When public engagement became real.
The evolution of modern engagement practice – moving from manipulation to collaboration.
The evolution of modern engagement practice – moving from manipulation to collaboration.
Prior to the 1990s the public was considered little more than a hurdle to overcome in the battle for progress.
Our International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) pioneers were part of a movement to recognise the value in what the public offered by their participation.
Featured here are interviews with the people who created the IAP2 building blocks. Their impetus was the troubling state of public participation practices in the 90s when what passed for public participation was mostly tokenistic. The tools were developed to describe the intent of our practice, not only to decision makers, but to ourselves. Over time, tools such as the IAP2 core values, code of ethics and IAP2 spectrum have become crucial to redefining the intent and intrinsic value of the public’s involvement in decision-making.
- So what was happening at the time that led to these tools?
- What makes them still resonate today?
- How have the challenges to meaningful public participation changed and what challenges have persisted?
These are the questions we set out to answer when we embarked on these interviews.
Prior to the 1990s the public was considered little more than a hurdle to overcome in the battle for progress.
Our International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) pioneers were part of a movement to recognise the value in what the public offered by their participation.
Featured here are interviews with the people who created the IAP2 building blocks. Their impetus was the troubling state of public participation practices in the 90s when what passed for public participation was mostly tokenistic. The tools were developed to describe the intent of our practice, not only to decision makers, but to ourselves. Over time, tools such as the IAP2 core values, code of ethics and IAP2 spectrum have become crucial to redefining the intent and intrinsic value of the public’s involvement in decision-making.
- So what was happening at the time that led to these tools?
- What makes them still resonate today?
- How have the challenges to meaningful public participation changed and what challenges have persisted?
These are the questions we set out to answer when we embarked on these interviews.
Doug Sarno discusses the confusion for both stakeholders and decision makers in the 90s to understand what the intended goals and outcomes were supposed to be for public participation. He explains how the tools developed by IAP2 were explicitly designed to define and align the implicit promise of power sharing with the actual intent and commitment of the decision maker.
“The Spectrum is about power sharing, from none to total”
Marty Rozelle discusses the modern movement beginning in the 80s to replace manipulative, perfunctory public engagement with legitimate public participation. The interview then resolves into a lively conversation about the ethical dilemmas of the time, the creation of the IAP2 Core Values and the “radical” contention that better, more sustainable decisions could be created by involving the public.
“The best decision isn’t necessarily the best technical decision, it’s the one that can be permitted and built”
Lewis Michaelson discusses the challenges that government staff faced in the 80s and 90s within their organizations in trying to carry out public participation that was transparent and non-manipulative, which was the impetus for creating a Code of Ethics. He offers his perspective on why IAP2 tools like the Core Values, Code of Ethics, and Spectrum remain relevant 40 years later.
“The disincentives 40 years ago to take the time and resources to conduct meaningful public participation haven’t changed.”
Bojinka Bishop discusses the Principles of Authentic Communication in the context of how important it is for public participation to build and maintain trust. She touches on the reluctance of government agencies and the private sector to be open when there is bad news. She then delves into the persistent tendency for experts to believe they already know best and that the public has nothing useful to contribute to identifying better solutions.
“Truth right now is a very controversial subject”
“Public consultation is ideally calm, rational people chatting about non-urgent risks, but it is often not the reality.”
John Godec discusses the initial resistance among public participation practitioners to embrace the lessons gleaned from risk communication experts based on their behavioral science research. He touches on the concerns expressed about the potential unethical use of such principles and how he and others helped formulate the methods and guardrails for their incorporation into the public participation field to ensure their ethical use.
“Giving control back to affected people is key to mitigating their anger and fear when they believe they’ve lost control of their situation.”
Vivien discusses the IAP2 influence in shaping practice in Australasia. In her view, introduction of the IAP2 frameworks changed the focus to gathering public input on decisions yet to be made. Prior practice had focused on ‘dealing’ with the public and informing about decisions already made. Vivien was inspired by what occurred when you allow people to talk. She concludes that good practice has to be able to leave the community better off as a result.
“When you totally see what you can do given the chance, you don’t want to do anything else.”
This project is brought to you by Lewis Michaelson and Margaret Harvie enquiries at info@plancom.com.au