Memorandum by Dr Nigel Jackson, Plymouth
Business School, University of Plymouth
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 To enhance public engagement with the
House of Lords online requires addressing both macro and micro
issues. The macro issues are the wider context within which the
House of Lords use of the Internet exists, and the micro are the
specific online activities that the House of Lords engages in.
The call for evidence appears weighted towards the latter. This
paper will address three interrelated areas, and then make recommendations
for action. Section 2 seeks to explain the positive reasons why
the House of Lords should engage online. Section 3 will assess
what has happened to the nature of the Internet in recent years,
and how this shapes the environment within which the House of
Lords online presence exists. Section 4 will evaluate how the
House of Lords is currently using the Internet. Lastly, section
5 will suggest how the House of Lords could use the Internet more
effectively.
1.2 The comments in this paper are shaped by
a range of research projects conducted since 2002, on how political
actors use the Internet as part of their campaigning and representative
functions. It is interesting to note that there is very little
research on how individual Peers, or the House of Lords collectively,
have used the Internet. This may be a gap that the Information
Committee could address.
1.3 The Internet allows for enhanced information
flows, but this alone does not equate with engagement. I have
assumed that for the House of Lords to "relate better to
the public", that the public must believe that they have
the opportunity for their voice to be heard, and not just as a
safety valve, but as part of the policy process.
2. WHY THE
INTERNET?
2.1 There needs to be a clear, defined and
measureable purpose for adopting the Internet, too many political
actors have just jumped onto a bandwagon. There is research evidence
(including my own) that initially, this is precisely why some
political parties and individual MPs adopted websites, e-newsletters,
weblogs and now social networking sites. Yet the quality of such
online presence is often poor, which would turn off the Internet-savvy.
Having a clear and defendable motivation is key to the use of
the Internet by the House of Lords. Just because new technologies,
such as social networking sites, exist is a poor reason alone
for adopting them.
2.2 Those MPs who have made best use of Internet
modalities appear to view them as a means of enhancing their representative
purpose. There is clear evidence that MPs use the Internet to
help with their constituency and partisan roles, though much less
so for their scrutiny role. There is also evidence that MPs are
using the Internet to provide a personal hinterland, which helps
present them as individual human beings, and not just as politicians.
2.3 Any attempts to engage with the public
via the Internet should be within the context of a clear role.
Taking the House of Lords Information Office Briefing, Work,
Role, Function and Powers of the House of Lords, the use of
the Internet by the House of Lords should meet some/all of the
following stated roles:
— Scrutiny of Government Activities.
— Source of Independent Expertise.
Online communication and engagement which does
not support any of these roles is window dressing. It will not
help the House of Lords, or individual Peers, function better
and more importantly online users will come to recognise this
and disengage.
3. THE RISE
OF WEB
2.0
3.1 The previous inquiries (Connecting
Parliament with the public 2004 and Members Only? Parliament
in the Public Eye May 2005) were conducted at a time where
what is now known as Web 1.0 applications dominated. The Internet
was, at that time in the political sphere, largely restricted
to websites, email and possibly e-newsletters. Although not all
commentators accept the term Web 1.0, it generally means stressing
the content based, top-down monologue elements of the Internet.
Web 1.0 applications are primarily used to help the host promote
their views more effectively. Whilst two way vertical and horizontal
communication channels, such as discussion forums existed, they
played a peripheral role.
3.2 Web 2.0, a phrase only coined in 2005 by
O'Reilly, provides political actors with interesting challenges.
It is not so much that Web 2.0 heralds the use of new technologies,
rather it refers to changes in how the Internet is perceived and
used. Weblogs have been in existence since 1996, and social networking
sites since 1997. The concept of Web 2.0 implies a different approach
to the Internet, one which stresses an architecture of participation,
whereby users expect to have opportunities for their voice to
be heard. By stressing interaction and dialogue, Web 2.0 applications
create the possibility of co-production, so that visitors can
be both consumers and producers of content. Whilst the House of
Lords may still be the host of a website, within Web 2.0 visitors
are encouraged to have their voice heard. Where Web 1.0 was essentially
about control of the message by the host, Web 2.0 stresses more
a shared journey between host and visitor. This implies a very
different power relationship between website host and visitor.
3.3 The Internet can, potentially, facilitate
one-way, two-way and three-way communication at a number of different
levels. One-way communication tends to be content based websites,
which seek to promote an organisation's message in a monologic,
top-down direction. Two-way communication, which might be in the
form of a private email conversation or comments posted on a weblog,
creates a dialogue. What is missing, however, is any sense of
what the impact of such a discussion is on the host, in other
words, is the politician or political organisation listening to
the debate. Web 2.0 opens up the possibility of three-way communication
which offers a more participatory approach to politics. Not only
does a conversation take place in public, but the host will make
clear their views on the discussion, such as directly responding
to a weblog comment. Potentially, such discourse could encourage
more organic and transparent policy development.
3.4 In seeking to fully adopt Web 2.0, the
House of Lords will have to consider to what extent it is prepared
to relinquish some control over the content on its online presence.
Once the genie is out of the bottle it will be difficult to put
it back in. The evidence thus far has been that both political
parties, and to a slightly lesser degree MPs, have built their
own web sphere, Web 1.5. They have created opportunities for online
visitors to have a say, but they have sought to maintain control
over any subsequent debates. For example, there is very limited
opportunity for co-production of content, or visitors to download
their own material.
4. THE HOUSE
OF LORDS
AND THE
INTERNET
4.1 Over the past four years www.parliament.uk
has steadily improved, and further refinements have been introduced
in April 2009. The overall site, and the specific House of Lords
pages, clearly meets two uses of a website. First, it is a good
information tool, so that members of the public can access publications,
debates and proposed business far easier. For parliamentarians,
and their staff, it acts as an effective intranet, which enables
them to access information. Second, the website fulfils an ongoing
educational role on the history, role and business of both Houses
of Parliament. Both the informational and educational roles are
clearly important, but neither directly addresses the point of
this call for evidence, namely how to enhance engagement between
Parliament and public.
4.2 There is evidence, however, that a number
of Web 2.0 applications have been introduced to Parliament which
may provide the basis for greater participation. These Web 2.0
applications are: Flickr; Lords of the Blog; Podcasts, Parliament
Labs Blog, Twitter, and Parliament's YouTube Channel. Given their
recent introduction it is too early to conclude whether they are
merely gimmicks or will enhance participation, but a number of
early observations are possible.
4.3 The introduction of Flickr, Twitter
and Podcasts are clearly useful additions, but sit within the
informational and educational functions. Lords of the Blog is
an interesting experiment, and certainly one worthwhile continuing
and expanding. It is an effective means of promoting information,
but more importantly it is evidence of engagement through three-way
communications. Most posting Peers do respond to comments left
by visitors, and there is a sense of public dialogue. One minor
criticism is that so far it is largely reliant on contributions
from one Peer (Lord Norton of Louth), and it will really be only
effective once others, such as all Committee Chairs, regularly
use it to promote ideas and seek feedback. Perhaps reaching a
slightly different, more technical audience, the Parliamentary
Labs Blog is also interesting, and worthy of further development.
It is used as a three-way communication channel, though perhaps
understandably not as much as Lords of the Blog. Parliament's
YouTube Channel is very exciting. At first it appears a didactic
educational tool, but the fact that members of the public can
upload videos makes it potentially a powerful interactive instrument.
This co-production capability needs to be encouraged (perhaps
these and not the educational videos should lead the page). The
eConsultation Forum People and Parliament is an excellent idea,
but in practice provides two- and not three-way communication.
First, the debate is kept within the confines of the four topics
set up by the moderator. Visitors cannot create their own threads
on the issues related to the topic which they believe are important.
Second, how do posters know that their points are not being ignored?
Moderators don't appear to respond, and the process for how the
information will be fed in seems rather vague. The concept of
a discussion forum opens up real possibilities for engagement
and debate, this forum, however, is an opportunity for engagement
missed. Of the changes introduced thus far, the two blogs, the
use of YouTube, and in a different format, the Discussion Forum
offer the greatest opportunity for participation and engagement.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
(a) Identify, secure agreement and publicise
the objectives for using Web 2.0 applications, rather than just
jumping on to a bandwagon. This would require recognition that
the nature of Web 2.0 should develop conversations, and not necessarily
only on the House of Lords terms. To adopt Web 2.0 implies that
the House of Lords will lose some level of control over the use
of the applications, through bottom-up and not just top-down communication.(b)
There is limited knowledge on the potential uses and impact of
Web 2.0 applications. By conducting research of what both Peers
and actual online visitors think, the House of Lords will be better
able to construct its online presence? This research could cover
motivations for visiting, how they use the House of Lords online
presence and with what effect.
(c) Use log data analysis of website page use.
This should help to identify the most popular pages, and user
behaviour on each page.
(d) Web 2.0, whether in the form of blogs, social
networking sites or file sharing sites, can be used to meet the
three roles outlined for the House of Lords. To achieve this most
effectively will require creating discrete communities of interest
and expertise.
(e) During the passage of legislation it would
be possible for individual Peers to use Web 2.0 application, such
social networking site, to share information and ideas with like-minded
people. Blogs, be they within the remit of Lords of the Blog or
not, could be used by Peers to generate information and debate
on key questions within debates. Similar communities could also
be created during scrutinising activities such as debates.
(f) Depending on the results of the research
above, consider extending the experiment of online consultation
for Committee inquiries, so that this is the norm.
(g) Create a permanent means by which visitors
can have their say on issues of relevance to themselves. Having
provided such a channel, to have value it must not just allow
visitors to let off steam. Rather, it needs to be seen to be feeding
into the business of the House. For example, if you have a Discussion
Forum visitors need to be able to create their own threads (it
may be necessary to have some moderating mechanism to protect
against abuse), and the host(s) would need to respond (in the
same way they currently do on Lords of the Blog).
(h) Revise the current use of Parliament's YouTube
channel to stress engagement more through giving visitors a voice,
and less the educational aspects (these could easily go into the
Podcasts).
(i) Encourage all Committee Chairs, Spokespersons
and others to use Lords of the Blog, Parliament's YouTube channel
and set up online feedback mechanisms.
(j) Create an Advisory Committee of interested
experts to annually assess the House of Lords online developments.
(k) Build a team of champions (clearly a start
has been made) and incentivise further developments. Those Peers
trying out Web 2.0 applications could receive extra financial,
staffing or expert help to try out these new technologies. The
lessons could then be made available to other Peers.
Writing in a private capacity as a researcher
in online political communication.
20 April 2009
|
