The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS RELATED TO THE FUTURE OF THE RURAL COMMUNITY GATEWAY: BUSINESS PLANNING AND NEXT STEPS

4.1. This chapter is based on the findings from the online survey and workshops. Firstly, a number of suggestions were made by users of the RCG as to how the site could (and should) be improved, and how it could (and in their view, should) be sustained in the longer term. Secondly, the findings from the 'mission' workshops with SCVO and SEERAD gave us a complementary perspective to those of the users, where the 'nitty-gritty' of management and content generation were discussed, together with the sustainability of the site and who should be responsible. Thirdly, these suggestions from Gateway users and managers were then set against the wider context of the 'good practice' literature relating to the prevailing community web environment - that is, to what extent was their thinking reflected in the wider literature, and in the predictions concerning priorities in web development?

Suggested improvements to the RCG

4.2. Having reflected on their experiences of the RCG, workshop participants were then asked how, in their opinion, that experience could be improved - both for themselves as users, and for others who might see the Gateway for the first time. Their responses followed a number of themes, which comprised: stating the brand or mission of the Gateway; improved marketing; outlining the added value of being members; the need for additional content and links; improved layout and organisation of information; encouraging more contributions from existing Gateway users; and increasing the Gaelic language content of the Gateway. These themes will now be reported in turn.

Stating the brand or mission of the RCG

4.3. This comprised a specific focus of all the workshops. The following comments are illustrative of confusion, and an urgency, to outline and clarify the mission and purpose of the RCG:

"Should I have been able to find the aims and objectives on the site itself? Yes, you can see it's a portal, but doesn't express itself in a branded way. I just thought it was a gateway to anything rural. But that's terribly unspecific. What does it set out to do?" (Lanark)

"I still find it hard in my head to think what the RCG is?" (Angus)

4.4. The workshops continued with a discussion of three possible "aims" of the Gateway, and participants were asked to reflect on these: (i) being a one-stop shop for unbiased information; (ii) becoming an online community; and (iii) being a lobbying "voice" for rural Scotland.

4.5. When considering whether the RCG should be a one-stop shop for information, participants emphasised that it should have information on all aspects, since "it's one of the only sites within Scotland that's capable of being unbiased" (Lanark). The competition from other 'information sites' and search engines was highlighted (primarily from Google), and the need therefore for the Gateway to differentiate itself as being rural and unbiased.

4.6. Discussion around whether the Gateway could or should become an online community, the responses were largely positive, with suggestions for how such a function could be improved. It was felt that, for people to engage more, the site needed to be more "fun" (although not frivolous) and show more evidence that people were networking online:

" RCG has to make an effort on networking. It could be improved. Otherwise it's all just one-way traffic. It needs to be a bit more fun, lively, and friendly. E.g. voting for Scotland's favourite place - people putting photographs in - just a bit of fun. And that did lead me into the website more often." ( FREQU)

"The RCG need to be more fun, more interactive. The technology's out there - you can write a line on a chatline and it's posted under your name. It doesn't take a long time so people are more likely to do it, rather than "oh I must write at least 5 lines and put my name etc"."( FREQU)

4.7. It was felt that people will exchange information, and would want to do so increasingly, because there was so much experience which people could share, in order to cut out the need to keep reinventing the wheel, for example:

"Networking and exchange is important, because a lot of rural communities HAVE done a lot, especially as things then get written up for funders as reports." (Angus)

"We need to know about things that haven't gone well, where mistakes were made." (Angus)

4.8. A mechanism which was mentioned by a number of workshop participants was that of sub-groups to enable such exchange, since participating in one single forum could be a little intimidating for some users; for example:

"I think it could deliver the networking better, e.g. ethicalnetworking.org, which allows you to set up your sub-networks, and you can talk to those people you want to and it saves putting comments to the world, but just to your network. It seems like a good idea. I think it could be added onto what's there, to make networking more relevant to individual users. Ethical Networks identifies the geographical location of all members of the network which is quite useful." ( FREQU)

4.9. The third possible mission of the Gateway was felt to be the most controversial, since, if the portal was to become a lobbying forum, would it lose its status as an unbiased information provider, which was a characteristic that was highly valued by users? There were contrasting opinions within the workshops; firstly, those who felt that the Gateway should distance itself from a lobbying function:

"No, not for the RCG. Leave the lobbying to the groups themselves; RCG should be about information-providing. It's good to know that the source you are using is unbiased. There'll be a perception that it is NOT unbiased, if it becomes a lobbying tool. If RCG facilitates the networking, then lobbying could be taken on by those sub-groups." (Skye)

"BUT… the RCG would have to be balanced; be careful not to let certain issues get seen out of proportion e.g. wind farms. No other issues come to light, if there are 1 or 2 issues that one or two people think of as important and dominate." (Lanark)

4.10. Those who felt it should indeed be used as a lobbying forum, commented:

" RCG for advocacy/lobbying? Yes! Where else would you go online? Is there anyone else? We're always looking for support and help, plus where do you go to plead your case?" (Lanark)

"For farmers, they could tap into the NFUS, so there's lobbying there. But for other issues, there's nothing else. And then what about all the residents?" (Lanark)

"It would make it a much-more interesting site if advocacy were to be brought in." (Lanark)

4.11. A key related issue that was returned to many times in this debate concerned the impacts of such lobbying. There was confusion and considerable doubt as to the results of polls, surveys and other forms of lobbying. Further, there was concern over whether it was possible to lobby the Scottish Executive given that it funds the site. The following quotes are illustrative of these points:

"I have a question: what do they do with the results of the polls? It would be good to think they actually DO something with this, cos it could be a fairly useful resource. If it's the poll for the sake of having a pie chart on the site, then that's not very interesting. That's the reason I don't do it." ( FREQU)

"… Rural people could use it for lobbying. BUT we need to know the end result, to know what's going to be done. What happens to the polls? Where does the information go? It would be good to influence that policy that's relevant to the poll. Will anyone take any recognition when it DOES come back? Answers to these would make me more inclined to answer a poll because I'm too busy otherwise." (Pultneytown)

"Can you get a true lobbying situation when it's funded by the Scottish Executive?" (Angus)

"Participative democracy is going on within this RCG site. We need an extension of that, but within a framework within which the Exec feels 'safe'. But Exec can't use it as a resource for e-consultation if they don't then feedback the results of those consultants." (Lanark)

4.12. Finally, users also differentiated between lobbying and consultation, feeling that the latter was an extremely important function of the Gateway, and could be developed further, for example:

"It could be used for consultation, but not necessarily lobbying. Not just asking for complaints. Get opinion on matters, and therefore have to consult the people. I think it's a very good idea, although I don't know how you promote the use of a forum… It's one means of consulting." (Lanark)

"There could be interactive consultation on documents, so you'd go in and do your feedback straight through that; it could make the process more direct (feed directly back in to the RCG rather than through other sites. Keep people there)." (Pultneytown)

Improved marketing

4.13. In both the online survey, and across all workshops, the issue of marketing was highlighted consistently as the area for improvement in any next phase of the Gateway. When asked why this marketing activity was required, survey respondents stated the prime reason as being that there were still a great deal of people in rural Scotland who were unaware of the site, for example:

"I am not sure that enough people know of its existence, in particular, small community groups who rely on advice and information from a more 'expert' source. Larger organisations such as voluntary organisations and other umbrella organisations are aware of it and use it, but the user on the ground is often not aware of its existence."

4.14. This survey finding was consistent with the comments made by workshop participants, many of whom had not heard of the RCG prior to being invited to the workshop. The following 4 quotes show different user-types who were unaware of the Gateway:

"I didn't even know it existed even though I teach rural development material." (Skye)

"Until I'd been emailed about the workshops, I hadn't heard of it. So, I went to my local Councillor, and the President of the Civic Society, and he hadn't heard of it. I asked in the reference library and they hadn't heard of it…" (Lanark)

"I asked my husband why he wasn't using it as a farmer, especially links to Single Farm Payment. He didn't know it existed." (Lanark)

"It's been going for 3 years, and I'm quite active in Crofting, and in the Citizen's Advice Bureau. How come I've never heard of it? I only heard of it because of this workshop. I'd heard the name "rural gateway" but I didn't know what it was." (Pultneytown)

4.15. Workshop participants were also asked why the Gateway should be marketed, other than - of course - to increase the membership numbers. Issues included: to increase networking across rural Scotland; to improve the brand and to raise the credibility of that network by knowing that a considerable number of users value it and are involved and contributing. The following quotes illustrate these key points:

"The bit that the RCG's failed on is networking; 2600 people is appalling (out of a rural population of one million or so). They haven't done enough branding and advertising. A lot of the membership is people who've signed on in their office and for their work… A whole separate issue for the RCG to do is the national networking, to bring civic society together… there's nothing else like this happening." (Lanark)

"How many people are users? I thought it'd be more than 2500! That's the whole of Scotland, so that's really low… It's really low, so the RCG's not that well known - out of a million people. The SCVO conference: the RCG never gets out beyond that usual list." (Pultneytown)

"You've got to know who you are talking to - that's a human thing. Should I value their opinion? How reliable is this? Who says this? What's the credibility of some of the information - some of that can be achieved through Member Directories?" (Lanark)

4.16. Within the online survey for RCG users, respondents were asked how marketing activity could be carried out, with the following result:

Figure 4.1. How could the marketing of the RCG be improved?

4.17. These findings were complemented by those from the workshops, giving a more in-depth set of responses to possible 'routes to market', which included: local (weekly) newspapers, local radio, the RCG as an internet training tool on IT buses, live online discussions (similar to a radio phone-in) with top specialists in real time; using Voice over Internet Protocol ( VOIP) for Ask an Expert; advertising in newsletters of existing organisations (for example, Crofting Foundation) and interest magazines (such as rural sports); information in every village hall, in library vans and other mobile services. Existing networks were also highlighted as an obvious route, including youth forums, development trusts, LEADER Groups ( LAGs), the voluntary sector, universities and colleges (particularly where rural development courses are taught), and through local community websites. Participants also suggested that 'offline', physical events could be organised, to promote the Gateway and to bring together those who had been contributing online, for example:

"It needs to be backed up by getting these people together - an event, function, so people can get to know each other. Needs to be less anonymous if it's going to work as a forum. Being rural creates a distance, so it needs to be both, to allow for collaboration." (Lanark)

"Physical launch event, or series of events that cascade, or a bus around Scotland." ( FREQU)

4.18. A further point, which underpinned these ideas, was knowing who the Gateway's audience were, as highlighted in the following quote:

"You've got to know who your target audience is. Is it communities, groups, crofters, farmers (farmers and crofters are not aware of it)? Also, people involved in transport for example…" (Pultneytown)

4.19. Additional pointers were given specifically by the frequent users of the RCG, both in terms of approaches and events, and in terms of how the Gateway itself might be changed in order to attract - and keep - first time users:

• At community level:
  • Community newsletter, newspapers and councils
• Using email:
  • Email this article to a friend (people then sign up as a result).
  • Email registered users, asking them to tell others about it. If they want it to work better, need to get others to use it.
• Making links:
  • More prominent link on Scottish Executive website
• Through organisations and offices:
  • Local Authorities - contacts with Community Planning - should draw people's attention to it.
  • In every Voluntary Action Office and Local Authority service point there could be a poster, at least the staff would be familiar with it, and if they got that sort of query, they could point people in that direction.
• Sectoral targeting:
  • Target farmers, foresters, fish farmers - they could find information of benefit to them. But at the moment they wouldn't see it as relevant to them - it's a community that they wouldn't identify with. But word WILL get around.
  • Talking to editors of farming press - one line adverts.

4.20. In addition to "pushing" the site out to people through marketing, Frequent Users Workshop participants talked of improvements which would specifically allow the site to be marketed better, and thus to increase its "pull". These included having a jobs section every Friday, so that people became used to visiting it on that day each week; more pictures of network members, and evidence that people were talking and networking:

"More interest, engaging, not quite so dry; a few more pictures of the network members. Encourage people to put their own mug shots of who they are; people can identify more with this as a human network." ( FREQU)

"Front page: you need evidence that people are talking, that people are doing things. Map - interactive, for local information. Links between map and subset of subscribers that are in that area. "Show all members in this area, here's their contact details, here's their interests"." ( FREQU)

4.21. There was also a need to increase the proportion of visual cues on the site, rather than all links being text-based, for example:

"You have to be not only IT-literate, but also a fairly high level of literacy to use this site, and this really needs to be addressed… through using more images to attract different types of users."

"You could set up communities of interest using logos - shorthand, rather than a word (wind turbines, woodland, linx!) ( FREQU)

"An interactive map, with links to the rural community websites… so they become part of the infrastructure. Could link with community council websites there. Yes, link the local community sites (and microsites) onto the RCG. Link to local areas. It's there as a list of links, but not as a database of community sites that's readily searchable. Making it part of the infrastructure. So, it should be national, with 100 online communities as part of the infrastructure - and that's an enormous resource of people who are already engaged." (Lanark)

4.22. The development of sub-groups emerged here too, since it was viewed as a way of increasing the 'pull of the site', for example, for special interest groups (museums, storytelling, embroiderers, bee keepers), with the following point of guidance:

"Special interest groups ( SIGs) should always be initiated by members themselves, not from management. So, as a process, RCG could feed from national to local to find out local interests ( e.g. through local 100 sites) and then support setting up of SIGs." (Lanark)

Outlining the added value of being members

4.23. Workshop participants, in all workshops, emphasised the need to make the value of being a member of the Gateway community far more clear. One key aspect of this was about setting out the value and purpose of logging in as a member. As one participant said:

"I never log in; I just go straight through on a link (just cos I can never remember passwords). Does logging in give you more information? It doesn't seem so. Does membership add any value if you get the same when you do/don't log in? Am I missing out on anything if I don't log in?" (Pultneytown)

4.24. Specific words used when commenting on the "Register Now!" flashing sign on the home page were that it was: exclusive, irritating, and frightening (because there was no indication of what the results of this might mean). There was a need to explain the benefits, the 'extras', in order to make the site - and experience for first-time users - more welcoming.

The need for additional content and links

4.25. These links were described in the workshops as both internal to the site as well as links to other sites. Suggested outside links included to other news services, for example, the Scotsman, the West Highland Free Press, and to Gaelic language papers, and internet links related more to the linking of information in terms of geography and theme, for example:

"What would be really useful is regional information, e.g. funding in YOUR area (other local sites are not always up to date), e.g. some standing things, funds that are available locally for people to attend a university in the region. Not all regional issues are the same, or possibilities the same for each region, so it would be useful to be able to click on your area, only relevant to your area that's maybe not of wider use. Cos quite often you find things that aren't relevant to your area by the time you've read to the end. It would be quicker." (Pultneytown)

"Links to people who've say done a village hall improvement. Could link to them if have topics as sub-groups. Village groups are just some local people in our community and not everyone knows these funding things, and we're so busy, so the RCG would help. And for a local community, it's a one-off. And if they knew they could click onto something that would be great." (Pultneytown)

"It would be great to have something for youth groups, transportation, health, village halls, renewable energy… (There's nothing on the RCG for youth at the moment)." (Pultneytown)

Improved layout and organisation of information

4.26. This point of linking information was developed further in the workshops, particularly in the Angus workshop, where a number of web designers had been specifically selected. Wider issues were discussed in connection with organisation, and therefore retrieval, of the Gateway's growing information and data base, the 2 main suggestions being: an ability to sort by location using an interactive map, and an ability to sort by theme, using "buttons" (either colours or symbols). The Gateway was seen as overly reliant on high levels of literacy for searching and even for browsing, and it was felt by participants that this must change. The following quotes are indicative of some of the reasons why this was felt to be a priority:

"It gives the impression that it's posting up documents as they come through, e.g. Forward Strategy for Scottish agriculture", could be filed under "Scottish Agriculture" and then if you're interested in agriculture, you go into that section. At the moment, they're just listed one after the other, and not 'themed' in any way." (ANGUS)

"There are three ways of searching, I think, for people going onto the Gateway: Theme, Geography, and Publisher. If the information could be organised in this way. It would really help." (ANGUS)

4.27. The organisation and internal linking of information was also specifically highlighted in relation to funding possibilities, since users were frustrated that they would read through a funding feature, only to find that they lived outwith the eligible area:

"If the RCG knows who you are and where you're from, it points you to the appropriate sites for your area. So, it tells you what's exclusive to your area. I'd prefer local ones for my area, e.g. local ones for Lanarkshire get put up there, but we're in Angus so you read through and then realise it's not applicable for you. Plus it would be really helpful to know whether the funds are specifically rural." (ANGUS)

4.28. With respect to funding, users also wanted to have a resource on the Gateway to be able to read specific details on others' experiences of funding applications and projects, for example:

"It would be really useful to have some feedback on where the funding came from, how the application went, turnaround time, red tape; comments. That would be really helpful exchange of information. Like Trip Adviser.com, it would really help, e.g. Funding Adviser." (ANGUS)

Encouraging more contributions from existing RCG users

4.29. One of the objectives of the online survey was to identify ways in which existing users could be encouraged to contribute more to the site, that is, to engage more with others. When asked what would encourage them to do so, users stated that they were more likely to contribute content where the story or news item was within their area of interest or expertise, where they felt strongly, and where there were opportunities to compare experiences. Stories that built on interest or expertise appeared to relate to geographic area (such as islands), themes (such as specific rural services, or environmental issues), job competencies and responsibilities (such as rural youth, homelessness) where individuals felt they could offer their knowledge and experiences as well as opinion. The following quotes are illustrative:

"When an issue arises of specific interest to me I would contribute but would be willing to write in on the subject of: Gaelic, Wind Farms, Island Air Fares (and other Fares), Creating work shadowing opportunities for young Isles people on the Mainland, The Scottish Gaelic Business Club, Eco Tourism (from an observer's thoughts), Archaeological Tourism in Lewis and Harris specifically."

"Mainly I operate in the homelessness field - youth homelessness in particular. I might be interested to participate in discussion/information exchange about this or the barriers that put people in rural communities at risk of exclusion - also exchange of models from other countries."

4.30. Issues where survey respondents felt strongly included: water provision in remote rural areas; the Scottish Rural Development Plan; horses; access; rare breeds; preservation of environment and way of life; housing; disability access.

4.31. Finally, respondents stated that they would be more likely to contribute when they felt they were given opportunities to compare their experience with others in rural Scotland, and also internationally, for example:

"If there were comparisons of Scottish approaches in rural development to other regions'/countries' concepts."

"If I could build up a contact list with other similar hall management committees."

Increasing the Gaelic language content of the RCG

4.32. In Skye, one of the emphases that made the discussion distinct from all the other workshops was the issue of Gaelic language content on the Gateway. This was felt to be important in order to increase awareness of the Gaelic language, and to give non-Gaelic speakers an easier access into the language (and issues covered) which was not possible through a Gaelic-only site. In addition, Gaelic content on the site was felt to address elements of the service delivery aspects of the recent (2006) Gaelic Bill:

"It would be a good thing to have Gaelic on the RCG, cos if you don't have any Gaelic you don't know what you're reading (on our Gaelic site). So if there was funding to employ someone to be at that interface for people with limited Gaelic or no Gaelic to find out more, that would be great."

"There IS a wider appreciation of a bilingual element. For example, in the Christmas email, Bruce sent out a bilingual greeting; and since it's a rural Scotland website, and there's a large number of Gaelic language users in rural Scotland, it's important for the RCG to recognise it. Here, in Sleat, 50% of the population are Gaelic. So… it's important to acknowledge Gaelic - through a translation of the front page. Key pages could be translated into Gaelic. E.g. Homepage, or 'About the RCG' - the pages that are continuous; that's valuable and appropriate. PLUS it would then partly fulfil the Government's commitment through the Gaelic Bill that's just been passed, which is about the Government fulfilling public services through the medium of Gaelic. The Exec need to be very aware of the language. If it's providing an all-English service for rural Scotland, then it's missing that obligation… Even though they are a minority, they are an important minority. Since it's Exec-funded it should seek to supply a service to Gaelic-speakers, AND seek to promote it as a live and relevant language that is being used. It would also help learners and those who don't know much Gaelic."

4.33. When asked how this could be achieved, there were a number of suggestions, including linking with the BBC's Gaelic language programming, exploring links between the Sabhal Mor Ostaig site and the Gateway; linking with Gaelic terminology databases and with the Highland Council website. When discussing whether a Gaelic sub-group would be a way forward, there was a mixed response, for example:

"A Gaelic sub-group/chat-room for Gaelic language users? It's always a question of critical mass. The Highland Council Gaelic language chatroom isn't used... It would be of interest perhaps to students. BUT there are some good chatrooms already, e.g. refugees from SaveGaelic.org. BUT these are valuable but not necessarily related to current issues facing rural Scotland…"

How should the RCG be sustained?

SEERAD funding

4.34. This issue was addressed in the workshops (rather than the online survey) since it was complex and more appropriate to face-to-face discussion. The overwhelming consensus from all participants in all workshops was that the RCG should continue to be funded by SEERAD - with reasoned arguments to support their case. As well as being seen firmly as a Government obligation, the main reasons were given as: the Gateway enabled SEERAD to fulfil certain rural service delivery commitments; it existed as an example of strategic (rather than short-term) investment typical of rural projects; it fitted with the Scottish Executive's promotion of democracy and engagement, where the RCG was seen as "a good example of trying to stimulate dialogue"; and it was seen as a "fantastic tool" for SEERAD to "deliver on their National Standards for Community Engagement". Finally, it was felt that the Gateway had the potential to serve a two-fold function - being a tool for the Scottish Executive to ensure their messages reached rural Scotland in a cost-effective way, and fulfilling the new European Rural Development Regulation ( RDR) requirement for a national network:

"The Exec has a large rural community over the country; if the Gateway becomes used increasingly, and raises the focus of the RCG, then it becomes a cost-effective tool for them ( SE) to get messages out to rural communities, and to hear from communities." (Angus)

"In the Strategic Plan for rural development, 2007-2013: Article 68 of new RD Regulation, requires each Member State to have a rural network. We should therefore be arguing very vigorously for a Scotland network. A subset, separately from a UK network. There's a bit of leverage there." ( FREQU)

Other options

4.35. When pushed in the workshops on other options for supporting the Gateway in the longer-term, workshop participants were negative in their responses on specific alternatives, as the following quotes exemplify:

"Sponsorship/advertising - flashing up, less easy to use. And if it partners with others, it'll be less easy to use. Most people that use it are busy people, using it in their working days. At the moment, the RCG is easy to use, simply, and then there's further links if you want these." (Pultneytown)

"If funded through advertising, you begin to get suspicious, and you get pop ups all over the place. If there's sponsorship from companies, you also get suspicious." (Angus)

"If the RCG had to be self-funding, they'd spend so much time chasing funding, it would kill it off." ( FREQU)

4.36. There was a strong view that the RCG had provided an important and valued service to date, and that this has taken three years to build, and the qualities and outputs of the RCG should be maintained as a service to engage people in rural Scotland. This legacy of the Gateway thus far is outlined as follows:

"The value of the RCG is that it has a full time moderator, and it requires funding if it's to maintain the same level of service... That's why it's valuable… What would be a shame is if it goes downhill." (Skye)

"In the world of the internet, it takes quite a few years to build up the links and once you've got those links going, it's a great pity to let the site go. It amasses hundreds of links over time. And if funding stops, they decay pretty quickly, especially news which becomes out of date in 6 months or a year, and the links by 18 months to 2 years." (Skye)

Mission Workshops: issues in managing and delivering RCG

4.37. The aim of these workshops was to gather findings on the perspectives of those involved in the conceptualisation, management and delivery of the RCG. Two workshops were held, both following separate themes developed by the participants. The following section draws together those themes, illustrated by quotes where they add 'flavour' and insight to the points being highlighted.

Who is "the rural community" that the Gateway is trying to serve?

4.38. In the SEERAD workshop, some time was spent discussing the concept of 'community', in the context of who was being served by the Gateway. This arose from a concern that, according to the site statistics, certain types of rural people (such as under 25s, farmers) were not being reached by this online resource. Key points are now outlined.

4.39. The RCG appeared to have a 'voluntary sector' feel to it. This was not seen as a weakness - rather, the discussion was around how this could be enlarged such that others in the community were also represented on the site, e.g. micro-enterprises, farmers, foresters. On the plus side, it was felt that this provided a balance to the perceptions of rural which might prioritise the farming community, and so it was seen as refreshing that there was a strong voluntary sector component.

"We're talking about groups that are always more difficult to engage, so it's not the fault of the Gateway, so we need to think how we COULD engage them. It would be a criticism of any approach, not of the Gateway. It would be interesting to know more about those groups that ARE excluded. E.g. the farming community, which - typically - seem to be perceived as the dominant community." ( SEERAD)

4.40. This voluntary sector representation was also reflective of the wider appreciation in rural development, and specifically policy, that much of the 'delivery' of rural services, for example, was carried out by the voluntary sector. However, there was a concern that the Gateway might be overly focused on these sectors of the rural population and there was a need to broaden this.

4.41. This generated concerns about how prescriptive one should be when supporting the development of a 'rural community' resource:

"I'd be very reluctant to define a community; it should evolve. We've got the community that we've got, but we've been told we're missing people. How do we address that?" ( SEERAD)

4.42. This evolution of 'community' was paralleled by an evolving understanding of the role of Gateway itself. When the Gateway was envisaged in its earliest days, it was seen as directly linked with provision of services to rural areas with low population density:

"The genuine aim (from SNRP Report) for the Gateway was that: there are problems about service delivery, and in order to make sensible efficient decisions about service provision, providers had to join up in some way. This led to two mechanisms: the rural services conference and Gateway." ( SEERAD)

"This goes back to original reasons for setting it up: it came out of a national policy document, which focused on an agency-led set of recommendations rather than necessarily a bottom up approach. Would there ever be a bottom-up approach to developing a national RCG site?" ( SEERAD)

"In the SNRP Report, it very clearly says that they are focusing on service providers, but then it gets broader and starts using the term community. Then the scoping study talks about networking - linking people to information, and people to people. Then in the later stages, an evolution towards developing a community."( SEERAD)

4.43. Therefore, the question was raised of how much one should seek to 'manage' this evolution, and say 'we have these users and members now, but we also want it to look like this'. A critical example was that, from the Surveys Report, SEERAD noted that the feedback seemed to summarise the Gateway as:

"… agency-led and for agencies. But that's not what we've been working for over the past couple of years. Yes, it's a very valuable part, but there's got to be more to it than that… We want to see more peer to peer engagement… We've wanted it to reach everybody. Individuals. Rural residents." ( SEERAD)

4.44. However, there was also the sense that, if this was indeed the case, then even so, rural residents were being given an opportunity to link with those agencies, which they might not otherwise have:

"It's positive for users to think that they can access the Exec - our team and other parts of Exec. That might be part of the added value of the Gateway." ( SEERAD)

"Does the RCG then give rural residents an opportunity to interact with those providers in a way that wouldn't happen otherwise? Bringing people together in this forum does empower them in speaking to the service providers. So… there is a service or organisational networking role, PLUS communities gain the confidence, and have discussions and interactions with providers. That sense of ownership will encourage people to say more." ( SEERAD)

4.45. The issue of confidence, and trust, was seen as a component of an evolving and developing community:

"Early ( RCG) documents highlighted the role of network, and we've been shifting towards ideas of community. Bound up with ideas of trust, and that takes time to build. So, you'd expect to give it time to development - to move from trust to networking to community… Perhaps 'sub-rural communities' gives them the confidence to feel part of this wider community and to contribute first at that level." ( SEERAD)

4.46. The role of the Scottish Executive, through the RCG as an example, in building confidence amongst individuals in rural communities, was also highlighted:

"We spend a lot of time doing capacity-building activity; so this role as capacity-builders could also be replicated in the online community." ( SEERAD)

Having confidence to contribute and become a part of the RCG

4.47. Having the confidence to contribute to the Gateway site was also discussed in the SCVO workshop. For example:

"95% of RCG users do not contribute, so you're EITHER talking about a slow developmental thing with the existing user-group, OR a new group of users. So, the small interactive steps of getting people to react to, talk to, the Gateway, are first stages in this." ( SCVO)

"If people start by commenting on a news story, they'll move, bit by bit, towards saying more." ( SCVO)

4.48. It was felt that training was the key component for increasing confidence, not only for the 'mechanics' of adding a single comment to a news story, but also training a mindset that saw contributions as welcome and important.

"If you're a lurker on the site, I'm not convinced that training on how to use a forum will change their minds. If people want to do it they'll find out how to do it. But you could have regular contributor's meetings and training sessions, e.g. twice a year; that would be invaluable. But not for simply contributing a comment." ( SCVO)

4.49. Rural conferences were seen as valuable training opportunities:

"You could have a half-hour module of training that you take along to existing events - Introduction to the Rural Gateway: lively, funny, examples of how to contribute. E.g. the Rural Housing conference, a slot at lunchtime; Countryside Alliance conference. You have that little package. Raise awareness and show how to contribute. Any conference that has a rural component. "The RCG is not only information, but you can have your say, and to the people in SEERAD - this is a microphone and there's a loud speaker at the Exec end." ( SCVO)

4.50. In addition, regional contributors' events could also be organised, which used the members' database to advertise and target members in their own geographical area.

'Online community', or online resource for rural communities?

4.51. The discussion of contributions, of networking, and of peer-to-peer communication, raised the issue of the extent to which the Gateway was, or should be, an 'online community'. The following extended quote is important in terms of background context for the discussion:

"In terms of online community as a mission: I feel quite cautious about this, because I worry about the possibility that constant attempts to create interacting versions, web 2.0. etc, are going to compromise the solid, information-giving function of the RCG. If we were starting to create speculative possibilities of subgroups and sub-communities… I'm not convinced it's going to happen… because gathering things together under the term "rural" doesn't really work the same way as it does for Accountants, Dr Who fans - people who have something specific in common. Rural health people don't necessarily have a lot to say to rural transport people, for example. Plus a lot of these issues are taken care of by their own forums, e.g. the community transport yahoo group. They have meetings, they have their yahoo group; they're a discrete group of people who know each other well, and have interests in common. You then are getting into specialisms. I'm not sure that's the role of the RCG. I'm concerned about dilution. Yes, the commonality of rural is there, but it tends to be rural development practitioners, from agencies or from voluntary sector. They define themselves by rural, rather than by the second word of transport, health." ( SCVO)

4.52. This underlines the concern, across both workshops, that thought must be given to why certain approaches were used. For example, forums, sub-groups, and peer-to-peer chat facilities, were all tools to enable certain activity. Was it the role of the RCG to support online community activity? Responses from SCVO, which related to the 'mission' of the Gateway, highlighted an important distinction:

"This is important… we see it as a Gateway for Scotland's rural communities rather than an online community in Scotland. I think the words "online community" came about with Sift, and it's implicitly come to be part of the definition." ( SCVO)

4.53. In terms of definition, however, it appears that it was not so clear-cut:

Although... in a way, it is an online community, because 80% of the information on the Gateway comes from groups, individuals and organisations. In the early days we used to draw from the local press to populate the site. We've now got 30 contributors who are occasional, but there's a cast of thousands out there - anything from an event, a job vacancy, posting a comment… We ARE an online community, even though we are not seeing discussions between users. But that's probably not an online community as SIFT would see it." ( SCVO)

"People contribute to Bruce, but not necessarily peer to peer. Although it DOES happen... Plus having that comment facility on the news story is good, and you do get a fair number of comments, and sometimes they grow into exchanges. It gives people the opportunity to react. That's something that will grow." ( SCVO)

4.54. The conclusion from the workshops, both with SEERAD and SCVO, was that it was about providing an enabling infrastructure, or architecture, rather than forcing or prescribing a particular route for engagement:

"I think the key is to have a different approach - providing the infrastructure for it to happen, rather than forcing interest groups." ( SCVO)

"We have to remember that not everyone wants to contribute… providing opportunity and the infrastructure, so you make it such that people can, as easily as possible, that's as far as you go." ( SEERAD)

4.55. However, this was not intended to imply a 'passive' approach - rather, a set of activities and publicity which said: 'this is how to make the Gateway work for you', such that people then saw a reason (as well as the mechanisms) to become increasingly involved:

"One of the original aims was (June 2004) about generating user-generated content. But how we define that and measure it is something we have not clarified. But it does tend to be a small number of visible users on the site and that is off-putting for others… It is something that we have been pushing - developing a network of regular contributors. We need to spend time focusing on: what, how, what level of quality of contributions?" ( SEERAD)

"We would need to publicise this… Something like: "Yes, you know that the Gateway is the best way to keep up with rural issues; it's ALSO a direct line to Executive, it's a way of letting people know about your project, finding out other's experience, etc. We could produce A Rough Guide to the RCG; how to make the most of the Gateway." ( SCVO)

4.56. These needed to be framed and delivered with care, since, when saying 'this is your Rural Gateway', there was a need to manage expectations appropriately:

"I'm just a little sceptical about how that works, e.g. does it work, does it activate people? We must be careful to define why, in what sense, is it yours? Otherwise it's just clichéd… Examples include: it's yours (i) to network, (ii) for up to date funding news, (iii) to comment on rural issues and (iv) to interact in polls and surveys; (v) you'll be better informed, and (vi) you'll be able to get your views onto the political agenda." ( SCVO)

4.57. One part of the 'backdrop' to this encouragement to users to shape their Gateway was that of rural connectivity (highlighted in the infrequent users' workshops too), and the cost of dial-up internet usage, and of broadband:

"We have to keep in mind too that we also have a capacity problem in lots of rural exchanges and so it's going to be a long time before people get online through broadband and can therefore browse and surf… and take the time to contribute online." ( SCVO)

4.58. This meant that expectations of a growth in specifically 'rural' engagement had to be viewed within this infrastructural/broadband context, together with issues of cost to the user. That is, contribution levels may not only be related to the Gateway's content and opportunities; they could (and undoubtedly were at that moment) be constrained by the access to affordable connectivity.

The 'mission' and unique selling points of the RCG

4.59. This discussion of how the Gateway had evolved, and how it could evolve in the future, took place within a to-and-fro evaluation concerning the 'mission of the Gateway' and what it's unique selling points appeared to be. It was hard to separate 'mission' from how that was then delivered, and sometimes it was easier for participants to focus on the 'how to' rather than the 'why' in the workshops.

4.60. This was partly because, particularly from a SEERAD perspective, there was a wariness of becoming overly prescriptive, in saying: 'this is what the Gateway is for, this is who it is for, and this is how it should work'. SEERAD was concerned with the long-term sustainability of the Gateway, and thus precisely how it developed must evolve to reflect (for example) shifts in IT and internet usage, shifts in rural policy, changes in rural communications/national networking strategies (such as in the RDR). Therefore, there was an appreciation that the Gateway had evolved, and an expectation that it would continue to do so, and although there were the two broad aims of it providing an information resource and facilitating and enabling networking, how precisely this was practised was not necessarily something that had to be determined and prescribed.

4.61. From the SCVO team's perspective, it is possible to summarise the mission of the Gateway in one sentence:

"Providing a wide range of information of use and interest to people living in rural Scotland and providing an opportunity for them to participate in discussion and debate." ( SCVO)

4.62. This was expanded on as follows:

"I see it as an information resource more than anything, with Funding News as the busiest area of the site, plus Ask an Expert on specific subjects." ( SCVO)

"It's a case of "cherry-picking" those issues that we think have got a demand across many rural communities. And it's drip-drip, providing a constant reminder 'cos people forget, and/or they're bombarded with information." ( SCVO)

"We focus on cross-cutting issues, and funding is the number one." ( SCVO)

4.63. The perspective from the Scottish Executive workshop was that:

"The first point to make is that the Gateway is not just about information. You can get information from many places online, especially Google. It's about additionality. Giving people something extra." ( SEERAD)

"Additionality: that's what we're thinking NOW. When it started, there wasn't as much IT access out there. Now we're in a changing environment, broadband's rolling out to rural areas. We need a "unique selling point" because that in itself will promote sustainability." ( SEERAD)

"The world has moved on a lot since 2000. So, where does the Gateway sit in that context? If it's only information, you can find it on Exec or SCVO's website. What is the Gateway website about? If it's only about information, it ain't worth it." ( SEERAD)

4.64. Coupled with this, it was also felt important to say "what the Gateway was not", for example:

"We can't get local. What's the point of trying to emulate what Caithness.org is doing, or Cybermoor? Cybermoor has 2700 people and they know each other within the town, so they are more confident." ( SCVO)

"The "Project Profile" is getting local, but it's like a national newspaper with local stories." ( SCVO)

"We don't have to BE local, but we can have a relationship with local, through having links with local community websites. So, you are linked to all these 'locals' in Scotland." ( SCVO)

But saying that we are "giving you community" is beyond what we currently do, and is not necessarily our mission." ( SCVO)

4.65. If one of the unique selling points was the combination of information with the opportunity to contribute and to make connections with others in rural areas, then the Gateway's Members' Database was a resource which could be utilised more consistently to enable greater connectivity. 543 registered Members were profiled in the Directory - this was less than one quarter of the membership. In the SCVO workshop, discussions addressed the implications of this for the 'added value' aspect of being able to contact others:

"For a searchable Members directory - people need to know why they are entering their details; what advantage is it to them? The reason, the value… " ( SCVO)

"The software and infrastructure's there; it needs more people to put in their profiles." ( SCVO)

4.66. The participants agreed that, in order for people to enter their details, the benefits of being a member need to be described and made clear:

"We also have to think about what you are joining if you become a Member of the Gateway… Membership gives you the Newswire, which is depersonalised information, rather than connectivity with others. So, people don't have an incentive to put in their details. There needs to be an incentive to become a member and give all your details." ( SCVO)

4.67. The benefits needed to relate back to the unique selling points and mission of the Gateway (above). SCVO, as an organisation, had been developing their thinking in order to describe benefits of SCVO membership, and it was felt that it would be useful to explore the key outcomes of their work, and feed this into the discussion at a later stage. In this context, some additional comments were made:

"Before asking for members to add their details, you need to explain Member Benefits first - you need to build a fair bit behind the scenes to make this happen." ( SCVO)

"When you see the work that's gone into defining the SCVO Member Benefits - it makes you much more confident when you're recommending benefits to people." ( SCVO)

"You could get into arrangements with social enterprises; e.g. 10% off conference fee for Members, money off training etc." ( SCVO)

Future management of the Gateway

4.68. Issues of management of the Gateway were discussed in both workshops, since they were integral to the way in which the Gateway had developed and potentially will develop in the future.

4.69. Central to this were 'perceptions' - from SCVO, from Sift, from SEERAD, and from the members and users of the site. It became apparent during the survey and workshops that the Gateway was perceived as an 'Executive site', and that this had positive and negative implications for different elements of the site. For example, in the surveys, "what happens to the polls" was raised on a number of occasions; that is, what was the impact of voting in a poll, in terms of policy change? This raised issues for the users, and also affected how the 'mission' of the Gateway was perceived ( e.g. as an effective lobbying tool). Responses from SCVO and SEERAD were as follows:

"But contributing to the Gateway website means that people/contributors are being heard, even if there's no direct policy change. I don't think people see the polls as a direct lever to influence policy, but most people would feel that they are getting issues slightly higher up the agenda, i.e. indirect influence through participating in discussions." ( SCVO)

"If you've got an issue like transport that comes into another area of the Exec's responsibility, then the effect seems to be limited, because there's not much evident cross-working within the Exec. This is also the case with the broadband (Enterprise & Lifelong Learning) issue. This may also reflect the way in which rural policy is perceived within the Exec…" ( SCVO)

"WE here at the Exec use the Gateway to get information ourselves - information, gossip, types of issues being discussed. It IS a tool for us; it is shaping our view. Government are able to keep in touch with the word on the ground… The Gateway is an ear to the ground." ( SEERAD)

" Within the Exec, the biggest difficulty is getting the rest of the Exec to engage with this site. E.g. on broadband. To try to get them to see it as important…trying to get that message out, and even beyond that, to agencies, it's really difficult. ( SEERAD)

"The Discussion forums on Gateway e.g. on transport, don't get picked up within the Exec cos they don't know about it, and don't see it as a key site and the opportunities… But there are a variety of networks within the Exec… If you can't appreciate the immediate advantage, it goes off the radar." ( SEERAD)

"We need to hold seminars to the rest of the Exec - what it can offer you: (i) a resource that someone can use, (ii) an avenue for SE to get to people; and (iii) agencies can use it to access information…" ( SEERAD)

4.70. Further, when considering the content of the Gateway, the following comments are critical:

"What goes on in the Gateway is to some extent circumscribed by the fact that it is Exec funded… The whole agenda of the Gateway and decisions as to what goes on the RCG sits within and is informed by the wider context that it's Exec-funded. This, also, gives it some authority. It's not a complaint." ( SCVO)

"I think some users see us (the Gateway) as conduit to get in touch with people at the Exec and influence (in whatever mild way we can) to affect rural policy…And the Exec has said this explicitly. Similarly with the Rural Services conference." ( SCVO).

4.71. However, for SEERAD, if the public perception was that the Gateway was an "Exec site", then there were concerns over the degree of implicit prescribing and moderation of content that was taking place:

"But we're then prescribing; we're fulfilling that view that this is an Executive website. Does it then become an obstacle for peer-to-peer?... Not necessarily. We're not influencing, but enabling." ( SEERAD)

"There's a balance to be struck, it's positive for users to think that they can access the Exec, as our team and other parts of Exec. That might be part of the added value… The one thing that people look at is value for money. If we as the Exec are sponsoring the site, what are people getting for their tax-payers money? So, easier access to us at the Exec is one of these benefits…" ( SEERAD)

"The Exec can be perceived as a faceless organisation, so saying we're offering ourselves up for questioning and examination is different from prescribing how it should go." ( SEERAD).

4.72. More specifically, there was a concern that all partners ( SCVO, SEERAD, Sift) might be 'holding back' in discussions concerning the future of the Gateway, due to contractual relationships. Whilst there was an acceptance that this was to some extent inevitable, there was also concern about its implications:

"There are three different parties involved in the delivery of the site and everyone's got their different aims, and it's difficult to know what our partners' explicit aims are for the site, in that they want to deliver to us and keep us happy, that's obvious. And because of SCVO's wider aims they will have their own objectives." ( SEERAD)

"But it is a commercial contract - Sift want to do a good job, and they want to develop more business within the Scottish Exec, and to continue to provide us with a good service. SCVO - a lot of their community stakeholders may use the Gateway, but although they're not as outwardly commercial, they still want to do a good job for us." ( SEERAD)

4.73. It was felt that a culmination of this situation resulted in a default 'self-censorship':

"Self-censorship is underpinned by their imagined perception of what they think we think! From our perspective, I think we self-censor too." ( SEERAD)

4.74. When considering the future management of the Gateway, therefore, there was a priority at SEERAD to support and enable discussion of the future directions of the Gateway with a wider group of stakeholders, such that the focus was not solely on those contracted to do the delivery and those responsible for managing those contracts. It was felt that this would facilitate a discussion of the current and future role of the Gateway, particularly given changing rural policy, increased IT infrastructure and web-based media opportunities, and a possible national network:

"Rural communications is a discussion we need to have with a wider range of rural stakeholders. Getting a rounder view as to the strategic import of the Gateway within that wider context. Does the Gateway become a different type of tool: regional guidance, consultative tool, rather than community/voluntary tool?" ( SEERAD)

"We could involve a wider group of people who have less interest in being contractors to be involved in the discussion; we could have stakeholders involved." ( SEERAD)

"The objectives of the workshop would need to be clear, and what its function is not ( i.e. particularly not for contractors to feel they are being 'assessed' - rather, to widen the debate beyond immediate delivery issues). We could bring some of the initial SNRP people into the discussion, to refer back to earlier days." ( SEERAD)

"Our aims (for the Gateway) haven't necessarily changed, although we recognise that the context has changed. And policy in terms of rural development has moved forward… Do we have that core with lots of sub-groups, sections of interest? E.g. a portal for the farming community. You could then have other parts of the Exec funding those sub-sections, because it's delivering additional value." ( SEERAD)

4.75. This would enable discussion, for example, of whether the Gateway should be in partnership with other publicly funded websites:

"Public-sponsored websites are many and myriad, and there's a tremendous waste of resource, and there's a confusing presentation to 'Jo Public', so the one-stop shop idea was an excellent idea… Should we as the public sector fund all these websites, is another issue; should something like the Gateway do more joining up, and to save money. There could be shared objectives with other public-sector sites, e.g. community engagement." ( SEERAD)

"However, we might well struggle with that from a presentational point of view; we might have difficulties… We have a commitment to rural communities, so it is important for us to show what we are doing for rural communities. UNLESS rural is mainstreamed and rural policy is closed down etc! But, now, we need to show this commitment to rural and the Gateway is an ideal way in which to demonstrate our commitment. " ( SEERAD)

4.76. A discussion with a wider range of stakeholders would also enable greater reflection on the continued role of SEERAD in supporting the Gateway, although it appeared for the time being that SEERAD would continue to sponsor the RCG:

"We would like a rural community site to continue; we are gaining in terms of information, news and sharing, and to pull back from that completely and say we don't need it, wouldn't be true." ( SEERAD)

"That the community wants the Gateway as well further reinforces our commitment." ( SEERAD)

"The idea's great; but HOW we deliver is something we need to be proactive about, because we need to continue to ADD VALUE in a changing environment." ( SEERAD)

4.77. How that added value was 'measured', such that the next steps of the Gateway were 'evidence-based', was an issue that was touched on during the workshop, and highlighted as definitely requiring more in-depth investigation. For example:

"The issue of number of Members raises the issue of contract measurement: we use these numbers as Performance Indicators - but are these more to do with the technical performance? We should look to revise these Indicators, and move away from process to more social indicators, that take account of rural Scotland and its characteristics." ( SEERAD)

Implications for the development of the RCG

4.78. First, there appeared to be a concern over who was not being reached by the resources and opportunities provided by the RCG. Although a prescriptive approach was not supported (that is, we only want these people, or we want the community to look and behave like this), there is a need to understand why certain sectors of the rural population were not using the Gateway, and how this could be improved and developed such that those currently excluded could find content and opportunities that would be useful for them. An aim would be to complement the 'voluntary sector' feel of the site, to include - for example - micro-enterprises, farming, and forestry.

4.79. Second, there is a need to investigate further whether the Gateway was largely providing a service to agencies rather than individuals, and the extent to which individuals felt that they could participate, both peer to peer, and in accessing providers of services, accessing SEERAD and other agencies, in a way that would not otherwise be possible.

4.80. Third, in order for the individual users to have sufficient confidence to contribute to the Gateway, a series of incremental training opportunities are proposed, through rural conferences and regional contributors' events.

4.81. Fourth, there is a need to debate further the notion, and practice, of 'online community' as appropriate to the needs of people in rural Scotland. There was an ambiguity concerning the terminology, and there were also presumptions as to what may or may not be right for the Gateway's future development. It is therefore important that this is linked to a discussion (and formulation) of ideas concerning its role and mission beyond being an information-provider (vital though this is). Being informed in this way will provide the rationale for provision of an 'enabling infrastructure'. A move towards this being "Your Gateway" - and how this is practised in real terms - is seen as a key element of the Gateway's sustainability. The feasibility of online engagement is also known to relate to the specifics of rural connectivity, and it is felt that this must also be borne in mind in planning stages and discussions.

4.82. Fifth, the unique selling points of the RCG need to be developed and identified more precisely. This process and outcome will enable the Gateway to be differentiated from other online information sources that are increasingly accessible to many users. This is inextricably linked with developing an outline of the "benefits of becoming a member" of the Gateway, in order to encourage existing and new members to give their details so that this in itself becomes an online resource of "who's who in rural development in Scotland". This can then be utilised to form connections and collaborations which might not otherwise be possible.

4.83. The sixth major point concerned shared (and conflicting) perceptions, and the 'self-censorship' that may result from this default working relationship. Although elements of this dynamic are to be expected, it is also highlighted as critical to bring together a wider group of stakeholders in at least one, but possibly a series of, workshop(s), in order to debate and develop ideas concerning the best way forward for the Gateway. There appear to be a commitment and a recognition that the Gateway is now filling a gap which would otherwise need to be addressed, and can be built on to enable greater communication across, and for, rural Scotland. However, this process of debate needs to have clear objectives and be managed in such a way that it forms a further evidence-base for directing and evolving the Gateway's next steps. There seems to be consensus over the need for a rural gateway; there now needs to be a discussion and planning phase to develop routes for its further development.

4.84. Seventh, a key underpinning element of such discussions will be the development of more appropriate indicators which complement the existing Performance Indicators. These new ways of measuring the 'stages' of the Gateway, and their application in decision-making over different development options, will be a key methodological area which will need to be strengthened. Such 'social indicators' will need to take account of 'rurality' and of 'rural Scotland' as the contexts within which the Gateway is delivering its information and networking service.

4.85. Finally, it is important to note that such reflection, strategic thinking, and specific planning, need to be resourced. The current team ( SCVO, Sift and SEERAD) are committed in actually delivering and managing the site and its associated tasks. It will therefore be necessary, if this opportunity is to be fully realised, to allocate specific resources to a "business planning and next steps" phase of investigation and evidence-gathering across rural Scotland. The recommendation is that, should the 18-month extension to the contract be implemented, that this period is used explicitly for such reflection and strategic planning.

The RCG in the prevailing community web environment

4.86. It is important to see the extent to which the above concerns, suggestions and priorities for the RCG were reflected in other rural websites and in the wider literature.

Assessment of other websites and portals

4.87. Eight rural websites or portals were investigated using an Evaluation Protocol ⁴, in order to assess: (i) their key features (both similar to, and different from, one another); (ii) the relevance of these features in relation to the objectives of the RCG; and (iii) the implications of these features for how the RCG might develop in its next stages. The sites were selected in order to give a range of types of rural community portal and service-type, as well as a variety of target groups, and sustainability strategies. The sites were:

4.88. Cybermoor: this site was initially part of a DTI-funded initiative ("Wired Up Communities") to connect members within disadvantaged communities in the UK to the internet, through providing PCs, broadband access and training. As part of the capacity-building process, Cybermoor online community had much of its content generated by newly-trained amateur journalists from within the small market town of Alston (population 2700) and the surrounding villages and hamlets. Thus, the project managers invested heavily in upskilling of the local labour force, since they also felt that this would (i) attract employers looking for a skilled workforce, and (ii) enable individuals to be qualified for work where IT skills were required. Thus, cybermoor.org had grown within this wider context, and had evolved as a community online resource over its lifetime of the past 4-5 years. The management group had successfully established a community enterprise, and now specialised in 'selling' its knowledge and experience through Content Management Systems Limited. It also 'sold' itself as a 'resource' for surveys of "what the rural population would think of…", if a provider wanted to carry out some market research prior to launching an initiative. It was therefore self-sustaining.

4.89. Northumberland Rural Voices: was established as a result of a conference in 2002, which identified that rural development workers, activists, and others working in rural Northumberland, experienced isolation from one another. The online resource was seen as a tool which would help support offline networking. In its specification and rationale, for example, the project officer for the site was called a "network weaver" who would spend much of his/her time establishing trusted links offline, in order to gauge what potential users wanted from the site. It had recently been evaluated, and was in the phase of seeking further funding from Northumberland County Council. It was a partnership venture, under the auspices of the Northumberland Strategic Partnership.

4.90. Ruralnet UK: was established in 1996/97 as a registered charity, and was operating on a social enterprise basis trading through the charity.

4.91. The Moray Gateway: this had been set up under the Moray Community Plan Partnership, and was part-funded by the Leader+ programme, to enable communities to gather information to help them put in funding applications to the Moray Partnership. It was project-funded until December 2006, and was looking to maintain its presence online.

4.92. The Guidlife: was initially established within the Leader+ and voluntary sector effort, within rural South Lanarkshire. It had been highlighted on the RCG twice as "website of the month". It was being resourced through short-term project funds. In a similar way to the Cybermoor initiative, local capacity-building had been a key component, with volunteer editors being trained so that they could build their own microsites within the overall site, for their geographical area.

4.93. Angus Glens: this was set up under as a Scottish Enterprise and Business Shop Pilot. It had been developed in conjunction with capacity-building in the Glens, with ICT training (and specifically web design) provided by CLD, Angus Council, so that people could develop their own content for each of the Glen pages. It was run by a committee, with its own Constitution. In December 2005, a new website manager was appointed, under short-term project funding (approximately 18 months). It was a community-owned and managed website.

4.94 Caithness.org: had been set up as a private family enterprise (Bill and Niall Fernie). Its online traffic had increased significantly since its establishment, and it had won awards from Yell.com as a thriving online community.

4.95. WorkwithUs.org: publicly funded site providing internet services for charities and their agencies and covering jobs, fundraising ideas, campaigns, advice and news.

4.96. The following tables summarise the key features of the websites compared with one another (Table 4.1.), and then the extent to which the websites above had attributes which related to McCown's (20002a, 2002b) 7 principles of sustaining engagement in CMCs.

Table 4.1. Presence of key features on 8 websites - including the RCG

4.97. We can see from the table above that Ruralnet UK was the most consistent in terms of delivering all features at a national level, and was evidently building an online community as well as being an up-to-date information resource.

Table 4.2. Subjective summary of McCown's 7 principles of sustaining engagement with respect to the surveyed rural websites and portals.

4.98. The above table (4.2) shows that, again, Ruralnet UK was strong on almost all indicators; however, most sites (apart from the Angus Glens and Northumberland Rural Voices) did meet many of the criteria for sustained engagement.

4.99. On the basis of this desk-study part of the evaluation, the following questions were addressed:

a. To what extent was the Gateway offering a unique service?

The Gateway was offering a unique combination in three ways: (i) a national perspective and local information and knowledge of the issues. Ruralnet UK may also achieve this, but not as openly - i.e. not for non-members; (ii) it communicated an image of being objective and presented both sides of the argument, whilst also running polls on emotive subjects; and (iii) RCG was unique in that it had links to most community websites of any UK portal, so that it was possible to drill down from national to local perspective.

b. Should there be a "national" level Gateway, or were local or regional sites and portals of more relevance?

It was interesting to see how, with the exception perhaps of Caithness.org and Cybermoor.org, local websites became "parochial" - that is, designed for their community's needs, with outward-looking links being primarily for tourism reasons. As a resource, they were relevant for people in the immediate geographical area - for news, gossip, communication, and resources ( e.g. the Moray site). However, they were not able to maintain a national perspective which would inform a local understanding of the problems, challenges and solutions in and for rural areas. Thus, the RCG, in combining these 2 strands, had the capacity to enable a user to see national - and international - cases and stories, whilst still being part of their own local sites. Whether there was a need for regional areas, clicking on a map for example, to link with other sites from the RCG, was for discussion.

c. How were other websites funded? To what extent had they moved from (often) community led (or voluntary) initiatives to "business models" that were self-supporting?

The reviewed websites largely started their lives as projects funded for a pilot phase, and had then either been taken on by the community ( e.g. Cybermoor and the Angus Glens), or had become a self-sustaining model ( e.g. Cybermoor again, and Ruralnet UK). There was no one "model" for funding. However, of key relevance here were the aims and mission of the websites, which appeared to enable their manager to remain focused and draw down further funds.

d. Were these local sites the first port of call, or were national sites more relevant for rural users and those wishing to find rural information?

This question was difficult to answer based on the above findings alone (it was a point pursued in the online survey and in the workshops). However, it seemed that, if one wanted information related to their local area, then their local website was where they headed first. However, we need to be careful in defining "information". The RCG had a significant library of resources, including documents, plans, consultations, best practice, and funding information, some national, and some regional and/or local. At the level of local websites, for example in The Guidlife and in the Moray Gateway, it was possible to find similar information relating to the local areas of Lanarkshire and Moray. It would be of added value if the RCG could therefore enable its resources to be retrieved geographically, and also, with permission and where logistically possible, allow for those searching on the RCG to have their search automatically search other databases held at local level. That is, to create ways of making the links from national to local - and vice versa - explicit. This would then become one of the "added values" of the site.

e. What links to non-local information were used by these sites, and why? ( i.e. what was "missing"?).

With the exception of Caithness.org and Cybermoor, most of these sites had links within their own geographical area, to organisations and online resources. Therefore, this point echoes the previous one, where the RCG could be structured in such a way that users could access local information from the RCG, and national information from their local sites through searches into the RCG.

f. Other lessons?

• Stating the aim, the mission of the site: on the RCG at the moment, the aim of the site was not clear. This was not an issue to be addressed lightly, since an aim could be, for example, dispassionate/objective information provision through to lobbying material and contacts - and either mission had implications for design and content. For instance, Ruralnet UK site sets out its aims clearly, both for the site, and within the wider context of their charity. This emphasis shaped all that they did, and the services that they provided, and also how they were provided. It is important that this is given further thought in the next phase of the RCG.
• Searchable members' database according to keywords, interests, organisations: a number of the reviewed sites enabled users and members to search the database according to interest and specialism. This was a critical 'selling point' of the online resource - to be able to find like-minded individuals, and those working in similar fields with similar responsibilities and concerns. It therefore needed to be pushed as a resource, so that when someone registered themselves, they understood why all the details were necessary, and the benefits this would have in that people could find them as well as them being able to search the database for people to help. This could foster further the specific conditions for community-building and collaboration.
• Benefits and added value of being a member: the strongest example of this came from Ruralnet UK (and it was also highlighted in Northumberland Rural Voices). On reading the reasons why, one is left with the sense that not being a member would be a loss, both personally and professionally. The benefits were not set out in emotive terms, or in pushy language, and this made the sites even more persuasive. This was a feature that would be advisable to add to the RCG site.

A review of best practice in the literature

4.100. There are a number of models of "best practice", both in terms of encouraging individuals to use online technology and computer-mediated communication ( CMC) per se, and the internet in particular. Looking firstly at factors concerning user-behaviour of a range of CMC options, McCown (2002a & 2002b) proposes 7 characteristics that attract people to their sustained use, in relation to Technology Acceptance Theory: (i) Relevance, and therefore: (ii) Motivation to use the resource; (iii) Adding value; (iv) Local information; (v) Quality; Credibility; (vi) Ease of Use; and (vii) Usefulness. These 7 characteristics are based on 2 decades of research into the "problems of user resistance", where the 2 key variables of perceived usefulness and ease of use are long-recognised as central to user acceptance (2002b, p.186).

4.101. McCown also introduced the "construction of relevance" concept (2002a, p.4), where the relevance of the online resource is co-constructed between stakeholders, in order to ensure that it retains meaning and added value for all concerned (rather than being a top-down 'solution' to a perceived 'problem'). This also means that it is fulfilling the user's and public agency's objectives - as users and producers of the online resource (2002a, p.7); this is also a point raised by Kim (2000) - see below. McCown also highlights this "construction of relevance" as a process, during which the credibility of the resource is established. Thus, there are added benefits, in that not only is the product of added value to multiple stakeholders - so is the inclusive process that underpins its generation. Of critical importance here is the following statement:

"In this 'mutual understanding' relationship, intervention intent shifts from educating and persuading to recognition of and respect for other ways of viewing the world… Intervention emphasis shifts from prescribing action to facilitating learning in actions" (2002b, p.180; emphasis in original).

4.102. Linked with this is the observation that use of the resource is not always consistent over time - there will be occasions when users need the information, the additional knowledge, the expertise, and times when they make no use of the resource whatsoever. This has been researched within Technology Acceptance Theory, and McCown summarises the main argument as follows:

"… there is a periodic use phenomenon illustrated by the response of a farmer to my question to him, "Why don't farmers use DSSs more?" Answer: "You need a doctor when you're sick but not when you're well"… Farmers' interest is high when they are wrestling with a change and the new uncertainties change brings…. (so) a farmer's use history can be expected to be a series of use periods distributed in time, each trialling a specific management change, and each with a unique learning history" (2002b, p.192, emphasis in original).

4.103. Although here McCown is referring to a specific domain and scenario, one can see the parallels with the information and networking facilities of the RCG and how they can become useful at specific points in time - relating to an individual's need for funding information, for preparing community plans, for accessing other's expertise to assist with a particular project or strategy, etc. It may therefore be necessary to think how the RCG could be made useful and add value during the intervening periods between these periodic use phenomena. One 'selling point' of the RCG in this context might be its signposting and 'fast-tracking' to required information and to other colleagues, and knowing that this would always be there when needed. McCown calls this function "intermediaries acting as information system 'chauffeurs' for others" (2002b, p.197). These chauffeurs are complementary to existing search patterns for information and links for individuals, and thus, "they want technology to enhance, not overthrow, the established ways…" (2002b, p.204).

4.104. Moving now towards specifics of online community design for increasing and sustaining participation and engagement, there are a number of key threads that are highlighted by those involved in their development. Firstly, in this review of key literature and working models, it is important to recognise the differences in interpretation of "online community". One example is Powazek's book, Design for Community (2002). Although the author states that it is critical to know WHY you want to establish a community online ( e.g. to create a sense of community amongst specific users, to create support forums), his book develops with terminology talking about "audience" rather than "participants" or "members". He also emphasises the importance of generating valuable content, because, he writes, "give your users something to talk about, and they will reward you with high quality conversations" (p.11). In contrast with the other texts cited below, Powazek's analysis reads much more as a top-down, pushing content out and asking users to respond.

4.105. According to other online community analysts, this perception of community as receiver and reactive discussant is descriptive of a site in a state of adolescence rather than maturity. The following 2 examples are illustrative: firstly, Sift (2004) recognises that a website or portal moves from a period of being new, through to one of increased credibility, reputation, and sustainability:

Fig 4.2. Maturing of an online web resource © Sift 2004.

4.106. This shift from 'pushing out' content and material, to content being generated by the user community itself, is also highlighted by Kim (2000), specifically in the context of empowering the user to make contributions:

Fig 4.3. Empower your Members over time (Kim, 2000, p. xvi).

4.107. Sift also recognise, however, that there is a need to recognise a "Community Landscape" (some call an "information ecology" - see Rushbrook, 2002) within which there are always those who will always be more active than others. The following illustration from Sift shows this understanding:

Fig 4.4. The online community landscape (Source: Sift, personal communication, Feb 2006).

4.108. Kim (2000) argues that there is a need to facilitate engagement of different types of potential and actual contributors, and that an optimum way to achieve this, as the site grows over time and in credibility, is through sub-groups:

"One sure sign of a healthy, thriving community is the emergence of small, close-knit groups of members who make their home within the community setting. These groups attract members who share a common interest or purpose and allow them to maintain a feeling of intimacy as the community expands" (p.309)

4.109. Kim (2000) uses the following illustration of these sub-groups, which allow for connection to a central point, as well as more intimate and specifically-relevant sub-user-groups:

Fig 4.5. Illustration of member sub-groups (Kim, 2000).⁵

4.110. Salmon (2000), in an e-learning context, uses a 5-step model to illustrate how collaboration and "co-construction of relevance" (to use McCown's very apt term) can be built over time online.

Fig 4.6. Steps towards collaboration online (Salmon, 2000).

4.111. Under Stage 1, Access & Motivation, Salmon highlights how help is needed with motivating participants, since "taking part is an act of faith for most participants at this stage" (p.170). There is a need to specify the aims and benefits of using the online resource, and how their fears of using the online channels will be addressed (through opportunities to try out online conferencing, for example). In Stage 2, Socialisation, Salmon talks about enhancing participants' confidence through praising their contributions, giving them opportunities to read about other's online experiences and problems, explain the benefits, and make sure their profiles are up to date so that people can find out more about them and one another. Stage 3, Information exchange, focuses on providing practical ways of sharing information online, and looking for how to build links with other media. Stage 4, Knowledge construction, involves posting "insightful questions and giving participants time to reflect and respond" (p.174), and encouraging participants to contribute to the conferences/discussions, not merely read them, making sure that there is no domination of conferences by one or two individuals. The final stage (5), Development, involves mentoring from one participant to another, where participants can offer to help others become e-moderators. It also involves reflecting on the processes of online learning. This is the stage of development where users/participants will feel confident to challenge, shape and contribute to what has become their online resource.

4.112. This expression of a site maturing over time, and of increased confidence in that site (website or portal) - from participants/members, and from users - is also reflected in Sift's portrayal of an online community lifecycle:

Fig 4.7. Online community lifecycle

4.113 However, Sift also point out that the majority of online communities do not reach that authoritative stage:

Fig 4.8. Sift's perspective on where most online communities sit

4.114. So, what are the pointers for achieving that shift, from a site still in its infancy, with little action, little contribution from participants or members, and low confidence in the site as a resource, to one which is fully engaging its members in valued discussions, and information and knowledge exchange which its members are motivated to feed into and hear from?

4.115. Kim (2000) outlines her "Secret strategies for building successful online communities". Her model focuses on 9 design strategies which summarise an architectural, systems-oriented approach to community building. This she calls "Social Scaffolding" - which is required if online communities are to survive beyond their initial construction phase (pp.xiii-xv). It is worth citing them at some length, because they link with the arguments and points raised above, together with some concrete actions which are of use in reflecting on the RCG. These strategies are:

• Define and articulate your purpose: communities come to life when they fulfil an ongoing need in people's lives. To create a successful community, you'll need to first understand why you're building it and who you're building it for; and then express your vision in the design, technology and policies of your community.
• Build flexible, extensible gathering places: a community can begin to take root wherever people gather for a shared purpose and start talking among themselves. Once you have defined your purpose, you will want to build a flexible, small-scale infrastructure of gathering places, which you and your members can work together to evolve.
• Create meaningful and evolving member profiles: you can get to know your members - and help them to get to know each other - by developing robust, evolving and up-to-date member profiles. If handled with integrity, these profiles can help you build trust, foster relationships, and delivery personalised services, while infusing your community with a sense of history and context.
• Design a range of roles: addressing the needs of newcomers without alienating the regulars is an ongoing balancing act. As your community grows, it will become increasingly important to provide guidance to newcomers while offering leadership, ownership and commerce opportunities to more experienced members.
• Develop a strong leadership programme: community leaders are the fuel in your engine: they greet visitors, encourage newbies, teach classes, answer questions, and deal with trouble makers who might destroy the fun for everyone else. An effective leadership programme requires careful planning and ongoing management, but the results can be well worth the investment.
• Encourage appropriate etiquette: every community has its share of internal squabbling: if handled well, conflict can be invigorating. But disagreements often spin out of control and tear a community apart. To avoid this, it's crucial to develop some ground rules for participation, and set up systems that allow you to enforce and evolve your community standards.
• Promote cyclic events: communities come together around regular events: sitting down to dinner, going to church on Sunday, attending a monthly meeting. To develop a loyal following and foster deeper relationships amongst your members, you'll want to establish regular online events, and help your members develop and run their own events.
• Integrate the rituals of community life: all communities use rituals to acknowledge their members and celebrate important social transitions. By celebrating holidays, marking seasonal changes, and acknowledging personal transitions you'll be laying the foundation for a true online culture.
• Facilitate member-run subgroups: if your goal is to grow a large-scale community, you'll want to provide technologies to help your members create and run sub-groups. It's a substantial undertaking, but this powerful feature can drive lasting member loyalty, and help to distinguish your community from its competition.

4.116. In addition to the above design strategies, Kim (2000) outlines three "underlying principles" for online community design. Firstly, design for growth and change. Kim explains:

"As a community designer, one of the most damaging mistakes you can make is to over-design your community up front and invest too heavily in the design paradigm or technology platform that can't easily be changed and updated. Successful, long-lasting communities almost always start off small, simple and focused, and then grow organically over time - adding breadth, depth and complexity in response to the changing needs of the members, and the changing conditions of the environment" (p.xv).

4.117. The second principle is: create and maintain feedback loops:

"Successful community building is a constant balancing act between the efforts of management to plan, organise and run the space, and the ideas, suggestions and needs of your members. To manage this co-evolution, you'll need to keep your finger on the community pulse - and you'll do this by creating and maintaining feedback loops between members and management… they will give you the information you need to evolve and update your features and platform" (p.xv) .

4.118. The third and final principle is to empower your members over time. Kim (2000) states that:

"Initially, it's up to you to define your purpose, choose your feature set, and set a particular tone, but as your community grows and matures, your members can and should play a progressively larger role in building and maintaining the community culture. If you want to grow a large and thriving community, you'll need to develop a progressive strategy for leveraging ideas and efforts of your members" (p.xvi).

4.119. So again, we see the message being re-emphasised that, as a site matures over time, it needs to evolve, consciously and proactively (rather than by chance) to include the views, concerns, ideas, and contributions of its members. This relates back directly to defining the purpose of the site, to ensure that members have the appropriate expectations, for example, for lobbying, for information and knowledge exchange, for personal stories of successes and failures, for consultation on government proposals, etc.

4.120. This brief review of best practice models concludes with 2 key points with direct implications for the future development of the RCG.

KEY POINT 1: Establishing a clear aim

4.121. Kim (2000) states that:

"A successful community serves a clear purpose in the lives of its members and meets the fundamental goals of its owners… You'll be more successful if you can define and describe what type of community you're building, why you're building it, and who you're building it for… articulating your purpose up front will help you focus your thinking and create a coherent, compelling and successful web community" (p.1).

4.122. It is necessary to compare this with the RCG description on the site. The RCG, to be sustainable, needs to know and declare its bigger purpose. This will mean that members' and users' experiences are moving in a recognised direction. One example is to consider the online polls. They are important for people to feed in their opinions, but what is not clear is whether their opinions then matter and/or will be fed through to channels where they are likely to have an impact. Alternatively, will the RCG become a recognised source of opinion for decision-makers to 'try-out' ideas with those who live, think and work in rural Scotland (in a similar way that Cybermoor's user-base can test ideas through online surveys for an external source)? These are questions that will need to be addressed.

KEY POINT 2: Enable member-run sub-groups

4.123. Finally, Kim states that:

"One sure sign on a healthy, thriving community is the emergence of small, close-knit groups of members who make their home within the community setting. These groups attract members who share a common interest or purpose and allow them to maintain a feeling of intimacy as the community expands. If your goal is to build a robust, large-scale community, then fostering member-run sub-groups should be an integral part of your community strategy. Whether they are set up by the community staff or created by the members themselves, these small groups are where people will form their deepest relationships and strongest loyalties. That's why it's crucial to understand how these groups evolve and make sure that you cultivate a fertile environment within which they can take root and grow" (2000, p.309).

4.124. Again in evaluating the RCG, and how it is to develop over the coming 18 months and beyond, it is necessary to think through the case for, and practicalities of, establishing online sub-groups.

« Previous | Contents | Next »