Skip links and keyboard navigation

Active participation techniques

There are international trends towards increasing inclusiveness of citizen opinions and values in government policies and decisions. Queensland Government agencies are seeking to move beyond informationsharing and consultation to more actively involve citizens and communities in planning and decision-making processes. A range of active participation techniques are available. These techniques should be supported by an effective information program and may be implemented in conjunction with consultation processes.

This section groups the techniques according to the size of the group being engaged:

  • less than 20
  • 20 – 100
  • 100 plus

The following processes are often used to actively engage relatively small numbers of people, generally less than 20, as key stakeholders.

Action research

Action research refers to a set of research methods that enables public officials, community members and others to explore issues, difficulties and experiences in a collaborative and participative way and to identify and test solutions. The two key principles of action research are that the research processes have both an action focus and a specific focus upon developing understanding.

Action research can be defined as 'learning by doing' and involves a cyclical process which includes identifying a problem, planning, taking action, reflecting on outcomes and amending action based on evolving understanding. The primary difference between action research and other research is that it deliberately seeks to engage stakeholders as active participants in the research and learning process. It also differs from traditional models of research due to its iterative orientation and because it is usually led internally by staff and stakeholders rather than by an external expert.

For action research to be effective, public officials need to sensitively engage with community members, either one-on-one or in groups, and build trusting relationships within which experiences and needs can be explored. Interviews, surveys, focus groups and informal meetings can be used to support the research process. There is a high emphasis on collecting and analysing qualitative, rather than quantitative data.

Strengths:

  • can be incorporated into everyday work
  • is inclusive – it can be used with any stakeholder group and is appropriate for socially excluded groups
  • is flexible and responsive – has the ability to develop/reformulate the research agenda in parallel with the project work and
  • supports problem solving and solution testing.

Weaknesses:

  • can lose focus unless the research question is tightly defined
  • the qualitative data generated via action research processes may not be easily understood or valued and
  • participation may not be representative.

References and websites:

Case Study: Goodna Service Integration Project

The methodology for the project was action research based. Throughout the project cyclical processes ensured that changes were informed by research and worked to ensure that the services offered in Goodna were integrated, improved community well-being and strengthened the Goodna community. Specifi c areas tackled included the ways in which government plans, funds, implements and evaluates strategies to reduce crime, improve school retention rates, improve community health and address a variety of other issues identifi ed by the Goodna community as being important. Active participation techniques were the core methods used to inform and deliver project objectives. www.uq.edu.au/boilerhouse/goodna-sip/

Advisory committees

Advisory committees are generally made up of representatives from a particular profession, industry, peak-body, community or interest group who are appointed to provide technical or specifi c information on often complex or multi-faceted proposal(s) or issue(s). Establishing an advisory committee enables expert and ongoing input into planning and decision-making from a range of groups and agencies that have relevant skills or knowledge.

Advisory committee members may meet throughout the duration of a specifi c project to provide input and advice. Other advisory committees or councils may have a mandate to provide ongoing, high level policy and planning advice to Ministers, departments and others.

Membership and terms of reference of the committee, including committee and participant roles and responsibilities, time frames and decision-making processes, need to be clearly articulated and agreed prior to commencement. It is important to establish whether the committee members are representing a broader group or participating as individuals.

Strengths:

  • values a wide range of technical and local expertise and knowledge
  • provides committee members and government with an understanding of a range of perspectives, data sets and other knowledge bases in order to develop informed, agreed and integrated solutions
  • can support a range of other engagement processes, for example action research
  • provides opportunities to explore alternative strategies and build on commonalities and alliances and
  • enables information and decisions to be distributed to members of the organisations or community sectors represented on the committee.

Weaknesses:

  • participants may not be representative of the various groups with relevant knowledge or skills
  • it can be difficult to manage the diversity of opinion, data, frameworks and other information provided via committee members and
  • standing committees may lose impetus or relevance.

References and websites:

  • Community Engagement in the NSW Planning System, 2003 www.iplan.nsw.gov.au
  • Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy. Good practice standards for Advisory Councils www.nrm.qld.gov.au

Charrettes

A charrette or ‘inquiry by design’ workshop is an intensive workshop where stakeholders come together to identify issues, deliberate about preferred outcomes and create plans for the future. A charrette can be held over several days or weekends and involves participants splitting into small groups to discuss and brainstorm issues and topics. Once these groups identify options they are collated and fed back to all participants for further comment with a view to developing more formal plans.

A charrette can be a cost effective way to identify potential outcomes and solutions for complex issues, for example, planning decisions which require balancing social, environmental and economic demands. Participants at a charrette can include community stakeholders plus representatives from interest groups, although it is not limited to these groups. All participants in a charrette, including public offi cials, should agree that something needs to be done about the issues being discussed and be clear about their role in decision-making.

Strengths:

  • promotes joint problem-solving and creative thinking and
  • creates partnerships and positive working relationships with the community.

Weaknesses:

  • participants may not be representative of the community and
  • it can be difficult to engage groups usually marginalised from consultative processes.

References and websites:

  • Community Consultation Resource Website – Victorian Local Governan Association www.vlgaconsultation.org.au
  • Community engagement in the New South Wales planning system. www.iplan.nsw.gov.au
  • National Charrette Institute (NCI) (2003) www.charretteinstitute.org

Case Study: The Villawood Charrette

A five day charrette was conducted to discuss the commercial centre of Villawood. A steering committee was established and there was a three month planning period with a budget of $80,000. A preconsultation meeting with key stakeholders informed them of the process and its purpose. Day one of the charrette involved a field site visit. On day two, stakeholders met and formulated a policy statement on days three and four, design meetings were conducted in a design studio, and finally, on day five, a public meeting was conducted to present findings. Follow-up meetings with the steering committee confirmed support for the design.

Lyn Carson & Kath Gelber (2001) Ideas for Community Consultation: A discussion on principles and procedures for making consultation work, a report prepared for the NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning.

Citizens' juries

In a citizens' jury, a randomly recruited and demographically representative panel of between 12 and 20 citizens meets for three to five days to carefully examine an issue of public significance or community concern. The jurors are typically provided with a question or series of questions on which to deliberate. Jurors hear from, and can ask questions of, a variety of expert and other witnesses. They then deliberate, discuss and debate issues together. On the final day of their moderated hearings, the members of the jury present their recommendations to the public or to the Minister.

Convening a citizens' jury needs high level facilitation, coordination, negotiation and confl ict resolution skills. Witness testimony needs to be carefully balanced to ensure all sides receive fair treatment. This does not mean each perspective needs to be impartial, but that a range of views are presented for jurors' consideration and responding to recommendations made by a citizens' jury need to be carefully planned and agreed by all. Expert witnesses who are able to present clear arguments need to be found, and generally paid. Jurors will require training and briefing and are also often paid for their time.

Strengths:

  • good for obtaining informed community opinions on complex or controversial issues which have obvious solution
  • is transparent process
  • can promote a culture of citizenship and participation
  • can help to identify solutions to problems
  • provides a good opportunity to develop a deep understanding of an issue
  • provides informed feedback and
  • the general public can usually identify with jury members.

Weaknesses:

  • expensive and time-consuming
  • it may be difficult to sustain panel member participation
  • doubt exists about representativeness because of the small numbers of jurors
  • can exclude people with low literacy or non-English speakers
  • in many cases, there is no guarantee that the jury’s decisions will be taken into account in government decision-making
  • not all issues are suitable for consideration via a jury process and
  • extensive preparatory work is needed.

References and websites:

Case Study: Cooloola State Land Audit

A citizens' jury was used during an investigation into the future preferred sustainable use of unallocated state land on the Cooloola Coast. A two day citizens' panel involved the use of an expert panel, and a citizens’ jury. Preliminary planning included three trial citizens' juries, and the development of an expert panel. The process was deemed to be well suited to determining a multi-faceted complex issue.

Cooloola Council Information Paper (2003) An investigation into the future preferred sustainable use of unallocated State Land on the Cooloola coast.

Community reference groups

Community reference groups are made up of invited representatives from a particular community who have an interest in a given topic. Reference group members attend regular meetings, represent their group or community's views and provide input into the development, implementation and evaluation of strategies, plans, programs and services.

It is important to support members to ensure they have the capacity, knowledge and time to both represent their group or community and to participate effectively. The activities of the group can be publicised in order to generate and sustain interest and energy.

Strengths:

  • supports long term community engagement and relationship building
  • can build the capacity of community members
  • enables sharing of local knowledge and expertise
  • generates new ideas and provides a snapshot of likely community reaction to a particular decision or process and
  • can create intra-group rapport and trust over time.

Weaknesses:

  • may be too formal and structured for some community representatives
  • if not well-resourced and supported, community members may not be able to sustain involvement
  • can be difficult to sustain in remote communities
  • may attract vocal community members and fail to engage representatives of more marginalised groups and
  • difficult to ensure genuine representation.

References and websites:

  • Queensland Government. Department of Housing www.communityrenewal.qld.gov.au
  • Forth Valley SAT Operating structure. Forth Valley Substance Action Team, UK. www.drugmisuse.isdscotland.org

Case Study: Community Renewal Reference Groups

Residents, businesses and community groups are encouraged to join local Community Renewal Reference Groups to make sure that their views are heard. Community Renewal Reference Groups are involved in activities such as the management of Community Action Plans, priority setting and project validation. Community Renewal facilitators are assigned to each renewal area. www.communityrenewal.qld.gov.au

Deliberative retreats

Deliberative retreats are framed around a specific decision or action that requires the attention of key stakeholders. The chief decision-makers need to attend, including those who may oppose proposed change. The major aim of a retreat is to achieve consensus about future actions. A skilled facilitator may be able to assist with designing and conducting the retreat.

Deliberative retreats seek to move people away from their everyday work environment for a concentrated period of time to a setting that encourages social interaction as well as discussion, deliberation and decision making. Moving participants to new surroundings can prompt new or different perspectives and allows people to interact on an informal basis. There is a much higher chance of building consensus when people can really talk the issue through in a concentrated, yet informal setting.

A retreat can be useful at a certain stage of an engagement activity, for example, when an advisory committee is getting close to a key decision point.

Strengths:

  • intensive and focused
  • a good way to build and strengthen relationships between key stakeholders and decision makers
  • can take place at a neutral venue and
  • enables sufficient time and space to share, discuss and deliberate.

Weaknesses:

  • can be costly to convene
  • requires very careful planning, clearly articulated goals and objectives and facilitation
  • may be negatively portrayed as a 'junket' and
  • may exclude key people who are unable to participate in overnight events for example, single parents and carers.

References and websites:

  • Marcus L PhD & Dorn B MD (2003) Create a 'tipping point' when planning a retreat. Renegotiating Health Care. By AMNews contributors. www.ama-assn.org

Drama workshops

Participants at a drama workshop are encouraged to act out their interpretation of a future vision for their community, including what they want and don’t want to happen. Time is then spent exploring and discussing the issues arising from performances. Public officials can attend the workshop to answer questions and clarify key points, to consider community perspectives, and may also perform their own interpretation of a future vision. Outcomes of a drama workshop may include a series of options for discussion with the broader community or consensus about the future direction.

Incorporating drama and theatre in a community engagement activity can provide people with useful 'hands-on' participation in decision-making processes. Drama can be especially attractive to people who are not comfortable with traditional and more formal engagement methods such as public meetings and surveys. Careful consideration is required for debriefing and reflection with the audience following the roleplays/drama workshops.

Strengths:

  • a good way to tap in to diverse and creative views in the community
  • can be enjoyable, fun and spontaneous and
  • can be used with specific people or groups in the community e.g. youth, art workers, people with learning difficulties or those who speak English as second language.

Weaknesses:

  • may not suit participants who feel inhibited in role-playing situations
  • deliver qualitative results which may be difficult to analyse and
  • reaching consensus can be difficult.

References and websites:

  • Participation Works: 12 techniques of community participation for the 21st century, (1999) www.neweconomics.org
  • New Economics Foundation (1999) Participation Works: 12 techniques of community participation for the 21st century. www.neweconomics.org

Learning circles

Learning circles provide an effective, practical and democratic opportunity for small groups of people (generally between five and 20) to come together to discuss and learn about issues which are important to them and their community. Learning circles have been used by community groups, trade unions, churches and social justice groups for many years to help explore social and political issues and provide a forum to make decisions and take action.

They can be used at the start of a process to gather peopl's ideas and also as a way to measure people's understanding about issues and to explore contentious topics.

Learning circle sessions last around two hours and run for a number of weeks. They work best when well supported by balanced but provocative written materials and carefully facilitated to explore predetermined and emerging questions. It is critical to ensure the discussion is focused, fair and that everyone has an opportunity to contribute. Throughout the process participants are encouraged to keep an open mind and make an effort to understand and value different views. As the name suggests, participants should sit in a circle so they can see all other participants.

As the session progresses participants share previous experiences, recall good and bad memories and describe feelings associated with a topic. Providing people with the opportunity to describe events and feelings in their own way and in their own time is a useful way to maintain interest from all participants.

Strengths:

  • builds respectful relationships
  • provides more focus than discussion groups and seeks to have action-oriented outcomes
  • uncovers opinions and feelings about a topic
  • provides a non-threatening forum which can draw out a variety of views and ideas, including from reserved participants and
  • provides a democratic forum by providing equal time and attention for each participant.

Weaknesses:

  • some participants may feel intimidated by the views and opinions of other participants and
  • participants may not be totally representative.

References and websites:

  • Learning Circles Australia www.learningcircles.org.au
  • Educators for Community Engagement www.e4ce.org/pages/learning.htm

Design workshops

Design workshops are structured around specific, complex issues. The main objective of a design workshop is to give a number of stakeholders an opportunity to provide information and advice and plan for creative problem solving. It is strongly suggested that a detailed agenda is provided to each participant prior to the event. Membership of a workshop group is defi ned, often limited to eight people and each member is encouraged to participate in preparing possible potential solutions to the issue being considered prior to the meeting.

There is an opportunity for other stakeholders to be invited into the group for later follow-up meetings. These particular workshops can be repeated. Workshops enable participants to understand the needs of other stakeholders. A skilled facilitator is required to conduct the workshop.

Strengths:

  • can be used in initial planning and problem solving phases
  • requires a commitment from all participants to share information
  • can be highly productive over a short period of time
  • techniques are easily learnt and applied
  • provides an opportunity for a range of knowledge and skills to be used
  • enables technical and non-technical people to participate at the same forum and
  • allows development and/or enhancement of relationships.

Weaknesses:

  • needs to be used in the early phases of project development
  • does not allow for wide participation (targeted participant involvement) and
  • usually requires expert knowledge or lived experience regarding a particular issue.

References and websites:

  • Gaffney G (1999) www.infodesign.com.au
  • Information and Design (2003) www.infodesign.com.au
  • Community Engagement in the NSW Planning System (2003) www.iplan.nsw.gov.au
  • Sarkissian W & Walsh K (1998) Community Participation in Practice. Casebook. Murdoch: Institute for Science and Technology Policy.
  • Wates N (1998) The Community Planning Handbook. London: Earthscan

Focus groups

Focus groups are one example of an active participation methodology used to explore the opinions, knowledge, perceptions, and concerns of individuals in regard to a particular topic. A focus group typically involves six to ten people who have some knowledge of or experience with an issue.

Group discussion is led by a moderator who guides participants through a series of open-ended questions. The information gathered can provide important clues to the participants' attitudes and values as they relate to an issue. Convening multiple focus groups with different community members on the same topic can strengthen an agency's level of understanding about issues associated with the topic of concern.

It is important to have a skilled facilitator who encourages all members of the group to participate, to provide a comfortable venue and to ensure that the participants feel confident about expressing their views (refer also Choosing engagement techniques). The latter can be encouraged by ensuring participants have an interest in the topic before they are recruited and, if necessary, providing support for them to attend.

Further efforts may be required to obtain additional comments or views which may not have been articulated during the focus group. This may include follow up phone calls with participants, opportunities to have an informal discussion with participants following the focus group, and/or opportunities for participants to make written or email comments following the event.

Strengths:

  • can be used to gain the views of those who may not respond to other forms of consultation, for example, surveys, written exercises
  • good for in-depth exploration of people's views on an issue/service including their likes and dislikes
  • can be used at different stages of a consultation process from preliminary planning to the feedback stage and
  • can target specific groups.

Weaknesses:

  • some people may feel inhibited in expressing non-consensus views
  • risk of 'group think' and
  • not guaranteed to be statistically representative because of small numbers involved.

References and websites:

Case Study: Development of an after hours crisis centre for youth focus group

The NSW government commissioned a series of focus groups to inform the development of an after hours crisis centre. Separate focus groups representing young people (who were paid $20 to attend), and community service providers were conducted. The feedback from the young people was creative and thoughtful providing a fresh outlook on the development.

Lyn Carson & Kath Gelber (2001) Ideas for Community Consultation: A discussion on principles and procedures for making consultation work, a report prepared for the NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning.

Participatory editing

Participatory editing provides citizens with the opportunity to shape written reports and documents, without necessarily leaving their homes. Drafts are circulated to stakeholders in hard copy or electronically for comments and feedback. An editor goes through the submitted comments and produces a revised version of the report which is then returned to the participating stakeholders for their endorsement or amendment. The process may be repeated several times until consensus is reached on the content. For participatory editing to be effective those providing feedback should represent a crosssection of stakeholders. Participants need to be clearly informed about the steps involved and need to understand that their comments may not automatically be included, but will inform the editor's improvements.

Strengths:

  • builds ownership of documents/plans edited in this way
  • enables people to participate at times and on days which suit them
  • enables feedback to be received from a cross-section of participants from different geographic locations and
  • can provide the basis for a variety of other engagement techniques.

Weaknesses:

  • needs sufficient time and detailed information and briefing material to ensure clarity about the requirements of participants
  • may be unsuitable for people who speak English as a second language, with low literacy levels or with visual impairments
  • is difficult to ensure genuine representation and
  • editing may attract criticism if the final result does not adequately reflect all of the input provided.

References and websites:

Precinct committees

Precinct committees provide a forum for residents within a defined geographic community or precinct to actively participate in government decisionmaking relevant to their area. Residents from local areas make up the committee and meet regularly to discuss existing or emerging issues which affect them. Precinct committees are organised by local residents who are often elected by fellow committee members, or who volunteer to take on the role. Meetings are open to any person living within the precinct boundaries.

Precinct committees discuss matters of local relevance and may make recommendations to government, for example, about park and landscape issues, recreation areas and events. Where there is interest by residents it is possible to:

  • arrange an initial public meeting to set up the committee
  • notify relevant households of the time, date and venue of the meeting
  • encourage the boards or management committees of local community services to have precinct/resident representation and
  • provide advice and support to committees.

Strengths:

  • supports two-way flow of communication and information between community and government
  • can provide residents with an opportunity to influence the provision of services and programs in their neighbourhood
  • can support active citizenship and
  • provides opportunities for discussion and deliberation.

Weaknesses:

  • may not be representative of the community
  • formality may discourage certain people from seeking to get involved and
  • needs a clear role and objectives so as not to become a 'talk fest'.

References and websites:

Partnerships for active participation

Partnerships can be an important strategy for promoting ongoing government and community engagement. All partnerships involve an agreement to work together to achieve specific outcomes. Partnerships recognise the important contribution that each party makes to achieving an outcome. Partnerships can be formal such as the arrangements negotiated between State and Commonwealth Government agencies and various community and industry groups to support natural resource management. Other partnerships are informal such as when a government agency and a community group agree to work together to host a consultation event. Informal relationships are increasingly being recognised as signifi cant enablers of great partnership alliances.

Partnerships can significantly affect communities. Maintaining relationships within partnerships depends on practicing the key principles listed below. Processes such as networking activities, sharing meals and joint learning activities can play an important part in developing, maintaining and sustaining partnerships.

There are several key principles of encouraging active community participation in partnerships. These are:

  1. Trust – can be earned in a number of ways, mostly through introductions by people who already have established trust with the community and/or key stakeholders. Shared action and working together on a sustainable basis will generate trust provided the additional principles are applied.
  2. Mutual respect – commitment to respect should be communicated through verbal and non-verbal behaviour and through action, such as setting up ground rules for engagement in the initial meeting.
  3. Clarity of roles and responsibilities – roles need to be communicated in a number of forums including at meetings and in written or video material.
  4. Agreement to listen – there needs to be a commitment from all players to active listening. This can be conveyed in a group setting through the establishment of ground rules which are determined by the participants.
  5. Power sharing – structures and agreements have to be put in place to acknowledge how power will be shared between partners.
  6. Accessible and transparent decisionmaking structures – decision-making structures need to be agreed, respected and communicated by all participants through a variety of mediums being sensitive to the learning needs of the community.
  7. Empowerment – provide an environment where there is conscious sharing of activities, decision-making, advocacy, and recognition of human rights.
  8. Training, skills development and education for all partners – through skill development in the areas of collaboration and leadership meaningful community capacity can be harnessed and supported. Concrete contributions to personal, organisational, and community change can be effected.

Strengths:

  • harnesses the resources and energy of government and community members to achieve shared outcomes
  • can be established in a variety of ways to achieve a variety of outcomes
  • is a useful to build longer term relationships and
  • can build the knowledge, skills and awareness of all partners.

Weaknesses:

  • not all stakeholders have the resources, desire or need to partner government
  • no matter how well-intentioned partnerships may be, power is often not equal and in some instances it is difficult for some stakeholders to 'let go' of their power
  • often requires extensive discussion and negotiation to agree on the nature and terms of the partnership and
  • requires significant commitment of resources to maintain partnerships.

References and websites:

  • Community Planning Implementation Group www.communityplanning.org.uk
  • National Resource Centre for Consumer Participation The Consumer and Community Participation Toolkit. The Adelaide Community Health Service. www.participateinhealth.org.au
  • Scottish Executive Central Research Unit. Community Participation in Social Inclusive Partnership. www.scotland.gov.uk

Case Study: The Goodna Integrated Family Support Service Project

This service provides a supportive model of collaborative case management to families, targeting children and young people. Information is provided on available services through a single, accessible point (an agency they already have contact with) with access provided to counselling and support and advocacy services from a variety of partner organisations. www.communities.qld.gov.au

The techniques which are described below are most often used to engage medium sized groups, generally 20-100 people, as active participants in an engagement process.

Future search conferences

A future search conference is a participative method often used to develop a shared future vision and plan for a community. A future search conference is an effective way of developing a partnership with the community. It can be used for developing and gaining broad commitment in a strategic planning process, but depends on a strong commitment to follow through with conference outcomes.

Future search conferences initially focus on identifying desirable futures and then concentrating on ways to achieve them. They are intensive events, usually taking place over a number of days. Participants are generally stakeholders who have power or information on the topic or who may be affected by any resulting decisions or outcomes.

The ideal number of participants is 64 people – this breaks down into eight groups of eight. People from similar interest groups are usually placed together for some or all of the conference to take part in a highly structured process covering five stages:

  1. Review the past – each participant writes key events in the history of themselves, the community and the world onto three parallel time lines.
  2. Explore the present – a mind map is made of trends affecting the local community. Specific interest groups identify important trends and what they would like to be done about them. Groups share what they are proud of and sorry about in their community.
  3. Create ideal futures – small mixed groups develop visions. Barriers to achieving the visions are identified. Each group acts out its vision to everyone else.
  4. Identify common ground – first the small groups, then the whole group, work out the common ground or shared vision, identify projects to achieve it, and identify any unresolved differences.
  5. Make action plans – self-selected action groups plan projects and publicly commit to their action.

Strengths:

  • good technique for developing a vision for a community
  • can drive community and government action
  • involves a broad range of relevant stakeholders and
  • can develop support and consensus among stakeholders with diverse views early in the planning process.

Weaknesses:

  • there may be difficulties in reaching consensus
  • the process may be dominated by large interest groups if not carefully planned and facilitated and
  • can be logistically challenging.

References and websites:

  • Future Search Network www.futuresearch.net
  • Weisbord M (2000) Productive Workplaces Revisited: Dignity, Meaning and Community in the 21st Century: John Wiley and Co www.mountainplains.org
  • Emery M & Purser R (1996) The Search Conference: A Powerful Method for Planning Organizational Change and Community Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Emery M (1997) Participative Strategic Planning: the Search Conference in Open Government Network, Reaching Common Ground: Open Government, Community Consultation and Public Participation. Proceedings of the Reaching Common Ground Conference, 23-24 October, 1996. Sydney: The Open Government Network.
  • Sarkissian W, Cook A & Walsh K (1999) Community Participation in Practice. A Practical Guide. Murdoch: The Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy. Murdoch University.

Case Study: Future Search. Victoria Roads Corporation

The future search conference was conducted as part of a wider research project into the arterial road formation in Melbourne. A diverse number of stakeholders were invited to discuss economic, ecological, sociological and urban design issues. The goals for the conference were to search for issues and explore problems, form cooperative networks, seek ways of implementing principles of ecologically sustainable development and provide guidance for the larger study.

Lyn Carson & Kath Gelber (2001) Ideas for Community Consultation: A discussion on principles and procedures for making consultation work, a report prepared for the NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning.

Imagine

Imagine is a new approach to community participation based on'appreciative inquiry'. Appreciative inquiry can be used to discover, understand and foster innovations in communities by gathering positive stories and images and constructing positive interactions.

Imagine focuses on exploring ways to consider 'what could be' and 'what is possible' by reflecting on past positive experiences. It helps participants identify a collectively desired future and vision and consider ways of translating possibilities into reality and belief into practice.

Imagine asks people to tell stories of what works and involves a six-stage process of:

  1. defining the issues and a set of exploratory questions
  2. using the questions to draw out stories
  3. dreaming how the future could be and expressing people's ideas as 'provocative propositions' – ideally done in a one-day workshop
  4. co-creating the dream by forming partnerships that in turn use the Imagine method for continuing workshops
  5. celebrating the project and its achievements and
  6. evaluating the project.

A core group of participants should be trained to facilitate the Imagine process prior to commencing the event. The core group can then guide and train other participants. Skilled and independent facilitation for a workshop/s is desirable.

Strengths:

  • is inclusive – all sections of the community can take part
  • is based on storytelling, which is familiar and fun
  • links people who don’t normally meet
  • participants learn skills
  • is flexible – it can be used for a variety of topics and locations
  • creates a shared vision
  • visions are rooted in success, so should have realistic outcomes and
  • generates commitment and social action – the willingness and ability of people to act for the common interest.

Weaknesses:

  • may be seen as trendy or superficial
  • may create expectations which cannot be met and
  • participants may not be representative.

References and websites:

  • Imagine Chicago. www.imaginechicago.org
  • Engwicht D (1993) 'Just Image' The 1993 Meares Oration. Sydney: Disability Advisory Council of Australia.
  • Engwicht D (1999) Street Reclaiming: Creating Livable Street and Vibrant Communities. Annandale NSW: Pluto Press.

Negotiation tables

Negotiation tables have been initiated in Queensland as part of the state government's Ten Year Partnership, which is a state-wide, issues-based approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy. Negotiation tables are one strategy being implemented to provide for more effective engagement between the state government and the state's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. This model of engagement can be used in most communities where issues are culturally specific.Negotiation tables are a sustained process of consultation, planning and negotiation between community leaders and senior public officials. State and Commonwealth government agencies, regional and local Indigenous organisations and community groups work together in a collaborative way. The process involves reviewing existing plans, producing community development plans which identify priority needs, negotiating a government response and establishing a mutually agreed Shared Responsibility Agreement and Community Action Plan which clearly defines the commitment of all participants.

Negotiation Tables may be locally or regionally (cluster) oriented. A cluster Negotiation Table may be convened when a group of communities has identifi ed a common issue and agreed that there would be advantages in negotiating crosscommunity resolutions.

The key responsibility of government representatives participating in Negotiation Tables is to listen to the priorities identified by communities and harness resources to deliver agreed government strategies.

Strengths:

  • is based on a partnership approach which brings multiple agencies to the table with community
  • community representatives can directly infl uence government decision-making
  • promotes diversity, fl exibility and equality of opportunity for communities and
  • uses mutual planning and goal setting to develop agreements and plans.

Weaknesses:

  • are formal and highly structured and
  • are resource intensive.

References and websites:

Case Study: Meeting Challenges Making Choices

The indigenous community within the Cape York region have forged together strong government partnerships using negotiation tables. The community has been able to enforce changes which will positively impact on the community. www.datsip.qld.gov.au

Nominal group workshops

Nominal group workshops are based on the idea that any reasonably representative group of people with an interest in a topic can identify almost all of the issues associated with the topic and make compromises so that most important issues are identified and prioritised.

Nominal group workshops consist of approximately 25 people. Stage one involves a facilitator distributing a background report and providing a chance for people to ask questions (public officials or other 'experts' can attend to such questions and clarify issues). Working alone, each participant is asked to list one major issue and several associated challenges relating to the topic, for example 'What are the essential features of a quality transport system?'.

In stage two, participants are assigned to small (nominal) groups of four to six people to share their responses. During stage three, members of the small group discuss, clarify and record their responses. Once the small groups have identified all of their issues, the large group reconvenes and all the responses are displayed around the room.

Stage four involves participants being provided with ballots. Each person is asked to vote on the issues that they feel are the most important. The votes are then counted, and the issues are ranked by the number of votes that they received. Following the prioritisation of the issues, there is a discussion, guided by the facilitator, on the results of the process. This can be followed by a fi nal voting process if required.

This process can also be implemented using online tools to gather the opinions and priorities of geographically dispersed stakeholders and those who prefer not to participate in group discussions. With these groups stages two, three and four are managed remotely by a central facilitator who collects and collates information from each of the participants before recirculating the materials using online or traditional postal services. This process continues until consensus is reached.

Strengths:

  • can identify problems, explore solutions and establish priorities
  • allows individual judgements to be pooled in situations where uncertainty or disagreement exists about the nature of a problem
  • all participants have an equal opportunity to have their say and
  • delivers timely results.

Weaknesses:

  • the group may not be representative
  • may result in ill-informed or impractical outcomes and
  • is not especially in-depth and therefore does not allow comprehensive exploration of people's feelings.

References and websites:

  • Borrini-Feyerabend G (ed) (1997) Beyond Fences: Seeking social sustainability in conservation. www.iucn.org
  • Citizen Science Toolbox, Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management www.griffith.edu.au
  • Commonwealth Department of Health & Aged Care. Canberra. Available as pdf as www.participateinhealth.org.au
  • COSLA (1998) Focusing on Citizens: A Guide to Approaches and Methods. Available at: www.improvementservice.org.uk/community-planning
  • Flinders University Department of Public Health & South Australian Community Health Research Unit. (2000) Improving Health Services through Consumer Participation – A Resource Guide for Organisations.

Photovoice

Photovoice involves providing cameras (generally disposable) to people in the community to identify, record, represent, and enhance their community through photography. It uses the immediacy of the visual image and accompanying stories to enable community members to describe their priorities. It can be used to inform and organise community members and enable them to prioritise their concerns and discuss problems and solutions. Photovoice can also be a useful tool for identifying community strengths and assets.

Photovoice is an innovative and creative engagement activity which seeks to inform policymaking by enabling people to record and refl ect their community’s strengths and concerns. It also promotes critical dialogue and knowledge about personal and community issues through large and small group discussions of photographs.

Photovoice is highly flexible and can be adapted to specific participatory goals (such as needs assessment, asset mapping and evaluation) and used to engage different groups and communities in relation to planning and policy issues.

Strengths:

  • provides pictorial evidence of community issues
  • provides an alternative means of expression which may help to include those who prefer visual rather than textual or verbal information
  • allows detailed information to be collected from participants and
  • can easily be used in the media, including print, television and online.

Weaknesses:

  • can be costly, including cameras, developing and printing photographs
  • may generate ambiguous information and
  • may be difficult to manage and coordinate.

References and website:

  • Photovoice, Social Change Through Photography www.photovoice.com

Policy action teams

Policy Action Teams are responsible for an intensive program of policy development around a particular issue e.g. anti-social behaviour in a disadvantaged neighbourhood. Teams are composed of 20 to 40 members representing a cross-section of government departments, as well as experts from the community, industry and tertiary education sectors.

The teams bring together the expertise of those 'on the ground' with that of public officials who have been working on the relevant issue – often in isolation. While policy action teams are encouraged to engage in 'blue skies' thinking, all recommendations must be evidence-based.

Where relevant, the team may work in the community affected by the policy issue to gain first-hand experience. Teams are often chaired by a senior public official and have a 'champion' Minister, who is assigned to take a proactive role in the work of the team. A lead agency provides a supporting secretariat and careful consideration is given to how the team can maximise the contribution of communities to the policy issue and what capacity building is required to support that contribution.

Policy action teams are potentially best suited to addressing issues which are complex and cut across traditional departmental boundaries and which require innovative and new perspectives. Experiences from the United Kingdom suggest that teams work best when tackling policy issues which need to involve stakeholders from across the social spectrum and when it is important to have stakeholders take ownership of issues at a local or service delivery level.

Strengths:

  • reports and recommendations of policy action teams are grounded in first-hand practical experience and balanced by specialist knowledge
  • public officials, community and industry representatives work in equal partnership with a responsibility to fi nd solutions that may have eluded them in the past
  • representatives from across government and from different levels of government work in a collaborative manner alongside external stakeholders who represent the views of the community and other expert bodies and
  • the teams provide an opportunity for a new approach to policy development, generating energy, ideas and relationships.

Weaknesses:

  • time consuming and
  • managing expectations can be challenging – members may be unsure whether their role is to act as an expert on a particular issue or to represent the interests of their organisation or government agency.

References and website:

  • Social Exclusion Unit’s Policy Action Team Approach to Policy Development. www.policyhub.gov.uk

Fishbowls

A fishbowl is a discussion strategy that seeks to maximise participation in identifying and understanding issues in response to set questions. Questions for discussion are prepared and considered one at a time. Fishbowl participants are assigned to either a listening or a discussion group. The two discreet groups are positioned so that the listening group is seated around the discussion group (usually in concentric circles).

The first discussion group has an agreed amount of time to discuss the question (only one question per discussion round). During the active discussion, the listening group takes notes and prepares commentary. The groups then swap places and the listening group provides rebuttal or further examination of the issues discussed and any further issues not raised previously. The group may also provide feedback on their observation of the dynamics within the fi rst discussion group. This process can be repeated for a number of questions. Recording and/or documenting of the discussions is necessary.

This is a focused activity based on intense exploration of a specific issue. It requires careful planning and participant selection. The process can be aided by follow-up small group workshops for further action planning.

Strengths:

  • is particularly useful for a diverse group of people to explore complex issues in a short timeframe
  • provides an opportunity for participants to actively listen, and then reflect/respond
  • can inform solutions through creative dialogue and
  • opportunity for trust development and a wider awareness of issues from a diverse group.

Weaknesses:

  • the questions considered need to be significant and prompt energetic discussion
  • there needs to be a certain level of comfort within the group and an agreement to adhere to the rules of polite conversation for an inclusive interaction
  • only able to accommodate medium-sized groups of people as participants
  • requires skilled facilitators and good timekeeping
  • must be culturally sensitive and
  • follow-up planning and debriefing maybe required after this process.

References and websites:

  • Active Training (2003) www.activetraining.com
  • Citizen Science Toolbox, Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management www.griffith.edu.au
  • Walsh K & Sarkissian W (2000) Improving Community Participation in the City of Port Phillip. A Toolbook of Participatory Techniques. Walsh Planning Research and Design: Melbourne (p. 99)

The final set of active participation techniques which are described below are generally used with large groups of people, often more than 100, who are all encouraged to become actively involved in the process.

Planning For Real

Planning For Real has been used to give people a voice in decisions effecting their neighbourhoods and communities. The key piece of equipment in Planning For Real is a community-assembled, three-dimensional model of a geographical area (e.g. the neighbourhood or catchment area), on which problems and improvements for the community are identified by the placement of cards.

The model and cards are used to:

  • overcome the difficulties of verbal communication by providing an 'alternative currency' to words as a means of exchanging views and information
  • provide a common reference point around which to structure feedback and comments and
  • permit a broader perspective of issues as well as a physical base for suggestions.

Planning For Real has three basic stages. Stage one involves key stakeholders such as either volunteers, a local club, students, or others, assembling the model within the community. The model is used to publicise public meetings to begin the process of identifying problems and opportunities. The model is designed to be transportable so that it can be used in multiple locations.

Stage two involves training sessions with a few local residents to familiarise them with the Planning For Real process. Stage three involves public meetings which are often held in large, preferably community-based venues. Participants view and place cards or small flags on the model to identify their issues of care or concern. It is often useful for business and government stakeholders to attend the public meetings to get a clear idea of local people's needs and to answer specifi c questions. Careful planning and facilitation is prudent to ensure that the presence of 'expert' does not set up an 'us against them' environment.

As the Planning For Real process develops momentum is created about specific practical proposals.

Small, ad hoc working parties are formed around each issue of concern. The working parties meet to work out details and to negotiate between conflicting interests and priorities. Providing a 'follow-up' pack which describes how issues raised will be followed up can be useful to sustain the energy.

Strengths:

  • starts with an open agenda
  • large numbers of people can take part (no finite number)
  • is inclusive – all sections of the community can take part
  • discussion of a large number of topics is permitted
  • can be used to develop a community action plan
  • can bridge language gaps
  • is fun, simple and easy to understand
  • is non-confrontational and informal and
  • is particularly appropriate for geographical/physical issues, e.g. environment, planning.

Weaknesses:

  • can take a lot of time and effort to organise
  • feedback to participants may be difficult and
  • may not be totally representative.

References and websites:

  • Neighbourhood Initiatives Foundation (1995) A Practical Handbook for Planning for Real Consultation Exercise. Telford: U.K.
  • Citizen Science Toolbox, Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management www.griffith.edu.au
  • Gibson T et al (1986) Us Plus Them? How to use the Experts to get What People Really Want. London: Town and Country Planning Association

Open Space Technology

Open Space Technology is a large group facilitation technique for up to 1000 participants which has been used in a wide variety of circumstances including peace-making between factional groups, strategic redirection of companies in crisis, innovation and visioning sessions, knowledge sharing and community development.

Open Space Technology is based on the premise that people will take ownership of issues they feel strongly about. Participants, rather than organisers, set the agenda, decide the length of the event (generally between one to three days) and the outcomes.

Four principles of engagement for Open Space Technology forums apply:

  1. Whoever comes are the right people
  2. Whatever happens is the only thing that could have
  3. Whenever it starts is the right time
  4. When it's over, it's over.

In addition to these four principles, the law of two feet applies. This simply means that people have the right and responsibility to walk away if they are disinterested.

Participants write on a piece of paper the issues that are important to them and that they are willing to work on by convening or contributing to a workshop. All issues are placed on a wall or matrix for everyone to see. Other participants then 'sign up' for workshops which they are interested in attending to discuss and agree further action.

By providing an open and participative environment, people self-organise and work on issues which they feel passionate about and for which they will take responsibility. Participants are encouraged to exchange views and seek to understand different viewpoints.

Open Space Technology can be used with community groups in local settings or large numbers of people at a specially convened event. It can be especially useful wherever complex issues need to be resolved, where commitment and passion of individuals can be embraced, or when it is necessary to motivate a group or organisation to urgent action or change, and where formal procedural methods have failed or are inappropriate.

As Open Space Technology sessions progress dominant themes emerge. Workshops and outcomes are written up and distributed back to participants for reflection and action.

Strengths:

  • a broad range of issues can be tackled
  • it allows a bottom-up agenda to emerge
  • it enables new alliances to form across social barriers
  • all participants have an equal opportunity to have their say and
  • it inspires ownership and action.

Weaknesses:

  • focusing on action, rather than issues, can be difficult
  • the group may not be representative
  • a large amount of data is collected and consideration needs to be given to data collection, analysis and reporting
  • it can be relatively time consuming and
  • it can sometimes be difficult to sustain the energy from the workshop in order to generate longer term outcomes.

References and websites:

  • Change Management Toolbook www.nps.gov
  • Citizen Science Toolbox, Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management www.griffith.edu.au
  • Open Space World www.openspaceworld.org
  • Owen H (1993) Open Space Technology: A User's Guide: Potomac Maryland: Abbott Publishing.
  • Sarkissian W Cook A & Walsh K (1999) Community Participation in Practice. A Practical Guide. Murdoch: The Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy. Murdoch University.
  • Wates N (2000) The Community Planning Handbook. UK: Earthscan.

Citizens' panels

A citizens' panel can involve large numbers of people, often between 100 and 2000, who are selected to be representative of the population. Participants agree to take part in regular deliberations about a range of issues over a period of time. The panel members are surveyed on a regular basis on specific issues or processes to track changes in attitudes, knowledge and behaviour. Approximately one-third of the panel is replaced each year to ensure it remains representative.

Strengths:

  • access is open to a wide range of people including minority groups
  • is a useful way to test new ideas and plans
  • is a timely and economical method once established
  • can undertake research at short notice
  • views can be tracked and measured over time (although care needs to be taken with interpreting results given panel membership changes over time)
  • panel members develop an understanding of issues over time and
  • participants feel valued as long as adequate feedback is given.

Weaknesses:

  • panel members may lose interest
  • 'representativeness' of the panel can be compromised if panel members pull out before their term expires
  • may be difficult to sustain participation by panel members
  • can be time consuming to replace members throughout the process
  • resource intensive to establish
  • requires considerable degree of ongoing commitment from all parties involved and
  • there is a risk that as some representatives become more informed, that they become less representative of the community.

References and websites:

  • South Lanarkshire Citizens Panel, UK www.step.gb.com
  • Community Engagement in the NSW Planning System, 2003 www.iplan.nsw.gov.au

Deliberative polling

Deliberative polling is an attempt to use public opinion research in a new way. A random, representative sample is first polled on an issue (refer also Consultation techniques). After the baseline poll, members of the sample are sent an information pack containing carefully balanced briefi ng material on the issue and invited to gather at a single place to discuss the issue over a number of days. In some instances, one-on-one, face-to- face interviews have been conducted in the initial recruitment stage.

Once together, participants engage with various experts and political leaders to explore questions they develop in small group discussions with trained moderators. After the deliberations, the sample is polled again using the same questions from the pre-poll survey. In some instances, written material can be sent to the sample group and further participation can be generated by asking the participants to discuss the material with family and friends. The resulting changes in opinion are thought to reflect the conclusions the broader public would reach if they had an opportunity to become more informed about the issue being considered.

Over 20 deliberative polls have been held in the United States, Australia and elsewhere. Two national deliberative polls have been conducted in Australia, the first before the November 1999 referendum on whether Australia should become a republic and the second on Aboriginal reconciliation in February 2001. These events involved national random samples of Australians who met in Canberra for three days of nationally televised discussions with experts and key political leaders.

Strengths:

  • highly representative sample
  • provides a human face to poll results
  • can inform policy decisions by tracking the impact of education processes on opinion
  • the sample population can be targeted for ongoing decision-making processes
  • is a form of public education in the broadest sense and
  • can be staged at a national, state or local level.

Weaknesses:

  • issues need to be clearly viewed as being in the public interest and of significance
  • requires participants to have a high level of literacy
  • high costs of organising, staging and broadcasting the event, plus paying the travel costs for the participants (which may number anywhere between 100 and 500) and
  • careful consideration needs to be given to the level of importance surrounding the issue versus the cost benefits.

References and websites:

  • Carson L (1999) Enabling Mechanisms for Public Participation in Science. www.ies.unsw.edu.au
  • The Center for Deliberative Polling www.utexas.edu
  • Citizen Science Toolbox, Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management www.griffith.edu.au

Summits

A summit is a large scale, time limited event which brings together large numbers of diverse participants to consider information, engage in dialogue and to make recommendations for action. Summits are often used in the early phases of developing strategies to address particularly complex issues. They can be both a visioning and exploratory exercise. Intensive planning is required to organise a summit. Summits are interactive and can be tailored to suit a diverse group of interested community participants, key stakeholders and policy makers.

The summit process is structured and transparent and requires significant forms of consultation prior to the event. It also requires a high level of commitment and resourcing from political leaders and key stakeholders. A summit is normally held over two to three days. Consultation can be expanded to include a web based chat link during the summit, and information sharing processes for those who are unable to attend the summit.

The methods for delivering a summit may vary, but generally the fi rst day features introductory speakers from a diverse group including politicians, experts, and community members. The second day features exploration of existing policies with international, national and local perspectives being discussed. Expert panel members inform participants, and working groups are established and operate throughout the summit. A special resolution group is established and informed by the other working groups, this can also include an online forum. The fi nal day features the establishment of draft policies which are discussed within a plenary session.

Strengths:

  • can 'defuse' a contentious issue by providing all stakeholders with the opportunity to put forward options for consideration
  • enables open and rapid communication
  • supports collaborative policy making
  • enables multi-sectoral engagement which has the potential to develop and enhance relationships between key stakeholders and community participants
  • blends the reality of the lived experience, with laws, existing services, and the costs and benefi ts of all these factors
  • can deliver a high degree of bi-partisan and public support for key directions that emerge through summit processes and
  • the sharing of group skills and experiences can support education and awareness raising outcomes.

Weaknesses:

  • requires high-level commitment and leadership for preparation and planning
  • effective stakeholder engagement is critical
  • requires effective risk management
  • requires significant investment in planning, engagement, coordination, management, delivery and follow up
  • requires a high level of skill and expertise in planning, consultation and facilitation
  • participants must to be prepared to be exposed to a variety of responses based on perceived flaws in current policies, programs, expenditures and practices.

References and websites:

  • NSW Alcohol Summitt 03 www.alcoholsummit.nsw.gov.au
  • Collins D & Lapsley H (2003) Counting the cost: estimates of the social costs of drug abuse in Australia in 1998-9, Commonwealth of Australia, cited in NSW Summit Preliminary Background Paper, April 2003
  • Queensland Education (2002) www.education.qld.gov.au
  • Walsh K & Sarkissian W (2000) Improving Community Participation in the City of Port Phillip. A Toolbook of Participatory Techniques. Melbourne: Walsh Planning Research and Design with Sarkissian Associates Planners.

Case Study: NSW Alcohol Summit

The NSW government conducted a summit on alcohol as a result of community concern. A diverse group of participants included, multi-cultural communities, rural communities, young people, government and non-government representatives, and industry representatives. The goals for the summit were to develop a better understanding of issues, better inform the community, examine existing approaches, consider evidence and new ideas, identify areas of improvement, and finally, build political and community consensus. Following the summit, a government action plan and relevant implementation resources were developed and announced. NSW Alcohol Summit – www.alcoholsummit.nsw.gov.au

Collective learning technique (also known as World café)

The aim of the World café is to create a discussion environment that feels like a café. World café can either be conducted online or in a public space. This method is suitable for large groups of people (has been practiced in groups of over 1,200 people). It provides a diverse group of people with an opportunity to share information and insights into complex issues. A number of questions are prepared and documented on a number of tables. Either a tablecloth (which can be written on) or large note pads are provided at each table. Groups are initially assigned to a table, and then given a set amount of time to respond to the questions. People are invited to talk in small, intimate groups about topics of interest. They are then asked to rotate to another table (and another question) and to add to the responses made by previous groups. The number of rotations can be tailored to the time requirements of the event.

When the final rotation has occurred, a plenary session is conducted to create a sense of connection with the wider group. This offers the whole group an opportunity to connect the overall themes or questions which are presented, and talk about the possibility for further action.

Strengths:

  • the method is simple in design
  • allows a large, diverse group of people to participate
  • enables information sharing on a large scale
  • responses do not have to be limited to written material, drawing would be equally as effective in articulating issues
  • allows cross-pollination of ideas across a large group of people and
  • is a powerful technique for creating shared knowledge of a communitie’s issues and a subsequent sense of 'community'.

Weaknesses:

  • resource intensive (venues, resources, people, marketing)
  • requires significant planning
  • requires a number of skilled facilitators preferably one for each table and
  • a significant amount of follow-up is required for further action planning.

References and websites:

  • The World café Community Foundation (2003) www.theworldcafe.com/storyawwd.html
  • National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (2003) www.thataway.org

Community visioning

Creative or community visioning is an exploratory method for any number of community participants. It normally involves the facilitation of sessions in which participants are asked to close their eyes and imagine what their community looks like now, and what it could look like into the future. A scenario can be set which may provide stimuli for the visioning experience. Visualisation is the technique used and a skilled facilitator provides an atmosphere with a dialogue closely mapping out the community featured. Small group sessions can be facilitated to capture the creative thoughts of participants and follow-up planning activities begin to translate the community vision into concrete plans. There are a number of forms of community visioning, and it can be expanded to include creative arts, such as drawing, or making models out of craft materials (these can be particularly good for children).

Strengths:

  • large numbers and diverse participants can be involved
  • can be a great community building exercise creating a sense of community through the sharing of visions
  • explores a variety of visions for the future
  • focuses on possible strengths rather than issues or conflict and
  • is able to generate forward planning and regenerate a positive spirit and purpose.

Weaknesses:

  • may create anxiety in some prospective participants and impact on recruitment for the day
  • requires a number of facilitators to compile and interpret the visions described
  • generates a lot of ideas and data for collation and analysis may be difficult and
  • requires careful documentation and clarity of purpose to ensure sound links to concrete outcomes.

References and websites:

  • COSLA (1998) Focusing on Citizens: A guide to approaches and methods www.cosla.gov.uk
  • Walsh K & Sarkissian W (2000) Improving Community Participation in the City of Port Phillip. A Toolbook of Participatory Techniques. Melbourne. Walsh Planning Research and Design (p. 99)
  • Ames S (ed) (1989) A Guide to Community Visioning. Portland Oregon: Steve Ames Planning.
  • Ames S (1993) The Agency Visioning Handbook: Developing a Vision for the Future in Public Agencies, A Hands-On Guide for Planners and Facilitators in State and Federal National Agencies. Arlington, Virginia: U S Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Federal Aid.

Community cultural development

Community cultural development refers to a cluster of community-based arts practices that involve artists working with community members to build skills, to share information, understandings and experiences and to actively involve people in developing their community and/or their culture. A wide range of arts practices can be used to engage people including, but not limited to, dance, theatre, festivals and events, exhibitions, video, digital arts, public art, circus and fashion design.

Community cultural development processes have been used to achieve diverse outcomes including fostering harmony, creating a sense of place, giving voice to the disengaged and unengaged, generating creative solutions to local issues, community revitalisation, promoting health and well-being, natural resource management, informing and/or improving the design of the built environment, recording the history of communities and creating employment.

Strengths:

  • creates artistic outcomes alongside community, cultural and economic development outcomes by exploring ideas and issues of importance to the community
  • supports skills development, relationship building and belonging
  • allows communities significant control over what messages, plans and products are developed and how they are developed may support the achievement of government requirements such as the 'art built in’ or 'two percent for art' policy for capital works projects
  • is often effective when engaging people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, young people and people who prefer to express themselves using images and concepts rather than words and
  • unleashing creativity can often result in more innovative thinking and problem solving.

Weaknesses:

  • requires skilled qualitative expertise and/or advice on data analysis
  • skills and confi dence need to be built to ensure that community cultural development processes link to, and inform, government processes and
  • can be resource intensive and time consuming.

References and websites:

  • Australia Council for Arts – Community Cultural Development Board www.ozco.gov.au/boards/ccd
  • Hirst A & Sarkissian W (2002) Community Participation in Practice. New Directions. Murdoch: Institute of Sustainability and Technology Policy. Murdoch University.
  • Queensland Community Arts Network www.qldcan.org.au
  • The Art of Renewal – Thinking culturally about strengthening communities www.communityrenewal.qld.gov.au
Last reviewed
21 June 2011
Last updated
22 June 2011