This deck, presented at BOBCATSSS 2015, accompanies a case study of the use of an information system (IS) as a component of a procedure (of a democratic experiment) designed to enhance the complexity of a public discourse and the transparency of a newly established political institution—a grants commission subsidizing students' side-projects in an university setting. Representative democracy is defined and justified by its relation to the governed—the public. It is therefore vital to understand and confront issues that threaten to undermine that relation. Two problems that are frequently discussed are the over-simplification of complex issues in the public discourse, and overshadowing of the political under the thick veil of professional politics.

1. An information system
in a micro-scale
democratic experiment
from the
perspectives of its participants
Jan Martinek, KISK @ FF MU BRNO, @endlife

2. CONTEXT:

3. INFORMATION SYSTEM
IN A DEMOCRATIC EXPERIMENT
FROM THE PERSPECTIVE
OF ITS PARTICIPANTS
DEMOCRATICEXPERIMENT
DECISION-MAKINGPROCESS
Faculty is subsidizing
students’ side projects:
Who’sgonnagetmoney?

4. INFORMATION SYSTEM
IN A DEMOCRATIC EXPERIMENT
FROM THE PERSPECTIVE
OF ITS PARTICIPANTS
DEMOCRATICEXPERIMENT
DECISION-MAKINGPROCESS
Faculty is subsidizing
students’ side projects:
Who’sgonnagetmoney?
Sounds easy? It’s not–if you
want all participants to be
sure that the procedure is
fair and the results are based
on a good mutual understanding.

5. Methodology
ethnography (rereading conversations, interviews)
participantobservation
phenomenology
institutionaldesign
structures of expectations
rules and relations
deliberativedemocracy
critical theory
habermas/joshua cohen
informationsystem
interaction design
user experience

6. QUESTION:

7. A MACHINE?
HOW DO YOU IMAGINE
1

8. There are various machines.
For example this steam
machine doing some
old-timey magical stuff.

9. Or this one,
made by machines to kill
people. Or save people.
(Unintended consequences,
once again.)

10. Or… James Brown.

11. Information systems
are quite viable
even without a machine.
INFORMATION SYSTEM

12. Information systems
are quite viable
even without a machine.
INFORMATION SYSTEM
Though, including
the machine in the
system makes it
a quite different beast.
Especially when the machine
is programmable.

13. INFORMATION SYSTEM
The question is:
What actually happens
when the machine enters
our door?

14. INFORMATION SYSTEM
The question is:
What actually happens
when the machine enters
our door?
IN A DEMOCRATIC EXPERIMENT
Or… the door of
some democratic
institution?

15. POLITICS
2
Let’s talk about
politics for a minute
before we get to the point.

16. PUBLIC
GOVERNMENT
POLITICS
Politics these days is mostly
viewed as something people
in government do for us,
the people—or the public.

17. PUBLIC
GOVERNMENT
POLITICSREPRESENTATION
We even call it the
representative democracy.
Politicians represent in
some way what we want.

18. PUBLIC
GOVERNMENT
REPRESENTATION
overshadowing of the political
oversimplification of the political issues
There are some annoyances though.
Some people think that everyday politics is not what it
should be—important issues get lost in politicians’
squabbles and complex problems are reduced into
something that can be described in two sentences.

19. PUBLIC
GOVERNMENT
REPRESENTATION
overshadowing of the political
oversimplification of the political issues
There are some annoyances though.
Some people think that everyday politics is not what it
should be—important issues get lost in politicians’
squabbles and complex problems are reduced into
something that can be described in two sentences.
Is that the way to a fair
and responsible
decision making?
Probably not.

20. Well, some people see the
hope in the use of…

21. INFORMATION
SYSTEMS
Well, some people see the
hope in the use of…

22. PUBLIC
GOVERNMENT
REPRESENTATION
INFORMATION
SYSTEMS
Information systems should
bridge the gap between the
representatives and the public.

23. open & public access to data
procedure simplification
a medium for the discussion
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
oversimplification
of the political issues
overshadowing of the political
Providing data and
a way of discussing them.

24. INFORMATION SYSTEMS
• Communication channel
• Providing guidance
templates and examples for applicants, procedure keeping
• Data collection tool
ratings, dates, changes anywhere
• Quick results calculation
• Results archival process
• Opening process to a wider audience
rules of the process, applications, ratings
• Enabling long-term evaluation
ROLES
There’s quite an array
of possible uses of an
information system. This list
represents the roles in the
case I am talking about.
Not bad, hm?

25. INFORMATION SYSTEMS
• Communication channel
• Providing guidance
templates and examples for applicants, procedure keeping
• Data collection tool
ratings, dates, changes anywhere
• Quick results calculation
• Results archival process
• Opening process to a wider audience
rules of the process, applications, ratings
• Enabling long-term evaluation
ROLES
There’s quite an array
of possible uses of an
information system. This list
represents the roles in the
case I am talking about.
Not bad, hm?
And it’s just a simple
website. See for yourself
on stipendia.fss.muni.cz.
(Open source is on github.com/
jan-martinek/deliberative-rating)

26. INFORMATION SYSTEM
IN A DEMOCRATIC EXPERIMENT
FROM THE PERSPECTIVE
OF ITS PARTICIPANTS
3

27. INFORMATION SYSTEM
IN A DEMOCRATIC EXPERIMENT
FROM THE PERSPECTIVE
OF ITS PARTICIPANTS
3
One last thing before I get to the point:
I studied how the participants of a
democratic experiment perceive the
process, their own role in it and the
role of the information system.

28. the public
representatives
institutional context
institutional designers
FROM THE PERSPECTIVE
OF ITS PARTICIPANTS
Every democratic process has a
complex structure: there’s not only
the public and representatives, but
there’s the context and many people
who design the process (= have an
active role in what procedure is
established => it’s many people).

29. THE RESULTS
4

30. “The machine
makes the
decision.”
4/1

31. “The machine
makes the
decision.”
4/1
When discussing the outcome of the process, “mechanization
of the ranking” was mentioned frequently by some of the
jurors. Being accountable for decisions made with “electronic
clicking” (and defending the results in front of the applicants)
was deemed impossible by two of the jurors.

32. The rules are
more evident
and harder
to change.
4/2

33. The rules are
more evident
and harder
to change.
4/2
The presence of an IS accents the presence of
predefined rules of evaluation, as the IS's
publicly defined intrinsic algorithms are
immutable, unless they're officially changed
due to an openly articulated reason.

34. The tension between
subjective judgment
and the supposed
objectivity of the
decision is intensified.
4/3

35. The tension between
subjective judgment
and the supposed
objectivity of the
decision is intensified.
4/3
It is fairly usual that representative organs use
voting or various rating methods—though in this
case, the aggregative rating was considered by
several jurors to be “making no use of the juror’s
experience” and, as was mentioned above, these
jurors considered themselves impossible to be
held accountable for the results and to defend
them in front of the public.
This is particularly striking in the context of an
institutional design based on assumptions drawn
from the theory of deliberative democracy.

36. Development and
maintenance is a foggy
territory for the
institutionally superior
stakeholders.
4/4

37. Development and
maintenance is a foggy
territory for the
institutionally superior
stakeholders.
4/4
Important detail is that superior institution considered itself
to be resposible for the IS’s functioning, even though running
the procedure was kept a responsibility of another actor.

38. WHY?
5

39. Design does not originate
from designer’s head,
it emerges from the
practice of interaction.
We’ve seen how the actors perceive the democratic procedure
and the role of the system.
These results are not problems: these are how the situation works out. It’s
not something we should solve, it’s something to be held in mind when
working with information systems in (democratic) institutions.
And its not always the same: at the same time, I wanted to show that it’s
important to work with all participants and try to know their view of the
institution—it defines the institution, because people interact with what
they see in a way meaningful for them.
What people see in the institution
is the institution.
What people see in the information system
is the role of the information system.

40. Design does not originate
from designer’s head,
it emerges from the
practice of interaction.

41. Design does not originate
from designer’s head,
it emerges from the
practice of interaction.
And that’s
all, folks!

42. FINJan Martinek, @endlife