What's still to be learned in Gov20?
While at the Government 2.0 Summit Anna York and I had the distinct pleasure of meeting Dr. Nicholas Gruen, chair of Austrialia’s Government 2.0 Taskforce. Anna York recently contributed a post to their website about her experience with Gov20 at the Kennedy School, as well as her general thoughts on the field.
We started the Government 2.0 Club to enhance the interest in government and technology at the Kennedy School, as she describes in her post:
It seems that for many of my classmates and faculty, the idea that technology might revolutionise the way government works is a strange and distant concept. Or perhaps the underlying principles often touted as the foundation of Government 2.0 – openness, transparency, democracy, and engagement – are a little threatening to students being trained in traditional forms of bureaucratic management.
In just a few months we’ve developed an amazing leadership team of seven other students taking on government 2.0 projects around Harvard and Cambridge, and we hope are working to turn some of these perceptions around.
However, as Anna describes in her post, there is still a lot of work and research to be done. I’ve reprinted the unabridged version of her post below. Enjoy!
Anna York is a second year Masters in Public Policy candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, where she is co-Chair of the Government 2.0 Professional Interest Council and Executive Editor of the Kennedy School Review. Before enrolling in her Masters, Anna worked in the NSW Government, and she is looking forward to returning to Sydney after her graduation in May 2010.
As a Masters student at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, I have been very surprised at the relatively limited discussion about the principles, challenges and opportunities of Government 2.0 on my campus.
It seems that for many of my classmates and faculty, the idea that technology might revolutionise the way government works is a strange and distant concept. Or perhaps the underlying principles often touted as the foundation of Government 2.0 – openness, transparency, democracy, and engagement – are a little threatening to students being trained in traditional forms of bureaucratic management.
In an effort to broaden the discussion about Gov 2.0 and expose more faculty and students to these ideas, my classmate Yasmin Fodil and I have started the Government 2.0 Professional Interest Council at the Harvard Kennedy School. We have been working over the last few months to invite Gov 2.0 experts and practitioners to campus, facilitate debate and discussion and help students develop the skills they will need to be able public servants in the context of a growing innovation culture in government.
As more citizens seek their news, information and access to government services online, it will be increasingly important for public service leaders of the future to be well equipped to respond to – and take full advantage of – the challenges and opportunities new technologies present.
Indeed, I recently had the opportunity to meet the former Australian Public Service Commissioner (and now head of Medicare) Lynelle Briggs, who articulated this view forcefully in a speech about the future of the Australian Public Service:
The modern day world is requiring some new styles of leadership to be blended with those that have often been the norm in the public service. Leaders will have to become more innovative, actively seeking, encouraging and leveraging ideas from all quarters.
I hope these are issues that the Government 2.0 Taskforce can address. If Harvard is any measure, these are questions US educational institutions are just starting to grapple with.
Don’t get me wrong – I am not a technology evangelist who believes that social networking tools and multi-purpose databases are a panacea for every ill experienced or perpetuated by each one of the world’s governments.
But I do agree with the US General Service Administration’s Darlene Meskell’s argument (PDF):
The arrival of the Internet created new opportunities for citizen engagement through its powerful ability to organize. Online town meetings, social media, chat rooms, bulletin boards, deliberative processes for e-rulemaking, and feedback mechanisms for soliciting citizen input. All of these tools have a positive impact on public policy development because when people get involved everyone learns from each other, relationships are built, trust is established and the final outcome is improved.
I also believe that as new technologies are developed that can help make government services and administration more efficient and less costly, there will continue to be large scale investment in these new tools. We might as well get on board and exert influence to ensure these investments support enhanced democracy and improved citizen engagement – in addition to the eternal promise of cost savings and efficiency.
In the meantime, there is much that countries who are starting to take the less travelled Government 2.0 road can learn from each other.
As part of our Masters requirements, my classmate Yasmin and I are working with the US Federal Communications Commission to support their research and recommendations regarding how the national roll-out of broadband infrastructure can support improved civic engagement.
Many of the questions being raised by the Australian Government 2.0 Taskforce are simultaneously being considered by the FCC’s National Broadband Taskforce. In particular, we will be looking to international examples of national level governments have successfully deploying social media tools to enhance citizen engagement and participation. (If you have any interesting leads along these lines, please don’t hesitate to contact me!) I also hope that our work might be of use to the Australian Taskforce as it develops its final report.
While there are countless exciting prospects and many daunting challenges ahead as we work to improve the quality of our governments and strength of our democracies through the deployment of Government 2.0 principles, there are also opportunities to collaborate in learning across boundaries, borders and jurisdictions.
It is also important that we properly equip our public service leaders of the future with the skills and experiences they will need to harness the potential of true innovation and engagement in government.
Now that our Gov 2.0 group is up and running at the Kennedy School, we would love to make contact with other faculty, student and university groups in Australia and around the world working on these issues.
Do you know of tertiary institutions – courses, clubs, curricula – that are dealing with Gov 2.0 issues? Are there other opportunities for research students, faculty and government to work together on shaping the future of government? Do you agree that future leaders in public service will need different skill sets – and if so, what are the educational models we can look at to prepare them? We’d love to hear your thoughts!
