The Transformative Power of Games on Participatory Governance

The Transformative Power of Games on Participatory Governance

Government is the manifestation of a social contract created by citizens for rules to which everyone agrees to abide in exchange for support and protection.  Presently there are limitations on the direct impact that citizens can have on government apart from voting in elections or running for office.  Often in these participatory activities, there is little direct feedback which does not excite citizens.  Games can be used to create new avenues for public participation that will provide feedback, build communities and improve both the structure and social collective of the country.

In the public arena, games are usually considered in two contexts.  The first is that of political manipulation which is incredibly harmful to overall outcomes as it inhibits honest interactions between groups.  The other game context is that of game theory, which is where individuals can make strategic choices to positively impact themselves, and can also decide whether or not to assist others.  Games should also be considered in a third context- as a tool to encourage development of ideas and participation.  People are attracted to games because they are entertaining, have purpose, and foster creativity.  Dr. Jane McGonigal (2010) spoke on the potential for online games to solve real world problems (:10).  Through her research and work at the Institute for the future, games were developed that produced an array of unique solutions to real world problems (17:26).  This is an imaginative use of a technology to create new ideas, practices and communities.  However, there is a step following idea production that needs to be addressed: the pathway between the ideas and decision makers in government.  Government can benefit from the contributions of its citizens in areas of improved operations, problem identification, potential policy solutions, and conceptualization of American priorities

If the government was to use online game dynamics for increased participation, some adjustments would be needed as with any change.  In order for people be interested in this opportunity there must be access to information (while protecting classified information), willingness to consider proposed ideas, idea uptake and implementations, and feedback to citizens.  Structures of games can be revised to best fit with the proper context.  For instance, there could be a government improvement scale where individuals or groups receive a point number depending on their contributions.  If the practice gains a following, the scale rating will gain legitimacy and impact- it could be included on a resume for public and private industry.  Another option could be a connection between legislators and citizens in their respective legislative districts.  Citizens could collectively develop questions or problems present in the community and propose potential solutions.  Citizens would use a moderation system where ideas can be liked or not by peers, the ideas with high approval ratings would be near the top of the list.  Legislators would receive updates and there would be increased expectation of effort in the specified areas.

.

The following flowchart is how I envision the dynamic between government and citizens evolving if participatory outlets are created using games:

Government à ePA technology + gaming à ideas + uptake à feedback à changed government dynamic à responsive, better government à improved social contract relationship between citizens and government

The relationship between citizens and government would be altered through this form of participation; citizens would have the opportunity to be innovative leaders on a small scale.  This would cause different expectations.  For instance, there is a difference between government information being accessible and being transparent.  A practical example is navigating government accounting systems.  If people are working on revisions of content using game dynamics, there would be increased expectations of transparency.   The purpose of using games is to optimize individual motivation to solve problems in conjunction with government update and feedback to improve the overall function and facilitate dialogue to create a stronger, healthier democracy.

Project Abstract

There are unique dynamics that shape the way business is conducted in the public sector.  This paper will examine the dynamics of government and politics in the context of a game culture.  People operate in games differently than in other interactions and use of a game philosophy may lead to new interactions and outcomes.  Technology has a role in its ability for candidates and government employees to access and be reached the public.  Public scrutiny may enhance the game dynamic of the public sector, as demonstrated by content on social media sites during elections.  People can be more creative in game situations but there are limitations on government performance in certain situations using game dynamics.  For instance, the advisarial nature of modern elections can be vicious in the tactics used to defeat opponents.  Since public service is the highest priority in government, an assessment of appropriate use of game dynamics in the public sector will be discussed.  Government should utilize game dynamics to create enthusiasm, generate new ideas to problems, and to improve society, but should not be used if damaging to citizen welfare.

Reaction to "Facebook Skeletons Come Out"

The article “The Facebook Skeletons Come Out” in the New York Times by Jeremy Peters and Brian Stelter discusses the backlash on candidates who have pictures of themselves posted on Facebook.  Three candidates during the current election had to justify or distance themselves from photos or video posted on Facebook from years past.  This issue is relevant because social media sites such as Facebook are so widely used by the populace- people in my “generation” began using Facebook in college and have had pictures posted over the years.  The issue is that in modern political campaigns, opponents relish embarrassing each other and using personal information to do so is a rather standard tactic.  However, with so many people using Facebook, the presence of photos from years past may be a more universal for candidates of all political affiliations.  The behavior of young people is not new, but having a technology make such behavior publicly available is.  Candidates prior to social networking sites did not have to consider the ramifications for every event attended at any point in their youth the way that future candidates will have to.  Krystal Ball, one of the candidates discussed in the article, had a comment that brought the issue home, “…I would have to have some young man or young woman think, ‘I can’t run for office because I did something stupid at a party however long ago’” (3).  At the moment, there is not clear regulation or a defined position regarding use of photos on Facebook for political campaigns. 

I feel that the use of social media sites using personal photos as ammunition in political campaigns could go in one of two ways.  First, it could (and likely will in the short term) become the norm for the public to scrutinize candidates personal postings.  It is a reality of life that individuals need to exercise caution when posting photos of themselves on Facebook and asking people to remove concerning photos.  However, it could be that the wide use of Facebook and other sites are so common that candidates eventually shift their focus away from personal photographs to a more issue based discussion.  I do understand that politics is a different animal from other human interactions, but it could be that in this case technology could shape behavior and could do its part to help in making political elections more professional.  In the meantime, I would still recommend avoiding posting party photos on Facebook…

Review of James Surowiecki’s The Wisdom of Crowds

Review of James Surowiecki’s The Wisdom of Crowds

James Surowiecki takes a unique perspective on groups of people in his 2004 work The Wisdom of Crowds.  He challenges the construct that quality of decisions declines when made by large groups of people.  Rather, groups can make intelligent collective decisions even if the individuals comprising the group have varying skills and knowledge levels; in fact, a more diverse group will make more intelligent decisions than a smaller homogeneous group.  This view of collective decisions was interesting in that throughout the argument the mistrust of groups keeps popping up in the mind of the reader; this construct of group wisdom causes a shift in perception, but it has potential to lead readers to new level of understanding.  Surowiecki adds an additional note to the concept of diverse group decision making, “Paradoxically, the best way for a group to be smart is for each person in it to think and act as independently as possible” (xx).  Though it is the nature of people to be influenced by their peers when making decisions, he argues that this is not necessarily a requirement, and in many cases the group benefits when individuals are able to make decisions based upon their own assessment of situations (50).  The importance of individual decisions separates the author’s discussion of group decisions from the classic view of the collective; he does not want a group to come up with one decision, but rather to look at the aggregated result of numerous individual decisions. 

An example in the book that really stood out was the discussion of the United States intelligence agencies and their methods of collecting and analyzing information regarding the country’s security.  The attack on the World Trade Center on September 11^th, 2001 illustrated that the current structure of intelligence was flawed since information was not effectively shared across all relevant agencies (68).  This was a great example, since it showed that even if small groups have access to specialized resources, such as classified information, they will still not be as effective as a large group if the information flows are not constantly shared.  (For the uber nerds out there, you will recognize this conclusion is the basis for the creation of the intersect program in the tv show Chuck).  The author notes that decentralization can be a great asset if there is a balance between information remaining simultaneously global and local (72).  Another simple example was of Whyte’s (1969) observation of crowds in New York where individuals use information cues around them to move through a crowded complex environment (85).  This was a great example in that the reader will be able to understand the concept of crowd coordination in a very real world context (anyone who has walked on the ASU Tempe campus on a weekday lunch hour can see this phenomena in person).

The book’s greatest strength in my opinion was the way Surowiecki altered the reader’s conception of crowds and groups.  I loved this view of the collective and its potential for improving decision making; this is one of my areas of interest and I have been taking classes and reading research that concurs with the structure Surowiecki provides in this book.  As noted earlier in this review, he does not argue for consensus but rather an evaluation of the collective individual assessments on a decision or outcome.  This links well to the workings of complex adaptive systems.  Complexity science allows models to be developed to look at emergent patterns through individual interactions.  New knowledge can be developed by looking at the populace that can lead to new levels of understanding when trying to solve societal problems.  A great example of macro patterns emerging from individual decisions was the choice to visit the El Farol bar on a Friday night (87).  This information could be programmed in an agent based model to observe the patterns discussed.  One area that could have been stronger was to talk more about collective decision breakdowns and what characteristic structures can lead to breakdowns.  For example, when discussing governance itself, the author gave a great example of the National Issues Convention Deliberative Poll (259) and the Iowa Electonic Markets (17) where collective predictions from individuals lead to accurate forecasts of elections and other political decisions.  This collective power was limited to prediction rather than information formation.  I think the discussion of collective decision making in the public sphere is much more broad than prediction and would have liked a longer discussion in this area.  Specifically with regard to elections, there could have been more discussion on the difference between participating in elections (classic democratic participation) and prediction of elections.  The author does discuss democracy and the different perceptions that individual citizens, organizations, and economists have regarding citizen participation, I would have loved for greater elaboration.  There was one area I had questions about, but in honesty this may be my lack of comprehension; Surowiecki argues that the stock market was able to locate the organization responsible for the faulty equipment that lead to the Challenger explosion (9).  His explanations of how this occurred left me with more questions than answers since it seemed that there was not tangible evidence of insider information being in play. 

The understanding of crowds and their potential for improved decision making is a seperation from the current construct regarding large groups of people.  I think that this idea has potential for two reasons, there appears to be evidence supporting the thesis of the book, both through the cases presented and the field of complexity science that uses this construct.  Also, there is potential for the reliability of answers to become more accurate if organizations and decision makers understand the contribution of collective decision making and communicate with the public on its desireabilty.  I believe that if people know their ideas and opinions are actually being used to make decisions there will likely be a high level of participation.  People want to matter and this could be a tool that allows citizens to particpate in areas that they truly care about.  This book relates to e public administration in that technology allows the public sector to utilize the deliberation, participation and contribution of the public in pursuit of improved service.  As Dr. McGonigal noted in her TED talk from earlier in the semester, sections of the public, online gamers were her target population, can potentially serve as a new human resource through problem solving through their favored medium of games (McGonigal, 2010).  The assignment regarding government agency outreach to the public indicates that there is increasing demand for interaction between citizens and their government.  If agencies are able to understand the potential for Surowiecki’s argument on strong collective decision making, then technology will be the best tool to harness the power of the group to assist in decision making.  It must be noted that the technology outreach will need to be formatted to facilitate the structure that allows for access to all potential options available and allows individuals to make their decision without worry of what other people are doing, as noted by the author (61).  With that consideration, the idea of using American citizenry to improve the structure and decisions of the United States has great potential and should continue to be explored. 

Participation in Arizona State Government

This week I wanted to consider how citizens interact and participate with the Arizona State Legislature, both in how technology could be used and an idea for a new government communication tool.  Currently there are different points of access for the public.  The first and most traditional is contact information of the legislators.  In this context it is important to remember that the characteristics of contact mediums shape the kinds of conversations that can be developed.  Contact information is essential for being able to schedule a meeting with a representative or senator, but the communication is very limited in this medium, especially since the initial contact is with administrative assistants.  The implied power suggests that the legislator is the dominant power as he or she can accept or reject appointment requests. 

Another feature is ALIS http://www.azleg.gov, a tool on the legislature website that provides the language of proposed and approved bills.  This serves a reference role, where public access to information is improved when displayed on the web.  This resource can improve discussions on relevant issues, but is not a medium for government communication.  It should be noted that there is a difference in government transparency of providing information and providing information that is easily navigable by the public.  For example, to access bill language from previous years, the user must change the session- this was confusing as a first time user and can lead to difficulties if individuals do not remember the session in which a bill was presented.

A third communication path with the legislature is the ability to speak on proposed legislation.  Citizens can sign in on modules and stand in support or opposition to a bill and can request to speak.  An initial profile must be created at a kiosk at the state capitol, but once a profile has been created, individuals can sign in remotely to voice opinions.  This power structure can be considered more direct, since citizen opinions are being presented when bills are in development and revision, but there is still a disconnect between the individual opinion and the representative.  Additionally, during my time as a page at the House it appeared that individuals associated with an organization were given more attention than members of the public unless that individual was influential. 

Given these available means of communication, I think it may be helpful to create a website allowing for direct expression of citizen opinions to government and peers and accessible resources for the public.  I will do my best to describe what I visualize.  A brief description of proposed legislation, organized by theme for searching ease, could be provided with a link to the bill page on ALIS.  The structure of the site can be a spoke and wheel design; I included an example that was may work as a reference for different idea templates (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.loaddd.com/vdo/uploads/picture2/338.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.loaddd.com/download.php%3Fid%3D338&usg=__CmBBPXq-Ki4uj2UQQyC2tIBhqpE=&h=376&w=500&sz=40&hl=en&start=61&zoom=1&tbnid=Ak-DomPhh4dkiM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dedraw%2Btrial%2Bversion%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7DMUS_en%26biw%3D1003%26bih%3D521%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C1797&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=718&vpy=168&dur=1078&hovh=195&hovw=259&tx=170&ty=87&ei=UfDFTM69GYTQ). 

Summary reports of deliberations and key issues could be included for background (there must be a value neutral emphasis in this section to be successful).  People would have the opportunity to sign in once for each bill revision; for example, if a bill was proposed and amended one time, a citizen would be able to comment two times.  Maps of opinions could be bundled by legislative district.  A tool could be used that would allow legislators or the public look at opinions or questions that people in districts are thinking about.  Legislators could pose questions on the site for input.  Another feature could incorporate the online game networking to come up with new ideas to solve problems.  McGonigal (2010) noted how a few online games she designed led to innovative solutions created through supportive networking.  Ideas that have merit could be used as a framework for new legislation.  If this application was successful, there could be a new relationship of constructive discussion and problem solving.  The site could be a reliable source of citizen opinion feedback and could help representatives understand different issues brought up by constituencies.  Shirky (2010) likewise discussed how using software can be used so the institution becomes, “an enabler rather than an obstacle”.  The web can be seen as an opportunity as well as a tool to utilize the resources and knowledge of the public, which in turn can improve government projects and public service.

Paper Proposal- Individuals, Technology, Government and Power

Paper Proposal- Individuals, Technology, Government and Power

I have been considering a theoretical paper for the final assignment focusing on citizens and their sense of personal power regarding technology and informatics.  I would be interested to see if there are different areas of technology that makes individuals feel more empowered than in other areas; for example, do people feel more empowered in the private sphere versus the public sphere?  That being said, I would like to focus primarily on the relationship between government and informatics.

Government has taken pains to utilize technological tools to communicate and work with individual citizens.  This falls in line with Malamud’s (2009) argument about the relationship of government and citizens; he argues that there have been three waves in the history of government determining the obligation government has taken on to communicate and work with American citizens (42).  Malamud predicts, “We are now witnessing a third wave of change- an Internet wave- where the underpinnings and machinery of government are used not only by bureaucrats and civil servants, but by the people.  This change has the potential to be equally fundamental…Today public means online” (43, 46). Through the course, we have studied how government is working to increase the interactive nature of its online information.  It would seem that if government strives to increase transparency and openness through technology and informatics that citizens may develop a new relationship with government institutions. 

Of course, there are issues with the presentation of information; I would be interested to see if there has been research regarding the overflow of information and the navigability of the information.  If government information is present but difficult to locate or interpret, the transparency objective is not being met.  Another issue to examine is the way in which individuals interact online and the potential differences between citizens gaining a sensation of power versus actual input on the system itself.  Individuals are learning about the resources available from the government and expectations of information sharing has increased, but we are still in a transition period for determining the relationship of citizens and governance.  Currently there is a great deal of outreach to other citizens but we are not at the point of government institutions receiving direct input from individuals through online technologies.  Noveck (2009) provides an illustration of such a schism, “But while online communities to date may have enabled people to click together instead of bowling alone, they are not yet producing changes in the way government institutions obtain and use information.  These purely civic programs are disconnected from the practices and priorities of government” (55). 

I will continue to develop the paper proposal and will have a more defined topic and sources by the time the abstract is submitted.

Government websites- different tools for different objectives

The readings for this week demonstrate that government is in the process of fully utilizing the web and its resources regarding e-government.  Most are currently on the web; Wohlers (2007) noted that there has been a jump of e-government usage at the local level from 9-90 percent between 1995 and the early 2000’s (4).  However, Jaeger (2006) notes that how individuals utilize the web differs between the service provided by the agency, their understanding of the web, and their conception of what government transparency is (183-184).  Heeks (2003) adds to the discussion by noting the range of world wide e-government projects; at the time the piece was written only fifteen percent of projects were deemed successful, whereas eighty five percent were deemed either to be partial or total failures (2).  Some of this issue may be due to the newness of the technology and the rate at which government agencies have embraced utilizing this tool for outreach.  Another issue leading to different interpretations of usage of the web is that citizens do not have a solid conception of what they expect from e-government (Berlot & Jaeger, 2007, 149).  From these discussions, we know that while there are some standards for how government websites are organized, there is room for interpretation for how government service on the web can be realized.

White House: I feel that this website was designed to be approachable and accessible with the intent to be increased understanding of the President’s perspective on issues and to demonstrate what has been accomplished.  In many sections there is a photo or video to supplement the text.  For example, there is a section devoted to specific legislation and the President’s position on each piece of legislation.  It is clear that use of technologies is a theme in the site and there is a portal linking to programs ranging from Twitter to YouTube. 

Apps.gov: Apps.gov resembles a store website more than the others.  It offers a variety of cloud computing software that government agencies can buy.  These software products range from business to social media applications, all available for purchase.  There was an introductory video on the main page of apps.gov pitching cloud computing to potential customers; it focused on the resource sharing that cloud computing offers in addition to being termed a more green technological resource.  However, there are concerns with cloud computing such as data security, concerns of espionage, and professional hackers (Stibbe, 2005, 8).  Though not in the formal readings, there also concerns about the storage of government records.

Data.gov:  Data.gov resembles a library more than a store.  There is an information catalog that is searchable by keyword and includes raw data, tools, and geodata.  This is an information access webpage, linking citizens directly with the information they want to know.  Data is available from the federal government, and on one tab is aggregated to show what tools and data are available by a particular agency; it even includes a notation of high value raw datasets.  This site is likely not used by the general public very often- though everyone has access to the information, not everyone may know how to utilize a dataset to find the answers they are seeking.  This does, however, assist in government transparency as the data itself is available rather than a process table or report.  Individuals have the opportunity to examine information personally.

 Recovery.gov:  Recovery.gov is primarily an accountability tool for the government.  They are demonstrating that the Recovery Act is having a positive impact on the country.  There is clearly a desire to show accountability for the funds used- users can view expenditures by state and review projects that have been started or completed using the allocated funds.  This site is mostly a one direction site.  There are not links to the social media that was available on the White House website.  The two access points for communication with the site are to report fraudulent spending or to apply for jobs created through the Recovery Act.  To me, this is a dynamic way of showing the progress of a piece of legislation, and to share information about the legislation itself.  This is important since many citizens do not have full information regarding the content of bills, which can lead to concern.

Serve.gov: Serve.gov is designed to be easily accessible and understood and like the White House page has many access points to social media.  However, on this page there are more opportunities for interaction.  Individuals can search for local volunteer opportunities, can read about projects across the country that have been established and has access to either sharing about a service project completed or learn how to begin a project.  President Obama has spoken often about trying to change the culture of American in regards to service, and this website reflects that ambition.  The site works to facilitate the expansion of public service in the United States.

Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records:  www.lib.az.us  I would like to discuss the state library webpage; this is chance to look at a state level website and because I work there and so know a bit about the services provided on the site.  The state library is an agency under the Secretary of State and so wants to explain the agency services, provide information, and assist in the democratic process of voting.  There is information regarding each division of the library and the services they provide, along with access to the state library catalog.  There are also links for citizens to interact with.  One link is to the Arizona Memory Project http://azmemory.lib.az.us.  This particular site gives direct access to current and historic government documents as well as current or historic cultural collections from across the state.  This allows archival materials to be available to the public without having to physically visit the archives.  The site has resources for finding jobs in the state or other resources needed.  There is also a page for state employees that include links to local and national newspapers, magazine and journal subscriptions.  All state employees, from staff to state and federal legislators to the Governor, can access this link with their state library card.  This site strives to share information with the public about the agency but also to be another access point to the information kept by the state library.