Digital Engagement Pros/Cons
Convenient, quick, anonymity
Validity, can get rude discourse, excludes non-internet users
Public Meeting Barriers for Diverse Groups
- Lack of transportation (hold near public transportation)
-Unfamiliarity with process (use plain language)
-Language barriers (translate materials)
-Meeting schedule (avoid competing events)
-Cost (provide childcare, food, bus passes)
-Meeting format (plain/simple information)
-Trust (employ members of the community, have diverse staff)
Facilitation
Collaborative process with a neutral third party to reach consensus.
A potential dispute, but not necessarily. Group-determined outcome. Facilitator is responsible for the process.
Mediation
Collaborative process with a neutral third party to reach consensus.
Focused on an existing dispute. Informal and non-adversarial.
Dealing with Disrupters
Inadvertent - Acknowledge them, assure they are heard and have future opportunities to provide input, remind them of the ground rules, use other group enforcers
Strategic - give firm ground rules at the beginning of the meeting, ask to state clear objections for the record, remind them that they are part of the group, can call a time out and speak with them directly
Types of Disrupters
Inadvertent - no ill intent. Talkative, want attention, think they are being helpful
Strategic - trying to undermine the process, unwilling to follow rules
Negotiation
One-on-one discussion (no third-party facilitator involved).
You want to settle a matter thru discussion and compromise (such as salary discussion with your boss).
Arbitration
an alternative to litigation – determination of a dispute by an impartial referee
“Getting to Yes”
Focuses on preserving the relationship between the two parties.
1. Separate the people from the problem
2. Focus on interests, not positions
3. Invent options for mutual gain
4. Use objective criteria
Satisficing
Aims to reach a satisfactory or adequate result, rather than the optimal solution.
Conserves time and energy opposed to “maximizing” which can use exhaustive time/resources.
Arnstein Ladder
Describes how much control citizens have over policy decisions. Type of advocacy planning.
-Nonparticipation (manipulation, therapy)
-Tokenism (informing, consultation, placation)
-Citizen Power (partnership, delegated power, citizen control)
ICICE Method
Inform - (provide information/data)
Consult - (obtaining public feedback)
Involve - (working with the public)
Collaborate - (partner with the public)
Empower - (decision making by the public)
Cross sectional sample
measure a population at a point in time
Longitudinal sample
same subjects, evaluated over time
Quota sampling
less validity – pre-determined # no matter of strata proportions (i.e. 100 men and 100 women)
Delphi technique
leverage the intelligence of an expert panel thru structured rounds of questionnaires and anonymous feedback.
Similar to focus groups – but don’t physically meet.
Task force
agency-sponsored committee – potential for bias
Brainstorming
- Identify issues
- Generate ideas
- Group ideas
- Evaluate ideas
Crowdsourcing
Online public participation – large scale participation, misses people without internet access
Fishbowl Planning
two circles like a donut – outside are listeners and inside talk – rotate between the two circles.
Observes check for bias and contribute ideas
Samoan Circle
“modified fishbowl” – inner circle speaks and should have different viewpoints. Tap in/tap out for circles. More informal with minimal facilitation.
Collaboration examples
Citizen Advisory Committees, HOA, Charrettes, Community visioning “Oregon Model”
Visioning
begins the planning process, community’s image of the future. Aspirational. Multi-media approach. Long-term Planning Mentality. (vision board)
Oregon Model
Where are we now? (existing conditions)
Where are we going? (future No-Build condition/trends)
Where do we want to be? (vision, goal)
How do we get there? (alternatives/solutions)
Are we getting there? (monitoring/checking progress)
