How SHOULD Governments Get People To Give Feedback?

2 Responses to “ How SHOULD Governments Get People To Give Feedback? ”

1. Madeleine Kingston Says:
   May 2nd, 2010 at 10:34 pm

   Craig –

   I just came across this in passing after posting two blogs on Australian Policy Online in response to an online articles published by Australian Policy Online

   I would like to share my response on Gov2 also – as repetition in my world simply means reinforcement, especially if making that comment on another platform.

   I am indeed willing to engage as someone entirely disenchanted to date with attempts to achieve effective dialogue with Government

   I have acknowledged the role of APO in drawing my attention to the article by Terry Flew and Jason Wilson Journalism as Social Networking: The Australian youdecide project and the 2007 Federal election. Submitted to Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism, as QUT Digital Repository: Published in Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism, Vol. 11 no. 2, April 2010; also available at http://eprints.qut.edu.au/

   The abstract of your article entitled Journalism as social networking: The Australian youdecide project and the 2007 federal election, as published in Australian Policy Online interests me – though I certainly cannot profess to be undertaking journalism as I seek to find no ways in which I may be able to connect with Government through cyberspace blogging within all of its limitations, including word count, potential moderator prejudice and/or political constraints in the goals of enhancing free expression of citizen views expressed in a climate that purports to support citizen-driven initiatives in cyberworld.

   My experiences have been mixed with regard to experimentation with social networking and cyberworld communication, so the jury is out at present as to my personal opinion, since am still in the process of questioning to what extent attempts to achieve true citizen-engagement driven engagement with government may be achievable in practice.

   There are so many impediments, far too many to iterate in an online blog in circumstances where word-count and in depth responses are frequently discouraged, not that I suggest for a moment that this remark applies to Australian Policy Online, through whose efforts to publicize the focus of your current research and interest in

   “the relevance of citizen journalism projects as forms of R&D for understanding news production and distribution in participatory media cultures, and the importance of grounded case studies for moving beyond normative debates about new media and the future of journalism”

   I have invited to Professors Terry Flew and Jason Wilson to contact me directly if they are interested in gleaning insights from the perspectives of an ordinary citizen whose efforts to engage with Government through unrewarding strategies in highlighting issues of concern from a consumer perspective, as well as from the perspective of impacts on the entire economy.

   Much has been said and written about the role and impact of what you have described as new media technologies and the rise of citizen journalism has coincided with a crisis in industrial journalism.

   Unlike professional journalists, would-be citizen-journalists normally receive no training in the art of journalism, brevity and web-based technology.

   Those citizens who are anything like me with limited technological skills, raw skills but importantly the will to influence policy change for the better in a truly participative democracy need to be nurtured and valued so that the value of meaningful reciprocal dialogue with elected governments, their associated incorporated bodies, including policy-makers, rule-makers, complaints handlers (often misleading called “industry-specific ombudsmen – refer to my extensive discussion for example on the Australian Productivity Commission (PC) website (e. g. subdr242parts1-5 and 8); the PC’s Review of Performance Benchmarking of Australian Businesses: Quantity and Quality; MCE arenas, the Commonwealth Treasury and Senate Economics Committee Enquiry into the Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Policy) Bill2).

   I am currently actively engaged in dialogue with the Gov2 online Project, response to various APO articles highlighting recent developments in social policy and other such online initiatives that are exploring the merits of social media in the context of policy initiatives.

   After years of fruitless experimenting with existing conventional methods of effecting citizen consultation, I am seeking greener pastures, but I warn you that my standards and expectations are high and that I believe it is a mistake to generalize and box stakeholders as if they were commodities.
   I am willing to dialogue with those parties and bodies who are willing and able to treat citizens and other stakeholders as unique rather than rely on theory models of behavioural economics or other such means of assessing the needs and behaviour of target groups.

   I concluded with seeking comment on whether my attitudes and expectations may assist the goals of their joint research interests.

   In the meantime I have also responded to a related March 2010 APO article entitled “Twitter election:’ use of new media by political players in election year 2010” which refers to a conversation with political analyst and 2010 Parliamentary Fellow, Dr Peter Brent in discussing the changing relationship with Federal politicians and the media.

   In my customary frank way I have expressed many concerns which I repeat here for Gov2’s benefit:

   I have some difficulty coming to terms with a “TWITTER” election concept, or for that matter the value on online blogging in relation to government policies in the absence of a guarantee that a citizen voice will be heard – or at least transparently published.

   My participation in the public policy debate is 4 years old. It has been an exhausting unrewarding experience of “tilting at windmills.”

   I am not happy about being in this position. I have not gained the impression that any Government is willing to listen. I am disillusioned with the theory-practice gaps.

   I am more than willing now to make my views known well beyond Australian shores. What happened to goals of attaining world standards?

   My blogging career is 32 days old. I have previously twittered under a on-screen user name of SKYLARK100, but since privacy parameters have not been respected, I have abandoned the use of a screen name, and have decided to use my real name on all blogs and twitter posts.

   Therefore I am Madeleine Kingston-Skylark100 for the purposes of Twitter posts, and just plain Madeleine Kingston (Australia) for all other posts and blogs.

   For the purposes of TWITTER in response to news articles in order to provide real-time response I respond within the ridiculous word-count parameters provided. Mostly these are published.

   More recently I have become concerned about online moderation policies even on TWITTER, but also in other cyberspace arenas encouraging “blogging” on social policy and governance issues.
   I have made a note of all TWITTER postings and found to my dismay that comments of late on certain controversial issues have not been published.

   I have concerns generally about moderation policies in formal consultative arenas as well as to newer initiatives such as cyberspace blogging on various sites.
   I am not convinced that there is scope for honest feedback to Government or other arena without undue and inappropriate moderation.

   If opinions are not abusive or defamatory, unless clear guidelines are published as to both word-count and moderation policies; and unless those making online posts can be sure that due care will be taken to ensure transparent publication of opinions, there is little point in attempting to solicit public opinion.

   In any case it is my view that if someone is taking care to make an online post, if that post is disallowed, proper explanation should be provided as to why that post failed to meet moderation criteria.

   I retain mixed views about the value of tilting at windmills with seeking alternative ways in which to express opinions to elected governments and their incorporated counterparts believing themselves to be unaccountable to anyone but their own Boards.

   The same applies to the not-for-profit sector and to so-called industry-specific complaints schemes misleadingly known as “Ombudsman.”

   This is entirely unacceptable.

   Addressing governance under current Constitutional parameters has not worked to date.

   The flaw lies in the constitution as much as in flawed policies. I am not in the least bit surprised about conflict and overlap between regulatory schemes; perennial disagreement and debate at all levels of government as to which scheme has over-riding responsibility; and the consequences for consumers and the economy at large of poor governance.

   This should be a consumer-driven society. Why else are we participating in the voting process? What is the value of elected governments if we cannot expect delivery of expectations.

   Why is it that the tiny proportion of citizens willing and able to vocalize their views meet so many impediments to effective participation?

   No-one but the most persistent would continue to try to reach the ears of successive unresponsive governments on all sides of the fence.

   My efforts to engage have been relentless, sustained, articulate and unrewarded to date.

   Feel free to discuss further with me on

   mkin2711@bigpond,.net.au

   (03) 9017-3127

   Madeleine Kingston Concerned and Disillusioned Australian Voter

   (previously online TWITTER as SKYLARK100 or

   Madeleine Kingston-Skylark) Posting on Gov2, Pigswillfly, APO and other blogspots as Madeleine Kingston

2. Madeleine Kingston Says:
   May 10th, 2010 at 8:17 pm

   There is room for looking further into the meaning and implementation of real engagement with citizens and between government, and quasi-government agencies however they may be structured, many under incorporation but still fulfilling a public role.

   I am looking forward to exploring the options, interpretations and any guides that may be appropriate – including a glossary of terms, many of which are unfamiliar to new citizen participants in the engagement process.

   There is room also to explore the following:

   a) ideas and implementation strategies for the provision of information at Web2 level

   b) in the spirit of Gov2 principles and the deeper meaning and goals of this initiative, options for effective engagement in reciprocal dialogue and provision of practical options through which information may be conveyed to Government

   For further comment please see

   http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/moderation/

   Madeleine Kingston says:
   May 8, 2010 at 1:07 am

   o Mark – Web Guide Team says:
   May 10, 2010 at 10:21 am
   Madeleine Kingston says:
   May 10, 2010 at 1:27 pm

   Madeleine Kingston says:
   May 10, 2010 at 2:16 pm

   also

   Blog Inner workings Content, Project Management

   http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/2010/05/07/does-our-blog-need-a-user-guide/comment-page-1/#comment-140

   My response 17 April 2010

   Comments on: Does our blog need a user guide?

   1. Julie Prater says:
   May 7, 2010 at 1:42 pm

   2. Madeleine Kingston says:
   May 8, 2010 at 2:25 am

   3. Madeleine Kingston says:
   May 8, 2010 at 8:35 pm

   4. Steve Davies says:
   May 9, 2010 at 12:12 pm

   6. Madeleine Kingston says:
   May 10, 2010 at 12:01 am

   Cheers

   Madeleine

   New Citizen Stakeholder

Comments are closed