Book 3 The Engagement Toolkit (4th Ed.) - Melbourne State Government of Victoria
Book 3 The Engagement Toolkit (4th Ed.) - Melbourne State Government of Victoria
Book 3 The Engagement Toolkit (4th Ed.) - Melbourne State Government of Victoria
Book 3
Version 4
© The State of Victoria Department of Environment and Primary
Industries 2014
Accessibility
If you would like to receive this publication in an alternative format,
please telephone DEPI Customer Service Centre 136186,
email customer.service@depi.vic.gov.au, via the
National Relay Service on 133 677 www.relayservice.com.au.
This document is also available on the internet at www.depi.vic.gov.au
Disclaimer
This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria
and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw
of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and
therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence
which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.
Contents
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................1
2. Choosing the Right Tool ...........................................................................................................................................2
3. The Toolkit ...............................................................................................................................................................6
3.1. Backcasting ................................................................................................................................................6
3.2. Brainstorming ............................................................................................................................................8
3.3. Briefings................................................................................................................................................... 10
3.4. Citizen Committees .................................................................................................................................. 12
3.5. Citizen Juries ............................................................................................................................................ 14
3.6. Civic Journalism........................................................................................................................................ 16
3.7. Community Fairs ...................................................................................................................................... 18
3.8. Community Indicator................................................................................................................................ 20
3.9. Community Profiling ................................................................................................................................. 22
3.10. Conference .............................................................................................................................................. 24
3.11. Consensus Conference ............................................................................................................................. 26
3.12. Deliberative Opinion Polls......................................................................................................................... 28
3.13. Delphi Study............................................................................................................................................. 30
3.14. Design Charrettes ..................................................................................................................................... 33
3.15. Displays and Exhibits ................................................................................................................................ 36
3.16. Electronic Democracy ............................................................................................................................... 38
3.17. Expert Panel ............................................................................................................................................. 40
3.18. Field Trips ................................................................................................................................................ 42
3.19. Fishbowl .................................................................................................................................................. 44
3.20. Focus Groups ........................................................................................................................................... 46
3.21. Future Search Conference ........................................................................................................................ 48
3.22. Information Contacts................................................................................................................................ 50
3.23. Information Hotline .................................................................................................................................. 52
3.24. Information Repository ............................................................................................................................ 54
3.25. Interactive TV ........................................................................................................................................... 55
3.26. Interactive Video Display Kiosks ................................................................................................................ 57
3.27. Key Stakeholder Interviews....................................................................................................................... 59
3.28. Kitchen Table Discussion........................................................................................................................... 61
3.29. Media Releases ........................................................................................................................................ 63
3.30. Mediation and Negotiation ....................................................................................................................... 65
3.31. Mind Mapping.......................................................................................................................................... 67
3.32. MODSS (Multi-objective Decision Support Systems) .................................................................................. 69
3.33. Newspaper Inserts ................................................................................................................................... 70
3.34. Nominal Groups ....................................................................................................................................... 72
3.35. Open House (or Open Days, Drop-In Centres)............................................................................................ 74
3.36. Open Space Technology............................................................................................................................ 76
3.37. Participant Observation ............................................................................................................................ 78
3.38. Photovoice ............................................................................................................................................... 80
3.39. Planning4real ........................................................................................................................................... 82
3.40. Poster Competitions ................................................................................................................................. 84
3.41. Printed Information .................................................................................................................................. 86
3.42. Prioritisation Matrix ................................................................................................................................. 88
3.43. Public Conversation .................................................................................................................................. 90
3.44. Public Involvement Volunteers ................................................................................................................. 92
3.45. Public Meeting ......................................................................................................................................... 94
3.46. Questionnaires and Responses ................................................................................................................. 96
3.47. Role Plays................................................................................................................................................. 98
3.48. Samoan Circles ....................................................................................................................................... 100
3.49. Scenario Testing ..................................................................................................................................... 102
3.50. Search Conference ................................................................................................................................. 104
3.51. Shopfront............................................................................................................................................... 106
3.52. Simulation (electronically generated) ...................................................................................................... 108
3.53. Sketch Interviews ................................................................................................................................... 110
3.54. Snowball Sampling ................................................................................................................................. 112
3.55. Speakout (version 1)............................................................................................................................... 114
3.56. Speakout (version 2)............................................................................................................................... 116
3.57. Stakeholder Analysis (CLIP) ..................................................................................................................... 118
3.58. Stakeholder Analysis (Stakeholder Matrix) .............................................................................................. 120
3.59. Stakeholder Analysis (Venn Diagrams) .................................................................................................... 122
3.60. Study Circles........................................................................................................................................... 124
3.61. Submissions ........................................................................................................................................... 126
3.62. Surveys .................................................................................................................................................. 128
3.63. Technical Assistance ............................................................................................................................... 130
3.64. Technical Reports and Discussion Papers ................................................................................................ 131
3.65. Telephone Trees..................................................................................................................................... 133
3.66. Visioning ................................................................................................................................................ 135
3.67. Websites ................................................................................................................................................ 137
3.68. Workshops ............................................................................................................................................. 139
1. Introduction
Within these pages you will find a valuable list of
tools for assisting in the planning, implementation
and evaluation of community engagement
activities.
This toolkit has been developed with the
assistance and permission of the Coastal Co-
operative Research Centre (CRC).1 Our team of
facilitators and practitioners have also contributed
tools that they have found useful in their own
engagement practices.
The toolkit is not intended to provide an
exhaustive list, but rather it offers a broad
selection of tools covering all types of
engagement, from ‘inform’ through to ‘empower’.
The tools have been listed in alphabetical order,
with detailed descriptions including objectives,
resources required, a discussion of their strengths
and weakness, as well as references for further
exploration.
Tool Checklist
Innovation level:
High (Innovative)
Method:
1. Define future goals and objectives, projecting
25–50 years into the future.
2. Specify the scenario by analysing the
technological and physical characteristics of a
path that would lead towards the specified
goals.
3. Evaluate the scenario in terms of physical,
technological and socio- economic feasibility
and policy implications.
4. Brainstorm ways this desired end-point can be
achieved, working backwards to the present.
Participation level:
Low (Information only)
Innovation level:
Low (Traditional)
Method:
1. Prepare presentation materials using (e.g.
PowerPoint, overhead transparencies, etc.)
thinking about the specific interests of the
target audience. Also take printed material
and have background information available.
2. Select groups and make offers for a briefing
(telephone and/or send letters to confirm
date and times). It is important to
accommodate group/community needs as
much as possible.
3. Clarify whether the groups are willing to
promote the event, or whether you need to
provide promotional material (flyers, posters,
newsletter articles).
4. KISS – keep it simple and short.
5. Bring visuals if possible, and talk about case
studies or personal experiences to illustrate
the points you want to make.
6. Outline opportunities for ongoing
participation.
Low (No special skills) 13. Record decisions and keep a running
summary. This is important if new people join
Cost:
the group.
High (> AUD$10,000)
Participation level:
High (Stakeholders participate in decision)
Innovation level:
Medium (Some new elements)
Method:
1. Consider the demographic profile of the
community to ensure most of those groups
that will be affected by an issue or proposal
are represented.
2. Consider special interest groups.
3. Consider groups most affected by the issue.
4. Conduct stakeholder analysis prior to inviting
groups to propose.
5. Be flexible to allow other representatives to
join if they make themselves known during
the participation process (however, it is more
effective not to allow alternative
representatives, as they can highjack the
agenda and/or may need extra briefings that
slow down the process).
Audience size:
Medium (11–30)
Time required:
Long (> 6 months)
Medium (6 weeks – 6 months)
Cost:
High (> AUD$10,000)
Medium (AUD$1,000 – AUD$10,000)
Participation level:
High (Stakeholders participate in decision)
Innovation level:
High (Innovative)
Method:
1. Select a broadly representative group of
approximately 8–12 people. Determine a
question important to the issue being
considered or develop a series of options for
the jury to consider.
2. Brief jurors on the rules of the proceedings,
and allow them two to four days to come to a
recommendation.
Objectives: Video
Community fairs provide a fun venue that will Slide projector
draw a crowd of all ages and backgrounds, and Projection screen
then use many different ways to inform and
Props for working in groups (pens, paper, pins,
engage the participants on a community issue.
etc.)
Outcomes: Furniture
The community fair will raise awareness of an Children’s requirements
issue or proposal, and provide a venue for
collecting contact details and getting signatories to Entertainment and events
any submissions or alternative proposals. Duty of care
Uses/strengths: Insurance
Focuses public attention on an issue. Can be used for:
Can create interest from media groups and Showcase product, plan, policy
lead to increased coverage of the issue. Engage community
Allows for different levels of information Discover community issues
sharing.
Communicate an issue
Builds social capital, that is, people who are
more willing and able to participate in Number of people required to help organise:
community decision making and Medium (2–12 people)
management.
Audience size:
Special considerations/weaknesses:
Large (> 30)
The public must be motivated to attend.
Fairs can be expensive to do well. Time required:
The project’s reputation can be damaged if Medium (6 weeks – 6 months)
the fair is not done well.10 Short (< 6 weeks)
Participation level:
10 http://www.iap2.org [accessed 15/10/2014] Medium (Opinions noted)
Method:
1. Select a date and venue that will encourage
the greatest number of participants to attend
(generally weekends or public holidays). Liaise
with key groups to avoid clashes.
2. Arrange for a number of activities and events
of interest to various groups in the community
(i.e. all ages, children, young people, adults,
the elderly).
Participation level:
High (Stakeholders participate in decision)
Innovation level:
High (Innovative)
Method:
1. Select a representative sample of the
community.
2. Organise the appropriate method to gather
people together. This may be in the form of a
meeting or it may be done via phone or email.
3. Establish a vision for the future and the steps
that are needed to get there (strive to balance
environmental, social and economic issues in
all decision-making activities).
4. Develop a set of indicators that will indicate
that progress is being made – significant
milestones that have made concrete and
measurable progress towards the future
vision.
5. Can also be developed by a small group prior
to community-wide visioning and planning
processes for educational purposes, and then
be developed through community-wide
involvement.
6. Monitor progress against indicators.
7. Publish and circulate regular progress reports
through media and newsletters.
Cost:
Medium (AUD$1,000 – AUD$10,000)
Low (< AUD$1,000)
Participation level:
High (Stakeholders participate in decision)
Medium (Options noted)
Innovation level:
Medium (Some new elements)
Method:
1. Scoping
Audience size:
Large (> 30)
Medium (11–30)
12Nehiley, JM (2001) ‘How to conduct a Delphi study’ Small (≤ 10)
[no details available]
1. Identify a panel of experts or specialists by 5. Prepare and distribute the second survey
soliciting nominations from specialists or instrument. Most often panellists are asked,
individuals appropriate to serve on the Delphi with this second-wave enquiry, to clarify and
panel. Cooperation and participation is rank order survey items suggested during the
improved significantly when prospective first wave. When the panellists receive the
panellists are told how they were nominated second survey instrument, it will be the first
by their peers. The panellists’ primary time they will have seen the responses of the
qualification should be their specialist other panel members. It is often appropriate
knowledge. This knowledge can be gained at this time to ask for additional ideas,
through experience (eg readers of a certain clarifications, and elaborations based on the
publication) or specialist knowledge (eg safety initial survey responses.
engineers). Another key qualification is that 6. Receive and analyse the second lot of
panellists be willing to share their information responses (second wave of data). If the initial
(eg non-competitors). The terms of reference questions were open-ended and the second
of the study need to be described to the wave asked for clarifications and elaborations,
panellists at this time. the analysis of the second wave of data can be
2. Invite an appropriate number of panellists to very challenging because it requires numerous
participate: 30–50 individuals should be subjective decisions about rewording and
members of the final panel. This is large revising the initial responses. Care should be
enough to see patterns in responses, but not exerted to include all of the new ideas and
so large as to overwhelm the facilitator or suggestions, for the main purpose of the
researcher, who must sift through all of the Delphi study is to generate new ideas.
responses individually. The invitation should 7. Prepare and distribute the third survey
explain what is expected from each panel instrument. Most often, panellists are asked,
member in terms of time and effort to with the third wave, to rank order and clarify
complete each wave of the Delphi study. the new set of revised survey items.
13
8. Receive and analyse the third wave of data.
McElreath, M (2001) Managing systematic and ethical
public relations programs, cited in Nehiley, JM. (2001) Often by this stage, the analysis is less
‘How to conduct a Delphi study’ [no details available]
Information gathering, in which the design Provides joint problem solving and creative
team listens to the views of the stakeholders thinking.
and citizens. Effective for creating partnerships and
Design and review, a collaborative process positive working relationships with the public
engaging the design team. Sarkissian et al16 have identified the following
Presentation – the charrette ends with a final uses/strengths:
presentation of designs and findings. Can open up horizons for local people to
imagine and visualise possibilities.
Allows a problem to be analysed holistically,
attempting to resolve community problems
14
and encourage consensus building.
www.washington.edu/research/showcase/1985c.html
[accessed 15/10/2014] Enables the initiating agency to understand
15 Sarkissian, W, Perlgut, D & Ballard, E (eds.) (1986) how a proposal appears to a community.
‘Community participation in practice’, The community
participation handbook: resources for public involvement
in the planning process, Impacts Press, Roseville, NSW 16 ibid
Outcomes: Insurance
Participation level:
Medium (Opinions noted)
Low (Information only)
Innovation level:
Low (Traditional)
Method:
1. Select a date and venue that will encourage
the greatest number of participants to attend
(generally weekends or public holidays/
shopping centres or malls/public spaces).
Participation level:
Medium (Opinions noted)
Innovation level:
High (Innovative)
Method:
1. Select panellists on the basis of expertise,
ensuring issues/groups of relevance are
represented.
Cost:
High (> AUD$10,000)
Medium (AUD$1,000 – AUD$10,000)
Participation level:
High (Stakeholders participate in decision)
Innovation level:
High (Innovative)
Method:
1. Canvass people to be invited to the meeting in
advance to determine the fishbowl team.
2. Book venue.
3. Hire a facilitator.
4. Advertise event.
5. Brief participants and the facilitator on the
aims and objectives of the session.
Innovation level:
Low (Traditional)
Method:
1. Randomly select 6–10 people affected by or
interested in the community issue, to make up
the focus group.
Participation level:
High (Stakeholders participate in decision)
Innovation level:
High (Innovative)
Method:
1. Canvass people to be invited to be part of the
future search.
2. Book venue.
3. Hire a facilitator.
4. Advertise event.
Cost:
High (>AUD$10,000)
Participation level:
Medium (Opinions noted)
Innovation level:
High (Innovative)
Method:
1. Conduct local meetings to determine whether
interactive video would be a viable option for
your community. The interactive video
network might serve a number of community
needs, such as teaching shortages in rural
communities, and as well build the
community’s capacity to participate in
decision making in relation to issues of
community concern.
Objectives: Staffing
Negotiation and mediation aims to deal with Moderator/facilitator
conflict in a creative and positive way, and to find Expert
a solution or a way for people to hear and
Recorders
appreciate the differences between their
perspectives. Audio and visual recording and amplification
Props for working in groups (pens, paper, pins,
Outcomes:
etc.)
With negotiation and mediation, contentious
issues can be discussed and agreements found in Furniture
which differing opinions are considered and Children’s requirements
included.
Can be used for:
Uses/strengths: Engage community
Generally used when normal participation Discover community issues
methods fail.
Develop community capacity
Attempts to provide a ‘win-win’ outcome
rather than settling on a single course of Develop action plan
action. Build alliances, consensus
Can improve satisfaction of all parties.
Number of people required to help organise:
May allow areas of convergence (areas where Medium (2–12 people)
there are some mutual goals or agreements).
Audience size:
Special considerations/weaknesses:
Large (> 30)
Generally requires a specialist moderator who
is independent. Medium (11–30)
Visual Memory – Print the key words, use Recall and review will be more effective and
colour, symbols, icons, 3D-effects, arrows and more rapid.
outlining groups of words Addition of new information is easy.
Originality – every mind map needs a unique Each map will look different from other maps,
centre aiding recall.
Conscious involvement In the more creative areas of note making, the
open-ended nature of the map will enable the
Objectives: brain to make new connections far more
Mind maps are a way of representing associated readily.
thoughts with symbols rather than with
extraneous words – something like organic Special considerations/weaknesses:
chemistry. The mind forms associations almost Mind maps should not be used as a planning
instantaneously, and ‘mapping’ allows you to write or decision-making tool.
your ideas more quickly than expressing them
Resist the temptation to formally structure
using only words or phrases.
your mind map – just let the ideas flow.
Outcomes: Mind maps should also not be used to present
The key outcome of a mind map is a map of information to others who were not involved
information organised in the way the brain itself in its creation. They may not necessarily
functions. Like ideas and themes are linked, and follow the thought patterns that underpin its
key words stand out, enabling the user to sort creation.
large amounts of data and ideas into a format that Mind maps are most effective at the individual
can then be easily used elsewhere. level as they reflect the users thought
Mind maps are beginning to take on the same patterns. With many users in the one mind
structure as memory itself. Once a mind map is map, the tool will not be as effective.
drawn, it seldom needs to be referred to again.
Resources required:
Mind maps help organise information.
Paper
Audience size:
Small (≤10)
Time required:
Short (< 6 weeks)
Skill level/support required:
Low (Traditional)
Cost:
Low (< AUD$1,000)
Participation level:
Low (Information only)
Innovation level:
High (Innovative)
Method:
1. Start with a coloured image in the centre.
2. Use images throughout your mind map.
3. Words should be printed.
Uses/strengths: Method:
Can offer ways to assess a variety of options 1. Determine the issue or management decision
and their consequences in a complex that needs to be addressed.
environmental issue.
2. Review existing databases, programs and
Can be incorporated into existing computer
programs and operating systems, simply options.
adding the components that are needed for
3. Using a program such as The Facilitator, add
decision-making support.
on the decision support tools needed.
Can provide a structured approach to engage
stakeholders in complex environmental issues 4. Trial the Decision Support tool.
where there are many, and possibly
conflicting, criteria to consider. 5. Modify as needed to develop an operational
tool for natural resource management
Special considerations/weaknesses:
decision making.
Can be very high cost for specialist
programming.
Can exclude those who are not computer
literate.
Method:
1. The five steps to a successful open house are
as follows:
The open space technology event puts people of Number of people required to help organise:
like interests in touch with one another, allows Medium (2–12 people)
people to exchange views and to understand a
wider range of viewpoints, and provides a sense of Audience size:
empowerment to shape the world towards the Large (> 30)
kind of future the participants might desire.
Time required:
Uses/strengths:
Medium (6 weeks – 6 months)
Appropriate for use where there is a need for
new ideas and the prevailing climate is Skill level/support required:
characterised by uncertainty, ambiguity and a
High (Specialist skills)
low level of trust.
Low (No special skills)
Because there is a limited set of rules, the
process is driven by the participants. Cost:
Absence of ‘control’ of the process means Medium (AUD$1,000 – AUD$10,000)
participants must be prepared to go where
the process takes them. Participation level:
Includes immediate summary and discussion. Low (Information only)
Provides a structure by giving participants Innovation level:
opportunities and responsibilities to create a
High (Innovative)
valuable product or an experience.
Can assist in the development of a more Number of people required to help organise:
thoughtful consultation program because Medium (2–12 people)
participant observation is usually conducted
incognito. Can allow the development of Individual
consultation processes that suit the subject
Audience size:
community.
Large (> 30)
Time required:
Long (> 6 months)
26 Sarkissian, W, Perlgut, D & Ballard, E (eds.) (1986) Medium (6 weeks – 6 months)
‘Community participation in practice’, The community
participation handbook: resources for public involvement Skill level/support required:
in the planning process, Impacts Press, Roseville, NSW High (Specialist skills)
Participation level:
Low (Information only)
Innovation level:
Low (Traditional)
Method:
1. Researcher lives in or regularly visits the site/
suburb/organisation.
2. Observations are made by the researcher
regarding opinions or reactions to particular
issues.
3. Researchers should state their intentions
openly, and integrate themselves into the
community.
4. The conclusions drawn by the researcher
depend largely on the researcher’s abilities,
and should be seen within this context.
5. Generally, participant observation should be
combined with actual participation techniques
to be of any value.
Participation level:
High (Stakeholders participate in decision)
Innovation level:
High (Innovative)
Method:
The stages of photovoice include:
1. Conceptualising the problem.
2. Defining broader goals and objectives.
3. Recruiting policy makers as the audience for
photovoice findings.
4. Training the trainers.
5. Conducting photovoice training (for
participants).
6. Devising the initial theme(s) for taking
pictures.
7. Taking pictures.
8. Facilitating group discussion.
9. Critical reflection and dialogue.
10. Selecting photographs for discussion.
11. Contextualising and storytelling.
12. Codifying issues, themes, and theories.
13. Documenting the stories.
14. Conducting the formative evaluation.
Number of people required to help organise: 6. Form small, ad hoc ‘working parties’ around
Large (> 12 people) these issues (e.g. traffic, shopping facilities,
Medium (2–12 people) play areas, work opportunities, coastal zone
management and planning). These working
Audience size:
parties then meet to work out details and to
Large (> 30)
negotiate between conflicting interests and
Time required: priorities, using a ‘now, soon, later’ chart as a
Long (> 6 months) guide.
Skill level/support required: 7. Plan a series of activities to develop a
High (Specialist skills) momentum that continues into specific
Innovation level:
Medium (Some new elements)
Method:
1. Determine issues/aspect for poster
competition and the community groups to be
asked to participate. Encourage participation
from all ages and community groups.
Method:
1. Conduct a brainstorming session on issues
that participants wish to explore in relation to
a proposal, plan or community service (See
the Brainstorming tool to learn how to
conduct group brainstorming).
2. Fill out the prioritisation matrix chart with the
group:
issue/frequency/importance/feasibility/ total
points
29 ibid
As well, public conversations can be facilitated Offers insight into issues prior to the
with a view to reducing polarisation on development of a consultation program, or
contentious issues. Such conversations have been may suggest alternative approaches.
categorised: Talking with the enemy (Boston
Special considerations/weaknesses:
Sunday Globe, 28 January 2001) where this
technique was used to encourage those who Can be costly.
supported abortion, and those opposed, to begin a Can be time consuming.
dialogue with the intention of preventing further
Time and cost constraints can limit the
violence after the killing of doctors in the US. number of participants.
Environmental issues can also generate fiercely
opposed factions which undertake violent, or Discussions may be difficult to incorporate
potentially violent, actions like driving spikes into into participation findings.
trees that are to be cleared. Through engaging the Opinions may not be representative.
opposing factions in a series of ongoing informal
discussions with professional facilitation, some Resources required:
understanding of one another’s viewpoints can be Facilitator
established, and this can assist a more formal
Staff
process of consultation by focusing attention on
the issues rather than the actions or assumed Volunteers
misdemeanours of the ‘other side’. Unobtrusive recording mechanisms
Public conversations may involve lay and (audiotape, notebook, computers)
professional speakers.
Can be used for:
Objectives: Engage community
To identify issues that are of relevance to Discover community issues
community groups or members who are affected
Develop community capacity
by or interested in an issue. This may include
revealing the reasoning behind groups or Build alliances, consensus
individuals taking very polarised positions, with a
view to finding ways for those who are polarised in Number of people required to help organise:
this way to hear one another’s viewpoints and be Medium (2–12 people)
able to work together. Individual
Outcomes: Audience size:
Public conversations will reveal unknown issues Large (> 30)
and aspects of community views on a plan or
Medium (11–30)
Cost:
High (> AUD$10,000)
Medium (AUD$1,000 – AUD$10,000)
Participation level:
Low (Information only)
Innovation level:
Medium (Some new elements)
Method:
Individual discussions
1. Approach people who are potential
stakeholders in the following ways:
On the telephone
On the street
At places of work
In public places
2. Identify yourself and ask if the person is
interested in discussing the issue.
3. Arrange venue, times.
Uses/strengths: Telephones
Public involvement volunteers can help a Computers/printing
group or agency that is undertaking a public Trainers in the skills or knowledge needed by
information campaign or a public consultation volunteers.
process. For example, public involvement
volunteers may be enlisted to do the Can be used for:
following: Showcase product, plan, policy
Handle general administration (fold, Communicate an issue
staple, telephone, file)
Staff open days or open house. 30Department of Transportation (1997) Public
involvement and techniques for transportation decision-
Distribute material door-to-door or at making, US Department of Transportation, Washington
meetings. 31 ibid
2. Consider the circumstances of the community Work closely with the chair
and the issues. General format is presentation followed
by question time
3. Schedule a series of meetings. A suggested
Present agenda
series follows:
Field questions
Meeting 1: Record comments
Introduce project and key personnel
9. Considerations:
Supply project information
Widely advise the ways feedback from
Allow the community to ask questions the community is being incorporated into
and identify issues of concern the project. Avoid allowing the meeting to
be taken over by a vocal community
Provide contact points
members
Identify groups with specific concerns for Be prepared to change tack during the
targeted consultation meeting
Meeting 2: Cater for people with disabilities or from
Break between meetings allows
non-English speaking backgrounds
participants to consider views and Never lose your temper
concerns Set up early32
Reintroduce project
Meeting 3:
Information and feedback on how issues
and concerns are being met
Discuss ongoing participation in the 32 Sarkissian, W, Perlgut, D & Ballard, E (eds.) (1986)
process ‘Community participation in practice’, The community
participation handbook: resources for public involvement
4. Publicise and advertise the meeting: in the planning process, Impacts Press, Roseville, NSW
33
Time required:
http://ag.arizona.edu/futures/tou/tut2-
buildscenarios.html [accessed 15/10/2014] Short (< 6 weeks)
Cost:
Medium (AUD$1,000 – AUD$10,000)
Low (< AUD$1,000)
Participation level:
Low (Information only)
Innovation level:
High (Innovative)
Method:
1. Invite participants who have knowledge of, or
are affected by, the proposal or issue of
interest.
Outcomes: Gophers
The search conference will identify specific actions Artists/photographer
which must be taken. Empowering the people Audiovisual recording equipment and
responsible to make these changes allows search amplification
conferences to produce much more useful results
than standard strategic planning methods. Overhead projectors
Data projectors
Uses/strengths:
Video
Develops creative and achievable strategies.
Slide projector/screen
Produces collaborative and participative
approaches. Printed public information sheets
Develops shared values. Props for working in groups (pens, paper, pins,
etc.)
Develops commitment to strategies
formulated. Furniture
Audience size:
Large (> 30)
Time required:
Long (> 6 months)
Cost:
High (> AUD$10,000)
Participation level:
High (Stakeholders participate in decision)
Innovation level:
High (Innovative)
Method:
1. Collect background information on issue or
scenario.
2. Determine as many factors and influences as
possible, and possible/probable outcomes of
changes.
Method:
1. Publicise the sketch interviews through a
number of publicity tools.
Method:
1. Identify the issue of interest.
2. Book venue and invite experts.
3. Publicise speakout/soapbox.
4. Take care of legal and other responsibilities.
5. Hire facilitator.
6. Organise recorders.
7. Explain time limits to each speaker (five
minutes maximum).
Cost:
Low (< AUD$1,000)
Participation level:
High (Stakeholders participate in decision)
Medium (Options noted)
Low (Information only)
Innovation level:
Medium (Some new elements)
Low (Traditional)
Method:
1. Make a list of all stakeholders.
Method:
1. Identify an issue of broad community concern.
Some of the issues communities have started
with include race relations, crime and
violence, understanding environmental
impact statements, or exploring the issues
involving proposed developments.
Resources required:
Suitably trained and knowledgeable staff
Publication facilities for reports/publications
Telephone/computer communications
facilities
Audience size:
Large (> 30)
Innovation level:
Low (Traditional)
Method:
1. Decide if the issue or proposal is important
enough to require urgent notification.
Offers a low-cost way of distributing larger 3. Do some background research, web surfing in
documents. your chosen area or field. Discover what
Offers a highly accessible forum for posting works well on other websites, what they
project updates.
cover, what they omit, and use this
Special considerations/weaknesses: information to improve your own website.
Many people still cannot access the web.
COSLA (1998) Focusing on citizens: a guide to Emery, M & Purser, R (1996) The search
approaches and methods, COSLA, Edinburgh conference: a powerful method for planned
organizational change and community action,
Crosby, N (1995) ‘Citizen juries: one solution for Jossey-Bass Publisher, San Francisco
difficult environmental questions’ in Renn, O,
Webler, T, & Wiedemann, P (eds.) Fairness Emery, M (ed.) (1993) Participative design for
and competence in citizen participation: participative democracy, Australian National
evaluating models for environmental University Centre for Continuing Education,
discourse, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston Canberra