Designing Multi-Process Public Participation Programs (full
text)
A version of this that's broken down into seven webpages is
available here.
What do we need to know to design
multi-process public participation programs?
by Tom Atlee
June 1, 2003
We face increasing complexity and scope in public issues and
in the social and political contexts within which those issues
are addressed. In this new environment one-time, single-process
public participation* events, however sophisticated, are proving
less capable of satisfying the needs of contemporary democracy.
Neither citizens nor stakeholders nor decisionmakers are being
adequately served.
I believe we are challenged to reframe the practice of public
participation. I believe we need to deconstruct public participation
practices and come to deeper understandings of how they work
and, perhaps most importantly, how they can work together to
better address the complexity we face.
This is an immense task. The immediate goal is to begin it
well.
We might realize first of all that multidimensional public
participation programs are already common, usually masquerading
as individual approaches. Methods such as Future Search and AmericaSpeaks'
21st Century Town Meetings are composites of many elements that
appear in other forms in other methods. And they are not alone.
So current efforts to develop multi-process public participation
programs are part of a larger evolution of collective processes.
We can expect (and hope) that as time goes on, we will become
increasingly sophisticated, modular and adaptive in our process
work. We will understand more about the value added by -- and
the limitations of -- different process design elements. We will
become less attached to particular multifaceted process designs
as reified proprietary "methods." And we will become
more intuitive, flexible and courageous in the design combinations
we create to meet specific conditions and needs.
Even in the face of this expanding process technology, more
of us may come to understand what the masters of the trade already
know -- that all processes and methods are only containers and
tools for human caring, foresight, relationship and communication.
A convenor's visionary intention, a facilitator's quality of
attention, a participant's heartful openness, a community's culture
-- such factors will continue to play dominant roles regardless
of the processes used.
Still, well chosen processes "make space" for different
kinds of human aliveness to flourish. And the kinds of aliveness
that flourish or die in public participation can make or break
the health of a democracy. So it behooves us to become sensitive
and wise about all these things.
To reveal some of my own biases and assumptions: My own sense
of the need for multi-process public participation programs comes
from my desire to improve community intelligence -- the ability
of communities and societies to wisely deal with their complex
and changing circumstances. Given that purpose, it has been clear
to me from the beginning that individual processes could help
or hinder that outcome, but that no single process could ensure
it fully in all situations. Over time I came to see that it isn't
a matter of which process is best for a given situation, but
rather which processes together, in what order, with what links
between them, can help us do the job well. It becomes a question
of process synergy, in which the relationships between processes
are as important as the processes themselves.
By its very nature, such questions never have a simple answer
-- nor even one right answer. So asking them moves us into a
permanent state of inquiry -- an inquiry best pursued together.
Our combined experience, knowledge and creativity are vital to
this. We are simply not big enough alone. So the question now
becomes what tools and understandings might help us pursue this
inquiry together more intelligently and successfully. And where
do we start?
With those questions in mind, I have developed some initial
frames of reference for pursuing this inquiry. Each frame provides
a unique way of viewing the same territory -- the territory we're
calling "multi-process public participation programs."
Within each frame of reference, I've done some initial thinking,
to illustrate directions we might explore together. Here is an
outline of what's included here. Each part can be explored independently
of the others.
Some Possible Considerations in Designing
Multi-Process Dialogue and Deliberation Programs
1. Possible
Outcomes of Public Participation - A list of outcomes
to inform our selection of processes -- e.g., "Citizens
have given input to officials" and "Interest groups
feel their voices have been heard" and "Imaginative
solutions and persepctvies have been found that excite people
to move beyond what has been done before." Many multiple-outcome
programs will require multiple processes to produce the outcomes
desired.
2. Creative
Tensions as Trade-Offs or Potential Synergies? - A list
of alternatives faced by public participation planners (e.g.,
"ensuring short-term realism and/or evoking long-term wisdom"
and "open participation and/or invitational participation")
to explore for possible synergies. Often those synergies will
only be possible by creatively weaving diverse processes into
the final program.
3. Designing
for Community Intelligence: Embracing and Transcending the Usual
Logic of Public Participation. The goal of "activating
and increasing community intelligence" provides a more powerful,
nuanced rationale for including diverse processes than do the
traditional goals of "increasing public participation"
and "engaging people in dialogue and deliberation."
In fact, thinking in terms of community intelligence can help
us understand the logic of multi-process programs even when our
goals are more traditional. This essay describes six functions
(e.g., "community information" and "public judgment")
that serve community intelligence. It then explores six design
principles (e.g., "help people feel really heard" and
"use both unity and diversity creatively") to guide
the creation of multi-process community intelligence programs.
Appendices
A. Some
Functions that Serve Community Intelligence and Some Processes
that Support those Functions - A deeper articulation
of the six functions noted in the third essay above, this Appendix
clarifies the purpose of each function and suggests multiple
processes that support it.
B. Functional
Characteristics of Public Participation Processes - A
list derived from an analytic grid showing which functions (e.g.,
"Directly involves lots of people") are characteristic
of which processes (e.g., in this case, "Conversation Cafes,
Study Circles, AmericaSpeaks, Televote audiences"). The
14 processes and 28 characteristics included in this list are
just a beginning. This is raw analysis (without the "community
intelligence" ideology in Appendix A) to help create multi-process
programs that serve many functions.
C. Generating
Wisdom Through Democratic Process - For those of us interested
in eliciting wise counsel from The People -- or simply injecting
more wisdom into our societies' decisionmaking processes -- it
helps to know what factors support the emergence of wisdom in
democratic process. Here is an initial list of ten factors (e.g.,
"full hearing" and "transformational dialogue").
These papers, like all such efforts, contain a mix of gifts
and limitations. To the extent these papers are held ideologically
(as "The Way To Go"), they may help temporarily but
will ultimately trap us with their biases and limitations. I
believe their full potential can only be reached if they are
viewed as invitations: Invitations to see if they're useful.
Invitations to revise and expand them. Invitations to find other
frames of reference, other lenses, other ways to cut the pie.
Invitations to co-create this whole new art and science of multi-process
public participation programming.
These materials will be posted on my co-intelligence.org website,
on the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation's thataway.org website, and
elsewhere. They will be posted both in their current form and
in places where we can all comment on them and/or actually rework
them and add new approaches as we see fit.
May what we discover, and how we use it, thoroughly revitalize
democracy.
_________
* In these papers I often use the term "public participation"
because of its currency. I also use (and prefer) the term "dialogue
and deliberation" because I believe high quality communication
and collective reflection offer a more potent focus for our work
than getting many people to "participate." In any case,
the two phrases are used interchangeably here in the understanding
that what we're talking about is public participation in programs
involving dialogue and deliberation about public issues. Our
individual preferences for one or the other of these phrases
reflect competing (and potentially co-creative) worldviews whose
debate informs the very substance of what is discussed in these
papers. I hope the creative tension between them ends up serving
us all, and the democracy we're all part of.
A FIRST CONSIDERATION
IN DESIGNING MULTI-PROCESS DIALOGUE AND DELIBERATION PROGRAMS
POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
As we know, means should be selected to serve ends. As we
become more conscious and intentional about the outcomes of public
participation programs, we can better choose processes and approaches
that serve those ends (see, for example, Appendices A and B).
Widely diverse rationales exist for public participation programs.
Sometimes there is a desire to inform the public or to get feedback
on existing proposals. Sometimes there is a desire to help the
public engage together in powerfully co-creative citizenship.
I personally am interested in bringing latent community wisdom
to bear on public policy.
Regardless of personal or situational preferences here, it
is in everyone's interests to be able to consider a full range
of possible outcomes in the very earliest stages of public participation
planning. If outcomes are considered first, it is very likely
that multiple process programs will be recognized as necessary
to satisfy the full range of desired outcomes.
The initial list below is far from comprehensive, but I hope
it will serve as a stimulant toward creating an expanding list
of outcome options useful to everyone involved. Please wonder
as you read it: What possible desirable public participation
outcomes are missing here? Note your answers and add them to
the dialogue about this..
Note that the categories into which I have clustered the outcomes
are only a rough initial take on how these various potential
outcomes might be grouped. So they, too, are subject to modification.
AN INITIAL LIST OF POSSIBLE DESIRABLE OUTCOMES OF PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
Input Outcomes
Citizens have given input to officials.
Officials know better what citizens think and feel.
Participating citizens have chosen from among options provided
to them by officials.
Public judgment has shaped public policy, public opinion and/or
public behaviors.
Participation Outcomes
There has been opportunity for all interested people to participate.
Interest groups feel their voices have been heard.
Lots of citizens feel that their voices have been heard.
Some citizens have had a direct and intense experience of
citizenship.
Everyone involved -- including citizens generally -- feel
the process has been fair.
The public believes there has been public involvement.
Social Consensus Outcomes
People have been educated about the issues.
Citizens have come to agree with the policies officials want
to pursue.
Diverse sectors in the community are "on the same page."
The community is generally and broadly aware that a participatory
process has been happening.
Thousands or millions of citizens have had a vicarious experience
of intense citizenship.
The community feels like it has spoken, like "We the
People" have spoken.
The process offers potential for ongoing collective learning
by the whole community.
Diversity Outcomes
The diversity of the forum has been considered adequate by
the community and/or the relevant stakeholder groups
Conflict in the community has been addressed and there is
more mutual understanding.
The diversity in the community -- or around the issue -- has
been used creatively.
Quality of Output Outcomes
The public is impressed with the quality of the solutions.
Realistic solutions have been chosen that can be readily implemented
within the scope of existing institutions and players.
Recommendations have been developed that can demonstrate measurable
results within a few months or years.
People have been motivated into actions or behaviors that
will serve the common good.
Imaginative solutions and perspectives have been found that
excite people to move beyond what has been done before.
Public policies and programs have resulted that prove to have
long-term, broadly beneficial impacts acknowledged by the whole
community.
The community's capacity for successful self-governance or
self-organization has been enhanced.
A SECOND CONSIDERATION
IN DESIGNING MULTI-PROCESS DIALOGUE AND DELIBERATION PROGRAMS
CREATIVE TENSIONS AS TRADE-OFFS OR POTENTIAL SYNERGIES?
There are many seeming trade-offs to consider in developing
a dialogue and deliberation program -- especially when we are
faced with choosing one process or another.
Although these trade-offs are often real -- given the usual
constraints of funding, time politics, etc. -- it can be helpful
to remember that often, these tough choices are not INTRINSICALLY
mutually exclusive. Instead, they can be understood as being
at the ends of a creative tension. The creative tension, itself,
is a resource. Both ends need to be present to obtain optimal
results.
If we realize, for example, that we COULD have both focused
deliberations and open-ended explorations, we may be able to
design programs that combine and modify processes to give us
both.
This is important since many of the seeming alternatives can
produce powerful synergies when used side-by-side or in a productive
sequence.
For example: Public deliberations to evaluate pre-determined
options or positions (e.g., a Citizens Jury or an AmericaSpeaks
forum) may overlook promising but unforeseen options. Even if
time and money do not exist for creative inquiry involving thousands
of people, some online public dialogues and a few Dynamically
Facilitated focus groups done early on, could inexpensively generate
serious new options to add to the official list, increasing the
odds that a high-quality outcome will emerge from the final AmericaSpeaks
forum or Citizens Jury.
A number of these seeming trade-offs are listed below. Often
a "both/and" approach can serve us well. Sometimes,
for a given context, we may need to choose one especially appropriate
option Sometimes there may be components or stages in our process,
for each of which a different option may be most productive.
This list is only an initial draft. It could be expanded and
revised, and guidelines developed for how to most productively
use it. I have clustered the various elements into categories,
simply for ease of readability. In fact, many of the sets of
alternatives could fit within a number of different categories.
DIALOGUE ISSUES
face-to-face dialogue AND/OR technology-mediated dialogue
people feeling heard AND/OR people listening so they can learn
what they need to know
openness to all expressions AND/OR maintenance of order through
behavioral agreements, agendas, time limits, etc.
focused study, deliberation and choice AND/OR open-ended exploration
and creativity
ensuring short-term realism AND/OR evoking long-term wisdom
relationship-centered AND/OR outcome-centered
set aside conflict AND/OR resolve conflict AND/OR use conflict
for learning and transformation
consensus decisions (co-created innovations) AND/OR negotiated
decisions (compromise to achieve mutually agreeable solutions)
AND/OR voting decisions (majoritarian or supermajoritarian) AND/OR
no decisions (input or exploration only)
PARTICIPATION ISSUES
self-selected (open) participation AND/OR limited participation
(invitational) AND/OR microcosm participation (e.g., selection
for "whole system" or diversity criteria)
large numbers of people feeling engaged AND/OR high-quality
conversations
direct participation AND/OR vicarious participation (esp.
via media reports)
POWER ISSUES
citizens central AND/OR stakeholders central AND/OR decisionmakers
central AND/OR experts central
impact on participants AND/OR impact on public AND/OR impact
on decisionmakers and officials
serves citizen-community interests AND/OR serves stakeholder
interests AND/OR serves decisionmakers' interests AND/OR serves
bureaucratic interests
opinion input from public AND/OR government partnership with
public AND/OR public empowerment
support representative democracy AND/OR support participatory
democracy AND/OR support deliberative democracy AND/OR support
community or stakeholder self-organization
OTHER ISSUES
one-time events (e.g., address the issue for now) AND/OR ongoing
process (e.g., community learning system)
affordability AND/OR quality outcomes
time constraints AND/OR quality outcomes
A THIRD CONSIDERATION
IN DESIGNING MULTI-PROCESS DIALOGUE AND DELIBERATION PROGRAMS::
DESIGNING FOR COMMUNITY INTELLIGENCE:
EMBRACING AND TRANSCENDING THE USUAL LOGIC OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
There is a widely noted "spectrum" or "ladder"
of public participation, which I'll illustrate here with two
of its most common forms:
a) the International Association for Public Participation
(IAP2)'s "Spectrum of Public Participation" http://www.iap2.org/practitionertools/spectrum.html
ranges through the following functions, from high power to low:
Empower
Collaborate
Involve
Consult
Inform
b) Sherry Arnstein's classic "Ladder of Public Participation"
http://www.partnerships.org.uk/part/arn.htm
ranges through similar functions, from high power to low:
8 Citizen Control (Citizen Power)
7 Delegated power
6 Partnership
5 Placation (Tokenism)
4 Consultation
3 Informing
2 Therapy (Non-Participation)
1 Manipulation
I want to suggest that there is a further stage, which I am
calling community intelligence. From the community intelligence
perspective, the reason we need to inform, consult with, engage
or empower citizens is to build the community's capacity to reflect
and respond collectively, as a whole. To succeed we need to do
all these functions and more.
The community intelligence approach looks at the society,
itself, as the holonic unit and seeks to improve the capacity
of the social whole as an organism. While it includes many of
the functions addressed in public participation and empowerment,
such as those listed below, it is not the isolated functions
themselves that make the focus on community intelligence unique,
but the recognition that all these functions need to be addressed
together and in service to this larger community capacity. It
is almost as if empowerment + systems thinking leads us to the
idea of community intelligence.
Below is one model of community intelligence that looks at
some basic functions that need to be served if a community is
to be whole, alive, informed and thoughtful.
1. Community information - Alerting and informing the
community about public conditions and issues, and the activities
being undertaken to handle them. This includes official briefings,
media of all kinds, formal and informal punditry, and other sources
of information on public concerns.
2. Community conversation - Connecting up the lives
and interests of the community's members through every type of
conversation -- formal and informal; online and off; among citizens,
stakeholders, experts and officials.
3. Community healing - Healing fragmentation and adversity
among the community's diverse groups through full and deep hearing
and often a search for common ground.
4. Community engagement - Helping members of the community
find meaningful, coherent ways to work together to serve their
community. This "coming together" can take many forms,
such as networking, self-organization, collective visioning,
collaborative management, etc.
5. Public judgment - Involving diverse members of the
community in together shaping the governance of the community,
identifying sensible policies and programs. This involves deliberation
among stakeholders and/or members of the general public.
6. Public reflection - Generating the insight, oversight
and wisdom (see Appendix C) needed to guide life in the community.
This function watches the community, from the inside and out.
It persistently delves into the underlying dynamics of what does
or doesn't make sense, welcoming dissonance, emotion, honesty,
and anything else that clarifies and "processes" what's
going on. It involves various deepening activities by individuals,
relationships, groups and the whole community.
Community intelligence will thrive to the extent that all
these functions are being served. In Appendix A they are explored
further, including notes about processes that serve them.
But for our present purposes, I want to now explore some of
the kinds of thinking involved in designing for community intelligence.
Again, this is a rough draft which could benefit from more co-creative
development and "cooking." Hopefully it points in intriguing,
potentially useful directions for further thinking.
SOME BASIC PRINCIPLES, ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR
DESIGNING COMMUNITY INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS AND PROGRAMS
A. BUY-IN: Partisan stakeholders, decisionmakers and
the public can all play roles in implementing and/or impeding
needed community solutions and initiatives. They will most likely
be an asset to implementation to the extent they are engaged
in the process -- from education and input at the beginning,
through full co-creative deliberative efforts to understand the
issues and craft solutions, to providing their reactions to proposals
along the way and in the end.
B. UNITY/DIVERSITY: Community wisdom (e.g., high quality
outcomes) is invoked by recognizing and nurturing both diversity
(demographics, full-spectrum information, dissent, etc.) and
unity (common ground, convergence, similarities, etc.). Of course,
unity and diversity can also be destructive, appearing in such
familiar forms as acrimonious divisiveness and stultifying conformity.
In most cases, a process is helpful to the extent that it supports
people in using both diversity and unity creatively.
C. HEARING: Defensiveness, assertiveness and withdrawal
are all minimized when people feel they are really being heard.
When people feel they've been adequately heard, they tend to
ease up on their certainties and boundaries and to open up to
people and ideas around them. Real co-creativity can usually
get off the ground only to the extent people have felt really
heard.
So the more diversity (of people, perspectives, information,
etc.) we engage with and fully hear, the wiser our results will
be, the more people will view the process as fair and legitimate,
and the more cooperation we will get. The sooner and longer people
are engaged and honored in the process, the more sense of ownership
they will have in the outcomes. And the more effective the group
process and facilitation are, the more our diversity will be
engaged in a creative manner, which will generate better outcomes.
D. COLLECTIVE LEARNING: Learning is an ongoing iterative
process, filled with informational feedback loops. Community
intelligence is enhanced by ongoing engagements, with insights
from one process feeding into another, and with real-world results
of earlier insights, actions and policies being fed back into
community conversations and deliberations. Although resource
limitations are a real factor, one-time, one-process events are
inherently limited in how much community health or evolution
they can produce. (However, if community intelligence systems
were applied to the subject of "lack of resources for community
well-being," the chances are good that that problem would
cease to be such a problem.)
E. DEMOCRATIC ROLES: We encounter many different assumptions
about democracy when we design programs like this. One of the
questions we might ask is: What are people's assumptions about
the relative decisionmaking roles of the following categories
of people?
- the citizenry
- stakeholders
- elected officials
- professional bureaucrats
Each group has gifts to bring to the table and legitimate
claims to participation. But each group also brings limitations
and problems. Below I've listed some roles characteristic of
each class of participants. None of these lists are complete,
but I believe they are sufficient to make the case that all four
groups should be given significant but limited roles in both
deliberation and decisionmaking.
- The values, interests and majoritarian power of the CITIZENRY
as a whole are by definition the foundation of democracy and
there is vast untapped intelligence, creativity and concern in
the general public.
- STAKEHOLDERS collectively hold important information,
expertise and passion, having very high "interest"
in the issues they're connected with. Furthermore, some definitions
of democracy suggest that those most affected by a decision should
be most involved in making it.
- ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIALS are the primary empowered
decisionmakers in our republican form of government and tend
to have an overview of the larger landscape of issues and forces
shaping the community.
- PROFESSIONAL BUREAUCRATS tend to have vital knowledge
of the ongoing constraints and demands related to issues in their
domain and are usually the ones who have to implement the decisions
of government.
At the same time, each of these groups is problematic as a
decisionmaking power and participant in democratic dialogue and
deliberation.
The effective contribution of CITIZENS to productive
public dialogue and deliberation is often limited by
- ignorance of important information related to any given issue
- our adversarial political culture (which reinforces sides,
positions, conflict)
- the absence of opportunities and infrastructure needed to
experience dialogue and deliberation
- personal life factors (time, money, demands, distractions,
etc.)
- a cynical sense that government is inept, corrupt, etc.
- vulnerability to manipulation through mass media and unhealthy
social dynamics
The effective contribution of STAKEHOLDERS to productive
public dialogue and deliberation is often limited by
- our adversarial political culture (which reinforces sides,
positions, conflict)
- their intrinsic bias and positionality (defending their "stake"
or "interest"), which can close their hearts and minds
- the absence of opportunities and infrastructure needed to
experience dialogue and deliberation
- a cynical sense that the general public is ignorant and easily
manipulated.
- a cynical sense that government is inept, corrupt, etc.
The effective contribution of ELECTED OFFICIALS to
productive public dialogue and deliberation is often limited
by
- media attention and bias in favor of conflict, scandal, etc.
- our adversarial political culture (which reinforces sides,
positions, conflict)
- political turf and ego issues
- a cynical sense that the public is ignorant, fickle, divisive,
etc.
- vulnerability to the manipulations and constraints of powerholders
and wealthy supporters
- a need to limit and shift their attention on various issues
according to political winds
- the absence of opportunities and infrastructure needed to
experience dialogue and deliberation
- legal constraints (e.g. sunshine laws) that inhibit openness
and authenticity
The effective contribution of PROFESSIONAL BUREAUCRATS
to productive public dialogue and deliberation is often limited
by
- bureaucratic turf and ego issues
- a cynical sense that the public is ignorant, fickle, divisive,
etc.
- our adversarial political culture (which reinforces sides,
positions, conflict)
- the absence of opportunities and infrastructure needed to
experience dialogue and deliberation
- a tight web of laws, regulations, requirements, institutional
arrangements, etc., feeding a general sense of constraint, fed
by hard experience, that can impede openness and creativity
This suggests that no one of these groups should be central
in designs for community intelligence systems and programs. It
also suggests that their diverse strengths can be supported and
their diverse limitations ameliorated in properly planned dialogues
and deliberations (as well as institutional changes that shift
distorted power arrangements).
So another basic principle might be
Healthy deliberative systems respect the gifts and limitations
of the general citizenry, stakeholders, elected officials and
bureaucrats. As a result, we need to include in the multi-process
programs deliberations that empower each group, with the others
on tap to them, AND, also, forums in which all of these groups
are peers.*
For example, citizen deliberative councils empower citizens.
The other three groups and other experts may testify to the citizen
panel to ameliorate the citizens' ignorance. On the other hand,
government briefings tend to empower officials -- and the citizens
and stakeholders can ask questions and give input to clarify
for officials the political context in which they're working.
Consensus councils empower stakeholders -- and government officials
and citizens may show up only as stakeholders. An Open Space
or World Cafe can be designed so that all groups can participate
as interested equal parties.
However, we need to keep in mind that the ongoing effective
power is (in our current system) in the hands of the government
officials and that public participation programs are primarily
about giving citizens and stakeholders a greater and/or more
deliberative voice. So the primary balance of power we want may
be between the citizenry as a whole and the full spectrum of
stakeholders.
F. ALL-STAGE ENGAGEMENT: In handling any social concern
we can consider five main points in the process where voices
can be heard, deliberations done, or power exerted:
· framing the issue (articulation, selection, analysis,
prioritization)
· establishing guidelines for addressing the problem (values,
principles, design criteria, etc.)
· creating, evaluating, and selecting options or solutions
· implementing selected solutions
· reviewing and evaluating the results
Ideally both the public and stakeholder groups would have
a deliberative say at each stage (and sub-stage, such as creating
AND evaluating AND selecting solutions). For efficiency, they
could share power -- as in the famous division of labor in which
Sandy cuts the pie and Martha chooses the first piece. For example,
priority community problems could be identified by a citizen-based
Wisdom Council. A Consensus Council could establish guidelines
for addressing the problem and offer a stakeholder-derived consensus
solution. This could be evaluated (and compared with other options)
by a Citizens Jury. Their findings and recommendations could
be worked over by an all-party Open Space Conference. Public
officials could then suggest what they think will work politically
and an AmericaSpeaks event could evaluate that. Etc.
_ _ _ _
Some other areas (among many) about which preliminary principles
could be developed:
a) Role of information: Under what circumstances is certain
information too little or too much or two biased or too left-brained
or.... and what are the consequences of and solutions to those
things... what is the role of the internet as a source of info
in public deliberation... how do we include official and unofficial
(or mainstream and alternative) info sources... etc.
b) The intrinsic value of small groups deliberating with privileged
information access, time and process facilitation AND broad participation
processes AND media coverage/broad public awareness. There should
be feedback loops between these three kinds of activity for maximum
community intelligence.
c) ......
_____________
* Experts are another important category which could
be included in this analysis. Many people in the four categories
explored here are themselves experts. However, outside of the
four categories above, experts are properly seen as sources of
information (on tap) rather than as legitimate active players
in decisionmaking. The fact that they, like corporate executives
and power brokers, sometimes make decisions that can affect the
lives of millions is a subject for another essay. For our purposes
here, their participation should be limited to supplying facts,
insight into relevant dynamics, and a sense of the possible consequences
of various options.
APPENDIX A:
A MODEL THAT ARTICULATES SOME FUNCTIONS THAT SERVE COMMUNITY
INTELLIGENCE AND SOME PROCESSES THAT SUPPORT THOSE FUNCTIONS
As described in Essay 3, we can envision five functions that
serve to generate and sustain community intelligence:
1. Community information
2. Community conversation
3. Community healing
4. Community engagement
5. Public judgment
6. Public reflection
(Underlying these functions are the resources, infrastructure
and culture that support them. These include time, space, technology,
facilitation, money, know-how, etc. I want to acknowledge here
the vital importance of these factors, while leaving for later
their analysis and incorporation into the model.)
Each of the functions 1-6 is described below in terms of its
purpose and the general process patterns that characterize it.
Also included are occasional notes and one or more examples of
methods and approaches that serve the function being described.
Several of the functions are broken down into sub-functions which
are similarly described.
Occasionally a function description will include notes about
activities that, though not always characteristic of that function,
greatly enhance community intelligence when they are present.
They are indicated by "(Enhancement)."
1. The Community Information Function
Purpose: To alert and inform the community regarding
public conditions and issues, and the activities being undertaken
to handle them.
The pattern that defines this function:
a. Welcome all forms, modes and shades of information and
perspective.
b. Make sure relevant information is accessible and known.
c. Facilitate knowledge about information (assumptions,
sources, biases, relativity, "media literacy," etc.).
d. (Enhancement) Generate high quality information (e.g.,
timely, accurate, balanced, relevant, clarifying, empowering,
feedback, etc.).
Note: The community information function can include
any one-way or non-conversational communication. To the extent
communication is non-responsive (as is often true at public hearings),
it is at best informational. Even Q&A sessions, if tightly
controlled, would qualify primarily as informational. As soon
as information begins to be exchanged back and forth responsively,
it becomes part of the second function, conversation. Much "public
participation" is informational only. Informational activities
are vital to any program aimed at community intelligence, especially
where there feedback is needed or where informational outputs
from one process become informational inputs for another process.
Examples: Briefing materials, much email and web material,
Freedom of Information Acts, Sunshine laws, libraries, novels
and drama with social themes, instructional activities, whistle
blowers, broadcast and print media -- especially civic journalism
that provides balanced information and feeds the results and
stories of dialogue and deliberation back into the community.
2. The Community Conversation Function.
Purpose: To connect people, share thoughts and feelings,
learn together, coordinate lives and activities, and move information,
insight and possibility through the community.
The pattern that defines this function:
a. Ensure freedom and safety to speak and associate.
b. People listen - the more fully, the better.
c. People speak - the more authentically, the better.
d. Help others do b and c.
e. (Enhancement) Provide resources, spaces, and opportunities
for people to do b and c.
Note: A conversational "field" made up of all informal
and convened conversations in the community provides the context
within which all the other conversations listed in this study
can flourish and benefit the community. To the extent a general
conversational environment does not exist (e.g., where people
spend all their time in front of their TVs or where there is
public suppression), the specialized conversations that follow
are limited in their impact. The conversational "field"
interacts with the informational "field" generated
by the community information function, above, with conversations
generating, evolving or moving information, and new information
informing the unfolding conversations.
Examples: Conversation Cafés, salons, potlucks,
many seminars and educational activities, participatory listervs
and online conferences, hang-out spaces...
3. The Community Healing Function
Purpose: To dissolve stereotypes, heal intergroup alienation,
and build relationships
The pattern that defines this function:
a. Convene diverse citizens, partisans or stakeholders.
b. Help them hear and understand themselves and each other
better.
c. (Enhancement) Help them clarify new ways to relate to each
other.
Note: If the participants are leaders or networkers in their
communities, they will spread their resulting experience and
understanding into those communities, generating impact beyond
the forum itself. This factor can be strategically designed in
to a process and, since the community healing function is a part
of most of the functions that follow (in the sense that those
functions necessarily engage creatively with differences), this
"leaders as participants" factor is also a factor in
all of them.
Examples: Public Conversation Project, Commons Café,
Intergroup Dialogue, various approaches to conflict resolution.
4. The Community Engagement Function
Purpose: To engage people in co-creating ways they
can work together to improve conditions in their community or
world
The pattern that defines this function:
a. Gather concerned citizens.
b. Help them understand the issues and each other.
c. Help them create or connect up with activities to make
a difference.
Notes: This can feed into other community intelligence initiatives,
as when participants decide to engage in policy-making or lobbying,
or decide to draw other people into dialogue and deliberation.
Participation in this type of process feeds people's sense of
citizenship as informed, effective agents of change.
Examples: Study circle programs, self-replicating living-room
presentations (e.g., Beyond War); see also below.
4A. The Community Engagement Function - self-organization
The pattern that defines this function:
a. Help interested people find each other and talk.
b. Let them take any actions together they want to.\
c. Repeat (a) and (b) fractally.
Example: Open Space Technology
4B. The Community Engagement Function - vision
The pattern that defines this function:
a. Gather stakeholders and/or citizens together.
b. Help them understand issues and each other by reviewing
what's been happening.
c. Develop a shared vision or purpose.
d. Help them organize for diverse actions to serve that shared
vision or purpose.
e. (Enhancement) Help them periodically review their progress.
Examples: Future Search, Community Vision programs
4C. The Community Engagement Function - collaborative management
The pattern that defines this function:
a. Convene key stakeholders across all relevant sectors, including
government agencies.
b. Help them uncover and understand each other's interests
and needs, capacities and resources, and relationship to the
area concerned.
c. Facilitate their identifying and implementing shared management
initiatives for the area concerned.
d. Help (a)-(c) become a self-organizing, self-managing, adaptive
process.
Example: Collaborative Watershed Management Councils
(EPA sponsored)
5. The Public Judgment Function
Purpose: To bring the diversity of the community together
to influence the work of governance
The pattern that defines this function:
a. Convene a broad spectrum of people to consider an issue,
option, candidate, etc.
b. Help them engage with a broad spectrum of information and
perspectives about it -- including each other's.
c. Help them deliberate about it to a collective judgment.
d. Pass on their responses to the public, media and decisionmakers.
e. (Variable) Expect those findings and recommendations to
shape subsequent policies and programs (or set up things so that
they have impact automatically).
Notes: In step (c) a true consensus -- all parties co-creating
outcomes that serve the whole -- is desirable. But if true consensus
cannot be achieved, respectfully articulated differences and
voting are preferable to compromises resulting in agreements
that few like or that don't really deal with the issue. Also,
as in the fourth function (community engagement), participation
in this type of process feeds people's sense of citizenship,
although this time through their sense of impacting their government.
Examples:
5A. Public Judgment Function - Stakeholder Deliberative
Councils.
Purpose: To address hot issues by developing less controversial
proposals that diverse partisans can all buy in to.
The pattern that defines this function:
a. Convene a broad spectrum of partisans and/or stakeholders
to consider an issue.
b. Have them share their views, concerns and expectations.
c. Help them deliberate about the issue to a collective judgment.
d. Pass on their recommendations to decisionmakers and possibly
the public and media as well.
e. Expect those findings and recommendations to influence
subsequent policies and programs, since they are politically
safer than prevailing alternatives.
Note: If participating stakeholders are formally answerable
to constituents, deliberations may be impeded to the extent participants
are locked into previously authorized positions. However, the
success of any agreements, policies or programs may be enhanced
by participants caucusing with or getting feedback from their
constituents before deliberations are complete.
The more anyone has the power to
implement or undermine any decisions, the more politically smart
it is to include them in the deliberations, one way or another.
If all partisans and sectors are "on board" implementation
will probably be smooth.
Example: Consensus Councils
5B. Public Judgment Function - Citizen Feedback Forums
Purpose: To provide informed, thoughtful public opinion
feedback on official proposals, both to guide public officials
and to help the public feel it has been engaged.
The pattern that defines this function:
a. Convene a broad spectrum of citizens to consider an issue
or set of options. Preferably select a fair cross section of
the community, such as random selection or stratified sampling.
b. Introduce them to the issue or options. (Enhancement: Make
additional info or expertise available.)
c. Help them share their diverse reactions with each other
and do some deliberation.
d. Poll them on their responses to various options or approaches
to the issue.
e. Summarize their responses for the public, media and/or
decisionmakers.
Note: These processes tend to engage hundreds or thousands
of people. This is particularly important to the extent they
involve less in-depth study and deliberation than processes in
5C below. Especially in these circumstances, mass participation
improves sampling validity, public visibility and public acceptance.
Examples: AmericaSpeaks, Deliberative Polling, Focus
Groups, Televote audiences
5C. Public Judgment Function - Citizen Deliberative Councils
Purpose: To provide trustworthy public judgment on
public issues, thereby advising official policy-makers and often
the electorate.
The pattern that defines this function:
a. Temporarily convene a broad spectrum of citizens to consider
an issue or set of options. Preferably select a fair cross section
of the community, such as random selection or stratified sampling.
b. Give them balanced briefings about the issue and access
to expert testimony in which citizens can cross-examine and/or
dialogue with the experts.
c. Help them deliberate about the issue to a collective judgment.
d. Pass on their findings and recommendations to the public,
media and/or decisionmakers.
e. Expect those findings and recommendations to shape subsequent
policies and programs (or set up things so that they do).
Note: Public opinion can make or break public policies and
programs, and most of the public won't have gone through the
full deliberative process above. Therefore, the public may not
adequately understand the outcomes in (d). If the citizen deliberative
council dialogues with a representative group of the public (as
in 5B) during their deliberations, they can adjust their statement
to enhance its public acceptance. Pre-publication feedback from
experts, stakeholders, and decisionmakers may also allow useful
adjustments.
Examples: Citizen Juries, Consensus Conferences, Planning
Cells
6. The Public Reflection Function
Purpose: To help the community see itself clearly on
an ongoing basis and to find the wisdom it needs to guide itself
(see also Appendix C)
The pattern that defines this function:
a. Watch what's happening -- particularly outcomes of the
activities described above.
b. Seek out and make available what is not normally welcomed
-- what is hidden, nuanced, paradoxical, repressed, emotional,
novel, creative, dissonant, etc.
c. Help people fathom, clarify and develop their thoughts,
feelings, values, needs, experience -- individually and collectively.
d. Engage them in conversations where they can do a-c repeatedly.
e. Use a-d to develop individual and collective insight.
f. Feed the insight back into a, b, c and d and see what emerges,
over and over.
Notes: This process happens, more or less, in and around all
successful dialogue and deliberation activities. It affects people's
sense of citizenship more quietly than in the other functions,
as a feeling of engaging meaningfully with their neighbors or
others.
Also note that particularly wise
people and writings can serve this work as long as they are on
tap, not on top of the emergent citizen wisdom. They need to
be seen as grist for the mill of individual and collective reflection.
To the extent any variety of external wisdom colonizes people's
reflective activity, it will become harder to do a-e.
Finally, note that specific reflective
methods usually involve high-quality questions or inquiries to
invite attention to potentially significant areas.
6A. Individual reflection (often done with help from others)
Examples: Clearness sessions, Strategic Questioning,
some psychotherapies and dialogic spiritual practices such as
Focusing
6B. Relational reflection
Examples: Nonviolent Communication, Radical Honesty,
T-Groups
6C. Group or organizational reflection
Examples: Listening Circle (native Council), World
Café, Group Silence, Dynamic Facilitation, Bohmian Dialogue
6D. Community reflection.
The pattern that defines this function:
a. Temporarily convene a broad spectrum of citizens to consider
the state and direction of the community. Preferably select a
fair cross section of the community, using random selection or
stratified sampling.
b. Help them articulate and explore their community concerns,
and let those concerns guide the flow of conversation. Help them
speak from the heart and really hear each other.
c. Help them discover what they want to share -- as their
consensus statement -- with the community at large about how
it's doing and the directions it is (and could be) going.
d. Pass on their statement to the public, media and decisionmakers.
Note: As a feedback loop for the community to see itself more
clearly, this process is most effective when officially mandated
by the People, when done regularly (with a new group) every 3-12
months, and when carried out with considerable fanfare and media
coverage. If this is all done, the process tends to increase
the identity of We, the People as a self-aware living entity.
Examples: Wisdom Councils, Maclean's magazine
1991 "People's Verdict" process
APPENDIX B
FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESSES
Whenever we desire certain characteristics in a public participation
program design, it would help if we had data about which processes
or approaches had or produced those characteristics.
Public officials who are seeking public input have seldom
had the opportunity to become aware of the nuances of what is
possible in such programs and so haven't given much thought to
what characteristics they want or how to produce them.
Creating a list of characteristics -- and the processes that
have those characteristics -- might assist in clarifying the
thinking of convenors and organizers about what kind of program
they actually want, what is possible, and how to design multi-process
programs to deliver what they need. It is possible that various
survey instruments, interventions and consultations based on
such a list could be developed to support high quality planning
and outcomes.
Below is a first cut at such a list. It analyzes 14 processes
in relation to 28 characteristics. It was originally developed
as a grid, but has been reduced to text form to simplify transmission.
Assignment of characteristics involved one person's subjective
judgment of each process' special strengths, and giving each
process/characteristic combination a yes/no evaluation. More
nuanced and unbiased accuracy might be possible using a numerical
rating system based on the votes of diverse practitioners and
scholars.
The 14 processes included in this survey are
The 28 characteristics are listed below. They are sorted into
non-exclusive categories for greater accessibility.
This analysis is naturally limited by my own individually
limited knowledge, perspective, judgment-calls and biases. However,
if this analytic approach were judged worthy by practitioners
and scholars, the next obvious step would be to engage more people
in correcting errors, expanding the list of processes and modifying
and extending the list of characteristics. (This could be done
continuously in an interactive online forum like a Wiki.) However,
I believe the processes and characteristics selected here are
sufficient for any interested practitioner to understand, evaluate
and, if they wish, contribute to and use this approach.
SOME FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SOME PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
PROCESSES
Community Alignment Characteristics
Helps resolve stakeholder conflicts - Consensus Councils
Gets diverse sectors "on the same page" - Consensus
Councils, Future Search
Helps resolve community conflicts - Study Circles, Commons
Cafe, Wisdom Council, Open Space, Maclean's panel
Assists self-organized action - World Cafe, Open Space, Study
Circles, Future Search
Relationship-building among people who tend to stereotype
each other - Commons Cafe (and much other diversity work), Future
Search, Maclean's Panel, Consensus Council (and also often Open
Space, Conversation Cafe, and Study Circles)
Engagement/Participation Characteristics
Directly involves lots of people (so many feel engaged) -
Conversation cafes, Study Circles, AmericaSpeaks, Televote audiences
Involves many people vicariously through media - Maclean's
panel, Consensus Conference, Wisdom Council, AmericaSpeaks
Provides engagement opportunities for those passionate about
the topic - Open Space, World Cafe, Conversation Cafe, AmericaSpeaks
Convenes "the whole system"
In the form of a microcosm of the whole citizenry - Citizen Jury,
Planning Cells, Consensus Conference, Wisdom Council, AmericaSpeaks,
Maclean's panel;
In the form of a microcosm of major stakeholders/roles - Consensus
Council, Future Search. (World Cafe and Open Space are also often
used that way.)
Open to anyone interested; makes space for the general public
to engage - Conversation Cafe, Study Circles, AmericaSpeaks.
(World Cafe and Open Space can be used that way.)
Involves a microcosm of the polity - Maclean's Panel, Citizen
Jury, Planning Cells, Consensus Conference, Wisdom Council, AmericaSpeaks
Activates forum participants (and their networks) in issue-related
action - Future Search, Consensus Council, Study Circles -- and
usually Open Space and World Cafe.
Learning/Creativity Characteristics
Educates participants (through study) - Citizen Jury, Planning
Cells, Consensus Conference, Study Circles, Televote Audiences
(and often AmericaSpeaks)
Increases participant insight - All of the processes serve
this function, but World Cafe and Wisdom Council are specifically
designed for this purpose.
Makes participants into citizen experts on the issue - Citizen
Jury, Planning Cells, Consensus Conference
Experts involved
On tap to citizens - Citizen Jury, Planning Cells, Consensus
Conference, AmericaSpeaks;
Experts often included among participants - Future Search, Consensus
Council
Fosters out-of-the-box learning and inquires - Wisdom Council,
Open Space, World Cafe, Consensus conferences
On-going or iterative - All of them could be done that way,
but Wisdom Councils and Conversation Cafe's are designed for
that.
Input/Recommendation Characteristics
Provides coherent guidance for officials and the public -
Citizen Jury, Planning Cells, Consensus Conferences, Consensus
Council, Wisdom Council, AmericaSpeaks, Maclean's panel
Generates consensus statements - Consensus conference, Consensus
Council, Wisdom Council, Maclean's Panel. (Citizen Juries strive
for that but it isn't required.)
Process Characteristics
Participant-directed conversation - Wisdom Council, Conversation
Cafe, Open Space, Consensus Conference, Maclean's Panel, World
Cafe
Minor time commitment - Conversation Cafe, World Cafe. (Study
Circles and Open Space can be.)
Simultaneous small-group interactions
In same space and time - World Cafe, AmericaSpeaks, Commons Cafe,
Open Space, Future Search, Planning Cells;
In different spaces and times - Conversation Cafe, Study Circles
In-depth exploration of sub-topics by sub-groups - Open Space,
Planning Cells, Maclean's Panel
Involves decisionmakers in peer dialogue with the public -
AmericaSpeaks is strongest; Open Space and World Cafe can be
easily designed that way; Future Search, Citizen Jury, Planning
Cells and Consensus Conference often do.
Major use of computer/telecommunications technology - AmericaSpeaks,
Televote Audience
Focused on a specific topic - all of them except Wisdom Council,
Commons Cafe, Maclean's Panel, and often Conversation Cafe.
Logistical Characteristics
Inexpensive - Conversation Cafe, Commons Cafe, Study Circles,
World Cafe, Open Space, Wisdom Council
APPENDIX C
GENERATING WISDOM THROUGH DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
A critical systemic dimension of public participation is community
intelligence (see Essay 3
and Appendix A, above). As it deepens and broadens, intelligence
becomes wisdom.
For my purposes here, I'm defining wisdom as the capacity
to transcend limited perspectives towards greater and deeper
understandings and broader, longer-term beneficial outcomes.
Wisdom can also be knowledge, statements or solutions that arise
from such understandings and envisioned outcomes Democratic wisdom
emerges from creative interaction among diverse parties and perspectives,
in co-creative service to the common good. To some extent it
emerges naturally, as the compelling presence of diversity stretches
people's perspectives to be more inclusive.
History is filled with democratic follies and catastrophes
-- and with wisdom that has little impact on the lives of ordinary
people and the fate of civilizations. We need to midwife a coming
together of democracy and wisdom.
We need a democracy capable of generating wisdom grounded
in the lives and perspectives of ordinary people and fully usable
by them, which can simultaneously provide guidance on technical,
obscure public issues that could make or break our survival as
a species.
To that end, we need to clarify what kinds and levels of wisdom
are available to and through democratic processes. So, just as
we have various spectra of public participation (see Essay 3,
above), I believe it would be helpful to come up with a spectrum
of collective wisdom-generating dynamics.
I offer below a draft of such a spectrum. It attempts to clarify
the dynamics through which wisdom can come about in various democratic
processes, conversations and institutions. This presentation
of these dynamics starts at more or less shallower levels of
wisdom-generating power and proceeds to perhaps deeper, more
powerful levels.
Some levels tend to include and transcend the levels below
them, enhancing the sense of a hierarchy of levels. However,
an actual process or conversation may well have elements from
a variety of levels. Many processes characteristically specialize
one level.
A Spectrum of Deepening Wisdom Through Democratic Process
1. BALANCED HEARING - Hearing all major viewpoints,
or the views of a diverse group.
2. SOLIDARITY - Acknowledging differences and conflicts,
while setting them aside to collectively pursue shared goals.
3. FAIR DELIBERATION - Hearing competing views regarding
the leading alternative proposals and then collectively evaluating
them to choose one.
4. NEGOTIATION - Working through differences to outcomes
acceptable to all parties. This often, but not always, involves
compromise.
5. FULL HEARING - Hearing all the relevant voices,
ideas, information and stories -- especially those usually marginalized
-- in a context where they are heard by each other, by the public
and/or by relevant public officials. In the right circumstances,
healing and/or creative outcomes arise naturally from this process.
6. CREATIVE CONSENSUS - Consciously using both differences
and commonalities creatively* to come up with previously unseen
possibilities that engage the life energy of all involved.
7. TRANSFORMATIONAL DIALOGUE - Bringing forth the underlying
perspectives, needs and energies -- and discharging any of their
destructive aspects while empowering their co-creative contribution
towards broadly beneficial outcomes. This differs from creative
consensus primarily in the depth of its shared inquiry into what
underlies various reactions, beliefs and proposals.
8. COMMONS CONSULTATION - Finding collective guidance
in the common ground that exists among the world's great Wisdom
Traditions (e.g., the Golden Rule, respect for the Earth, etc.,
as expressed in such documents as "The Earth Charter"
and "Towards a Global Ethic") as personally experienced
and valued by those involved
9. HOLISTIC DIALOGUE AND DELIBERATION - Creatively
integrating a full spectrum of perspectives with long-term needs
of the whole (community, situation, watershed, world, etc.) --
while honoring the gifts, limitations and evolutionary nature
of all the living systems involved. This usually involves some
form of systems thinking or sensibility. The term "living
systems" can include individual people, groups, organisms,
ecosystems, communities, cultures, etc.
10. SPIRITUAL DEEPENING - Tapping into the deepest
wellsprings of individual and collective wisdom, while still
engaging creatively with any emergent unity or diversity.* This
is particularly difficult in democratic forums because most techniques
for spiritual deepening are associated with particular religious
beliefs, practices or rituals shared by some people and rejected
by others. Yet there is no denying the wisdom-generating capacity
of such techniques. The challenge is how to usefully integrate
a variety of such pursuits -- or to develop generic versions
that are acceptable to widely diverse people and/or have no explicitly
spiritual character.
________________
* Diversity AND commonality can be used creatively OR destructively.
For example, diversity can be used creatively for broadening
understanding, stimulating creativity, and engaging greater resources.
However, as we all know, diversity can also be used destructively
through such dynamics as prejudice, domination and violence.
Likewise, commonality or unity can be used creatively in such
forms as life-affirming values, functional common ground (like
shared language or experience) or a shared spiritual center ("that
of God in every person"). But we have all seen commonality
and unity showing up in destructive or dysfunctional phenomena
like conformity, mob dynamics and cultural blind spots. Community
wisdom can arise from brilliant engagement with these two factors.
Home || What's
New || Search || Who
We Are || Co-Intelligence
|| Our Work || Projects
|| Contact || Don't
Miss || Articles || Topics
|| Books || Links
|| Subscribe || Take
Action || Donate || Legal
Notices
If you have comments about this site,
email cii@igc.org.
Contents copyright © 2003, all rights reserved, with generous
permissions policy (see Legal Notices)
|
