The following analysis and recommendations are based on six months of
intensive observation, interviews, participation in planning and evaluation,
and examination of documents inside the organisations cited and among their
stakeholders and audiences. This period of review followed more than two
months of on-the-ground research among eight UK government departments
and agencies conducted as part of the Organisational Listening Project Stage 1
between mid-2014 and mid-2015.
- Social research
The UK Government extensively uses social research as a basis for evidencebased
policy and decision-making. This includes major national studies such
as the British Social Attitudes survey conducted by NatCen Social Research,
bespoke research conducted by independent firms such as Ipsos MORI, GfK
NOP, and Kantar TNS, academic studies, internally conducted online surveys,
and traditional and social media analysis. Overall, the UK Government conducts
a large amount of research – possibly even more research than needed, as will
be discussed in the following.
However, two issues became evident in relation to social research during this
study as follows.
First, social research conducted by the UK and a number of other
governments is predominantly quantitative (e.g., polls, surveys,
quantitative media monitoring, economic analysis, etc.). A much smaller
investment is made in qualitative research. This is compounded by the lack
of analysis of large qualitative data sets collected from public consultations,
correspondence, and complaints, as discussed in the following sections.
While generalizable quantitative research is important, research that
probes beyond scores and ratings; explores ranges and diversity beyond
means (i.e., averages); and accesses affective (i.e., emotional) as well
rational cognitive responses are necessary for understanding stakeholders
and citizens. Such insights require increased qualitative research. This
recommendation has been made to the UK Government Communication
Service and senior communication and policy staff39 in a number of
departments and agencies.
Second, the extensive data gained through social research are often
not shared across relevant organisations because there is no central
insights database or knowledge management system in place. This issue
affects all of the communication and engagement activities reviewed in
the following sections, so it is discussed later under ‘Data sharing and
knowledge management’.
39 Social research is commissioned and used by both communication and policy staff in
most government departments and agencies.
CREATING A ‘DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE’ 23
- Consultation
Under open government and open policy making strategies, the UK Government
like many governments has made a major commitment to consultation. Indeed,
it could be said that consultation is one of the central platforms for citizen
engagement and participation, occurring much more frequently than elections
and affording opportunities for detailed comments and feedback.
The development of a single official Web site for announcing and reporting
consultations (Gov.UK) is an important step that was recommended in several
previous reviews and studies such as the UK Power of Information Task Force
report40 and the Digital Dialogues report41. However, the Gov.UK consultation
site does not provide a full service consultation function. It serves as a central
location to:
Announce consultations;
Provide a description and details of consultations (e.g., background
information, terms of reference, and sometimes questions for response);
and
Post summary reports of consultations.
Typically, consultations announced and described on Gov.UK link to specialist
Web consultation applications such as Citizen Space, which is widely used
by UK government departments and agencies (e.g., Highways England for
an August 2016 consultation on managing freight vehicles through Kent and
the Department of Education for a consultation on funding for early years
education), or Crowdcity (used by the Ministry of Defence).
Even these specialised tools need additional applications and plug-ins to
be effective. For example, Citizen Space developed by Delib is best used in
conjunction with Dialogue, a complementary application that allows participants
in Citizen Space consultations to rate suggestions and ideas using a peer
rating system to produce what Delib calls an “ideas lab”.42
Furthermore, experienced consultation staff in the UK Government note that
public consultations need to be actively promoted and explained beyond what
is possible on the Gov.UK Web site to make stakeholders and citizens aware
of them and encourage participation. One approach used is to publish a
blog specifically devoted to publicising and discussing issues relevant to the
consultation (e.g., using WordPress). E-mail to known stakeholders such as
organisations is also used.
40 UK Cabinet Office. (2009, February). Power of Information Task Force Report.
Retrieved from http://powerofinformation.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/final-report
41 Miller, L., & Williamson, A. (2008). Digital dialogues: Third phase report August 2007–
August 2008. London, UK: Hansard Society. Retrieved from https://digitaldialoguesuk.
files.wordpress.com/2009/11/digitaldialogues3.pdf
42 Delib. (2014). Using Citizen Space and Dialogue App together – suggestion 1: start
an Ideas Lab. Bristol, UK: Author. Retrieved from http://blog.delib.net/using-citizenspace-
and-dialogue-app-together-suggestion-1-start-an-ideas-lab
24 CREATING A ‘DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE’
Findings – Organisational Listening Project (Stage 2)
CREATING A ‘DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE’ 25
These learnings draw attention to the fact that considerable skills are required
among government policy and communication staff to conduct effective
consultations, as well as a number of specialised tools. Such skills and use of tools
such as those noted above are patchy across the government. For example, in
planning a consultation in relation to disability, some policy and communication
staff involved confessed unfamiliarity with consultation methods and tools.
From observation, interviews, examination of consultation reports, and analysis
of consultation submissions, the following 10 failings in consultation were
identified:
Many consultations are framed narrowly with specific questions written
by government department or agency staff that limit discussion to the
government’s agenda;
A number use technical and official language, even when addressing the
‘general public’;
In most cases, submissions to consultations are not acknowledged;
Many have short time frames for comments, which may be practical for
major industry and professional organisations that have expert resources
to prepare submissions, but which disadvantage or preclude many citizens
and small groups from participation;
The preceding limitations are created largely because of a one size fits
all approach to consultation. Some consultations are aimed at experts
and industry and some legitimately have a very specific and limited scope.
However, others seek (or should seek) views from a wide cross-section of
the public. But there is no clear distinction between the different types and
levels of consultation in terms of language, accessibility, time frame, etc.;
Most consultations attract and are dominated by the ‘usual suspects’
– i.e., major organisations and even professional lobbyists. The following
point exacerbates this bias, but suggests solutions;
Consultation lacks outreach. All consultations studied involved a passive
approach in which the government calls for and then waits for submissions
to be made. This ignores the reality that some groups and individuals
affected by a policy or issue under consultation are unlikely to initiate a
submission. This particularly applies to those with low socioeconomic
status and/or low education levels, and those who are not easily able to
articulate their views. Consultation can be productively enhanced through
outreach to affected groups, such as:
— Visiting affected areas to talk to local organisations, leaders, and
individuals;
— Interviewing in local communities, such as ‘button hole’ interviews in
shopping malls or community centres in relevant areas;
— Even door knocking in key affected areas; and
Findings – Organisational Listening Project (Stage 2)
— Establishing relationships with a wider range of organisations (i.e.
beyond the ‘usual suspects’) including community groups, social
movements, and activist organisations. For example, in the UK groups
such as Fixers43 work with marginalised people, particularly youth. But
such groups are seldom recognised or contacted in consultations and
debate on relevant policies and programs;
There is a lack of analysis of consultation submissions. Focus is
predominantly on collecting inputs and often little planning and scant
resources are devoted to how submissions will be analysed to produce
outputs and outcomes. Also, many departments and agencies lack the
tools to analyse large volumes of unstructured data (i.e., text). (See ‘Data
analysis’ for an example and further discussion of this issue);
There is no sharing of the findings of consultations when there is content
relevant to other government departments and agencies, as noted in the
previous section and discussed in detail under ‘Data sharing and knowledge
management’;
There is also a lack of reporting back following consultations. Reports
of consultations are posted on Gov.UK. However, while major stakeholder
organisations which ‘understand the system’ might readily access these
reports, citizens are unlikely to search for the results of a consultation.
Proactive reporting to relevant stakeholders and citizens should be
undertaken. This can be easily managed today with technology such
as auto-generated e-mails when e-mail addresses are provided, or
simply publishing reports and summaries in relevant media such as local
newspapers, trade journals, and specialist publications (e.g., organisation
newsletters). Research shows that acknowledgement and reporting back
substantially increase trust in the process.44
An overall conclusion is that many consultations are more about meeting legal
requirements than listening. With consultation a legislated requirement in
many circumstances, focus is often on meeting the specified criteria, which
results in formulaic and minimalist approaches.
EXAMPLE
The NHS Mandate public consultation conducted in October 2015 to develop
the mandate for the NHS for 2016–2017 illustrates the under-utilisation of
public feedback and data received by the UK Government through lack of data
analysis, as well as opportunities for improvement.
Typically, such consultations attract around 300 submissions. In 2015, the
NHS Mandate consultation attracted 127,400 submissions. In addition to
140 organisations that responded, individual public responses included:
114,000 that were attributed to a campaign by 38 Degrees, a membership
organisation which campaigns on a range of issues (this was identified
through the appearance of common terms and phrases closely linked to 38
Degrees policies, suggesting use of a form letter or template);
470 that were attributed to a campaign by the National Autistic Society;
43 See http://www.fixers.org.uk.
44 Studies of the 2008 Obama presidential campaign show that short acknowledgement
e-mails sent to all donors, supporters, and general inquiries created wide public
satisfaction and support.
26 CREATING A ‘DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE’
Findings – Organisational Listening Project (Stage 2)
270 that were attributed to ‘Our NHS’, a campaign to promote a fully
nationalised, comprehensive health service;
170 that were attributed to the Wheelchair Leadership Alliance;
12,500 that were unique replies from individuals expressing personal views.
This included 8,880 responses submitted via Citizen Space.
NHS England staff manually analysed the large volume of submissions,
identifying the above factors and a number of findings including:
Opposition to further private sector involvement in the NHS;
Concern that there is insufficient funding to achieve the aims of the
mandate and the NHS’s Five Year Forward View;
Concern that the mandate does not mention staff issues such as safe
staffing levels and calls for improved pay and conditions;
Concern about seven-day services, which were being introduced at the
time of this study;
Strong support for improving mental health services but concern about
lack of funding;
Strong support for focus on prevention of ill-health, but concerns that
public health, community and social care funding is insufficient to achieve
aims;
Shortness of the consultation period and lack of publicity to make people
aware of the consultation.
Civil service staff are to be commended for the analysis they did without any
specialised text or data analysis tools. However, the additional findings gained
from analysis conducted as part of this research project illustrate the importance
of in-depth data analysis and the tools and skills for conducting such analysis
(see ‘Pilot project’ findings below).
PILOT PROJECT INITIATIVES
In July and early August 2016, the NHS Mandate consultation submissions were
re-analysed using a sophisticated textual analysis application, Method52. This
Web-based application developed by the University of Sussex in partnership
with DEMOS uses natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning, but
maintains active analyst control throughout processing allowing analysts to
correct classifications and add categories (e.g., of topics or issues) if required
(referred to as active learning). The application allows both inductive and
deductive analysis45, which is important for discovery research, gaining detailed
insights, testing hypotheses, etc. This analysis confirmed some of the findings
derived in manual human analysis, but found some important additional insights
including:
Many citizens don’t trust government consultation. A significant number
commented that the NHS Mandate consultation was a “smokescreen” for
privatisation of health;
45 Inductive analysis identifies specific characteristics in data (e.g., it identifies major
topics, themes, and issues that are discussed in transcripts of focus groups or
consultations) and draws general conclusions from these. Conversely, deductive
analysis tests pre-determined hypotheses and generalisations in data (e.g., it looks
for the frequency of a priori determined concepts and messages).
CREATING A ‘DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE’ 27
Findings – Organisational Listening Project (Stage 2)
28 CREATING A ‘DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE’
Major concern was expressed over profits being taken out of the UK
health system by private providers (an issue that it would seem needs to
be addressed);
There was confusion over who the consultation was for – health experts
or the general public;
Personal experiences were reported by health professionals including
doctors and consultants – some with 20 plus years of experience – providing
considerable ‘expert’ feedback;
Also, a substantial number of patient experiences were reported; and
Postcodes were given in many submissions, allowing geo-location analysis
to show regional trends and patterns.
In late 2016, the UK Department of Health purchased an upgrade to its e-mail
system that allows automatic e-mail acknowledgements to all those sending
a submission. The same software also can send automated acknowledgements
in response to correspondence that provides an e-mail address.
The Department of Health also expanded its public consultation in 2016 to
include digital engagement with relevant groups. While noting that digital
communication does not reach all sectors of society, e-mail and social media
contact can supplement traditional consultation methods.
In addition, a recommendation was made to the Cabinet Office that consultations
be categorised and structured at a number of levels or by types with
appropriate public promotion, access, language, timeframe, and scope. For
example, it was proposed that consultations could be classified as: (1) expert/
technical consultations that can be highly technical and confined to relevant
experts; (2) implementation/option consultations that are limited to specific
choices; and (3) open public consultations that should be widely accessible.
This recommendation will require a policy change and potentially redrafting of
regulations.
NOTE
The participatory action research including the pilot projects initiated as part
of it and reported here made no long-term commitment to using any particular
tools such as Method52. Consideration was given to a number of technology
platforms and software applications including R, an open source text mining
and analysis tool and, in particular, a text analysis program based on it called
Quanteda (Quantitative Analysis of Textual Data)46 developed by Professor
Ken Benoit, Head of the Department of Methodology at The London School of
Economics and Political Science. As an action research project, all tools and
methods proposed were the subject of trials and evaluation.
46 R and applications based on it such as QUANTEDA use quantitative methods
incorporating statistical analysis, but they work with unstructured qualitative data and
are able to translate qualitative findings into empirical data, according to Professor
Ken Benoit, a world expert in textual and content analysis.
Findings – Organisational Listening Project (Stage 2)
CREATING A ‘DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE’ 29 - Correspondence
Many national government departments and agencies receive between
40,000 and 70,000 pieces of correspondence a year. These come in the form
of Ministerials47 and letters and e-mails direct from stakeholders and citizens.
E-mail is increasingly used, meaning the text of correspondence is received and
stored in digital form – an important factor for the following recommendation.
As far as could be ascertained, departments and agencies have reliable
systems for receiving, recording, and processing correspondence, including
referral and escalation procedures when information needs to be sought from
particular branches, units, or senior management. Most use databases to hold
correspondence records.
However, none of the departments and agencies studied during the two stages
of this research conducted qualitative analysis of the content of correspondence
over time (e.g., annually or even over several years). Such analysis can reveal the
most frequent topics and issues raised, themes, and patterns in what is a large
body of information received by the government. While some correspondence
is quite issue-specific, letters and e-mails often range over a number of issues
and include general comments – positive as well as negative.
Content analysis of correspondence can be conducted using textual analysis
software (also referred to as text analysis). With the advent of natural language
processing and machine learning, such programs partly or largely automate
analysis that identifies key words, themes, and patterns, making such analysis
relatively time-efficient. A large number of textual analysis applications
are available ranging from high-end tools such as NVivo, Leximancer, and
Method52 discussed previously to low-cost and even freeware applications
such as MaxQDA, QDA Miner, MeaningCloud, TextSTAT, and WordStat.
PILOT PROJECT INITIATIVE
In late 2016 the UK Cabinet Office agreed to analyse letters and e-mails to the
Prime Minister using Method52 to identify major themes, common issues, and
patterns. It was also planned to analyse correspondence to the Department
of Health and, if fruitful, analysis of correspondence could be rolled out across
all government departments and agencies. The aim of this analysis, proposed
to be undertaken quarterly, half-yearly, or even annually is to add to the
insights available on the major concerns and issues of interest to stakeholders
and citizens.
47 Ministerials are letters sent to a government Minister, department, or agency by a
Member of Parliament or Congress on behalf of citizens.
Findings – Organisational Listening Project (Stage 2)
30 CREATING A ‘DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE’ - Complaints
Like correspondence, complaints received by UK government departments
and agencies are processed systematically and effectively in terms of the
specific nature of each complaint. Rating systems are in place and escalation
procedures ensure that serious complaints (e.g., patient safety matters in the
health system) are expeditiously referred to the appropriate authorities.
However, three weakness were observed in complaints systems as follows.
Rating systems are orientated to volume – The rating system observed
in some departments (e.g., Health) is weighted by volume. For instance, an
NHS Trust or a hospital with a high volume of complaints is assumed to pose
a greater risk than one with a low volume of complaints. However, many
complaints are often in relation to quite minor matters (e.g., car parking).
Social psychologists at The London School of Economics and Political
Science have developed a Health Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) that
weights complaints qualitatively in terms of risk posed as well as frequency.
This tool is being used by a number of NHS Trusts. The HCAT tool could be
modified for broader use, providing increased insight and intelligence from
public complaints.
Lack of holistic analysis over time – Even more importantly, no evidence
was found of complaints data being analysed over time to identify patterns,
trends, prominent issues, and ‘hot spots’, even though academic studies
have shown the deep and valuable insights can be gained from such
analysis.48 This is a process that could be undertaken annually or even
more frequently using the same textual analysis applications used for
consultation submissions and correspondence.
Complaints via social media – Some government organisations do not
accept or even monitor complaints via social media. While processing of
serious complaints requires an ‘official’ complaint and supporting data,
social media are increasingly used by people to voice complaints. Often the
first signs of dissatisfaction or concern can be identified in social media.
Broader monitoring (i.e., listening) via social media is desirable, as noted in
discussion of ‘Social media’.
The importance of listening effectively to complaints was starkly illustrated in
the final report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry
Chaired by Robert Francis QC which stated:
Building on the report of the first inquiry, the story it tells is first and
foremost of appalling suffering of many patients. This was primarily
caused by a serious failure on the part of a provider Trust Board. It did
not listen sufficiently to its patients.49
48 Reader, T., Gillespie, A., & Mannell, J. (2014). Patient neglect in 21st century health-care
institutions: A community health psychology perspective. Journal of Health Psychology,
19(1), 137–148; Reader, T., Gillespie, A., & Roberts, J. (2014). Patient complaints
in healthcare systems: A systematic review and coding taxonomy. BMJ Quality and
Safety, 1–12.
49 Stationery Office. (2013). Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public
Inquiry, p. 3. Retrieved from http://www.midstaffspublicinquiry.com/sites/default/
files/report/Executive%20summary.pdf
Findings – Organisational Listening Project (Stage 2)
CREATING A ‘DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE’ 31
PILOT PROJECT INITIATIVES
In late 2016, the Economic and Domestic Secretariat (EDS) and the Government
Communication Service agreed to review the potential for the Health
Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) developed by researchers at The London
School of Economics (LSE) for analysing all types of complaints. The GCS tasked
a special committee to investigate wider use of the HCAT (see footnote 51).
In addition, the Government Communication Service and departments including
the Department of Health are considering textual analysis of complaints over
extended periods such as six months or a year to identify common themes,
prominent issues, and patterns (e.g., geo-location analysis). - Digital and social media
Research in Stages 1 and 2 of The Organisational Listening Project found
widespread use of social media, but a predominant focus on posting messages
(i.e., speaking). There was evidence of a shift towards more dialogic approaches
over the course of this study. For instance, the UK Department of Health
has established a specific Digital Insights team to conduct social media
listening. This team does not post comments – staff members simply listen
and report insights on key issues to communications and relevant policy staff
in weekly and monthly reports. This is in line with professional and academic
recommendations for the use of Web 2.0 platforms.50 Use of social media for
listening offers a cost-effective method of gaining insights and feedback.
However, this approach was not found to be widespread. Some departments
and agencies did not systematically monitor and analyse social media at the
time of this report. This indicates that use of social media for listening can
be further expanded in line with policies such as the UK Government Digital
Strategy.
Tools for social media listening and analysis are available in many departments
and agencies, such as Brandwatch, Sysomos, Tableau, Coosto, and Social
Mention, as well as freeware such as Google Analytics and Twitter Analytics.
There are also service providers that can provide quantitative and qualitative
social media tracking and analysis such as Gorkana and Kantar Media in the
UK, as well as similar service providers in the USA, Europe, Asia Pacific, South
America, Africa, and the Middle East (e.g., CARMA, Cision, and iSentia).
Also, perhaps because of the relative newness of digital and social media, staff
responsible for these channels are often housed in separate units rather than
integrated with other insights or media teams.
50 Boler, M. (Ed.). (2008). Digital media and democracy: Tactics in hard times. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press; Macnamara, J. (2014). The 21st century media (r)evolution: Emergent
communication practices. New York, NY: Peter Lang; Siapera, E. (2012). Understanding
new media. London, UK and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Findings – Organisational Listening Project (Stage 2)
32 CREATING A ‘DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE’
PILOT PROJECT INITIATIVES
During this research project, partly in response to interim findings of this research
and partly due to a scheduled restructuring in the Department of Health known
as DH 2020, the department integrated its Citizen Insights, Communication
Insights, and Digital Insights units into a single Insights unit.
Digital and social media analysis staff increased focus on digital listening,
noting that social media provide early and often real-time insights into the views
and reactions of stakeholders and citizens.
The Department of Health linked its e-mail system to its Citizen Space
consultation platform to provide enhanced feedback (e.g., participants and
interested parties can sign-up to be advised of the outcome of consultations
and notified of future consultations).
As noted under ‘Consultation’, the Department of Health also committed
to digital engagement with relevant groups (e.g., proactive e-mail and
social media contact with stakeholders) as a supplement to traditional
consultation methods.
A GCS committee51 led by Stephen Hardwick, Director of Communications for
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) was asked to investigate steps to
ensure all government departments and agencies have access to appropriate
social media analysis tools such as Brandwatch. - Stakeholder engagement
Overall, there is an active stakeholder engagement program within the UK
Government. For instance, The Department of Business, Energy and Industrial
Strategy (BEIS) has extensive contact with business and industry and Her
Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) works closely with the financial sector,
particularly accountants, tax agents, and financial advisers.
However, a weakness of stakeholder engagement observed and reported by
some staff is that it is often conducted around specific policy announcements.
In such cases, it is seen as ‘pitch rolling’ to smooth the way for implementation
of policies. In some cases, this is too late. And it can be seen cynically as
government calling only when it wants something.
Stakeholder engagement theory52 and best practice advocate an ‘upstream’
focus – that is, building and maintaining working relationships in advance of
announcements and activities for which cooperation or support is sought and
giving stakeholders a chance to influence decisions, not simply communicating
unilateral decisions to them. It also should include proactive contact to listen to
51 This committee was also tasked to investigate the legal status and methods of sharing
public response and feedback including the addition of an opt-out box on consultation
sites (see sub-section 8) and use of the Health Complaints Analysis Tool (see subsection
4).
52 Neil, J. (2009). Stakeholder engagement: A road map to meaningful engagement.
Bedford, UK: The Doughty Centre for Corporate Responsibility, Cranfield School
of Management. Retrieved from https://www.networkedcranfield.com/doughty/
Document%20Library/How%20To%20Guides/Stakeholder%20engagement
%20A%20road%20map%20to%20meaningful%20engagement.pdf
Findings – Organisational Listening Project (Stage 2)
CREATING A ‘DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE’ 33
stakeholders’ views and concerns. Government is often risk-averse in relation
to contacting major stakeholder groups in advance of specific initiatives for fear
of “stirring up an issue”. However, relationships and partnerships only work if
they are two-way and built on trust and mutuality.
PILOT PROJECT INITIATIVES
During this research project the Department of Health restructured its
stakeholder engagement unit to upgrade the priority of this area and adopt
a more proactive approach focussed on building relationships with key
stakeholders and expanding engagement beyond the ‘usual suspects’. This
was partly stimulated by this participatory action research and partly by
the initiative of the head of stakeholder engagement and the department’s
management team. - Data analysis
A major over-arching finding of this research that emerged from analysis
of consultations, correspondence, and complaints is that insufficient data
analysis is conducted on much of the information and data received and held
by the government. Greater commitment and capability should be created for
qualitative as well a quantitative (statistical) analysis.
This will require staff training as well as specialist tools as discussed in previous
sections of this report (e.g., textual analysis software, complaints analysis
tools, etc.).
PILOT PROJECT INITIATIVE
An internal report of this research to the UK Government recommended that
advanced data analysis skills, including methods for qualitative data
analysis, and more effective ‘listening’ to stakeholders and citizens be
embedded into the Government Communication Service professional
development program – an ongoing program of short courses and workshops
to increase the skills and capabilities of GCS staff. This recommendation was
accepted by the GCS with implementation beginning in 2017. - Data sharing and knowledge management
It can be seen from this analysis that a vast amount of information about public
attitudes, perceptions, concerns, and views exists across the UK Government in
the form of quantitative and qualitative social research such as surveys and polls,
focus groups, interviews, and ethnography, as well as data collected in the form
of public consultation submissions, correspondence, complaints, traditional
and social media analysis, and evaluation reports. This information is processed
and used to meet the specific needs of the commissioning organisations.
However, despite some initiatives that have attempted to share data – e.g., the
former Central Office of Information (COI), which was closed down in 2012; a
spreadsheet containing a partial index created in the Cabinet Office; and an
Excel list of research studies maintained by the Citizen Insights Network (CIN)
in the Department of Health – much public feedback resides in ‘data siloes’
and is not shared. There is currently no central data warehouse or knowledge
Findings – Organisational Listening Project (Stage 2)
management system that collectively represents the voice of stakeholders
and citizens and provides audience insights to inform communication with the
British public. This represents:
A lost opportunity to gain insights and understanding;
A political risk when important information is missed (which conveys nonlistening
to the public);
A cost through undertaking unnecessary new research or duplication of
research in some cases.
It should be noted that data sharing is occurring in some instances through
interpersonal relations and the initiative of civil service staff. However, staff
attrition and mobility, particularly during a time of cut-backs, make such methods
of sharing data tenuous and unsustainable. More systematic methods are
required to avoid lost opportunities and potential wastage through duplication.
Insights2020 (i2020), a major study conducted by Kantar Vermeer and
published by Harvard Business Review in September 2016 found that “67% of
the executives at over-performing firms (those that outpaced competitors in
revenue growth) said that their company was skilled at linking disparate data
sources, whereas only 34% of the executives at underperformers made the
same claim”. The researchers concluded: “What matters now is not so much
the quantity of data a firm can amass but its ability to connect the dots and
extract value from the information. This capability differentiates successful
organisations from less successful ones”.53
The Modern Communications Operating Model (MCOM) adopted by the UK
Government Communication Service in 2015 states: “The GCS will create
an Insight Centre” (Recommendation 8).54 At the time of this study, which
concluded in December 2016, this had not been implemented.
In the very least, a central searchable insights centre or knowledge management
(KM) system should be established for storing and sharing reports of social
research. In many cases, social research commissioned by one part of the
government contains information and insights relevant to other departments
and agencies.
In addition, there is a strong argument that data collected through public
consultation submissions, correspondence, complaints, social media
analysis, and other methods should be centrally stored in searchable form for
sharing across government. This data has been voluntarily provided by citizens
and it can be reasonably assumed that most citizens would expect government
to give consideration to their feedback, comments, requests, and complaints in
all forums, committees, departments, and agencies that have responsibilities
and roles relevant to the issues discussed.
53 van den Driest, F., Sthanunathan, S., & Weed, K. (2016, September). Building an insights
engine. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/09/buildingan-
insights-engine
54 Government Communication Service. (2015). Modern Communications Operating Model.
Retrieved from https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/6.1288_
CO_CP_Modern-Comms-Team-Document_for-print-FINAL-2-2.pdf
34 CREATING A ‘DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE’
Findings – Organisational Listening Project (Stage 2)
Despite the logic of sharing data across government, legal interpretations
provided to a committee commissioned to investigate data sharing as part of
this study indicated that there are legal barriers to sharing public feedback
provided in consultation submissions, correspondence, and complaints – even
in de-identified or anonymised form. Whether this is a case of risk aversion in
government, or a legitimate barrier is a matter for further investigation (see
‘Pilot project initiatives’ below).
The sharing of public consultation submissions is further complicated and
prevented by the lack of a central UK government online consultation platform.
As noted under ‘Consultation’, the official Gov.UK Web site publishes the terms
of reference and reports of consultations, but does not accept submissions.
Most UK government departments and agencies use third party consultation
software such as Citizen Space, resulting in fragmentation of data across
multiple servers in multiple formats.
It should be noted that the data under discussion here does not include personal
records or sensitive information such as medical records.
Furthermore, data to be shared can be de-identified and/or anonymised55 to
protect privacy.
Even further, the full text of consultation submissions, correspondence, and
complaints does not need to be shared and, in any case, is likely to cause
information overload. Insights and understanding are more likely to be gained
from analyses of such data (e.g., textual or content analysis that identifies key
issues, themes, patterns, trends, etc.). Reports generated from analysis are the
intellectual property of the author (e.g., the government).
Concerns about privacy and permission to share data also can be addressed
by including a ‘check box’ on all consultation forms and other online templates
for feedback, complaints, and correspondence for users to agree or disagree
that their feedback and comments can be shared in de-identified form with all
government bodies with responsibilities relevant to the content.
There appears to be no legal or logical reason why analysis of consultation
submissions, correspondence, and complaints (i.e., reports that interpret the
data and summarise key findings) cannot be shared with other organisations,
particularly those acting in the public interest.
PILOT PROJECT INITIATIVES
As reported under ‘Pilot Project Initiatives’ in sub-section 5, as part of this
participatory action research project the UK Cabinet Office established a
committee to investigate:
The legal status of sharing data from various sources including social
research, public consultation submissions, correspondence, and
complaints within the UK Government;
The process required to add a ‘check box’ to online forms and templates
for public consultation submissions, correspondence, and complaints with
55 De-identification involves removing names from data to be reported or published, but
retaining records. Anonymisation involves irreversibly severing a data set from the
identity of the data contributor in a study.
CREATING A ‘DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE’ 35
Findings – Organisational Listening Project (Stage 2)
a default agreeing to sharing of the content with all government bodies
with responsibilities relevant to the content (see footnote 51).
On the recommendation of the researchers, senior staff in the UK Government
Communication Service also sought advice from knowledge management
experts in universities and UK Data Archives on creating a central ‘data
warehouse’ or searchable index of all relevant data in relation to public feedback,
comments, complaints, perceptions, and attitudes.
The potential for the Government Digital Service (GDS) to establish a central
online public consultation site on the official Gov.UK Web site as a uniform
platform with a central database for storing consultation data was also being
investigated in late 2016.
A relatively new method of gaining audience insights in which the UK Government
was a pioneer is behavioural insights (also referred to as behavioural
economics, although the practices differ in some respects), colloquially
referred to as nudge marketing based on the book by Richard Thaler and Cass
Sunstein56 and referred to as choice architecture in academic research. A
behavioural insights team (BIT), also known as the Nudge Unit, was established
in Whitehall in 2010. Number 10 Downing Street subsequently divested the
unit in 2014 as a ‘social purpose company’ headed by Dr David Halpern
(see www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk).
Behavioural insights have been used by the UK Department of Health (e.g.,
for reducing missed hospital appointments57), NHS Blood and Transplant (for
increasing blood donations), and the former Department of Business and
Industry (now Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy). At the time of this
research, a behavioural insights team was based within the policy research
team in the Science Research and Evidence Directorate and a number of UK
government departments employed behavioural insights specialists. In the USA,
Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government has established the
Behavioural Insights Group (BIG), and the White House set up a Nudge Unit in - In Australia the state government of New South Wales has established
a Behavioural Insights Community of Practice to share knowledge across
departments and agencies (see bi.dpc.nsw.gov.au).
56 Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and
happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
57 Hallsworth, M., Berry, D., Sanders, M., Sallis, A., King, D., Vlaev, I., & Darzi, A.
(2015). Stating appointment costs in SMS reminders reduces missed hospital
appointments: Findings of two randomized controlled trials. PLOS One. Retrieved from
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0137306
58 Nesterak, E. (2014, July 13). Head of White House “Nudge Unit” Maya Shankar
speaks about newly formed social and behavioural sciences team. ThePsychReport.
Retrieved from http://thepsychreport.com/current-events/head-of-white-housenudge-
unit-maya-shankar-speaks-about-newly-formed-us-social-and-behavioralsciences-
team
36 CREATING A ‘DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE’
Findings – Organisational Listening Project (Stage 2)
Proponents argue that this research and analysis method can identify audience
needs, interests, and preferences in mutually beneficial ways. However, there
are concerns that behavioural insights involve selectively listening to ‘target
audiences’ only in order to influence their behaviour in ways desired by an
organisation – i.e., it is organisation-centric and potentially manipulative.
Careful consideration needs to be given to ethics if this method is to contribute
to enhanced listening. - Evaluation
Another area in which the UK Government has arguably been a world leader is
in evaluation of communication. While formative evaluation (i.e., ex-ante) could
be considered part of social research (see sub-section 1), summative evaluation
(ex-post) is equally relevant to this study and worthy of special attention because
it requires research to identify the reactions and responses of stakeholders and
citizens to government initiatives and communication, as well as overall factors
such a satisfaction and trust. Therefore, evaluation should involve careful,
attentive listening.
Since 2012 under the leadership of Alex Aiken and coordinated by specialist
appointees such as Paul Njoku, who was seconded from Her Majesty’s Revenue
and Customs (HMRC), and advocates such as Elayne Phillips in the Department
for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the GCS has introduced:
An Evaluation Council made up of a mix of senior government
communication directors and external research experts, which reviews all
proposed UK Government campaigns59;
‘Evaluation Champions’ in departments and agencies to advocate and
advance standards for rigorous evaluation;
Professional development of GCS staff in evaluation methods through
workshops and seminars;
Templates and guidelines for reporting the outcomes and impact of
government communication.60
59 GCS (Government Communication Service). (2017). Evaluation Council. Retrieved from
https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/guidance/evaluation/evaluation-council
60 Macnamara, J. (2017). Evaluating public communication: Exploring new models,
standards, and best practice. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
CREATING A ‘DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE’ 37
Findings – Organisational Listening Project (Stage 2)
Notwithstanding, evaluation remains under-developed in the field of public
communication generally, as identified by many researchers61. Review of the
evaluation practices of the UK GCS found an over-reliance on quantitative data
with a corresponding lack of collection and analysis of in-depth qualitative data,
and a focus on media metrics in particular. Discussions at the International
Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC) ‘Summit
on Measurement’ in 2014, 2015 and 2016 indicate that this is common across
the public communication field62. - Campaigning
A major focus of communication in many governments as well as corporations
is campaigning.
Campaigns are predominantly top-down one-way transmission of information
and persuasive messages – whether through paid media advertising or other
methods. As such, they do not comprise communication as it is defined in extant
literature and as it is expected by citizens and stakeholders.
While provision of information to citizens is an important part of a government’s
role, and persuasion is a legitimate goal in many instances (e.g., to reduce health
risks, improve road safety, etc.), governments in democratic systems also have
a responsibility to engage in communication with stakeholders and citizens –
i.e., two-way dialogic interaction involving both speaking and listening.
Notwithstanding, like a number of other government bodies, the UK Cabinet
Office, which is responsible for supporting the Prime Minister and the Cabinet,
and particularly Number 10 Downing Street (the office of the UK Prime Minister),
focus considerable attention on campaigning. UK Government campaigns are
increasingly much broader than media advertising, but they are nevertheless
focussed on:
Distributing the messages of the government
On issues decided by the government
At times determined by the government.
The position of ‘audience’ needs to be a shared one, not the permanent status
of stakeholders and citizens. In other words, ‘government as audience’ is a
central concept for an effectively functioning democracy as advocated by
Andrew Dobson, Stephen Coleman and others cited in this study.
61 Likely, F., & Watson, T. (2013). Measuring the edifice: Public relations measurement and
evaluation practice over the course of 40 years. In J. Sriramesh, A. Zerfass, & J. Kim
(Eds.), Public relations and communication management: Current trends and emerging
topics (pp. 143–162). New York, NY: Routledge; Macnamara, 2017.
62 Macnamara, J. (2015). Breaking the measurement and evaluation deadlock: A
new approach and model. Journal of Communication Management, 19(4), 371–387;
Macnamara, J., & Zerfass, A. 2017). Evaluation stasis continues in PR and corporate
communication: Asia Pacific insights into causes. Communication Research & Practice.
doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2017.1275258
38 CREATING A ‘DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE’
Findings – Organisational Listening Project (Stage 2)
Furthermore, two-way communication requires that organisations not only listen
selectively and at times of their choosing to achieve their objectives, such as in
conducting social or market research, but that they are open and responsive
to stakeholders and citizens at all times – including when stakeholders and
citizens choose to speak to the organisation. Democratic government requires
‘always on’ communication with stakeholders and citizens – not only periodic
communication when a government chooses to communicate or engage.
Some public communication campaigns of governments and corporations
continue to use traditional socioeconomic audience segmentation, which
categorises people as A, B, C1, C2, D, or E in which A, B, and C1 generally
equate to middle class (e.g., from senior managers and professionals to skilled
workers), C2 and D equate to working class from semi-skilled to unskilled,
and E denotes those on welfare.63 This method of audience segmentation is
increasingly criticised as simplistic and inaccurate in reflecting perspectives
and attitudes. For example, sense making methodology (SMM) 64 rejects such
arbitrary categorisation, arguing that people travel through ‘space and time’ in
today’s mobile and globalised world and their views reflect circumstances at a
point in time, rather than being fixed based on socioeconomic circumstances.
For instance, a single at-home mother, who would be categorised as a D or
E on the NRS-developed social scale65, may be in the process of starting her
own business and planning to send her children to university. Conversely, in this
study the researcher met senior business executives who had retired to become
activists for social change66.
PILOT PROJECT INITIATIVES
As part of this research project, a recommendation was presented to the UK
Government Communication Service to reduce campaigning in favour of more
listening and responsive communication. A senior official pointed out (correctly)
that campaigns are necessary and important in some instances (e.g., for public
education about health, to encourage blood donations, etc.). While agreeing
that more listening is needed, he also commented that a major shift away from
campaigns “is not going to happen. The Prime Minister and the government
want campaigns” (Anon, interview, December 19, 2016).
The UK Government is moving away from A, B, C1, C2, D, and E audience
categorisation to more sophisticated qualitative methods based on audience
insights, which is supported by this study.
63 Ipsos MORI. (2009). Social grade: A classification tool. London, UK: Author.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/DownloadPublication/1285_MediaCT_thoughtpiece_
Social_Grade_July09_V3_WEB.pdf
64 Dervin, B., & Foreman-Wernet, L. (2013). Sense-making methodology as an approach
to understanding and designing for campaign audiences. In R. Rice & C. Atkin (Eds.),
Public communication campaigns (4th ed., pp. 147–162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
65 The A, B, C1, C2, D, E socioeconomic scale was developed by the UK National
Readership Survey. See http://www.nrs.co.uk/nrs-print/lifestyle-and-classificationdata/
social-grade
66 For example, see A Blueprint for Better Business – http://www.blueprintforbusiness.org.
CREATING A ‘DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE’ 39
Findings – Organisational Listening Project (Stage 2)
The post FINDINGS – ORGANISATIONAL LISTENING PROJECT appeared first on My Assignment Online.
Plagiarism Free Assignment Help
Expert Help With This Assignment — On Your Terms
✓ Native UK, USA & Australia writers
✓ Deadline from 3 hours
✓ 100% Plagiarism-Free — Turnitin included
✓ Unlimited free revisions
✓ Free to submit — compare quotes