#g2g

The evaluation of Government 2.0 initiatives using a network analysis approach, has demonstrated the importance of understanding the type of the network which is being engaged through social media. The value of consciously considering whether the initiative will be centralised around Government or dispersed throughout society should not be overlooked. This may unlock the potential of new ways of working including Open Source Public Diplomacy.

On Friday Canada House hosted Gov2Gov, an event presented by the Social Media Club and FutureGov Consultancy to discuss;

the changing nature of civic engagement and the relationships between citizens and their government, in which social media tools and the emergent ideals of Government 2.0 can be harnessed for better cross boundary collaboration and service to our citizens.

Joanne Jacobs was liveblogging at the event and comments via twitter #g2g give a feel for this very interesting event. Having taken part in this discussion about the future use of social media by governmental organisations I wanted to record some of my thoughts about the relationship between understanding networks and Government 2.0.

The potential governmental use of social media is inextricably linked to understanding of the network with which they seek to engage or that they seek to create.

The shift in ethos from that adopted through traditional channels of engagement to that most likely needed to use social media was a common theme of the discussion. A number of speakers emphasised the ability to listen to the voices of their constituency or to engage in dialogue through social medial.

This potential for listening and dialogue has the potential to empower collective action or collaboration on policy. To realise this potential, in line with the often discussed ethos of social media, governmental organisations will have to understand the form of network in which they are engaged. If they do not, experience demonstrates that the governmental approach to social media will adopt a centralised view of the network, where they act as if the universe revolves around them. 

Thinking of government existing in a walled garden and using social media to invite audiences into an area they control is a limited and centralised view of the network. Being able to reach out into the areas around which communities coordinate, thinking of Governmental engagement with networks as decentralised or dispersed along side the centralised option, has the potential to make communication more effective. The view of genuine collaborative engagement and collective action via social media will become increasingly important as the governmental walled gardens that exist in the physical world are increasingly surrounded by anti-ram barriers and police with automatic weapons. 

An example offered by Stephen Hale demonstrated the importance of understanding the difference between the centralised approach and collective action in a dispersed or decentralised network. The description of an engagement via Facebook described as leading to discussions with ministers prompted me to ask ‘what changed on the policy side as a result of your initiative and opportunity to engage in dialogue with ministers? The answer appeared to be nothing; policy remained the same as a result of this dialogue and it did not appear the intention had ever been to shift policy position on the basis of this dialogue (of the deaf). Photos on Flickr, video on YouTube, a group on Facebook, do not necessarily mean that social media is being used for dialogue or collective action. Government 2.0 will just be Gov 1 in new clothes if social media is used purely in this narrow centralised form. 

Another example discussed at Gov2Gov, Exchanges Connect also emphasised a centralised understanding of the government position in relation to the networks with which governments engage.  The aim of Exchanges Connect is to create an international social network to allow participants of exchanges to communicate, collaborate, connect.

 Though created using Ning, this initiative requires individuals to go to a centralised site, rather than embedding this exchange within the tools they use regularly. In essence participants must come to and area administered by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State, rather than the State Dept. going to the points around which participants coordinate. Whether this matters really depends on the audience and type of engagement and organisation is aiming for, but looking at the site this morning there are 194 members of the ‘Fulbright Group’.

 Keep in mind; The Fulbright Program operates in more than 155 countries and has provided over 285,000 participants — chosen for their academic merit and leadership potential — with the opportunity to study, teach and conduct research in each others’ countries and exchange ideas.  Approximately 7,000 grants are awarded annually.

 The centralised approach appears to create a gap between reference in rhetoric to social media and even open source ethos and many examples of engagement in practice. If the ethos is to be truly adopted this means a shift from building cathedrals to engaging with a bazaar, effectively working in a Gramscian market place of ideas. Without this shift, governmental officials will struggle to identify opportunities for genuine dialogue let alone for collaboration and collective action. This aspiration for dialogue appears regularly in the rhetoric about the use of social media by government officials but significantly less often in practice. I offered an extended argument of this point in Music for the Jilted Generation: Open Source Public Diplomacy.

 This gap between rhetoric and practice may be interpreted as officials being disingenuous, but the benefit of the doubt makes it likely it was because governments regularly misunderstand their position within the network of those engaged in social media. 

For example, hierarchies are often contrasted with networks. While there can be hierarchical and network based models of engagement, it is a mistake to think of hierarchies as something separate from networks. Hierarchies are a form of network and a method of arranging a network map within social network analysis.

So what? 2 considerations:

1) Failure to consider the type of network has a significant impact on the sustainability of the programme. This is particularly important when governmental organisations build centralised networks and subsequently stop their funding / involvement in the vain hope the network will continue working. Centralised networks from which the central hub is removed are the most likely to collapse.

 Rather than revisit much of this here, Valdis Krebs and June Holley have written a good article on sustainable networks and the importance of recognising different roles / behaviour within a network.

 2) If networks are largely considered as centralised around the governmental initiatives, there is a distinct risk that governments are missing the conversations their constituents are having about the issues that are important to them. They may also be missing opportunities to engage or increase the impact of their programmes. One illustrative example is the discussion I attended in which military organisations were concerned with getting greater video capability in the field.

 The aim was to demonstrate to communities back home what they were facing and operations they were conducting in theatre. This discussion was almost totally detached from the numerous videos soldiers had taken with their mobile phones and uploaded to various sites across the web. (This included soldiers trading video / images of combat for credits on porn sites). Looking beyond the centralised approach would have provided this discussion not only with greater options. It also would have included in the discussion those videos and images already in the public domain and which in a centralised approach were almost invisible.

 For Government 2.0 to unlock the potential of social media it will require;

• making the mental shift toward means of collaboration and cooperation,
• understanding the difference between centralised and dispersed networks,
• engaging in dialogue of the communities’ choosing in areas around which those communities coordinate.

 We must avoid conducting Government 2.0 with a web 1 mentality.