Thematic area: Information Society

EU Programme: Information Society Project Office (ISPO), a fund run by the Commissioner's office for specially selected themes and projects (no longer operational).

Name of project: D3: Developing Digital DemocracyLead

institution/Consortium of Partners: University of Wales, Bangor

Description of the case study

Introduction

The proposal arose at a time when people were beginning to talk about convergence - how the linking of the web with broadcasting would change our way of doing things. It was also the time when neo-liberalism was leading to an intensification of devolution, and it looked possible that Wales would have its own regional assembly. As it happened S4C the Welsh language television channel was also concerned about its accountability vis-à-vis the public, something that also derived from the neo-liberal stance on responsibility and accountability. That is, a series of coincidences, together with our understanding and insight, created the opportunity.

Selection of possible EU sources of funding; finding, collecting and analysing calls for proposals

We came across it in the call for projects, a source which we are constantly searching.

Other sources of funding

The proposal was to be large, but we persuaded the broadcasters to contribute funds in kind by allocating specific programmes for the discussion of topics prior to the internet discussion. This gave them publicity while also contributing to the matched funding.

Partners

The choice of partners largely related to the immediacy of their adoption of digital broadcasting and, on the other hand, their systems of governance. That is, the project led to the selection of partners. Each location had to have an expertise in some aspect of the work, but many issues were new to all of us. In this respect there was to be a great deal of learning by doing. However, the guiding framework derived from the project application which set out the main parameters of the work. Each partner undertook essentially the same work. The lead partner assumed responsibility for project administration, and regional and project steering committees included representatives of the respective broadcasters. Communication across the partnership was primarily by email.
Knowing that S4C and the Swedish broadcasting system would be the first to adopt convergence, we drew the Swedes into the project and then, the Irish, and the Gaelic. We knew the Irish partners from work which colleagues had been undertaking. We also knew the Swedish partners who then incorporated the Swedish broadcasters. The Gaelic partner came through one of the other partners. The project operated by reference to four language groups - the Welsh, the Irish, the Gaelic and the Finish speakers in Sweden. A single local community was chosen in each location. This choice was made on the basis of convenience but each location had to have Internet access which was by no means universal at the time.

Aims/purposes of the project

One of the things that a regional broadcaster should do was to broadcast the proceedings of the regional assembly. If this was done after convergence, in theory, it would be possible to move from the current system of representative democracy to participatory democracy. That is, the advent of ICT and convergence made representation unnecessary since everyone now had the capacity to engage in political debate. We also argued that for any system to be democratic it must incorporate all relevant languages and, thereby, the different language groups represented in that democracy. The project was ostensibly a pilot for precisely such a system. Thus, if my representative, or indeed any representative, spoke in the Assembly, having his email address, I could send him a message which would allow him to incorporate my view in the discussion. Outside of the Chamber, issues to be discussed could be made subject to open public discussion in a custom made discussion space.

Collecting and taking into account experiences of other projects

We had fully explored the issue of on-line democracy prior to writing the proposal. However, the innovative nature of the project meant that there was no similar project which we could draw upon for experience.

What problems/difficulties did you have (if any) when you designed the proposal?

The main players involved in the conception were the political parties, the media sector and the bodies responsible for political administration. All of these had to be drawn into the project. The political parties were delighted in that it gave them access to the very public they were trying to influence. Similarly, the political administration was also keen to be involved in that they would see the future value of what was proposed. The main difficulties revolved around the computer illiteracy of the politicians who had to be taught how to switch on a computer!

Analysis of stakeholders

The main stakeholders were the political institutions and the regional broadcasters. It was a time when these developments were at the forefront of their concerns. Other stakeholders were the academic and applied research communities who were striving to drive the agenda forward. There is always the danger that some parties will try and highjack the initiative and develop things further without those who designed the initial project.

Analysis of the present situation (problem tree)

The ICT tools which would allow discussion to proceed were to be constructed in all of the relevant languages. Similarly a learning platform was to be constructed where the public could learn about the political context of the issues under discussion. It would have been unrealistic to expect a member of the public to discuss with politicians from a lower information and knowledge base. In Wales, the elections for the Assembly were imminent so we sought to develop a discussion between the various candidates and both the community in question and the general Welsh public. Each region devised its own way of linking civil society and the political representation.
We planned for small groups entering from a single location in the community since few had internet access at home.

Setting up a team to devise and design the proposal

There were times when the goals of the project were not understood in the same way by all of the partners. Since the project was conceived of and designed by the lead partner, the actual integration of the partners had to await the implementation of the work. This is not the best way to proceed but sometimes the short lead in time to the proposal or the innovative news of the project makes collaborative design difficult.

Self-evaluation systems (ante, ex, post)

No pre-project risk evaluation was undertaken. These kinds of evaluations may well be necessary but are often evident. Perhaps the most obvious factors involve the extent to which and how the partners will undertake their roles. A failure to fit into the conceptual model often leads to re-evaluating partnership roles.

Working language(s)

While each partner operated by reference to their own languages, English was the lingua franca for the project. It could easily have been any other language familiar to all participants.

Literature review/relevant documentation selection

Within academic circles knowledge of the literature and the on-going work in the field is taken for granted as the starting point of any project. This is in line with how the discourse of science with its focus on ever increasing knowledge production is central to many projects. It can be misleading in several respects - not all partners share the same disciplinary focus and sometimes the disciplines clash, it can result in a limited understanding of innovation if the focus is on rep0lication etc. Nonetheless it is an expected and useful starting point but I doubt that complete literature reviews are of an essential value.

Determining the work plan and time

The proposal was written by the lead partner who consulted with the other partners. Unfortunately, it is often the case that little is forthcoming from the other partners. It is ALWAYS advisable to complete a draft that is as close as possible to the final draft well in advance of the closing date, since it gives everyone the opportunity to comment and to submit any relevant materials on time. If they choose not to comment then they should not expect any recourse once the project is in motion. On the other hand if they do contribute and the work deviates from what is claimed they should have a say. It is always advisable to include an agreement re conflict resolution.
The added value was accommodated by designing the proposal in such a way that different political systems and degrees of devolution were included in the research design. This meant that the results could then be generalised by reference to these parameters across the EC.

Budget issues

The budget was designed by reference to two issues. Firstly, the size of the funds that were capable of allocation, and secondly, the amount of work that was necessary in order to complete the project. Of course, the work plan was designed in relation to the available budget. Money was set aside for administration which was the role of the lead partner. Thereafter the money was distributed equally. We did have some difficulty in trying to accommodate different overheads and labour rates.

More information:
Dr. Glyn Williams
Address:
Plas Porthamal
Llanedwen
Brynsiencyn
Ynys Mon LL61 6PJ
WALES
Tel.: +44 1248 430340
Fax: +44 1248 430340
e-mail: g.williams@bangor.ac.uk; D3@bangor.ac.uk
URL http://www.bangor.ac.uk/cyc/d3/default.htm (English)
http://www.gcom.ie/d3/index.htm (English)
http://www.gcom.ie/d3/frpggael.htm (Irish)
http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/d3/intro.html (Gaelic)