This post is a good example of where my work and research start to come together. Over at Public-i we have been working on a number of social media audits for clients and I have been working on a more formal framework to deliver this (white paper on this soon) and so I have been thinking more detail about the content that we are interested in when we talk about the local civic conversation.
Much of my interest in the social web stemmed from the fact that useful content started to emerge. Now – useful is an extremely subjective term but in my context I am talking about content that is both pro-social and constructive. The fact that people would set up websites to talk to and with their community is useful, the fact that I can read blogs of people who are thinking about the big political issues is useful and the fact that I am more likely to find a solution to the rather off-colour state of my wisteria on a gardening club website rather than a reference book is useful. I did say that useful is a subjective description.
My PHD research is about trying to narrow down and describe one element of this content which I am calling civic creation. This is content that is informal and user generated but is aimed at talking to your community – not just to friends, family or your peer group – it has an assumption of and desire for public-ness from the author. Even more specifically this is content which has the intent of talking about how your locality works and should work – its content which is rooted in place even if that is secondary to a particular interest or issue.
The first step therefore in finding civic is defining the geographic scope for your definition of local and this needs to be done using the language and definitions of the citizens – not of the state (more than that here). Once you have this scope then you need to look at what people are doing – you can read more about this here but I categorise participant’s behaviour into four types:
|Informal social||I use social media in order to socialise with my friends and family – I just want to keep in touch with people|
|Informal Civic||I use social media in order to connect to my local community and talk about issues which I think are important to us|
|Formal Civic||I use social media to make sure that the views of my community are considered by decision makers and are part of the final decision. I want to influence things|
|Formal Democratic||I want to be part of setting the agenda for my community – I want to change things|
All of these behaviours exist in the local digital space and individuals and groups will move between these behaviours – its another aspect to the malleability of the social web where people participate as people usually in the full range of their interests. However I am focusing on the informal civic behaviours and the question for this post is how you go about finding evidence of the informal civic content which I am proposing should be the starting point for local democratic debate and decision making.
Intent may be descriptive but its very difficult to ascribe to someone else’s content reliably – which means it is not useful in terms of how we might find this informal civic content – its only useful in retrospect. This question of finding informal civic content is key if you are thinking about how to create a shared civic space – somewhere where you gather together the different civic voices in a community and connect them to the formal decision making process – and you can’t find content unless you have defined what it is and you know what to look for.
Its important to remember however that we are not really looking for the content – we’re looking for the people and communities who are creating the content. If we’re looking for evidence of Civic Content creation then we are looking for Civic Creators. One of the challenges in identifying any kind of informal content is the fact that identity of not public which makes it difficult to be sure that you are connecting to the right people.
Our definition of civic creation so far involves intent and is based on location but it also needs a third element – topic – and this is the way in which we find the people who form the local civic conversation.
The exception to this is of course hyperlocal communities – which I have talked about here – these are place based communities which have a public stated intent of ‘ I want to talk to my community’ and where they exist they are potentially the backbone of the local digital civic space. The issue is that they don’t exist universally and even where they do exist you cannot assume that they are representative or that there are no other forms of civic creation in the area. You need to look further than the hyperlocal in order to find a lot of your local civic conversation.
The question therefore is how to illuminate the civic activity that is going on so that you can connect to the civic creators who will form your civic space. We can’t find them just from their location (hyperlocal sites excepted) as this gives no sense of intent and we can’t search based on someone’s intention. The entry point for finding our civic creators is therefore issue based.
Topic is vary across time and doesn’t define a community – though it may dominate for a while. Topic is useful in that it helps to highlight intent and can also generate synchronous activity from participants who do not usually come together. This makes them easier to find and more likely to connect to each other when you do find them. This is not going to be an infallible method of finding civic creators – not everyone is interested in everything – but its a useful way of getting started and can provide something to build on. As places get deeper and richer digital footprints then this process will become easier – but as specific topics act as a catalyst for informal civic participation they can also be a way of finding the networks who are talking about them and drawing them into the wider civic space.
How does this differ from social media monitoring?
The main difference is the fact that we are looking for people and networks rather than content – the content (like the topic) is a means to an end. Social media monitoring focuses on finding content – how many times is you brand is mentioned and whether the mentions are positive or negative in tone. To help explain – below are the benefits listed by a well known Social Media Monitoring tool:
- Scan and sort viral posts related to your brand(s) and immediately know which online content is making an impact.
- Look out for online conversations that could be damaging to your brand(s).
- Track volume of buzz tied to a specific campaign and identify sites with the most influence in order to tailor your outreach.
- Uncover potential customers or partners at their “point of need”.
- Keep an eye on competitors and use a comparative graph to track share of voice.
These are all useful things to know and when applied to topic rather than brand then they can help us to find our civic creators – but if just limited to brand then you are not uncovering your local civic conversation – you are just finding the usual suspects. We want to use these tools to find the people, capture the individuals and then track their activities on an ongoing basis and use them to discover new community generated topics.
Social, Civic and Democratic activities
Coming back to the point however is the issue that we cannot search for content merely on the basis of intent – we need to look at actions. I have previously defined Civic activities as:
“as interactions which concern your community and take place outside of your social circle as you connect to other members of that community that you may not have a social connection with. The transition from social to civic includes the realisation that you will need to deal with a different set of people and that you will need to behave differently as a result. Civic actions are defined in terms of intent – you have a shared intention to improve your community. One major area for examination within this research is within this civic category where it is important to define and measure specific actions within this so that we can look at the the further transition from civic to democratic behaviour. There are many parallels between civic activities and the Public Sphere described by Habermas.”
And here is updated version of the long list I put together of civic behaviours online.
|Creators||Start a petitionTake part in a Participatory Budgeting process (not just play with a slider!!!)||Instigate / Run a campaignSocial reporting (blogging / tweeting re: local issues)Managing a hyperlocal website
Organise a community meeting
|Conversationalists||Interact with an elected representative||Share something from the civic space with someone elseTweet civic space topics|
|Critics||Rate a comment on a discussion boardRate a comment on a blogComment on the discussion board
Rate a webcast (or a meeting)
Comment on a blog
Comment on webcast
|Comment on a blogComment on a relevant discussion boardRate a comment on a discussion board
Rate a comment on a blog
Rate a video clip
Comment on video clip
|Collectors||Save something to your user profile
Sign up for alerts
|Subscribe to an RSS feed etc from a social reporter
Social tagging of content
|Joiners||Sign up to attend an event
Sign a petition
Create a user profile
Contacted a political party
Donated money to a civic organisation or group
Joined another civic organisation or association
Donated money to a political organisation or group
|Join a discussion forum
Taken part in a lawful public demonstration
|Spectators||Watch a webcast eventAttend a formal meeting||·|
|Inactives||Not voting…..or anything else….|
This list is based on the Forrester Groundswell categorization of user behavior and incorporates the civic actions used by the OII Internet report 2009. (PS Sorry the table is horrible – will work out how to format it properly at some point).
Further to this we (at Public-i) have been working on creating the following catagorisation of local civic sites:
|Active individuals broken down by:
Local / General
Local / Topic
|These are blogs, websites and twitter feeds which are created by one person and reflect their voice and opinions.|
|Political blogs||These are sites which are party affiliated and are either created by the party, a candidate or an elected politician.|
|Hyperlocal community websites||Hyperlocal websites are set-up and run by members of the community in order to connect with and discuss local issues. They use social media tools and are probably the clearest expression of the “I want to talk to my community” intent.|
|Traditional websites||These are similar in intent to hyperlocal sites but don’t use social media tools|
|Communities of interest sites||These sites are connected to the place concerned by either the people or by the content but will be focused on a specific issue or topic. These sites are run by clubs (local sports clubs for example) or perhaps by third sector organisations (such as AgeConcern) and are included here where they meet the critieria of either place or topic.|
|We look at Facebook groups, pages and individuals are a type in its own right because the different approach recommended to deal with interactions on Facebook|
|Local news coverage in newspapers and radio||These are sites that are created by mainstream media outlets and may or may not include social media elements|
|Formal Civic or democratic sites||These are the sites of government and related organisations that touch on either the place or the topic.|
So – civic creation is that list of activities applied to this list of sites as bounded by location and topic.
At present finding this content is a largely manual process – or rather a series of manually managed automated steps. What I want to develop are more sophisticated semantic analysis tools that will enable us to find this content more directly – but this is a bigger project. Would welcome comments on any tools people believe already carry out this task well in the meantime please.
But let’s not forget it’s actually all about people – as stated before we are really interested in finding the people and communities who are creating the content. These are individuals who may fulfil a number of different roles which are not mutually exclusive:
- Local blogger – writing about either the location or a specific topic. This group includes citizen journalists
- Twitter user – because of the highly networked and real time information sharing qualities of twitter it is useful to look at local twitter usage when examining the local conversation
- Community or Website manager – anyone who is involved in creating/curating/convening a local or hyperlocal site constitutes a local civic creator
- Active Contributor – someone who does not necessarily act on their own but it a frequent contributor to sites and forums in the area
We know that a small percentage of people create the majority of content on the social web (Forrester, OFCOM) but these figures are all based on the vast majority of content which falls into my informal social category of content. My working assumption at present is that this percentage will be similar with respect to informal civic content as well but this is an assumption that needs testing through my data collection and analysis.
Its important to find these people as if you are going to start shaping a local civic space more actively then this are the people that you want to be working with co-productively to do this. As the idea matures they may be providing curation for the wider civic space and also could be part of the process of deciding who is included in the space in the future.
When I was shaping my data collection and trials I talked about this people as community ambassadors and you can read a fairly long post here about why I changed my mind about this role. I think its extremely important to remember that these are people who are doing something by choice and that any benefit to the democratic or civic process is at the moment a side effect rather than something that is necessarily planned for until such a time as we have connected this informal activity effectively to the decision making process.
When I started this post I was framing these individuals in terms of influence and talking about them as influential civic creators. However influence is a tricky thing to measure and I don’t want to use the term inaccurately. As part of the social media audit process we are carrying out basic Social Network Analysis on the networks that are returned from research into a localities informal civic content but without interviewing the civic creators and also looking at who they reach it is difficult to come up with an accurate measure of influence. This is slightly out of scope for my work at the moment so I am parking the thought that it would be interesting to look properly into exactly how influential these people are and instead look at how we decide who is significant in terms of forming the local civic conversation. Anyone who is highlighted here will have met the criteria for civic creation listed above but in terms of identifying who is significant I have a number of specific criteria that I am looking at here:
- Reach – do they have an audience?
- Representativeness – do they represent a larger group either as a site moderator or as a connector to offline networks?
- Responsiveness – do they listen as well as talk?
- Constructiveness – are they coming up with solutions or listing problems?
This last one is highly subjective – but I wanted to include some measure of intent beyond the “I want to talk to my community” and to extend this into “I want to change my community for the better”. This is perhaps the point on which my definition of significance hinges – for the purposes of creating an online civic space the desire to improve your local area rather than just talk about it is clearly significant. I’m not expecting a shared vision of what ‘better’ and I am in two minds as to whether its correct to use such a value laden term in here as it is important that we people maintaining as well as improving civil society. However, my final conclusion on this point is that if we are trying to create something new and knit together a local civic conversation from civic creators then significance is lent to people who want to actively change the status quo.
I don’t see this as grading to a curve – there is no limit on the number of voices that are involved locally but as I gather more data about these people I am hoping to be able to start to draw some wider conclusions about them so that its possible to start forming a view about how the behaviours compare to informal social activities online.
So – what does it all mean then?
In writing this I was aiming to put some more meat on the bones of the idea that there is an emergent type of activity that goes beyond individual content creators that can be described as ‘informal civic content’. We have seen this in studies like the network neighbourhoods community website study and we can see it in increase in citizen journalism and hyperlocal websites. There are two reasons for doing this, firstly to capture a snapshot of conversation about a specific topic and secondly to start to understand local participation in a very different way to the top down approach do traditional consultation tools and methods.
Once we have a clear view of this content and its creators then we are better able to look at how we connect this into formal decision making processes and start to connect informal and formal conversations together – and that’s where the civic spaces come into it.
Forgive me if I have said this before, Catherine, but I believe in an additional state, which is pretty much equivalent to what one could call “Informal Democratic”, in keeping with your list/taxonomy.
To me, it is the usage that increases awareness of, and encourages participation in, civic matters, not in a sense of saying “here is something you may want to change”, but more in terms of helping people connect the dots locally and saying to them that views are welcome, discussion useful etc. Not done in a formal local gov media centre sense – that is squarely part of “Formal Civic/Democratic” (“Please engage”, please read this, please respond by a, b, c” etc). Informal Democratic exists in the public realm too, of course, at a level below what you describe as “setting the agenda”. I think a lot of “lurking” can also be described as Informal Democratic. Your examples of “spectator” activities actually look quite active to me. I think there is more importabce to be given to the more silent majorities. But don’t ask me how. Not worked that out yet.
Think the bottom line is that rather than categories, these things lend themselves better to being more seamless spectrums, gradually phasing/fading from one end of the scale to the other.
Have been thinking about this Tom – but I think your informal democratic is the same as my formal civic here. The reason I draw the line like that is that personally I don’t think there can be lurking in the democratic process – its about stand up and be counted. Lurking and thinking is done in the civic space. Once you are talking about actually making a decision you are an actor not a lurker.
Agree though about the list of activities – its very difficult to describe intent in terms of action and not sure this is right yet….more thinking…
Pingback: Who’s talking? Social media audits and finding the conversations | Curiouscatherine’s Blog |