The piece of text below is a shortened, hashed representation of this content. It is useful to ensure the content has not been tampered with, as a single modification would result in a totally different value.
Value:
dbabbb1c3b1775afc5180ac80d809d386d34e7d039d81d1457aa7cafbcb53c0c
Source:
{"body":{"en":"<?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"UTF-8\"?>\n<dl class=\"decidim_awesome-custom_fields\" data-generator=\"decidim_awesome\" data-version=\"0.11.3\">\n <dt name=\"text-1714747956243-0\">Hypothesis</dt>\n <dd id=\"text-1714747956243-0\" name=\"text\">\n <div>\n The governance of digital participation platforms is deeply shaped by political cycles, with ruling parties designing platforms that reflect their participatory values, while subsequent administrations may either preserve, repurpose, or dismantle these infrastructures.\n The durability and neutrality of these platforms depend on:\n <ul>\n <li>Institutional safeguards</li>\n <li>Legal frameworks</li>\n <li>The role of platform providers in ensuring the continuity of citizen participation records</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </dd>\n\n <dt name=\"textarea-1714747947319-0\">Context</dt>\n <dd id=\"textarea-1714747947319-0\" name=\"textarea\">\n <div>\n Digital participation platforms are often launched under specific political administrations as tools to enhance citizen engagement.\n These platforms are not neutral infrastructures; their design reflects the political ideology and governance approach of the party in power.\n Examples from Barcelona and Madrid:\n <ul>\n <li>Platforms like Decidim and Consul evolved under progressive administrations but were later modified, repurposed, or discontinued when political control shifted.</li>\n <li>Madrid’s Consul, initially designed by Más Madrid, was inherited by a conservative administration, illustrating how political transitions impact governance, use, and ideological orientation.</li>\n </ul>\n In other cases, such as various regional and municipal governments, platforms have been unplugged entirely.\n Key questions raised:\n <ul>\n <li>How can digital participation be institutionalized?</li>\n <li>What are the rights of citizens to have their contributions preserved?</li>\n <li>What is the role of platform providers in ensuring democratic continuity?</li>\n </ul>\n The hypothesis explores whether legal frameworks, technological safeguards, or governance mechanisms can protect participatory processes from political erasure or manipulation.\n </div>\n </dd>\n\n <dt name=\"textarea-1714747993772-0\">Case Studies/Examples:</dt>\n <dd id=\"textarea-1714747993772-0\" name=\"textarea\">\n <div>\n The research will examine several cases where digital participation platforms have undergone transformations due to political shifts, providing a comparative perspective on:\n <ul>\n <li>Governance models</li>\n <li>Institutional resilience</li>\n <li>Risks of manipulation or deletion</li>\n </ul>\n Key examples:\n <ul>\n <li><strong>Consul platform in Madrid</strong>:\n <ul>\n <li>Initially designed by Más Madrid as a progressive participatory infrastructure.</li>\n <li>Later inherited by a conservative administration.</li>\n <li>Analysis will focus on how governance, accessibility, and participatory functions evolved post-transition and whether it retained its original democratic intent or was altered.</li>\n </ul>\n </li>\n <li><strong>Decidim platform in Barcelona</strong>:\n <ul>\n <li>Represents a relatively stable participatory model but has undergone modifications based on governing coalitions.</li>\n <li>Assessment will explore whether its open-source nature and participatory governance model ensure continuity or if vulnerabilities threaten long-term sustainability.</li>\n </ul>\n </li>\n <li><strong>Other European cases</strong>:\n <ul>\n <li>Instances in France, Italy, and Germany where regional/municipal governments discontinued or repurposed platforms, raising concerns about data deletion and loss of participatory rights.</li>\n </ul>\n </li>\n <li><strong>Estonia’s e-governance system</strong>:\n <ul>\n <li>Citizen participation is embedded in a long-term digital infrastructure, offering a potential model for platform resilience beyond electoral cycles.</li>\n </ul>\n </li>\n <li><strong>Taiwan’s vTaiwan platform</strong>:\n <ul>\n <li>Examines its ability to maintain participatory governance mechanisms under different political administrations.</li>\n </ul>\n </li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </dd>\n\n <dt name=\"text-1718180319686-0\">Primary Question: State the main question your hypothesis aims to answer</dt>\n <dd id=\"text-1718180319686-0\" name=\"text\">\n <div>\n Main question: How do political transitions impact the governance, continuity, and integrity of digital participation platforms?\n Sub-questions:\n <ul>\n <li>How do political parties design long-term institutional digital infrastructures when in power?</li>\n <li>How are these infrastructures preserved or altered by successor administrations?</li>\n <li>What are the risks of political manipulation, data erasure, or ideological repurposing?</li>\n <li>What legal mechanisms or contractual agreements could safeguard citizen participation records?</li>\n <li>What is the role of platform providers in ensuring neutrality, security, and longevity?</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </dd>\n\n <dt name=\"textarea-1718180392889-0\">Assumptions</dt>\n <dd id=\"textarea-1718180392889-0\" name=\"textarea\">\n <div>\n Digital participation platforms are political artifacts reflecting the governance philosophy of the ruling administration.\n Political transitions directly influence whether these infrastructures are maintained, altered, or dismantled.\n Citizens’ participation rights should include preservation of their contributions, preventing deletion or manipulation.\n The lack of legal protections allows discontinuation or ideological repurposing of these platforms.\n </div>\n </dd>\n\n <dt name=\"textarea-1714747978532-0\">Collaboration</dt>\n <dd id=\"textarea-1714747978532-0\" name=\"textarea\">\n <div>\n Key questions for collaboration:\n <ul>\n <li>How can we prevent digital participation infrastructures from being politicized or dismantled after political transitions?</li>\n <li>Should digital participation records be treated as public democratic assets protected by law?</li>\n <li>What safeguards should be in place to prevent future governments from erasing or manipulating past participation?</li>\n </ul>\n Contributions welcome from:\n <ul>\n <li>Legal experts</li>\n <li>Political scientists</li>\n <li>Civic technologists</li>\n <li>Democracy practitioners</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </dd>\n\n <dt name=\"textarea-1714748028099-0\">Methods</dt>\n <dd id=\"textarea-1714748028099-0\" name=\"textarea\">\n <div>\n A multi-method approach will include:\n <ul>\n <li>Legal, political, and technological analyses</li>\n <li>Qualitative interviews</li>\n <li>Participatory design workshops</li>\n </ul>\n Research components:\n <ul>\n <li><strong>Comparative case studies</strong>:\n <ul>\n <li>Examining cities/regions like Madrid (Consul), Barcelona (Decidim), and other European cities where platforms were altered or dismantled post-election.</li>\n </ul>\n </li>\n <li><strong>Policy analysis</strong>:\n <ul>\n <li>Assessing whether existing legal frameworks protect digital participation infrastructures.</li>\n </ul>\n </li>\n <li><strong>Interviews and focus groups</strong>:\n <ul>\n <li>With former/current government officials, digital participation administrators, platform providers, civil society organizations, and citizen users.</li>\n <li>Focus on perceptions of political shifts and risks to participation data.</li>\n </ul>\n </li>\n <li><strong>Legal and governance framework analysis</strong>:\n <ul>\n <li>Reviewing participation laws for provisions on digital participation preservation.</li>\n <li>Examining the role of platform providers in data protection and continuity.</li>\n </ul>\n </li>\n <li><strong>Co-creation workshops</strong>:\n <ul>\n <li>Bringing together policymakers, technologists, and citizens to develop governance mechanisms.</li>\n <li>Outcome: Prototype \"Digital Participation Protection Charter\" with legal clauses, institutional safeguards, and technological solutions.</li>\n </ul>\n </li>\n <li><strong>Gamified scenario planning</strong>:\n <ul>\n <li>Simulating political transition scenarios where participants (as political actors) decide whether to maintain, modify, or delete a platform.</li>\n <li>Provides insights into strategic and ethical decision-making.</li>\n </ul>\n </li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </dd>\n\n <dt name=\"textarea-1718180478189-0\">Expected Outcomes: Describe the expected results if the hypothesis is correct.</dt>\n <dd id=\"textarea-1718180478189-0\" name=\"textarea\">\n <div>\n If the hypothesis is correct, expected results include:\n <ul>\n <li>A typology of political approaches to digital participation governance, identifying patterns in how parties build, dismantle, or repurpose infrastructures.</li>\n <li>Insights into how citizens’ participation data is managed, preserved, or erased during governance transitions.</li>\n <li>A comparative analysis of legal protections, highlighting gaps and best practices.</li>\n <li>Recommendations for legal safeguards, including specific clauses in participation laws to preserve votes, proposals, comments, and interactions.</li>\n <li>Policy proposals defining the role of platform providers in maintaining transparency and accountability.</li>\n <li>A \"Digital Participation Protection Charter\" outlining ethical and legal guidelines for continuity, neutrality, and security.</li>\n <li>A framework for responsible decommissioning, ensuring participatory data is archived transparently if platforms are retired.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </dd>\n</dl>"},"title":{"en":"The Political Life Cycle of Digital Participation Platforms"}}
This fingerprint is calculated using a SHA256 hashing algorithm. In order to replicate it yourself, you can use an MD5 calculator online and copy-paste the source data.
Share