 |
| |
 Andy is as thought leader and visionary who is passionate about the potential for new technologies to enhance civil society and democratic life. He provides advocacy, consultancy, research and evaluation around e-democracy, community informatics and the effective use of ICT to bridge barriers and increase effective participation in society.
He has a background in commercial IT consultancy, local and central government policy, technology innovation, broadband and regional development as well as community informatics, research management and community development.
A New Zealander, Andy is now based in the UK but retains his global focus.
Andy's work is not about technology; it's about empowering people and communities to become effective users of the right technologies.
|
|
 |
Contact Andy Williamson
UK & Europe
+44 20 8133 7412
US/Canada
+1 415 578 4504
Asia/Pacific
+61 3 9018 7165
|
|
| New book released: Researching with communities | Thursday, 17 April 2008 | Community informatics
Researching with Communities: Grounded perspectives on engaging communities in research
Edited by Andy Williamson and Ruth DeSouza
Researching with communities presents a range of personal and grounded perspectives from academics, researchers and practitioners on undertaking research in ways that promote and privilege the voice of the community, is respectful of local or indigenous practices and is culturally safe.
Most definitely not a ‘tick list’ for approaching community-inclusive research, this book provides grounded exemplars, guides and discussion about the experiences of doing research respectfully and inclusively. It does this by drawing on the perspectives of researchers and community practitioners and by providing a range of reflective chapters that explore what community-based research means in a range of settings and for a range of people. Like the communities in which they are grounded, undertaking research in this way is always a unique experience.
Order a copy now...
| | Digital super group long overdue | Wednesday, 26 March 2008 | Community informatics
It’s refreshing to see that the government has finally announced plans for a digital ‘super-group’ to replace the Digital Strategy Advisory Group (DSAG) and the rag-tag of pseudo-industry groups that have sprung up, such as ICT-NZ and HiGrowth. The latter has done some very good stuff in its day but is overdue for an overhaul. The former seems to me to be a complete joke. And if I needed convincing of that, claiming significant value in the two years wasted establishing the group even though there’s no real industry buy-in and it’s never launched is a farce. It should really disqualify anyone involved from any future involvement in organising anything short of a kindie picnic. It’s just not that hard but it’s probably not a coincidence given that the New Zealand mindset seems to be good at innovation and appalling bad at converting that to a sustainable business.
I’ve argued not just the value but the absolute need for an independent inter-sectoral group on matters digital. The digital strategy has some real strengths, one of them was the whole of country approach. Also the range of talent on the Advisory Group was a pleasure to work with. But the biggest weaknesses was always that it was stuck fast in the mire of government. There are many, many good people in New Zealand’s digital sectors and here’s a real chance to pull together some great thinkers, innovators and above all doers. What would I say to the Minister? That’s easy: Give it a mandate, give it enough money then make sure the bureaucrats leave it alone!
| | My new role | Saturday, 15 December 2007 | eDemocracy
I'm really pleased to announce that I've been appointed Director of eDemocracy Programmes at the Hansard Society. They have been innovators and thought leaders around parliamentary democracy and new technologies for a number of years and it's a real privilege to be selected to take their exciting programme forward.
| | Democratic placebos | Thursday, 15 November 2007 | eDemocracy
The eDemocracy conversation remains resolutely government centric. Not that civil society isn’t represented, it is. But it still lives on the fringes. As eDemocracy matures specialised systems for consultations, petitions and debates have emerged. They are not cheap, so civil society remains in the slow-lane of do-it-yourself or open-source as government wheels out its ever more grand designs.
Democracy (without the ‘e’) is anchored in the landscape of local community. Shaped by the issues that shape us, to fully engage we need our own sense of place. There is a social context for everything that we do and it is a challenge for eDemocracy to ensure that new electronic systems do not homogenise or diminish local cultural and social values through the top-down imposition of technical solutions.
There is a real problem with democratic drift. People are dis-engaging from democracy and young people are not engaging in the first place. eDemocracy is one part of the solution. There is evidence that people are using the new systems. There are signs that some projects have engaged people on the fringes. But not many.
A problem remains, for me at least, with accountability. Take ePetitions; a good idea in many ways, they are inarguably democracy done light. Nothing, deliberative, engaging or values based there. But if they engage more people, I don’t have a problem. The suggestion from proponents of ePetitions is that the people using them perceive being heard. But are they? How do we know what is going on behind the scenes? What happens to a petition? Who sees it? Who responds to it? Does it make any difference? The answer to these questions obviously depends on where you live, the issue you raised and probably a whole raft of other variables. The point is, you – the citizen – don’t really know the answer because the process is opaque.
Without end-to-end clarity, effective, clear and transparent eDemocracy is a fallacy. At best these processes become a lottery. Or do we just end up with a democratic placebo; a perception on the part of the citizen that something’s happening and a resultant, if temporary, decline in the democratic malaise, yet in reality it’s no more than sugar.
| | Local government online is too complex and wrongly focussed | Thursday, 25 October 2007 | eDemocracy
Web usability expert Gerry McGovern's recent survey of local government websites throws up some depressing but predictable results. The top three descriptors of New Zealand council websites are 'organization-centric', 'complicated' and 'comprehensive'. As McGovern reports, 'easy to use', 'simple to navigate' and 'well managed' didn't rate at all.
This isn't a dig at New Zealand local government, the US and Canada rate as badly in this survey as does the UK in July 2007 research from the UK's National Audit Office, who note that "the size and complexity of the Government’s web-estate makes it hard for citizens to find the information they want in a comprehensible form."
Accessibility is of course a major barrier to effective use. Often when I visit these sites the problem is clear - they are desgined with little consideration of the different types of users and not enough time is spent considering how citizens might want to interact with the site. Instead, information is dumped according to internal silos and mindsets. Ironically, recreating the very problem eDemocracy should be overcoming.
|
|
|
This page:
Top 5 stories
All titles
List by topic:
Community informatics
eDemocracy
eGovernment
Broadband
Internet
Technology
Local issues
Story search:
|
