Functional Characteristics Of Public Participation Processes

help edit space_dashboard

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 may 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 Approach 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. The assignment of characteristics are biased by the analyst's subjective judgment of each process' special strengths, and the requirement that each process/characteristic combination be given 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 the orginal analyst's - Tom Atlee's - own individually limited knowledge, perspective, judgment-calls and biases. Please correct errors, add ti the list of processes (see Participatory Processes) and modify and extend the list of characteristics.


The processes and characteristics selected here, however, are sufficient for any interested practitioner to understand, evaluate and, if they wish, contribute to and use this approach.


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 Technology, Macleans Panel


Assists self-organized action - World Cafe, Open Space Technology, Study Circles, Future Search


Relationship-building among people who tend to stereotype each other - Commons Cafe (and much other diversity work), Future Search, Macleans Panel, Consensus Council (and also often Open Space Technology, Conversation Cafe, and Study Circles)


Engagement/Participation Characteristics

Directly involves lots of people (so many feel engaged) - Conversation Cafes, Study Circles, Twenty First Century Town Meeting, Tele Votes


Involves many people vicariously through media - Macleans Panel, Consensus Conference, Wisdom Council, Twenty First Century Town Meeting


Provides engagement opportunities for those passionate about the topic - Open Space Technology, World Cafe, Conversation Cafe, Twenty First Century Town Meeting


Convenes "the whole system"

Open to anyone interested; makes space for the general public to engage - Conversation Cafe, Study Circles, Twenty First Century Town Meeting. (WorldCafe and Open Space Technology can be used that way.)


Involves a microcosm of the polity - Macleans Panel, Citizens Jury, Planning Cells, Consensus Conference, Wisdom Council, Twenty First Century Town Meeting


Activates forum participants (and their networks) in issue-related action - Future Search, Consensus Council, Study Circles -- and usually Open Space Technology and World Cafe.


Learning/Creativity Characteristics

Educates participants (through study) - Citizens Jury, Planning Cells, Consensus Conference, Study Circles, Tele Votes (and often Twenty First Century Town Meeting)


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 - Citizens Jury, Planning Cells, Consensus Conference


Experts involved

Fosters out-of-the-box learning and inquires - Wisdom Council, Open Space Technology, 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 - Citizens Jury, Planning Cells, Consensus Conferences, Consensus Council, Wisdom Council, Twenty First Century Town Meeting, Macleans Panel


Generates consensus statements - Consensus Conference, Consensus Council, Wisdom Council, Macleans Panel. (CitizensJuries strive for that but it isn't required.)


Process Characteristics

Participant-directed conversation - Wisdom Council, Conversation Cafe, Open Space Technology, Consensus Conference, Macleans Panel, World Cafe


Minor time commitment - Conversation Cafe, World Cafe. (StudyCircles and Open Space Technology can be.)


Simultaneous small-group interactions

In-depth exploration of sub-topics by sub-groups - Open Space Technology, Planning Cells, Macleans Panel


Involves decisionmakers in peer dialogue with the public - Twenty First Century Town Meeting is strongest; Open Space Technology and World Cafe can be easily designed that way; Future Search, Citizens Jury, Planning Cells and Consensus Conference often do.


Major use of computer/telecommunications technology - Twenty First Century Town Meeting, Tele Vote


Focused on a specific topic - all of them except Wisdom Council, Commons Cafe, Macleans Panel, and often Conversation Cafe.


Logistical Characteristics

Inexpensive - Conversation Cafe, Commons Cafe, Study Circles, World Cafe, Open Space Technology, Wisdom Council