Exploring Powerful Engagement Methods: Deliberative Designs

1
Exploring Powerful Engagement Methods
Deliberative Designs

• Dr Lyn Carson
• Government International Relations
• University of Sydney
• May 2007

2
Community assumptions
Decision-maker assumptions
DIALOGUE BARRIER

• The community
• cannot grasp complex issues
• is easily influenced by the media
• views are shaped by narrow concerns
• is mostly apathetic
• doesnt appreciate the constraints of the process

• The decision-makers
• have better knowledge on which to base decisions
• have ignored us in the past
• have already made up their minds what they want
  to do
• will not be influenced by the views of the
  community
• are selectively deaf and unscrupulous

and therefore ...
and therefore ...
it is futile and hazardous to involve the
community
our efforts are a waste of our valuable time
Source Max Hardy, Twyford Consulting
3
IAP2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SPECTRUM INCREASING
LEVELS OF PUBLIC IMPACT
International Association for Public
Participation website www.iap2.org
4
Sandy Heierbacher (2006) "A Framework for
Understanding Dialogue and Deliberation",
Participation Quarterly, International
Association for Public Participation, May, p. 6
5
Five key messages

• Random sampling can attract the voiceless
• Random sampling works and should be used
  routinely
• Without deliberation it is ineffective
• Public participation needs to be decision-based
  and influential
• There is growing body of local and international
  experience to support these claims

6
Opinion polls use random sampling, but

• limitations
• Rational ignorance - why become informed about
  complex policy questions? I am just one opinion
  among millions. (Fishkin 2006)
• Validity of answers - responses are nothing more
  than spontaneous impressions. (Fishkin 2006)
• People choose narrow sources for their
  information e.g. news media, the ghetto of
  like-minded people (Carson 2006)

7
Random SelectionAssumptions and Claims

• Willing to devote time and energy to examining a
  policy issue in some depth.
• Capable of grasping the essential aspects of
  complex policy issues.
• Random selection can be used to choose a cross
  section of citizens.
• (Carson and Martin 2002)

8
Random SelectionAssumptions and Claims (contd)

• Few randomly selected citizens have significant
  biases or preconceptions.
• Randomly selected citizens are not very
  susceptible to outside pressures.
• Procedures can be devised to foster rational
  deliberation.
• (Carson and Martin 2002)

9
Bernard Manin (1997), The Principles of
Representative Government, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, p.9.

• .selection by lottoday we tend to regard it
  as a somewhat bizarre custom. We knowthat it
  was used in ancient Athens, and this fact is
  occasionally remarked upon, though chiefly in
  tones of amazement It might be better to ask
  Why do we not practice lot, and nonetheless call
  ourselves democrats?

10
SELECTION BY LOT (Athenian model)

• Exclude all those under 18 years (for Assembly)
• Exclude all those under 30 years (for Council)
• Exclude foreigners (those not born in Australia)
• Exclude those whose mother or father is (or was)
  not an Australian citizen
• Exclude resident aliens (Australians but not
  permanent residents of Sydney)
• Exclude all slaves (approx. 30 of Athenian
  population)
• Exclude all women
• 
  Finally, it was a voluntary lottery

11
Contemporary examples

• Public office
• Shared Interest Society, UK
• National Lotteries, UK
• Other public policy examples - access to
  education, housing and jobs
• School and university entry lotteries
  (Netherlands, US, UK)
• Social housing (US)
• Jobs (Northern Ireland)
• Military or national service (Australia)

12
Without deliberation it is ineffective

• Dialogic, deliberative
• Grappling with complexity
• Moderated by independent facilitator
• Weighing strengths and weaknesses
• Making recommendations

13
Comparison with direct democracy

• Citizens making decision directly through
  initiatives, referenda, plebiscites
• Citizens not randomly-selected
• (all voters)
• Direct but not deliberative
• (no genuine discussion)

14
We recognise when democracy breaks out through
good deliberation

• noisethe debate heated people want to be heard
  
• silencelisten to others concern is expressed to
  elicit all views
• exchangethe group pools its resources confronts
  complexity
• outcomesfriendship develops, the cost of
  participation is swamped by the benefits
• conflict worksit generates cohesion causes
  people to re-evaluate their preferencesbrings
  about consensus
• justiceparticipants seek ways to deliberate that
  are seen to be right and fair
• leadership is fluidfunctions sharedindividual
  abilities are seen in terms of group benefit.
• Source Blaug, Ricardo (1999) Democracy, Real and
  Ideal. Discourse Ethics and Radical Politics,
  Albany, State University of New York Press

15
Video 1

• Dialogue with the City videorecording 2004, Out
  West Productions, Perth, Australia

16
Citizens offering recommendations Perth,
Australia

• Dialogue with the City
• Land-use planning, deliberative, randomly
  selected, large-scale (1100 people), a 21st
  Century Town Meeting

17
21st century town meeting

• 200-6000 people, randomly
• selected and/or invited
• Independent, skilled facilitation is small
  groups, all gathered in one large space
• Experts (professional local) provide evidence
• 1-2 days of deliberation
• Linked via computers with theme team broadcasting
  back to large space
• Seek common ground and offer recommendations

18
Democratic, deliberative processes
Adapted from Hendriks (2005)
19
Three ideals for effective public participation
20
Without these three principles

• Policy making occurs within a pseudo or false
  democracy
• Audience democracy prevails
• Powerful elites have an inappropriate level of
  control

21
Democratic deliberative processes,method by
(Australian) state
22
Commissioning body/funding body, by state
23
Democratic deliberative processes by Austn state
and territory - per 1m people
24
Timeline of democratic deliberative processes (in
Aust) 1975-2006
25
Other methods of large-scale democratic,
deliberative processes

• Citizens Assembly (Canada, Netherlands)
• Deliberative polls (Australia, Bulgaria, Canada,
  China, Denmark, Taiwan, UK, US)
• Planning cells (Germany)
• Televotes (US, New Zealand, Australia)

26
Video 2

• Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform, British
  Columbia, Canada
• See http//www.citizensassembly.bc.ca

27
Small-scale democratic, deliberative processes

• Citizens juries
• Consensus conferences
• Deliberative forums
• Charettes
• (design-in)

28
Citizens Jury and Consensus Conference

• 12-25 people, randomly selected
• Independent, skilled facilitation
• Experts (professional local) provide evidence,
  sometimes fieldtrips a/v
• 2-5 days of intense deliberation

• Seek common ground and offer recommendations

29
Video 3

• Seeing is Believing! The 2004 Victorian Southern
  Region Citizens' Panel DVD, a film by
  Brotherhood of St Laurence, Melbourne

30
First Australian CA

• First citizens-initiated Citizens Assembly a
  citizens parliament
• Scheduled for 2008
• Charge How can Australias political system be
  strengthened to represent better the will of the
  people?

31
First Australian CA

• 150 Australiansrandomly selected from every
  electorate
• Online face-to-face (Sydney, Melbourne)
• Collaborative research ANU (Dryzek), USYD
  (Carson) Murdoch (Hartz-Karp)
• www.newrepublic.com.au

32
Household or resident feedback panels

• efficient and cost-effective method
• draws respondents for deliberative forms of
  consultation
• time-effective for time-poor citizens
• opportunity for participants to understand and
  appreciate the process of government
  decision-making
• increases satisfaction with government
  decision-making
• Source Consult your community A handbook, A
  guide to using the residents feedback register,
  Prepared for PlanningNSW by Lyn Carson (2003)

33
Resident feedback panels in Australia

• Ku-ring-gai (NSW) disbanded with a change in
  Mayor, early 2006
• Lithgow (NSW) used random selection
• Noosa (Qld) decided to proceed, not yet
  established
• Whyalla (Sth Aust) established a Community
  Barometer based on register model
• Parramatta City Council (NSW)residents panel,
  established October 2004has over 1800 members
  (based on UK model)
• Marrickville (NSW) self-nominated community panel
• City of Yarra Council (Vic) established the
  Register in 2006
• Wyndham City Council (Vic) Not sure of status
• Leichhardt Council (NSW)has a register, details
  needed
• City of Moonee Valley Council (Vic)details
  needed
• Whitehorse City Council (Vic)called Whitehorse
  Information Exchange--uses self-nominated
  residents
• Greater Dandenong City Council (Vic)called
  Customer ReferencePanel--uses self-nominated
  residents
• Brisbane City Council (Qld)known as Your City,
  Your Saystarted 1998several thousand on this
  one.
• Parry Shire Council (NSW)before the Council's
  amalgamation with a nearby council--probably does
  not exist nowone of first in Australia

34
A warning

• When campaigners, advocates, powerful
  stakeholders, squeaky wheels are excluded an
  explanation is requiredthey are used to having
  a place at the table
• A role re-definition is essential, their
  knowledge and experience should be valued, from
  representative citizen, to local expert

35
Design choice participation

• OPENe.g. public meetings, submissions
• OPEN TARGETEDe.g. target marginalised
• RANDOM SELECTIONe.g. opinion polls, household
  panels, citizens juries, consensus conferences,
  deliberative polls
• CITIZEN STAKEHOLDERSe.g. professional advocates,
  activists
• ELITE STAKEHOLDERSe.g. organisational leaders,
  associations, interest groups
• (Williamson Fung 2005)

36
Brisbane Declaration (UN)

• Developed by IAP2 with conference participants
  using deliberative, inclusive processes at
  International Conference on Engaging Communities,
  Brisbane, Australia, 14-17 August
• Currently an evaluation tool being
  developed/tested by P2 practitioners

37
The Brisbane Declaration

• Core principles
• Integrity where there is openness and honesty
  about the scope and purpose of the engagement
• Inclusion where there is opportunity for a
  diverse range of values and perspectives to be
  freely and fairly expressed and heard
• Deliberation where there is sufficient and
  credible information for dialogue, choice and
  decisions, and where there is space to weigh
  options, develop common understandings and to
  appreciate respective roles and responsibilities
• Influence where people have input in designing
  how they participate, when policies and services
  reflect their involvement and when their impact
  is apparent

38
Evaluation

• Engagement Evaluation Strategy (DSE,
  Victoria 2005)
• Evaluation (acceptance and process) criteria
  (Rowe Frewer 2000)

39
Where to start?

• In ... everyday life in many of its most routine
  and intimate aspects...in the texture of
  conversations that take place around the kitchen
  table... The natural starting place... is the
  home and then civil society and then the city...
  in so dark a moment for humanity, we can perhaps
  find the collective strength to start again.
• Paul Ginsborg (2005) The Politics of Everyday
  Life Making Choices, Changing Lives, Melbourne
  University Press, p.196

40
More information...

• www.activedemocracy.net (various handbooks
  links)
• Postgraduate study University of Sydney
  Fielding Graduate University (USA) Aug 07-Jan 08
  online and face-to-face Dialogue, Deliberative
  Public Engagement