Can we drill into this a little - have you discussed in the consortium what this means? What would we hope to achieve, and what would be good for the success of the proposal? I want to make sure I understand this part before I go ahead.
Yes, I have discussed it. I have put this stuff in the WP description, with a high-level understanding with Anthony.
What we are trying to achieve is in Task 3.1 and 3.2 in WP3 description. Some hapless person has just erased my language from the live WP3 description, I believe that to have been a mistake, but… jeez.
@nadia @hugi @alberto
I have added numbers according to your inputs, especially for the outreach. I had to adjust a bit because with the estimates provided in the google doc Nadia, our budget is exploding (impossible to have 20k per year for journalists, meaning 60k in total + 20k per fellow, if there will be let’s say 2 per year, this would be 120k). Regardless of my initial reduction of those, it’s still very high.
I would say, let’s try to stay in the limits of 500k in total, go with that towards the consortium lead and negotiate. My guess is further reductions will be needed, so let’s try to be reasonable.
Please all of you, check the numbers and adjust, let’s finish this soon.
Yes. Happy to adjust the target numbers down if needed. Essentially here we “stay in the neighborhood”: we piggyback on the networks of partners (DemSoc itself is very central) and only target activists and champions, only in English. Minimal engagement.
The person who needs to do the most clarifying is @hugi with Eloïse.
Got it. Sorry, I have had two intense days with Blivande work - in the ball now with Eloïse.
Update. I just had the EURENDA WP4 meeting. No action required there, except @marina I asked the WP leader to leave 1 PM for us to contribute to optimizing their methodology. WP4 is a WP of evaluation of the EURENDA-supported deliberative processes. The draft WP description, including my proposed changes, now says:
Task 4.3. Qualitative data collection (M4-M29). Task Leader. RU. Partners. UPV/EHU
Qualitative and participatory data collection will be conducted to map civil society networks, which already aim at the participatory advancement of the European Green Deal. Those networks can complement the advisory group identified in 4.1.
The critical process in 4.3 is the investigation of the impact mechanism of participatory processes against the background of the quantitative (4.2) and the civil society groups. As the qualitative assessment of participatory democratic experiments is crucial but also resource intensive, we opt for a decentral approach, engaging the organizers of local participatory processes in focus groups. Those focus groups will contribute both to the continuous advancement of our set of indicators and to the assessment of the democratic participatory experiment. Additional in-depth interviews with a sample of participants are conducted prior, immediately after, and at some distance from participation in a democratic experiment; notes from participant observation carried out by project members delivering the experiments are also involved.
Some of the qualitative data collected here is suitable for ethnographic analysis (for example transcriptions of interviews and field notes from participant observation). This is re-used for the ethnographic analysis in WP3. At the beginning of the task, researchers in WP4 and WP3 coordinate to maximize the re-usability of collected data.
1 Like
Message from Anthony:
Also, please say if there are countries where you would like to be lead delivery partner (as in, you can and are willing to run a local-language in-person event, and you have a presence there and are willing to do the network building)
By this he means “running a direct/deliberative democracy in a EU country”.
The only member of the core group I can think of is @hugi. Anything you might be interested in, Hugi? Anyone else?
I could do this in Sweden, and I have the network needed.
I have told this to Anthony.
yeah I can support where needed too