Creating Community Conversations - Gallomanor

SCC2011

It's good to present on the first day of a conference. You get it out of the way and can start to enjoy the social (read liquid) elements in much more depth. The danger is that on the second day you might get asked to step in for an ill speaker. I wasn't feeling too bright myself but with the Science Communication Conference having an online engagement theme I could hardly leave the Future of Online Session a speaker short.

Needless to say I thoroughly enjoyed myself at the conference and well done to Alice, Toby and the King's Place staff for a very smooth running conference.

What follows are some thoughts, links and comments that I didn't bring up at the time.  It's as much for my own benefit as anyone elses.

We kicked off the Online Engagement themed conference with a keynote from Tim Radford. Tim can tell a story or two and he's been around since Yuri Gagarin went into space so he's got a few to tell.  You can tell why he is so revered as a science journalist.

Tim made some very good points calling upon the science community to "get your protests in early" and to engage with the public because without that engagement science will be vulnerable to the whims of politicians. What he said had resonance with our Science Is Vital work. My favourite part of the session was the question from a PhD student researching the use of sensational headlines by certain parts of the media. Tim's riposte was that "all headlines have to be sensational. If they didn't create a sensation then no-one would read them." It was a well put reminder that a hyperbolic headline might be sensationalism (in a derogatory sense) to a New Scientist reader, but that an academic geeky headline in the New Scientist is also sensationalist, but just for a different audience's sensations.

However all was not perfect with Tim kicking off the online conference. He only refered to online engagement twice.  Once to declare Twitter a waste of time and secondly to lament that people getting their news online were not subject to the diversity of opinions that someone buying from the newstand would get. We can argue about Twitter (and it can be a waste of time if not used well) but not being able to see that a Google search can provide immense diversity is strange. Try Nuclear Power. You get Greenpeace and the World Nuclear Association on the same page.

Whilst Tim was a great speaker I'm not sure it was wise to have him kicking off the conference because it did not start a discussion of online engagement at all.

The day continued with some speed networking which as before works very well. If I can find the name of the person who works out who meets who I'll post it in an update.

After a swift lunch Sophia and I spoke about I'm a Scientist.  We'll write up that session sometime soon, but I just want to thank Dan Hannard from Woodkirk High School who blew me and the audience away with his talk. Thank you Dan.

The final session of the day was Democratising Technology. I went to hear Cory Doctorow and he didn't disappoint. You can follow him @docotorow. The other two speakers showed us some fun stuff that has come out of the Maker Faires such as the exhilirating looking Jet Ponies, but I couldn't help feeling that the Maker Faires were really a modern version of Steam Rallies that are common place out here in the West Country. Interesting but not exactly a new concept.

Post-event drinks courtesy of the BSA Crest Awards were swiftly downed followed by more at the very nice The Fellow pub with roof terrace.

Day Two started with copious quantities of orange juice and the request to step in for Jonathan Druro in the first session. Vicky Reeves was on the original line-up and took the brunt of the questioning. In the few minutes preparation I had, I felt that speaking about the AlphaGov experiment and the trend towards open data in government might add the most value. 

Government isn't normally seen as a bastion of web innovation and the behemoth of Direct.gov.uk doesn't inspire confidence. However the Alpha.gov.uk team (and many other lower profile govt webbies) are changing that, treating Google as your homepage and creating a very flat heirarchy site that cuts the extraneous content and delivers transactions quickly. The other defining aspect of the experiment is how much of their work is being done in the open, in full view of their potential critics.

The other trend I spoke about was open (and interlinked) data. My theme was that people are making data available and letting others decide how to use it. By publishing data you are engendering trust even if no-one actually looks at the data. Take Civil Servant and MP expenses. The vast majority are so dull and mundane and honest that very few people would ever read them. But it is the fact that they are published that leads to people trusting them. At least more than they used to.

And once your data is published make sure that others can use it easily. Councils in England now are required to publish all spending over £500. Sites such as OpenlyLocal have aggregated that data so you can see who's paying who. That site links though to OpenCorporates which use Companies House (and similar in other countries) data to build a database showing the links between companies and the revenue they derive from governments. When linked to the Who's Lobbying this will show either the wonderful efficiency of the private sector or the corrupt nature of the private sector depending on who you view and your viewpoint. David Waldock has written up the session in more detail.

The Tyranny of the Web followed with the ever excellent Ed Yong and a talking dog from Jonathan Sanderson alongside Pippa Hyam from Dialogue by Design. Ed reminded us eloquently that we need to distinguish between the Tool and the Tool User. It is wrong to blame the internet if it is the people mis-using it that are the problem.

Jonathan, perhaps too subtlely drove home the message that you to select your audience online. Broadcast TV perhaps does that for you by scheduling. The internet perhaps lulls you into a false sense of security, a Fields of Dreams, Build it and they will come mentality. The power of Google makes you think the right people will find you. If only. His talking dog with 35 million views reminds us the difference between mass audiences and an echo chamber.

Pippa was playing the devil's advocate. She professed to be shocked by her discovery of "astro-turfing". I'm sure she must realise that it happens in the "real-world", it's just that online it is easy to track and prove using IP addresses. As evidence of the tyranny of the web, astro-turfing is fairly poor.

Two more sessions beckoned. Kathy Sykes, Paul Manners and Robert Winston took to the stage with the ever-present Sue Nelson to discuss the future of public engagement. It was a wide ranging conversation with questions from the floor. Some of them might have been leading.

My key quotes (paraphrases more accurately) were:

Kathy Sykes: Include the public in your research governance

Robert Winston: Industry needs to be more involved in public engagement and there needs to be more spent on online engagement.

The final session of the day before I caught the early train home was on CitizenScience. With our work on I'm a Scientist, Decipher My Data I thought this would be useful. And it was. Karen Bultitude chaired with knowledge and authority while Marek Kukula and Chris Davis spoke in detail about their SolarStormWatch projects. But the star of the show was Julia Wilkinson who is a very dedicated citizen scientist indeed.  Julia told us she is motivated by:

• Getting feedback from the scientists on the discoveries being made
• Getting her name on an Academic Paper
• Being thanked by the scientists
• Her general interest in the subject

I don't think Julia is atypical. Her motivations are really simple and it highlights the importance of the two-way communication in this type of project.

I'd have liked to have made Bright Club, but it'll happen one day...

I make no apologies for the length of this post. I hope there's a useful reminder or anecdote in here for me at least. But to finish with a summary:

• SCC2011 was excellent - in organisation, in delegates, in balance between sessions and networking
• There were many excellent sessions with knowledgable speakers

However

• Some chairs were not knowledgeable, particularly on online matters
• Kicking off with the excellent Tim Radford was probably not the right idea

And if it had been over 5 days I might just have met all the people I wanted to but with so many I did want to catch it was never going to be the case. As it was an excellent two days. See you next year.

 

UPDATE: Ben Craven is the master of speed-dating algorithms.

The AV Debate

It was no surprise to hear Radio Five cover the AV debate this morning (starts at 7:10 am - one hour in probably).  It was surprising to me though to hear what a poor, destructive and destroyable argument that Matthew Elliott of the No Campaign put forward. If my memory serves me right (and that is more important than what they actually said):-

The argument against:

• Cost - the No campaign has built an estimate of £250 million
• Clegg the Kingmaker - all elections will be decided by Nick Clegg
• Gives BNP supporters two votes

The argument for:

• Politics has become sterile because it is aimed at 150,000 undecided voters in marginal seats
• 1/3 of all seats have not changed (party) hands since 1945
• More democratic parliament with more vote counting for something

In addition the Yes campaigner destroyed the counter arguments:-

• There is no additional cost (except maybe more pencils) associated with AV (Ed note: unless councils decide to invest in better counting facilities which I am sure will in order to make the overall election process more cost-effective). The No campaign is trying to make out that electronic counting is needed because of the Scottish example where two systems in concurrent operation make electronic counting the preferred option. Apparently Australia manage to use AV without electronic counting.
• Clegg the Kingmaker - In Australia there have only been two hung parliaments under AV, compared to four in the UK in the same time under First Past The Post (FPTP). (Ed note: And Clegg's hardly been the Kingmaker, most of the No campaign have portrayed him as a Tory puppet so far, can't really have it both ways...)
• Give BNP supporters two votes - I didn't really catch the counter-argument to this but I don't understand the problem. You could easily argue that those wanting to support the BNP can only give them half a vote or...  The vote that counts will be the one that tips a candidate over 50%.  If a 50% + 1 of a constituency happens to vote for BNP then that's the democracy not working, but it is at least democracy.

I was genuinely surprised how Matthew Elliott, a seasoned campaigner who use to run the Taxpayers' Alliance, had nothing constructive to use in his argument and how easily his arguments were countered.

Shortly after I saw Evan Harris challenge David Allen Green to a debate on AV. Hell, after hearing the No campaign's argument even I would challenge him ;-).

Let's have a conversation about the funding of science

Throughout the Science is Vital campaign I was aware that whilst we were fighting to retain science funding, no-one really had an accurate map of current funding. We managed fine because we concentrated on funding through BIS and that was reasonably clear. If we had to enter into a wider conversation about where other funding comes from and where that money goes we would have struggled to provide an accurate and detailed picture.

I don't believe the issue of science funding is going to go away and I believe the need for an accurate picture of science funding is going to become vital.

Yesterday the NewScientist reported on the latest efforts by the Republican Party in the US to get the public involved in reducing their deficit (yes, I agree that they have ulterior motives).

 

"OMG, terrifying" tweeted Jenny Rohn in response. It is pretty scary what the consequences might be. 

Some people might argue that we should fight against the public playing a role in determining science funding. Whilst they might (hopefully) succeed in having scientists keep the final decision about which projects get funded, they will not be able to stop the public influencing decisions through programmes similar to YouCut.

It's my view that instead to trying to keep the public away from conversations involving science funding we need to engage with them. We can start by creating an accurate picture of what is currently funded in the UK. We have a very efficient science research sector in the UK (see point 3) so let's be open about what we spend and why.

We can choose not to join in the conversation about science funding, but as the YouCut programme shows, it doesn't mean the conversation isn't happening, it just means that the science community is not part of the conversation. If we want that conversation to be informed, to be rational, and to be intelligent then we need to be part of it.

 

MP's expenses receipts not to be published proactively

According to the IPSA site (no deep-linking so click on News) Sir Ian Kennedy has decided not to proactively publish the receipts for MP expenses.  He says that 

IPSA will not be publishing receipts proactively –the cost of preparing tens of thousands of receipts for publication would be more than £1 million a year and would not provide value for taxpayers’ money.

This is quote extraordinary considering there were 22,000 claims. It would mean a quote of £45 per receipt.

Unlock Democracy are asking supporters to write to Sir Ian and ask him to reconsider his decision.  I've done this.  You can see the text below.  I'll post a response if I receive one.

Dear Sir Ian,

I noticed from your press release that IPSA are not planning to "proactively" publish MP's expense receipts because it would cost over £1 million.

Whilst I applaud the attention you are paying to the effective use of public money I would appreciate the answer to a couple of questions.

Firstly, if the reciepts are not being published proactively will they be published upon request and please can you outline the process for requesting their publication?

Secondly, the release states that there are 22,000 claims. This means you are being quoted £45 to scan and redact each receipt. It is perfectly feasible (and I have someone employed here who used to do a very similar job) to scan 200 receipts per day, enter key details onto a database and redact sensitive information. This means the job could easily be done for £50,000 per year. Seeing as cost is the prime reason for not publishing the receipts please could you provide the details of how your team came up with this cost and whether you would reconsider the decision if someone were to undertake to do the business for a more reasonable amount?

I look forward to your reply which with your permission I shall publish on www.gallomanor.com.

Kind regards,

Shane

Science is Vital - 0 - 35,000 in three weeks

On the afternoon of September 8th Dr Jenny Rohn set something off that has developed into something beyond her expectations. The Science Is Vital campaign has gone from 0-35,000 supporters in a very short time with almost zero resources. Richard Grant and I have tried to give you some of the narrative in the presentation below. You'll see the major milestones and how the campaign stats develop over time. As I've said in the speaker notes you can see if you view on SlideShare this is purely from a digital engagement perspective and there are currently untold stories from media and political sides.

Science Is Vital campaign

After writing a post advising the campaign what they should do I bought them the domain and hosted the website and mailing list for them. I've also got involved, helping out with copywriting, strategy, organisational and emotional support. I went to the rally with my 6 year old daughter and dragged my MP to the lobby.

Science Is Vital has consumed an enormous amount of energy and time over the last 6 weeks. In the end seeing how getting a community activated can make a real difference to that community and in the future the country has made it all worthwhile.

UPDATE:

It took me 15 minutes and 2 tweets to find the Speaker Notes on SlideShare so I guess I should show you.  If you want to read the "Speech" then view the presentation on SlideShare - beneath the presentation you'll see (if you look really carefully) a comments tab and next to that a "Speaker Notes" tab. Click on speaker notes.

What is Big Society?

A friend and colleague of mine, @gilest, tweeted about a report in our local paper about Wiltshire Council reviewing leisure facilities and the "imminent" closure of the Bradford on Avon swimming pool. Our brand new MP, @duncanhames picked up on the "terrible news", but pointed out it has been planned for 18 months. A local councillor has started a petition to pressure the council to "Save Bradford on Avon Pool".

Swimming pools are expensive to run. When you open them to the public and have to staff them, then they become very expensive. There are normally about 6 staff or so on duty, plus an administrative team at a headquarters in Bagshot, Surrey. Every week my daughter has a swimming lesson there. About £5 for 30 minutes. It's not cheap, but the lessons are normally full. 

During the winter, she plays rugby every Sunday. (She has an Ireland shirt, of course.) She plays, come rain or shine, for 90 minutes. Roger, the coach, does it for the love of rugby. He's helped by some of the Dads. A few Mums cook bacon sandwiches for afterwards. Pete, the club secretary, opens the bar at 11am, for soft drinks, mostly. The coaching costs £1 per week.

The swimming pool is run by DC Leisure Ltd. on behalf of Wiltshire Council. I don't know how much the council contributes towards the running of it, but I guess it is not insubstantial.

The Bradford on Avon Rugby Club is run by volunteers. They get some money from Sport England (I presume) and sponsorship from local businesses. Most of the cost of running the club is met by the membership fees and bar takings.

That, to me, is what Big Society* is about. It is about hanging a name on something that happens in cities, towns and villages up and down the country. It is about opening people's eyes to different ways of doing things. I don't think it is a new idea.

Giles and I sat down, last week, for a coffee to talk about the news. I suggested that he get a few people together and start planning how the community could run the pool. I suggested that by taking the initiative the town would be in a better position to keep the it as a going concern. He could create a community group that works like the Rugby Club. A group that relies on the efforts of its members, rather than the cost structures of a company in Surrey. That can adapt for the needs of it's local town, rather than rely on the pressures exerted by the whole county.

That is what Big Society is to me. Local people taking control of their local facilities and making them work. The swimming pool as we know it will close. We need to choose if, we as a town, want to keep it. It needs to become our swimming pool, not the council's. Big Society isn't about closing council run facilities. They are going to close anyway. We can't afford them. Big Society is a way of keeping them open.

Some commentators have questioned whether enough people have enough time in order to run these facilities.  The people who care passionately about the rugby club find time. The people who care passionately about their estates join the residents groups. The people who care passionately about education run the parents' associations and join the board of governors.  We'll find out soon enough how passionate people are about keeping their post offices, museums and, of course, swimming pools.

*Big Society really is a crap name, but I can't think what to call it either. I've long railed against the idea of encouraging people to volunteer.  People don't volunteer per se. They offer to run schools, clubs, charities for free.

TalkFest: more ambition needed

 I can't recall who was speaking when the #GingerNinja struck last night, but I felt sorry as I joined half the room in coughing and laughing at the same time.

#Talkfest was an evening for science bloggers to get together and talk about their blogging.  It was fun, funny and interesting. We had discussions on the Twitterwall about whether scientists had a duty to engage with the public. Discussions in the room about whether bloggers (in particular science bloggers) should be paid to blog - yeah, why not, worrying trend is those paying to blog without due disclosure. Credit to @alicebell, @beck_smith and the Biochemistry Society for putting it together and hosting it. (And kudos to the cake maker.  I'm an expert on cakes and I have to say the ones last night were very good.)

However I came away slightly disappointed, and that feeling hasn't gone away this morning. I felt that despite the eloquence of the community, their wit, their intellect, they were not being very ambitious with what could be achieved with the medium. There was a focus of being heard: by more people, more clearly and in different ways that couldn't be achieved on paper.  Perhaps that was the design of the event or the limitations of the community.

My background is with govt and civil society bloggers. We've seen some incredibly innovative uses of the internet to improve our democracy, to change the way it has been reported on, to hold our politicians and governments to account.

So where in the science world are the equivalents of Guido Fawkes questioning the clsoed shop academic hierarchies.  Where are new uses of twitter? The science equivalents of #uksnow or EyeSpyMP. Who is shining Sunlight on how funding operates or making the data available in an easy to use way? I'm sure there are some examples, but I wasn't hearing them last night. Let's not just think about the web and blogs as a new medium with which to communicate about science, let's think about it as a medium to communicate in radically new ways about science.  Let's use it to make things better.  Unless of course they are already perfect.

Become a patron of They Work For You

I've just had an email from Tom Steinberg reminding me of a pledge I made to donate £5 per month to help fund They Work For You.  I've started my standing order but we still need another 142 people to sign up to complete the pledge.

I've added a widget in the sidebar to track progress. If you're interested in democracy and shining a light on Parliament (both good and bad things) then consider joining the pledge.

Democratic Renewal Council - where are the people?

Gordon Brown has announced a National Democratic Renewal Council.  According to this Guardian report it seemingly consists of a sub-committee of the cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister that will invite expert witnesses from outside.

Others have said that Westminster cannot change itself.  I blogged about Etienne Chouard, a French activist who helped bring about the French "Non" against the European Constitution in 2005. His fifth rule of writing a constitution is:

A Constitution is not something granted by those in power, it is drawn up by the People itself, precisely to protect itself from the arbitrary use of power, through a Constituent Assembly, independent, elected for that purpose only and afterwards revoked.

If we are going to have a serious attempt at rebuilding trust in the democratic process in the UK, Westminster needs to realise that it is not going to come from within, least of all within a very select elite of ministers within Government.

A true National Democratic Renewal Council (and I vote for a different name) needs to come from the people.  Citizen Jury, Citizen Summit, Independent Inquiry, perhaps.  Anything but an internal government body.

Election poster

The European Parliament have released a set of posters to encourage us to vote in the European elections on June 2nd.  I liked this one.  Made me think about what my choice would be.

One slight gripe.  The posters have been uploaded to Flickr with all rights reserved.  This means I shouldn't be using it here, but I'm guessing they really do want people to be talking about it.