Labelling Requirements and Label Claims for Dietary Supplements and Recommend...
Our space epart2014
1. Lessons learned from the
OurSpace project
Peter Parycek, Michael Sachs,
Florian Sedy, Judith Schoßböck
Danube University Krems (Austria)
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
2. Agenda
oAbout OurSpace
oProject Results: Overview
oEvaluation Methodology
oDetails on the Evaluation Methodology
oProject Results: Details
oLessons Learned
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
3. About OurSpace
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
4. Main objective(s)
oCross-boarder eParticipation platform for youth deliberation
• Creating a community: focus political topics
• Include decision makers and institutions
• Learning process: make young people familiar with
• decision makers,
• governmental/political institutions and
• the decision making process.
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
5. Challenges
oInvolvement of
• Young people
• Decision makers
• Public institutions / non government organisations
oOutcome oriented discussion
• 4 Phases deliberation model
oDiscussions with 4 languages
• Moderation and automatic translation option
oIntegration of Social Media and Networks
• Facebook connect, social media marketing
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
6. 4 Pilots in 4 Countries
o4 different approaches to participation and user
engagement
• AT (Danube University Krems): Workshops in schools, youth
events, internet-communities
• CZ (DUHA): Political youth organisation that mainly used a
combination of political offline events with the web platform,
stands at youth events, TV and radio
• GR (Cafe Babel and NTUA): Mass media, political media,
workshops at universities and schools
• UK (BYC): Political youth organisations that mainly used their
existing network to reach the youth via the internet
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
7. Deliberation Process in 4 Phases
1. Suggest and rate topics
2. Discuss a topic and provide comments and proposals
(solutions); rate comments and proposals
3. Rate the pre-selected best proposals
4. Show results and get feedback from relevant bodies and
persons. (up to 10 different organisations)
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
8. Sustainability
oA self moderated platform
• Theme can be suggested by users
• Users shall take over moderation
oSoftware
• Open Source
• Modular Tools for quick adaptation
• Low costs
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
9. Project Results:
Overview
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
10. Schedule
1 March 2011
1 April 2012
1 January 2012
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
31 December 2013
1 September 2012
11. Results Overview: Platform activity
oPlatform data
3630 4113
4749 4831
6035 6068
543 566
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
45
20
o Project end 31 December 2013
o Engagement campaign ended mid February 2014
o Platform activities ended March 2014
13. Platform data per country
Until 1 Feb
2014
Users Threads Posts Thumbs
EU - 168 543 606
AT 863 44 210 471
CZ 594 127 1.504 2.444
GR 1.600 163 2.228 2.269
UK 1.027 56 298 271
Total 4.084 390 4.240 5.455
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
14. Progress per month per country
385
810
712 375 1035
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
15. Results Overview: Google Analytics
o In February 2014, the platform had since the beginning
• 52.000+ visitors,
• 29.000+ unique visitors,
• 338.000+ page visits and
oThe average user looked at
• 6+ pages and stayed for
• 6+ minutes.
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
16. Evaluation
Methodology
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
17. Developed on the basis of …
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
o Macintosh, A. & Whyte, A. (2008).
Towards an Evaluation Framework
for eParticipation. Transforming
Government: People, Process and
Policy, 2(1), 16-30. (GRAPHIC)
o Lippa, B. (ed.) (2008): D13.3
DEMO-net booklet eParticipation
Evaluation and Impact, Available
at:
ics.leeds.ac.uk/.../DEMOnet_bookl
et_13.3_eParticipation_evaluation.
pdf
o Aichholzer, G., Westholm, H., 2009,
Evaluating eParticipation Projects:
Practical Examples and Outline of
an Evaluation Framework,
European Journal of ePractice, No.
7, March, 27-44.
18. 4 levels, 11 indicator categories
oPolitical level
• Relevancy and popularity of selected
deliberation themes
• Effectiveness of communicating the
trial results to decision makers and
relevant public bodies
• Degree of influence on decision-making
process and political actions
oTechnical level
• Platform and tools usability
• Platform Purpose suitability
oSocial level
• Effectiveness of integrating multiple
communication tools
• Digital connections created between
users
• Quality of discussion and deliberation
process
oProject / Methodological level
• Effectiveness of the deliberation model
(Method)
• Effectiveness of dissemination
activities (Engagement)
• Effectiveness of user engagement
tactics (Engagement)
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
19. Methods
oShort Questionnaire
• 7 questions for registered users only
• Permanently on the platform
• 76 responses in LimeSurvey
oLong Questionnaire
• 20 (+4 demographic) questions
• Final 2 month of the project
• 420 responses in GoogleForm
oInterviews
• 12 users
• 6 decision Impact on users groups
• 3 e-part experts
oDiscourse and media analysis
• Discussion and language analysis
• Relevance and popularity of themes
oMonitoring Tool
• Planning and coordination of
engagement actions
• Regular assessment of engagement
strategies and impact
oData
• Platform data, Google Analytics
• Data from newsletters, social media,
etc.
oFocus Group
• OurSpace consortium
• Final project month
• Analysis of entire data and project
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
20. Application of the methodology
o A total of 11 indicator-categories were measured with 51 indicators.
o Each indicator was measured with at least one tool.
o Benchmarks were mostly defined before the evaluation (quantitative).
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
21. Details on the Evaluation
Methodology
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
22. Relation of Indicator Categories to
results and expected outcomes
O1
O2
O3
O4
O5
O6
O7
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
PC1
PC1
PC3
TC1
TC2
SC1
SC2
SC3
MC1
MC2
MC3
Objectives – Indicator-Categories – Expected Results
23. List of objectives
# List of objectives of the OurSpace project
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
O1
Establishing the relevant OurSpace Network comprising of the members of the OurSpace consortium,
including also, key players outside of the consortium, a fact that will bring forward new policy proposals
and will provide relevant feedback to the public.
O2
Successfully Deploy an Innovative communication area for democratic participation: Setting‐up a web
based platform which will allow the youngsters from different countries to discuss and share common
issues and create online debates
O3
Strengthening and enhancing transparency and accessibility of dialogue: Formalising the online
deliberation process with a particular emphasis on cross‐border deliberation and their inherent cultural,
lingual and other challenges
O4
Engage a broad range of young EU citizens to participate by using the tool to deliver true value through
collaborative participation. Organizing events & communication channels in order to strengthen and
further explore OurSpace network to a wider‐audience
O5
Feed the results of the debates to the relevant National & EU governmental organisations: Creating a
feedback framework that will deliver results to the decision‐makers and will encourage them to respond
back to youngster via the platform
O6
Evaluate the levels of success of the project trials: Conducting an overall evaluation of the pilots’
efficiency and added value
O7
Create a sustainable strategy for project achievements and outcomes: Using the outcomes to understand
the best practices for achieving positive impact
24. List of expected results
# List of expected results of the OurSpace project
R1 Tool to reduce the complexity of EU decision making processes is in place
R2 Citizens are more informed through the use of ICT
R3 Capacity is enhanced on the existing ICT framework
R4 Opinions
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
R5
Educate young people in the role of the European parliament and associated democratic
actors
R6 Improved trust in politics and balance expectations
R7
Improve the role and function of the Youth Parliament and its democratic actors
(actually youth organisations)
R8 Sustained involvement of young people in the decision making process across EU
R9 Improved access to youth opinion for across EU decision makers
25. List of indicator categories
# List of Indicator categories
PC1 Relevancy and popularity of selected Deliberation themes
PC2 Effectiveness of communicating the trial results to the relevant public
administration Bodies
PC3 Degree of influence on the decision-making and policy formation process
TC1 Platform and tools Usability
TC2 Platform Purpose suitability
SC1 Effectiveness of integrating multiple communication channels (web,
mobile, social media) in a single, community-oriented platform
SC2 Digital (or close-up) connections created between OurSpace Users / young
citizens that are politically active
SC3 Quality of discussion and deliberation process
MC1 Effectiveness of the deliberation model
MC2 Effectiveness of dissemination activities
MC3 Effectiveness of user engagement tactics / Role of Youth organizations
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
26. Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
Indicator Categories & Indocators
27. Example: Details on Indicator Category TC1
and the respective Indicators TC1.1-TC1.3
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
28. Project Results:
Details
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
29. Feedback loop for improvements
oBased on an continuous analysis the project work
OurSpace was improved throughout the project:
• Platform: e.g. Design and navigation.
• Engagement: e.g. Landing page designed to make registration easier. Pilot
operators discussed best and worst practices and adopted their
strategies. Promotion with iPad contest.
• Inclusion of decision makers: e.g. Make the tool useful to them. Create
their own topic and ask the youth to comment (instead of decision
makers commenting on youth opinions on random topics).
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
30. Result Overview: Political Level (I)
oExperts, users and decision makers agree:
• Topics on the platform are relevant
• The platform has potential for political engagement
but opinions are indifferent about the impact on political
work.
oIt is hard to get decision makers feedback
oUsers want more participation of decision makers.
Activity level is very different in participating countries:
• Austria: one third of MEPs, 1 Secretary of State and 1 Regional
Politician
• Greece: 0
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
31. Example of improvements:
Decision makers featured on front page
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
32. Result Overview: Political Level (II)
Long Questionnaire: Does OurSpace provide content that interests you?
Yes Rather yes Neutral Rather no No Responses
AT 48 % 21 % 19 % 5 % 8 % 166
CZ 42 % 36 % 1 % 16 % 5 % 98
GR 44 % 33 % 14 % 7 % 2 % 88
UK 30 % 48 % 16 % 3 % 3 % 61
ALL 43 % 31 % 13 % 8 % 5 % 413
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
33. Result Overview: Political Level (III)
Long Questionnaire: Do you think that platforms like OurSpace are good
to get involved or more interested in politics?
Yes Rather yes Neutral Rather no No Responses
AT 46 % 27 % 14 % 7 % 7 % 169
CZ 58 % 23 % 7 % 2 % 9 % 43
GR 25 % 42 % 25 % 5 % 4 % 85
UK 42 % 47 % 6 % 2 % 3 % 64
ALL 40 % 35 % 13 % 6 % 7 % 357
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
34. Result Overview: Technical Level
oUsers were satisfied with technical features
oUsers liked the improved design
oMobile access was irrelevant as functionality was
oSuggestions for improvement:
• Enhance visibility, interconnectivity & network aspect
„Add option that allows members to create groups, like political parties,
etc.” (GR, Questionnaire)
• More options in personal profile (similar to upcoming social
networks)
• Improve guidance
• Modern design
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
35. Example of improvments:
Page guide implemented
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
36. Result Overview: Social Level
oRegistration:
• One click registration through Facebook is popular.
• Entering personal data is a hurdle.
oLimited face2face meetings
• takes a lot time from all parties.
oVarious and mass media promotion channels generate a
diversity of users
oTone of discussion: friendly and on an equal level esp. with
Decision Makers
oCross-country deliberation: language as major hurdle
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
37. Example of improvments:
Reaching various diverse users
TV-Spot
Workshops and Youth Events Updated Flyers
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
38. Result Overview: Social Level (II)
Long Questionnaire: Are you satisfied with OurSpace as a platform for
political debate?
Yes Rather yes Neutral Rather no No Responses
AT 34 % 34 % 20 % 4 % 8 % 166
CZ 47 % 30 % 16 % 5 % 2 % 43
GR 24 % 43 % 24 % 5 % 5 % 88
UK 32 % 38 % 17 % 8 % 5 % 63
ALL
33 % 36 % 21 % 6 % 5 % 363
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
39. Result Overview: Social Level (III)
Long Questionnaire: Did you get more interested in the work of a politician
that you met/that posted on OurSpace?
Yes Rather yes Neutral Rather no No Responses
AT 18 % 25 % 30 % 10 % 17 % 167
CZ 17 % 28 % 16 % 19 % 21 % 43
GR 6 % 14 % 42 % 15 % 22 % 85
UK 21 % 19 % 37 % 6 % 16 % 62
ALL 15 % 22 % 32 % 12 % 18 % 357
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
40. Result Overview: Methodological Level
oThe 4-phases deliberation model was understood
• but guidance by moderators was necessary.
oEngagement actions were continuously improved
There was steady growth of users and activity.
oVariety of dissemination strategies/methods and holistic,
country and user-group specific approaches are necessary:
• Combination of on- and offline actions. Offline events needed an
internet connection as transition of offline to online media is otherwise
difficult.
• Political youth organisations quickly bring active users but hardly
attracted users beyond their direct outreach.
• Marketing and promotion take a lot of effort and must fit the target
group (70 % of users were between 16 and 24 years old).
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
41. Example of improvments:
Online youth sites instead of newspaper
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
42. Platform Activity & Engagement
Test Stage
Opening Events
(esp. CZ)
TV-spot in GR,
offline events in CZ,
referendum in AT
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
Yo!-Fest in
Brussels
(mainly UK),
TV spot in GR
iPad-Campaign,
school workshops
and decision
makers
involvement in AT
43. Lessons Learned
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
44. Discussions
o Different levels of activity in pilot countries:
• Concerning discussions, users from CZ and GR were most active:
• Controversial discussions in GR.
• Active political youth organisation in CZ.
• Active participation of decision makers AT, CZ and UK.
• Not in GR because they didn‘t want to expose themselves to
difficult and heated discussions.
o Controversial and heavily promoted topics were most successful on
the activity level. Especially in GR discussions were long and intense.
o Moderation of topics:
• Online (in particular reminders for MEPs, changing comments into
proposals, sometimes to delete a reported post)
• Offline (e.g. workshops – guidance on „how it works“)
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
45. Inclusiveness and transparency
o Variety of promotion activities leads to a diverse group
• brings also those users to the platform that are not initially interested in
politics. Reaching only out to an interested audience shows limits in user
growths.
o Language is the major obstacle in cross-country deliberation.
• Automatic translation tools have limits. International discussions were
usually held in English and only a few posts replied in another language.
o The EU-discussions were only active when promoted intensely.
• Users were more interested in their language version of the platform.
o Registration via Facebook & Co is important:
• Registration was mandatory for all activities, but typing your data is a
major hurdle. Registration through Facebook-Connect was more
appreciated.
• However, not all activities in an e-participation should require user
registration.
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
46. Deliberation model
oThe principles of the 4-stages model was understood.
oThe potential of the structured and outcome-oriented
deliberation was recognised by most users.
oSome detailed aspects of the process where not noticed by many
users: e.g. the difference between a comment and a proposal in
phase 2 (discussion phase).
oModeration is important in such a process.
oGuidance and design must support the usage of the features.
• Continues minor changes of the platform improved the
understanding of the users.
• Collaboration with users from the very beginning will
increase the success of a platform.
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
47. Barriers
oUsers think that the impact of the platform on decision makers is
only inspirational.
oDecision makers commented that such platforms are important
to get feedback from the people.
oUsers were sceptical if such a platform could increase trust in
politics.
oUsers are interested in discussing general standpoints, but
complex issues and concrete legislation cannot be discussed in
details.
oOnly those users that are highly interested in politics continued
to engage in discussions.
oUsers wonder why they should discuss on OurSpace while they
could do that directly in their social networks.
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
48. Thank you !
www.joinourspace.eu
Co-Funded project by Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – ICT Policy Support
Programme (ICT PSP)
Implementation of an innovative communication platform for democratic participation
Creating a community that focuses on discussing political issue that are relevant for young people.
Forward the results of the deliberation process to decision makers and institutions.
To make young people familiar with decision makers, governmental/political institutions and the decision making process.
A sustainable and inexpensive platform and the evaluation therof.
Übernommen aus dem Projektantrag / Arbeitsprogramm.
Wie wurde in den 4 Pilot-Countries versucht User zu bekommen? 4 verschiedene Herangehensweisen erlauben es verschiedene Marketing/Engagement-Techniken zu testen und zu analysieren. In CZ (DUHA = Dachorganisation von verschiedenen Jugendparlamenten/-politische Jugendgruppen) und UK (BYC=Britsh Youth Council ) waren die politischen Jugendorganisationen Teil des Konsortiums. In Griechenland mussten das Cafe Babel (Jugendmagazin) und die NTUA (Uni) erst die Kontakte zu Jugendlichen suchen und finde (wie in AT).
Die orangenen balken zeigen wie weit fortgeschritten eine diskussion war (in welche phase).
Bestbewerte themen kamen in phase 2. Auch themen, die vom Konsortium stark promoted wurden kamen direkt in phase 2. Ebnenso wurden die themen der Entscheidungsträger direkt in phase geschickt.
Hier gab es die möglichkeit ‚kommentare‘ oder ‚lösungsvorschläge‘ zu schrieben. Diese konnten bewertet werden (+/-). Die bestbewertenden lösungsvorschläge wurden in phase 3 geschickt.
Hier wurde nur über 3-5 lösungsvorschläge abgestimmt.
Hier gab es eine zusammenfassung der Deliberation insbesondere mit darstellung des besten ergebnisses.
Top Views of a topic: CZ: 13.791 “Tuition Fees”, 3.393 “Homosexual couples should be entitled to adopt children” ___ GR 8.629 “Abolition oft he obligatory military service in Greece” 15.552 “Immigration, fear instincts and Golden Dawn (Right Wing Party)”
Top comments/proposals (kommentare/lösungsvorschläge) in a discussion: CZ: 75 “Tuition Fees”, 46 “Homosexual couples …” ___ GR: 110 “The dilemma between Euro or drachma” 217 “Immigration, fear instincts and Golden Dawn “
Top thumbs (+/-) in phase 2: CZ: 52 “Homosexual …” ___GR 341 “Abolition oft he obligatory military service in Greece” , 141 “Immigration, fear instincts and Golden Dawn”
Top thumbs in phase 3: CZ: 82 “Vote at 16”, 59 “Tuition Fees”, ___ 22” The dilemma between Euro or drachma”
Moderation war eigentlich in den Diskussion selbst kaum notwendig. Es gab die Möglichkeit diskriminierende/beleidigende/et. Posts zu melden. Die wurden dann durch die Moderatoren der jeweiligen Srach-Variante von OurSpace bei Bedarf gelöscht. Der User erhielt eine Begründung der Löschung.
Einige User, die mit dem Konsortium stark in Kontakt waren, haben ihre eigenen Themen stark vorangetrieben. Auch im Kontext des iPad-Contests in den letzten 4 Monaten hat sich hier die intensität von einigen User verstärkt. Es gab 4 iPads: 2 nach Zufallsprinzip vergeben, 2 erhielten die 2 aktivsten User. Es gab Punkte für posten, liken, Thema eröffnen.
Open Source: https://github.com/pbrigdenatc/ourspace ... http://www.ep-ourspace.eu/Toolkit.aspx
Projektbeginn war 1.7.2010.
Internal Test Stage waren nur die techniker. Externa Test Stage mit 200 usern (50 pro Land) die ein gewisses test programm absolvierten. Erkenntnisse dienten der verbesserung der platform. Pilot Open Stage wurde um 6 Moate verlängert (eigentliches Projektende wäre 30.6.2013 gewesen).
Das gilt für die gesmate platfrom
Für EU gibt es keine User, weil die die summer aller anderen user sind. Für die anderen werte (Thread=Diskussion Thread / Topic) (Post = Kommentar/Lösungsvorschlag) (Thumb = like +/-) gibt es neben den 4 piloten in landessprache auch die eu-ebene (vor allem in englischer sprache).
(Threads = Topic)
Das gilt für die gesamte platform.
EU in den beiden unteren grafiken bezieht sich auf die EU-Variante der platfrom. Es gab eine Variante für die Piloten (AT, CZ, GR, UK) und eine für EU. Die EU war lange etwas versteckt und nur wenig promotet. Erst gegen ende haben wir die EU-Variante sichtbarer gemacht, was sich auch in den grphen wiederspigelt.
Bei new users per month (oben) sieht man gut die verschiedenen promo-aktivitäten in den jeweiligen piloten. GR in Winter 2013 mit Massenmedien (TV), Österreich am Ende mit multiplen Promo-Aktivitäten (Schulen und online-campagne).Man sieht auch, dass die online campagne in AT am ende viel user aber wenig aktivität auf der platform brachte. Engagement für Participation ist was ganz anderes als Engagement für Regisrtation. Die CZ zB haben gute Participation (posts, thumbs) aber wenig neue user.
Hier sieht man, dass die Pilot-Länder auch die meisten user brachten. Griechenland war mit abstand am aktivsten.
Ausgehend vom Model MacIntosch wurde der Political, Technical und Social Level übernommen/entwickelt. Es war nur eine kleine anpassung and die bedürfnisse des projekts. Die Indicatoren zu den verschiedenen Levels richteten sich nach den Objectives und Expected Outcomes des Workprogramms/Antrags.
Das System wurde nach einem review erweitert: Der Methodological Level wurde von den Reviewern gewünscht um zu erfassen, wie deliberation model, dissemination und engagement funktioniert.
Mit den Indicator-Categories werden die Results und Otucomes geprüft. (Detail zu den Indicator Categories sieht man in den jeweilgien Indicatoren).
Festgehalten in Arbeitsprogramm/Antrag
Festgehalten in Arbeitsprogramm/Antrag
Basierend auf Outcomes und Expected Results
e.g. 300 MPs contacted in GR, one commented on phase 4) – anonymous
Experts, users and decision makers agree:
Topics on the platform are relvant (because they are created by the users).
The platform has potential for political engagement but opinions are indifferent about the impact on political work.
It is hard to get decision makers feedback (as continuous contacts/reminders by the consortium are needed).
Users want more participation of decision makers. Activity level is very different in participating countries:
Austria: one third of MEPs, 1 Secretary of State and 1 Regional Politician
Greece: 0
Mit der Android App konnte man nicht ativ werden. Man kontne nur schauen.
Users are satisfied with technical features (tools serve the purpose).
Users liked the improved design in the final assessment (initially critical user groups (techies) argued about design and navigation).
Mobile access was irrelevant (as functionality was limited – passive viewing only).
Suggestions for improvement:
Enhance visibility, interconnectivity & network aspect „Add option that allows members to create groups, like political parties, etc.” (GR, Questionnaire)
More options in personal profile (similar to upcoming social networks)
Improve guidance
Modern design
Die pink-farbenen sachen erklären, was man machen kann. Unten im balken kann man lunks und rechts die schritte durchklicken.
Effectiveness of integrating multiple communication tools
Digital connections between users
Quality of discussion (discourse analysis)
Registration:
One click registration through Facebook is popular.
Entering personal data is a hurdle.
Participating decision makers face time limits
active participation and discourse takes a lot time from all parties.
Various and mass media promotion channels generate a diversity of users, gender and countries (opinion plurality: esp. AT, und GR)
Tone of discussion: friendly and on an equal level (esp. with Decision Makers)
Cross-country deliberation: language as major hurdle; required a lot of effort in communication and promotion actions by the consortium.
Aim of the project was well received and appreciated.
The 4-phases deliberation model was understood
but guidance by moderators was necessary.
Engagement actions were continuously improved. There was steady growth of users and activity.
Variety of dissemination strategies/methods and holistic, country and user-group specific approaches are necessary:
Combination of on- and offline actions. Offline events needed an internet connection as transition of offline to online media is otherwise difficult.
Political youth organisations quickly bring active users but hardly attracted users beyond their direct outreach.
Marketing and promotion take a lot of effort and must fit the target group (70 % of users were between 16 and 24 years old).
Looking at all those activities and developments on the platform throughout the pilot operation, it becomes visible that peaks in platform activity (new postings and thumbs) were visible best during Test Stage in April 2012, afterwards at the beginning of the Opens Stage around September, and January and summer 2013, and October 2013. This is due to a holistic continuous strategy in all pilot countries focusing on different engagement techniques but with a clear concentration on steady engagement from the beginning of the year 2013. The main peak is visible in January and February 2013, as in particular platform engagement in terms of new posts and thumbing went up during this time, which was related to the first Greek TV spot, but also to continuous promotion strategies in the other pilot countries. Late spring and early summer 2013 were still strong periods, e.g. with the live offline debates in the Czech Republic (also in October and November 2012) and the Yo!-Fest promotion in the UK. Paid online campaign in Austria and workshops with pupils, and workshops in November 2013 in Greece explain the high user registration rate in those months.
A wide variety of promotion activities brings also those users to the platfrom that are not initially interested in politics. Reaching only out to an interested audience shows limits in user growths.
Language is the major obstacle in cross-country deliberation. Automatic translation tools have limits. International discussions were usually held in English and only a few posts replied in another languge.
The EU-discussions were only active when promoted intensely. Users were more interested in their language version of the platfrom.
Registration was mandatory for all activities, but typing your data is a major hurdle. Registration through Facebook-Connect was more appreciated. However, not all activities in an e-participation schould require user registration.
Different phases/stages of e-particpation are part of all such models. The priniciples of the 4-stages model was understood.
The potential of the structured and outcome-oriented deliberation was recognised by most users.
Some detailed aspects of the process where not noticed by many users: e.g. the difference between a comment and a proposal in phase 2 (discussion phase).
Moderation is important in such a process.
Guidance and design must support the usage of the features. Continous minor changes of the platform improved the understanding of the users. Collaboration with users from the very beginning will increase the success of a platform.
Users think that the impact of the platform on decision makers is only inspirational.
Decision makers commented that such platforms are important to get feedback from the people.
Users were sceptical if such a platform could increase trust in politics. Users are interested in discussing general standpoints, but complex issues and concrete legislation cannot be discussed in details on such a youth-oriented platform.
Only those users that are highly interested in politics continued to engage in discussions. User that are not interested might stay for a comment but hardly return.
Users wonder why they should discuss on OurSpace while they could do that directly in their social networks.
