You are currently browsing the monthly archive for December 2008.
Geoff Martin is Special Adviser to the Commonwealth Secretary General on Strategic Relationships. He was head of the European Commission in the U.K.
By: Geoff Martin is Special Adviser to the Commonwealth Secretary General on Strategic Relationships. He was head of the European Commission in the U.K. from 1993 until 2002. He was the head of the Information Services of the European Commission in South East Asia in the mid eighties and inaugural Head of the European Commission in N. Ireland 1979 – 1985. He is working currently on the Joint African Union/European Union Strategy for Africa with a special interest in the role and responsibilities of the media in supporting Governance.
In spite of the odds stacked against it, N.Ireland, has broken out of the old anti European mould. A European Region under direct rule from Britain for many years it has embraced the European connection to become one of the most outward looking regions in the Union. Drawing down 1,000,000,000.00 euros for new investment in the region between 2007 – 2013 it is creating a European network which few can match. It is claiming leadership of European regions in a number of policy forming areas too.
In 1979 N.Ireland elected 3 Members to the European Parliament in the first ever European Parliamentary elections. In December of the same year the Commission opened an office in Belfast, the last of four in the U.K. That year was the forebear of a decade or more of the worst violence and sectarian conflict the region had seen since the beginning of the troubles a decade earlier. There was no regional government or parliamentary assembly. These collapsed since the breakdown of a power sharing executive in the early seventies which was toppled by the actions of hard line Protestant unionists. It was run by a British Secretary of State and junior Ministers responsible to Westminster and Whitehall. The government of Ireland on the other side of the border was unhelpful and adopted a patronising attitude.
The Civil Service was obstructive and Ministers were told not to visit Brussels on the region’s behalf. However, the N.Irish European Parliamentarians and the Commission, acting often together, put Europe on the region’s political map within a few years. Northern Ireland had its back to the wall. It had become world news. The IRA hunger strikes, paramilitary organisations, an alleged shoot to kill policy and a British army pinned down in many areas between warring factions in terrible ghettos, left little to aspire towards.
- In retrospect, it was the inauguration of a European Peace Programme which provided the essential turning point.
Initially idealistic in its analysis of the nature of the conflict, a combination of British, Irish and Northern Irish individuals convinced the European Commission and the E.Parliament that here was a challenge to test the theories of regional disparity in the European Community as it then was. Early on, Roy Jenkins, Garret Fitzgerald, Jacques de lors and many others were persuaded to give moral and material support to a European region which represented the worst example of sectarian social conflict anywhere within its borders. Financial support was in heavy demand. Many funds were secured by the Treasury for the U.K as a whole, using eligibility rules which only N.Ireland could match. However, the total funding finally made available to N.Ireland from London were significantly less than otherwise would have been the case because of the UK’s policy of non-additionality.
In retrospect, it was the inauguration of a European Peace Programme which provided the essential turning point. Europe ceased to be a threat to unionists, a utopia to nationalists and became an opportunity for all. More than any large scale funding of infrastructure or the choice of Belfast with Naples as pioneering cities supported by the unprecedented use of European Funds for housing, it was the deployment of small European money in micro community areas requiring a consensus in order to deploy, which lifted the eyes of the people as a whole to the prospect of a wider spectrum to their lives in a new and more enriching environment. For the first time ever, in order to have the funds to spend, Provisional Sein Fein and hard line Democratic Unionist councillors on local sub committees talked to each other and agreed.
European headlines of both sorts gradually gave way to less publicity and more action. Communicating Europe was being metamorphosed from the media platform of previous years into a deepening development of networks. An office was opened in Brussels. Formerly sceptical Whitehall civil servants were persuaded to take a constructive interest. Business, agriculture and social groupings began to enquire more. The peace process gave way to reconciliation. Political enemies began to talk together and the leadership of the Commission remained in close touch with the evolving power sharing arrangements.
In May 2007, the President of the Commission, former Prime Minister of Portugal Jose Manuel Barroso visited N.Ireland. He met with former political foes, now in -coming power sharing colleagues, First Minister Ian Paisley and Deputy First Minster, Martin McGuiness, in a new devolved administration.
The President was asked to help. He returned to ask his colleague for regional affairs, Commissioner Danuta Hubner to convene a Task Force for N.Ireland. It reported in April 2008. Its results have taken N.Ireland to new heights in its European regional setting. It has developed networks, never before explored for added value and intra regional connections. It has compared N.Ireland very favourably indeed to progress in other similar regions. In Europe today economic success is often dependent on a region’s capacity to develop networks with other regions.
As the Commission President said, ” Against the expectations of only a few years ago, Northern Ireland has now emerged as an example to the world on how to succeed in promoting peace and reconciliation in a deeply divided community. Its political leaders have recognised the importance of economic success in this process, and the role of the European Union in the drive for growth and jobs. Just like the emerging European Community of 50 years ago, the story of Northern Ireland shows that people from different communities, sometimes with fundamentally different opinions, can overcome the divisions, work together and share a common future”
So the region that came in from the cold sets a bench mark for all of us in regions. Communicating Europe, as in the example of N.Ireland , does not begin and end with the media or an “information only” policy. Many other actors are needed.
Do our political representatives pull together for this region in spite of their differences? Is rampant prejudice and unforgivable ignorance giving way to clearer vision? Are the local authority workers still blinded by scepticism, despite the few who still carry the torch of opportunity? Has anti European propaganda yet been removed from publicly accountable institutions? Who in the region is leading from the front on the creation of new European networks and through them to the wider world, to stimulate growth and investment and the creation of jobs?
These are only some of the questions that identify today’s challenge to Yorkshire and Humberside as a region of Britain and a region of Europe too.
RESEARCH REPORT: How do communicators perceive their users and to which online strategy does this lead? What are user perceptions of EU institutions and how are they altered through using the EU website? How do communicator intentions compare to user perceptions?
by Talke K. Hoppmann, PhD candidate
The aim of this study was to understand how online experiences feed back into offline perceptions. To this end, online information seeking processes of young people searching for information on the official EU website www.europa.eu, were examined and compared to the production process behind the website. Analysing the images communicators and users have of each other throughout their interaction on the EUROPA website can help to show where intentions and user perceptions overlap or diverge. Keeping the current internal and external debates surrounding e.g. the ‘No’ votes on the common constitution and the way ahead in mind, every possible avenue of interaction should be reconsidered to foster citizen engagement and the feeling of being connected.
Next to the mass media, the Internet plays an increasingly important role in people’s lives for information seeking, social networking, interpersonal communication, and political engagement, as can be seen in various Eurobarometer studies [1]. Therefore, it requires closer attention with regard to how our online experiences influence our attitudes. While people may be aware of an information source, this does not mean that they will employ this source. Even if they have used a website, this does certainly not mean they will use it again in the future.
The underlying assumptions are: 1. Attitudes people hold influence their information processing, 2. Information processing and seeking are influenced by the online experiences of a user, which are in turn influenced by user skills and expertise, 3. A frustrating search process may lead to negative perceptions of the website and by association of the communicator.
And with these assumptions in mind, the research questions this study seeks to answer are: R1: How do communicators perceive their users and to which online strategy does this lead? R2: What are user perceptions of EU institutions and how are they altered through using the EU website? R3: How do communicator intentions compare to user perceptions?
Empirically, the production process and online strategy (R1) were examined in the EU institutions and user perceptions and attitudes (R2) were examined by studying 16-year old Internet users in Germany, Denmark, and the UK.
The findings on the communicator side show that there is no consistent picture of
The findings on the communicator side show that there is no consistent picture of “the user”. A variety of concepts are in use, and even though the Internet strategy paper (2007) [2] proposes an “inverted pyramid” model, this is only referred to by one interviewee – the Director of Multimedia and Communication – so that it seems that this model merely reached the upper levels of the hierarchy.
Another astonishing finding is that the concept of target groups or audiences is widespread, indicating a marketing approach that seems at odds with an increased user focus. The second point is the prevailing organisation-centric view in the institutions. Numerous obstacles, inherent in the structure of the organisation, are obstructing change in this area. The hierarchical structure that relies on top-down decision processes often led to the Internet being used as a “bin” and even now, the institutions are still heavily reliant on this hierarchy, including many people at the top not recognising the value of online communication, or understanding the website as an archive and not a means for interaction. Accordingly, higher-ranking officials do not usually attend usability workshops so that a top-down change in thinking cannot occur. The third point is budget related: While a willingness to change is apparent, the Internet strategy paper (2007) points out that the transformation has to occur in a “resource neutral scenario”, meaning that even though the importance of (online) communication is recognised, the budget is not increased.
Regarding user impressions, it seems that those with positive attitudes towards the EU evaluate the site more positively, while those with mixed attitudes show a mixed picture and those with negative attitudes largely evaluated the site negatively. Nevertheless, the majority of students found the site confusing or difficult to handle, independent of prior attitudes. While many students are positively surprised by the website – mostly in terms of language variety and amount of information – they all encountered problems. In terms of the obstacles faced on the site, the search process itself is vitally important for the users’ impression, as they reflect on and compare their experiences to previous search processes.
Thus, students seem to draw connections between the on and offline environments, being aware of the fact that websites give a first impression and represent an organisation. Concerning the users’ picture of the communicator, the students seemed to match the Eurobarometer findings for their national contexts. While most of the German students held highly positive and uncritical views, the Danish students were the most critical and inquisitive, and the British students showed the greatest lack of interest and knowledge about the EU [3].
When comparing communicator intentions to user perceptions two different pictures emerge. Seen positively, a transformation process focusing on users, feedback and interactivity, is currently under way. In this scenario users perceive the website (and by association the EU) as positive largely due to the language variety and the amount of information. Many are positively surprised and conclude that the EU is not as distant as they thought. The negative view on the same scenario would be that the communicators do not seem to have a clear picture of “the user” and are providing organisation- rather than user-centred information. Similarly, users perceive the institutions as unclear and confusing – mirroring the website.
Users perceive the website (and by association the EU) as positive largely due to the language variety and the amount of information.
These different perspectives play a part in each interaction on the website. Accordingly, due to the lack of a coherence and strategy the picture the user develops through using the website and compares to her previous image of the communicator, depends heavily on the individual search process. To possibly bridge the gap between citizens’ perceptions and communicator intentions this study proposes several recommendations. These as well as a more detailed summary can be obtained by contacting the author at: t.hoppmann@hans-bredow-institut.
Notes:
[1] The Eurobarometer studies for example find TV to be the most important source for getting information on the EU. The growing importance of the Internet can be seen e.g. in the increasing number of people (from 10% in 2000 to 23% in 2006) naming it as a source of information see: Eurobarometer 53-65. For a more detailed analysis see: Hoppmann, T. (2008). User perceptions of EU institutions and communicator perceptions of their users: Images enacted via the EU website, Doctoral dissertation at the University of Hamburg.
[2] Communication to the Commission, Communicating about Europe via the Internet engaging the citizens, 21.12.2007, available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/wallstrom/pdf/Internet-strategy_en.pdf
[3] Here it needs to be kept in mind that the student’s knowledge differed between the three groups of participants and was considerably higher among the Danish and German groups compared to the British group. Yet, this does not mean that the data cannot be compared, rather they provide a wide array of experiences on the website based in different backgrounds and skills (e.g. 2)
In this video, Margot Wallström answered a few questions about the European elections: on the prediction that the PES would not be having a candidate for the position of President of the European Commission and on gender quotas. This was shot during a conference organised by the Mouvement Européen – France, at the Cité Internationale Universitaire, Paris.
Uploaded by Eurojunkie
A unique website monitoring the activities of MEPs could be closed soon due to lack of funding
Source: EuroActiv
Published: Monday 1 December 2008
[edited]
A unique website monitoring the activities of all 785 members of the European Parliament is on the verge of shutting down due to lack of funding and technical maintenance, EurActiv has learnt. Unveiled in February 2008, the websiteexternal was developed by the Romanian Institute for Public Policies (IPP) and aims to make members of the European Parliament (MEPs) accountable for their actions. The site, launched under the banner “How MEPs work”, gives interested citizens the opportunity to check how regularly each parliamentarian attended sessions as well as the number of motions for resolutions he or she has put forward or supported. It also gives details of MEPs’ voting records.
“Technically, the website is perfectly designed,” IPP Director Violeta Alexandru told EurActiv. Moreover, as a means of assessing the work of MEPs, “it is unique”, she explained. A similar IPP initiative covers the Romanian parliament, she added.
However, the website has not been properly updated and if no solution is found, it could soon be closed, Alexandru revealed. She explained that not only does it require additional funding, but also an IT specialist with a good understanding of how the European Parliament functions.
Until recently, the website’s search facility provided detailed information concerning the most and the least active MEPs as well as whose voting records were most or least loyal to their political groups. The search functions meant that the Parliament’s various political groups could be closely monitored and compared, while MEPs could be evaluated according to their countries of origin.
“You have the right to know how each MEP votes,” states the site’s homepage.
Adrian Moraru, the IPP’s deputy director, said national political parties did monitor MEPs with a view to drafting election lists, but insisted that citizens should also be given the chance to monitor the people that they voted for.
Recent Comments