The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS OF MESSAGE CONTENT

Introduction

4.1 This chapter presents the findings of a content analysis of a sample of the messages posted on the website. It looks at the numbers of messages posted on the websites over the lifespan of the Scottish Executive funding and beyond, and draws some conclusions about the level of community engagement and impacts that the website has had on local democracy.

Volume and pattern of usage

4.2 The following two tables (Tables 4.1 and 4.2) set out the numbers of threads and messages posted on the website over the time period September 2005 to July 2006. A thread is a new topic or theme - the first message in a sequence. The messages were replies to that initial posting.

4.3 The most popular area of the website was Bannockburn, which has the greatest number of both threads and messages posted in the time period under consideration. The other areas were clearly less well used, particularly Drymen, Torbrex and Stepps. Bannockburn has seen a gradual increase each month in the number of messages posted, suggesting that awareness of the website was increasing in that local community or that users were getting more confident in using the website. However this may also be reflective of increasing numbers of 'spam' messages. Other areas tend to fluctuate each month with peaks and troughs, as in the case of Drymen which saw 252 messages posted in March 2006, but then only 13 messages throughout all the other months in total. This may be linked to a particular 'hot topic' which caused a flurry of activity. In Torbrex during the months studied, there has been no activity on the website since the funding period ended in December 2005 and others, such as Stepps have also seen very limited activity since the funds ended.

Table 4.1 Threads posted Sept 05 - July 06

Table 4.2 Messages posted Sept 05 - July 06

4.4 Given the relatively small population in the six areas, we would expect fairly low levels of usage of the website. And in the in-depth interviews the councillors were keen to point out that levels of usage of the website - although relatively low compared to the population - were in fact higher than attendance that they usually expect at Community Council ( CC) meetings.

Regular users

4.5 Messages on the websites were generally posted by either the councillors or members of the local community. There were only a handful of messages in our sample that were posted by non-local people (for example one message was posted by someone in Canada). Some users expressed special interests such as being from the local newspaper, or being from another CC or representative group (such as a tenants association) from outside of the local area.

Message purpose and content

4.6 Generally, the content of messages posted on the website seemed to be locally relevant and indeed relevant to issues in which the CC could influence or be involved. For example messages commented on:

• planning applications;
• litter or graffiti problems;
• byelaws on drinking;
• the development of local land for community facilities; and
• local traffic issues.

4.7 Several messages related to CC business such as encouraging attendance at meetings, referring items for the agenda, or posting meeting minutes on the website. However a few non-relevant messages had been posted, including several items of spam ( see chapter three) and national issues which had limited relevance locally or that the CC would be unable to respond to (for example issues relating to NHS 24).

4.8 In terms of purpose, most messages aimed to raise an issue or reply in agreement or disagreement with an issue. Some messages were purely informational, such as those posting minutes of meetings or informing of planning applications or changes to road markings. Some messages were explicitly aimed at encouraging participation (for example explicitly requesting responses or asking people to complete the surveys on the website) or thanking people for making useful comments - these were usually posted by the councillors.

Impact on democratic engagement

4.9 In some cases, there was evidence of where local people's views were being listened to and acted upon, although in very few cases was there evidence that issues raised on the website had led either to increasing the number of people being engaged in democratic processes, or having a direct impact on planning, legislation or policy.

4.10 There was clearly evidence that messages posted by the public were being listened to by the councillors. In several of the threads analysed, points raised by the public were taken forward to the agenda for the next CC meeting or passed onto other local organisations for action (such as the local Community Development Trust).

"…Read your last meetings' minutes. Glad [and] appreciate that you are now making a formal complaint (member of general public)"

4.11 However there was very little feedback in the sample of messages that actually outlined what had changed as a result of the public's participation in the website. For example very few messages gave examples of things that had changed locally or changes to local policy and strategy that had been accomplished. In one example a member of the public suggested a 'litter pick-up day' which was then organised to take place by a councillor. In interviews with stakeholders, and in ITC's final report it was clear that impacts have been seen, however these were not readily made available on the website and should be 'marketed' on the website more clearly.

4.12 There was little evidence on the website that 'newcomers' - or people who had not been engaged in CC activity previously - were using the website. Most of the authors of messages analysed appeared to already be engaged in the local community. In the in-depth interviews, stakeholders also conceded that the websites had not attracted a wide range of new and different members of the community to participate. For example, telephone consultations with a random selection of 15 many community groups in the local areas of the pilot ( e.g. local toddler groups or sports clubs), indicated that many were not aware of the website. In terms of the pilot-project partnership, it was the responsibility of the Community Councillors to raise awareness among such groups.

4.13 Also of concern were comments made by some members of the public who say they do not understand the function or purpose of the website, although the pilot site did provide information on its purpose. One message stated:

"What is the point of this website? (member of general public)"

4.14 This echoes the point made in chapter three that the purpose of the website and the areas it can expect to influence need to be made clear for newcomers to the website in order to encourage participation and prevent anyone from being turned off or frustrated.

Summary

4.15 Usage of the website in terms of the numbers of messages posted was variable and fluctuated enormously. Usage tended to occur in flurries around hot topics then died down again. In several areas there was a significant decrease in activity since the pilot funding ended in December 2005. Only Bannockburn had seen a steady increase in the numbers of messages posted.

4.16 The users of the website generally appeared to be genuine local people, raising issues of relevance to their local community. However some users were unsure of the purpose of the website - probably those least familiar with CCs' roles and remits - and unless this is addressed some new users may be being turned off from using the website.

4.17 Generally it was clear that messages in our sample were being listened and responded to, and that ideas and comments were being taken on board and addressed at CC meetings. However the website could have made more effort to relay any changes or events that have taken place as a result of the public's participation in order to improve the transparency of the website and allow users to see what impacts their comments were having on the local community.

« Previous | Contents | Next »