Smartphones are now ubiquitous, making it possible to connect with the internet permanently and without hindrance. But can they be used to create a climate of public participation? Dr Carolin Schröder and Anna Schuster used an app – Flashpoll – to test what does and doesn’t work, and found that various factors can influence how high participation is when it comes to their local home, work, and educative communities

Schröder, Carolin

Schuster, Anna

LSE Research Online

By Democratic Audit UK 2015-8-11Smartphone apps can be used to create a climate of localparticipation, but challenges remaindemocraticaudit.com /2015/08/11/smartphone-apps-can-be-used-to-create-a-climate-of-local-participation-but-challenges-remain/Smartphones are now ubiquitous, making it possible to connect with the internet permanently and without hindrance.But can they be used to create a climate of public participation? Dr Carolin Schröder and Anna Schuster used anapp – Flashpoll – to test what does and doesn’t work, and found that various factors can influence how highparticipation is when it comes to their local home, work, and educative communities.Credit: MIKI Yoshihito, CC BY 2.0In the light of rather optimistic receptions of the potential of ICT for democracy, the fact that many devices are nowportable can be considered as adding additional potential. Provided people have access to a smart phone or atablet, and that they are online, the mobility of devices allows us to “amplify participation in a spatial and temporaldimension and will widen the range of possible uses for urban planning and design”.If we follow this line of thought – when turning participation mobile there are fewer limits to participation in termsof time and location – this could also mean that mobile participation allows for a greater number of participants forincreasing the availability of citizen information, and the capacity for deliberation and co-decision making. Thistriggered our interest – and this a short report on how we tested it developing a mobile app for citizen participation.The FlashPoll mobile appFlashPoll is designed for location-based polling and instant feedback on various issues that come up in an urbandevelopment context. At this development stage, the app can be downloaded for Android phones (An iOS versionwill be available this summer), and used via a web app. The geofence can be designed for each poll separately, andconsequently limits the group of potential participants to those physically entering a specific area with theirsmartphones at least once during the poll. (This does not apply to the web app.) Answering a poll, on the contrary,can be done from anywhere and at any time during the duration of a poll. All results are only visible immediately afterpolling.1/4Graphic of the general scenario and example of the accumulated results in the mobile application. FlashPoll © 2014.All Rights Reserved.Testing FlashPollWhile FlashPoll has been tested in several contexts already, here we will focus on three recent tests conducted onthe campus of Technische Universität Berlin. These tests are aimed at providing insight in the relations of forms ofannouncement, the thematic focus of a poll, and users’ motivations to the actual participation rate. To informpotential participants about the opportunity to participate, various media and formats such as newsletters, socialmedia, institute websites and small posters on bulletin boards on and near the campus were used, but their numberand variety increased over time:The first poll asked students in an open way about their experiences on and perceptions of the campus.Response rate: 15 participants.The second test was conducted in collaboration with  TU Berlin University Sports and asked for feedback oncourse-offer, sports facilities, user experience, popularity of the courses and reasons for (non-) participation.Response rate: 50 participants.The third test gathered user’s opinions about newly introduced break discs in the university library thatshould help regulate usage times of the library desks. Response rate: 660 participants.Although after the tests we are still convinced by the potential of mobile apps for increasing participation, there arefour very practical and crucial aspects to be considered that might challenge the perception of (e- and) m-participation as “amplifying participation in a spatial and temporal dimension”:1. (Public) Awareness is key to a successful poll: The very first poll was not announced officially. They wereonly available through the mobile app – with very low response rates. The second test was announcedthrough a large mailing list (20.000 recipients) – with again low response rates. The third test, the library poll,was promoted through paper posters and leaflets. Additionally, the option to participate through the web linkwas announced – with the latter responsible for an impressive increase in the number of participants.2. Individual motivations to participate must be taken into consideration: After becoming aware of an2/4opportunity to participate, another major challenge is whether the topic (or the question, the announcement ormarketing slogan) is of individual interest. From the test results, we can only assume that this was the case.But why are people interested in answering these polls?It certainly helps if the potential participants feel that their voice is being heard: while the first test did not mentionany potential impact at all and the participation rates were very low, it only slightly increased in the second test, butdefinitely in the third, where it was made clear from the start that the commissioning institution is very muchinterested in the opinions of the users and that the outcome will influence the further use of break discs.3. Privacy is certainly an issue: Comparatively few people openly complained about privacy issues. Thosethat did questioned the need for location targeting on privacy grounds. But in other tests we got theimpression that the initial step of downloading and installing an app  is often considered an obstacle toindividual participation. In consequence, the majority opted for answering the poll via a computer (81%), asmaller group answered via the web app on their smartphone (16%) and only 3% via the app on theirsmartphone.4. Location-based polling is context-related: While the first two tests were only announced through onlinechannels, paper posters and leaflets had been put up for the third test right inside the library. This leads toassume that an immediate physical nearness of problem, (public) invitation and participation opportunityfacilitates participation as 48% answered the poll immediately in the library, 38% outside after being informedvia online media and just 14% after leaving the library.Some further thoughtsWhile these results are only preliminary, there seem to be a relationship between the forms of announcement, thethematic focus of a poll, and users’ motivations. It should also be noted that it is difficult to tell which action causedwhich effect. But cautious conclusions from this research phase could be:The additional opportunity to use the web app increased the number of participants. Keeping in mind that all iOSusers and people without smartphones had to use the web app anyway, this gives a hint that combining online andmobile access to polls may lead to a larger number of actual participants than a stand-alone mobile app. Thepossibility of using a web app during a participation process seems even more important when it comes to privacyissues where transparent and clearly visible information about the use and necessity of the location data is essentialto create trust and acceptance. Online participation opportunities seem to be perceived as less privacy-intrudingthan mobile solutions.The number of participants is also higher if a test is marketed simultaneously through several online and offlinemedia outlets. Similarly, participation numbers seem to increase if a test is coupled with a specific event or anongoing face-to-face participation process – and if participants feel that there is a direct correlation to impactawareness.In conclusion, FlashPoll does enable a specific form of public involvement, but it’s specific architecture seems tochallenge the idea of spatial and temporal ubiquity. And if we transfer these intermediary findings to an urbanplanning context, the physical nearness of people, the problem or question posed, and physical space are allrelevant for participation – even if the poll questions are not related to a specific physical space.—Note:  Further information about FlashPoll can be found here . This article gives the views of the author, and not theposition of Democratic Audit UK, nor of the London School of Economics. Please read our comments policy beforecommenting. —3/4Dr Carolin Schröder is Head of the Participation Research Unit at the Technische Universität Berlin/ TechnicalUniversity BerlinAnna Schuster is a Researcher with Teaching Duties at the Technische Universität Berlin/ Technical UniversityBerlinThis post is based on a presentation given by Dr Schröder at the 2015 CeDem conference inKrems, Austria. 4/4

Smartphone apps can be used to create a climate of local participation, but challenges remain

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online