DELIBERATIVE POLLING

1
DELIBERATIVE POLLING

• HEPnet Research Skills Workshop,
• Origins Centre, Wits University
• Johannesburg
• 12 14 November 2007.

2
Introduction

• Brief background
• Deliberative democracy
• Deliberative Polling
• Definition
• Rationale
• Details of the methodology
• What it entails
• Steps
• Strengths and Weaknesses
• Practical applications
• Some case studies

3

• The process of obtaining useful public input can
  be one of the most difficult and frustrating
  aspects of moving infrastructure projects from
  the planning process to the implementation phase.
  Some methods of obtaining public input can be
  contentious and in most cases produce few results
  that will move a project forward. In fact, the
  process can forestall projects indefinitely
• Fishkin (1996)

4
Background I

• Roots in deliberative democracy as coined by
  Bessette, J.M. (1980) Deliberative Democracy
  The Majority Principle in Republican Government.
  
• Refers to any system of political decisions
  based on some trade-off of consensus decision
  making and representative democracy.

5
Deliberative Democracy Principles

• Citizens must decide that deliberation is the
  basis upon which all decisions must be based
• Only decisions reached through this procedure can
  be taken as legitimate and worthy of pursuing
• The process and procedures must be transparent
  and decisions must be easily traceable back to
  the deliberative process
• There must be a commitment to respect the
  pluralism of values and aims as expressed by all
• Each member and all members must be accorded
  equal opportunities to participate freely in the
  deliberative processes

Cohen, J. (1989) Deliberative Democracy
Democratic Legitimacy in Hamlin, A. Pettit,
P. (eds) The Good Polity. Oxford Blackwell pp.
17 34.
6
Background II

• Method developed by Jim Fishkin in 1988
• First US trial conducted in January 1996 at the
  National Issues Convention featuring presidential
  aspirants and broadcast on TV
• Also used in resource planning for the
  electricity utility industry in a number of
  states, and the polls brought together 175 250
  utility customers
• First used internationally with two experiments
  funded by Channel 4 in Great Britain
• Public education Northern Ireland
• Crime and violence England
• Deliberative Polling is a trademark and fees
  from the trademark go towards supporting research
  at The Center for Deliberative Polling at
  Stanford University
• Website is http//cdd.stanford.edu/

7

• Deliberation
• Serious, informative purposeful civil
  discussions
• The process by which a group of individuals (e.g.
  a jury in a court case) discusses matters
  relevant to a particular issue(s) and decides by
  vote with which argument to support or oppose.
• It is a form of debate that emphasises the use of
  reasoning and logic (as opposed to power,
  coercion or emotion) to make an informed choice
  or sound decisions.

8

• Polling
• Poll a count of peoples votes/opinions
• Closely linked to the phrase public opinion
  polling a survey of opinions on an issue(s)
  from a particular sample.
• Opinion polls are usually designed to represent
  the opinions of a population by asking a small
  number of (representative??) people a series of
  questions and then extrapolating the answers to
  the larger group within confidence intervals.

9
Definition

• A process by which a random, representative
  sample of citizens in a defined geographic area
  is selected and to which a brief survey
  questionnaire is administered to establish their
  demographic and attitudinal profiles on a
  particular issue(s) e.g. housing, healthcare,
  crime violence, education, renewable energy,
  etc. Following this baseline poll, members of the
  representative sample are then invited to gather
  at a place for a weekend where they will
  deliberate issues in depth based on a set of
  carefully balanced and fair briefing materials
  which are also publicly available. Deliberations
  are moderated by neutral, trained persons and
  they involve policy makers, politicians, the
  public, advocates and/or experts.

10
Rationale

• Opinion polls not as effective as previously
  assumed
• Most participants are not well-informed on issues
  so simply provide knee-jerk reactions to the half
  truths they gather through the media and other
  sources
• Samples are sometimes questionable
• Deliberative polling addresses the gap between
  actual public opinion and well-informed public
  opinion
• Specially designed to show what an informed
  public would think more critically about the
  issues, if only it were enabled to consider its
  opinions more carefully and deliberately on the
  basis of impartial information made available to
  them.

11
What is required?

• Three groups are required
• A representative sample of the public to
  deliberate the issue(s)
• Independent research professionals
• maintain a deliberative and ensure a
  representative process
• A group of experts and special interest advocates
  
• To help assure a fair and balanced presentation
  of the issue(s) and measurement of the resulting
  opinions

12
How do Deliberative Polls work?

• Three interrelated phases
• Phase I Initiation of the deliberative process
• Phase II The education and engagement of
  deliberators through constructive engagements
  with experts special interest groups
• Phase III The post-deliberations stage

13
Phase I Initiation

• Select a random, representative sample of the
  public to participate
• Conduct a pre-event baseline survey on the
  demographic and attitudinal profiles of the
  sample
• Invite a random, representative sub-sample to
  attend as deliberators
• Engage research professionals (independent third
  party managers) to use the survey to assure
  parties that the community is fairly represented
  at the event
• Provide the invited deliberators with relevant,
  carefully balanced fair materials on the
  issue(s) to be deliberated
• Organisers must create an Advisory Committee
  made up experts representatives of special
  interests
• Selection criteria based on assuring both the
  substance and the appearance of a fair and
  balanced deliberation process

14
Phase II The Educational Process

• Bring the participants together in one place
• Include experts, politicians and advocates (for
  and against)
• Advisory Committee members must participate in
  the development of educational materials, the
  event agenda the post-event survey instrument
• Independent third party managers must be
  involved in ensuring the educational materials
  are balanced fair
• Allow deliberators to listen to experts explain
  the issues, alternatives and proposed solutions
• Allow same process for advocates to present
  issues solutions
• Create smaller, randomly selected focus groups to
  learn about, discuss and ask questions on the
  issues
• Allow ample space for ALL to consider the
  advantages and disadvantages of the various
  alternatives as proposed
• gtgtgt trained moderators to guide discussions

This will allow for deliberators to be exposed
to information and the potential impacts on
others in the community
15
Phase III Post-Deliberations

• Conduct a post-deliberation survey to accurately
  gather the considered opinions of an informed
  public
• Ensure the post-survey involves only those who
  participated in the process
• Engage with involve independent research
  professionals to statistically analyse the survey
  response data to establish what actions an
  informed community would like to be implemented
• Communicate the findings to the general public
  and the client

16
The 6 critical steps

• Put together an advisory group made up of experts
  and advocates
• Draw a scientific sample of the target population
  and gauge their uninformed opinion via a
  questionnaire
• Recruit participants from the large sample for a
  one to two-day deliberation exercise
• Provide participants with a balanced set of
  information
• Bring the participants together for deliberation
• Measure opinion of the participants post-event to
  discover what the informed opinion of the
  population would be

Contact with the sample could be maintained for
other future and follow-up research
17
Strengths

• Promotes community participation on issues that
  affect them
• Random sample selection helps to secure
  representation of the entire community in the
  deliberative process
• Transparency in the process ensures a reasoned,
  solution-oriented process that promotes informed
  well-considered opinions recommendations
• The process is open, observable and produces
  results that are considered fair by all parties
• Inclusiveness of process allows a balanced
  consideration of all issues, including special
  interest concerns, feasibility issues the best
  interests of the community as a whole
• Tries to take account of the moral good not just
  individual interests
• Results can be accomplished within a limited time
  frame

18
Weaknesses

• It is a resource intensive activity
• Money (for space, accommodation, stipends,
  consultants, broadcast fees, dissemination) time
  (weekend away??)
• Potential for selection bias remains
• Incentives may be weak
• Inclusiveness of process may complicate rather
  than simplify issues
• Deliberators may be overwhelmed with viewpoints
• Assumes neutrality of moderators advisory
  committee
• Could have ulterior motives that bias processes
• The rules of the game might interfere with
  rather than foster open constructive
  deliberations
• How long must one issue be deliberated before
  moving on who decides this?
• Assumes a linear decision making process
• Potential for polarization of deliberators

19
Practical applications
20

• The best approach is to understand and know what
  it is that you want to achieve and hence choose
  the most apt from the plethora of methods
  available to you.

21
Good sources

• Elliot J (2005) Deliberative Polling
  Participatory Methods Toolkit A Practitioners
  Manual. Public Policy Forum, Canada.
• http//www.viwta.be/files/Toolkit20deliberative2
  0polling.pdf
• Guild W (2004) Why Deliberative Polls Can Provide
  a Superior Solution for Public Input. Texas, The
  Guild Group.
• http//www.gldgrp.com/PDF20Files/A20Superior20S
  olution20for20Public20Input.PDF
• Case studies
• http//cdd.stanford.edu/polls/