

Immigration for studying purposes H Education policies aiming at reaping labour market benefits 17 7

Long-term residents and naturalization policy H Integration of immigrants in general 16 7

Illegal Immigration H Possible measures against illegal immigration. 12 12

Emigration H Challenges of the trends in the emigration from Hungary 10 2

Illegal Immigration H

The European Parliament amended the regulation on the border guard agency, Frontex. What effects are to be expected? 9 3

Long-term residents and naturalization policy H

Immigration policy as a means to adjust demographical trends in Hungary 5 2

Long-term residents and naturalization policy H Policies targeting ethnic Hungarians beyond the borders 5 4


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…)


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?


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."


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?



• 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



• 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)



• 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



• 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?



• 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_inquiry an 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")



• 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.

lessons from the “puzzled by policy?” e-participation project

Documents