The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER THREE FINDINGS RELATED TO THE INCEPTION, ESTABLISHMENT & CONSOLIDATION OF THE RURAL COMMUNITY GATEWAY

3.1. The RCG was launched formally in March 2003. This sub-section now examines feedback from frequent and infrequent users concerning their experiences of using the RCG, whether they see it as fulfilling its objectives, their suggestions for improvement and for its sustainability.

People's experiences of using the RCG

Positive feedback

3.2. Findings from the online survey (Fig. 3.1.) show that the main reasons for using the RCG were: following up on specific issues/news (13.28%); finding out about funding opportunities (12.63%); browse rural issues (11.41%); and following up links from the fortnightly update email (10.43%).

Fig 3.1. Survey respondents' main reasons for using the RCG

3.3. Respondents were also asked to mark, in order of preference, those features of the RCG which were important/unimportant to them. Table 3.1 reports those responses which rate the features as either "Extremely important" or "Unimportant":

Table 3.1. How important RCG features are to survey respondents (cited here: number of respondents who stated "Extremely Important" or "Unimportant")

3.4. We can see then that, although funding might not be the main reason why respondents used the RCG, information on "funding opportunities" was certainly a feature seen as "Extremely important" by 131 of 241 respondents to the online survey (54%). The documents library was viewed with the same importance by one-quarter of those surveyed (24%), and the following-up of links from the email by just under one third of respondents (29%).

3.5. Where the respondents were 'pushed' a bit further in this discussion, and asked which RCG features they would miss if they were withdrawn, the picture became clearer:

Fig 3.2. RCG features that would be missed if they were withdrawn

3.6. We can now see that, if the funding opportunities feature were to be withdrawn, it would be missed by 22.45% of survey respondents; the email alert would be missed by 20.26%; and the documents section by 18.32%. The following features of the RCG would also be missed: Ask the Expert (10.32%), Member's Directory (9.55%), the Polls (9.3%), and Rural Answers (7.87%). When outlining the reasons why these features of the RCG would be missed, users pointed to the value of knowing what other communities were doing and how they had dealt with problems, and of being able to pass on this information to others.

3.7. From the users' workshops, participants highlighted how much they valued the RCG, specifically in terms of it being a one-stop shop for unbiased, rural information, which was regularly updated. The funding information was particularly valued:

"The RCG's a good source for funding; and it's good the way that you could look at archives of funding. It opened up a whole avenue of funders that you wouldn't have got anywhere else." (Lanark)

"There's some people who are into funding all time, and then there are those who are into funding for ONE thing and they don't know where to start - and the RCG is really good for that, to guide them through. The funding thing's going to become more important. And to know if you need to partnership or to match-fund, and the links tell you all that, which is really important." (Pultneytown)

3.8. Further, there were also some positive comments on the appearance, layout, functionality and usability of the RCG website, including that the RCG was clear and attractive, good at signposting, and loaded quickly (which is important in a rural area with often slow connectivity); for example:

"It's a very good site. It is a GATEWAY, presented in a good way, and leads you to a lot of information elsewhere, and it brings you back easily (opens windows for each thing). Pop-ups are a pro for me. I was able to get back to where I'd been really easily. There are a large number of links to information elsewhere. Not too much text - nice descriptions and then you can click on those links and get more." (Lanark)

"I like the site map; very clear. It's at the top. Not too many buttons. And I like the drop down menu. When you went into new page, you got new info and a different panel at the side with related topics." (Lanark)

"Uncluttered; it's a restful experience; white space; size of font; nice and clear." (Lanark)

Negative feedback

3.9. Survey respondents commented on the layout, formatting, and particularly navigation of the RCG, for example:

"I sometimes find it difficult navigating the site to places I haven't been before - finding funding or lead stories, or events is quite easy - but finding anything with more technical depth isn't something I do very often so there are probably parts of the website that I just don't see."

3.10. This issue was followed up at some length in one of the workshops (which purposefully included a large proportion of web designers). It is worth citing examples of their comments:

"The listings of documents: each one just runs into the next; needs to be defined better and laid out better. Too densely put across." (Angus)

"The design - it looks as if it's wrong way round - it doesn't read from left to right - the stuff on the right should be on the left" (Angus)

"I don't like all the white space, and having to scroll down to more and more information." (Angus)

"A picture would be more welcoming - something a bit more general, a rural picture. You need to be able to identify how it's rural, not urban. Or even a map that shows where people are registered and where are the other community websites. You can relate to that cos you see yourself in that, rather than a picture of a complete stranger. Or even if you had a map which shows areas where you can click on your area. You'd relate to that. You can see yourself in that." (Angus)

3.11. A number of survey respondents also felt uncomfortable with, and/or confused by, some of the RCG's content, for example:

"Too much of a voluntary sector slant to issues."

"It is sometimes too complicated to understand some of the jargon/abbreviations."

"Sometimes topic/document headings/titles are vague - you'll only know it's of interest, if you already know about the subject, this can reduce the chances of finding out about new subjects which you'd like to be involved in - particularly when you don't have time to read through everything on the off chance, but are browsing the site looking for anything that may be of interest."

"The total direction to the organisation and its avoidance of the individual, particularly in the field of financial opportunities. There are many individuals out in the rural areas who have great ideas but can not obtain funding because of the fact they do not belong to an organisation. We need more help along the funding advice route for the individual."

3.12. Finally, workshop participants highlighted the need for a clear statement of the RCG's "mission" or purpose:

"The aims and objectives of the RCG - these are really difficult to see on the site" ( FREQU)

"It's not telling me what it's about, and its title is a little strapline. Nothing says 'this is what we do, this is what you'll find on the site'." (Angus)

Was the RCG fulfilling its objectives?

The RCG as a one-stop shop:

3.13. Firstly, in the online survey, over 60% of respondents felt that the RCGhad met its one-stop-shop objective for rural information provision, with just under one third suggesting that improvements were needed to enable this to develop further:

Figure 3.3. Do you think the RCG has met its "one-stop-shop" objective?

3.14. Overall, the supplementary textual responses also supported this finding, for example:

"There is a growing feeling of a community - but this could grow substantially more. The signposting element seems to be there and quite obvious to a regular user"

"There is no other single source of Scottish rural communities' information that I have come across."

The RCG as an online community:

3.15. We can see, from Figure 3.4, that survey respondents were a little less positive about the RCG having fulfilled this objective (see Fig 3.4. on following page):

Figure 3.4. Has RCG met its online community objective?

3.16. Almost half the respondents felt that the RCG had addressed this objective to some extent, with over 20% answering "yes", it had fulfilled this. Those who elaborated on their view of the RCG comprising an online community, talked of the RCG's function as a 'centre' for dispersed rural people, and that there was no other website filling this important gap:

"… it helps to bring the disparate rural communities in Scotland to one centre to exchange views, experiences, etc."

"We can share ideas, information over the whole country without the need to travel to meetings."

3.17. The reasons given by those survey respondents who felt that the RCG was not representing community included: the limited interactivity on the forums, the poor level of rural internet access (thus dissuading some from participating due to costs of being online), the lack of clarity on how and why to get involved, and the competition of other sites. Finally, one respondent reflected the view held by many, that the RCG needed to meet the needs of a broader cross-section of the rural population:

"I think this aspiration is too grand. There used to be a lot of talk about 'online communities' but these are for nerds with nothing better to do. People browse they don't live in online communities - I think this was an unattainable target but the RCG was the best we have had. To achieve wider readership and a greater cross section of contributors local authorities should contribute and share info, the NFU, SEERAD, SWRI, Crofters Commission, Rural LECs etc as well as the voluntary sector. We want to know what these bodies are up to, as well as celebrating the success and diversity of the voluntary sector delivering services against the odds!"

3.18. Survey respondents also recognised that, when talking of "community" (whether online or offline), there was a need to understand that it must be fluid and constantly evolving. Part of this evolution would be due to an increase in confidence, and also due to a building of momentum as more people become involved online:

"Those that have found it, will keep coming back to it; not all will be actively contributing and to see how well it has progressed, I think you need to get more people actively involved - then it will take on a life of its own."

"The number of regular users on Gateway appears to be drawn from pockets of enthusiasm. This is the essential first stage of any online community."

3.19. It was also emphasised that this type of online community-building involved a considerable amount of work:

"It's very difficult to develop an online community and it takes constant work to maintain. The Gateway has not yet reached the point where so many people are taking that community of users is more or less self sustaining."

3.20. Further, respondents were asked to reflect on whether the RCG had enabled them to make contact with others in rural areas, whom they would not have otherwise reached. Just over one fifth of the respondents reported "yes", while a larger figure said "no", implying that the RCG had not enabled networking. Of those who responded in the positive, two-thirds of respondents stated that these contacts were very useful, or useful, for them. Reasons given for this included the advantage of finding others in similar situations whom they would otherwise never have located, and the ability to compare notes at community level. Further, 85% of the survey's respondents stated that they would recommend the RCG to others as a source of finding other people (not only information) with experience in rural matters.

3.21. Seventy percent of all survey respondents reported that the RCG made them feel as if they were part of a wider rural community in Scotland. Specifically, they mention shared experiences and similar needs, as well as the importance of sharing a diversity of experience. Further, they mentioned that the RCG demonstrated a cohesive rural Scotland and had the potential to promote inclusion. The following quotes illustrate these arguments:

"Brings awareness that there are others with similar needs etc - who may have cracked a problem that concerns us locally."

"It does bring some cohesion to the rural scene in Scotland which can otherwise seem very disparate."

"Most of the Scottish regions are quite different from each other: the Gateway reminds you that Scotland is an amalgam of peoples and cultures…"

"Promotes inclusion. Overcomes the isolation of distance. Overcomes the costs of travel especially when Island based. Promotes participation across Scotland. Highlights common issues."

3.22. These findings were also reflected by participants at the frequent users' workshop, for example:

"I do like to feel part of a community, and if that can be strengthened by the RCG being associated with rural Scotland that's all to the good. We ARE all facing the same problems. Affordable housing etc - all these issues hit rural communities. Networking and up to date funding information are equally important for me." ( FREQU)

The RCG compared with other websites and portals

3.23. Having asked respondents to provide feedback on the RCG, it was also important to know the extent to which they were using other sites which may compete with, or complement, the RCG. It would also enable comparison of the RCG with other sites that they used.

3.24. Firstly, just over two-thirds of respondents (69%) stated that the RCG was the first place that they visited for rural information and/or contacts. Other sites used included other networks, locally specific sites, issue-specific sites, employer's websites, and other search engines.

A uniquely rural site?

3.25. It was important therefore to know whether the RCG gave unique information that was only available through the RCG, not elsewhere, and possibly in a format that did not exist on other sites. 55% of survey respondents said that the RCGdid give unique information, including that which was specifically rural, was unbiased on rural issues, and pulled together many rural aspects on one site. The following quotes were comments added by respondents to elaborate on these points:

"Specific rural funding - this may be available on other sites but not sure where to look or how to find out when the new info is available - with Rural RCG I get up to date info as soon as it is published so am one of the first to know about new schemes etc - too busy to trawl the web looking for this info in a variety of different places."

"It gives the best and most thorough overview of issues that people in rural communities experience in a variety of ways - documents, articles, blogs, polls. Excellent."

"I think I could get any information I required given unlimited browsing time. However the RCG gives me most of the information I require for our rural project in one place."

"It's not that the info isn't available elsewhere - it is useful more because of having a single site to access info that raises awareness. Without the site I wouldn't know about certain things; I wouldn't know about something so would never have gone looking for it."

3.26. So, what was the nature of that unique content? Firstly, users pointed to the Scottish nature of the information, important when living and working within a Scottish legislative and funding context. Secondly, the value of seeing individual rural users' views and opinions was emphasised, rather than the site comprising only the 'official line' from statutory agencies. Thirdly, links to other community groups across Scotland were highly valued, together with case studies of local projects. Fourthly, the content provided by guest contributors and ministers was seen as unique.

3.27. Workshop participants commented on the 'filtering' benefit of the RCG, in that many other sites did not differentiate 'rural' and thus there was much that was not of relevance (particularly in terms of funding).

3.28. Finally, users felt that the RCG most definitely filled a niche, as illustrated by the following comments:

"I'm not aware of another portal that's dedicated to rural Scotland. I know there's other good examples from parts of rural Scotland. But I can't even think of something equivalent; RCG is filling a niche in terms of providing one-stop-shop issues affecting rural Scotland (policy, people and places)." (Skye)

"I don't know if there's anything there that you wouldn't find anywhere else. It's the combination of things. E.g. funding -you can find out about funders and which groups have used funding, and their experience." ( FREQU)

The Newswires are really good - you haven't got that from anywhere else. It's a time thing - you want news coming AT you." (Pultneytown)

What is not on the RCG that can be found elsewhere?

3.29. Respondents were also asked, again in comparison with other sites that they used, to outline the types of information which they could not find on the RCG, that is, where did the RCG fall short, in their estimation. Predominantly, the feedback highlighted international comparisons of rural development programmes and initiatives; information relating to wider issues of affordable housing, conservation, access, agriculture, recreation, and forestry; agricultural policy updates; and food politics. Users also outlined that it would be extremely useful to know perspectives of specific organisations, and links to official and academic reports on rural issues. In relation to funding, RCG users pointed out that there were no detailed application forms or guidance from funders. Finally, users pointed to the lack of historical data, as well as information relating to arts and culture, for example, specific to the Scottish Highlands.

Suggested additions to RCG content

3.30. Survey respondents, when reflecting further on the RCG as compared with other websites and portals, made a range of suggestions for content that could or should be added to the RCG. Additional sources of content included: information from Senscot (concerning social enterprise), the Community Land Unit, Communities Scotland, Community Councils, and reports from political parties giving their stance on rural issues. Additional types of information comprised: European rural development actions, statistical research (to challenge over-simplified rural/urban apparent distinctions), regeneration findings, story digests, economic development (rather than solely community development), up to date news on landowning community groups (not always widely publicised), SME databases (to assist in finding suppliers), forestry, access, and rural childcare. Finally, respondents highlighted the need for top-quality, unbiased reportage on major rural concerns:

"Story digests: this is an awkward one for any site, but there is a great need for a service that delivers the sort of analysis that The Economist gives to national and international issues - a reasoned examination of the several sides of an argument in a succinct article. Topics such as renewables and wind farms are crying out for such an analysis I don't see it anywhere."

"Detailed unbiased information and background to current major issues, such as National Grid upgrade, energy policy, trunk road policy, etc."

3.31. These suggestions highlight ways in which the RCG could be improved, both in terms of providing information from a range of organisations with an interest in, and/or remit for, rural development, as well as providing a wider range of knowledge, documentation, and data nationally and internationally. It shows the scope and potential for expansion of the RCG, and ways to build on what was already seen as a valued resource on rural matters.

Advantages of using the RCG over other sites

3.32. In reflecting on the advantages of using the RCG, as compared with using other sites, survey respondents stated that the regular updates by email were critical in setting apart the RCG from any other site. Further, the range of topics, and the fact that they were updated on a regular basis, meant that the current nature of the information was invaluable. Finally, the fact that it was not trying to sell anything, and did not have "a particular axe to grind" were both seen as distinctive and advantageous.

Disadvantages of using the RCG, compared with other sites

3.33. Conversely, the RCG was perceived to have a number of disadvantages, when compared with other websites. These were expressed firstly, in terms of depth and geography of coverage; secondly, navigation; and thirdly, management and explanation of information and therefore of user's expectations. In terms of depth of coverage, survey respondents felt that sometimes the site did not go into as much detail as they would want; further, they would like to see examples and stories from other countries, and/or from the rest of the UK. When talking about navigation, respondents talked of being "lost" or "stuck" and that this could be frustrating:

"Easy to get stuck just using the same areas of the site over and over again - I know that there are some areas I rarely visit and am probably missing a lot of valuable information and informed comments."

3.34. When managing expectations, it was felt that the site needed to manage expectations by labelling and hand-holding a little better, particularly in terms of saying which bits of information may (and may not) be relevant to them, for example:

"Some of the examples of good practice can raise the expectations of local communities who then find out that public funding for those particular types of activities is only available in the Highlands, not the rest of rural Scotland."

3.35. This 'management of expectations' might also relate to the type of information which was presented on the site, since some users may expect a wider range of debate, whereas it was felt by some respondents that it was "associated directly with SCVO" and further, that:

"It has too much of a tunnel vision. It gives the impression that it will not carry any news or advice that might be contrary to government policy."

Examples from other websites

3.36. In the workshops, it was possible to explore in more detail (than in the online survey) users' experiences of other websites, which was useful in terms of establishing pointers for the development and improvement of the RCG. The site which they felt was much harder to navigate for rural issues was that of the Scottish Executive, the following quotes being illustrative:

"The Scottish Executive site - it's very difficult to find what I'm looking for; to get the terminology right for searching. And it's HUGE - it takes a long time to find anything." (Pultneytown)

"Scottish Executive site - I have to go through the RCG to find anything I want. e.g. consultation document on EADF - things would pass you by quite easily on the Exec site, but not on the RCG." ( FREQU)

3.37. The sites which users praised included the BBC, The Scotsman, and The Times. Key characteristics of these sites were the currency of the information, the interactivity, great organisation of a wealth of information, automatic downloads, and the location of news, headlines and categories all on one site. Other more specific sites highlighted comprised: Youthnet, Youthvoice, Economic Development Association Scotland, and Scottish Regeneration Forum, all of which had case studies as well as updates and training. The Global Islands Network was also mentioned, for example:

" The Global Islands Network - it's a very good little digest of main headlines in rural Scotland. News digests once a month. I'm surprised the RCG's not linked to that." (Skye)

3.38. " IDOX" was also used by some RCG users; however, the relative advantage of the RCG over this service was highlighted:

"I use IDOX service at work, but because such a large percentage of people live in urban areas, 90% of stuff is from urban areas. The strength of the RCG is that it's rural so I don't have to go to pages and pages of documents." ( FREQU)

Internet usage in rural areas: a word of caution

3.39. Finally, it is important not to presume that users of the internet, including those who responded to the online survey and participated in the workshops, were surfing a range of sites regularly. A number of participants emphasised that they were very focused in their searches, for two reasons: the cost of being online, and not having (or being able to afford) broadband in their rural area; the following two quotes are illustrative:

"I only use it for a specific interest, I don't browse. Unless I particularly want something on the net, I don't go on. I'm thinking about the cost. 10 minutes a week is my limit." (Angus)

"I don't spend a lot of time searching…I can't afford to" (Angus)

The added value of the RCG as a one-stop shop may therefore be even more pertinent for rural users.

« Previous | Contents | Next »