Abstract
This article examines whether the Web and particularly a new breed of civic action sites operated by non-governmental actors provide a new pathway into wider community engagement. Using an innovative mixed methodology, we conduct a qualitative and quantitative over-time analysis of the users of four civic action sites developed by mySociety, an online UK non-profit organisation. The key question posed is whether the highly targeted or ‘particularised’ actions that these sites promote, such as contacting a local councillor, have a spill-over effect in terms of increasing feelings of empowerment in the local community. Alternatively are they attracting and reinforcing the resource bias of the most active citizens? The results are mixed in that they confirm that users of these sites are typically more aware and engaged than average. However, it is also clear that they have integrated these tools into their existing repertoire of engagement and this reinforces their feeling that they can have an impact on their wider communities. Overall, the study suggests that involvement in collective rather than individual approaches to resolve problems is most likely to further increase individuals’ levels community engagement.
Introduction
This article investigates whether digital technologies, and particularly the civic action sites operated by online charitable organisations such as UK-based mySociety, are enhancing the quality of democracy by increasing individuals’ attachment to their community. MySociety provides a range of online platforms through which citizens can undertake several tasks that include contacting politicians, sending complaints to public bodies about local and national issues, and making requests for release of local and national government information for public scrutiny. Research to date suggests that a significant proportion of visits to these sites are from first-time users with particularised and non-collective aims who might not otherwise have taken this initiative (Escher, 2011a, 2011b). However, it is not clear whether engaging in these actions stimulates these users to become more engaged in their local communities. Here, we gather unique qualitative and quantitative data to address the question of community involvement and particularly what we term ‘community efficacy’ – the feeling that one can make a difference to the local area in which they live. How far does the use of these civic action sites and the interaction with public authorities that they promote enhance individuals’ feelings of community efficacy?
The research is significant on a number of grounds. On substantive grounds, we present a unique and detailed over-time insight into the value of online portals as drivers of citizen engagement in local communities. Preliminary work argued that the advances of technology were contributing to the decline in civic involvement in community life observed during the past decades (Kraut et al., 1998; Putnam, 2000). More recent accounts on the influence of the Internet on the formation of social capital perceive the new medium as a tool for social interaction that supplements offline modes of engagement with the community (Quan-Haase et al., 2002). Our article offers an in-depth study of the ways in which online platforms such as the websites developed by mySociety are used by individuals to complement other offline modes of engagement in their communities.
On methodological grounds, we take an innovative new approach to examine questions about the impact of the online environment on participatory behaviours. More specifically, we apply a mixed-method research design that studies individuals’ civic and political activities inside the site as well as those outside the site across a 3-month period. This allows us to integrate responses from a survey with more detailed information taken from individuals’ weekly time diaries (Mason, 2006).
Particularised contacting as a form of participation
The starting point of the research lies within the body of scholarly work that has argued for a differentiation of the various forms of political participation. From the 1970s onward, as the manner in which individuals expressed their political views increasingly widened and moved beyond the more traditional modes of voting and party-related activities to more radical types of engagement, scholars began to focus on grouping together various types of political activity according to a series of underlying characteristics. This included the scope of outcome in terms of whether it was seeking to affect change on collective scale or just for the individual; the degree of conflict it entailed; the level of collaboration it required and the extent of initiative it needed on the part of the individual (Verba and Nie, 1972; Verba et al., 1978). Based on these criteria, four basic modes of political participation were identified – voting, campaigning, communal activity and particularised contacting.
While these modes have been revised and extended over time (Barnes and Kaase, 1979; Parry et al., 1992; Teorell et al., 2007; Verba et al., 1995), a consistently argued point was that ‘particularised’ or parochial contacting did not constitute as meaningful a type of engagement as the others identified as it was driven primarily by private instrumental interests and did not seek to address broad and collective policy issues. The empirical profile of those undertaking this mode of political action appeared to provide further justification for this division in that those engaging in it were found to be more likely to be inactive in other modes and have less of the civic and socio-economic resources commonly found among those engaging in a wider participatory repertoire (Verba and Nie, 1972: 80). Subsequent major studies of participation have either explicitly excluded it from their analysis (Dalton, 2002), downgraded it to a routine form of contact with public officials (Parry et al., 1992; Verba et al., 1995) or merged it into a generic political contact variable that includes contact with representatives designed to fix wider societal and expressly political problems (Teorell et al., 2007). The lack of attention given to this narrower type of instrumental contacting has meant that analysis of its mobilising potential has been limited and largely overlooked. While there may be conceptual grounds for excluding it from the higher echelons of participation, we argue that there is a growing case for re-examining its importance as mode of engagement.
First, following on from the growing attention paid to participation in informal activities related to everyday life, one can argue that this type of instrumental contacting may serve as a significant precursor to other more active modes of involvement (Andersen and Robteutscher, 2007). Engaging in particularised contacts with the political elite, even if it is at the local level and in pursuit of non-collective objectives, may increase one’s interest and awareness of one’s place in the wider political system and thus stimulate the likelihood of participating in local (or even national) affairs. For example, contacting a local official to claim social benefits requires a set of actions that can involve the search for information about the problem and the ways to solve it. This raises awareness of the public sphere and can help improve citizens’ understanding of the political process. If the person ultimately succeeds to address the problem that prompted taking action, this could also increase their prior levels of political trust or feelings of internal and external political efficacy. Furthermore, engagement in more parochial types of contacting activities would also be expected to prompt interactions within social networks – that is, family, friends, but also neighbours and other members of the community. This would mean the experience and knowledge obtained by the contactor are shared and transmitted, opening up the reach of effects beyond the individual.
A second more pressing reason for paying closer attention to the mobilising effects of particularised contacting relates to shifts in the wider technological environment that has expanded the opportunities to engage in this type of activity. The previous empirical study of this mode took place almost a half century ago using data from the United States. While such a lengthy time lapse alone is sufficient to prompt renewed interest in the characteristics and impact of particularised contactors, this is particularly the case with the arrival of the Internet. Digital media have dramatically expanded the possibilities for instrumental contacting by reducing the costs associated with this form of engagement (Anduiza et al., 2010). Through the Web, citizens now have access to a wide range of information sources and to quick ‘point-and-click’ interfaces through which they can undertake a set of prescribed actions towards a range of governing bodies. It has been argued that engagement in such an effortless type of activity is a form of entertainment rather than a real mode of participation as it does not produce any effect in real-life politics (Christensen, 2011). In line with Putnam’s claims on the impact of technological developments on decreasing levels of social capital (Putnam, 2000), these types of online behaviour have been characterised as a new ‘lazy’ form of activism, often referred to as ‘slacktivism’ (Morozov, 2009).
In this research, we take a different approach and suggest that some of these informal online activities may be acting as a catalyst to other well-established types of political engagement. We do not explore here a full pathway leading from particularised contacts to traditional forms of political participation such as voting or becoming an active member of a local political group. This research seeks to examine the existence of a crucial first step in a spill-over process, whereby undertaking an instrumental behaviour aimed at solving a personal or family problem stimulates a more collective type of engagement. More specifically, we expect particularised contacting to be linked to a sense of empowerment and to what we refer to in this study as ‘community efficacy’. This outcome closely relates to the concept of political efficacy, which has traditionally been defined as the perception of one’s ability to effectively take part in and influence the political process (Campbell et al., 1954). However, we add the term ‘community’ to highlight the collective character of this political attitude and the proximity of its physical location. Despite stemming from individualistic interests, particularised contacting may be associated with positive feelings of having an influence over issues affecting tangible aspects of citizens’ nearest communities. This might be the case especially if the issues that prompted taking action are successfully addressed (Ainsworth, 2000).
To study this process, we explore a specific form of online contacting 1 that is undertaken through the use of civic websites. The British charity mySociety has been a global pioneer in this field in developing these services for UK citizens. Through sites such as WriteToThem, FixMyStreet, FixMyTransport, TheyWorkForYou and WhatDoTheyKnow, people can now email their MP or local councillor with a question, report a problem with their roads or in their streets and request publication of official records. 2 According to reports from the organisation itself, they have attracted traffic of almost 5 million annual visitors across its sites.
Our research questions therefore concern the dynamics surrounding individuals’ use of these civic websites and the extent to which it contributes to empowering citizens in their communities: do these sites serve as a gateway into a deeper level of civic or community engagement? What is the role of mySociety in promoting processes of development of community efficacy?
Data and methods
The type of study proposed here is unique in mixing and inter-linking a large N survey that allows for an assessment of frequent and first-time users’ behaviours, with quantitative and qualitative data ‘tracking’ those users’ social and political interactions beyond the mySociety sites. This mixed mode allows for a richer and more contextualised understanding of any changes observed and particularly the impact of these types of sites.
Surveys were developed and run from the three mySociety sites that promote particularised contacting: FixMyStreet, WhatDoTheyKnow and WriteToThem. A fourth site – TheyWorkForYou – was included for reference or ‘control’ purposes. The questionnaire asked about usage of the site, socio-economic status, levels of political and community/group involvement, social capital and levels of interest and efficacy or perceived competence in addressing societal, political and personal problems. Table 1 shows the size of the sample and the proportion of respondents recruited from each website.
Number of survey respondents, total and for each website.
Source: Own elaboration, mySociety survey 2014 (N = 6239).
Over 6000 respondents completed the online survey, which was fielded between February and March 2014. 3 Most of these users found out about the survey via a banner displayed on each of the four websites. Registered users of TheyWorkForYou who had previously signed up to receive email alters could also find a link to the survey on these emails. 4 This resulted in an over-representation of TheyWorkForYou respondents in the sample.
The survey was then used to recruit individuals for the longitudinal study. We invited respondents to complete an online weekly time diary over a 3-month period (12 weeks). Time diaries are increasingly used by social scientists to collect data at the micro-level and identify types of individuals in terms of their uses of time (Bianchi et al., 2000; Bird and Fremont, 1991). For this study, we focused on time spent engaged in political, community and social group interactions offline and online and the types of exchanges and actions that were taking place (where, how and with whom). The diaries were in the format of a set of questions with some closed- and open-ended response options.
At the end of the 12-week activity, 389 diarists had completed at least one weekly entry. 5 In weeks 1, 5 and 9, respondents were asked specifically about their interactions with other members of their local community and the extent to which they got engaged in different activities such as helping their neighbours (e.g. lending a toolbox, feeding pets) or helping solve problems in their communities alone (e.g. reporting a crime, contacting a councillor) or with others (e.g. neighbourhood watch, cleaning parks). In weeks 2, 6 and 10, diarists reported their levels of community efficacy. Specifically, they were asked how much impact they thought people like them have in making their community a better place to live. The survey data – containing demographics, measures of prior levels of political engagement and indicators on how the mySociety websites were used – were linked with the responses to these closed-ended questions in the time diaries creating a longitudinal dataset. 6
The quantitative analyses of this longitudinal dataset were used to provide a rich picture of any change occurring among users of the websites, and particularly to identify the triggers that proved important in sustaining or deepening their feelings of community efficacy over the period. This was in turn complemented with a study of the open-ended responses provided in the diaries during these weeks. The qualitative findings presented in this article are based on a sub-sample of 35 diaries. These were selected through a text search in NVivo 9 that allowed us to identify diaries where mySociety or any of its four websites were mentioned at least once in any of the weekly entries. 7 This selection process was guided by the need to explore not only the diarists’ reflections on community engagement and efficacy, but also their use of the mySociety sites and hence the possible links between these topics. The diaries’ content was coded and analysed using NVivo 9. A list of codes was created a priori to explore ideas and contributions about a specific set of topics which were then linked to the specific weekly entries where they had been discussed by diarists in order to explore how reflections on the same issues varied across weeks. 8
The following section presents the findings from the analyses. First, we provide an overview of the profile of users of mySociety websites using the full sample of survey respondents. We then move on to the analysis of the longitudinal dataset that includes only those participants who took part in the time diaries. More details on the approach adopted in the quantitative modelling are provided below. These analyses are enriched with the qualitative study of the experiences reported in the diaries by participants using their own words from the selection of 35 diarists. Overall, we apply an innovative set of mixed methodologies and provide an in-depth evaluation of the communal and civic activities undertaken by users of mySociety websites.
Results
Who are the users of mySociety websites?
Before moving on to investigate the mobilising effect of the mySociety sites, we first profile what we know about the user base from the full sample of respondents to the survey (N = 6239). Table 2 displays findings in relation to the users’ gender, age, education and ethnicity.
Socio-demographic characteristics of survey respondents.
Source: Own elaboration, mySociety survey 2014 (N = 6239).
TWF: TheyWorkForYou; FMS: FixMyStreet; WDTK: WhatDoTheyKnow; WTT: WriteToThem.
As we can see, there is an over-representation of male respondents in the sample overall and in each of the four websites. The mean age exceeds 50 years old in all cases which indicates an under-representation of young people. Respondents also display high levels of education. About 6 in 10 respondents have attended university. This figure is relatively lower among users of FixMyStreet (49%) and highest among users of TheyWorkForYou (65%). Respondents from a non-White ethnic background are under-represented in the sample. Overall, less than 4% are members of an ethnic minority compared with around 13% in the population as a whole according to the 2011 Census (ONS, 2013). Across websites, we can see some differences with users of FixMyStreet being the least diverse (2%). Non-White users of WhatDoTheyKnow and WriteToThem represent 6% and 7% of these sub-samples, respectively.
As can be seen in Table 3, users of mySociety sites display a high interest in the opportunities for civic engagement available in their communities: nearly one-third of the sample had looked up for information about a local charity or community welfare organisation in the past 12 months, either online or in person. Between 22% and 30% of users of the websites joined, renewed membership, or donated money to one of these organisations. Active forms of membership were also common among mySociety users: about one-fifth of the sample had attended events and one in four had done some voluntary work for local organisations. Users of FixMyStreet were the least engaged in civic community activities.
Engagement in local charities and community welfare organisations.
Source: Own elaboration, mySociety survey 2014 (N = 6239).
Overall, our findings suggest that these websites are largely attracting a very specific profile of people who are already highly politically engaged and well-resourced. 9 The sites seem to offer them a platform in which they are able to expand their opportunities to become more actively involved in solving their own problems and those of their communities. The following analyses will use the data collected through time diaries to explore the range of activities that users of these platforms were undertaking in their communities over a period of several weeks and the extent to which this contributed to an increase in their feelings of empowerment.
Local engagement and community efficacy among users of mySociety websites
To explore our research questions, we turned to the longitudinal dataset that linked survey responses with the closed-ended questions in the weekly diary entries for weeks 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 and 10. The first step was to establish a baseline model for the existence of a relationship between several forms of interaction and involvement in the community and levels of community efficacy. In a second step, we introduced indicators measuring the types of use of mySociety websites to investigate whether they contributed to the development of these processes of community engagement. The structure of the data has been summarised in Table 4.
Structure of the quantitative longitudinal dataset.
In all models, community efficacy is the outcome variable. On weeks 2, 6 and 10, diarists were asked how much impact they thought people like them have in making their community a better place to live. This was coded as a 0–3 ordinal scale ranging from no impact to big impact. This variable was distributed uni-modally – although slightly positively skewed 10 – and was treated as continuous.
To predict levels of community efficacy, we specified random effects models in which observations at different time points are nested within individuals. This modelling approach was used as opposed to a fixed effects specification for several reasons. First, a random effects model is necessary when the objective is to determine the effects of unit-invariant predictors on the outcome (i.e. predictors measured at T0 only, such as type of use of the mySociety websites). Second, in cases of anomalous samples like ours with few observations per unit and little variation of the predictor within each unit, the estimates produced by the fixed effects model have been shown to lack robustness, reduce the model’s power and increase the standard errors of the coefficient estimates (Clark and Linzer, 2012). 11
In our first model, we included three measures of different forms of involvement in the community as main predictors: helping neighbours, helping to improve the community alone and helping to solve a problem in the community by working with fellow citizens. These were each coded 1 if the diarist had done the activity in the past 2 weeks and 0 otherwise. In all, 57% of diarists helped a neighbour at least once during the three time-point period; 63% helped to improve the community alone at least once; 36% worked with others to solve problems in the community at least once.
The model also included a range of time-invariant control variables from the survey (t0): age, gender, education and ethnic minority. 12 A further measure from the survey was included to control for prior levels of internal political efficacy. This variable measured how much influence the respondent believed she had on politics and public affairs. It was coded in a 0–10 scale from no influence at all to a great deal of influence (the mean is 3).
The results of this model are presented in Table 5. 13 These show that respondents who helped to solve a problem in their communities by working with fellow citizens expressed higher levels of community efficacy the week after. This effect is significant after controlling for several indicators of socio-economic status, such as age, gender, ethnicity or education. The effect also holds once we take into account prior levels of general internal political efficacy as measured by the level of influence the respondent believes she has on politics and public affairs. This first model also shows that older people in the sample feel lower levels of community efficacy but being female, a member of an ethnic minority or more educated are not significant predictors. Other forms of interaction with neighbours (such as lending a toolbox or taking care of pets) or acting alone to help improve or support the community do not have an effect on subsequent levels of community efficacy.
Random effects generalised least square regression models predicting community efficacy.
Source: mySociety survey and time diaries 2014 (details about the structure of the dataset can be seen in Table 4).
p < .1 **p < .05 ***p < .001.
Overall, these results seem to indicate that working with others to solve problems, as opposed to isolated and non-collective forms of activity, is positively associated with a feeling that the individual can have an impact on making the community a better place to live.
The positive connection between collective forms of engagement and feelings of community efficacy also emerges in the open-ended diary entries where diarists are asked to reflect on their personal experiences of bringing change and ‘making a difference’ in their communities.
14
Collective actions, unity and mutual support are often described as essential conditions for community efficacy. In some diaries, the value of ‘acting together’ to generate change is expressed in general, almost normative terms, as in the following case: People when acting together can have big impact on their community, people power does work as it inspires people to move together and is rewarding at a very deep, emotional level. (id 3643 – Woman, 54, week 2)
Some diarists go beyond these abstract statements and bring the connection between collective community engagement and efficacy back to more direct and personal experiences of community spirit, action and impact. The power of working together to have an impact on the local area is rooted in the sense of belonging and attachment that one develops to the local community. It is through the regular, daily contacts with neighbours and people in the local area that individuals strengthen their connection with the community they might want to influence, as described by one of the diarists: I am fortunate in living in a place that attracts people who want a vibrant community, and there are lots of things happening locally. I have found in the past that people who want to get involved tend to support each other’s events, so one develops a sense of knowing people. It makes me feel I belong in a place when I meet someone I know walking down the street or on the bus – that sort of community is not necessarily deep enough to offer real mutual support, but at least it makes one feel more human. (id 3207 – Woman, 41, week 2)
As it clearly emerges, these local social networks might not be as tight as other forms of interpersonal relationships but they certainly provide the individual with some connections to the place where they live. This makes the local area more ‘real’, a tangible entity that people can refer to when thinking about civic actions and efficacy. Indeed, these are facilitated by such a ‘community-minded’ context where existing networks between neighbours and fellow citizens can be used to organise events, actions but also to spread information, as the same diarist clarifies, […] it’s a lot easier to organise things where there are existing networks – both because that means there are already community minded people around, and because it provides a means of contacting them. (id 3207 – week 2)
In this diarist’s case, being embedded in dense, supportive local networks make collective actions somehow more possible. It is by working together, acknowledging each other’s presence in the area, making one another feel part of a community that collective actions are encouraged and become reality. Interestingly, in the same diary entry, the respondent writes that she does not perceive herself as having any impact on the community, despite choosing the ‘big impact’ option in the closed-ended question. Nonetheless, she attributes this low level of community efficacy to a lack of active engagement which she hopes to change by joining two organisations ‘that might enable me to contribute’ (id 3207 – week 2). To some extent, this suggests that community efficacy is linked not only to feeling attached to a community, but also to the stimuli and opportunities for active engagement provided by the community itself.
It is when this community-minded context does not seem to be there that less positive feelings of community efficacy emerge, even among the most engaged and motivated individuals. Talking about an example of successful outcomes achieved through collective mobilisation at the local level, one of the diarists says, […] the evidence is plain that locals can, if organised enough, change their destiny. My wife and I led a very successful community group for 7 years […]. We handed our resignation to the committee, but no one has continued the group. […] I think the two demons of apathy and opportunity are responsible for many local initiatives never taking off. (id 2554 – Man, 56, week 6)
The apathy and disinterest the diarist refers to seem to suggest that working together to improve the local area becomes more difficult and perhaps less fulfilling when the actions of some do not meet the interest of the local community. Another diarist who is involved in numerous local activities similarly laments the lack of unity and support in the local community and the disappointment that this can generate in those who want to have an impact on the local area: […] it is discouraging that so few local residents are prepared to get involved to keep the environment on our estate in good condition and a pleasant place to live. (id 375 – Woman, 65, week 1)
These negative perceptions of the local community and its ability to create opportunities for people to work together to ‘change things’ are not necessarily associated with similarly negative levels of community efficacy. On the contrary, both diarists (id 2554 and id 375) repeatedly (three times) selected the ‘moderate’ option in the closed-ended question about the level of impact they can have on their communities. Moreover, their level of engagement in the local area appeared to be consistently high throughout the 12 weeks. That said, these accounts appear to highlight the importance of receiving some sort of ‘validation’ or support from others in the local community when trying to make a change or have an impact.
Overall, the qualitative evidence suggests that community efficacy is closely linked to the ability of people and communities to work together. This connection is not only a normative statement but it is also reflected in people’s experience of their own local communities. Having an impact seems to be a bit easier when individuals feel part of a community that is cohesive and receptive to efforts for change.
The role of mySociety in building bridges between community engagement and efficacy
How does the use of mySociety websites contribute to this process of development of community efficacy? To address this question, we expanded the previous quantitative model. As can be seen in Table 6, we did this by including an indicator of use of the tools available on the mySociety websites to contact a politician or report an issue affecting the local community. A set of dummy variables were entered to capture whether the respondent had used any of these tools more than once (reference category, 47% of diarists), just once (11% of diarists) or never (43% of diarists) at the time of the survey. These variables were then interacted with ‘working with others to solve problems in the community’ to explore the existence of different effects for these types of users of civic websites on community efficacy.
Random effects generalised least square regression model predicting community efficacy.
Source: mySociety survey and time diaries 2014 (details about the structure of the dataset can be seen in Table 4).
p < .1 **p < .05 ***p < .001.
Results in Table 6 show that the positive and significant effect of working with others on community efficacy exists only for those who have used the contact tools on the websites on more than one occasion. The coefficients in the interaction terms indicate that among those who never used or only used these tools once, the effects are lower and do not reach statistical significance. Putting it simply, it appears that there is an important interactive or reinforcement effect of the mySociety sites on levels of community engagement. Only those using the sites’ contacting tools regularly are more likely to report an increase in their levels of community efficacy as a result of having worked with others. For other types of users, the ‘knock on’ effects of any local collective civic action are not as pronounced.
The analysis of open-ended diary entries provides helpful insights into the role played by the particularised and instrumental engagement through the mySociety sites in the relationship between community engagement and efficacy, particularly among regular users of these sites. In the actions taken by these individuals, there is clearly a component of ‘parochial activism’ (Verba and Nie, 1972). The primary source of their engagement is trying to resolve issues that are very close to them and affect their own lives, such as fly-tipping, graffiti or potholes. Moreover, these actions are often taken individually rather than with others. Nonetheless, the motive behind their efforts and repeated attempts, their tenacity and perseverance is often described as ‘collective’, somehow linked to a strong sense of responsibility towards the community. It is interesting to notice how this collective element primarily emerges when diarists describe their use of the mySociety sites. In the following diary excerpt, for example, the regular use of FixMyStreet in the past year is linked by the diarist to a sense of civic duty: On several days in last couple of weeks, and indeed over last 12 months on a regular basis, I have taken photographs with my mobile phone of the many potholes on our local roads, and submitted them to FixMyStreet. I feel it is important to notify local council of any issues that they are responsible for, especially health and safety, or dangerous road conditions. I think it is the responsibility of citizens to notify higher authorities about problems. It is a shame that more people don’t keep the council notified about issues. (id 802 – Man, 52, week 1)
Interestingly, a week later, the same diarist describes his efforts to raise ‘awareness of the mysociety.org website, through mentioning it in conversation with friends and colleagues, and on social media sites’ (id 802 – week 2) as his way to have an impact on the community.
Even when acting alone and not working with others, the collective purpose behind this active engagement could generate more engagement among fellow citizens, or at least a more positive view of what can be achieved through active involvement, especially if collective. One of the diarists who regularly used the mySociety sites to report issues in the local area and contact local officials and public authorities about these issues provides an interesting example. He talks about the positive impact that someone else was able to achieve with regard to an issue of fly-posting in the local area and how this has inspired other residents to continue reporting this problem to the authorities: A particular impact has been made by one lady who took on the fly-posters and graffiti artists (sic), got some Council money for anti-graffiti paint, persuaded landlords to allow the frontages of their empty properties to be cleaned up, organised clean-up and painting sessions, and forced the Council to prosecute prolific fly-posters. So, there are a number of us who now, if we see a fly-posted poster in the area (and there are a lot fewer of those than there used to be), simply pull it down and throw it away. (id 6009 – Man, 70, week 10)
While discussing the various ways in which he gets actively involved in the local area (and beyond), the same diarist refers to the sense of responsibility and the community spirit that motivate his actions. He writes, Why do this? It’s a community thing. Just as the sharing with neighbours in this block of flats of a bottle of fizz […] is a community thing […]. (id 6009 – week 4)
To some extent, the energy and determination of these local activists is also recognised and appreciated by other, maybe less engaged, citizens. The necessity to have those motivated people who are able and ready to dedicate time and resources to specific causes is often highlighted in the diaries. Change is certainly possible, but the commitment that is required to achieve this goal is certainly something that only few have. This idea becomes even clearer when discussing community efficacy, as in the following excerpt: I would have a greater impact myself if I was more energetic, focused, and patient. The amount of energy and persistence needed is enormous. A group can spread the load, but even then the workload seems to fall on a very small number of individuals. I feel that virtual group infrastructures such as those facilitated by mySociety and 38 Degrees could have a role in making this easier even for local campaigns, but it still seems to depend on energetic obsessive individuals to get and keep campaigns moving. (id 4330 – Man, 59, week 2)
Here, it is possible to see how tools like the ones provided by mySociety or other online platforms are perceived as crucial channels of participation but it is ultimately when these tools are used by the determined and tenacious activists that results can really be achieved.
Further insights into the role played by the mySociety websites emerges throughout the diaries written by these local activists who regularly contact public authorities about the local community. It is primarily FixMyStreet that attracts attention and is used to report and follow-up on issues. One of the diarists writes about the accessibility of this site and how this could contribute to people’s feelings of community efficacy by facilitating contacts between residents and the council: I think if people realised how simple it can be to report a problem a lot more could happen to make people’s lives a little bit nicer, I think people feel like it’s a bit difficult to contact the council or that they won’t come anyway but I feel a bit differently about it after seeing some of my reports responded to! (id 321
Others describe their personal experience using the website and this engagement can be tracked throughout the 12-week diary entries. For example, in the first week, a diarist lists some of the actions she took in the local area in the previous week and among those there is the use of FixMyStreet to report issues with graffiti. The effect of using the site and achieving a positive outcome triggers a sense of achievement and satisfaction and the same activity (along with its outcome) is also reported in the fifth week: Week 1: Contacted Fix my Street website to report several sites in my road that have had graffiti sprayed onto them, to have graffiti removed. Some has been removed in a couple of days after reporting the problem. Felt quite satisfied that I could get these things fixed. Week 5: Contacted Fix my Street to have graffiti removed from fences, BT boxes, walls etc. which was quickly removed, felt good to have some achievement & influence to make area better. (id 3888 – Woman, 55)
As we would expect, one factor that seems to be crucial in generating a positive link between community engagement and efficacy when using the mySociety websites (and particularly FixMyStreet) is the response that users receive from the local authorities and how quickly (if at all) the issue reported is resolved. In the example above (id 3888) and others found in this analysis of the diaries, the prompt intervention of the council led to positive feelings of empowerment. Nonetheless, failure to follow-up on the issues reported might generate negative outlooks towards active involvement, which is then perceived as the exclusive domain of those individuals who persevere and invest great effort and resources in having an impact.
Overall, the qualitative evidence suggests that the mySociety websites could be seen as relevant resources for those individuals who are committed to bringing change to their communities. This is particularly true with regard to websites that provide a direct channel to get in contact with local authorities either by sending private messages (WriteToThem) or by reporting issues in the local area (FixMyStreet). Although these actions are taken individually, their motives and effects can be collective especially when those who initiate the change have the determination to make community engagement and efficacy happen. It is also important to note that the extent to which these online tools are associated with feelings of community efficacy seems to be closely associated with the success (or failure) of the actions taken. These appear to primarily depend on the commitment and efforts individuals put into pursuing change as well as the level of responsiveness of local authorities. The latter, in particular, has been found to be a crucial factor not only with regard to community efficacy (Ainsworth, 2000) but also with the performance if civic websites (Coleman et al., 2008: 778).
Conclusion
This article has made several contributions to the study of online engagement and e-democracy portals. Substantively, we have provided a rich insight into the important question of how individuals are using the new civic action or e-democracy platforms that have emerged in the digital era and what their effects are for their levels of community engagement. Methodologically, we have presented an innovative approach to the study of mobilisation facilitated through our unique access to users of the mySociety sites. By combining online time diaries of users with more traditional survey tools, we have been able to combine a broad and systematic overview of site users with a much closer over-time analysis of users’ experiences within and outside of the sites, and thus a richer and more comprehensive evaluation of the value of these e-participation initiatives at the level of the local community.
The results from a survey of users of four different mySociety websites indicate that these platforms are mainly attracting individuals who are already engaged. Thus, it appears that mySociety sites are effectively widening the already rich array of tools that active citizens use to engage in and contribute to the civic and political life of their communities. While this might appear on the face of it to confirm the idea that such sites are helping to widen the participatory gap, the findings from the central component of our study suggest a more complex scenario.
The article looked in more depth at users of the sites over a period of 3 months and sought to trace their involvement in their local communities and how, if at all, use of these websites contributed to this. We first found that interactions between members of a local community matter. In particular, people who engaged with others in activities in their neighbourhood to solve problems together were more likely to feel that they could make a difference in their community. While some of mySociety users that took part in this study were undertaking a range of other activities to help their neighbours or to support the community on their own, this did not seem to be associated with an increase their perception that they could have an impact. The collective nature of any form of community engagement appeared to be the key trigger of feelings of efficacy. The value of joining forces to achieve collective goals also emerged in the open-ended diary entries. Feeling close and attached to a specific community and being supported by other people in the area when trying to resolve local issues together were described as a stimulus for individual engagement and were linked to feelings of satisfaction and efficacy. Not only does this sense of community make collective actions easier but it also makes them more meaningful, effective and rewarding.
When we explored the linkage between this cycle of local collective action and community attachment, we found that it was considerably stronger for those who were regular users of the tools provided by the mySociety sites. Thus, despite the fact that the more regular users of these civic portals are among the more highly engaged and well-resourced citizens, it appears that their use of the sites is linked to wider community benefits. The websites seem to be an important component in the wider repertoire of political and civic actions available to those who are more actively engaged and want to solve problems in their communities. Thus, while these online platforms do appear to invite actions that are performed individually (e.g. contacting public officials or reporting local issues), their wider contribution, it seems, is to provide an accessible space where the collective motives, which are often at the core of these individual actions, can be expressed. In this sense, they become one more of the community-building tools available to those who want to get involved in their communities and be able to make a difference.
Future research should explore more in depth other forms of political and civic engagement beyond the local community. Some individuals might indeed identify more strongly with broader communities that do not necessarily have geographical connotations or boundaries (i.e. the place of residence) and are rather linked to specific identities (e.g. LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender]) or to specific national or even international causes (e.g. environmental protection).
Footnotes
Appendix
The Mysociety websites.
| URL | Description |
|---|---|
| https://www.writetothem.com/ | The site allows users to contact local, national and European elected representatives |
| https://www.fixmystreet.com/ | The site allows users to report local problems (e.g. graffiti, fly tipping, broken paving slabs) and view reports submitted by other users |
| http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ | The site provides information about MPs and their activity in the Parliament (e.g. votes, speeches or written questions) as well as about Parliament debates more generally |
| https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/ | The site allows users to submit Freedom of Information requests and view requests already submitted by other users |
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) through Research Grant ES/K008110/1.