Mylifemyid.org – or why online consultations aren’t PR
23. July 2008 – 11:52 by Rolf Luehrs
The UK is about to introduce identity cards from next year on. This introduction is part of the Government’s National Identity Scheme, which RT HON Jacqui Schmith MP, Home Secretary, believes to
“give us all a new way to protect ourselves and our families against identity fraud, and to protect our communities against crime, illegal immigration and terrorism. And it will help us to prove our identity in the course of our daily lives- when travelling, for example, or opening a bank account, or applying for a new job, or accessing government services.”
Needless to mention that there are a lot of different views and concerns regarding the collection and control of personal data by the government and this might be the reason why the Home Office started a consultation process on the proposals.
“I very much welcome your views on these, as well as on other aspects of our implementation plans. The conversation which begins now with a wide constituency of stakeholders will enable us to take on a broad range of experiences and ideas for defining services so that we can best meet public needs and deliver benefits” Jacqui Smith points out in her foreword to the “Delivery Plan 2008” (pdf).
Data protection activists and identity card opponents might have had the impression that this consultation process is not at all concerned with general question whether or not an identity card would be useful but just on the exact terms of the implementation. This would of cause not prevent anybody to object against the identity card at the first opportunity.
This opportunity came when the Home Office launched a “specially designed website” to discuss the national identity scheme with young people at MyLifeMyId.org. What happened then has been described on the (firewall protected) Public Sector Forum:
“However little did the Home Secretary know that this carefully-scripted PR ‘quick win’ was about to mutate at internet speed into a horrendous, humiliating and increasingly out-of-control PR catastrophe …
We contacted Mr Comley [VirtualSurveys man-o-the-moment] for comment and put to him that as access to the site is restricted to 16-25 year-olds only, whether it was not slightly disingenuous for him to be using ‘yoof-speak’ and posing as a ‘buddy’ to other users, not to mention his comments about being encumbered with a student card. (…)
Within hours of the Home Secretary’s fanfare launch, word had got out among anti-ID card campaigners who then flocked in large numbers to the site. By lunchtime a horde of protesters had effectively taken over the site, with the MyLifeMyID forums now consisting – to huge embarrassment for the Home Office - almost entirely of comments criticising, denouncing and condemning the ID scheme in no uncertain terms.”
(Via paulcanning)
The lesson learnt is that online consultations should only be put in place when there is really something to be debated about and the government has not already decided the respective policy. However, I do not agree that the whole exercise is nothing but a “huge embarrassment for the Home Office”. The discussion is moderated by impartial moderators and all the critical statements have not been censored. The result is probably not what the Home Office has intended but the website definitely provides a public space to debate about this issue. Finally, the participants didn’t just spoil the consultation but also created valuable content. E.g. a thread has successfully been started by one participant to gather “balancing material expressing non-Home-Office views on the National Identity Scheme. I’m hoping we can collect a thread of researched documents (not just opinions), so that newcomers to the Home Office’s NIS plans can get a balanced view”.
The Mylifemyid.org case shows that eParticipation is not easy to implement and that it should never be confused with classical public relation instruments. What I hope is, that governments do not feel discouraged to further give citizens their say via the Internet but keep on trying to find appropriate ways to apply eParticpation. Any proposals how to do better?
Tags: Mylifemyid.org, online consultations, UK
7 Responses to “Mylifemyid.org – or why online consultations aren’t PR”
By Shane McCracken on Jul 24, 2008
The MyLifeMyID site is interesting on many levels. In some respects it could be said to be hugely successful. The level of activity with 2,500 posts is very good compared to most online engagement work. But is it research? There are certainly plenty of respondents giving their almost 100% thumbs down to ID cards. The Home Office may take them into account.
The problem is that the Govt are beyond the consultation and research phase (unless it is research on how to sell the concept to the public) and most people see the exercise as PR. And on that count it has been abysmal.
The big flaw in the site is that the “researchers” have got in the way. They may claim to be neutral, but they are primarily posting positive government information and there are virtually no non-moderator supporters of ID cards (and database) on the site.
A company falling into Paul’s second category (above) would be trying to create a meaningful discussion between those who support the ID database and those who don’t. Perhaps they tried but could not find anyone in favour of them?
By paul canning on Jul 28, 2008
I’m glad to see that you were able to penetrate my colloquial English.
I disagreed with your final point about what to take away from this case. There were numerous basic problems with the implementation which were bound to cause problems whatever the motivations.
As I suggested, an honest account of this would be useful to point to where mistakes were made - I just cannot imagine that happening. Without that though I think you need to be careful coming to conclusions about what an ‘easy’ implementation looks like.
By Ray Poynter on Aug 6, 2008
Hi, I am one of the Directors at Virtual Surveys working on this project, and one of Admins on the forum.
We are certainly keen to hear any suggestions and feedback from the wide e-community.
I think one of the messages which we are getting across better know is what exactly the community is. I hear what Shane is saying above, but when he says the researchers have got in the way he is describing a different exercise. The researchers are an essential part of the project in this case. They are irrelevant to what he proposes, but they are relevant to what has been commissioned.
For example, there is a topic guide. BTW, it can’t be published prior to the end of the research without ruining the thinking, but if you collect all the research themes, by the end of the project you will have the topic guide.
Whilst the forum can and will discuss a wide range of other topics, it will (members willing) go through the topic guide to explore the questions the forum was commissioned to explore.
Normal market and social research is a highly controlled process, where the researcher holds all the cards, and the respondents (what a horrible word) do not know what other people are saying, do not really see the process, and do not see the results.
Here the balance of power has shifted to an extent. Members can see what other members are saying, many of the ideas are collaborative, and most of the threads are generated by the members. The IPS have said that the report will be published.
Do you have any particular ideas for how the learnings from this project (as opposed to the results) might be shared? I can’t make any promises, but I can certainly take them back for discussion.
By Bengt Feil on Aug 7, 2008
We will certainly discuss the learnings here on the blog. I will think about other ways of distribution!
By paul canning on Aug 25, 2008
Ray
My point about the site was largely about how you did it (or were instructed to), basic issues to do with constructing websites which would hold true ‘newmedia’, ‘web 2.0′ or not.
My point about the cynicism surrounding formally unpicking this connects with the DCLG perceived attitude - something which the site construction/authoring did nothing but underline.
Someone has to ’speak truth to power’ with these guys so we can progress.
You either meaningfully engage or it’s all just PR. This site screamed ‘PR’.
Ray, you need to not just take this ‘back for discussion’ and hence into a black hole but publish and be damned.
Some of this is leaking out in your responses - pursue this thought, we’d all be better off for it.
By David Blunkett on Nov 2, 2008
Just to let anyone know who’s still interested in the wretched site that archives of the place are now available which include the deleted threads, in both Hideous Original Layout and Easy-to-Read Text-Only versions:
https://id-watch.co.uk/2008/10/27/mirrors/
By Rolf Lührs on Nov 6, 2008
@ David B:
Dear “David”, as I suppose you are not David Blunkett, the prominent UK politician, and former Home Secretary. It is possible to comment in this blog without disclosing your name (though not preferred) but you should not pretend to be someone else and misuse the identity of other persons.