1

Using social media to “crowd source”

In terms of wider problem solving and consultation, there are huge opportunities for using social networking tools to improve how Whitehall solves problems and how it goes about consultations.

The historical nature of policy making is that policies are inevitably agreed on the basis of imperfect knowledge. The more imperfect the evidence base, the more problems there may be in delivery and the more chance that something may go wrong.

Social networks through social media allow people to make more informed challenges to policies. This is likely to increase pressure for a more conversational, continuous and constructive method of policy making than the relatively “discrete” (i.e. one where responses are invited against a “fixed” document at given points in time).

2

Using social media for consultation

The “discrete” method of consultation is one where responses are invited against a “fixed” document – e.g. a green paper or a white paper. The limitations of this method of communication is that entrenches 2-way conversation – where it is the Government trying to have a conversation with “everyone else”.

A criticism of this sort of set up is that it is “adversarial” and that it does not allow either side to respond flexibly to constructive responses that are put forward. It also limits discussions between disagreeing parties to only those Whitehall decides are “key stakeholders.

Department of State

“Everyone Else

Policy team

“Key Stakeholders”

Consultation publication

Consultation responses

3

The flexibility of social media means that citizens may want to engage in a conversation about policy making, rather than having a situation where they are only able to make one submission. It also means that citizens may want to have conversations with other people and organisations about the content of such consultations

Department of State

Using social media for consultation

There is an opportunity for the Government to “open up” the lobbying and submissions from “key stakeholders” to scrutiny from the general public too. This could increase the transparency of decision-making and help hold “powerful interests” to account – particularly if the state “mandates” such organisations to respond to questions from the public