DELIBERATIVE POLLING ® HEPnet Research Skills Workshop, Origins Centre, Wits University Johannesburg 12 – 14 November 2007.

DELIBERATIVE POLLING®

HEPnet Research Skills Workshop, Origins Centre, Wits University

Johannesburg12 – 14 November 2007.

Introduction• Brief background

– Deliberative democracy– Deliberative Polling®

• Definition• Rationale

• Details of the methodology– What it entails– Steps

• Strengths and Weaknesses • Practical applications

– Some case studies

“The process of obtaining useful public input can be one of the most difficult and frustrating aspects of moving infrastructure projects from the planning process to the implementation phase. Some methods of obtaining public input can be contentious and in most cases produce few results that will move a project forward. In fact, the process can forestall projects indefinitely”

Fishkin (1996)

Background IRoots in “deliberative democracy” as coined

by Bessette, J.M. (1980) “Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government”.

“Refers to any system of political decisions based on some trade-off of consensus decision making and representative democracy.”

Deliberative Democracy: Principles• Citizens must decide that deliberation is the basis upon which all

decisions must be based

• Only decisions reached through this procedure can be taken as legitimate and worthy of pursuing

• The process and procedures must be transparent and decisions must be easily traceable back to the deliberative process

• There must be a commitment to respect the pluralism of values and aims as expressed by all

• Each member and all members must be accorded equal opportunities to participate freely in the deliberative processes

Cohen, J. (1989) “Deliberative Democracy & Democratic Legitimacy” in Hamlin, A. & Pettit, P. (eds) The Good Polity. Oxford: Blackwell pp. 17 – 34.

Background II• Method developed by Jim Fishkin in 1988

– First US trial conducted in January 1996 at the National Issues Convention featuring presidential aspirants and broadcast on TV

• Also used in resource planning for the electricity utility industry in a number of states, and the polls brought together 175 – 250 utility customers

– First used internationally with two experiments funded by Channel 4 in Great Britain

• Public education – Northern Ireland • Crime and violence – England

• Deliberative Polling® is a trademark and fees from the trademark go towards supporting research at The Center for Deliberative Polling at Stanford University

Website is http://cdd.stanford.edu/

Deliberation: • Serious, informative & purposeful civil discussions• The process by which a group of individuals (e.g. a

jury in a court case) discusses matters relevant to a particular issue(s) and decides by vote with which argument to support or oppose.

• It is a form of debatedebate that emphasises the use of reasoning and logic (as opposed to power, coercion or emotion) to make an informed choice or sound decisions.

Polling:• Poll: a count of people’s votes/opinions• Closely linked to the phrase “public opinion

polling”: a survey of opinions on an issue(s) from a particular sample.

• Opinion polls are usually designed to represent the opinions of a population by asking a small number of (representative??) people a series of questions and then extrapolating the answers to the larger group within confidence intervals.

DefinitionA process by which a random, representative sample of

citizens in a defined geographic area is selected and to which a brief survey questionnaire is administered to establish their demographic and attitudinal profiles on a particular issue(s) e.g. housing, healthcare, crime & violence, education, renewable energy, etc. Following this baseline poll, members of the representative sample are then invited to gather at a place for a weekend where they will deliberate issues in depth based on a set of carefully balanced and fair briefing materials which are also publicly available. Deliberations are moderated by neutral, trained persons and they involve policy makers, politicians, the public, advocates and/or experts.

Rationale• Opinion polls not as effective as previously assumed

– Most participants are not well-informed on issues so simply provide knee-jerk reactions to the half truths they gather through the media and other sources

– Samples are sometimes questionable

• Deliberative polling addresses the gap between actualactual public opinion and well-informedwell-informed public opinion– Specially designed to show what an informed public would

think more critically about the issues, if only it were enabled to consider its opinions more carefully and deliberately on the basis of impartial information made available to them.

What is required?Three groups are required:

1. A representative sample of the public to deliberate the issue(s)

2. Independent research professionals • maintain a deliberative and ensure a representative process

3. A group of experts and special interest advocates

• To help assure a fair and balanced presentation of the issue(s) and measurement of the resulting opinions

How do Deliberative Polls work?

Three interrelated phases– Phase I: Initiation of the deliberative process– Phase II: The education and engagement of

deliberators through constructive engagements with experts & special interest groups

– Phase III: The post-deliberations stage

Phase I {Initiation}• Select a random, representative sample of the public to

participate– Conduct a pre-event baseline survey on the demographic and

attitudinal profiles of the sample

– Invite a random, representative sub-sample to attend as “deliberators”

– Engage research professionals (“independent third party managers”) to use the survey to assure parties that the community is fairly represented at the event

– Provide the invited “deliberators” with relevant, carefully balanced & fair materials on the issue(s) to be deliberated

• Organisers must create an “Advisory Committee” made up experts & representatives of special interests– Selection criteria based on assuring both the substance and the

appearance of a fair and balanced deliberation process

• Bring the participants together in one place– Include experts, politicians and advocates (for and against)– Advisory Committee members must participate in the development of

educational materials, the event agenda & the post-event survey instrument

– “Independent third party managers” must be involved in ensuring the educational materials are balanced & fair

– Allow deliberators to listen to experts explain the issues, alternatives and proposed solutions

• Allow same process for advocates to present issues & solutions

• Create smaller, randomly selected focus groups to learn about, discuss and ask questions on the issues

• Allow ample space for ALL to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the various alternatives as proposed

– >>> trained moderators to guide discussions

Phase II {The Educational Process}

This will allow for deliberators to be exposed to information and the potential impacts on others in the community

Phase III {Post-Deliberations}

• Conduct a post-deliberation survey to accurately gather the considered opinions of an informed public– Ensure the post-survey involves only those who participated

in the process– Engage with & involve independent research professionals

to statistically analyse the survey response data to establish what actions an informed community would like to be implemented

– Communicate the findings to the general public and the “client”

The 6 critical steps1. Put together an advisory group made up of experts

and advocates2. Draw a scientific sample of the target population and

gauge their uninformed opinion via a questionnaire3. Recruit participants from the large sample for a one to

two-day deliberation exercise4. Provide participants with a balanced set of information

5. Bring the participants together for deliberation6. Measure opinion of the participants post-event to

discover what the informed opinion of the population would be

Contact with the sample could be maintained for other future and follow-up research

Strengths• Promotes community participation on issues that affect them• Random sample selection helps to secure representation of the

entire community in the deliberative process• Transparency in the process ensures a reasoned, solution-

oriented process that promotes informed & well-considered opinions & recommendations– The process is open, observable and produces results that are

considered fair by all parties

• Inclusiveness of process allows a balanced consideration of all issues, including special interest concerns, feasibility issues & the best interests of the community as a whole– Tries to take account of the moral good not just individual interests

• Results can be accomplished within a limited time frame

Weaknesses• It is a resource intensive activity

– Money (for space, accommodation, stipends, consultants, broadcast fees, dissemination); time (weekend away??)

• Potential for selection bias remains– Incentives may be weak

• Inclusiveness of process may complicate rather than simplify issues– Deliberators may be overwhelmed with viewpoints

• Assumes neutrality of moderators & advisory committee– Could have ulterior motives that bias processes

• The ‘rules of the game’ might interfere with rather than foster open & constructive deliberations– How long must one issue be deliberated before moving on &

who decides this?• Assumes a linear decision making process• Potential for polarization of deliberators

Practical applications

The best approach is to understand and know what it is that you want to achieve and hence choose the most apt from the

plethora of methods available to you.

Good sources• Elliot J (2005) Deliberative Polling: Participatory

Methods Toolkit – A Practitioners Manual. Public Policy Forum, Canada.

http://www.viwta.be/files/Toolkit%20deliberative%20polling.pdf

• Guild W (2004) Why Deliberative Polls Can Provide a

Superior Solution for Public Input. Texas, The Guild Group.

http://www.gldgrp.com/PDF%20Files/A%20Superior%20Solution%20for%20Public%20Input.PDF• Case studies:

http//cdd.stanford.edu/polls/