11 research outputs found
Comment Data from CeRI, 4-3-2017
No full textThis file contains comment data from ten live policy discussions held on RegulationRoom.org and SmartParticipation.com from May 2010 to November 2016. A cross-disciplinary group of Cornell researchers, the Cornell eRulemaking Initiative (CeRI), created the experimental platforms for public participation in policymaking processes. CeRI used selected live federal agency rulemakings and other policy discussions to discover how the design and process of online engagement can support public discussion that is informed, inclusive and insightful
CeRI (Cornell e-Rulemaking) Moderator Protocol
No full textFrom 2005-2017, CeRI was a multidisciplinary group of Cornell University researchers engaged in theoretical and applied research, in partnership with government agencies and civil society groups, to discover how the design and process of online engagement can support public discussion that is informed, inclusive and insightful.
The Moderator Protocol was used by moderators (students in a Cornell Law School e-Government Clinic) to facilitate dialogue and discussion during live discussions on our RegulationRoom.org and SmartParticipation.com platforms. It is provided here as a resource and reference tool. Additional information on the project is available at SmartParticipation.com
Rulemaking 2.0
No full textIn response to President Obama\u27s Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government, federal agencies are on the verge of a new generation in online rulemaking. However, unless we recognize the several barriers to making rulemaking a more broadly participatory process, and purposefully adapt Web 2.0 technologies and methods to lower those barriers, Rulemaking 2.0 is likely to disappoint agencies and open-government advocates alike.
This article describes the design, operation, and initial results of Regulation Room, a pilot public rulemaking participation platform created by a cross-disciplinary group of Cornell researchers in collaboration with the Department of Transportation. Regulation Room uses selected live rulemakings to experiment with human and computer support for public comment. The ultimate project goal is to provide guidance on design, technological, and human intervention strategies, grounded in theory and tested in practice, for effective Rulemaking 2.0 systems.
Early results give some cause for optimism about the open-government potential of Web 2.0-supported rulemaking. But significant challenges remain. Broader, better public participation is hampered by 1) ignorance of the rulemaking process; 2) unawareness that rulemakings of interest are going on; and 3) information overload from the length and complexity of rulemaking materials. No existing, commonly used Web services or applications are good analogies for what a Rulemaking 2.0 system must do to lower these barriers. To be effective, the system must not only provide the right mix of technology, content, and human assistance to support users in the unfamiliar environment of complex government policymaking; it must also spur them to revise their expectations about how they engage information on the Web and also, perhaps, about what is required for civic participation
Regulation Room: How the Internet Improves Public Participation in Rulemaking
No full textCornell eRulemaking Initiative (CeRI) designed and operated Regulation Room, a pilot project that provides an online environment for people and groups to learn about, discuss, and react to selected proposed federal rules. The project is a unique collaboration between CeRI academic researchers and the government. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) was CeRI\u27s first agency partner and chose Regulation Room as its first open government flagship initiative. USDOT received a White House Open Government Leading Practices Award for its collaboration in the project. CeRI owns, designs, operates, and controls Regulation Room, but works closely with partner agencies to identify suitable live rulemakings for the site and to evaluate success after a rule closes
Rulemaking vs. Democracy: Judging and Nudging Public Participation that Counts
No full textThis essay considers how open government “magical thinking” around technology has infused efforts to increase public participation in rulemaking. We propose a framework for assessing the value of technology-enabled rulemaking participation and offer specific principles of participation-system design, which are based on conceptual work and practical experience in the Regulation Room project at Cornell University.
An underlying assumption of open government enthusiasts is that more public participation will lead to better government policymaking: If we use technology to give people easier opportunities to participate in public policymaking, they will use these opportunities to participate effectively. However, experience thus far with technology-enabled rulemaking (e-rulemaking) has not confirmed these assumptions. To the extent that new participants have engaged with the process, their engagement predominantly takes the form of mass comment campaigns orchestrated by advocacy groups. The conventional response to this new participation – by agencies and academics alike – has been to regard mass commenting as worse than useless. Recently, though, Nina Mendelson argued for rethinking this response. Exploring the relationship between rulemaking and democratic government, she proposes that agencies should take account of the value preferences expressed in such comments when rulemaking involves value judgments.
Engaging this important argument, we suggest that not all citizens’ preferences about policy outcomes are created equal. We present a typology that captures important differences in information quality and deliberativeness of preference formation. Unlike electoral democracy (in which participation based on any type of preference is valued), the legitimacy of the rulemaking process relies on a formally transparent process of reasoned deliberation. The types of preferences expressed in mass comments may be good enough for electoral democracy but they are not good enough for rulemaking, even when rulemaking is heavily laden with value choices.
This position challenges both the Web 2.0 ethos and the common open-government belief that more public participation, of any kind, is a good thing. At least with respect to rulemaking and similar complex policymaking processes, more public participation is good only if it is the kind of participation that has value in the process. From our experiences on Regulation Room, we argue that design of successful “Rulemaking 2.0” civic engagement systems must involve a purposeful and continuous effort to balance “more” and “better” participation. We offer several specific design principles for striking this balance, perhaps the most important of which is that a democratic government should not actively facilitate public participation that it does not value
Barriers to Participatory eRulemaking Platform Adoption: Lessons Learned from RegulationRoom
No full textCornell e-Rulemaking Initiative Publications. 19.
Rulemaking, the process through which United States (U.S.) federal government agencies develop major health, safety and economic regulations, was an early target of electronic government (e-government) efforts. Because it was an established decision-making process that had substantial formal requirements of transparency, public participation and responsiveness it seemed a perfect target for technology-supported participatory policymaking. It was believed that new technologies could transform rulemaking, increasing its democratic legitimacy and improving its policy outcomes by broadening the range of participating individuals and groups (Brandon and Carlitz, 2003; Coglianese, 2004; Noveck, 2004). Despite the promise of a more deliberative and democratic process, rulemaking efforts have failed to produce broader meaningful public engagement. In this paper we examine if lack of adoption of participatory eRulemaking platforms can be explained by the disruption to agencies’ established rulemaking practices. We will consider how agencies react to technological innovation as a risk due to their deep-rooted organizational cultures and the impact of judicial and political oversight. We will provide examples of agency risk and culture, including from our own experiences with RegulationRoom, a socio-technological participation platform that has facilitated public participation in six federal rulemakings. We will also draw on a comparison of for-profit businesses and rulemaking agencies in thinking about motivation to adopt (or avoid) new technologies
Barriers to Participatory eRulemaking Platform Adoption: Lessons Learned from RegulationRoom
No full textCornell e-Rulemaking Initiative Publications. 19.
Rulemaking, the process through which United States (U.S.) federal government agencies develop major health, safety and economic regulations, was an early target of electronic government (e-government) efforts. Because it was an established decision-making process that had substantial formal requirements of transparency, public participation and responsiveness it seemed a perfect target for technology-supported participatory policymaking. It was believed that new technologies could transform rulemaking, increasing its democratic legitimacy and improving its policy outcomes by broadening the range of participating individuals and groups (Brandon and Carlitz, 2003; Coglianese, 2004; Noveck, 2004). Despite the promise of a more deliberative and democratic process, rulemaking efforts have failed to produce broader meaningful public engagement. In this paper we examine if lack of adoption of participatory eRulemaking platforms can be explained by the disruption to agencies’ established rulemaking practices. We will consider how agencies react to technological innovation as a risk due to their deep-rooted organizational cultures and the impact of judicial and political oversight. We will provide examples of agency risk and culture, including from our own experiences with RegulationRoom, a socio-technological participation platform that has facilitated public participation in six federal rulemakings. We will also draw on a comparison of for-profit businesses and rulemaking agencies in thinking about motivation to adopt (or avoid) new technologies
Barriers to Participatory eRulemaking Platform Adoption: Lessons Learned from RegulationRoom
No full textCornell e-Rulemaking Initiative Publications. 19.
Rulemaking, the process through which United States (U.S.) federal government agencies develop major health, safety and economic regulations, was an early target of electronic government (e-government) efforts. Because it was an established decision-making process that had substantial formal requirements of transparency, public participation and responsiveness it seemed a perfect target for technology-supported participatory policymaking. It was believed that new technologies could transform rulemaking, increasing its democratic legitimacy and improving its policy outcomes by broadening the range of participating individuals and groups (Brandon and Carlitz, 2003; Coglianese, 2004; Noveck, 2004). Despite the promise of a more deliberative and democratic process, rulemaking efforts have failed to produce broader meaningful public engagement. In this paper we examine if lack of adoption of participatory eRulemaking platforms can be explained by the disruption to agencies’ established rulemaking practices. We will consider how agencies react to technological innovation as a risk due to their deep-rooted organizational cultures and the impact of judicial and political oversight. We will provide examples of agency risk and culture, including from our own experiences with RegulationRoom, a socio-technological participation platform that has facilitated public participation in six federal rulemakings. We will also draw on a comparison of for-profit businesses and rulemaking agencies in thinking about motivation to adopt (or avoid) new technologies
RegulationRoom: Field-Testing An Online Public Participation Platform During USA Agency Rulemakings
No full textRulemaking is one of the U.S. government\u27s most important policymaking methods. Although broad transparency and participation rights are part of its legal structure, significant barriers prevent effective engagement by many groups of interested citizens. RegulationRoom, an experimental open-government partnership between academic researchers and government agencies, is a socio-technical participation system that uses multiple methods to alert and effectively engage new voices in rulemaking. Initial results give cause for optimism but also caution that successful use of new technologies to increase participation in complex government policy decisions is more difficult and resource-intensive than many proponents expect
Not by Technology Alone: The “Analog” Aspects of Online Public Engagement in Policymaking
No full textBetween Twitter revolutions and Facebook elections, there is a growing belief that information and communication technologies are changing the way democracy is practiced. The discourse around e-government and online deliberation is frequently focused on technical solutions and based in the belief that if you build it correctly they will come. This paper departs from the literature on digital divide to examine barriers to online civic participation in policy deliberation. While most scholarship focuses on identifying and describing those barriers, this study offers an in-depth analysis of what it takes to address them using a particular case study. Based in the tradition of action research, this paper focuses on analysis of practices that evolved in Regulation Room - a research project of CeRI (Cornell eRulemaking Initiative) that works with federal government agencies in helping them engage public in complex policymaking processes. It draws a multidimensional picture of motivation, skill, and general political participation divides; or the “analog” aspects of the digital divide in online civic participation and policy deliberation
