The Value of Words: Narrative as Evidence in Policymaking

Policymakers today rely primarily on statistical, financial, and other forms of technical data as their basis for decision-making. Yet, there is a potentially underestimated value in substantive reflections of the members of the public who will be affected by a particular piece of regulation. We discuss the value of narratives as input in the policy making process, based on our experience with Regulation Room–a product of an interdisciplinary initiative using innovative web technologies in real-time online experimentation. We describe professional policymakers and professional commenters as a community of practice that has limited shared repertoire with the lay members of the public trying to engage with the policymaking process, which constitutes a significant barrier to participation. Based on our work with Regulation Room, we offer an initial typology of narratives–complexity, contributory context, unintended consequences, and reframing–as a first step towards overcoming conceptual barriers to effective civic engagement in policymaking

Rulemaking vs. Democracy: Judging and Nudging Public Participation That Counts

An underlying assumption of many open government enthusiasts is that more public participation will necessarily lead to better government policymaking: If we use technology to give people easier opportunities to participate in public policymaking, they will use these opportunities to participate effectively. Yet, experience thus far with technology-enabled rulemaking (e-rulemaking) has not confirmed this “if-then” causal link. This Article considers how this flawed causal reasoning around technology has permeated efforts to increase public participation in rulemaking

Regulation Room: Getting More, Better Civic Participation in Complex Government Policymaking

Purpose – Rulemaking (the process agencies use to make new health, safety, social and economic regulations) is one of the US Government’s most important policymaking methods and has long been a target for e-government efforts. Although broad transparency and participation rights are part of its legal structure, significant barriers prevent effective engagement by many citizens. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – RegulationRoom.org is an online experimental e-participation platform, designed and operated by Cornell e-rulemaking Initiative (CeRI), the cross-disciplinary CeRI. Using the Regulation Roomas a case study, this paper addresseswhat capacities are required for effective civic engagement and how they can be nurtured and supported by an online participation system. Findings – The research suggests that effectively designing and deploying technology, although essential, is only one dimension of realizing broader, better online civic engagement. Effective e-participation systems must be prepared to address procedural, social, and psychological barriers that impede citizens’ meaningful participation in complex policymaking processes.The research also suggests the need for re-conceptualizing the value of broad civic participation to the policymaking processes and for recognizing that novice commenters engage with policy issues differently than experienced insiders. Practical implications – The paper includes a series of strategic recommendations for policymaking seeking public input. While it indicates that a broader range of citizens can indeed be meaningfully engaged, it also cautions that getting better participation from more people requires the investment of resources. More fundamental, both government decision makers and participation designers must be open to recognizing non-traditional forms of knowledge and styles of communication – and willing to devise participation mechanisms and protocols accordingly. Originality/value – This paper describes lessons from a unique design-based research project with both practical and conceptual implications for more, better civic participation in complex government policymaking

Designing an Online Civic Engagement Platform: Balancing More vs. Better Participation in Complex Public Policymaking

A new form of online citizen participation in government decisionmaking has arisen in the United States (U.S.) under the Obama Administration. “Civic Participation 2.0” attempts to use Web 2.0 information and communication technologies to enable wider civic participation in government policymaking, based on three pillars of open government: transparency, participation, and collaboration. Thus far, the Administration has modeled Civic Participation 2.0 almost exclusively on a universalist/populist Web 2.0 philosophy of participation. In this model, content is created by users, who are enabled to shape the discussion and assess the value of contributions with little information or guidance from government decisionmakers. The authors suggest that this model often produces “participation” unsatisfactory to both government and citizens. The authors propose instead a model of Civic Participation 2.0 rooted in the theory and practice of democratic deliberation. In this model, the goal of civic participation is to reveal the conclusions people reach when they are informed about the issues and have the opportunity and motivation seriously to discuss them. Accordingly, the task of civic participation design is to provide the factual and policy information and the kinds of participation mechanisms that support and encourage this sort of participatory output. Based on the authors’ experience with Regulation Room, an experimental online platform for broadening effective civic participation in rulemaking (the process federal agencies use to make new regulations), the authors offer specific suggestions for how designers can strike the balance between ease of engagement and quality of engagement – and so bring new voices into public policymaking processes through participatory outputs that government decisionmakers will value

Knowledge in the People: Rethinking Value in Public Rulemaking Participation

A companion piece to Rulemaking vs. Democracy: Judging and Nudging Public Participation that Counts, this Essay continues to examine the nature and value of broader public participation in rulemaking. Here, we argue that rulemaking is a “community of practice,” with distinctive forms of argumentation and methods of reasoning that both reflect and embody craft knowledge. Rulemaking newcomers are outside this community of practice: Even when they are reasonably informed about the legal and policy aspects of the agency’s proposal, their participation differs in kind and form from that of sophisticated commenters. From observing the actual behavior of rulemaking newcomers in the Regulation Room project, we suggest that new public participation is often, if not predominantly, experiential in nature and narrative in form. We argue that it is unrealistic to expect that rulemaking newcomers can be significantly inculcated into the norms and methods of the existing rulemaking community of practice. Yet, the potential policymaking value of the on-the-ground, situated knowledge they can bring to the discussion justifies efforts to expand our understanding of the kinds of comments that should “count” in the process. We take some first steps in that direction in this Essay

Designing an Online Civic Engagement Platform: Balancing More vs. Better Participation in Complex Public Policymaking

A new form of online citizen participation in government decisionmaking has arisen in the United States (U.S.) under the Obama Administration. “Civic Participation 2.0” attempts to use Web 2.0 information and communication technologies to enable wider civic participation in government policymaking, based on three pillars of open government: transparency, participation, and collaboration. Thus far, the Administration has modeled Civic Participation 2.0 almost exclusively on a universalist/populist Web 2.0 philosophy of participation. In this model, content is created by users, who are enabled to shape the discussion and assess the value of contributions with little information or guidance from government decisionmakers. The authors suggest that this model often produces “participation” unsatisfactory to both government and citizens. The authors propose instead a model of Civic Participation 2.0 rooted in the theory and practice of democratic deliberation. In this model, the goal of civic participation is to reveal the conclusions people reach when they are informed about the issues and have the opportunity and motivation seriously to discuss them. Accordingly, the task of civic participation design is to provide the factual and policy information and the kinds of participation mechanisms that support and encourage this sort of participatory output. Based on the authors’ experience with Regulation Room, an experimental online platform for broadening effective civic participation in rulemaking (the process federal agencies use to make new regulations), the authors offer specific suggestions for how designers can strike the balance between ease of engagement and quality of engagement – and so bring new voices into public policymaking processes through participatory outputs that government decisionmakers will value

Balancing Inclusion and “Enlightened Understanding” in Designing Online Civic Participation Systems: Experiences from Regulation Room

New forms of online citizen participation in government decision making have been fostered in the United States (U.S.) under the Obama Administration. Use of Web information technologies have been encouraged in an effort to create more back-and-forth communication between citizens and their government. These “Civic Participation 2.0” attempts to open the government up to broader public participation are based on three pillars of open government—transparency, participation, and collaboration. Thus far, the Administration has modeled Civic Participation 2.0 almost exclusively on the Web 2.0 ethos, in which users are enabled to shape the discussion and encouraged to assess the value of its content. We argue that strict adherence to the Web 2.0 model for citizen participation in public policymaking can produce “participation” that is unsatisfactory to both government decisionmakers and public participants. We believe that successful online civic participation design must balance inclusion and “enlightened understanding,” one of the core conditions for democratic deliberation. Based on our experience with Regulation Room, an experimental online participation platform trying to broaden meaningful public engagement in the process federal agencies use to make new regulations, we offer specific suggestions on how participation designers can strike the balance between ease of engagement and quality of engagement—and so bring new voices into the policymaking process through participating that counts

Balancing Inclusion and “Enlightened Understanding” in Designing Online Civic Participation Systems: Experiences from Regulation Room

New forms of online citizen participation in government decision making have been fostered in the United States (U.S.) under the Obama Administration. Use of Web information technologies have been encouraged in an effort to create more back-and-forth communication between citizens and their government. These “Civic Participation 2.0” attempts to open the government up to broader public participation are based on three pillars of open government—transparency, participation, and collaboration. Thus far, the Administration has modeled Civic Participation 2.0 almost exclusively on the Web 2.0 ethos, in which users are enabled to shape the discussion and encouraged to assess the value of its content. We argue that strict adherence to the Web 2.0 model for citizen participation in public policymaking can produce “participation” that is unsatisfactory to both government decisionmakers and public participants. We believe that successful online civic participation design must balance inclusion and “enlightened understanding,” one of the core conditions for democratic deliberation. Based on our experience with Regulation Room, an experimental online participation platform trying to broaden meaningful public engagement in the process federal agencies use to make new regulations, we offer specific suggestions on how participation designers can strike the balance between ease of engagement and quality of engagement—and so bring new voices into the policymaking process through participating that counts

Regulation Room: Getting More, Better Civic Participation in Complex Government Policymaking

Purpose – Rulemaking (the process agencies use to make new health, safety, social and economic regulations) is one of the US Government’s most important policymaking methods and has long been a target for e-government efforts. Although broad transparency and participation rights are part of its legal structure, significant barriers prevent effective engagement by many citizens. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – RegulationRoom.org is an online experimental e-participation platform, designed and operated by Cornell e-rulemaking Initiative (CeRI), the cross-disciplinary CeRI. Using the Regulation Roomas a case study, this paper addresseswhat capacities are required for effective civic engagement and how they can be nurtured and supported by an online participation system. Findings – The research suggests that effectively designing and deploying technology, although essential, is only one dimension of realizing broader, better online civic engagement. Effective e-participation systems must be prepared to address procedural, social, and psychological barriers that impede citizens’ meaningful participation in complex policymaking processes.The research also suggests the need for re-conceptualizing the value of broad civic participation to the policymaking processes and for recognizing that novice commenters engage with policy issues differently than experienced insiders. Practical implications – The paper includes a series of strategic recommendations for policymaking seeking public input. While it indicates that a broader range of citizens can indeed be meaningfully engaged, it also cautions that getting better participation from more people requires the investment of resources. More fundamental, both government decision makers and participation designers must be open to recognizing non-traditional forms of knowledge and styles of communication – and willing to devise participation mechanisms and protocols accordingly. Originality/value – This paper describes lessons from a unique design-based research project with both practical and conceptual implications for more, better civic participation in complex government policymaking

Rulemaking vs. Democracy: Judging and Nudging Public Participation that Counts

This essay considers how open government “magical thinking” around technology has infused efforts to increase public participation in rulemaking. We propose a framework for assessing the value of technology-enabled rulemaking participation and offer specific principles of participation-system design, which are based on conceptual work and practical experience in the Regulation Room project at Cornell University. An underlying assumption of open government enthusiasts is that more public participation will lead to better government policymaking: If we use technology to give people easier opportunities to participate in public policymaking, they will use these opportunities to participate effectively. However, experience thus far with technology-enabled rulemaking (e-rulemaking) has not confirmed these assumptions. To the extent that new participants have engaged with the process, their engagement predominantly takes the form of mass comment campaigns orchestrated by advocacy groups. The conventional response to this new participation – by agencies and academics alike – has been to regard mass commenting as worse than useless. Recently, though, Nina Mendelson argued for rethinking this response. Exploring the relationship between rulemaking and democratic government, she proposes that agencies should take account of the value preferences expressed in such comments when rulemaking involves value judgments. Engaging this important argument, we suggest that not all citizens’ preferences about policy outcomes are created equal. We present a typology that captures important differences in information quality and deliberativeness of preference formation. Unlike electoral democracy (in which participation based on any type of preference is valued), the legitimacy of the rulemaking process relies on a formally transparent process of reasoned deliberation. The types of preferences expressed in mass comments may be good enough for electoral democracy but they are not good enough for rulemaking, even when rulemaking is heavily laden with value choices. This position challenges both the Web 2.0 ethos and the common open-government belief that more public participation, of any kind, is a good thing. At least with respect to rulemaking and similar complex policymaking processes, more public participation is good only if it is the kind of participation that has value in the process. From our experiences on Regulation Room, we argue that design of successful “Rulemaking 2.0” civic engagement systems must involve a purposeful and continuous effort to balance “more” and “better” participation. We offer several specific design principles for striking this balance, perhaps the most important of which is that a democratic government should not actively facilitate public participation that it does not value