Online Public Engagement in the Obama Administration: Building a Democracy Bubble?

Transcription

1 Volume 3, Issue Article 3 Online Public Engagement in the Obama Administration: Building a Democracy Bubble? Thomas A. Bryer, University of Central Florida Bryer, Thomas A. (2011) "Online Public Engagement in the Obama Administration: Building a Democracy Bubble?," Policy & Internet: Vol. 3: Iss. 4, Article 3. Available at: DOI: / Policy Studies Organization

2 Online Public Engagement in the Obama Administration: Building a Democracy Bubble? Thomas A. Bryer, University of Central Florida Abstract Following the Bush administration, the Obama team enhanced access for citizens to participatory venues primarily through online mechanisms. Developing such channels gives citizens opportunity to develop their citizenship skills, potentially influence policy, and become more connected to community life. The administration can be applauded for participatory innovations, but needs to proceed strategically to ensure the innovations do not produce more harm than good and to ensure that the real change they are producing is sustainable into the next administration. This article develops the idea of a democracy bubble as the intersection of open access to participatory venues and inflated citizen expectations for what the participatory processes can deliver. It develops related ideas of a democracy crater, democracy dropouts, and democracy demand. Three fully online or online-mediated Obama administration participation initiatives are assessed for their potential to lead to a democracy bubble: the development of Open Government Plans, the Electronic Town Hall meeting, and co-produced community forums on health care and job creation. A primary finding is that the administration can do a better job establishing and managing expectations for what can be achieved through participation in its various initiatives. KEYWORDS: public participation, social media, U.S. Presidential, e-government Author Notes: The author thanks participants in the 2009 Conference of the American Society for Public Administration and the 2010 International Congress on "Deepening Democracy as a Way of Life" for comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

3 Bryer: Online Public Engagement in the Obama Administration Introduction The Obama administration is working to change citizens behavior. On the economic front, the administration is striving to push the United States to emerge from the recession in a manner that does not encourage the development of another money-making bubble in sectors such as housing, information technology, and medical technology. Economic bubbles are the source of much profit and allow for fast growth, but they inevitably burst, causing potential widespread pain to those who were still invested, either directly or through a related business field. On the democratic front, the administration established an objective to enhance transparency, collaboration, and opportunities for public participation with federal agencies (Obama 2009). Grounded in community organizing principles and practices and a high level of comfort with social media technologies, the administration is granting access to the White House in new and creative ways. Through the White House, citizens are invited to ask questions and vote on those questions deemed to be most important for the President to address; through departments and agencies, citizens are being convened for town hall meetings and community forums to give input on policy matters, and they are being invited to convene their own community forums to solicit stories and ideas related to different policy areas. Early evidence suggests that the efforts are successful at engaging citizens in the governance process, with citizens showing up to participate and demonstrating through their actions that they trust the administration to listen to their questions, concerns, and ideas. However, this article speculates that the design and implementation of the Obama public engagement efforts may ultimately lead to the deflation of a democracy bubble. A democracy bubble is defined here as the conditions created by fully open access to all citizens in public participation processes, combined with ambiguous expectations defined by government administrative units or political leaders. A bubble is characterized by inflated citizen expectations, citizen trust in government, and citizen efficacy. The article identifies the possible outcomes of the Obama administration s public engagement efforts to date, as suggested by democratic theory and available empirical analysis. It concludes by suggesting potential shifts in the strategies of engagement to ensure that a democracy bubble is not created. The issues raised are relevant to all manner of public participation processes in the twenty-first century. Three government-wide policy recommendations are offered in conclusion, based on the theoretical and empirical analysis conducted: that is, to ensure that citizen expectations are managed and capacities for meeting expectations are established; to be explicit about the policy issues over which citizens are given power, and the conditions of that power; and to provide agency Published by De Gruyter,

4 Policy & Internet, Vol. 3 [2011], Iss. 4, Art. 3 officials with the tools needed to moderate online discourse and to educate citizens on how to effectively communicate their interests. Public Participation Processes Theoretical Perspectives Norris (2003) identifies three broad theoretical perspectives that guide the development and implementation of public participation processes: representation, pluralist, and direct (Scott 2006). Deliberation theory can also be added to this list, with renewed attention given recently to processes for discourse and deliberative democracy (Nabatchi 2010). Representative theory. Representative theory (Mill 1965) assumes that citizens have a limited but important role in governance: that is, to make informed decisions about who they would like to represent them. The level of participation in elections is generally low (Macedo 2005), with some exceptions, such as in high-profile and competitive presidential elections. The extent and quality of representation provided is the central concern in representation theory (Pitkin 1967). Wolin (2008) suggests that institutions currently in use in the United States perpetuate a managed democracy and fail to provide adequate representation (Wolin 2008, 142). Pluralist theory. Pluralist theory (Schumpeter 1952; Dahl 1981) assumes a role for citizens, or at least organized interest groups, beyond the election process. Competing interests negotiate political and policymaking processes to achieve benefits or limit hardships for their constituencies. Crenson and Ginsburg (2002) echo themes expressed by Wolin (2008), suggesting that citizens have been demobilized in a political and governmental process that has become increasingly professionalized. In this environment, citizens are sidelined in the most important matters of policymaking and quality of life, and elite and professional rule makers and policymakers work in place of citizens. From a pluralist perspective, this is problematic as the average citizen may not have access to the interest groups that also claim some form of representative legitimacy. Direct theory. Direct theory (Barber 1984) assumes that citizens, and society, are best served by allowing individual and collective involvement in policymaking, implementation, and evaluation. Citizens ought to be given channels for direct engagement with their elected representatives and public administrators, rather than limiting their sovereignty to the occasional election (Wolin 2008). Citizens DOI: /

5 Bryer: Online Public Engagement in the Obama Administration would be vested with authority in direct forms of participation, thus going beyond the consultative or advisory functions of public hearings or town hall meetings. These efforts are not common, although there are notable examples in local governments (Leighninger 2006). The record of such direct democracy initiatives is mixed, and they require strategic implementation across potentially numerous governance actors (Musso et al. 2011). Deliberation theory. Participatory mechanisms associated with a deliberative lens go beyond direct contacts. They also ensure opportunities for open and transparent discourse among citizens and government officials (Bohman 1996; Coleman and Gotze 2003; Fishkin 2010; Weeks 2000). Deliberative processes may include a direct link to decision making in governance, or they may be established as advisory processes. As with direct processes, deliberative governance mechanisms have a mixed record and also generally have limited empirical evidence of efficacy (Mutz 2008). Online Participation Web-mediated and social media tools, such as Facebook, YouTube, and wikis, are increasingly being used for public engagement (Noveck 2009). These tools can democratize policymaking and management processes and allow new voices to enter otherwise elite discourse. The way these tools are used varies according to the objective, aligning with the four theoretical perspectives outlined above: representative, pluralist, direct, and deliberative democracy. If designed and implemented strategically and appropriately to fit a given objective, social media tools have the potential to correct for some of the limitations of the participation methods that predominate in the purely face-to-face environment. Broadly speaking, however, revolutions in e-government that were promoted as transformational for enhancing citizen roles in governance have largely not achieved the promise (Kent and Taylor 1998; Moon 2002; West 2004). Indeed, online tools for public engagement may be more harmful than helpful in strengthening citizen competence, efficacy, and trust in government. Masses of clicktivists (Karpf 2010), or citizens who can participate in online processes with relatively little effort, might also crowd out the ideas of citizens who are more informed and deliberate in their participatory efforts (Bryer forthcoming a; Shulman 2009).The use of social media and online tools might also simply replicate pre-existing bureaucratic and participatory processes (Brainard and McNutt 2010), thereby resulting in little meaningful institutional change (Fountain 2001). The use of the tools might also potentially lead to harmful democratic consequences that Bryer (2011) labels the costs of democratization. Published by De Gruyter,

6 Policy & Internet, Vol. 3 [2011], Iss. 4, Art. 3 Overview of Obama Administration Participation Efforts Public participation, citizen empowerment, transparency, and openness in government have been objectives of the Obama administration. On the President s first full day in office (January 21, 2009), he signed a Presidential Memorandum directed to the heads of the various federal departments and agencies that stated his commitment to and expectation for transparency, public engagement, and collaboration across agencies and organizations. On December 9, 2009, Office of Management and Budget Director, Peter Orszag, signed a memorandum to department and agency heads specifying the actions that needed to be taken to promote the values identified in the President s memorandum. Summarizing the values, Orszag noted that: The three principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration form the cornerstone of an open government. Transparency promotes accountability by providing the public with information about what the Government is doing. Participation allows members of the public to contribute ideas and expertise so that their government can make policies with the benefit of information that is widely dispersed in society. Collaboration improves the effectiveness of Government by encouraging partnerships and cooperation within the Federal Government, across levels of government, and between the Government and private institutions. (Orszag 2009, 1) The specific actions outlined by Orszag involved publication of government information online; improvement of the quality of government information; creation and institutionalization of a culture of open government; and creation of an enabling policy framework for open government. The core requirement was for each department and agency to prepare and publish an open government plan detailing what the open government objectives were and how they would be met. In asking agencies to develop new mechanisms for citizens to provide input, as well as to enhance representational qualities of public administration, the memorandum s public participation intent seems aligned with the direct democracy perspective. Although social media and networking tools allow for deliberative practice, this is not the focus of the Obama administration, nor indeed of local governments that have sought to use social media in their relations with citizens (Brainard and Derrick-Mills 2011; Hand and Ching 2011). The administration further experimented with social and Internet technologies to engage citizens with the White House, with Congress, and with each other. The administration has twice used a process of co-production of citizen participation (Bryer 2010) by asking citizens to convene community DOI: /

7 Bryer: Online Public Engagement in the Obama Administration forums at a time and place of their own choosing. Volunteer conveners received discussion questions but were otherwise left alone, the only request being that they report back on the discussions. In December 2008, during the transition from the Bush to the Obama administrations, citizens were asked to convene healthcare community forums. More than 3,200 such forums were convened around the country, and the Department of Health and Human Services issued a report several months later providing a thorough analysis of the information they received (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2009). Early in the administration s tenure, officials facilitated an electronic town hall meeting, with citizens invited to submit questions electronically that they wanted President Obama to address during the town hall. 1 Empowering citizens to decide which questions should be answered in the limited time of the town hall meeting, the President agreed to answer the questions receiving the most votes by citizens on an interactive website. More than 100,000 questions were submitted and 1.5 million votes cast. The President responded, to one degree or another, as promised, even to a question on whether marijuana legalization can be an effective economic stimulant. These initiatives, and the Obama administration s efforts at enhancing opportunities for public participation, are indeed unique in U.S. presidential history (Bryer forthcoming b). Without having completed one term, the Obama administration has demonstrated a greater commitment to engaging citizens directly in federal agency decision making than any previous administration. 2 Efforts by the Clinton and Bush administrations were more focused on customer service and transparency. Given these efforts and commitments, both in terms of public participation broadly speaking and use of online tools specifically, it is worth examining efforts of the Obama administration to date to suggest potential benefits, drawbacks, risks, and rewards. The framework for assessment used in this article is built around the metaphor of a democracy bubble. The Democracy Bubble Before discussing the democracy bubble, we ll consider here an example of an economic bubble: the housing value bubble that helped precipitate the 2008/2009 economic recession. Public policies and lender policies made it easier for consumers to participate in the housing market. Concurrently, lenders, government officials, real estate agents, and other consumers received The one exception being the Carter administration, which actively sought to restructure rules and procedures particularly to allow public involvement in rule-making processes. Published by De Gruyter,

8 Policy & Internet, Vol. 3 [2011], Iss. 4, Art. 3 information that housing prices were high and were only going to increase: i.e., that there was no losing gamble associated with a house purchase. While there were other factors at play in this case (such as predatory lending practices, issue of subprime mortgages, and use of complex financial instruments for trading mortgage-backed securities), the bubble would not have grown if consumers had not believed the expectation of ever-rising property values and if lending standards had not been relaxed so dramatically. Access to markets or to participatory venues is controlled institutionally and through regulatory bodies. Consumer or citizen expectations are shaped by social and cognitive forces, specifically the tendency for humans to seek shortcuts to making decisions, referred to as an informational (Bikhchandani, Hirshleifer, and Welch 1992) or availability cascade (Kuran and Sunstein 1999). An individual will not perform his own information search, critical analysis, or other examination if he perceives a decision made by those who preceded him to be credible. Such an information cascade enhances the perceived validity of the decision (Kuran and Sunstein 1999) as individuals rapidly converge on one action on the basis of some, but very little, information (Bikhchandani et al. 1992; 994). This herd behavior can be harmful to the individual, who may act in a manner opposed to his self-interest, and may be harmful to society, as complete information internalized by diverse actors is never explicitly considered in the context of the decision or action (Banerjee 1992). In terms of the housing bubble, perceptions regarding the ability to flip a house (or to never lose the original investment), particularly when combined with easy access lending opportunities (i.e., zero down, interest only loans), spread through an information cascade across networks of individuals, including individual consumers, amateur investors, and novice real estate agents. Each person took their cue from the last person to enter the market, expecting relatively easy profit, without critically examining the basis of the previous actors decisions. As more individuals adopted the perception, it came to be seen as absolute truth, thus expanding the bubble with an increasing number of illprepared consumers, investors, and agents. Bringing the discussion back to public participation we see one immediate parallel: access. As discussed previously, the Obama administration has increased access to participatory venues, with two of their three core values listed as public participation and transparency. Particularly through social networking and media technologies, citizens have an access to information and decision-making processes that is unparalleled in U.S. history. The question, then, is whether there is alignment with what the administration is delivering through new participatory venues, or if citizens are expecting to be able to influence decision making to a greater extent than they are able to, and if they trust the administration to do the right thing more than they should. Based on the alignment between citizen DOI: /

9 Bryer: Online Public Engagement in the Obama Administration expectations and government actions, and given high levels of citizen access, we can identify an equilibrium state, a democracy bubble (inflated expectations), and a democracy crater (deflated expectations) (Figure 1). Figure 1. Democratic Equilibrium and Less Optimal States The preferred position in Figure 1 is identified as the point where citizens have high levels of access to participatory venues, know what those venues are intended to achieve, and participate willingly given those expectations. More typical than the preferred position along the equilibrium line is partial access, such as that experienced in a public hearing. Citizens are limited in most public hearings in that they are required to travel to a designated location, prepare remarks of typically no more than three or so minutes, and don t receive guidance in that process for how to improve their argument. Citizens who have experience of public hearings may reside on the equilibrium line, or they may have slightly deflated expectations (leading potentially to democracy dropouts; bottom of Figure 1); those who are new to the process may enter with slightly inflated expectations and, based on their experience, either shift back to the equilibrium line, further inflate their expectations, or move in the opposite direction. A democracy bubble emerges when inflated citizen expectations are paired with high levels of citizen access. Inflated expectations can spread through communities based on the information and availability cascade principles. With Published by De Gruyter,

10 Policy & Internet, Vol. 3 [2011], Iss. 4, Art. 3 social networking technology both feeding into the administration s engagement efforts and being used as a tool in those engagement efforts, the potential for rapid diffusion of exaggerated expectations is perhaps more likely than without such networking tools. Analysis of select administration engagement tools below will suggest the emergence of a possible bubble. On the other hand, social dynamics associated with the debate and passage of health reform legislation throughout 2009 and early 2010, as well as what the Southern Poverty Law Center has classified as rage on the right (Potok 2010), mean we may be witnessing not the emergence of a bubble but the emergence of what will be referred to here as a democracy crater. This is where access remains high, particularly thanks to the widespread use of social networking and media tools, but citizen expectations are fully deflated; citizens have no faith or belief that the administration will deliver on promises or pay heed to what they have to say. In actuality, if citizens utilized the participatory venues available to them, they could feasibly make some difference in shaping decisions. Citizens expect less of government than what government can actually deliver. This article focuses primarily on these three positions preferred position, democracy bubble, and democracy crater (Figure 1). Two other positions are also identified, however. Let us assume, for discussion purposes, that the administration reacts to the rage on the right or the otherwise passionate citizens who administration officials perceive to be unfairly critical given administration intentions and actions. That reaction might take the form of limiting access that was previously granted more openly, for example, by closing certain social media and networking channels. Such action might perpetuate or exacerbate pre-existing deflated citizen expectations, resulting in democracy dropouts (Figure 1); citizens who have removed themselves from all efforts to engage and have their voice heard, despite real potential for influence. At this position, the costs of participating are exceedingly high (Cooper 1979). On the other side of the equilibrium line is the pairing of inflated citizen expectation and low access. The costs of citizen participation are high, but citizens may have received information through their networks suggesting that if they show up to a public meeting, or participate in an adversarial action, for example, they may be willing to pay the cost of engagement in anticipation of reward. However, that reward is not likely to be realized. This position is labeled as democracy demand but may just as easily be labeled as democracy disappointment. Citizens, after exerting energy and incurring cost, are bound to realize the futility of their actions, at least in terms of what they expected to accomplish through their involvement. After such experiences, citizens may be more likely to shift left either to equilibrium or further to become a democracy dropout. Table 1 summarizes the factors that lead to democracy bubbles, craters, dropouts, and demand, as well as citizen attributes for each category. DOI: /

11 Bryer: Online Public Engagement in the Obama Administration Table 1. Leading Factors and Citizen Attributes of Democracy Quadrants Democracy Quadrant Agency Contributing Factors Citizen Attributes Bubble Crater Dropouts Demand Preferred Position Bubble Deflation Ambiguous expectations communicated to citizens; open access for citizens to participate Ambiguous expectations communicated to citizens; open access for citizens to participate Ambiguous expectations communicated to citizens; closed access for citizens to participate Ambiguous expectations communicated to citizens; closed access for citizens to participate Clear, unambiguous expectations communicated to citizens; open access for citizens to participate Inflated citizen expectations; high trust; high efficacy; desire to participate in information exchange and deliberative process Deflated citizen expectations; low trust; low efficacy; desire to participate in adversarial action Deflated citizen expectations; low trust; low efficacy; no desire to participate at all Inflated citizen expectations; low trust; high efficacy; desire to participate but no opportunities for participation Balanced citizen expectations; high trust; balanced efficacy; desire for targeted participation Information and availability cascades can lead to a bubble s rapid deflation as well as its inflation: the exponential spread of information through networks can reverse with ease the apparent herd behaviors initially created. The fragility of a mass perception indicates the lack of intense commitment in society for any particular set of beliefs, certainly those beliefs related to politics, economy, or culture (Bikhchandani et al. 1992). Triggers for herd reversal can be several: Trigger events. Experiences of a citizen, prominent citizen, or the media can magnify the inflated citizen expectations. Assuming that the majority of citizens do not conduct their own search or analysis (i.e., absent critical judgment; Yankelovich 1991), such a shift in public opinion can deflate expectations. Published by De Gruyter,

12 Policy & Internet, Vol. 3 [2011], Iss. 4, Art. 3 Mismatched expectations. Citizens may become disillusioned when it becomes clear that they might not all be treated as political equals, that different participatory mechanisms might lead to different outcomes, and that citizens might be included in some issue areas but not all. Process failure. Participatory mechanisms, more intensive than voting, might be incapable of handling the masses attracted to the process, given citizen inflated expectations and ease of access. The housing bubble happened partly because the system was not designed to successfully manage the number of (often unqualified) participants in the housing market. If administration officials are not able to manage individuals who are not well informed, the mechanisms may crumble under their own weight (Shulman 2009), leading to deflated expectations. Lack of continuity. Unless participatory mechanisms are institutionalized in a manner consistent with citizen experience, subsequent administrations may disassemble them, leading to deflated expectations. The history of executive initiatives in the United States makes clear that this is a real threat. Whatever the cause of the bursting or deflating bubble, the consequences are likely to be similar: assuming access remains open, the herd will move rapidly towards the crater (Figure 1), leaving society and communities worse off than they were prior to the start of the administration s efforts. If access is closed, citizens will sink rapidly to become dropouts. Their expectations will be deflated, and they will be less likely to engage. The challenge is to ensure that expectations are properly managed and institutions properly designed to approximate the preferred position. Criteria for Analysis Selected administration participatory efforts are analyzed here, based on their degree of inclusiveness; the degree of power granted to citizens; the intensity of involvement expected of citizens; and the extent of substantive versus symbolic empowerment (i.e., experiences compared with expectations of the engaged). The first three elements are descriptive and based on Fung s (2006) democracy cube. The fourth element is evaluative and may be the core element in determining the probability of a bubble forming. Analysis focuses on the process of the engagement effort, and not the outcomes of the engagement effort. DOI: /

13 Bryer: Online Public Engagement in the Obama Administration Degree of inclusiveness. Who is invited to participate? Cooper, Bryer, and Meek (2006) break this question into three parts: number of invited citizens, types of citizen invited, and types of expertise invited. 3 Degree of power granted to citizens. Fung (2006) suggests citizens have either no authority or full authority on a continuum of citizen power. Options consist of: (1) personal benefits and no authority, (2) communicative influence, (3) advise and consent, (4) co-governance, and (5) direct authority. Intensity of involvement expected of citizens. Related to degree of power, Fung (2006) develops a continuum of engagement intensity, from least to most intense: (1) listen as a spectator, (2) express preferences, (3) develop preferences, (4) aggregate and bargain, (5) deliberate and negotiate, and (6) deploy technique and expertise. Extent of substantive versus symbolic empowerment (alignment). This element is evaluative and may be the core element in determining the probability of a bubble bursting or deflating. Assessment is based on the words used to introduce the participatory processes and the actual processes implemented. This is held as an indicator of citizen expectations: are citizens promised more than what is delivered or made available? For this analysis, over-promising or ambiguity is interpreted as inflated expectations. This represents a limitation of the analysis but allows for preliminary assessment that can lead to more detailed analysis that integrates citizen perception data. Three Cases: Engagement Process Assessment Three efforts are analyzed here, as a representative sample of the wide array of initiatives taken within the Obama administration. They are: open government plans for the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services (online mediated); forums on community healthcare and jobs creation (online mediated); and an electronic town hall meeting with President Obama. 4 3 Listed by Fung (2006) as expert administrators; elected representatives; professional stakeholders; lay stakeholders; random selection; open, targeted recruiting; open, self-selection; and diffuse public sphere. 4 Other initiatives undertaken by the administration include the Citizen s Briefing Book, Open for Questions with numerous agency heads and officials, and Twitter Town Hall. See the White House Office of Public Engagement: Published by De Gruyter,

14 Policy & Internet, Vol. 3 [2011], Iss. 4, Art. 3 Open Government Plans The December 9, 2009, U.S. Office of Management and Budget memorandum required that agencies in the federal government develop an open government plan focusing on how agencies would develop or facilitate enhanced transparency, collaboration, and public participation. Agencies were required to unveil an open government website by February 6, 2010 with a URL common across agencies. 5 Agencies were also required on the same day to request public comment on how to enhance transparency, collaboration, and public participation. 6 Citizen input was expected to be incorporated into draft open government plans, to be released for additional citizen comment on April 7, To manage the public comment process, most agencies utilized highly interactive technology provided by IdeaScale, which allows users to post ideas, respond to the ideas of others, and vote ideas as favorable or unfavorable. Twenty-three agencies utilized the IdeaScale technology for public involvement, 7 resulting in 2,188 ideas posted; 21,706 votes cast on the favorability of ideas; and 3,443 comments offered in response to posted ideas. 8 In the Department of Education, 109 ideas were offered; 1,396 votes cast; and 209 comments made in response to ideas. Seventy-seven unique authors contributed either ideas or suggestions. Citizens were invited by the Department of Education to submit your ideas about what ED can do to further improve transparency, participation, and collaboration. 9 Terms of participation for the site were posted online, in order to establish the ground rules for participation. 10 Rules specifically sought to mitigate against offensive or abusive material from being posted. Some agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), used a simpler blog technology to receive citizen input. 11 With this technology, citizens were invited to post ideas, and users could respond to what other users wrote (there was no voting process in place). HHS asked for feedback in five areas: (1) Leadership and Governance, (2) Transparency, (3) Participation, (4) Collaboration, and (5) Innovation. Citizens were informed that their input was welcome, with the welcome notice stating that we are eager to get your thoughts ( 5 Following the form: 6 Comment period open until March 19, For example, the U.S. Department of Education: DOI: /

15 Bryer: Online Public Engagement in the Obama Administration Assessment. Participation in the open government plan discussions was open to all citizens (with an Internet connection), with no pre-requisites for expertise. Using Fung s continuum of degrees of power, citizens invited to participate in the open government plan discussions were doing so either with personal benefits and no authority or, at the most, the ability to influence through their messaging. The extent to which agency officials paid attention to citizen input is unclear, as neither agency detailed precisely how they would read or interpret the multitude of comments. Analysis of U.S. Department of Homeland Security records, however, suggests that the agency did not in any systematic way integrate citizen feedback or input into their final Open Government Plan (Contreras et al. 2010). Similar analyses can be conducted with all other agencies. As citizens were limited in their power, they were also limited in the intensity of their involvement. They were given opportunity to express their preferences and to possibly develop preferences but to a limited degree. The technologies allowed for possible give-and-take dialogue but not in an easy manner. Defined purposes of the engagement effort were somewhat ambiguous: while citizens were told that their advice was sought and that their thoughts were valued, citizens also had the opportunity to assign their own expectations to the process, and the agencies were not bound to deliver specific outcomes. Community Forums In December 2008 and 2009, the Obama administration (or the transition team initially) called on citizens to convene community forums on important issues the administration planned to address: healthcare and jobs creations. A total of 3,276 forums were convened on healthcare in 2008; the administration has not released data on the number of forums convened in 2009 on jobs creation. An official report released by HHS in 2009 analyzed citizen feedback at the healthcare forum: Over 9,000 Americans in all 50 states and the District of Columbia signed up during the holiday season to host a Health Care Community Discussion and thousands more participated in these gatherings (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2009, 5). The White House Office of Public Engagement invited citizens to convene community jobs forums with the following message: This Thursday, the President is hosting a discussion at the White House to explore every possible avenue for job creation( ) But you don t need to be at the event in DC to participate. Today we re announcing nationwide community job forums that will run from November 30th through January 7th. These discussions( )will be a source of insights and ideas that will inform the President s approach to job creation. Back here Published by De Gruyter,

16 Policy & Internet, Vol. 3 [2011], Iss. 4, Art. 3 at the White House, we ll compile the feedback into a report that will be sent to the Oval Office for review. (White House 2009) In both cases, the administration provided discussion questions and asked forum conveners to send notes from the discussions back to the White House. All communications were managed through or web forms. Assessment. Like the open government plan discussions, a wide array of citizens was invited to participate in the forums. The process of inviting citizens was driven by forum conveners using a co-production process of civic engagement, in which local citizens produced the engagement experience according to a framework provided by the administration. Given that the invitations came from many different forum conveners nationwide, it cannot be determined whether participation was fully open in all cases or if conveners also used a system of targeted recruiting. Over 3,276 group reports were submitted by Health Care Community Discussion hosts to the Change.gov reporting website. Of the 72 percent of the reports categorizable by participant type, over 75 percent were attended by a majority of everyday Americans, 16 percent were attended by a majority of healthcare providers, and 8 percent were attended by a majority of members of advocacy organizations (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2009, 24). Sixty-three percent of participants came from the south and west United States; 8 percent came from rural areas; 35 percent had incomes of $25,000 or less. No data on participants have been released for the jobs forum (as of August 26, 2011). Given citizens were guided through discussion questions provided by the administration, on the understanding that their input could inform the policymaking process, citizens were offered what Fung (2006) terms communicative influence. The intensity of involvement may have varied forum to forum, due to the co-produced nature of the engagement process: by asking volunteer citizens to serve as conveners, the administration lost any precise control over how the forums were conducted. As such, each of the six of Fung s points along the intensity of involvement continuum may have been realized in at least one forum: citizens may have listened as spectators to a panel of experts; they may have shared their preferences orally or in writing; and they may have developed their preferences through a learning process. Conveners may also have facilitated a group consensus on certain ideas: thus aggregating/bargaining and deliberating/negotiating may have been expected. The co-production model allows for wide variation in implementation of the engagement process. DOI: /

17 Bryer: Online Public Engagement in the Obama Administration In terms of stated aims, the forums were pitched (at the very least) as opportunities for citizens to discuss matters of national importance, for example, to discuss reforming the health care system (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2009, 5). At the most, they were pitched as opportunities to inform the President s decision making, for example, the jobs discussions being a source of insights and ideas that will inform the President s approach to job creation (White House 2009). Reasons given by five forum conveners as to why they volunteered their time are consistent with these twin expectations of discussing and informing (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2009, 23). In terms of actual policymaking, however, the extent to which these forums have been tools to inform is perhaps questionable. The HHS report was released in March 2009 after the healthcare debate commenced, and the report was never acknowledged by the President in public remarks on healthcare reform, nor was it ever the subject of Congressional inquiry in any formalized manner. There may thus be a mismatch between promised expectations and what was implemented. Electronic Town Hall Early in President Obama s term in office, the White House announced an electronic town hall meeting called Open for Questions. The President was situated in the White House, surrounded by invited guests, and the event streamed live online. The majority of questions answered by the President were chosen by citizens; they submitted questions online and voted on questions to ask. The top voted questions received a response from the President. 12 In total, 92,937 people submitted 103,978 questions, and cast 1,782,650 votes in the fortnight leading up to the event. Attempting to read and vote on all submitted questions could be problematic, given the vast number submitted. Assessment. As with the open government plans discussions, this process was open to all. No information was collected regarding the background or expertise of the questioner, and thus there was no discrimination based on demographics of the questioner, except for the demographic constraints that might prevent an individual from accessing the web. In this case the power granted to citizens was explicit: by posting and voting they could express their preferences for questions to be answered by President Obama at the town hall meeting. There was no mechanism for deliberation between citizens regarding the questions that could be asked; engagement was based on individual posting and voting actions. There 12 Published by De Gruyter,

18 Policy & Internet, Vol. 3 [2011], Iss. 4, Art. 3 were no stated expectations beyond those regarding policy action or involvement, and involvement was limited to the one event. This is the least ambiguous participatory process of the three analyzed. Citizens had a clear indication of what they could ask, how they could vote, and thus how they could potentially influence the questions that President Obama addressed during the town hall meeting. The President responded according to that expectation. Summary of Cases Table 2 summarizes the general findings from the three examples using the evaluative criteria. 13 Overall, there appears to be the potential for a bubble to emerge. For one, access to these participatory venues is wide open: even fully web-based systems can be accessed by individuals if they have local libraries or other entities that might provide such access. Secondly, expectations have the potential to be inflated, as the promises (except in the case of Open for Questions) are somewhat ambiguous. In the community forums, citizens may participate given their perception that the administration will listen to what they have to say but then find, as in the case of the healthcare forums, that their words, collectively, were not explicitly recognized during debate. In the case of jobs forums, the President released his set of jobs creation policy ideas a couple of days after citizens were invited to give input. In the forums, there was one indicator that the administration paid attention to stories told. One woman who participated in a forum at the University of Central Florida told a particularly compelling story about her and her family s challenge to get affordable health insurance, given pre-existing conditions and other challenges. The forum convener repeated her story in the report sent to the White House; that woman was later invited to attend the State of the Union as the First Lady s guest in 2010 (College of Health and Public Affairs 2010). Thus, at least, compelling stories of citizens may have been transmitted and heard by the administration, if not policy ideas (Bryer 2009). 13 To further substantiate the assessments, it would be helpful (particularly in examining citizen expectations) to collect information directly from citizens. Privacy restrictions unfortunately prevent access by the author to the personally identifiable information necessary to contact citizen participants, though efforts to access such data continue. DOI: /

19 Bryer: Online Public Engagement in the Obama Administration Table 2. Summary of Findings Degree of Inclusiveness Degree of Power Granted to Citizens Intensity of Involvement Expected of Citizens Extent of Substantive versus Symbolic Empowerment Likelihood of a Bubble Forming Open Government Plans Open to all citizens, with option for administrators to edit citizen comments Personal benefits and no authority, or ability to influence through messaging Expression of preferences primarily Ambiguous expectations Community Forums Cannot be determined, given the decentralized approach to participant recruitment Communicative influence through participation in forums Cannot be determined, given the decentralized approach to meeting implementation Clear expectations to discuss and inform the President s approach to policy, but no clear follow-through by the administration High High Low Electronic Town Hall Open to all citizens Preference setting for the President to respond to certain questions at a town hall meeting Expression of preferences Explicit with no ambiguity Policy Recommendations Three policy recommendations are suggested here in order to mitigate the formation of a democracy bubble or, if it forms, limiting its damage if (or when) it deflates. These are intended not as single participation project recommendations but as administration and government-wide policies to be adopted. If they are adopted, individual participation projects can be implemented in a more strategic, integrated, and consistent manner. The three recommendations are: 1. Ensure that citizen expectations are managed, and capacities for meeting expectations are established. Published by De Gruyter,

20 Policy & Internet, Vol. 3 [2011], Iss. 4, Art Be explicit about under what conditions, and with which policy issues, citizens are given power. 3. Provide agency officials with the tools required to moderate online discussion, and educate citizens on how to effectively communicate their interests. 1. Managing Expectations A bubble (and a deflating bubble) can be avoided through administration actions that ensure expectations are managed and capacities for meeting expectations for both administration officials and citizens are established. Participatory mechanisms that are ambiguous in their intent can allow citizens to develop and assign their own expectations to the processes. For instance, citizens in the open government plan discussion process may participate expecting that if their idea receives the most votes of support from other users of the system, it will be adopted by the agency. This is not necessarily the case; indeed, it is possible that a good idea that received no votes may be adopted whereas an idea with multiple votes is not. Either path is a possibility, but neither path is offered as such in establishing expectations for citizens. In this example, citizens had a real opportunity, with a good idea, to influence agency policies, but expectations were ambiguous. On the other hand, in the Open for Questions case, there was no ambiguity in expectations defined or delivered, but power to influence was limited to what question the President would answer at a single meeting. 2. Making Intentions Explicit It may be appropriate for the administration to give different amounts of power to citizens in different issue or management areas, but if this is done, as above, expectations would best be made explicit. Likewise, if some citizens are excluded from certain conversations, reason would best be given. For example, the administration has asked for community forums on healthcare and jobs creation, but they have not asked for community forums on immigration, education, climate change, or other issues. With such variation in processes devised across issue areas, citizens may at first become involved but then lose faith, leading to the democracy crater (Figure 1). If the administration is clear in explaining why citizens are given what power in which issue areas, they can ensure equilibrium. 3. Providing Tools to Administrators The capacity of the administration to manage a potential influx of citizens into participatory processes is vital, particularly if participating citizens are not fully DOI: /

21 Bryer: Online Public Engagement in the Obama Administration capable of engaging with more complex issues. Part of the capacity is to ensure that administration and agency officials have the skills necessary to moderate and facilitate both online and offline meetings. Additionally, in order to facilitate the development of citizen capacity, officials might develop tools for educating the citizenry on policy issues while engaging them and soliciting their input. Without education, citizens may at first feel empowered but may then quickly realize their limitations, particularly once they read ideas and comments from citizens they perceive to be more informed. Conclusion Ultimately, this assessment is positive in outlook. Extending and enhancing access gives citizens the opportunity to develop their citizenship skills, potentially influence policy, and potentially become better connected to community life. The Obama administration can be applauded for participatory innovations, but officials need to proceed strategically to ensure that innovations do not produce more harm than good, and to ensure that the real change they are producing is not whisked away in the next administration as rapidly as an information cascade infects the citizenry. If government agency officials do not unambiguously state the degree of power, inclusiveness, or intensity of involvement for citizens in participatory processes and concurrently open the door wide for full citizen participation, a democracy bubble might emerge in which citizen trust and expectations of efficacy are inflated. Spread through the masses powered by the human desire for cognitive shortcuts to decision making, inflated expectations may inevitably deflate particularly if agency officials do not have the capacity needed to manage the influx of citizen participation in a low-cost environment. This is more likely the rule than the exception in the cases of web-mediated or fully online participatory processes of the kind initiated by the Obama administration. One of the three initiatives examined here was explicit in setting citizen expectations and following through with those expectations. For the other two initiatives, expectations were ambiguously defined, and administration followthrough was limited. Without strategic enhancements, the administration may be on the verge of creating a democracy bubble with significant costs of democratization in the form of reduced citizen trust and efficacy. This would indeed be a bubble the nation could ill afford to see burst. Published by De Gruyter,