The complexities of
government blogging in a dynamic policy environment
If transparency, speed and forthright dialogue are the hallmarks of the
Cluetrain economy, some may argue that government communicators have neither a
clue nor a train schedule.
In broad strokes, most government efforts to communicate with the public can be
characterized as slow, unresponsive and even leaden.
We’re not talking about social marketing here – with a thick
wallet and sufficient scientific evidence, governments can launch multi-channel
consumer marketing campaigns that compare with the best of the CPG companies.
It’s issues management that’s spinning the wheels of steel
on this riff, baby. Arguing the finer points of a longstanding policy on
fisheries management, debating taxation policy, planning new major regional
infrastructure projects. Historically, this sort of discussion has bounced
around a very small group of government policy analysts,
community and industry associations, lobbyists, non-governmental organizations,
and think tanks.
Their traditional channels of communication are well
established: regular conversations about the technical working of legislation;
industry/government working groups; specialist conferences; legislative
committees; ostensibly consultative publications like the Canada Gazette and the Federal Register; and a comped
semi-luxe dinner in the corner booth.
In recent years, email, private listservs and rudimentary
online consultation efforts have begun to nudge their way into the mix.
That’s the private face of their work: the public face of
public policy is normally filtered through a communications/public relations
apparatus that emphasizes the gate keeping of media enquiries, preparation of
messages and control of outward communications. While not a twenty-first
century model of communication, it has a sixty-year
track record of (relative)
success ensuring that large organizations both present a united front on issues
that are both fluid and sensitive and, maybe just as importantly, avoiding
great embarrassment for the organization
This is the old-school
style of working: the world of professional relationships, long-standing
and shared responsibilities on advisory bodies, experts talking to experts.
It’s a world that is slowly opening to the activism of wired
and more broad-based groups like Common
Cause. Today’s private sector policy analysts and issues activists are
following a path beaten
by groups like Greenpeace, the many Public
Interest Research Groups, and even anti-nuclear activism
by Quakers in the 1950s.
But these groups are finding their government contacts – the
policy analysts tasked to their files – aren’t ramping up as quickly to join
social networks. They aren’t as ready to throw their ideas out to sink or swim
in various pools of analysis, conjecture and debate.
This is a startling non-development for the private sector,
which regularly discovers their software developers, marketing team, even
warehouse guys, are posting smack on YahooGroups and bragging on BlogSpot. It’s
even more frustrating for the community leaders, think tank analysts and
municipal politicians who have jumped on the bandwagon, downloading WordPress,
distributing e-newsletters, hosting webinars and building an audience for their
podcasts.
That said, all these electronic voices are having an effect
upon the policy-making apparatus: just because policy analysts aren’t blogging
doesn’t mean they don’t have Bloglines accounts or haven’t installed feed
readers.
The slow pace of adaptation shouldn’t be much of a surprise.
Most government policy analysts face significant institutional barriers to a
policy of wide-open contact and communication between their policy apparatus
and the interested public: historic practices; organizational silos; legislated
barriers to information-sharing; personal reservations and technological
hurdles.
Historically, many policy analysts have been trained to work
within an established and rigorous process of information gathering,
organizational debate and limited consultation with a long-established group of
stakeholders and politicians.
Information usually flows to a larger public audience after
these steps have been taken: still, traditional consultations on evolving
policies may only include limited-distribution pamphlets or publications and an
abbreviated series of public consultation sessions. Capping this process off is
an extensive series of managerial, institutional and political approvals – all
before your complete package of policy proposals can be fully and freely
disclosed.
(Unless you’re an intelligence
analyst, in which case you’re used to not
sharing your work at all)
That said, we’re all aware that every political process –
democratic or not
– includes the occasional leak, trial balloon, ghost
proposal and speculation attributed to a “source close to …” intended to move
the policy process forward. This well-fertilized landscape grows the manna that
feeds many government beat reporters and blogs focusing on political
commentary. There’s a reason, though, that even well connected political
operatives are loath to have their own names and reputations tied to these
trickles of information.
Frequently, the policy process has become logjammed because
of philosophical, practical or legal disagreements between stakeholders,
organizations or politicians. Points of view can become entrenched in
organizational silos – and can only be dislodged through vigorous activism and pressure
from third parties (like big labour, community activists or opposition
politicians) communicated through the MSM and more targeted online and local
campaigns.
Most significantly, many policy analysts (and most other
government employees) feel some reticence to share information more widely, and
especially in easily accessible formats like blogs. They’re more reluctant than
a Chinese
activist blogger who’s just been snitched by Yahoo. In many cases, there
are legal obstacles to their releasing information. They could fear being
accused of contempt
of Parliament by making details of a legislative package public before
elected officials have had an opportunity to read the package. More seriously,
they could be subject censure or penalties under an Official Secrets Act.
Breaking any of these laws could lead to being dooced: it’s
arguable that no blog is worth losing your life’s work. (Of course, their
personal reservations against blogging might have something to do with having a
full day’s work, but we won’t go there.)
The real obstacle to a more concerted blogging effort by
government organizations may simply be technology: while blogging is gaining
popularity among more than just early-adopters and teenagers, it is not a
technology readily embraced by corporate IT staff. Individual politicians
continue to set up Typepad, Blogger and WordPress blogs, but the guys and gals
in the server room still fret about maintaining a content management system
(other than Lotus Notes) – especially one whose content could change dozens of
times a day.
Their professional caution and complex institutional IT
systems lead to public complaints
about “… a government site with more navigation than content, of which
everything is as important as everything else (making nothing important) with
crufty URLS and ‘click here’ links …”:
These are the practical hurdles to implementing a blogging
solution at an organizational level: detailed standards and
policies to ensure all official languages are accommodated, constituencies
are attended and accessibility standards are met. These necessarily lead to
overweight navigation bars, virtual forests of logos, symbols and flags, and
overly simplified text.
In other words, by design, content and static nature, the
anti-blog.
Things will change. The portion of the policy analysis
community working on e-government and e-commerce
is already pushing for more adaptive and responsive systems. Governments,
recognizing the stampede
towards transparency and disclosure in the securities markets, are beginning to
produce simpler, easy to read publications and explore vehicles for developing
two-way conversations with their citizens. They’re exploring tools for making
public consultations
more accessible – especially online.
Prizing stability, reliability and vendor support, governments
will likely embrace RSS, blogging and other models of social networks once the
technology and their resulting groundbreaking communications models have been
well-tested and are well-supported by big-name vendors (and big name management
theorists. All it really needs is one big-thinker book to energize a whole
cadre of senior management to embrace a concept).
Colin McKay, September 2005
All rights reserved. Please contact me for information.
The opinions and statements contained in this essay in no way
represent the positions of my employer, the Government of Canada.
Other resources:
“Blogging
in Government” Andy Budd Blog
“Introduction to Transportation Policy
Analysis: Focusing on Outcomes” (PowerPoint)
“Toward a Model of
Information Policy Analysis: Speech as an Illustrative Example” by
Terrence A. Maxwell in First Monday
“The Role of
Policy Analysis for Democratic Policy-Making” by
Tadao Miyakawa