Deliberative events

[Simon_Wilson]

Dear all

Many of our government clients are now setting up events for 'deliberative' discussions with stakeholders about big public policy issues. I know that organisations like America Speaks in the USA have developed interesting models around this, but it also seems to me that some organisations here are taking approaches from market research in which the role of the facilitator is simply to take participants through a list of questions rather than a faciliation role as I would understand it.

I'd be very interested in your comments or experiences on the theory and practice of 'deliberative' discussion.

Best wishes

Simon

[Gary_Rush]

Hi Simon,

I participated in one with America Speaks a couple of weeks ago. There were 3000 people in Chicago, 3000 people in Birmingham, and 7000 people in Los Angeles all connected via satellite. As Facilitators (we had one for every 12 people plus "region" facilitators to help every 20 facilitators), our job was to capture the comments and voting of the participants. We really did facilitate because we needed to get the participants at our table to converse and to participate. We also had to capture their ideas - although we could use a documenter to help.

It was an interesting experience. Our major suggestion was to ensure that more interaction was designed. There were too many long speaches by various leaders and others between the dialogs. Participants lost interest waiting for the next interaction. We suggested that they keep the speaches short, to the point, and infrequent. The other problem - with 3000 people - was acoustics. It is difficult to hear people at a table when there are 250 tables in a large conference hall that is all hard surface.

We also suggested, that with 3000 people with varying interests, that a form of Open Space would have been beneficial to allow participants to select the discussion that they are interested in. That was especially important in this case since there was a large mix and a large number of people under the age of 18.

All in all, the experience was interesting. The results were good (although predictable with the audience). The involvement of grass-roots people in this manner helped make them feel part of the bigger picture. Governments should use this concept to gain insight to their populace. Advocacy groups can use this to build alignment.

I'm glad to hear that it's spreading - enjoy it.

[Paula_Griffin]

You're right that there are more and more public sessions. People want to have a say when the outcome affects them.

Another kind of public session that takes some skilled facilitating is charrettes. These, as you may know, are sessions designed to allow the public to comment on and be involved in the designs for public land use -- parks, neighborhoods, developments, etc.

I participated in a charrette recently that was intended to help design a piece of property that had been fought over for years. The developer wanted high rises and commercial; the neighbors wanted single family residential. By bringing together all stakeholders -- neighbors, community people, realtors, governmental officials, the mayor, designers, the developer, and more -- the acilitators were able to walk the group through some exercises over a couple of days that developed some consensus on what everyone liked and didn't, wanted, and didn't. It was effective, interesting, and useful for everyone. The hard liners didn't get everything they wanted, and neither did the developer. All agreed on something they could live with, which should get through the planning commission with less hassle, fewer suits and demonstrations.

Our town has been having citizen groups come together to design many aspects of planning for the future. It does seem like a trend, and a good one.

Best wishes,

Paula

[Ned_Ruete]

Gary wrote:
>
> I participated in one with America Speaks a couple of weeks ago.
<snip>
> All in all, the experience was interesting. The results were
> good (although predictable with the audience). The involvement
> of grass-roots people in this manner helped make them feel part
> of the bigger picture. Governments should use this concept to
> gain insight to their populace. Advocacy groups can use this to
> build alignment.
>
I participated in the America Speaks event on the rebuilding of lower Manhattan. I wrote an article on my experience for Number 6 of _Group Faciliation: A Research and Applications Journal_ special issue on this event. If you are a member of IAF (that old community-breaker of 'ins' and 'outs' again!!) you can download the issue at
http://www.iaf-world.org/i4a/pages/Index.cfm?pageID=4030
and read the opinions of many about this form of participation. Here is an excerpt from my article (entitled "The Press Didn't Get It").
Ned Ruete
East Lyme, CT USA
"Then the meeting started. Everyone sat down, and the magic started happening. People started to listen. People realized that they had much more power as part of a process of learning and sharing than as a solo voice harping on a demand. People spoke of their needs, shared their ideas, explored possibilities with one another. The animosity, the militant activism, was drowned out. It wasn't shouted down by the crowd, but quieted in the minds and hearts of each of the 5000 individuals who became part of a larger voice. Not a voice of conformity, but a voice of unity that had room for a diversity of themes and tones and overtones. And the people who were charged with the planning heard that voice, heard the unity and the diversity, and changed their plans."

[Simon_Wilson]

Many thanks for these very helpful comments and connections...

More welcome!

Best wishes

Simon

[Penny_Walker]

Dear Simon and all

In my practice in the UK (mostly England, some Wales too) there are a lot of situations where clients from the public sector (national Govt, local Govt, and bodies like the Environment Agency) are using more participative approaches to involving people in decisions which affect them. Of course, with greater and lesser success in different situations.

I think that Simon is right, that consultants and clients who have experience of the market research field come to this work with a different set of expectations to those who come from a participation / involvement / 'trust the group' perspective.

I see it this way (interested to hear if others have different or similar perspectives):

* Broadly, the market research gang are interested in understanding the group so that they (the consultant / client) can better design the product / service / policy and better communicate it to people once it's been designed.

* The participation & involvement gang are interested in helping the group to develop its understanding, share perspectives, air differences and find ways forward, so that they (consultant / client AND stakeholders/public) can jointly design the product / service / policy and better implement it.

In training facilitators and clients on stakeholder engagement, we talk about some of the "invisible products" they might gain from involving people earlier and in more depth: yes, better information about their needs and concerns and the facts of the matter as they see them, and also: better working relationships, pre-coordination so that implementation is easier, even people saying 'you don't need to do that because I will'.

It's about less about 'researching' and more about 'sharing the decision making' and even 'sharing the implementation', when it's done well.

Warm regards

Penny

[Carol_Sherriff]

* Broadly, the market research gang are interested in understanding the group so that they (the consultant / client) can better design the product / service / policy and better communicate it to people once it's been designed.

* The participation & involvement gang are interested in helping the group to develop its understanding, share perspectives, air differences and find ways forward, so that they (consultant / client AND stakeholders/public) can jointly design the product / service / policy and better implement it.


Penny, I found your categorisation extremely helpful. I have been working with a client in which I am basically a one of a team of facilitators rather than being involved in the design of the programme. At first I couldnt work out why the process was so messy and not achieving what anyone wanted, your two categories really helped. Two things really struck me - one, is the client and the design team were definitely in your camp one of better understanding the client groups preferences so that they could better design the policy and communicate it. However, participants were there because they were in the second camp and want to jointly design the policy/product.
The other thing is that as a facilitator it is important to know which category you are facilitating in - my thought is a market research facilitator does input content, they may seek to create a balance between one side and the other and may be reading a script so everyone gets the same content but there is a blurring of the line between expert and facilitator. One of the reasons for this is that the experts can only be observers so when people want information it comes via the facilitator.
With participation approaches, the difference between expert and facilitator is much more central and important.
Does that chime with anyone else's experience, or was it just particular to this project?

[Myriam_Laberge]

[quote=Penny_Walker;1279]

* Broadly, the market research gang are interested in understanding the group so that they (the consultant / client) can better design the product / service / policy and better communicate it to people once it's been designed.

* The participation & involvement gang are interested in helping the group to develop its understanding, share perspectives, air differences and find ways forward, so that they (consultant / client AND stakeholders/public) can jointly design the product / service / policy and better implement it.

This thread underlines the vital importance of understanding one's broad purpose for engaging stakeholders, and then adopting the appropriate method to support it. Our sister organizations, the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (http://www.thataway.org) in the USA, and the Canadian Community for Dialogue and Deliberation (http://www.c2d2.ca) have been examining these issues for some time. Building on their work, I have developed a table that may further contribute to this conversation, see Best Methods for Engagement (http://myriam-musing.blogspot.com/2008/11/stakeholder-engagement-methods-purpose.html).

Following Penny's categorization:

*The "market research gang" as she refers to them, often have as their purposes for engagement: to tell their story and to obtain input. Certain methods are more appropriate here such as Focus Groups, Town Hall Meetings, Open Houses, Public Hearings, Surveys, Websites. The methods that fall under these forms of engagement in general tend to be one-way and to some extent can be viewed as initially transactional in that they mainly serve the convening organization, though ultimately, the resulting products, services, policies should be better, if in fact, they have listened well.

*The purposes informing why the "participation/involvement gang" may engage stakeholders (including citizens) are various, from building awareness and trust, learning together to build common ground, resolving conflict, collaborating, and working together over time. The methods that may be appropriate here are quite numerous and diverse. For example, the 21st Century Town Hall meeting that Gary spoke of is appropriate when input from large groups of people is desired to help formulate and decide upon the best course of action. Methods such as World Cafe, Open Space, Appreciative Inquiry, Charettes, Future Search and so on, are all exceptional in the results they can produce when chosen with care to serve the purpose, context and needs of the engagement.

A high degree of transparency about engagement purpose, how the results will be used, and whom they will serve is vital in my view to the success of any of these endeavours. As facilitators, the more we know about how various methods serve different engagement purposes, the more helpful we can be in assisting our clients create appropriate expectations with participants, and also in understanding the role that we may be called upon to play.

Two useful additional resources on this topic of engagement purpose may be found at:

IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation (http://www.iap2.org) (under Practitioner Tools)
Health Canada Public Involvement Policy Toolkit (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/pubs/_public-consult/2000decision/index-eng.php) (see Public Involvement Continuum)
Finally, for anyone interested in learning many of these engagement methods, including when and how to apply them for better outcomes, please visit Facilitating Wise Action for Lasting Impact (http://masterfulfacilitation.blogspot.com): Engaging Groups in Meaningful Conversation Around Complex Issues for an upcoming learning intensive in January, 2009.