'Export with care', Experiences from disabiliity rights campaigning in UK and US, Presentation by Filippo Trevisan at eCampaigning Forum 2012, Oxford

1. Export with Care: Lessons from
the Experiences of Disability
Organisations with e-Campaining
in Britain and America
Filippo Trevisan
University of Glasgow
f.trevisan.1@research.gla.ac.uk
www.filippotrevisan.net
21 March 2012

2. The Project: Online disability rights
activism at a time of turmoil
 Why disability rights organisations?
 Political parties /
The controversy over the Welfare Reform Bill in the UK (2011-
12), three macro-types ofrepresentatives
Elected
online campaigning actors:
a) Formal disability organisations (both charities and member-
led groups)
b) “Digitised” activists (e.g. Disabled People Against Cuts)
Disability Nonprofits
c) Digital Action Networks (e.g. The Broken of Britain)
 Their structure, function, and online strategies are both
informed and influenced by People’s
Disabled what happens above and below
them (Chadwick, 2007)Movement

3. International comparison:
UK vs. USA
 National governments firmly in control of disability policy
 Similar rates of internet users amongst the disabled population
(UK, 41%: OXIS, 2011; USA, 52%: Pew Internet and American Life
Project, 2011)
 Both experience disability policy “crises” in 2011-12: the Welfare
Reform Bill (UK) and cuts to Medicaid (USA)
 USA as online politics “trend-setter,” UK as “early” European
adopter
 Different histories of disability activism
 Different principles around which movement organised,
although independent living and equality are common goals
 Political environment differences: strong vs. loose parties

4. Organisation pools for comparison
 UK  USA

5. Methods
 Digital strategy survey: index of interactivity
opportunity (McMillan, 2002):
a) Direction of communication (one- vs. two-way)
b) Amount of control devolved to users
One-to-one Community Info Citizen-driven Accessibility
comms comms broadcast campaigning features
 Interviews with digital strategists, communication
officers, and government relations executives of 26
organisations in both countries

6. Coalition vs. Fragmentation:
 UK  USA
& 30+ others

7. What does “membership” mean in
the digital era?
 US organisations enjoy a disproportionately high number of
Facebook supporters:
US: 1.5k 1+ million
UK: 500 27k
 BUT: what’s the value of online “membership” to these
organisations?
- USA: online participation as a path to “formal” (paying)
membership, “there is no such thing as online membership, active,
in person participation is key.”(US disability-specific non-profit)
- UK: online participation as “extended” membership at a time of
political turmoil

8. Social media: “mildly terrifying” or “a
force for change”?
 USA:
“social media arepotentially empowering for our constituents, but the
lack of control is also mildly terrifying for us,”
(US disability-specific non-profit)
“there is a tension between the open nature of Facebook and our exclusive
relation to our members”
(US pan-disability non-profit)
 UK:
“on social media people are free to criticise – this is revitalising for a
typically ‘Victorian’ organisation like ours”
(UK disability-specific charity)
“messages received through Facebook definitely influenced decision-
making and inspired action: the decision to organise local Hardest Hit
marches for October [2011] came out of this”
(UK disability-specific charity, Facebook admin for “The Hardest Hit”)

9. Offline vs. Online Action:
 USA: A hierarchy of offline vs. online
“One person showing up on Capitol Hill is equivalent to 10,000 emails”
(US disability-specific non-profit)
“[online participation] can’t beat a real conversation with a legislator,
[…] to get things done in [Washington] DC you need a lot of leverage,
and you don’t get that online”
(US pan-disability non-profit)
 UK: The rising value of online action
“online protest is key for our people, who couldn’t make the march and
whose voices otherwise couldn’t be heard”
(UK disability-specific charity)
“I don’t think digital is a substitute for face-to-face participation, but
they are of equal value as they let new people join in who wouldn’t be
able to otherwise”
(UK disability-specific charity)

10. Email is king, but why isn’t it enough
against the Welfare Reform Bill?
Email action Classic Clicktivism+ Innovative tools (DYI
network Clicktivism campaigns kit, virtual
protest pages, etc.)
USA 80% 21% 76% 21%
UK 50% 33% 26% 50%
 Advantage: accessibility of email vs. social networking sites
 Side effect: classic clicktivism tools (e-petitions, postcards, etc.) in steep
decline in both countries
 Factors behind these preferences: different party systems; “extraordinary”
nature and magnitude of UK crisis calling for experimentation with new online
repertoires

11. Personal stories as a “trademark” of
online campaigning:
YET key differences:
 USA:
top priority (clicktivism+), embedded in history of successful
American disability rights advocacy (court cases, Congress
testimony), barely co-ordinated and no follow-up
 UK:
traditionally controversial, re-discovered through social media
both as contributions to mediated advocacy efforts (e.g.
consultation responses, meetings with policy-makers, etc.), AND
as tools for potential supporters to “make sense” of complex
policy issues

12. Disability organisations in cyberspace at a
time of crisis: The ‘4 Cs’ Matrix
 Systemic:
 Constitutional arrangement (strong vs. loose parties,
centralised vs. federal system, legislative tradition)
 Competition levels in disability activism (collaboration
precedents, history of disability politics)
 Case-specific:
 Crisis nature (political+policy vs. policy-only)
 Catalyst issue (ideological & unifying vs. resource-
focussed & divisive)

13. Welfare Reform Bill vs. Medicaid online
campaigns:
Crisis Catalyst Constitutional Competition Levels Campaign
Arrangement Features
High interaction
Pre-existing coalition (2-way comms)
Political + Ideological Strong parties on welfare issues High innovation
policy (unifying) Centralised (virtual protest pages)
UK Parliament as key Internet as useful High coordination
legislator “space” for impromptu, (online coalition)
temporary unity High integration
(Online/offline of
equal value)
Low interaction
Pre-existing (top-down comms)
Policy- Resource- Loose parties collaboration on civil Low innovation
USA only focussed Federal rights issues (email)
(divisive) Congress and Courts BUT Low coordination
as key legislators Deep rifts amongst (fragmentation)
disability-specific groups Low integration
(offline/online
hierarchy)

14. “If anything, at least now disabled users feel less
powerless and have a way to vent their
frustration”
(UK digitised activist group)
www.filippotrevisan.net
f.trevisan.1@research.gla.ac.uk
(This project was possible thanks to the support of the ESRC, Award Nr: ES/G01213X/1)