the university of sydney - newdemocracy foundation · and principles. questions without listening...

The University of Sydney

“Innovative consultation processes and the changing role of activism”

Dr L. Carson Government and International Relations

School of Economics and Political Science, The University of Sydney

This paper formed the basis of two different conference presentations:

Keynote Speaker (2nd December) Forum on ‘Challenging and Extending Community Consultation’

Education in Social Action Conference Centre for Popular Education, University of Technology, Sydney

30th November—2nd December, 2000

‘Citizen’s Voice’ Panel, Fifth National Conference (3rd December) Australia New Zealand Third Sector Research

University of Western Sydney 2nd—5th December, 2000

Innovative consultation processes and the changing role of activism © Copyright 2001 Dr L. Carson, Merewether Building (H04), University of Sydney NSW 2006 AUSTRALIA Phone: 02 9351 3089 (Int +61) Fax: 02 9351 3624 (Int +61) Email: [email protected] Web: www.hydra.org.au/activedemocracy http://www.hydra.org.au/activedemocracy/articles/05_innovative.htm

page 1

Abstract There is a perception that governments are providing more and more opportunities for consultation—albeit in traditional ways. This increased opportunity for consultation is not necessarily leading to greater influence in the decision-making process. Instead, advisory committees (and similar consultation methods) attract stakeholders, professional experts, political appointments and representative activists who may sense that they are working toward predetermined outcomes. Such committees succeed only in alienating citizens and activists alike. Innovative forms of consultation challenge the idea that activists must inevitably be caught up in consultation methods that are tokenistic or manipulative. Citizens’ juries, consensus conferences, deliberative polls, feedback panels, and televotes—such methods hold promise. They lead to enhanced representativeness; they offer the added benefit of creating deliberative spaces for sound decision making. These robust methods are described and their relevance to collective action is explained. Activists are encouraged to join the debate about whether these methods should become institutionalised as confidence in them grows. However, if such democratic processes were to be institutionalised and more representative collaboration was routinely incorporated into g overnmental decision making, what would be the role of activists? Should activists leave broad-scale consultation in the hands of typical citizens? An argument is mounted for activists to step aside from the ineffective role of committee member in situations where representativeness is a requirement and, instead, to assume the more appropriate and satisfying role of rebel and/or expert, depending upon the issue that requires collective action. As change agents and reformers, activists can lobby for the adoption of democratic practices as well as using these practices themselves. Further, reflective practice is considered to be an essential requirement in this changing domain of collective action. Background Citizens are claiming increased input into government decisions and governments are reciprocating with more opportunities. Daily newspapers contain advertisements calling for written submissions, notifications of public meetings and invitations to nominate for advisory groups or consultative committees that have been established to validate a range of government tasks. Bureaucrats, elected representatives and community members are less than impressed by public gatherings (ie public meetings or public hearings) that attract ‘the incensed’ and ‘the articulate’ and these events do little to improve confidence in public consultation methods. Formal (written) submissions give ‘the highly -informed’ and ‘better educated’ a chance to cast their collective writings into the policy-making wind. Advisory committees are dismissed as refuges for political appointees or, at best, an irrelevance to all but those groups who are fortunate enough to be represented (Curtin, undated). Dissatisfaction abounds. Activists run the risk of being co-opted when they are invited onto powerful committees, often agreeing to confidentiality requirements that serve only to silence them. The ultimate risk is that activists will be managed out of existence. While ‘the chosen few’ are selected or elected onto committees, the general public is ignored and this exclusion of citizens from decision making leads to cries of a democratic deficit. Inclusion of (selected or elected) activists on advisory committees can be questioned in terms of its democratic legitimacy, particularly if t he aim of the committee is to increase citizen involvement or improve representativeness in the decision-making process. The author is a former local government councillor, a long-term activist, a university lecturer and researcher, and a practitioner in the area of community consultation. Having assumed various roles and noted the strengths and weaknesses of each, this paper is offered as a way to invite activists to join the debate about participatory democracy and to provide some stimulating and useful resources that might be refreshing for democrats engaged in collective action. The paper has two aims: (1) to


page 2

describe some innovative consultation processes that are steadily gaining acceptance as confidence in them grows; and (2) to speculate on the most effective roles for activists in an idealised democratic environment. To begin, a framework for discussing the changing roles of activists is explained. Roles of Activism Bill Moyer classifies social change activists as rebels, reformers, change agents and citizens (Moyer, 1990). Within each of these roles is a further classification because he sees each as having a positive and negative manifestation which he labels effective and ineffective. As an effective rebel, for example, an activist might target powerholders using non-violent direct action. As an ineffective rebel, an activist might adopt tactics without any realistic strategy or might act out his/her personal emotions regardless of the movement’s needs. A brief summary of these roles is described in Table 2 (effective roles) and Table 3 (ineffective roles). Effective Citizen Effective Reformer Effective Change Agent Effective Rebel Promotes positive values, principles, symbols eg democracy, freedom, justice, nonviolence. Grounded in centre of society.

Uses official mainstream system & institutions eg courts, parliaments, corporations to have movement’s values adopted into law, policies, conventional wisdom. Via lobbying, lawsuits, referenda, candidates. Professional opposition organisations. Also monitoring role.

People power: educate, convince, involve majority of citizens & whole society in change process. Mass -based grassroots organisations, networks. Places issue on political agenda. Promotes long-term strategies and tactics. Empowers grassroots. Promotes alternatives and paradigm shifts.

Protests: says ‘NO!’ to violation of positive values. Nonviolent direct action & attitude incl. civil disobedience. Targets powerholders. Places problems in public spotlight. Exciting, courageous, risky.

Moyer (1990)

TABLE 2 Moyer’s (Effective) Roles of Activism

Moyer thinks all roles are essential for social change and that we move in and out of roles throughout our lives—often simultaneously. A personal case study will exemplify the shifting nature of these roles. Many years ago as an activist with Animal Liberation, along with many others, I enacted the following roles: Rebel—standing on a live sheep carrier that was destined for the Middle East—protesting against the cruelty of the loading that was taking place and being forced ashore by high-powered hoses, battering my body. Reformer—influencing the proposed imposition of sales tax on soy milk or lobbying for codes of production for free range hens so that soy milk (essential for vegans) was affordable and that eggs could be accurately labelled. Change Agent—participating in street theatre to educate the community about anomalies in legislation that related to animal production (using music and circus skills) or producing information leaflets. Citizen—reading books such as Animal Liberation and buying cruelty-free products.


page 3

The citizen role is the one that is most ignored and has been the subject of my recent research—I’m keen to extend democratic processes by finding ways to involve, effectively, a broad cross-section of the community in political decision making. For the record, here are the ineffective roles of social change—as defined by Moyer: Ineffective Citizen Ineffective Reformer Ineffective Change

Agent Ineffective Rebel

Naï ve citizen unquestioned acceptance of official policies. Blind obedience to government and country.

Promotes only minor reforms acceptable to powerholders, not paradigm shifts. Own organisation is hierarchical, patriarchal. Organisation more important than movement. Co-option has occurred—identifying with powerholders not movement’s grassroots.

Utopian: promotes visions of perfection or alternatives in isolation from practical, political & social struggle. Promotes only minor reform. Tunnel vision: advocates single approach while opposing alternative strategies. Ignores personal issues & needs of activists.

Anti-authority, anti-organisational rules & structures. Identifies as radical militant, a lonely voice on society’s fringe. Any means necessary incl. violence. Tactics without realistic strategy. Victim attitude & behaviour. Strident—acts outs personal needs & emotions regardless of movement’s needs.

Moyer (1990)

TABLE 3 Moyer’s (Ineffective) Roles of Activism Ineffective roles can only be recognised and altered if a process of reflective practice occurs (Schön, 1983). Though I have always found Moyer’s four roles to be a useful explanation for the roles enacted in social change there was one that was missing. Returning to the Animal Liberation case study it is possible to identify a further inquirer role that was fundamental to that movement’s development. For example, Peter Singer who wrote the book Animal Liberation, played the initial inquirer role when he questioned the assumptions beneath the use and abuse of animals for food, clothing and experimentation (Singer, 1976). When he documented his inquiry in his book he moved into change agent role. Once the animal rights movement grew, its members discussed the principles that underpinned the movement—for example, veganism or vegetarianism was one hotly-debated theme. This was an important part of the movement’s evolution and these discussants could be labelled inquirers. This inquirer role is outlined in Table 4. It is a role that is sorely neglected within activist circles—even though activists appreciate the value of inquiry in the broader political milieu—eg inquiry is a cherished democratic process that is expected of the media, the judiciary and the government’s opposition. If inquiry is fundamental to nation-state or local democracy, it is just as requisite for small group democracy (Blaug, 1999; Gastil, 1993) or inner democracy (Metzger, 1990). The inquirer dares to question the principles, values and assumptions of a social movement; puts new ideas on the table for consideration; reflects on his/her own practice as well as the movement’s practices and the wider socio-political context.


page 4

Inquirer Role1 Effective Inquirer

Ineffective Inquirer

Asks strategic questions, engages in active listening and responds meaningfully. Promotes need for genuine inquiry, evaluation & reflective practice. Respectful questioning of movement’s ethics, direction & achievements—incl. wellbeing of members. Stimulates debate on movement’s underlying philosophy and principles.

Questions without listening or responding meaningfully. Questions disrupt rather than deepen understanding. Undermines movement as persistent antagonist. Obstructs progress through negativity. Inquiry is promoted as more important than action.

TABLE 4 Inquirer Role It is from this inquirer role that challenging questions can be asked. For example, some evaluation questions that could be asked of your group or organisation might be: Evaluation Questions • How do you view the general public? How involved should they be in decisions that affect

your cause? • How democratic is your own domain of collective action? • Is power shared? How inclusive is your group? • How does your group engage in deliberate thinking about its actions with a view to

improvement? • How well are you achieving your group’s goals? Are you clear about what they are and why

they are important? • How much blame for non-achievement of goals does your group attribute to external forces? • Your group may be taking the time to plan but how much monitoring and evaluating is taking

place (Ertmer & Newby, 1996)? Some reflective questions that relate to one’s own experience might be: Self-Reflective Questions2 • What influenced you to become an activist? • What are the fundamental values that inform your activism (ie what is most important to you)? • What assumptions do you make about the way ordinary citizens view your cause? • What are your beliefs in relation to the current state of affairs of your cause (ie why is the

world in the state that it is)? • How do your beliefs, values and assumptions3 influence the activist role you play? Becoming a reflective activist will involve anticipating events (reflection for action), developing an awareness of what is occurring in each moment (reflection in action) as well as evaluating after the event (reflection on action)—and reflection is not just about action (Schön, 1983). Reflective practice involves consideration of ethical and moral dimensions and “locates any analysis of

1 This additional role was developed in conversations with Kath Fisher, Southern Cross University. 2 My thanks to Kath Fisher for the self-reflective questions. 3 Kath Fisher distinguishes between assumptions, value and beliefs by asking the following questions: Assumptions—‘what do I take for granted?’ Values—‘what is important to me?’ Beliefs—‘what do I think is true?


page 5

personal action within wider socio-historical and politico-cultural contexts” (Hatton & Smith, 1995: 35). However, an examined life is surely the only one worth living. Creating Democratic Sites The five roles of social change operate within a representative political system—one that is not delivering its rhetoric of democracy. Citizens are becoming cynical about their participation in a system that provides an opportunity every few years to vote for pre-selected candidates who represent political parties that are increasingly indistinguishable. Those minor parties that are distinguishable have the electoral odds stacked against them. Though it could be assumed that citizens would collapse into apathy given this scenario, they continue to want to exercise their rights and responsibilities as citizens (Carson, 2000). Citizens have a right to be heard and a right to influence decisions that affect them, and citizens have a responsibility to share in the burden. To do so is to decentralise power and to diffuse the explosive influence of powerful elites. Equality, social justice—these are moral dimensions that any self-respecting activist would hold dear. Decision making, then, is something to be shared—not just restricted to those who would profit from them or those who believe themselves to be superior to others. The latter belief underpinned the creation of representative government which was designed to protect the interests of wealthy elites (Manin, 1997). It has succeeded. Powerful elites have always been wary of the masses or ‘the mob’ and they are not alone. Activists too, are known to have doubts about the competence of citizens. In recent research in relation to consultation on waste management (Hendriks et al , forthcoming), activists were quoted as saying: • The community is generally ignorant and don’t wish to look at problems. The disinterested

have such busy lifestyles and they tend to ignore the issues. • The public have a limited capacity—they do not understand the message. • Broader involvement could mean that you may get unfocused views whereas more

‘representative’ views [via interest groups] will ensure that the people have a more refined and considered input.

Advocates of participatory democracy (eg Barber, 1984; Dryzek, 1990) are less wary. However, those who support genuine participation by the wider population would still harbour fear of an uninformed citizenry or decisions based on populism—ie leadership through inadequate opinion polling (Barber, 1992; Walton, 1999). This paper is based on an assumption that intelligence, sensitivity and good will are available to us all and that what is needed is clear information and an opportunity for debate in order for good decision making to occur. Consultation and participation methods must be able to be accommodated within busy lives and are essential strategies to facilitate civic engagement—but how can they best occur? Principles for Effective Consultation Considerable effort has gone into the creation of principles for effective consultation (Carson 1999, UK Cabinet Office 2000, UK Local Government Association 2000). The following ten principles are taken from a discussion paper that was prepared recently to accompany the NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning’s (DUAP’s) White Paper on plan making (Carson & Gelber, forthcoming). The first two principles relate to the important need for enhanced representation and the need to build deliberative capacity. These two principles—representativeness and deliberation—will be taken up again later.


page 6

Make it inclusive Participants should be selected in a way that is not open to manipulation, and should include a cross-section of the population - as individuals and as groups. Random selection offers the best chance of achieving this. Make it interactive and deliberative Avoid reducing questions to a simplistic either/or response. Allow consideration of the big picture, so people can really become engaged. Make it timely Participation should not be so late in the life of an issue that it is tokenistic, or merely confirms decisions already made. The timing should occur when citizens have the best chance of influencing outcomes. Give people enough time to express their views. Make it community-focussed Ask participants not what they want personally or what is in their self-interest, but what they consider appropriate in their role as citizens. Make it effective Although decision-making can strive for consensus, complete agreement need not be the outcome. Be clear about how the decisions will be made so that participants know and understand the impact of their involvement. Make sure all participants have time to become well informed about and to understand material they are unlikely to have a prior familiarity with. Make it matter It is important that there is a strong likelihood that any recommendations that emerge from the consultative process will be adopted. If they are not, it is important that a public explanation is provided. Faith in the process is important by both the power holders and the participants. Make it well facilitated It is important that all participants control the agenda and content because this will give the process more credibility. An independent, skilled and flexible facilitator with no vested interest is essential i n order to achieve this. Make it open, fair and subject to evaluation The consultation method should be appropriate to the target group. Evaluation questions should be formulated in advance. Decide how the ‘success’ of the consultation will be measured. Include factors beyond the adoption of recommendations. Feedback to the community after consultation is over is essential. Make it cost effective It is difficult to measure community satisfaction, or savings in costly litigation that could arise in the absence of consultation and participation. However, factors can be considered including how many and which types of community members should be consulted on a given issue. Some questions will require broader consultation, others more targeted consultation. Costs will vary and are adaptable, but the process selected must be properly resourced. Make it flexible A variety of consultation mechanisms exist. Choose the one which best suits the circumstances. Try a variety of mechanisms over time. Think how to reach all your users, including those with special needs (eg language, disabilities, the elderly, the young). Different communities and different questions will produce better responses with different forms of consultation. Mix qualitative and quantitative research methods.


page 7

It can be seen that change agents and reformers have important roles to play in the establishment and monitoring of these principles. Change agents are the ones who are concerned with people power—involving the majority of citizens in the change process. Reformers monitor these change processes as they become institutionalised. Consultation Framework Having determined the essential principles, a consultation practitioner would turn her or his mind to consultation methods. I have found t hat a framework helps, one in which the consultation method can be situated. For example, a four-step approach (based on the work of Renn et al , 1993) works well in many situations.

Step 1: VISIONING Selection of community participants who:

create a vision or goals and establish values and criteria for measuring success.

Step 2: OPERATIONALISING Collection of ‘expert’ and specialist knowledge from a small reference group which works with the information provided in the first step, for example by

devising an action plan or creating a list of options and assessing their viability.

Step 3: TESTING

Randomly selected citizens meet, to test the acceptability of the options presented

against the values established earlier. The group offers recommendations.

If at Step 3 it is decided If at Step 3 it is decided that that the options are unacceptable recommendations can be made in light of the community values, which reflect community values, the process returns to Step 1. the process moves on to Step 4.

Step 4: EVALUATING Information is provided to the entire community affected by the decision.

The consultation process is evaluated against the criteria earlier established. This ensures all are informed, and that those making the final decisions are accountable.

FIGURE 1 Four-step Procedure for Consulting (Carson 1999) Note that, in this framework, the important expert role is sandwiched between representative groups of citizens who establish the vision, then later test the acceptability of expert advice against


page 8

their own values 4. Activists are often experts. They belong in this significant second step. Their expertise is essential if full information is to be available and if debate is to be meaningful. Representativeness and Deliberative Capacity Those who are engaged in consultation exercises or those who observe them, cry ‘foul’ when participants are not representative of the wider population. There are times when representativeness is not necessary—eg when a consultation is designed to gauge the attitudes of a specific group or when the opinions and expertise of a well-informed group are sought. However, when the consultation is seeking to find out what the entire community thinks about an issue, representativeness should not be a preferred option, it should be essential. Random selection provides a method for selecting participants that is both fair and seen to be fair (Carson & Martin 1999:15). The term ‘random’ is intended to mean that each member of a community has a statistically equal probability of being selected to take part in a consultative process. Random selection is an essential component of the consultation methods described in this paper. Having gathered together a representative sample of the population, how can a democratic site be created? We have few democratic models and it may be that the best we can do is create an environment in which democracy can ‘break out’ (Blaug, 1999). Deliberative capacity is a quality to be nourished, coaxe d and rewarded. Deliberation moves us away from superficial ‘public opinion’ to more thoughtful ‘public judgement’ (Yankelovich, 1991 cited in Walton, 1999). Many of us have experienced those rare moments when democracy has been experienced—when participants are engaged in lively debate, when all opinions and ideas are sought and heard, when there is movement towards consensus, when the general will, not self interest, is being considered. How do political institutions enable democratic ‘break outs’ whilst providing uninformed citizens with solid information and space for creative resolution of serious problems? Fortunately considerable experimentation has occurred over the past three decades and consultation methods have emerged that continue to arouse interest. The methods that follow are those which the author knows best but the list is far from exhaustive (for further examples see Appendix, Carson & Martin, 1999). (i) Citizens’ Jury Citizens’ juries have been trialed extensively in the US and in Germany (where they are called ‘planning cells’), and more recently in the UK (Coote & Lenaghan, 1997) and Australia (James, 1999). The name ‘jury’ gives an idea of the process—expert witnesses are called and a representative group of citizens deliberate on the soundness of the arguments. Citizens’ juries have been used to resolve a range of policy and planning issues, including health, environment and social justice issues. This consultation method is best described through example. A recent jury convened by Max Hardy (Twyford Consulting, Wollongong) for Wollondilly Shire Council is outlined below. Note that this particular jury was not selected randomly but those who nominated were matched to a profile—usually a stratified random sample would be drawn from the population.

4 For a more detailed explanation of this framework, see Carson & Gelber (forthcoming) and Renn et al (1993).


page 9

Case Study 5: Wollondilly Shire Council citizens’ jury A citizens’ jury, called a ‘community panel’, was convened by the Wollondilly Shire Council, and organised by Twyford Consulting, to develop a social plan to describe the local community, summarise the key issues facing the community, and recommend strategies to address identified needs. After advertisements were placed in local newspapers, residents interested in participating as jurors or presenters were provided with an information kit. Those who then lodged a formal application to participate were selected according to demographic criteria to achieve representativeness. Participants were reimbursed for their travel and child care costs. Presenters were asked to prepare handouts with their main points. They were briefed in advance as to the key questions which were to be addressed, and tips on presenting including allowing time for questions and using anecdotes to explain complex or new ideas to jurors. Jurors were briefed as to the procedures involved and order of events, told that they would be given time to ask questions of presenters, and provided with the key questions to be addressed. The key lessons from the jury were that greater lead time was needed to involve indigenous community representatives, jurors’ capacity to absorb information was high and they felt they had learnt a great deal from their involvement, and this increased knowledge was due in part to the provision of good briefing materials and clear frameworks for discussion. It was also noted that the commissioning body was committed to respond to the jurors’ report, which ensured the outcomes did not disappear but were acted on. This enhanced the importance of the process. Costs were lower than anticipated because Council contributed resources free of charge. The consultancy fee was less than $10,000.

This consultation method allows for the inclusion of expanded levels of expertise, knowledge and skills in the deliberative process (Carson & Gelber, forthcoming). Experts could be from universities or non-government organisations or amongst the key stakeholders. Because it is held over a few days, the discussion can be quite in -depth, dealing with complex material. Because of the small pool of participants it can be dismissed as being insufficiently representative though highly deliberative. Peter Dienel’s German planning cells partially solve this problem by holding a number of juries in different locations (Dienel & Renn, 1995). The deliberative poll, the televote and residents’ feedback panels address this issue of insufficient numbers but before describing them, a method similar to the citizens’ jury is worthy of comment—the consensus conference. (ii) Consensus Conference Consensus conferences are very similar to citizens’ juries, but with some important differences. Australia’s first consensus conference, on gene technology in the food chain, was held in old Parliament House, Canberra, in March 1999 (Renouf, 1999). This conference was initiated by the Australian Consumers’ Association so that consumers could have a voice in the future of genetically modified food. Consensus conferences have been held throughout the world, with

5 As described in Hardy & Ruecroft (2000), from Carson & Gelber (forthcoming).


page 10

Denmark having led the way in developing this consultative method. A list of websites is included in this paper and details about this growing international trend can be found there. The consensus conference has all of the attributes of a citizens’ jury but is performed on a larger scale over a longer period of time—eg there are usually several preparatory weekends. The consensus conference has the added advantage of giving participants greater control over the agenda—eg participants select the expert witnesses and can modify the agenda. This makes the process more involving and meaningful for participants, and provides the commissioning authority with richer community input (Carson & Gelber, forthcoming). To date consensus conferences have focused on contentious issues of science and technology. Again the method is best exemplified using a case study. Note that activists enacted the role of expert, along with professional experts, in these proceedings.

Case study 6: Australia’s first consensus conference on genetically modified foods Australia’s first consensus c onference was held on March 10-12, 1999 at Old Parliament House, Canberra. The conference was initiated by the Australian Consumers’ Association, convened by the Australian Museum and overseen by a Steering Committee of 17 people chaired by Sir Laurence Street. 14 citizens participated on the lay panel, 13 experts on the speaker panel and the conference was independently facilitated. Experts included representatives from the CSIRO, the Gene-Ethics Network, the Organics Federation of Australia, the Australian Food and Grocery Council, corporations, scientists, farmers, religious/ethical groups, nutritionists, public health officials, and consumer groups. It was covered extensively by the media. The experts had to engage in dialogue with lay people, answer questions, restrain themselves while listening to others’ points of view. The lay panel demonstrated citizens’ ability to come to grips with complex issues of science without becoming ‘irrational’, a willingness and pride in contributing, stamina and perspicacity. The conference produced a report containing recommendations, most of which were directed at government. (The report is available at the ACA website at www.choice.com.au)

(iii) Deliberative Polling The deliberative poll tackles the issue of delivering a statistically significant sample; it is both representative and deliberative. A number of deliberative polls have also been conducted in the USA and the UK (conducted by the creator of the process, James Fishkin). A deliberative poll aims to correct the deficiencies inherent in standard opinion polls (Fishkin, 1995). Participants are selected randomly via telephone numbers, and then come together to discuss the issue—thereby building in a deliberative component. They are not required to reach consensus; participants are simply polled before and after the event. Briefing materials are sent to the representative sample of hundreds of citizens. Then when the group meets, participants spend time in small groups led by independent facilitators, developing questions that are taken into plenary sessions. Expert speakers offer opinions and answer questions, then the small groups deliberate further on the issue/s.

6 As described in Renouf (1999), from Carson & Gelber (forthcoming).


page 11

Australia’s first deliberative poll was tria led at the time that Australia was considering whether to become a republic in October 1999. The outcome was of particular interest because it indicates how Australians would have voted on the referendum had they had an opportunity to have all of their questions answered and their fears allayed. The participants at the deliberative poll moved from opposition to support for the proposal—the proposal was later defeated at the ballot box.

Case Study: Australia Deliberates: Republic Newspoll recruited 350 typical Australians by telephone using random selection. Participants were polled prior to the weekend’s deliberations—21% supported the model for an Australian republic that was on offer. The group met at Old Parliament House over three days in October, 1999. Participants’ travel and accommodation costs were reimbursed and a small honorarium helped to defray their living-away-from-home expenses. Independent facilitators guided the small groups of typical citizens. Facilitators were instructed not to ‘teach’ or to answer any questions—the role was to enable the group to develop questions to take into the plenary sessions as well as to ensure that all participants had a chance to speak and to be heard in the small groups where most of the discussion occurred. The event was televised on the ABC and was also featured on the Sixty Minutes program. At the end of the weekend, participants were polled again and 61% supported the model on offer.

The deliberative poll is a very costly exercise and those held to date have relied heavily on sponsorship and donations and this financial support has been made easier by its novelty—eg Australia’s first deliberative poll. The coordinator of the first poll, Dr Pam Ryan, is currently organising her second Australian deliberative poll—on the important social justice issue of Reconciliation. The method being used is slightly altered—with small gatherings and some recruitment of Aboriginal people occurring in regional and urban areas prior to the main event. (iv) Televote The televote addresses the problem of prohibitive expense. Though it results in less interactivity and therefore less deliberation, it is a considerable improvement over standard opinion polls. Here’s how it works: A randomly selected, statistically significant sample of typical citizens is contacted by phone. Participants complete a phone survey and are then sent briefing materials. They are encouraged to discuss the issue with family, friends and colleagues. After a week or two, they are contacted again and a further survey is completed. Market researchers call this ‘pre-recruit and placement’ but a televote has not been used in Australia for the purpose of social research as it has been in the US or New Zealand (see Becker and Slaton, 2000). The New Zealand experience can be offered as a case study.


page 12

Case study 7: televoting in New Zealand A New Zealand Televote was sponsored by the New Zealand Commission for the Future and funded by the NZ Parliament. Four alternative futures for New Zealand were voted on by over 1000 participants, recruited through a nationwide Televote network coordinated by three universities. Another 4000 New Zealanders filled out Televote brochures printed in 12 newspapers nationally. Radio networks ran talk shows discussing the Televote. The Televote resulted in increased awareness and community debate over the future for New Zealand. A few years after it was conducted, an academic who had been involved in coordinating the project expressed the view that the Televote had accurately predicted a general shift in public opinion regarding preferences about how the country should move into the future. Three years after the Televote, election results appeared to reinforce this shift as a new government was voted in.

Televotes can be useful if an organisation is wanting a snap shot of the population to establish opinions on a contentious issue with the benefit of some deliberation. It can be done quickly and is reasonable cost effective. It is about to be used in Ne w South Wales as a social research component of a government review—but more of that later. All of the consultation methods discussed so far are one-off events. There is a method that is ongoing that is working well for local and national governments that is worthy of some attention even though it has deficiencies in relation to deliberative capacity. (v) Residents’ Feedback Panel Residents’ Feedback Panels (RFPs) are known as People’s Panels, Citizens’ Panels or Quick Response Citizens’ Panels. An RFP establishes a pool of potential respondents who may then be called upon for a range of quantitative research methods—telephone surveys, face-to-face interviews or self-completion postal questionnaires—on any issue on which it is important to consult. They may also be called upon to participate in qualitative consultation methods—citizens’ juries, deliberative polls or consensus conferences (Carson & Gelber, forthcoming). A database of participants in the RFP is maintained, and confidentiality assured, by a relevant government agency, at State or local level. RFPs are used widely in the UK (see websites) and Australia has at least one working example. Brisbane City Council calls its RFP ‘Your City Your Say’. Here’s how it works:

7 As described in Becker & Slaton (2000: 71-72), from Carson & Gelber (forthcoming).


page 13

Case Study 8: Brisbane City Council ‘Your City Your Say’ A city-level Residents’ Feedback Panel used in conjunction with quantitative survey methods. Brisbane City Council governs approximately 820,000 residents. It initiated the Your City Your Say project in 1998. The panel was designed to enable public input into developing strategic direction for Brisbane (Peel, 1999). (The large size of Brisbane City Council means it is equivalent to some smaller State government areas.) Newsletters were sent to all Brisbane residents calling for residents to join the panel, and providing background information relevant to strategic planning (such as environmental issues of concern, community infrastructure, and the financial state of Council). Attached to the newsletter was a registration form asking for the name and address of registrants, as well as some representative information such as their age group, sex and occupation. Around 6500 residents are registered in the panel, and some have participated in visioning activities and focus groups on issues such as traffic and transport. The Council has had to target young people, indigenous people and women for involvement, because they remained under-represented following an initial invitation to join (Peel, 1999). Every few months newsletters are sent to registrants, containing information on community projects and how to get involved. Survey questionnaires are often included in the newsletters, which can be folded and posted back to Council free of charge. Survey results are published in later newsletters. Questionnaires have sought feedback on issues including people’s definition of their understanding of ‘community’, the importance of a range of facilities and services, uses and ways of improving the Brisbane River, and traffic and transport issues. The ‘Your City Your Say’ project utilises new technologies to enhance accessibility, and can be viewed online at www.brisbane.qld.gov.au.

Though it is not as representative as a randomly-selected sample, it could be assumed that the participatory net has at least been cast wider than it is for advisory committees and public meetings resulting in a greater diversity of views. Because it is maintained over a period of time, changes in attitudes can be monitored. A survey in the Lismore area indicated that residents are very interested in this method of consultation because it can be accommodated within their busy lives (Carson, 2000 survey). This is particularly important for working people, the elderly and single parents who are disadvantaged by traditional forms of consultation. Variations on this method have been used for consultation on environmental issues and the Boulder transport panel could provide a useful model for tackling the public transport problems of metropolitan Sydney.

8 From Carson & Gelber (forthcoming).


page 14

Case Study 9: Boulder, Colorado, USA. A city-based Residents’ Feedback Panel used in conjunction with survey methods. A Residents’ Feedback Panel was created to discuss Boulder’s transportation system. Un der discussion was the appropriateness of an extensive highway system, vis a vis facilities for cyclists, pedestrians and public transport users. The project was supported by the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC), the organisation responsible for creating a Transportation Master Plan. Participants in the RFP were randomly selected. Seven hundred residents were selected, stratified by location and housing type, to receive an invitation from the mayor to participate in the RFP. Responses were received from one third of these people, and a panel of 147 participants was formed. Participants were told in advance that the project would require a commitment of approximately 12 months. A variety of quantitative survey methods were then used, including mailed questionnaires, a telephone survey, and two face-to-face interviews at the residents’ homes. Each participant was interviewed by the same interviewer both times. During the 12 month period, only 10% of participants withdrew. The project was run by a policy analyst and a team of interviewers, who developed information materials, designed and administered the surveys, collected and analysed data, and presented the findings in written form to the TAC. Participants reported favourably on their experience. The TAC used the panel’s feedback in four ways: where applicable, as evidence of community support for its policies as a means of resolving differences among the committee when the community expressed clear support for one of two or more options to revamp or relinquish policies with demonstrably weak community support to justify and explain its policies where community support was weak. The panel therefore affected the direction of planning and the mode of decision making of the TAC.

It will be clear from the above case studies that typical citizens are entirely competent to deliberate on complex matters to good effect. Interactive spaces filled with representative participants can provide not only insight into the views of citizens (focus groups can do this equally well)—these democratic sites can also lead to thoughtful, intelligent decision making, with recommendations arising that reflect the will of the wider community. In these democratic spaces self-interest seems happily to take a back seat, and the common good slips willingly into the driver’s seat.

9 As described in Carson & Martin (1999: 84-86).


page 15

Institutionalising Innovative Methods The consultation methods that have been outlined have been trialed for three decades yet remain largely unknown in the wider community. Only in Denmark could any of them be seen to be institutionalised—ie part of the everyday functions of government and influential in terms of decision making (Joss, 1998). Until this happens these innovative mechanisms will remain novelties, a side show beyond the main political arena of (non)representative government. However, within our flawed representative system, small gains are possible. Here is a current case study that relates to imminent environmental legislation that provides a glimmer of hope:

Case study 10: Televoting in Australia - Container Deposit Legislation In 2001 a combined televote and citizens’ jury is planned for NSW. Dr Stuart White from the Institute for Sustainable Futures (University of Technology, Sydney) has been appointed to conduct an Independent Review on Container Deposit Legislation (CDL) in NSW. In order to gauge the attitudes of the wider community to CDL, approximately 400 people will be randomly selected from across the state, and asked to participate in a televote. They will be sent written information about CDL and asked to talk with friends, neighbours and colleagues about the idea. Their attitudes will be surveyed at the beginning and at the end of the process, which will take approximately one month. Participation will occur by telephone from participants’ homes. In addition to the televote, 2000 randomly selected citizens from across the state of NSW will be invited to volunteer to be selected as a member of a Citizens’ Jury. Out of the pool of volunteers, a cross-section of 15-20 people will be randomly selected to participate in the Citizens’ Jury. This will involve their attendance over a weekend of deliberations and discussions guided by an independent facilitator. This panel will write recommendations. The use of the televote in combination with a smaller consultative mechanism is designed to ensure the attitudes of a larger, more representative sample are gauged.

The combination of televote and citizens’ jury is possibly unique to Australia. The two methods are quite different but potentially complementary, with the deficiencies of one being corrected by the strengths of the other. Table 1 helps to explain these similarities and differences.

10 As described by Stuart White (pers. comm.), from Carson & Gelber (forthcoming).


page 16

Televote Citizens’ jury Randomly selected

Randomly selected but a level of self selection involved

Contacted by telephone Contacted by mail

Representative

Diverse group

N= large numbers

N= around 16 people

Large number involved (directly and indirectly) means that potential for raising community awareness of an issue is significant

Limited number involved but can generate media interest and thus stimulate community learning and awareness

Cost: A$20,000-$30,000 for 400 people

Cost: A$10,000-15,000 for 16 people

Quantitative sample size is statistically significant

Qualitative output—recommendations in the form of a report prepared by the panel

Process has a greater perception of legitimacy due to numbers involved

Process may be perceived by key decision makers as illegitimate as the process only involves ‘a handful’ of people—the deliberative component is not quantifiable

More informed than an opinion survey

Highly informed

Individual deliberation though encouraged to discuss with friends, family, colleagues

Group deliberation—face-to-face, questioning of experts, facilitated discussion, variety of opinions and arguments, also opportunities for experiential learning and social interaction (could have involved field trips)

Access to summarised, printed information—avoids persuasive power of experts though some exposure to opinions of others (could have incorporated computers which would enable access to more interactivity and information)

Access to summarised, printed information up-front and then provided with more detailed, printed information through the course of the CJ as well as a range of visual eg videos, slides. Exposed to the persuasion, motivations and characteristics of those dominating the debate—in this way participants can also sense the values inherent in ‘facts’ and can use their own judgement to separate fact from rhetoric.

Decision based on self-interest, modified through discussion with others

Deliberation tends to steer people towards outcomes in the interest of the community.

Aggregation of competing views; majority vote is noted. Intensive dialogue and exposure to other opinions allows for learning and consensus building; all views are noted.

Direct democracy

Deliberative/discursive democracy

Table 1 Comparative and Complementary Characteristics of CDL Televote and Citizens’ jury 11 What is exciting about this proposal is that it takes a traditional form—a government review of legislation—and posits an entirely new way of approaching the matter. Activists are positioned, along with industry and government representatives as experts. Equally important, the views of typical citizens are elevated to those of stakeholders. Citizens are viewed as having much to gain or lose from legislative change, and much to say about the legislation that should be enacted. 11 Carolyn Hendriks, Institute for Sustainable Futures, provided helpful comments on these comparative and complementary characteristics.


page 17

Conclusion Do innovative consultative methods challenge the historical role of the activist as the primary agent of change? Not necessarily. It has been argued that what is required is an elevation of the citizen role—to increase representativeness in political decision making. A leap of faith, perhaps, is required. Activists, like bureaucrats and elected representatives, are often sceptical about the ability of citizens to handle complex matters and to avoid manipulation. Activists are often contemptuous of citizens’ ability to come up with the ‘right answer’. However, if consultation methods are fair and deliberative--citizens usually do. Decision makers believe that activists are not representative of the wider population—indeed they are not. The good news is that stepping aside from this citizen role will free activists from their possible victim status—as pawns in a system that may have them co-opted and silenced. Activists can then strengthen their change agent and reformer roles—to be centre stage in the debate about democratic decision making. It has been argued that innovative consultation mechanisms should be institutionalised and it has been demonstrated that this is occurring—albeit slowly and reluctantly. Activists could broaden their sphere of concern, to add their insistent voices to the call for democratic sites that would give all citizens an opportunity to speak. In doing so, social movements might also become democratised and activists might pay due attention to small group and inner democracy, as they practise the role of inquirer. Engaging in reflective practice would sharpen the skills of activists and ensure that they perform effective roles. Those involved in collective action should consider rejecting opportunities to participate in processes that do little to further their cause. Being co-opted onto advisory committees in order to satisfy the need for increased community involvement can be resisted and activists can suggest other ways for a more representative group of citizens to deliberate. Instead, activists can focus on what they do best—researching, campaigning, educating, lobbying, protesting, becoming experts. The expertise of activists has been devalued and a clarification of roles will enable their expertise to be acknowledged—ie ‘we are experts—we are not representative citizens’. Even though activists are passionate citizens who have coalesced around an issue and engaged in collective action they cannot claim to speak on behalf of the community. This is best left to a representative, informed group of citizens—and this in turn should strengthen the cause. It is the role of activists to influence, expertly, the outcome of genuine consultation. References Barber, Benjamin R. (1984) Strong Democracy. Participatory Politics for a New Age, Berkeley, University of California Press.

Barber, Benjamin B. (1992) “Opinion Polls: Public Judgment or Private Prejudice?”, The Responsive Community, Vol. 2, No. 2, Spring, pp.4-6

Becker, Ted & Slaton, Christa D (2000) The Future of Teledemocracy. Westport, Connecticut, Praeger.

Blaug, Ricardo (1999) Democracy, Real and Ideal Discourse Ethics and Radical Politics. Albany, State University of New York Press.

Carson, Lyn (2000) “Consultation in the Lismore Local Government Area: Analysis of Telephone Survey Conducted May/June 2000”, Report, The University of Sydney.

Carson, Lyn (1999) “Random Selection: Achieving Representation in Planning”, Alison Burton Memorial Lecture, Royal Australian Planning Institute, Canberra ACT, 31 August.


page 18

Carson, Lyn and Kath Gelber (forthcoming) “Community Consultation: Principles and Procedures”, Sydney, NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning.

Carson, Lyn & Martin, Brian (1999) Random Selection in Politics. Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers.

Coote, Anna & Lenaghan, Jo (1997) Citizen’s Juries: Theory into Practice. Institute for Public Policy Research, London.

Curtin, Jennifer (undated) “Institutionalising Consultation with Women at the Local Level: An Australian Case Study”, School of Management and Policy, University of Canberra —copies from [email protected]

Dienel, Peter C. and Renn, Ortwin (1995) “Planning Cells: A Gate to ‘Fractal’ Mediation”, in Renn, O., Webler, T., and Wiedemann, P. (eds) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 117-140

Dryzek, John S. (1990) Discursive Democracy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Ertmer, Peggy A. & Newby, Timothy J. (1996) “The Expert Learner: Strategic, Self-regulated, and Reflective”, Instructional Science, Vol. 24, pp.1-24

Fishkin, James (1995) The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy, New Haven, Yale University Press

Gastil, John (1993) Democracy in Small Groups: Participation, Decision Making, and Communication, New Society, Philadelphia, PA.

Hardy, Max & Ruecroft, Sandra (2000) Draft case study of the Wollondilly Shire Council Social Planning Community Panel (Citizens’ Jury) process. Wollondilly Shire Council and Twyford Consulting, Wollongong, NSW.

Hatton, Neville & Smith, David (1995) “Reflection in Teacher Education: Towards Definition and Implementation”, Teaching & Teacher Education, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.33-49

Hendriks, Carolyn, L. Carson & S.White (forthcoming) “Improved process for public participation in policy making on urban sustainability issues: Case study-Waste Management in NSW”, Sydney, NSW Environment Protection Authority.

James, Rosemary F. (1999) “Public Participation in environmental decision-making--new approaches.” 12th Annual National Conference of the Environment Institute of Australia, Hobart, Tasmania.

Joss, Simon (1998) “Danish consensus conferences as a model of participatory technology assessment: an impact study of consensus conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish public debate.” Science and Public Policy Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.2-22.

Kathlene Lynn & Martin, J (1991) “Enhancing Citizen Participation: Panel Designs, Perspectives and Policy Formation”, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 10 (1): 46-63.

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

Metzger, Deena (1990) “Personal Disarmament: Negotiating with the Inner Government”, ReVISION, Vol. 12, Issue 4, pp.3 -9

Moyer, Bill (1990) “Movement Action Plan”, The Practical Strategist, Social Movement Empowerment Project, San Francisco

Peel, Pauline (1999) “Community Participation in Decision-Making and Service Delivery —Government of Ourselves, by Ourselves”, paper presented to the Institute of Public Administration Australia Conference, August, Canberra


page 19

Renn, Ortwin; Webler,Thomas; Rakel, H, Dienel, Peter & Johnson, B (1993) “Public Participation in Decision-Making: A Three-Step Procedure”, Policy Sciences, 26: 189-214.

Renouf, Carole (1999) “Rebirthing Democracy: The Experience of the First Australian Consensus Conference”, Consuming Interest, August, Vol. 79, pp 16 -19.

Schön, Donald A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, New York, Basic Books

Service First (1999) Involving Users: Improving the Delivery of Local Public Services. A report from the National Consumer Council and the Service First Unit in The Cabinet Office, London. For copies contact Service First Publications [email protected].

Singer, Peter (1976) Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for our Treatment of Animals, London, Jonathan Cape

Singer, Peter (1995) Animal Liberation, 2nd edition, London, Pimlico

UK Cabinet Office (2000) How to Consult Your Users: An Introductory Guide, London

UK Local Government Association (2000) Let’s Talk About It…Principles for Consultation on Local Governance, London

Walton, Douglas (1999) Appeal to Popular Opinion, University Park, PA, The Pennsylvania State University Press. Web Sites Australia’s first consensus conference: http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/consconf/splash.htm or www.choice.com.au

Australia’s first deliberative poll: http://rsss.anu.edu.au/DeliberativePoll.html

Brisbane City Council’s community consultation techniques online: www.brisbane.qld.gov.au

Centre for Deliberative Polling: http://www.la.utexas.edu/research/delpol/cdpindex.html

Consensus Conference in Denmark on agricultural production: http://www.tekno.dk/eng/publicat/f94lgree.htm

Consensus Conference in New Zealand on plant biotechnology: http://www.consumer.org.nz/tech/index.html

Constructive Citizen Participation: http://www.islandnet.com/~connor/happenings.html

European Participatory Technology Assessment (EUROpTA): http://www.tekno.dk/europta/

Fremantle community consultation online: www.fremantle.wa.gov.au

International Association for Public Participation: www.iap2.org or http://pin.org/

Issues Deliberation Australia: http://i-d-a.com.au/

Jefferson Center: http://www.jefferson-center.org/

Loka Institute’s page on US citizens’ panels http://www.loka.org/pages/panel.htm

Loka Institute’s page on worldwide consensus conferences http://www.loka.org/pages/worldpanels.html

Northern Rivers Regional Strategy http://www.nrrs.org.au

Participatory Design Bibliography: http://www.cpsr.org/conferences/pdc98/bibliography.html

Resilient Communities: http://www.resilientcommunities.org/


page 20

Teledemocracy Action News + Network (TAN+N): http://www.auburn.edu/tann/

UK Government’s people’s panel web site: http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/servicefirst/

the university of sydney - newdemocracy foundation · and principles. questions without listening...

Documents