Jan 27, 2015
2
Plan
• Background
– Decision process
– Democracy
• 20 years of experience
• Design of participation processes
• Issues and Concerns
Background
Generic decision processes
Formulate
issues and
structure
problem
Analysis
Decide
and
Implement
Science – what might happen
Values – how much it matters if it
does
Democracy …
… „ is government of all the people, by all the people,
for all the people.‟
Theodore Parker
… „is the worst form of government – except for all the
others‟
Winston Churchill
… „substitutes election by the incompetent many for
appointment by the corrupt few‟
George Bernard Shaw
Types of Democracy
• Procedural or representative democracy
– people elect representatives to take decisions
– a few democracies allow referendums
(but referendums are votes not decisions)
• Deliberative or direct democracy
– Citizens participate in decisions
– Athenean ideal
• By and large with conventional methods, full
deliberative democracy is infeasible
The middle ground
Representative(Parliamentary)Democracy
Representativeselected to take
decisions
DeliberativeDemocracyIndividualsparticipateand vote
in all decisions(Athenian Ideal)
PublicParticipation
Individuals interactand participate; but authorities or parliament
decide.
Public Participation inEmergency Planning
and Recovery
Arrow’s TheoremNo constitution (voting system) satisfies:
• Weak ordering (complete, transitive)
• Non Triviality
• Universal domain
• Independence of the irrelevant alternative (IIA)
• Pareto Principle
• No Dictatorship
Attempts to avoid Arrow’s
result• Since 1951 there have been many attempts
– to find a flaw in Arrow‟s reasoning
– to argue that it is irrelevant to democracy
• Essentially all have failed.
– In fact, each of the assumptions may be
dropped and a version of his Theorem still holds
– Moreover, many other similar theorems have
been proved.
• honesty and manipulability;
• agenda rigging;
• …
Better to think of groups as
social processes
• Need to facilitate these process:– foster effective communication between the members;
– explore the issues in a creative, effective manner;
– reduce unproductive tensions and disagreements;
– protect the group from dysfunctional activities such as groupthink;
– build a shared understanding;
– build a commitment to implement the selected course of action;
– record and report their discussions
• and support each member‟s own thought processes, judgements and decision making.
Societal Risk Management …… should be more than identifying and dealing
with the actual risks: viz:
„the SCIENCE‟
It requires:
communication with all stakeholders
a recognition of their
perceptions (their science)
values (social and political ‘intangibles’)
indeed, their involvement
Stakeholder Engagement
An evolving decision-framing process
within and between stakeholders that is
inclusive and participatory, with open and
two-way discussions, leading to
relationships where issues can be
identified, discussed and resolved,
resulting in sustainable decisions.
(OECD, 2006)
Fischhoff’s stages
1. All we have to do is get the numbers right
2. All we have to do is tell them the numbers
3. All we have to do is explain what we mean by the numbers
4. All we have to do is show them that they‟ve accepted similar risks in the past
5. All we have to do is
show them it‟s a good
deal for them
6. All we have to do is
treat them nice
7. All we have to do is
make them partners
8. All of these
Fischhoff’s stages
1. All we have to do is get the numbers right
2. All we have to do is tell them the numbers
3. All we have to do is explain what we mean by the numbers
4. All we have to do is show them that they‟ve accepted similar risks in the past
5. All we have to do is
show them it‟s a good
deal for them
6. All we have to do is
treat them nice
7. All we have to do is
make them partners
8. All of these
15
Science and Values
• Science – what might happen
– seldom a single science view
– subjective, controversy, debate
– uncertainty
• Values – how much it matters if it does
– subjective
– often relate to intangibles
16
Players
Decision
Makers
Experts
Science
Forecasts of
what might happen
Stakeholders
Values
Accountabilities
and responsibilities
Analysts
Process
expertise
A stakeholder ...
... is someone who is or will be impacted
by the decision – or believes that they will
be.
Stakeholders are not objectively defined:
they define themselves.
17
Stakeholder Identification
Power/Influence
Stake
Context-setters
(loose cannon) Players
Influence Manage interaction
Monitor Meet responsibilities to
Bystanders Victims/
Beneficiaries
Power/Influence
Stakeholders
Stake
Other media
Sunday Times ICRF
National
Asthma
Compaign
Producer
Company
GP’s
Parents
Patient
groups
Asthmatic
children
General
Public
Stakeholders involved in Asthma
Drug Scare
Cultural Theory
Individualist/Entrepreneurs: risks present opportunity, save those that threaten freedom of choice and action within free markets
Hierarchists: fear threats to social order and believe technological and environmental risks can be managed within set limits.
Egalitarians: fear risks to the environment, the collective good and future generations.
Fatalists: do not knowingly accept risks but accept what is in store for them.
21
Further interactions
Decision Makers
Experts
Science
Forecasts of
what might
happen
Stakeholders
Values
Accountabilities
and
responsibilities
Analysts
Process
expertise
22
Further interactions
Decision Makers
Experts
Science
Forecasts
of what might
happen
Analysts
Process
expertise
Experts
Alternative views
of Science
Forecasts
of what might
happen Stakeholders:
decision makers on
their actions
Accountabilities
and responsibilities
Values
Further stakeholders:
families, employees,
etc.
Accountabilities
and responsibilities
Values
23
Informed decision making
There are two aspects to informed
decision making
– Communication effectiveness:
Does the information provided actually
inform the public?
– True devolution of responsibility:
Are the public trusted and truly given the
freedom to make their individual decisions?
20 years of experience
Background
Over the past 20 years there has been a
growth in stakeholder and public
participation in planning and, indeed,
delivering recovery actions after an
incident.
25
1990 2000 now
International Chernobyl Project
• Held Autumn 1990
• 5 „decision‟ conferences
• Wide representation of internal USSR/Republic
stakeholders
• No public
Chernobyl
project
1990 2000 now
NKS workshops
• Held 1992 & 1995
• Range of local and government officials and
regulators from Scandinavian Countries
• No public
Chernobyl
project NKS
Workshops
1990 2000 now
Ethos Project• Held between 1996 & 1999
• Full public participation in Olmany, Stolyn, Belarus
• Helped design and adoption of recovery actions in
village
• Clear passing of problem ownership and control to
the villagers
Chernobyl
project NKS
WorkshopsEthos
1990 2000 now
JFSSG FSA• Late 1990‟s to 2000
• Programme of workshops and planning in the lead up
to the establishment of UK Food Standards Agency
• Clear link to development of skills in public risk
communication
• 3 stakeholder workshops with increasing „distance of
stakeholders from government‟
Chernobyl
project NKS
WorkshopsEthos
JFSSG FSA
1990 2000 now
Farming• 2000 to 2004 involving UK, Finland, Belgium, France
and Greece
• Successor to a stakeholder engagement process run
by UK Agriculture and Food Countermeasures
Working Group
• Wide range of stakeholders to consider agricultural
recovery after an accident
Chernobyl
project NKS
WorkshopsEthos
JFSSG FSA
Farming
1990 2000 now
FSA Risk Communication Workshops
Chernobyl
project NKS
WorkshopsEthos
JFSSG FSA
Farming
• 2000 to 2003
• Research exercise to explore what the public would
like the FSA to communicate about food risks.
• Public or stakeholder groups designed integrated
management and communication strategy for
hypothetical issues
FSA Risk
1990 2000 now
EVATECH
Chernobyl
project NKS
WorkshopsEthos
JFSSG FSA
Farming
FSA Risk
• 2001 to 2005
• Improving nuclear emergency management decision
support systems and involving stakeholders in the
process
• 9 recovery workshops involving some stakeholders
on scenarios in Denmark, Belgium, Finland,
Germany, Poland, Slovak Republic and UK
EVATECH
1990 2000 now
RELU
Chernobyl
project NKS
WorkshopsEthos
JFSSG FSA
Farming
• 2005 to 2008
• Involving rural stakeholders in managing food chain
risks
• Simulated process with involvement of stakeholders
at various phases:
formulation analysis evaluation
RELU
FSA Risk
EVATECH
1990 2000 now
EURANOS
Chernobyl
project NKS
WorkshopsEthos
JFSSG FSA
Farming
• 2004 to 2009
• Follow on to ETHOS, EVATECH and FARMING
• Development of protocols for public participation in
recovery and rehabilitation
RELU
EURANOSFSA Risk
EVATECH
Other activities
• Direct Involvement
– TED: ESF Programme to discuss and explore electronic democracy and e-participation
– Sundry stakeholder workshops
• General
– Enormous growth in stakeholder involvement, public participation and deliberative democracy
What have we learnt?
• Involving stakeholders and the public
– Builds trust and acceptance
– Better than „Decide Announce Defend‟
– Is greatly valued by the participants and their
peers
– Produces sound conclusions and results that
seem to compare in their validity with more
traditional approaches
Design of Participation Processes
Instruments and Processes
• A participation instrument is an
interaction – maybe extended – which
seeks to achieve some limited set of
objectives.
• A participation process typically involves
several instruments blended together to
support and make a societal decision.
38
Participation Instruments
Referendums
Deliberative Polling
Public Hearings/ Enquiries
Public Opinion Surveys
Negotiated Rule Making
Mediation
Consensus Conference
Citizen Jury/ Planning Cells
Citizens Panel
Citizen Advisory Committees (CAC)
Workshops
Study Circles
Round Tables
Collaborative Watershed
Management
Focus Groups
Online Discussion Forums
e-voting
e-polling
e-consultation
e-mail/email-lists
e-panels
e-petitions
Online Chat
Web-pages
SMS Messaging
Geographic Information System
Digital TV
Simulation
Games
Video Broadcasting
Advertisements
Informative Programmes
Interviews
Soap Operas
Celebrities
News Articles
Debates
Music
Advertisements
Programmes
Articles
Advertisements
Letters
Press Releases
Postal Letters
Information Leaflets
Education in Schools
Billboards
‘The’ decision making process as part of
direct democracy
Formulate
issues and
structure
problem
Analysis
Decide
and
Implement
• Discuss and share
ideas and issues
• Multiple
perceptions
• Sense making
• Ask questions
• Soft OR/PSM
• Models, but
multiple
paradigms
• Build
understanding
• Answer questions
• Decide/ Vote
But
• Arrow’s Theorem
So
• Social process of
deliberation, acceptance
and implementation
Different participation instruments may be
appropriate at each stage
Processes of participation & deliberative
democracy
• There is no best instrument
• We need to develop a process in which several instruments are blended into a hybrid process– E.g. a mix of web-sites with information and
decision analyses, plus stakeholder workshops, plus postal consultation, plus …
• Bayley and French (2008) have suggested how this might be done
To design collaboration and participation
we need some objectives
• If we take a democratic
ideal perspective, principles
matter most.
• If we take the perspective
of a regulator, the choice is
based upon more
pragmatic attributes
• Objectives may have
different weights at each
phase of the process
Level Formulation Analysis Decision
1 NoPP1
Issues are identified and structured by
authority
NoPP1
No public participation in the analysis.
Undertaken by authority
NoPP1
Public excluded from decision:
authority decides
2 NoPP2_MediaWeb
Issues identified and structured by
authority. Programme of
communication using media and
websites
NoPP2
As NoPP1 but with some public
communication via media and website of
evolving analysis
NoPP2_Comm
Authority decides but communicates
reasoning to the public via websites,
media and public meetings.
3 NoPP3_PubMeet
As NoPP2 but public meetings to
explain the options
NoPP3
As NoPP2 but with public meeting
PP1
Options with pros and cons
communicated to public and
opinions polled via surveys and
website
4 NoPP4_OpinionPoll
As NoPP3 but with opinion polling to
get public values
PP1
Analysis open to the public for comment,
e.g. on a web site.
PP2_Meet
As PP1 plus Meetings (Citizen
panels, juries, etc.)
5 PP1_WebForum
Create website to explore public
perception of issues and involve them
in formulating problem.
PP2_pubParallel
As PP1 but allow Public to change
parameters etc and conduct parallel
analyses
PP3_Vote
Options communicated and
discussed as in PP2 and a public
vote taken which is legally or
morally binding.
6 PP2_StakeholderWkS
As PP1 with live interactions (focus
groups, stakeholder workshops, ...)
PP3_Alternative
As PP2 but allow public access to data
and some analysis tools so that
independent agencies can conduct own
analyses
7 PP4_FullPubInvolvemt
Run workshops with authority, public and
stakeholder involvement. Full
partnership in analysis
Levels of Participation
44
Analysis with EQUITY
Research Questions (1)
• What are the objectives of inviting the
public to participate in a societal
decision?
• How should a participation process be
structured?
• How should we decide upon levels of
increasing participation?
Research Questions (2)
• What are the relative merits of different
participation mechanisms?
• Are there interactions between the
possible mechanisms?
• Should the public be involved in the
design of the participation mechanism?
Critique: Issues and Concerns
What have we learnt?
• Involving stakeholders and the public
– Builds trust and acceptance
– Better than „Decide Announce Defend‟
– Is greatly valued by the participants and their
peers
– Produces sound conclusions and results that
seem to compare in their validity with more
traditional approaches
• But how do we know or demonstrate this?
• And is all this true/valid?!?
Evidence for success of stakeholder
involvement and public participation• Exit questionnaires with responses such as:
– “All felt that having many varied perspectives present … had been
useful”
– “one of the clearest conclusions is the simple value of holding such
a workshop to permit the different players to network and gain
better understanding of each other”
• Acceptance of the outcomes
• More ideas generated in the divergent phase
– … in theory, but little empirical evidence
• Prescriptive arguments from the perspective of deliberative
democracy that participation is a ‘good thing’
• Most persuasive empirical evidence is from the observed
benefits of the ETHOS project in Belarus.
Action research
• Most of existing research into and applications of
stakeholder workshops and public participation has
used exploratory action research methodologies and
as much triangulation as possible.
• But now the processes are mainstream, we need to
reflect and build a more empirical basis so that we
can design stakeholder involvement and public
participation processes to be as effective as possible.
• We need to move on from action research to provide
an empirical basis for collaboration engineering.
Building an empirical knowledge base
• Common reporting framework and an
open knowledge base.
• Comparative studies
• And note that things are not standing
still
– Web 2.0 and social networking
Comparative design in RELU
Phase 1
First stakeholder
interaction: defining the
questions
Phase 2
Risk Assessment:
estimating the risks (3 months)
Phase 3
Second stakeholder interaction :
making recommendations
Science
stakeholders only
All stakeholders
including some
scientists
Adjudication driven
discussion
Consensus driven
discussion
Plen
ary
Sess
ion
Briefing
Docum
ent
sent
out
Briefing
Docum
ent
sent
out
Web discussion of issues. General
problem formulation etc.
Web discussion of assessments and
conclusions
Risk
Assess
ments
delivere
d
Analysis 2
Analysis 3
Analysis 1
Building an empirical knowledge base
• Common reporting framework and an open knowledge base.
• Comparative studies
– But such studies are expensive in time
– Also difficult to get participation unless a live topic
• We propose that most real public participation exercises contain
one or more extra evaluation activities: e.g.
– to record the basis of their design;
– to document the strengths and weaknesses discovered in the
instruments used;
– to compare the effectiveness of different instruments used for the
same purposes;
– to evaluate the effectiveness of the overall participation process.
Its all a very big problem, but
…
I know of no safe depository of the
ultimate powers of the society but the
people themselves; and if we think of
them as not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it
from them, but to inform their discretion
Thomas Jefferson