Beierle paper
Okay so for this week we had the pleasure of reading Thomas Beierle's "Digital Deliberation: Engaging the Public Through Online Policy Dialogues". I have to tell you I read this article twice and then scratched my head at the thought of having to write a paper about it, but I guess I have to give it a shot.
The essay begins by stating the desire for more public participation. Both online and offline, and how public agencies are starting to use a wide variety of processes to get the public to participate. Beierle points out that there are two main categories that these processes tend to fall into: "small face-to-face deliberation focused on problem solving and consensus building, and the second being designed to accommodate large groups in a less interactive mode of discourse".
The next few paragraphs discuss how the internet can change all this. Making it possible for large groups in participate in dynamic deliberations. This is the point where Beierle introduces what the essay is largely about. "Examining online dialogues as a innovative form of public expression." The source for this examination is the Environmental Protection Agency drafting it's Public Involvement Policy.
The different characteristics of participation processes are discussed, some key features the dialogue should have, statistics on how people participated, informed participation, deliberative participation (including six steps that the deliberation should proceed through), and credibility and results. The conclusion states what this dialogue demonstrated as well as how future efforts should be approached.
The entire time I was reading this article I was thinking about our last class when we went to the lab. A thread discussion was started and each of us was seated in front of a computer and asked (forced?...just kidding) to participate. There have also been other thread discussions started and continued during the course of this class so far, but having us all trying to post at one time was quite different.
We started the class by trying to hold an "unchat". I found the whole thing quite chaotic. Everyone was trying to post at once, and by the time you finished typing your response to something that was said the topic had changed. It was near impossible to keep up, reading or typing.
The threaded discussion went a little smoother. Yes, everyone was still contributing at the same time, but response rate was not as big an issue. Personally, I could take my time reading someone's thread, think about it, and then respond. It really didn't matter how much time I took.
I think that may have been one of the point's Beierle was trying to impress. With this online deliberation in the form of threads for instance. It gives people a chance to participate, but at their own pace. Some people (myself included) feel obligated to contribute something. I think once you get people participating, then you can work out some of the kinks such as how they are participating or trying to tackle those six steps that deliberation should proceed through.
The essay begins by stating the desire for more public participation. Both online and offline, and how public agencies are starting to use a wide variety of processes to get the public to participate. Beierle points out that there are two main categories that these processes tend to fall into: "small face-to-face deliberation focused on problem solving and consensus building, and the second being designed to accommodate large groups in a less interactive mode of discourse".
The next few paragraphs discuss how the internet can change all this. Making it possible for large groups in participate in dynamic deliberations. This is the point where Beierle introduces what the essay is largely about. "Examining online dialogues as a innovative form of public expression." The source for this examination is the Environmental Protection Agency drafting it's Public Involvement Policy.
The different characteristics of participation processes are discussed, some key features the dialogue should have, statistics on how people participated, informed participation, deliberative participation (including six steps that the deliberation should proceed through), and credibility and results. The conclusion states what this dialogue demonstrated as well as how future efforts should be approached.
The entire time I was reading this article I was thinking about our last class when we went to the lab. A thread discussion was started and each of us was seated in front of a computer and asked (forced?...just kidding) to participate. There have also been other thread discussions started and continued during the course of this class so far, but having us all trying to post at one time was quite different.
We started the class by trying to hold an "unchat". I found the whole thing quite chaotic. Everyone was trying to post at once, and by the time you finished typing your response to something that was said the topic had changed. It was near impossible to keep up, reading or typing.
The threaded discussion went a little smoother. Yes, everyone was still contributing at the same time, but response rate was not as big an issue. Personally, I could take my time reading someone's thread, think about it, and then respond. It really didn't matter how much time I took.
I think that may have been one of the point's Beierle was trying to impress. With this online deliberation in the form of threads for instance. It gives people a chance to participate, but at their own pace. Some people (myself included) feel obligated to contribute something. I think once you get people participating, then you can work out some of the kinks such as how they are participating or trying to tackle those six steps that deliberation should proceed through.
posted by Patty @ 1:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home