Consultation techniques

Consultation provides important opportunities to develop two-way relationships between government and citizens or communities. Consultation processes may run parallel with information and active participation strategies. Often, the public has been informed about an issue or an engagement activity. To progress the issue, it may be useful to use more consultative mechanisms in order to explore a wider range of opinions. A variety of consultation techniques are available.

It should be noted that it may be appropriate to use a number of these techniques within a consultation strategy either in sequence, or in parallel, for example, road shows and forums complemented by an online survey.

Discussion groups and workshops

Facilitated discussion groups or workshops involving participants selected either randomly or to approximate the demographics of a community, can be a good way to draw out a range of views and opinions. Discussion groups and workshops usually explore a limited number of community or government established issues over a brief period of time. Discussion groups tend to involve relatively open-ended dialogue whereas workshops are generally more structured activities which often combine dialogue with other strategies such as information provision. An action research approach is sometimes the basis for the coordination of these techniques.

Strengths:

• targets specific groups
• can be structured in a number of ways to achieve a range of outcomes
• harnesses community energy and knowledge to generate innovative options
• can build capacity, consensus, ownership and relationships and
• can be iterative or cyclical, evolving in scope over the course of a project.

Weaknesses:

• participants may not be representative
• produces qualitative not quantitative information which may not be easily understood or valued and
• consideration regarding the collection and analysis of qualitative data is required, and may sometimes require skilled expertise in qualitative analysis.

References and websites:

• Citizen Science Toolbox, Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management www.griffith.edu.au
• COSLA (1998) Focusing on Citizens: A guide to Approaches and Methods. www.communityplanning.org.uk
• International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) www.iap2.org

One-on-one interviews

One-on-one interviews involve a person who has been thoroughly briefed on their task posing a standard set of questions to individuals within a community. One-on-one interviews can be conducted in public places, at events, via telephone and doorknocks. Although interviewing everyone in a community is generally not feasible, two or three days may allow enough time to talk with a cross-section of people. Interviewing provides important qualitative information at a level of detail that is difficult to obtain any other way.

Care needs to be taken when selecting people as interviewers and interviewees regarding their role and infl uence in the community, other time commitments and personal circumstances. In an engagement process run over a extended period of time there may be a need to conduct a round of interviews near the beginning of the process to gather information, and one or two other rounds at key points in the process to inform progress.

Providing opportunities for community members to act as paid or voluntary interviewers can be an important capacity and relationship building strategy.

More in-depth interviewing, carried out on a one-to-one basis over a period of one to two hours, can provide a more detailed understanding of people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviour on important issues. The aim of in-depth interviews is to explore the reasons underlying a problem or practice in a target group and to gather ideas and information.

Strengths:

• people will often provide much more detailed information in a one-on-one interview or discussion than they will in a public forum
• is useful to gain views on sensitive or complex issues
• can be conducted in languages other than English
• is effective when working with people with limited literacy and
• has the ability to be empowering and/or therapeutic for the participants because of the narrative response.

Weaknesses:

• expertise in qualitative analysis is required to produce a quality report
• it is generally not possible to interview all community members and
• can be resource intensive.

References and websites:

• COSLA (1998) Focusing on Citizens: A guide to Approaches and Methods. www.dundeecity.gov.uk
• Mahoney C (1997) Indepth Interview Guide www.ehr.nsf.gov
• Queensland Health (2002) The Methods Manual – Engaging Communities in Participatory Action Research: Southport Public Health Services
• Sarantakos S (1998) Social Research. 2nd edition, Melbourne: MacMillian Education Australia.

Open days

Open days involve providing community members with access to an office/centre/project site that they would not normally access' for a limited period of time. They provide important learning opportunities for interested citizens as well providing a forum for people to raise concerns and issues and to celebrate progress. Open days can incorporate displays, printed handout materials as well as tours, scheduled presentations and question and answer sessions. Open days need to be well planned, advertised and suitably resourced.

Strengths:

• demonstrates transparency and credibility
• provides concrete, first hand, learning opportunities
• is time limited and
• often fun for community members and staff alike.

Weaknesses:

• safety and access issues need to be considered and
• can be resource intensive.

References and websites:

• Abelson J, Forest P-G Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E & Gauvin F-P (2001) A Review of Public Participation and Consultation Methods. Canadian Centre for Analysis of Regionalization and Health www.regionalization.org
• Citizen Science Toolbox, Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management www.griffith.edu.au
• Connor D (nd) Public Participation: A Manual. Victoria B C. Canada: Connor Development Services Ltd. www.maroochy.qld.gov.au
• International Association for Public Participation (2000) IAP2 Public Participation Toolbox www.iap2.org
• NSW Minerals Council ( 1999-02) Guidelines for best practice community consultation in the NSW Mining and Extractive Industries (available free) NSW Minerals Council www.nswmin.com.au
• Northwest Regional Facilitators (1999) Public Participation Resource Guide September, Chapter One Public Participation Methods & Techniques www.nrf.org RCRA (1996) Public Participation Manual Ch 5: Public participation activities. www.epa.gov
• Sarkissian W & Hirst A (2002) SpeakOut. A Manual for Organisers. www.maroochy.qld.gov.au

Case Study: Maroochydore Council SpeakOut/Open Day

A SpeakOut was conducted by the Maroochydore Shire Council in order to narrow down the selection of designs for a civic centre in Maroochydore. The final decision involved a jury panel decision. www.maroochy.qld.gov.au

Polls

Polls generally involve posing a small number of closed questions to a range of people in order to identify community opinion. The answers sought are often 'yes' or 'no', or scaled responses, for example, 'strongly supported', 'supported', 'not supported', 'unsure'. It has become increasingly affordable to conduct polls, and in particular telephone polls, in recent years. Polls are often a suitable adjunct to public participation activities. Polls do not always predict an outcome, rather, they provide a snapshot of public opinion at one moment in time. If people are still learning about an issue, a poll may tell you how they feel given their current level of knowledge but may not reflect how they’ll react once they learn more unless a deliberative component is built in to the process (refer also Deliberative Polling from Active participation techniques).

Strengths:

• permits a quantitative assessment of community opinion
• responses are relatively easy to collate and
• is a relatively quick and cost effective way to sample a large number of people on a variety of topics.

Weaknesses:

• requires significant effort to ensure that the sample of the population polled is representative of the broader community
• assumes a level of knowledge/opinion that may not exist
• does not generally provide information regarding the reasons underlying certain opinions and
• does not contribute to two-way relationship building.

References and websites:

• COSLA (1998) Focusing on Citizens: A guide to Approaches and Methods. www.dundeecity.gov.uk
• Carson L & Martin B (1999) Random Selection in Politics. Westport CT: Praeger.
• Carson L (1999a) Random Selection: Achieving Representation in Planning. Alison Burton Memorial Lecture. Canberra: Royal Australian Planning Institute.

Road shows

Road shows are a travelling presentation and/or display used to seek feedback about, or input into a project which potentially affects more than one community. Road shows travel to where the people are thereby reducing the distance people have to travel to have their say about a project. For road shows to be effective they should be complemented by pre-event advertising and appropriate local media exposure.

Strengths:

• inclusive of a number of geographic communities
• ensures consistency of the information provided to different communities
• can coincide with local events and
• presentation of verbal and visual information provides access to a range of people.

Weaknesses:

• can be resource intensive to establish, move and staff and
• outcomes can be difficult to interpret across different communities.

References and websites

• Life Education Australia (2003) www.life-educationaustralia.com.au
• Santa Barbara County Housing Element 2003-2008 www.countyofsb.org

Survey research

Surveys involve posing a standard set of open and/or closed questions to a range of people. They are a popular method of collecting qualitative and quantitative information from a population at certain a point in time. Surveys can be conducted through face-to-face interviews, self-completion written forms, over the telephone, or electronically via the internet or email.

Careful planning is needed for surveys to be successful. It may be helpful to seek assistance from skilled researchers in designing a survey tool to ensure that it generates useful and reliable information. Questions must be clear, impartial, easily understood, unambiguous and should ideally be trialled before the survey is distributed. Sampling strategies need to match engagement objectives. Care should be taken when using self-completed, telephone or computer-aided techniques as they may bias a sample by excluding people such as those with low literacy, no telephone or low computer skills respectively.

Strengths:

• can be used to gain feedback from large and diverse groups of people
• can often be produced and distributed in large quantities relatively cheaply
• enables comparison between groups in the community, or between different stages of the process and
• can provide large amounts of qualitative and quantitative data.

Weaknesses:

• many groups in the community feel they have been over-consulted by government and may react negatively to being asked to complete 'yet another survey'
• may not be accessible for people with limited literacy, English as a second language or with visual impairments
• analysing the data provided via surveys requires time, resources and skill and
• often only useful for providing and collecting information on a limited number of topics.

References and websites:

• Abelson J, Forest P-G Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E & Gauvin F-P (2001) A Review of Public Participation and Consultation Methods. Canadian Centre for Analysis of Regionalization and Health.
• Citizen Science Toolbox, Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management www.griffith.edu.au
• COSLA (1998) Focusing on Citizens: A Guide to Approaches and Methods. www.dundeecity.gov.au
• Flinders University Department of Public Health & South Australian Community Health Research Unit (2000) Improving Health Services through Consumer Participation - A Resource Guide for Organisations. Commonwealth Department of Health & Aged Care. Canberra. www.participateinhealth.org.au
• Northwest Regional Facilitators (1999) Public Participation Resource Guide September, Chapter One Public Participation Methods & Techniques. www.nrf.org
• Queensland Health (2002) The Methods Manual – Engaging Communities in Participatory Action Research. Public Health Services: Southport
• RCRA (1996) Public Participation Manual. Ch 5: Public participation activities. www.epa.gov
• US Department of Transportation (1996) Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decision-Making. www.fhwa.dot.gov
• Sarantakos S (1998) Social Research. 2nd edition, Melbourne: MacMillian Education Australia.

Web-based consultation

New information and communication technologies have opened up innovative channels for citizens to engage in the processes of government policy development, program and service planning and decision-making. Online chats, surveys and questionnaires enable citizens to contribute their views and opinions to government. They also allow government to provide information and feedback to citizens. Online consultation is one tool which should be considered as part of a range of other consultative tools.

Interactive websites

Websites are primarily a tool for informing citizens about government programs and services. Websites can also be used to support consultation by encouraging technology-based participation, including surveys, polls, online discussions and email feedback. Measuring website statistics can also be used as a means of tracking public interest.

Internet surveys

Internet surveys can be used to gain information from the public on a single issue or to gauge public opinion on a number of topics. Used in conjunction with an existing website, they can be an effective way for users of the internet to submit their ideas and opinions directly to government. A suitable questionnaire will need to be developed and posted on the internet, with ongoing monitoring and analysis of the results. Internet surveys can be an effective means of obtaining information from the sector of the public that is online. If access and capability issues are not addressed in this technique the results may not be representative of the public as a whole.

Discussion boards and listserves

Discussion boards are places on the internet that people can access to engage in conversations and discussions around issues. A listserve is an automated mailing list which allows the subscribers to the list to send email messages to all other members of the list. They can allow similar discussion and debate as discussion boards except that the messages are transmitted via email. Discussion boards and listserves are generally founded on a single issue of concern. Monitoring the discussion boards and listserves can be a useful way of gaining insight into the often uncensored thoughts and ideas of people who are communicating on the internet. It may be appropriate to appoint a moderator to facilitate discussion or to monitor contributions in order to ensure compliance with legal and policy frameworks.

Email feedback

Email feedback can be an easy way to obtain ideas from the public on an issue or a range of issues. It can be used with an existing website with a feedback system. It is quicker than most forms of participation and may be attractive to those with little time.

Internet-based forums

These can be limited to certain individuals (e.g. a core group of stakeholders) or open to anyone. They can be designed to allow citizens to respond to government proposals online, read and view the comments of all participants, and engage with other citizens in dialogue centred around proposals. Generally internet-based forums take one of two forms – issue-based forum and policy-based forum. ConsultQld which can be found at www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au provides a structured tool for seeking community views on particular policy issues, and subject to a moderation process, making public submissions available on the website to inform other participants in the consultation.

Online chat events

Citizens can exchange views within a fi xed period of time with Ministers, Members of Parliament and other public offi cials. Chats can take place during internet discussion forums. Online chat events may also require a moderator, particularly if large numbers of participants are expected.

Strengths:

• a number of existing ICT platforms exist to support this type of engagement
• can be very cost effi cient, particularly if using established online engagement mechanisms
• can reach a wide audience quickly
• people can participate at a time and on a date that suits them and
• may be appealing to people who do not wish to participate in group gatherings.

Weaknesses:

• the anonymity afforded by online processes may result in some people providing multiple responses to surveys and skewing results
• resources must be allocated to moderating online discussions and ensuring that questions raised are responded to in a timely manner
• concerns about privacy and confi dentiality may need to be carefully addressed to ensure participation and
• participation is limited to those with access to the internet.

References and websites:

• Further information can be located at www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au
• The Department of Communities administers the Generate Website, a site established to facilitate on-line engagement with young people www.generate.qld.gov.au
• The Department of Education, Training and the Arts provides guidance on setting up information with online publishing www.education.qld.gov.au