Handbook on Citizen Engagement: Beyond Consultation - SASANet

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix A. An Overview of Public Participation Methods (cont’d)Method Description Strengths Limitations ExamplesScenarioworkshops• Developed by the DanishBoard of Technology.• A scenario is an account or asynopsis of a possible courseof action or events.• Before the workshop, a fewscenarios are presented toinform the participants.• Between 24 to 32 participantscome together for a two daymeeting (decision makers,experts and citizens)• Using the scenarios asstarting point, the participantsformulate new ideas, solutionsand recommendations.• Generate dialogue,collaboration and planningbetween every actor.• Small size of individual groupsand their non-intimidatingnature allows for innovativeideas and active participation.• Less exclusive than citizenjuries, but still only a fewindividuals participate• Potential problems lie in initialstages of preparation (e.g.,selection of panel members,agenda setting)• Process requires significantresources and intensive timecommitment for participantsand organizers.• Can be difficult to generateneutral and complete briefingmaterial• Used in Denmark, Germany,Great Britain, theNetherlands, Austria andSwitzerland.• Urban ecology 1991–1993• The future of public libraries1995–1996• European AwarenessScenario Workshop (EASW)Initiative launched by theEuropean Commission 1993-1994• EUROPTA project 1998-1999Key references on scenario workshops:Andersen IE and Jaeger B. “Scenario Workshops and Consensus Conferences : Towards more Democratic Decision-Making”. Science andPublic Policy 1999, 26(5): 331-340.Danish Board of Technology. [www.tekno.dk].52 CANADIAN POLICY RESEARCH NETWORKS
Appendix A. An Overview of Public Participation Methods cont’dAppendix A. An Overview of Public Participation Methods (cont’d)Method Description Strengths Limitations Examples• James Fishkin developed themethod in 1988.Deliberative polls were used:Deliberativepolls• Builds on the opinion poll byincorporating element ofdeliberation• Measures what public wouldthink if it was informed andengaged around an issue• Composed of a randomlyselected sample of citizens:• Large or small groups (50 to500+ persons)• Involves polling theparticipants, followed bydiscussion, and finally, pollingthem again.• Provides insights into publicopinions and how peoplecome to decisions• Seeks informed opinions,does not force people toreach consensus• Large, random sample• Changes in responses can beobserved after the deliberativeintervention takes place• Help to measure citizen’svalues and preferences• Small size of individual groupsand their non-intimidatingnature allows for innovativeideas and active participation• Incentives (e.g., honorarium,transportation) are importantrequires a lot of preparationtime• Although sample size is largeand random, ensuringrepresentativeness is difficult• Process requires significantresources and intensive timecommitment for participantsand organizers.• Can be difficult to generateneutral and complete briefingmaterial• In Great Britain for the futureof the National Health Serviceand for policies to reducecriminality.• In Australia for thereconciliation with nativepeoples and the abolition ofmonarchy.• In Denmark for the adoptionof the Euro as nationalcurrency.• In the USA for energy andenvironmental policies.• In 2002, a similar method wasused for the project Listeningto the City : Remember andRebuild to rebuild LowerManhattan.Key references on deliberative polls:Center for Deliberative Democracy. [http://cdd.stanford.edu/polls/index.html].Fishkin JS. The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.Fishkin JS., Luskin RC and Jowell R. “Deliberative Polling and Public Consultation”. Parliamentary Affairs 2000, 53(4) : 657-666.CANADIAN POLICY RESEARCH NETWORKS 53
Page 1:
Handbook on Citize
Page 4 and 5:
Chapter VIII. Case Examples .......
Page 6 and 7: Other sectors (non-profit, private,
Page 8 and 9: Chapter II. What Is Citizen Engagem
Page 10 and 11: and actions. It sees dialogue as mo
Page 12 and 13: Figure 1. VCH Community Engagement
Page 14 and 15: ) The hopes and fears of citizen en
Page 16 and 17: Chapter IV. Institutionalizing Citi
Page 18 and 19: Chapter V. Engaging Members of Spec
Page 20 and 21: Table 5. Barriers to Participation
Page 22 and 23: Chapter VI. Engaging Aboriginal Com
Page 24 and 25: For further reading:Government of S
Page 26 and 27: 2. Assessing citizen engagement req
Page 28 and 29: For further reading:Involve, a UK-b
Page 30 and 31: For further reading:Vancouver Coast
Page 32 and 33: Who will be making decisions regard
Page 34 and 35: Appendix 1 provides one page summar
Page 36 and 37: Visit Ascentum’s website “dialo
Page 38 and 39: For a great section on monitoring a
Page 40 and 41: Information to provide participants
Page 42 and 43: Chapter VIII. Case ExamplesThe foll
Page 44 and 45: The success of these dialogues is c
Page 46 and 47: The Tenant Participation System has
Page 48 and 49: Chapter IX. Practical TipsHere are
Page 50 and 51: Endnotes123456789101112131415161718
Page 52 and 53: 3940414243Most information regardin
Page 54 and 55: Appendix A. An Overview of Public P
Page 58 and 59: Appendix A. An Overview of Public P
show all

Handbook on Citizen Engagement: Beyond Consultation - SASANet

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?