Vienna.
The next speaker at EDEM 2009 is Peter Cruickshank, whose interest is in e-petitions as well and is working with the EuroPetition system. The aims here are to integrate e-petitions across Europe, from local through to European level; e-petitioning is comparatively mature already as a process, and exists in a gap between representative and direct democracy - it represents a kind of advocacy democracy whose outcomes are eventually mediated by politicians. Fairness and openness have to be seen to be working in order not to put users off.
The process in e-petitioning moves through the stages of problem identification, information gathering, publication and signing, and feedback on outcomes; this may take more or less formal shape and involves participants both internal and external to government. One key point of critique is that e-petitions presently simply provide another channel for the usual suspects.
The current EuroPetition system needs to be evaluated for its effectiveness; it remains unclear what level of uptake it has received and whether it is perceived as useful and easy to use. One approach to this is to evaluate users' perception of self-efficacy: their belief (true or not) that they have the power to produce an effect using this tool. This builds on examining users' outcome expectations for both themselves and the tool, and whether these experiences are met in using the tool; it is connected also with issues of affect and anxiety in using the technology.
This can be measured in relation to user's perceived computer self-efficacy (their ability to use technology) and political self-efficacy (their ability to create results in dealing with public authorities), and it provides a new set of questions to ask. The hypothesis here is that computer and political self-efficacy are related to task performance in the context of e-petitioning, and this puts some necesary focus on contextual factors. It may also lead to the development of appropriate advocacy initiatives to ensure equality of access and participation.
This will be researched in the context of a research project on e-petitioning of the Scottish Parliament, using the EuroPetition system. Key questions are why concerned citizens may drop out of the petitioning process, or fail to sign petitions in areas they are interested in - and this will be examined using both quantitative and qualitative methods. This focus on self-efficacy enables researchers to move beyond the usual suspects, then, and to understand by many concerned citizens do not engage in the petitioning process. It may provide new insights, and will help to further develop the EuroPetition system. The challenge here will be to catch those who do not or only briefly engage in the process...
Comments
Thanks and a couple of clarifications
Hi Axel - thanks for making your notes on my talk public. Much appreciated!
I know I spoke far to fast and confusingly during the presentation, for which I can only apologise. The result is, think it's worth clarifying a couple of things.
First (and most importantly) - it's important to emphasise that "self-efficacy" is about self-perceptions (not actual ability). It's about understanding more about the people who could make a difference, but choose not to because they doubt their effectiveness - either in polical system, or the ICT one.
Second - my research will not cover the Scottish Parliament, but the partners of EuroPetition - local governments in Andalucia, the Netherlands, Italy, Sweden and England. On the other hand, the Scottish Parliament did produce a 10-year review ealier this year that kind of supported the idea I'm trying to get across - particularly the need to support the activists in engaging with the system. More and links here.
My presentation is now up on my blog here if anyone's interested.
Re: Thanks and a couple of clarifications
Thanks for the clarifications, Peter - glad I got most of it right...