Q&A: Two experts share insights into the new digital participation platform ratings

This week People Powered released the second edition of its ratings of digital participation platforms (DPPs). To offer a little more insight into the dynamics of this fast-evolving technology sector, our communications director, Pam Bailey, interviewed two members of the review committee that developed the ratings: Stéphane Dubé, who also served on the committee last year and a director of the Institut du Nouveau Monde in Quebec, and Caroline Khene, principal researcher with MobiSAM in South Africa and a faculty member at the UK’s DeMontfort University. Below is an edited version of the interview.

I always like to start these kinds of interviews by asking what motivated you to focus your career on civic tech?

Stéphane: There’s a French comic strip called Asterix and Obelix. And the guy, Obelix, is superhumanly powerful, because he fell in a cauldron of magic potion when he was an infant. We have an expression that’s like that, saying that once you’re “born” into it, it's always in you.

My love for computer science is like that. It began when I discovered computers at the age of 12. I never specialized in it. Instead, I focused my career on politics and administration. But I’m always looking for ways to incorporate computers.

So, when civic tech began to evolve, including online software to facilitate public participation in government, it was natural for me to be interested. I became the expert within my organization and we connected with People Powered.

A better mode of public participation is also personal for me, since there is always an ongoing debate in Quebec about whether to be in or out of Canada, because we're a French-speaking people and the citizens are always thinking about who they are, and to what they belong: a Canadian state or a Quebec one.

And honestly, I didn’t like this discussion about whether you are for or against one option. I thought that there has to be another way, a middle way—a nonpartisan space to discuss it. And at my organization, we are offering a public-participation process that is neutral, that allows both sides to talk in the same place and look for a new solution, a middle solution. My career is based on that.

Caroline: My general field is skill development in information and communication technology, specifically for international development. I am very interested in how we can use technology to support sustainable development. But when I got involved in such projects, we always hit a brick wall, because there was limited support from the government. So, I set out to determine what the government was willing and able to give to citizens, and how we could engage to hold them accountable for actually doing it.

That's when I decided to go into civic tech. I chose to focus on service delivery first, beginning in a town in South Africa, because during the drought, we were experiencing so many water cuts. So, I thought, how can we address this? Luckily, I had a friend who had started a project called MobiSAM (Mobile Social Accountability Monitoring), in partnership with a civil society organization called PSAM (Public Service Accountability Monitor). They merged their social accountability monitoring process with digital technology. But for the first two years, they applied a very adversarial approach with the government. Thus, there was a lot of resistance.

In 2015, they asked me to join, because of my information systems background. Now, we’ve also started a sister project that monitors access to sexual reproductive health services for youth in southern Africa. It allows adolescent youth to anonymously report issues related to the taboo culture.

It has opened a real space for youth to speak to health service providers. The health care providers we interviewed say they've never seen so many youths come to the clinic. They weren’t aware how scared they were about coming to the clinic. And it’s producing results. In Eswatini, for example, the government has taken it up fully, and they're trying to integrate it into their health system. Other counties, like Zimbabwe and, surprisingly, South Africa have struggled a bit to implement it. It always comes down to the people involved. No matter how much we use technology, it’s still about people power.

You know I agree with that! When working on the ratings, what particular “lens” did you apply?

Stéphane: There's two for me. People tend to use civic tech as the online version of what they do in person. But in person and online are different and they need to be implemented differently. So I looked for a sensitivity to that.

And the second is an acute awareness that too many platforms pretend they can do everything. It's like Microsoft saying it can solve all needs with one software program. But my position is no, they can’t. We must look at civic tech not as one platform for all needs, but as a tool or collection of tools that must be chosen depending on the needs. Think about your population, the issues you want to solve, is civic tech a good way to get the answers, etc.

Users of our ratings need to remember that it's not like buying a TV or refrigerator. Each platform has different functions and features. It’s like evaluating mobility devices. There are motorcycles, buses, cars, etc. They each do different things, although they all can take you somewhere.  I’d like to say this to users of our ratings: There are a lot of platforms, and we’ve divided them into categories and then rated each one according to different criteria. But don’t view them as an indication of which platform is the best. Rather, we help make sense of the “jungle” out there.

First discuss internally what your needs are: Why do you want to use a platform? What do you want to get from it? What kind of decisions do you need to make? What kind of information do you want to collect? Get those answers before going on the market. Based on that, look for what you need. Select two, three or four; prepare a list of questions based on your case; then contact them for a demo. Don't just choose the first one on the list.

One last note: Look for what you need now. If a small, narrowly focused tool can help for a particular process, go for it. Especially if it's inexpensive and easy to acquire, manage and stop using if necessary. With a more complex platform that requires more money to install or prepare, it’s more difficult to exit. You also may not be able to transfer all your information to another platform or tool. That’s important to think about.

Even if you need more than one tool, you might be able to use a collection of specific ones, like Zoom, Survey Monkey and even your own website. Of course, using one platform has its advantages as well, like having everything connected and in one place. The point is to think carefully about all these options.

Caroline: I evaluated the ethics aspect of how platforms operate. Because of the extent of modern government surveillance, it’s really important that platforms are clear about their policies related to moderation, who has access to the data, how the data is used, whether users are allowed to be anonymous, etc. Basically, we’re talking about the responsible use of data and the protection of users.

I work mainly in southern Africa, and we couldn't identify any civic tech platforms that were developed in an African country. That really surprised me. 

This map shows the location of respondents to our survey of digital participation platform users. Note the relative lack of users in Africa.

Platforms developed in the north don’t take into consideration the unique context of the Global South. For example, government surveillance is a serious concern in East Africa. How do platforms protect citizens who register their opinions about services that are not available, for example? It's important for platform operators to know who the actors are and how to engage governments in a discussion of the importance of respecting the views of citizens. And it will vary with each context.

Most of the platforms just have a generic data policy limited to the operators’ own websites. The policies don’t cover how their platforms or the data collected are used, or even explain that this is determined by client governments.

Stéphane, this was your second year working on the DPP ratings with us. What was different this time?

Stéphane: We focused more on ethics this year, which is why Caroline’s contributions were so important. There are two ways of approaching the subject of ethics: The first focuses on the company that developed the platform. Is it really dedicated to citizen empowerment? Or is it more for public relations? For example, when moderating comments, does it allow the sponsor to cut opinions that aren’t perceived as “good,” or to otherwise arrange them to fit its needs? We need to protect against censorship and assure that citizens’ voices are heard.

We also focused more this year on the extent to which a platform is open source. There are platforms that are fully open source, which means you can download it. Others are “core open source,” but specific features are not. And then there are platforms that are completely proprietary. Normally, open source is better, because it is made totally for citizens and the community can see how it works. But there can be downsides, like a lack of implementation support. Some people choose proprietary platforms because that’s critical for them. And that’s fine, as long as the platform is transparent about its practices. In future ratings, we may want to have one set of criteria for open-source tools and another for those that are proprietary.

I hear from some parts of the world that low-tech tools are more practical than the more complex platforms we focused on in our ratings. Is that a major concern?

Stéphane: The way I see it, there's two separate worlds out there: the low-tech people using low-tech tools and then the high-tech people mostly in Europe, North America, and some Asian and South American countries. It's because there's an industry in those countries that’s developing more sophisticated civic tech tools.

Our clients and partners are always talking like Facebook or Twitter don’t qualify as civic tech, because they are only “social networks.” But people are expressing themselves on subjects there. That's participation. The me-too movement is a form of civic participation—people declaring a point of view and other people taking it up. That's civic participation in my view.

The civic tech world talks only about platforms, but civic tech is broader than that. I fight this mindset everywhere. When we have an issue we want to tackle, we should consider everything from in-person, to direct-messaging, groups and social media, to specialized tools. But most of the civic tech industry just wants to sell their platforms. That’s why, in the future, I hope People Powered will expand its ratings to even low-tech digital tools. There’s an example in this year’s ratings, called Loomio, a tool that facilitates collaboration between citizens.

Caroline: In Africa, many governments are not sufficiently digitally aware. But it’s also a matter of their commitment to transparency and citizen engagement. So, it's very important to work with them to build their knowledge of what counts as protection, etc. Likewise, NGOs and other elements of civil society, which often push for the use of participation platforms, must negotiate with them.

There's always the question, “Whose platform is this? Who should manage it?” Otherwise, users will wonder if they can trust how the data are handled. For example, if you’re operating in a very political space like South Africa, with so many different, sparring political parties, our experience from working in a local municipality shows that the government will always be a bit wary of their flaws being exposed. If they run or even have access to the platform, they want to censor certain questions or delete certain comments. The other fear is that citizens who say certain things will be targeted, especially if they're activists. It's a tricky balance to get right.

These kinds of sophisticated platforms are being implemented in some areas of eastern West Africa. But not to much extent. The tools you find are mainly to inform citizens, and for citizens to use to report an issue. In a lot of African countries, it is difficult to get the government to trust and citizens to trust. And because they cannot trust, they cannot engage effectively. That has been a huge challenge. We're working to find a balance. We’re making progress, but it's difficult to work with certain governments.

As far as the technology itself, the skills required to use it vary a lot by context as well. The private tech sector has grown significantly in South Africa and can support the government. And Kenya is quite advanced in the use of technology as well. But countries like Uganda, Tanzania, and others in Eastern Africa face more of a challenge.

Still, the more sophisticated platforms can offer a more effective way for people to engage with the government, and to be more knowledgeable about what's happening around them. So, I would still push for and encourage their uptake. What we must focus on is building capacity, digital abilities and digital equity. There's so much potential, but most students in this field go to the private sector, which isn’t very government focused. It's only been recently that civic tech has taken off.

To progress, we must appeal to the government's self-interest. So, for example, there was a drought-stricken area in South Africa and infrastructure was really bad. There were burst pipes all over the place, and it led to a terrible waste of water. The government saw that it needed to do something; otherwise, business would leave and the universities would be affected. That was the incentive needed to get the government interested in engaging with residents. But it took a long time. Organizations must be willing to wait to see some sort of change.

What do you predict for the future of civic tech?

Stéphane: The market is stabilizing, but there is still room for growth, especially in the use of artificial intelligence and language translations. Another area for improvement is sentiment analysis. For example, computers are still not that good at correctly interpreting irony, when what you say is opposite of what you mean. And then there’s the use of artificial intelligence to help manage large consultation with maybe millions of comments. We don’t have that yet, but it's coming.

You know, maybe 80-90% of consultations are based on a single, time-limited subject with definite beginning and end. But I’ve also seen a few platforms offer ongoing thematic discussions, perhaps on the budget, public security or public health, allowing a look at the evolution of a population’s needs and opinions. For example, in Montreal a child was hurt in the midst of a fight with guns and we had a big exchange about that for a few months. Government officials often don’t like that because it’s harder to control and is not as focused on coming to a particular solution. But it’s possible, so that engagement is ongoing. It’s usually seen more in smaller communities when there is the required trust.

And then, of course, there is always both a good side and a bad side to every technology. So optimism must be paired with caution.