Networking the Networks: Bringing the Citizen Participation Movement Together

By Lyn Carson

In October 2003 the Deliberative Democracy Consortium (DDC) convened a small Researcher and Practitioner Conference. I was one of approximately forty participants (one of three from Australia ) who enthusiastically tackled the challenges associated with research-led practice or practice-based research. The conference had a number of goals: to enable practitioners and researchers in the field of Deliberative Democracy to share perspectives and develop understanding; to develop a research agenda for the field that integrates the needs of researchers and practitioners; to propose several fundable collaborative projects that address the agreed upon research agenda; and to increase mutual understanding between researchers and practitioners.

The Researcher and Practitioner Conference was a terrific success and will be repeated in 2005. In 2003 a number of funded research projects began to unfold which combined the experience, skills and knowledge of researchers and practitioners, just as DDC had hoped. This journal is one of those projects and I am involved with another which aims to map the field of deliberative innovation throughout the world. Other projects are progressing nicely ( http://www.deliberative-democracy.net ). It has been fascinating so far for me to extend my local knowledge through collaboration with US and UK researchers and practitioners. I have occasionally wondered how well DDC links with other networks, given the first of the conference goals: to enable practitioners and researchers in the field of Deliberative Democracy to share perspectives and develop understanding . Certainly some of its individual members do this extremely well. I noted that the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation's (NCDD's) Director participated in the conference just described and is a member of the DDC Steering Committee, also, that the DDC website declares a partnership with NCDD on its home page and NCDD has multiple links to DDC within its site.

The National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD) is very active electronically. I value its e-newsletter very much and have learnt a lot and connected with many people simply by exploring the newsletter each time in arrives in my email inbox. NCDD's website encourages dialogue with others in many ways, for example, via its conference and its wiki (DDC offers a blog). As an Australian I was surprised by the need for and existence of both organizations but have benefited from their respective activities. They appear to be two robust US-based networks that have similar aims and attract members with overlapping skills and experience. One has a name that is more inclusive of other countries than the other (the ‘National' in NCDD is not particularly welcoming for non-US residents) but encourage other nations into their ranks (NCDD notes that it wants to become established in the US before becoming international). So far they seem to have succeeded in attracting mainly western countries but I have detected a hunger for diverse non-western membership in my dealings with both groups. America Speaks has addressed this through its close association with LogoLink in the UK (a world-wide learning initiative on citizen participation).

Meanwhile, there is a third large association of practitioners that currently has weak links with NCDD and DDC and this third network could be drawn further into the field of Deliberative Democracy. It is an association that has members throughout the world. I speak of the International Association for Public Participation or IAP2 which was founded in the US in 1990. Like DDC and NCDD its membership is mostly drawn from the US and has chapters in, so far, only western countries ( Canada , Australia and New Zealand ) though its membership is international. I have been aware of the Australasian chapter for some time and a member for the past few years. I know the talent that resides therein.

I have immense respect for a number of my fellow IAP2 members. These are skilled practitioners who I regularly call upon to address my undergraduate and postgraduate classes at the University of Sydney . I draw upon their immense experience because it provides my students with real-world examples of public participation (including its frustrations and its inspirations) and also exposes students to possible career opportunities in the field of deliberative innovation. A few of the practitioners have offered guest lectures or workshops based on their experience of convening citizens' juries and deliberative forums. One IAP2 Board member recently completed my postgraduate unit of study while sharing her diverse experiences with students. Others generously give their time to assist with workshops or student projects. IAP2 members have been a fabulous resource for my research, for example, while compiling an Australian inventory of deliberative innovations.

Not all members of IAP2 practice the kind of public participation that captures my imagination. However, I had suspected that NCDD and DDC members would all be kindred spirits and this suspicion was disproved: all three networks promise a variegated membership and this is a healthy condition for any association and this heterogeneity is one good reason for many organizations to flourish. Some of the work that IAP2 members undertake borders on public relations more than dialogue or deliberation and the latter term is mostly unused in Australia at least. Many of IAP2's current members seem to be corporate or government-based and often find themselves limited to the first, second and third columns of IAP2's spectrum of participation (see below).

IAP2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SPECTRUM

INCREASING LEVELS OF PUBLIC IMPACT

International Association for Public Participation: website www.iap2.org

However, what I appreciate about IAP2 is its recognition of movement along this spectrum and its willingness to improve the current practice of public participation overall. IAP2 has done some very useful conceptual work, for example in developing the above spectrum. I have found the spectrum to be more helpful for teaching purposes than many theoretical models, for example the enduring and oft-cited Ladder of Participation that Sherry Arnstein developed in the 1960s http://www.partnerships.org.uk/part/arn.htm . IAP2 regularly offers Certificate Training Courses in Public Participation and these are designed to alert practitioners to the possibilities beyond “informing” and “consulting”. IAP2's training materials, though US-centric, cover some worthwhile territory. I particularly like IAP2's foundations for process design: an acknowledgment that public participation is values-based and should be decision-oriented and objectives-driven (the spectrum helps to define the latter). I would be pleased to see more emphasis on participation being learning-oriented as well. IAP2 also lists seven core values which are slightly incomplete and overlapping to me but are the subject of ongoing dialogue within the Association and provide a starting point for practitioner discussion:

•  The public should have a say in decisions about actions that affect their lives.

•  Public participation includes the promise that the public's contribution will influence the decision.

•  The public participation process communicates the interests and meets the process needs of all participants.

•  The public participation process seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those potentially affected.

•  The public participation process involves participants in defining how they participate.

•  The public participation process provides participants with the information they need to participate in a meaningful way.

•  The public participation process communicates to participants how their input affected the decision.

International Association for Public Participation: website www.iap2.org

Researchers approach this subject of core values or norms quite differently. They want to examine them and analyse them. Researchers also continue to wrestle with valid and reliable tools for evaluating citizen participation and these instruments overlap with the core values outlined above. I have found it productive to have students examine deliberative challenges from both the practitioner's and researcher's perspectives and all three networks provide fodder for doing this.

Over the past months I have been participating in international phone links with IAP2 members in the US , Canada and the UK who have coalesced around the theme of research-based practice. IAP2 has recently introduced the ‘promotion of a results-oriented research agenda' to its overall mission ( www.iap2.org ) . Consequently, the conversations that we share are not so different from the conversations that I heard at the DDC conference in 2003. IAP2 is inviting researchers into its ranks because its members are dedicated to improving their practice and committed to advocating good public participation practice throughout the world.

IAP2 has weak but strengthening links with NCDD (for example, co-sponsoring the recent Denver conference) and it is heartening to see the growing interface. For example, via e-news on IAP2's website, members are alerted to the NCDD conference and the existence of NCDD's wiki. Doubtless, IAP2 members attended the 2004 NCDD conference and DDC members did likewise. I wonder if future IAP2 conferences (in Sydney in March 2005, then Portland , Oregon in October 2005) will be supported by NCDD and DDC members. I hope so.

I have found benefits from being involved in all three networks. Fascinating resources emerge from them all. The most recent that spring to mind are: Tom Atlee's http://www.co-intelligence.org/tomatleebio.html politicians' pledge (which I encountered via NCDD and then used as a basis for a tutorial exercise in my course: Politics of Consultation ) and the Fielding Institute's Certificate Course on Dialogue, Deliberation and Public Engagement (see http://www.fielding.edu/hod/ce/dialog/index.html , discovered in an NCDD newsletter) which I have just completed; a report about public deliberation activities throughout the world (see http://www.scottlondon.com/reports/creating_citizens.pdf , details were provided by Lars Torres, DDC); and “The State of Public Participation Practice Worldwide”, a project funded by IAP2 and the Portland State University Center for Public Participation that reviewed literature and websites. These three networks are rich storehouses of resources and experts.

I admire the talent of the folks at DDC, NCDD and IAP2 and consider them to be highly skilled networkers. I often wonder as I pursue my own activities, if we are as skilled at networking amongst ourselves as we are at reaching out to others. Of course these three are not the only networks that are relevant to deliberative democracy and citizen participation; there are networks for conflict resolution, facilitation, e-democracy, evaluation and so on. These are all existing and potential allies in any movement for change.

How to network these networkers? Prominent web links between all networks is an obvious first step. (In writing this I realized that my own website ( www.activedemocracy.net ) has no link to either NCDD or DDC though it was linked to IAP2. I will correct that now. I am impressed that NCDD provides logos and advice that makes this task easy.)

How to create even more synergy than currently exists? Research working parties in each network need to know of each other's existence and activities or there will be unnecessary wheel reinvention. IAP2 members (like me) are now straddling the three camps and more would be appropriate. Of course, this journal will provide a forum for networking the networks and the networks themselves are doing great work, so my current appeal for greater cross-fertilization may never need to be expressed again!

Dr Lyn Carson is a senior lecturer in applied politics with Government and International Relations, University of Sydney , and author (with Brian Martin) of Random Selection in Politics (1999). Also see www.activedemocracy.net