1 / 15

Deliberative methods: engaging citizens in collective decision-making

Deliberative methods: engaging citizens in collective decision-making. Andrew Thompson University of edinburgh. Conflicts of interest.      Who has paid you to give talks? My university pays my salary and my travel/subsistence costs  Who has paid you for advice? No one

ghazi
Download Presentation

Deliberative methods: engaging citizens in collective decision-making

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Deliberative methods:engaging citizens in collective decision-making Andrew Thompson University of edinburgh

  2. Conflicts of interest •     Who has paid you to give talks? • My university pays my salary and my travel/subsistence costs • Who has paid you for advice? • No one • Who has funded your research? • My university through my salary • Who has paid for you to attend conferences? • My university •      Any other interest that could be connected with your work? • None, apart from academic

  3. Context • Government to governance • legitimacy and authority • complexity • stakeholder involvement  better decision-making? • Current practice in learning from citizens • surveys of opinions and evaluations of services • patient /carer stories / emotional touch points • focus groups • membership of committees / fora  largely reactive and individualised

  4. Definitions • Mini-publics (Dahl, 1989): assemblies of citizens, demographically representative of the larger population, brought together to learn and deliberate on a topic to inform public opinion and decision-making • Deliberation involves talk to resolve political conflict and problem-solving, through arguing, demonstrating, expressing and persuading, rather than suppression, oppression, or thoughtless neglect. (Mansbridge et al, 2012) • Two principles (Parkinson, 2004): • 1. Reasoning between people, rather than bargaining between competing interests • 2. A public act, rather than a private act (such as voting)

  5. Purpose in decision-making • From: consumers shopping in the market of ideas through pre-formed individual preferences • often uninformed or unconsidered reactions • To: citizens negotiating the meaning of the public good through democratic and rational processes • more reflective engagement through learning, talking and listening

  6. Stages of mini-publics • Planning and recruitment • stewarding committee (neutral and opposing views) • random and/or purposive selection • Learning • information sources and materials • witnesses/experts/activists/officials/politicians • Deliberation • small groups, face-to-face • Decision-making • reasoned recommendations or decisions • Follow-up • dissemination of outputs and outcomes

  7. Characteristics of participants • Participants in mini-publics are (typically): • randomly selected • to give everyone affected an equal chance of selection • stratified • to reflect a diverse range of socio-demography and any other pertinent characteristics • remunerated • exposed to differing viewpoints • enabled to cross-examine experts (partisan and non-partisan) • supported in all stages of the process by non-partisan facilitators

  8. Forms of deliberation Source: adapted from Elstub and McLaverty (2014).

  9. Advantages • Allows citizens the time and resources to learn and to deliberate to reach an informed decision • Learn how citizens produce informed decisions and what affects their preferences • Engages and empowers citizens to take an active part in decisions that affect them and their communities • Places citizens in realistic dynamic and collective contexts, rather than artificial individual isolation

  10. Challenges • Reflecting the population of interest • equity; diversity; involving the uninvolved • Inclusion of the activists • Prevention of agency capture by vested interests • Mitigating information bias (materials, media, experts) • Outputs are usually recommendations, not decisions • accountability to participants for outcome • Scaling-up / developing infrastructure

  11. Impact • Public policy • involvement of ‘ordinary’ citizens (the ‘wise fool’ rather than the engaged activist) • rational process, rather than vested interests • testing arguments at the micro level before being made at the macro level • opportunities for learning new ways of working for all stakeholders • Participants • increased self-efficacy and empowerment in making complex decisions • Citizens more generally • seen by other citizens to offer proxies for the ‘general public’ (themselves) • Governance • can be combined with other forms of involvement/participation, including representation • increased legitimacy of decisions

  12. Summary • Suited to complex and contentious problems • Generally seen as acceptable methods by citizens • A degree of independence from vested interests • Increased reliability and validity of opinions and decisions • Time consuming • Expensive • Experts and sponsors can manipulate participants • Usually one-off events, rather than continuous review

  13. References • Dahl R (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, Yale University Press. • Elstub S and McLaverty P (eds) (2014). Deliberative democracy: issues and cases. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. • Fishkin J (2009). When the people speak: deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. • Mansbridge J, Bohman J, Chambers S, Christiano T, Fung A, Parkinson J, Thompson DF and Warren ME (2012). A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. In: Parkinson J and Mansbridge J (eds), Deliberative Systems: deliberative democracy at the large scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Parkinson J (2004). Why deliberate? The encounter between deliberation and the new public managers. Public Administration, 82 (2), 377-395.

  14. Potential contributions to health care • Abelson J, Forest P-G, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E and Gauvin F-P (2003). Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science & Medicine, 57, 239–251. • Gregory J, Hartz-Karp J and Watson R (2008). Using deliberative techniques to engage the community in policy development. Australia & New Zealand Health Policy, 5: 16. • Carman KL, Heeringa JW, Heil SKR, Garfinkel S, Windham A, Gilmore D, Ginsburg M, Sofaer S, Gold M and Pathak-SenE (2013). Public deliberation to elicit input on health topics: findings from a literature review. Executive summary. Publication No. EHC 13-070-EF-1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

  15. Questions? • If you wish to continue the conversation, contact me at: • andrew.thompson@ed.ac.uk

More Related