Thesis by Mary Houston: “The thesis focuses on the emergence of e-democracy in the UK between 1999 and 2013. It examines the part that policy actors have played in shaping the agenda. Emphasis is placed on how e-democracy is understood by those charged with developing initiatives and implementing government policy on e-democracy. Previous research on e-democracy has focused largely on the impact of Web technologies on political systems and/or on how, why and to what degree, citizens participate. Less attention is paid to what happens inside government, in how policy actors’ conceive public engagement in the policy process. Their perceptions and shared understandings are crucial to the commissioning, implementation, or deflection of participatory opportunities. This thesis is concerned with exploring how policy actors experience, interpret and negotiate e-democracy policy and practices and their perceptions of citizen involvement in the policy process. Competing discourses shape institutional expectations of e-democracy in the UK. The research examines how policy actors draw upon wider discourses such as the modernisation of government and the emphasis on transparency. It analyses understandings of technologies in government and the effects of relational interactions and linkages in policy and practice….(More)”
Designing an Active, Healthier City
Meera Senthilingam in the New York Times: “Despite a firm reputation for being walkers, New Yorkers have an obesity epidemic on their hands. Lee Altman, a former employee of New York City’s Department of Design and Construction, explains it this way: “We did a very good job at designing physical activity out of our daily lives.”
According to the city’s health department, more than half of the city’s adult population is either overweight (34 percent) or obese (22 percent), and the convenience of their environment has contributed to this. “Everything is dependent on a car, elevator; you sit in front of a computer,” said Altman, “not moving around a lot.”
This is not just a New York phenomenon. Mass urbanization has caused populations the world over to reduce the amount of time they spend moving their bodies. But the root of the problem runs deep in a city’s infrastructure.
Safety, graffiti, proximity to a park, and even the appeal of stairwells all play roles in whether someone chooses to be active or not. But only recently have urban developers begun giving enough priority to these factors.
Planners in New York have now begun employing a method known as “active design” to solve the problem. The approach is part of a global movement to get urbanites onto their streets and enjoying their surroundings on foot, bike or public transport.
“We can impact public health and improve health outcomes through the way that we design,” said Altman, a former active design coordinator for New York City. She now lectures as an adjunct assistant professor inColumbia University’s urban design program.
“The communities that have the least access to well-maintained sidewalks and parks have the highest risk of obesity and chronic disease,” said Joanna Frank, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Active Design; her work focuses on creating guidelines and reports, so that developers and planners are aware, for example, that people have been “less likely to walk down streets, less likely to bike, if they didn’t feel safe, or if the infrastructure wasn’t complete, so you couldn’t get to your destination.”
Even adding items as straightforward as benches and lighting to a streetscape can greatly increase the likelihood of someone’s choosing to walk, she said.
This may seem obvious, but without evidence its importance could be overlooked. “We’ve now established that’s actually the case,” said Frank.
How can things change? According to Frank, four areas are critical: transportation, recreation, buildings and access to food….(More)”
Data as a Means, Not an End: A Brief Case Study
Tracie Neuhaus & Jarasa Kanok in the Stanford Social Innovation Review: “In 2014, City Year—the well-known national education nonprofit that leverages young adults in national service to help students and schools succeed—was outgrowing the methods it used for collecting, managing, and using performance data. As the organization established its strategy for long-term impact, leaders identified a business problem: The current system for data collection and use would need to evolve to address the more-complex challenges the organization was undertaking. Staff throughout the organization were citing pain points one might expect, including onerous manual data collection, and long lag times to get much-needed data and reports on student attendance, grades, and academic and social-emotional assessments. After digging deeper, leaders realized they couldn’t fix the organization’s challenges with technology or improved methods without first addressing more fundamental issues. They saw City Year lacked a common “language” for the data it collected and used. Staff varied widely in their levels of data literacy, as did the scope of data-sharing agreements with the 27 urban school districts where City Year was working at the time. What’s more, its evaluation group had gradually become a default clearinghouse for a wide variety of service requests from across the organization that the group was neither designed nor staffed to address. The situation was much more complex than it appeared.
With significant technology roadmap decisions looming, City Year engaged with us to help it develop its data strategy. Together we came to realize that these symptoms were reflective of a single issue, one that exists in many organizations: City Year’s focus on data wasn’t targeted to address the very different kinds of decisions that each staff member—from the front office to the front lines—needed to make. …
Many of us in the social sector have probably seen elements of this dynamic. Many organizations create impact reports designed to satisfy external demands from donors, but these reports have little relevance to the operational or strategic choices the organizations face every day, much less address harder-to-measure, system-level outcomes. As a result, over time and in the face of constrained resources, measurement is relegated to a compliance activity, disconnected from identifying and collecting the information that directly enables individuals within the organization to drive impact. Gathering data becomes an end in itself, rather than a means of enabling ground-level work and learning how to improve the organization’s impact.
Overcoming this all-too-common “measurement drift” requires that we challenge the underlying orthodoxies that drive it and reorient measurement activities around one simple premise: Data should support better decision-making. This enables organizations to not only shed a significant burden of unproductive activity, but also drive themselves to new heights of performance.
In the case of City Year, leaders realized that to really take advantage of existing technology platforms, they needed a broader mindset shift….(More)”
Data at the Speed of Life
Marc Gunther at The Chronicle of Philanthropy: “Can pregnant women in Zambia be persuaded to deliver their babies in hospitals or clinics rather than at home? How much are villagers in Cambodia willing to pay for a simple latrine? What qualities predict success for a small-scale entrepreneur who advises farmers?
Governments, foundations, and nonprofits that want to help the world’s poor regularly face questions like these. Answers are elusive. While an estimated $135 billion in government aid and another $15 billion in charitable giving flow annually to developing countries, surprisingly few projects benefit from rigorous evaluations. Those that do get scrutinized in academic studies often don’t see the results for years, long after the projects have ended.
IDinsight puts data-driven research on speed. Its goal is to produce useful, low-cost research results fast enough that nonprofits can use it make midcourse corrections to their programs….
IDinsight calls this kind of research “decision-focused evaluation,” which sets it apart from traditional monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and academic research. M&E, experts say, is mostly about accountability and outputs — how many training sessions were held, how much food was distributed, and so on. Usually, it occurs after a program is complete. Academic studies are typically shaped by researchers’ desire to break new ground and publish on topics of broad interest. The IDinsight approach aims instead “for contemporaneous decision-making rather than for publication in the American Economic Review,” says Ruth Levine, who directs the global development program at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
A decade ago, Ms. Levine and William Savedoff, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, wrote an influential paper entitled “When Will We Ever Learn? Improving Lives Through Impact Evaluation.” They lamented that an “absence of evidence” for the effectiveness of global development programs “not only wastes money but denies poor people crucial support to improve their lives.”
Since then, impact evaluation has come a “huge distance,” Ms. Levine says….
Actually, others are. Innovations for Poverty Action recently created the Goldilocks Initiative to do what it calls “right fit” evaluations leading to better policy and programs, according to Thoai Ngo, who leads the effort. Its first clients include GiveDirectly, which facilitates cash transfers to the extreme poor, and Splash, a water charity….All this focus on data has generated pushback. Many nonprofits don’t have the resources to do rigorous research, according to Debra Allcock Tyler, chief executive at Directory of Social Change, a British charity that provides training, data, and other resources for social enterprises.
All this focus on data has generated pushback. Many nonprofits don’t have the resources to do rigorous research, according to Debra Allcock Tyler, chief executive at Directory of Social Change, a British charity that provides training, data, and other resources for social enterprises.
“A great deal of the time, data is pointless,” Allcock Tyler said last year at a London seminar on data and nonprofits. “Very often it is dangerous and can be used against us, and sometimes it takes away precious resources from other things that we might more usefully do.”
A bigger problem may be that the accumulation of knowledge does not necessarily lead to better policies or practices.
“People often trust their experience more than a systematic review,” says Ms. Levine of the Hewlett Foundation. IDinsight’s Esther Wang agrees. “A lot of our frustration is looking at the development world and asking why are we not accountable for the money that we are spending,” she says. “That’s a waste that none of us really feels is justifiable.”…(More)”
Research in the Crowdsourcing Age, a Case Study
Report by Paul Hitlin (Pew): “How scholars, companies and workers are using Mechanical Turk, a ‘gig economy’ platform, for tasks computers can’t handle
Digital age platforms are providing researchers the ability to outsource portions of their work – not just to increasingly intelligent machines, but also to a relatively low-cost online labor force comprised of humans. These so-called “online outsourcing” services help employers connect with a global pool of free-agent workers who are willing to complete a variety of specialized or repetitive tasks.
Because it provides access to large numbers of workers at relatively low cost, online outsourcing holds a particular appeal for academics and nonprofit research organizations – many of whom have limited resources compared with corporate America. For instance, Pew Research Center has experimented with using these services to perform tasks such as classifying documents and collecting website URLs. And a Google search of scholarly academic literature shows that more than 800 studies – ranging from medical research to social science – were published using data from one such platform, Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, in 2015 alone.1
The rise of these platforms has also generated considerable commentary about the so-called “gig economy” and the possible impact it will have on traditional notions about the nature of work, the structure of compensation and the “social contract” between firms and workers. Pew Research Center recently explored some of the policy and employment implications of these new platforms in a national survey of Americans.
Proponents say this technology-driven innovation can offer employers – whether companies or academics – the ability to control costs by relying on a global workforce that is available 24 hours a day to perform relatively inexpensive tasks. They also argue that these arrangements offer workers the flexibility to work when and where they want to. On the other hand, some critics worry this type of arrangement does not give employees the same type of protections offered in more traditional work environments – while others have raised concerns about the quality and consistency of data collected in this manner.
A recent report from the World Bank found that the online outsourcing industry generated roughly $2 billion in 2013 and involved 48 million registered workers (though only 10% of them were considered “active”). By 2020, the report predicted, the industry will generate between $15 billion and $25 billion.
Amazon’s Mechanical Turk is one of the largest outsourcing platforms in the United States and has become particularly popular in the social science research community as a way to conduct inexpensive surveys and experiments. The platform has also become an emblem of the way that the internet enables new businesses and social structures to arise.
In light of its widespread use by the research community and overall prominence within the emerging world of online outsourcing, Pew Research Center conducted a detailed case study examining the Mechanical Turk platform in late 2015 and early 2016. The study utilizes three different research methodologies to examine various aspects of the Mechanical Turk ecosystem. These include human content analysis of the platform, a canvassing of Mechanical Turk workers and an analysis of third party data.
The first goal of this research was to understand who uses the Mechanical Turk platform for research or business purposes, why they use it and who completes the work assignments posted there. To evaluate these issues, Pew Research Center performed a content analysis of the tasks posted on the site during the week of Dec. 7-11, 2015.
A second goal was to examine the demographics and experiences of the workers who complete the tasks appearing on the site. This is relevant not just to fellow researchers that might be interested in using the platform, but as a snapshot of one set of “gig economy” workers. To address these questions, Pew Research Center administered a nonprobability online survey of Turkers from Feb. 9-25, 2016, by posting a task on Mechanical Turk that rewarded workers for answering questions about their demographics and work habits. The sample of 3,370 workers contains any number of interesting findings, but it has its limits. This canvassing emerges from an opt-in sample of those who were active on MTurk during this particular period, who saw our survey and who had the time and interest to respond. It does not represent all active Turkers in this period or, more broadly, all workers on MTurk.
Finally, this report uses data collected by the online tool mturk-tracker, which is run by Dr. Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis of the New York University Stern School of Business, to examine the amount of activity occurring on the site. The mturk-tracker data are publically available online, though the insights presented here have not been previously published elsewhere….(More)”
Open Data in Southeast Asia
Book by Manuel Stagars: “This book explores the power of greater openness, accountability, and transparency in digital information and government data for the nations of Southeast Asia. The author demonstrates that, although the term “open data” seems to be self-explanatory, it involves an evolving ecosystem of complex domains. Through empirical case studies, this book explains how governments in the ASEAN may harvest the benefits of open data to maximize their productivity, efficiency and innovation. The book also investigates how increasing digital divides in the population, boundaries to civil society, and shortfalls in civil and political rights threaten to arrest open data in early development, which may hamper post-2015 development agendas in the region. With robust open data policies and clear roadmaps, member states of the ASEAN can harvest the promising opportunities of open data in their particular developmental, institutional and legal settings. Governments, policy makers, entrepreneurs and academics will gain a clearer understanding of the factors that enable open data from this timely research….(More)”
How A Videogame Can Be A Source For Innovation
Jiwon Kim at PSFK: “The nonprofit Games For Change has a mission to utilize games to change the world. More specifically, it’s to facilitate “the creation and distribution of social impact games that serve as critical tools in humanitarian and educational efforts.”….PSFK decided to explore the three finalists up to win the award for the most innovative game of 2016:
1. Life is Strange: This game is comprised of five episodes that allow the gamer to turn back the time and change a chain of events. The gamers follow the protagonist, Maxine, as she uses her power to rewind time to save her friends and her town. This game is innovative in the sense that gamers intimately interact with this intricate plot while exploring important issues such as suicide, substance issues and relationships. The game is like a beautiful animated movie with great music, except the gamer decides the ending.
2. That Dragon, Cancer: The game’s creator, Ryan Green, is a programmer who wanted to share his experience of raising a young son struggling with cancer. The narrative video game retells how Ryan’s son and the rest of his family went on an emotional roller coaster ride that lasted years. Unfortunately, his son passed away but the Green family hopes that this game provides a deep insight into this difficult journey and dealing with feelings of hope and loss. The game brings in a new perspective and a new medium for intimate stories to be shared.
3. Lumino City: This game is entirely handcrafted with paper, miniature lights and motors. Lumino City is a beautiful 10-foot high city that serves as the setting of an exciting adventure. Gamers get to be Lumi, the protagonist, as she goes off on a journey to find her grandfather. Everything about this game is innovative in the sense that the creators fuse the digital world and traditional arts and crafts together….(More).
Big Data Challenges: Society, Security, Innovation and Ethics
Book edited by Bunnik, A., Cawley, A., Mulqueen, M., Zwitter, A: “This book brings together an impressive range of academic and intelligence professional perspectives to interrogate the social, ethical and security upheavals in a world increasingly driven by data. Written in a clear and accessible style, it offers fresh insights to the deep reaching implications of Big Data for communication, privacy and organisational decision-making. It seeks to demystify developments around Big Data before evaluating their current and likely future implications for areas as diverse as corporate innovation, law enforcement, data science, journalism, and food security. The contributors call for a rethinking of the legal, ethical and philosophical frameworks that inform the responsibilities and behaviours of state, corporate, institutional and individual actors in a more networked, data-centric society. In doing so, the book addresses the real world risks, opportunities and potentialities of Big Data….(More)”
Civic Data Initiatives
Burak Arikan at Medium: “Big data is the term used to define the perpetual and massive data gathered by corporations and governments on consumers and citizens. When the subject of data is not necessarily individuals but governments and companies themselves, we can call it civic data, and when systematically generated in large amounts, civic big data. Increasingly, a new generation of initiatives are generating and organizing structured data on particular societal issues from human rights violations, to auditing government budgets, from labor crimes to climate justice.
These civic data initiatives diverge from the traditional civil society organizations in their outcomes,that they don’t just publish their research as reports, but also open it to the public as a database.Civic data initiatives are quite different in their data work than international non-governmental organizations such as UN, OECD, World Bank and other similar bodies. Such organizations track social, economical, political conditions of countries and concentrate upon producing general statistical data, whereas civic data initiatives aim to produce actionable data on issues that impact individuals directly. The change in the GDP value of a country is useless for people struggling for free transportation in their city. Incarceration rate of a country does not help the struggle of the imprisoned journalists. Corruption indicators may serve as a parameter in a country’s credit score, but does not help to resolve monopolization created with public procurement. Carbon emission statistics do not prevent the energy deals between corrupt governments that destroy the nature in their region.
Needless to say, civic data initiatives also differ from governmental institutions, which are reluctant to share any more that they are legally obligated to. Many governments in the world simply dump scanned hardcopies of documents on official websites instead of releasing machine-readable data, which prevents systematic auditing of government activities.Civic data initiatives, on the other hand, make it a priority to structure and release their data in formats that are both accessible and queryable.
Civic data initiatives also deviate from general purpose information commons such as Wikipedia. Because they consistently engage with problems, closely watch a particular societal issue, make frequent updates,even record from the field to generate and organize highly granular data about the matter….
Several civic data initiatives generate data on variety of issues at different geographies, scopes, and scales. The non-exhaustive list below have information on founders, data sources, and financial support. It is sorted according to each initiative’s founding year. Please send your suggestions to contact at graphcommons.com. See more detailed information and updates on the spreadsheet of civic data initiatives.
Open Secrets tracks data about the money flow in the US government, so it becomes more accessible for journalists, researchers, and advocates.Founded as a non-profit in 1983 by Center for Responsive Politics, gets support from variety of institutions.
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others who speak up in American politics. Uses on-the-record interviews as its data source. Founded in 2007 as a non-profit organization by Tampa Bay Times. Supported by Democracy Fund, Bill &Melinda Gates Foundation, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, FordFoundation, Knight Foundation, Craigslist Charitable Fund, and the CollinsCenter for Public Policy…..
La Fabrique de La loi (The Law Factory) maps issues of local-regional socio-economic development, public investments, and ecology in France.Started in 2014, the project builds a database by tracking bills from government sources, provides a search engine as well as an API. The partners of the project are CEE Sciences Po, médialab Sciences Po, RegardsCitoyens, and Density Design.
Mapping Media Freedom identifies threats, violations and limitations faced by members of the press throughout European Union member states,candidates for entry and neighbouring countries. Initiated by Index onCensorship and European Commission in 2004, the project…(More)”
What Can Civic Tech Learn From Social Movements?
Stacy Donohue at Omidyar Network: “…In order to spur creative thinking about how the civic tech sector could be accelerated and expanded, we looked to Purpose, a public benefit corporation that works with NGOs, philanthropies, and brands on movement building strategies. We wanted to explore what we might learn from taking the work that Purpose has done mapping the progress of of 21st century social movements and applying its methodology to civic tech.
So why consider viewing civic tech using the lens of 21st century movements? Movements are engines of change in society that enable citizens to create new and better paths to engage with government and to seek recourse on issues that matter to millions of people. At first glance, civic tech doesn’t appear to be a movement in the purest sense of the term, but on closer inspection, it does share some fundamental characteristics. Like a movement, civic tech is mission driven, is focused on making change that benefits the public, and in most cases enables better public input into decision making.
We believe that better understanding the essential components of movements, and observing the ways in which civic tech does or does not behave like one, can yield insights on how we as a civic tech community can collectively drive the sector forward….
report Engines of Change: What Civic Tech Can Learn From Social Movements….provides a lot of rich insight and detail which we invite everyone to explore. Meanwhile, we have summarized five key findings:
- Grassroots activity is expanding across the US – Activity is no longer centralized around San Francisco and New York; it’s rapidly growing and spreading across the US – in fact, there was an 81% increase in the number of cities hosting civic tech MeetUps from 2013 to 2015, and 45 of 50 states had at least one MeetUp on civic tech in 2015.
- Talk is turning to action – We are walking the talk. One way we can see this is that growth in civic tech Twitter discussion is highly correlated with the growth in GitHub contributions to civic tech projects and related Meetup events. Between 2013-2015, over 8,500 people contributed code to GitHub civic tech projects and there were over 76,000 MeetUps for civic tech events.
- There is an engaged core, but it is very small in number – As with most social movements, civic tech has a definite core of highly engaged evangelists, advocates and entrepreneurs that are driving conversations, activity, and events and this is growing. The number of Meetup groups holding multiple events a quarter grew by 136% between 2013 to 2015. And likewise there was a 60% growth in Engaged Tweeters in during this time period. However, this level of activity is dwarfed by other movements such as climate action.
- Civic tech is growing but still lacking scale – There are many positive indications of growth in civic tech; for example, the combination of nonprofit and for-profit funding to the sector increased by almost 120% over the period. But while growth compares favorably to other movements, again the scale just isn’t there.
- Common themes, but no shared vision or identity – Purpose examined the extent to which civic tech exhibits and articulates a shared vision or identity around which members of a movement can rally. What they found is that many fewer people are discussing the same shared set of themes. Two themes – Open Data and Government Transparency – are resonating and gaining traction across the sector and could therefore form the basis of common identity for civic tech.
While each of these insights is important in its own right and requires action to move the sector forward, the main thing that strikes us is the need for a coherent and clearly articulated vision and sense of shared identity for civic tech…
Read the full report: Engines of Change: What Civic Tech Can Learn From Social Movements