Empowering Online Idea Management for Civic Engagement with Public Displays and Social Networking Services

Transcript

1. EMPOWERING ONLINE IDEA MANAGEMENT FOR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT WITH PUBLIC DISPLAYS AND SOCIAL NETWORKING SERVICES Jorge Saldivar Prof. Dr. Fabio Casati | advisor Prof. Florian Daniel | co-advisor Prof. Dr. Luca Cernuzzi | co-advisor University of Trento, Italy
2. 2 70% of the world’s population perceived that governments don’t serve people’s will (Survey Reveals Global Dissatisfaction, Reynolds 2005) Voting turnout has decreased by an average of 9% since 70s (Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial, Russell 2008) A democratic deficit?
3. 3 Possible response Generate opportunities of participation at different levels in decision- making (The Problem of Political Obligation: A Critique of Liberal Theory, Pateman 2012) With more participation decision-makers will receive more inputs resulting in more effective, informed, and approved decisions (Making democracy fun, Lerner 2014)
4. 4 Using technology to engage citizens in urban planning, budget allocation, and public service innovation
 (e.g., Anwar et al., 2015; Bailey et al., 2011; Aitamurto et al., 2014; Bojovic et al., 2015; Garcia et al., 2011; Hagelskamp et al., 2016; Leighninger, 2011; Manatt, 2011) Citizenlab
5. IDEA MANAGEMENT (IM) (KLEIN AND COVERTINO, 2014) 5 Organization submits an innovation problem Third party (customers, providers, stakeholders) discusses ideas, votes, and comments Organization (or in some cases even third party) evaluates ideas Organization implements promising ideas Innovation Organization has an innovation need
6. IDEA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (IMS) Information system that lets people propose ideas, as well as, rate and place comments on other users’ suggestions (Hrastinski et al., 2010) 6
7. contributions of participants key assets (Di Gangi and Wasko, 2009) the larger the community the more chances are to have diverse views (Geiger et al., 2011; Hsieh, 2011; Iandoli et al., 2007; Wu et al., 2015; Landemore 2013) 7
8. more diversity increases the possibility of producing valuable ideas
 (Heylighen, 1999; Surowiecki, 2004; Page 2008; Bonabeau, 2009; Kavadias and Sommer, 2009; Jeppesen and Lakhani, 2010; Malone et al., 2010; Woolley et al., 2010; Erickson et al., 2012) 8
9. 9 How can we enlarge the communities that support online IM processes to include diverse sectors of the society in IM? THE PROBLEM
10. 10 Design and implement tools that integrate IMS with common physical and virtual spaces of participation GOAL
11. STATE OF THE ART OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR ENGAGING CITIZENS IN INNOVATION 11
12. FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS 12 e.g., gather ideas, make decisions Role of technology e.g., planning, budgeting Process e.g., web, mobile, GIS* Type of technology ✴ Geographic Information Systems (GIS): system used to report and display spatial and geographical information Tech for civic participation in innovation
13. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW 9 Sources: ACM, Elsevier, IEEE, Emerald, SAGE… Identification (n=1,234) Apply criteria (new tech and evaluation) to abstracts Screening (n=57) Apply criteria (new tech and evaluation) to fulltext Included (n=28) 13
14. Type of Technology Process Role of Technology (57%) Web (29%) Mobile (25%) Public Display (11%) Social Network (11%) Virtual Reality (11%) GIS (57%) Urban planning (21%) Community Engagement (14%) Policy-making (4%) Participatory Budgeting (4%) Service Innovation (43%) Gather Opinions (25%) Obtain Ideas (18%) Make decisions (14%) Education 14
15. FINDINGS 15 1. Lack of academic studies on how technology facilitates processes of policy-making, public service innovation, and budgeting 2. Few research focuses on technologies that have deliberative or binding outcome 3. Public displays shows to be promising to grant ease of access to means of participation 4. None of the studied articles make use of public open data, which are extensively available today 5. Still room for the use of social networks as additional channels of participation
16. STATE OF THE ART OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR ENGAGING CITIZENS IN INNOVATION CSCW Journal submitted Processes and technologies for service innovation and policy-making Public displays as means of participation Social Networks as channels of civic participation
17. PROCESSES AND TECHNOLOGIES FOR SERVICE INNOVATION AND POLICY-MAKING 17
18. RESEARCH QUESTIONS • RQ1.What type of communities live in Idea Management Systems? • RQ2. What individual and collective behaviors emerge in Idea Management Systems? 18
19. Add Title Add Description Choose Campaign Add Tags Attach Image/File Voting 19 Community name Commenting Description
20. DATASET 20 166 communities 50,187 registrations 24,403 ideas 32,592 comments 217,933 votes
21. ARCHETYPES (RQ1) ARCH 1 42% Companies in the tech domain. Feedback ARCH 3 10% Self-driven communities in civic, education, and social domain. Innovation For more information about the archetypes, see https://goo.gl/zONg5U 21 ARCH 6 7% Companies in other domains. Feedback ARCH 5 8% Self-driven in the tech domain. Discussion ARCH 2 18% Organizations in civic, education, and social domain. Innovation ARCH 4 10% GOV and NGO in “bureau” domain. Innovation ARCH 7 5% GOV and NGO in tech domain. Feedback Civic communities tend to focus on innovation
22. COLLECTIVE BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS (RQ2) 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Cluster 1 (N=55) Cluster 2 (N=20) Cluster 3 (N=53) Cluster 4 (N=4) Cluster 5 (N=34) 0 3 6 9 12 Month Proportion of users registered 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Cluster 1 (N=55) Cluster 2 (N=20) Cluster 3 (N=53) Cluster 4 (N=4) Cluster 5 (N=34) 0 3 6 9 12 Month Proportion of users registered Member registration (33%) (13%) (32%) (2%) (20%) P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Cluster 1 (N=32) Cluster 2 (N=18) Cluster 3 (N=48) Cluster 4 (N=13) Cluster 5 (N=55) 0 3 6 9 12 Month Proportion of comments produced comment posting 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Cluster 1 (N=34) Cluster 2 (N=24) Cluster 3 (N=56) Cluster 4 (N=5) Cluster 5 (N=47) 0 3 6 9 12 Month Proportion of votes produced vote casting 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Cluster 1 (N=48) Cluster 2 (N=11) Cluster 3 (N=61) Cluster 4 (N=6) Cluster 5 (N=40) 0 3 6 9 12 Month Proportion of ideas produced idea submission A main peak is present in each of the collective behavioral patterns and the level of activity decreases after the peak 22 0 3 6 9 12 Month
23. one action member registration day after INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR (RQ2) first action ideation only 23 People engage in IM attracted by the possibility to disseminate their ideas
24. IEEE CTS’ 16 Processes and technologies for service innovation and policy-making
25. MOTIVATION FACTORS AND PROFILE IN IM • RQ1. What motivates individuals to participate in IM? • RQ2. What is the demographic profile of the individuals that participate in IM? 25
26. CASE: OFF-ROAD TRAFFIC LAW REFORM 26 • When: Spring of 2013 • Where: Finland • Organizers: Ministry of the Environment and the Committee for the Future in the Finnish Parliament • Task: Submit ideas for improving the law in the following categories: safety, age limits, protecting nature, and regulation of the route establishment process • Results: 743 participants, 508 ideas, and 4000 comments • The results of this evaluation were then handed to the Ministry of the Environment for further processing
27. MOTIVATION FACTORS (RQ1) 27 Policymaking process Deliber ation Affect the law Civic duty Peer learning Method: Semi-structured interviews with 23 participants
28. INDIVIDUALS’ PROFILE (RQ2) Age Education Middle-age, highly educated, full-time working male citizens, who had previous experience in expressing themselves on online forums and are moderately active in society 28 35-54 55-64 26-34 65>= 25<= 0 12.5 25 37.5 50 22% Tech school College Master's degree Applied Science Other No formal 0 6.5 13 19.5 26 21% Method: Online surveys Write on forums Voluntereed Signed in petitions Contacted MR Contacted MP 0 20 40 60 80 Civic Activity 51% 46% 26% 72%
29. IEEE CTS’ 16 Processes and technologies for service innovation and policy-making Information, Communication, & Society
30. SOCIAL NETWORKS AS CHANNELS OF CIVIC PARTICIPATION 30
31. 31 METHOD TO CARRY OUT IM TASKS THROUGH FACEBOOK FEATURES Page Manager 1 creates idea campaign post 2 posts an idea Participant A Participant B 3 likes (+1 vote) Participant C 4 likes (+1 vote) 5 Page Manager replies 6 Participant D replies
32. IDEA CAMPAIGNS 32 campaign New pizza flavor campaign New establishment 1 2 organizer length reward Restaurant Non-for-profit org 4 days 12 days free-dinner for 4 people two tickets for annual dinner
33. FINDINGS 33 • Facebook was found to be an effective front end tool to collect ideas that lead to innovations • Standard features of Facebook are not sufficient to properly instrument all IM tasks • Make sense of people’s contributions was hard
34. Social Networks as additional channels of participation IEEE CTS’ 16
35. SHARE/TWEET BUTTONS 35 Technology used by IMS, e.g., IdeaScale, to increase the visibility of IM processes and attract participants Tweet/Share buttons Tweet/Share buttons
36. • H1. Sharing/tweeting increases the number of people registered as members of the communities • H2-H4. A higher sharing/tweeting activity per member leads to higher productivity of ideas (H2) / votes (H3) / comments (H4) per member 36 EFFECTIVENESS OF SHARE/TWEET BUTTON
37. DATASET 37 53 public-access communities 5,288 registered members 2,659 ideas 3,855 comments 22,332 votes 483 tweets 1,825 shares
38. ENROLLMENT OF MEMBERS (H1) 38 0 100 200 300 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 Shares Count Members Count 0 100 200 300 0 10 20 30 40 Tweets Count Members Count Share vs. members Tweets vs. members In the plots it can be seen the Loess non-parametric regression curve that fits the data points with a 95% confidence interval 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 Shares count Members count 300 200 100 0 Members count 300 200 100 0 0 10 20 30 40 Tweets count
39. 39 • Multivariable linear regression analyses: • Shares and Lifetime accounts for 98% of Member variance • Relative importance: Share 38%, Lifetime 62% • Tweets and Lifetime account for 99% of Member variance • Relative importance: Tweets 33%, Lifetime 67% There are not enough arguments to conclude that the share/tweet buttons helps to increase enrollment ENROLLMENT OF MEMBERS (H1)
40. PRODUCTIVITY (H2-H3) 40 0 2 4 6 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 shares/members ideas/members 0 2 4 6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 tweets/members ideas/members 0 5 10 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 shares/members votes/members 0 5 10 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 tweets/members votes/members Share/tweets per member vs. ideas per member Share/tweets per member vs. votes per member r: 0.03* r: 0.20* r: -0.05* r: -0.13* * p-value > 0.05 shares/members 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 tweets/members ideas/members 0 2 4 6 ideas/members 0 2 4 6 shares/members 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 tweets/members votes/members 0 5 10 votes/members 0 5 10
41. PRODUCTIVITY (H4) 41 0 2 4 6 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 shares/members comments/members 0.0 2.5 5.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 tweets/members comments/members Share/tweets per member vs. comments per member r: 0.24* r: -0.18* * p-value > 0.05 There are not enough arguments to accept that the share/tweet buttons leads to higher productivity shares/members 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 tweets/members 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 comment/members 0 2 4 6 comment/members 0.0 2.5 5.0
42. IDEATION INSIDE SOCIAL NETWORK 42 (a)  Discussion about initiative “City of Redmond” (b) Suggestion posted by @SJSU_Twitt within the context of the initiative “VTA”
43. Social Networks as additional channels of participation IEEE CTS’ 16 IEEE Internet Computing
44. INTEGRATE IMS WITH FACEBOOK • Novel approach to integrate IMS with Facebook • Goals: • Reduce participation barrier • Reach people “where they are” • Allow people to take part in IM by using familiar and ordinary technology 44
45. MAPPING MODEL 45 Campaign Post Facebook Group Model as a Post of the group Belongs to Has Belongs to Belongs to Hashtag Campaing # Has Has Placed to one Belongs to Placed to one Belongs to Idea Model as a Comment of the group Reply Reply Model as a Reply of the group Facebook Platform IdeaScale Platform Has Model as hashtag used in posts Community Member IdeaScale Community Associated before hand to a Facebook group Comment Comment Group Member Creates Creates Belongs to Belongs to Creates Creates Creates Creates
46. MAPPING MODEL 46 Campaign Post Facebook Group Model as a Post of the group Belongs to Has Belongs to Belongs to Hashtag Campaing # Has Has Like Up vote Model as Like of the group Placed to one Belongs to Placed to one Belongs to Idea Model as a Comment of the group Reply Reply Model as a Reply of the group Facebook Platform IdeaScale Platform Has Model as hashtag used in posts Community Member IdeaScale Community Associated before hand to a Facebook group Comment Comment Content sorting Down vote Tags Relation between elements Mapping proposal Not mapped elements Partially mapped elements Group Member Creates Creates Belongs to Belongs to Creates Creates Creates Creates Model as Member of the group
47. VOZ Y VOTO, REAL CASE OF PUBLIC SERVICE INNOVATION 47 • When: from October to December, 2015 (13 weeks) • Where: Asunción, Paraguay • Organizer: Partido Patria Querido (political party) • Discuss ideas on the following themes: garbage and recycling, infrastructure, urban resilience, city markets, sustainable urban mobility, and municipal administration • Results: 154 people participated. In total, 36 ideas, 88 comments, and 429 votes were posted through both platforms
48. CHANNELS OF PARTICIPATION 48 h"p://vozyvoto.ideascale.com h"ps://www.facebook.com/groups/1655519178027107 post to idea comment to comment Facebook Group: Voz y voto synchronization
49. RESEARCH QUESTIONS • RQ1. Does our integration proposal help to increase diversity in the group of participants regarding demographic profile (age, gender, district of residence, occupation, level of education)? • RQ2. Does our integration proposal help to increase the number of participants? • RQ3. Does our integration proposal help to increase contributions (i.e., ideas, comments, votes)? 49
50. PARTICIPANTS’ PROFILE (RQ1) 50 • The group of participants consisted of equally distributed men and women, mostly young, wealthy, well-educated, technology-savvy, and mainly Internet content consumers, not frequent voters but moderately active in society • No significant differences (alpha: 0.05) were found when comparing the groups of Facebook’s participants with the group of IdeaScale’s participants No evidence was found that the inclusion of Facebook fostered diversity in the group of participants (RQ1)
51. ENROLLING OF PARTICIPANTS (RQ2) 51 0 10 20 30 40 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Week Count IdeaScale Reg. FB Group Entries Communication about Facebook Very likely Facebook helped to boost registration in IdeaScale (RQ2)
52. PARTICIPATION FROM FACEBOOK (RQ3) 52 Facebook participants took part in the initiative mainly as observers In this case, people used Facebook to create just some ideas and comments (RQ3) • Possible Reasons • Introduction of Facebook was late • Group members had problems to understand the conventions • Posted ideas without hashtags • Posted ideas outside the group, i.e., in their own timelines
53. DISCUSSION 53 • Participants welcomed the possibility to use Facebook to follow updates • About 40% (13 out of 36) that tried both platforms only participated from Facebook after joining the group • “Everyone knows how to use it [Facebook]” • “It [Facebook] is popular, proper and adequate for political discussions, and almost everyone likes it and is familiar with its functionality” • “Having to learn a new technology would represent a strong barrier of participation, specially for the occasional participants” + • Some participants had problems following the steps required to participate from Facebook (join the group, give read/write permissions) • Participants had difficulties to understand the introduced conventions -
54. Social Networks as additional channels of participation IEEE CTS’ 16 IEEE Internet Computing CSCW Journal to be submitted
55. PUBLIC DISPLAYS AS MEANS OF PARTICIPATION 55
56. AGORA 2.0 Online IMS (IdeaScale) An onsite tool in the form of an interactive public display 56 System that combines an IMS with a public display ideas synchronization votes
57. AGORA 2.0 57 Voting buttons to express agreement, disagreement, move to next question IdeaScale Public Display Ideas are phrased as yes or no-question Each ideas is presented with a description of the topic
58. PUBLIC DISPLAY: SIMPLE INTERACTION Middle button to change question Press green to agree with the question Press the red button to disagree 58 Low-entry barrier method of interaction Mouse with coloured buttons
59. 59 FIELD STUDY 4 weeks System deployed at city of Trento’s office for the relation with the public
60. RESULTS • Visitors middle-age citizens • 290 votes 
 from approximately 
 250 users • Interactions: voting in groups, people tended to agree with the question displayed • Reasons to interact: topic of question, novelty of technology • Only two people signed up online 60
61. Public displays as means of participation ACM C&T’ 13
62. Social Networks as additional channels of participation IEEE CTS’ 16 IEEE Internet Computing CSCW Journal to be submitted Public displays as means of participation ACM C&T’ 13 IEEE CTS’ 16 Processes and technologies for service innovation and policy-making Information, Communication, & Society STATE OF THE ART OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR ENGAGING CITIZENS IN INNOVATION PROCESSES CSCW Journal submitted
63. CONCLUSION 63
64. CONTRIBUTIONS 64 (1) Systematic literature review on technologies used to engage citizens in innovation (2) Set of archetypes that define the characteristics of IM communities (3) Group of patterns that shape the collective behavior of IM communities (4) Empirical evidence about the profile of the participants and motivation factors
65. 65 (5) Prototype implementation of a platform that integrates an IMS with public displays (6) Insights about the strengths and limitations of Facebook as platform to carry out IM tasks (7) Empirical insights about the ineffectiveness of share/tweet buttons (8) A conceptual model that maps features of IMS with functionalities of Facebook (9) Prototype implementation of a tool that synchronizes content between IMS and Facebook CONTRIBUTIONS
66. KEY LESSONS LEARNED 66 (1) IM processes for civic engagement should be organized in sequences. Level of activity decreases after third month (2) IM processes for civic engagement should be binding (3) Sharing and tweeting activity does not bring more people neither helps to increase productivity in IM (4) Integrating IMSs and Facebook helps in attracting more people to IMSs but apparently does not bring more ideas and comments to IM
67. LIMITATIONS 67 • Platform specific • Context specific • Limited samples • Study configuration specific • Observational nature of studies
68. ONGOING AND FUTURE WORK 68 • Machine Learning and Natural Language Processing to facilitate the analysis, process, and synthesizing of ideas and comments. Academic MindTrek publication (best paper award) • Develop techniques to improve the quality of deliberation. CHI’17 publication • Examine collective behavior of IM communities that live in other IMS
69. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY!
70. Agora 2.0: Enhancing civic participation through a public display 2013 Gianluca Schiavo, Marco Milano, Jorge Saldivar, Tooba Nasir, Massimo Zancanaro, and Gregorio Convertino Fostering civic participation for public services innovation 2014 Jorge Saldivar, Cristhian Parra, Carlos Rodríguez, Luca Cernuzzi, and Vincenzo D’Andrea Self-selection In Crowdsourced Democracy: A Bug Or A Feature? 2014 Tanja Aitamurto, Jorge Saldivar, and Juho Salminen Analysis and improvement of business process models using spreadsheet 2015 Jorge Saldivar, Carla Vairetti, Carlos Rodríguez, Florian Daniel, Fabio Casati, and Rosa Alarcón On the (in)effectiveness of the Share/Tweet button: A study in the context of idea management for civic participation 2016 Jorge Saldivar, Carlos Rodriguez, Florian Daniel, Fabio Casati, and Luca Cernuzzi Unmasking the crowd: participants’ motivation factors, expectations, and profile in a crowdsourced law reform 2016 Tanja Aitamurto, Hélène Landemore, and Jorge Saldivar Civic CrowdAnalytics: Making sense of crowdsourced civic input with big data tools (best paper award) 2016 Tanja Aitamurto, Kaiping Chen, Ahmed Cherif, Jorge Saldivar, and Luis Santana Idea Management in Social Networks: A Study of how to Tap into the Ideas 2016 Jorge Saldivar, Florian Daniel, Fabio Casati, and Luca Cernuzzi Idea Management Communities in the Wild: An exploratory study of 166 online communities 2016 Jorge Saldivar, Marcos Báez, Carlos Rodríguez, Gregorio Convertino, and Grzegorz Kowalik Examining the Quality of Crowd- sourced Deliberation: Respect, Reciprocity and Lack of Common-Good Orientation 2016 Tanja Aitamurto and Jorge Saldivar Publications (10+3) Prototypes (5) Agora 2.0 (https://github.com/joausaga/agora20) Social Ideation App (https://github.com/joausaga/social-ideation) IdeaScaly (https://github.com/joausaga/ideascaly) Report by Twitter (https://github.com/joausaga/reportbytwitter) Patent filed (1) Real-time monitoring and analysis of query execution 2014 Alkis Simitsis, Kevin Wilkinson, and Jorge Saldivar Spreadsheet-based BP tester (https://sourceforge.net/ projects/bpemulator/) 70
71. OUR WORK FEATURED AT