back to Democracy Review
5 Key Themes
We have been adapting Nesta’s “Digital Democracy: The Tools Transforming Political Engagement” as a useful framework for undertaking the review. The review will focus primarly on how we can improve engagement around 5 key themes:
1. Informing students -
Keeping students informed about and/or increasing access to upcoming debates, votes, consultations, elections and other opportunities.
2. Issue framing -
Encouraging students to raise awareness of particular issues, make suggestions and set the agenda for debates.
3. Collaborate -
Encouraging students to provide information, proposals, ideas and expertise. Students may generate, develop and amend proposals individually, collectively or collaboratively with each other and elected officers. We will also tap into student expertise.
4. Debate and Decide -
Encouraging students to get involved in debates and make decisions both online and in person.
5. Scrutinise -
Enabling students to scrutinise specific options and monitor policy outcomes, implementation and records of elected officers.
Consultation
Summer 2018- Interviews
Summary of findings from Interviews with 41 students (23 Masters, 9 PhD, 6 Undergrads, 5 Pre-sessional)
- Students are busy. They noted course/research intensity and combination of personal /professional commitments as reasons for not ‘getting involved.” They did not have time to attend in person meetings and often didn’t get around to voting.
- Where students voted in the elections it was because a friend asked them to or a candidate had approached them directly.
- Students who arrived after ISOP/ the Welcome Period felt more disconnected.
- A number of Chinese students explained that they read Chinese social media and Chinese student media publications almost exclusively.
- Students in their 3rd/4th year (PhDs and UGs) felt less keen to connect with the Union noting that they had previously used the Union in their first year.
- A number of students expressed interest in being able to contribute their expertise, i.e. a Clinical Mental Health MSc student and PhD Psychology student expressed interest in the Union’s mental health campaign.
- Students found out about events and opportunities through their friends, Facebook groups, departments, newsletters and occasionally The Tab or Pi.
- Some students said they had no interest in politics/student life but when questioned further talked about the lecturers’ strike, high cost of rent, women only spaces, dissatisfaction with study spaces…
Findings from Focus Groups of Attendees from All Student Meetings Summer 2018
- The process of submitting a motion was unclear
- Only attended the meeting because it directly affected their life
- Guest speakers were well-received; assembly meetings should be to inform and debate
- Would have preferred to have a say in setting the agenda- i.e. upvoting
Feedback from Union Councillors (34 Officers- interviewed Spring 2018)
Time Constraints: Some officer roles are naturally more demanding than others, but all require the officer to balance this alongside their studies. During the latter stages of the year, this can lead to roles being deprioritised and undelivered manifesto promises. It was mentioned several times that difficulties in delivering change, and the incredibly slow pace of this, can affect motivation. When coupled with the time constraints, leads to roles being side-lined/ignored despite most officers initially intending to deliver their manifesto.
Lack of support: The level of support from Sabbatical officers, UCL Staff (esp. noted by faculty reps), Union Staff etc. were all mentioned as challenges; including receiving responses to emails, knowing who to contact and lack of consultation on decisions. A general theme emerged that the PTO roles require higher level backing in order to deliver change. This is impossible to achieve without clearly defined and accountable support structures in place.
Union Council not fit for purpose: 40% of respondents agreed the Council is an effective policy making body (60% did not agree). 35% of respondents were confident in how the Council operates, and felt they understood its operations, with 43% somewhat confident and 22% not at all confident.
Feedback from All Student Meeting attendees (Autumn 2018)
While 63% of the 49 students who attended the November All Student Meeting said they would recommend the meeting to other students, several students suggested clarity was required through an introduction, terminology explained and explanation of motion implications for the audience to better understand and engage with the democratic processes.
Inspiration and Expertise
Discussion with Webroots Democracy, Democracy Club and Politics Project as part of UCL Constitution Unit's Panel event on Digital Democracy- 3 December 2018
Visit to London Assembly Mayor's Question Time - 17 January 2019
Visit to Camden Council Scrutiny Committee - 12 February 2019
Collaboration with UCL's MSc Democracy and Comparative Politics students- February-April