• Mainly about engagement and collaboration using social media and events, with some asides on living in London. More about David Wilcox and also how the blog started.
  • Search


« BBC promotes digital citizens | Main | People (and some rules) make public places »


Yes, David, as we commented on the Community Engaqement Forum of Experts Online, http://www.ruralnetuk.org/experts/,
there is no obvious toolkit for patients, though we looked in a range of patient centred locations (MIND, Cancer Relief UK, etc). Here in Oxford, Spiral Learning has been involved helping the Oxford City PCT engage patients for contribution to the Racial Equality Scheme. Health Advocates, drawn from a range of ethnic and cultural backgrounds, were trained in participative techniques and went into their communities to help form the scheme. There are plans afoot to use this network to ask a number of health related questions, but even so, it is still the questions being driven by the organisation, not arising from the people. Some key people from Sprial Learning and East Oxford Action do a huge range of participative stuff (our latest collaboration to decide how to improve a road for greater safety), but the work with patients is in a very early stage.

Hi David, Yes, not much from the point of view of the user, and need for new type of guide created with users, seems to me an example of what occurs in a very wide sphere. It certainly seems to be something I feel I'm constantly battling against in trying to promote sustainable community action through the SCA wiki. Just one example, climate change - can't see how we've a hope if experts / professionals / bureaucrats just talk amongst themselves, yet this seems to be the default position of most government / anyone (many NGOs included) with any resources. I'd love to help, empowering ordinary citizens and communties over decisions affecting their lives is very much at the heart of what the SCA wiki what set up to be about, but unsure if I've anything substantial to offer as yet, just searching for the same kind of stuff.

Sorry, forgot to add a couple of extra thoughts, it sems to me that: 1. Hardly ever do the powers that be give credit to ordinary people for joined - up thinking, yet this comes more naturally to ordinary people than empire conscious bureaucrats, thus very rarely do ordinary people get even the chance to participate in some sort of holistic way, instead starting off from some item on a bureaucrat's agenda rather than a citizens agenda. 2. The vast majority of the powers that be seem to want to get the imput of ordinary people whilst aqcuiring the copyright to all they get, so avoiding any reciprocal sharing. So aren't ordinary people rightly suspicious of sharing that only seems to be one-way? (whereas copyleft, open publishing, etc disempowers ordinary people less?)

The comments to this entry are closed.