In this episode Professor Steve Goldsmith interviews Dr. Hollie Russon Gilman, a political scientist, Harvard Ash Center fellow, and civic strategist on topics of civic engagement, digital technology, and governance.
In this episode Professor Goldsmith interviews Dr. Hollie Russon Gilman, a political scientist and civic strategist researching the intersection of civic engagement, digital technology, and governance. They discuss Gilman's work assisting with participatory budgeting processes, her democracy research at the Harvard Ash Center, and how - and when - to provide more inclusive opportunities for civic engagement.
Music credit: Summer-Man by Ketsa
About Data-Smart City Solutions
Housed at the Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard University, we work to catalyze the adoption of data projects on the local government level by serving as a central resource for cities interested in this emerging field. We highlight best practices, top innovators, and promising case studies while also connecting leading industry, academic, and government officials. Our research focus is the intersection of government and data, ranging from open data and predictive analytics to civic engagement technology. To learn more visit us online and follow us on Twitter.
Betsy Gardner:
Hi, this is Betsy Gardner, senior editor at the Harvard Kennedy School and producer of The Data-Smart City Pod. Since we started this podcast, we've had great support from our listeners, and to make sure that you don't miss an episode, please find us under the new Data-Smart City Pod channel wherever you listen. Make sure to subscribe so you get each episode, and thanks for listening.
Stephen Goldsmith:
Welcome back. This is Stephen Goldsmith, professor of Urban Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, speaking today with Hollie Russon Gilman, who's a senior fellow at New America. She's a affiliate fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School Ash Center and works with the Bloomberg Harvard Leadership Program. Welcome, Hollie.
Hollie Russon Gilman:
Thank you so much, Steve. It's great to be here.
Stephen Goldsmith:
We've followed your work for a long time and appreciate your interest in this common area. I know you've spent time on civic engagement, in particular digital technologies, public space. Those are issues particularly important to the work we've done at the Kennedy School. I want to get to those in a second, but tell our listeners a little bit about you and your research in a more general way, please, first.
Hollie Russon Gilman:
Wonderful. Well, I'm delighted to be here. I'm a big fan of all the work that you all are doing too. I am a political scientist by training. I did my PhD in the government department at Harvard, and a lot of my research and work looks at participatory mechanisms and how do you build a multiracial, multi-ethnic democracy? How do you strengthen channels between everyday people and decision makers? How do you do that in a way that can really be more responsive and be more participatory?
Stephen Goldsmith:
Your work in particular that we've watched looks at informing city leaders on building more equitable civic engagement. In a paper that Betsy and I have done called the Responsive City Cycle, we looked at some of the same areas, trying to think about the role of digital technology sensors, sentiment mining. How do you see cities incorporating digital tools in improving engagement?
Hollie Russon Gilman:
It's a great question and it's a wonderful paper. Congrats to both of you. I think there are a lot of opportunities right now for how do we blend sort of in-person and digital opportunities to build civic infrastructure as sometimes I call it. I've done a lot of research on participatory budgeting, which I think is having a big moment in the sun right now with a lot of federal dollars hitting communities. This is an unprecedented opportunity to think about new channels to really engage residents as decision makers, to have greater legitimacy in authority over budgetary decisions. What you're seeing in a lot of places is a hybrid model, right? Places that are combining digital tools through a participatory budgeting process, and then also extending the opportunities for in-person engagement, whether it's in neighborhood assemblies, coming together, sharing ideas, or doing a vote, sort of multi-day voting.
I've been tracking some very interesting examples of hybrid models, including in Helsinki where they've been doing really interesting sentiment analysis, looking at AI to understand massive surveys and online data with their PB process. So I think that's definitely one trend that's on my radar, those hybrid participatory budgeting opportunities. Another is using digital tools to engage residents in participatory planning. That's another trend we're seeing a lot in communities. We're seeing it in cities around the United States, New Rochelle, New York had a very interesting VR opportunity for residents to engage in the pre-development process of downtown revitalization. Actually part of the Bloomberg Mayor's challenge. This was an opportunity to leverage that technology to have residents have some agency in the process before the decisions are all made, right?
That's, I think, a key aspect to say how do you leverage digital technology or a hybrid approach to really engage residents and have a sense of agencies, and not just when a decision is made, but throughout the process. On a similar vein, looking at platforms like the Decidim platform, sort of leveraging open-source technology. It's been used for a bunch of large scale deliberations. I worked with New York City on leveraging Decidim for a pilot participatory budgeting initiative focused on youth, really targeting youth and COVID recovery dollars, but you see that platform used in Barcelona, all around the world by governments to really say, "We want to do deliberation and dialogue differently." So, I'm seeing three different trends, those hybrid models, this participatory aspect, and then a mix of different platforms, whether it's Pol.is looking at high level sentiment analysis, AI really synthesizing to get a sort of beat on the pulse or the Decidim leveraging and technologies for dialogue deliberation and those kinds of processes.
Stephen Goldsmith:
It's an interesting set of categories. In your hybrid category, you mean hybrid, virtual and physical? The last category is almost hybrid virtual, virtual, virtual, right? So I'm just trying to think out loud about what I heard you say. We've been trying to figure out how you would inform a digital audience about, say, land use options through AR tools more than VR tools, and then gather those reactions and then iterate that. So do you see that occurring in places today that enhance the sense of participation and trust?
Hollie Russon Gilman:
It's a great question and this is just in my own mind. This is not a set framework. It's just as I was thinking about talking about some of these things. That's really interesting. So I guess as part of your question, are we seeing augmented reality being leveraged in this moment in a way that we think can build positive feedback loops back to residents? Is that kind of the gist of it?
Stephen Goldsmith:
Right, right.
Hollie Russon Gilman:
Yeah. I think that is definitely part of the opportunity. I think there's a few challenges that I see. There's a lot of inequities in who has access to the technology, who has the sort of digital literacy, and then also who has the backend infrastructure to implement it. I mean, as you all know, there's uneven skillsets around public officials on this stuff and the general public. So one of the things I think a lot about is when we're injecting fellows and other tech people in Texas City Hall, but then they're leaving, they're on these time bound engagements, are we really training a new cadre of public officials to leverage these tools? A. Then B, are we then thinking about outreach in particular to traditionally marginalized communities so they can use the technology in a way that they feel genuinely empowered? Then C, are there feedback loops connecting that input and that experience back to the decision making channels?
I think getting all those right feels like a Rubik's cube right now. I'm seeing maybe two out of three or one out of three, but I don't have a ton of great examples of leveraging augmented reality, for example, or some of those other technologies where you're really moving a process along where you feel like the public officials are really informed and feel empowered. You're really thinking about equity and digital inclusion, and then you're going back to the community to say, "Here's what we did, here's why we did it, here's what we weren't able to do, here were the limitations." So that's a really exciting opportunity, but I'm not seeing the three out of three in that many communities, but I'd be very curious to hear what you all are seeing either in this conversation or just elsewhere.
Stephen Goldsmith:
We'll tell you. We'll have a conversation, but this is an opportunity for people to hear you, not me. So we'll do that later. Let's do this prescriptively. Let's see. Cities have a lot of money, federal infrastructure money. You study public spaces and engagement. What are your recommendations to a city about how it should use its infrastructure dollars in a way that incorporates public response and improves public spaces?
Hollie Russon Gilman:
I think part of what we've been trying to do, especially thinking about this inclusive and equitable cities guide, is to not be prescriptive necessarily, but to think about what is the goal that you're trying to achieve when it comes to civic engagement and how do you design a civic engagement process so that it's really in alignment with your goals? Too often the aperture of engagement doesn't match either the resident's skillset or the goals that City Hall is trying to achieve. One of the other things that we're trying to do is really walk people through a process to say, "Let's do a mapping. Let's actually invent the kind of engagement to date the challenges to that engagement, recognizing historical inequities and injustices, and to try to take stock of where we are so that we can make a path forward."
So one of the things that I think a lot about is what is the goal of this engagement? What are the principles that you are trying to advance? We have this framework where we talk about five different democratic goals and thinking about how do you build a design focused engagement that really aligns with those different goals. So that's an example. I think there are definitely models that I have been excited about. So I've been excited about the expansion of participatory budgeting. I see that as a really powerful model, but I often will say to communities, "Maybe a full participatory budget is not the right fit for you. Maybe you need to be doing some kind of a participatory engagement, but you don't want to be doing a full participatory budget. I wouldn't want you to not do a small pilot engagement because you feel like you can't do this larger thing." I often encourage communities to start with a pilot, to start small, to show some demonstrable wins. So that would be thing one.
Thing two is citizens' assemblies. We're seeing a lot more traction in the United States with that model. This is a model where you're basically using a randomized selection of residents and putting them essentially through a jury process where they have a discreet policy decision that they're given information for, and then they get to decide upon. You've seen these uses in a really large scale, very successfully in places such as Ireland. I think it's a really interesting model. The city of Petaluma, California recently did a citizens' assembly, and one of the people who led the process said something really interesting to me, which was, "I had dollars for public relations and this felt like such a better way to use those dollars to really engage residents." So for her, it was very tactical. If we have these resources for public relations, let's really turn that model on its head and think about how we could engage residents so they feel really part of the decision. It's a process where, like participatory budgeting, there are clear outcomes, it's clear to residents what's in, what's out. As a timetable, it has feedback loops built into it.
The final one are models such as people's assemblies, looking at models like the Jackson People's Assembly, thinking of these places where you're creating essentially a deliberative structure for the community to have input and have voice, and just tying back to something I mentioned earlier about that pre-decisional possibility. That, to me, seems really key so that we're getting communities to have a say before everything is baked. Another pitfall with engagement efforts is that you're adding lip service, you're making engagement the cherry on top, but really it needs to be baked in from the beginning. There needs to be pre-decisional opportunities for residents to do agenda setting. I think that's really important when we think about really building civic power and civic voice and advancing equity. So I look at citizens assemblies, participant budgeting, people's assemblies as really encouraging models that as communities are getting an unprecedented amount of dollars and investment in their communities, maybe these are some models that can spark imagination and be really useful.
There's a lot of other models and I think the main thing is to ensure that you're doing a process where the way you're designing it is really, really intentional and thoughtful, and it is aligned with goals, and there's a realistic sense of what's on the table and then what's not on the table. I think that's just as important, that genuine level setting, which can be challenging for a public official to say, "Actually, can't be doing that. That's actually what you're not going to be deciding upon." We have to really knit and rebuild these feelings of legitimacy and trust with the public, and this is how we do it. So I always suggest places to start small, to do a pilot, get that right, and build a little bit momentum. Then you get that kind of internal and external validation, and to work with trusted intermediaries, to really work with the people who know the community best, who understand its needs. I mean, there's always questions around genuine sharing of power and ensuring that those things are just put for front and center.
Stephen Goldsmith:
So let me ask you a final quick question on your civic assemblies. Are those digital assemblies or in-person assemblies?
Hollie Russon Gilman:
Again, I think a lot of them leverage hybrid technology, but they're often in person, convening people in person similar to a jury and having them really tackle a very specific policy question and come up with either recommendations that are then going to be put into law or voted upon, but it's often in person, but there are places that are leveraging digital technology as well with citizens assemblies.
Stephen Goldsmith:
All right. So last question. Putting all this together, help us connect engagement, digital tools, and trust. How are you thinking about the use of these tools to enhance trust in local government or trust in one's community or neighborhood? What's the relationship between responsiveness, digital tools, and trust?
Hollie Russon Gilman:
It's obviously a challenging question, and it's good that there are a lot of good minds on it. One of the things that I've been thinking about the last few years is one of the challenges with some of these technologies, when I think about sensors and other tools as they seem invisible to residents. There is a risk that people won't understand all the important work that's happening behind the scenes to advance their communities with some of these technologies. So I think part of threading that needle, Steve, is how you build that positive feedback loop that leverages the tools so that people feel like they have it in their hands. It's tangible, but they're empowered. I think those are the two that are really critical. It's tangible to me, and I feel like I have it and my voice will matter, right? Building in those feedback loops back to residents.
So this requires a lot of coordination and just going back to some of those other points, it requires that digital literacy, digital efficacy, requires that public officials are able to take that input however it is received, and either leverage it into outcomes or be really honest with the public, which may put them out and make them exposed, but that's how we rebuild that trust by showing that the technology is a conduit for some kind of genuine opportunity to build civic power and civic trust. I think that is the really sticky widget here. Then you have all these questions about equity bias. We know how challenging that is with some of these technologies, and so we have to really be extra thoughtful about all of that if we're trying to leverage these tools to reknit trust.
Stephen Goldsmith:
Well, this is a fascinating conversation at the beginning of what a lot of cities will be doing as they think about multiple tools, engagement, trust, public spaces, and we are lucky to have an expert like you, Hollie, today. So this is Stephen Goldsmith, professor of Urban Practice at Harvard Kennedy School. Hollie Russon Gilman, senior fellow at the New America and the Ash Center. Thank you so much for your time today.
Hollie Russon Gilman:
Thank you too. I really appreciate the opportunity.
Betsy Gardner:
If you like this podcast, please visit us at datasmartcities.org or follow us @DataSmartCities on Twitter. And remember to subscribe at the new Data-Smart City Pod channel on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen. This podcast was produced by me, Betsy Gardner, and hosted by Professor Steve Goldsmith. We're proud to be the central resource for cities interested in the intersection of government, data, and innovation. Thanks for listening.