New approaches to public and stakeholder engagement and consultation
The traditional British approach to public consultation has been passive. The process has been somewhat opened up by the Internet, with organisations publishing their consultation documents on the web, as well as using traditional methods. But there remain serious limitations to this approach.
Most importantly, this type of passive consultation tends only to draw responses from those with specific interests and perspectives on the issue. In other words, those already engaged. In addition, we need to bear in mind that while the majority of the UK population has access to the web, a sizable minority still does not. Usage falls away markedly with decreasing levels of income and education.
The views of people who are actively engaged with any specific topic are obviously valuable and there is a sense in which they are the 'watchdogs' for the rest of us. Nevertheless, there is a need to engage with a wider range of the public. In particular, we need to hear the views of those who are not activists and who may be less well informed. Some commentators dismiss the views of those who are not informed, but frequently those who come to an issue fresh, or from a different perspective, can add a new and valuable dimension to the debate.
The House of Lords report Science and Society, states that much of what has been put forward as public consultation is really market research. This is true. Without stating it explicitly, the report seems to be saying that unless the entire population has an opportunity to comment, the exercise is not truly a public consultation. Nevertheless, the report recognises the role of research in understanding and communicating with the public.
If we are to be more inclusive and engage more people in debates about science policy and the use of new technologies such as genetics, the techniques of social and market research need to be adapted and developed. The strength of these techniques is their ability to canvass the views of representative and cross-sectional samples of the population. Their weakness, especially in quantitative research, is in canvassing views about subjects unfamiliar to the majority of the respondents without time for reflection, debate and information. Respondents feel obliged to respond and give 'knee jerk' reactions, while the researchers may have little idea of exactly what respondents understood or had considered in giving a reply. In these cases the researchers may have little idea of exactly what respondents understood or had considered in giving a reply.
We need to build on these strengths and address the weaknesses. The most obvious weakness is the need to develop interactivity in the research process, so that respondents are given balanced information and have time to reflect and discuss the issue. At People Science and Policy we have been addressing this problem and have developed new techniques as well as building on existing ones. The methods used must be determined by the objectives of the consultation. The overall aim is to develop more inclusive decision-making and promote better understanding between professionals and the rest of us.
Some interesting developments include reconvened group discussions, consultative panels, trade-off exercises and two-stage interviews. Using more than one approach is important; there is no reason why a more structured, proactive approach to public consultation cannot be complemented by an open call for views. In deciding upon action, the results of all the exercises need to be considered together and policy-makers will have to come to judgements about where to place the final emphasis.