Metadata, e-government and the language of democracy
Recently wrote a short article http://www.epsg.org.uk/dcsg/resources.html which is based on some work which explored how people understand the language of local democracy. Not surprisingly no one understood the local government key words of scrutiny, best value or performance indicators. But is this to do with apathy at the democratic process or cynicism (and possibly anger) that people feel there voice isn’t heard?
Hi Danny
Your article looks good and is quite a good read, although I am confused by the atoms and swimming pools metaphor(s).
Also, I wonder if the article supports and thus perpetuates the myth of public democracy apathy, rather than explores or deconstructs it.
Our findings at UsabilityWorks time and time again suggest that, while the public itself initially verbally supports the idea promoted by politicians and the media that there is general apathy to voting, elections, politics in general and local democratic issues in particular, the reality is, in fact, the opposite.
Apart from the initial assertion of apathy to the political process, we have actually found little evidence of it once we start digging around. Rather, once people get going on local democratic issues and they see someone listening and responding, they are well away: many good ideas, many sensible opinions, many unvoiced views.
The evidence suggests that people feel that anything they have to say will not be heard and will have little effect within the current system. So, they have learnt not to waste their time.
This is not apathy. It is frustration, scepticism, and, dare I say it, fermenting anger.
As often, it is the system that is at fault, not the user. The user is simply circumventing/ignoring a system that doesn’t cater to their needs and doesn’t work properly.
Best,
John Cowpertwait
UsabilityWorks Limited