Difference between revisions of "Process and planning"
(first stab) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | ====Limited Resources==== | |
| + | [http://www.wheel.ie The Wheel] met initially with the [http://www.e-consultation.org/ research team]. [http://www.wheel.ie The Wheel] team made it clear that it had little resources to fully fund the proposed e-consultation. | ||
| + | |||
| + | =====Agreement====== | ||
| + | Following a number of meetings between the [http://www.e-consultation.org/ research team] and the Wheel, a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ was drawn up and agreed upon by [http://www.wheel.ie the Wheel] and the research team. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The [http://www.e-consultation.org/ research team] agreed to: | ||
| + | *An agreement on confidentiality | ||
| + | *An agreed embargo on the release of information, data protection and costs | ||
| + | Also, the E-Consultation Research Project would provide: | ||
| + | *Expertise in identifying appropriate technology for the e-consultation | ||
| + | *A consultation website, which would include discussion forums. These forums would be accessed online, by e-mail, mobile phone and land-line phones. | ||
| + | *Technical support during the consultation | ||
| + | *Training to [http://www.wheel.ie Wheel] personnel on running and maintaining an e-consultation | ||
| + | |||
| + | [http://www.wheel.ie the Wheel] agreed to: | ||
| + | *Allowing the [http://www.e-consultation.org/ researchers] to conduct surveys with consultation participants before and after the e-consultation trial. | ||
| + | *To conduct in-depth interviews with [http://www.wheel.ie the Wheel] personnel, again before and after the e-consultation. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | =====Why the need for before and after research?===== | ||
| + | Surveys and interviews before and after the e-consultation allowed the [http://www.e-consultation.org/ researchers] to discern whether consulters/consultees expectations for technology and quality of participation had been met in the course of the trial. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
The idea of eliciting experiences or ‘stories’ from participants was identified as a key way of | The idea of eliciting experiences or ‘stories’ from participants was identified as a key way of | ||
gaining information. The experiences and views of Irish people about active citizenship would | gaining information. The experiences and views of Irish people about active citizenship would | ||
| − | enrich any report | + | enrich any report [http://www.wheel.ie the Wheel] submitted to the [http://www.activecitizen.ie/ Task Force on Active Citizenship]. As such, the experiences and views would be people’s own understanding of active citizenship, rather than what the [http://www.activecitizen.ie/ Task Force on Active Citizenship] or [http://www.wheel.ie The Wheel team] thinks active citizenship might be. |
| − | own understanding of active citizenship, rather than what the | + | |
| − | + | ||
| − | The staff at | + | The staff at [http://www.wheel.ie the Wheel] did not have time to moderate a discussion forum, so it was decided between the [http://www.e-consultation.org/ research team] and [http://www.wheel.ie the Wheel] to develop a site specifically to collect these stories, but not discuss them. [http://www.wheel.ie The Wheel] would not engage directly with the views posted during the course of the e-consultation, but would use the data gathered to inform a future submission to the Task Force. |
| − | between the research team and the Wheel to develop a site specifically to collect these stories, | + | |
| − | but not discuss them. The Wheel would not engage directly with the views posted during the | + | The [http://www.e-consultation.org/ research team] were keen to point out that a feedback mechanism must be incorporated into the process so that participants would be informed of overall progress with the [http://www.activecitizen.ie/ Task Force on Active Citizenship], but also, and critically, that participants would be able to evaluate whether or not their own submissions were seriously considered by the Wheel in its final submission. |
| − | course of the e-consultation, but would use the data gathered to inform a future submission to | + | |
| − | the Task Force. | + | Lastly, the [http://www.e-consultation.org/ research team] strongly emphasized the importance of publicising the e-consultation prior to its launch. The problem of ‘recruiting’ participants to engage in consultation is a central issue with many processes. To this end, [http://www.wheel.ie the Wheel] outlined a strategy including e-mailing lists, postcards, and if necessary phoning members in order to encourage them to participate. |
| − | The research team were keen to point out that a feedback mechanism must be incorporated into | ||
| − | the process so that participants would be informed of overall progress with the Task Force, but | ||
| − | also, and critically, that participants would be able to evaluate whether or not their own | ||
| − | submissions were seriously considered by the Wheel in its final submission. | ||
| − | Lastly, the research team strongly emphasized the importance of publicising the e-consultation | ||
| − | prior to its launch. The problem of ‘recruiting’ participants to engage in consultation is a central | ||
| − | issue with many processes. To this end, the Wheel outlined a strategy including e-mailing lists, | ||
| − | postcards, and if necessary phoning members in order to encourage them to participate. | ||
Revision as of 22:30, 12 April 2007
Limited Resources
The Wheel met initially with the research team. The Wheel team made it clear that it had little resources to fully fund the proposed e-consultation.
Agreement=
Following a number of meetings between the research team and the Wheel, a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ was drawn up and agreed upon by the Wheel and the research team.
The research team agreed to:
- An agreement on confidentiality
- An agreed embargo on the release of information, data protection and costs
Also, the E-Consultation Research Project would provide:
- Expertise in identifying appropriate technology for the e-consultation
- A consultation website, which would include discussion forums. These forums would be accessed online, by e-mail, mobile phone and land-line phones.
- Technical support during the consultation
- Training to Wheel personnel on running and maintaining an e-consultation
the Wheel agreed to:
- Allowing the researchers to conduct surveys with consultation participants before and after the e-consultation trial.
- To conduct in-depth interviews with the Wheel personnel, again before and after the e-consultation.
Why the need for before and after research?
Surveys and interviews before and after the e-consultation allowed the researchers to discern whether consulters/consultees expectations for technology and quality of participation had been met in the course of the trial.
The idea of eliciting experiences or ‘stories’ from participants was identified as a key way of gaining information. The experiences and views of Irish people about active citizenship would enrich any report the Wheel submitted to the Task Force on Active Citizenship. As such, the experiences and views would be people’s own understanding of active citizenship, rather than what the Task Force on Active Citizenship or The Wheel team thinks active citizenship might be.
The staff at the Wheel did not have time to moderate a discussion forum, so it was decided between the research team and the Wheel to develop a site specifically to collect these stories, but not discuss them. The Wheel would not engage directly with the views posted during the course of the e-consultation, but would use the data gathered to inform a future submission to the Task Force.
The research team were keen to point out that a feedback mechanism must be incorporated into the process so that participants would be informed of overall progress with the Task Force on Active Citizenship, but also, and critically, that participants would be able to evaluate whether or not their own submissions were seriously considered by the Wheel in its final submission.
Lastly, the research team strongly emphasized the importance of publicising the e-consultation prior to its launch. The problem of ‘recruiting’ participants to engage in consultation is a central issue with many processes. To this end, the Wheel outlined a strategy including e-mailing lists, postcards, and if necessary phoning members in order to encourage them to participate.
