Gregg B. Walker, Ph.D. Oregon State University

Presentation at the Workshop on Practical Theory, Public Participation, and Community
Baylor University, Waco, Texas
27-29 January 2000

Civic Discovery

• Citizen inquiry into controversial and challenging situations.
• Activities and processes that provide opportunities for communities to debate their future and citizens to learn from one another.
• Any citizen forum where "opinions can be revised, premises altered, and common interests discovered" (R. Reich, The Power of Public Ideas, 1988, p. 144).

• Negotiated meanings
• Shared understanding
• Dialogue
• Deliberation
• Inquiry
• Advocacy
• Constructive skepticism
• Collaborative argument

Civic Discovery Via Collaborative Learning

• From dialogue to deliberation to decisions
• Actions as improvements - Improving the situation rather than solving the problem
• Improvements as desirable and feasible change
•   -- Desirable: What we want
•   -- Feasible: What we can do
• Improvements: Good ideas that can be implemented

• An information gathering or feedback activity
• Decision making is not shared
• No negotiation
• Power is maintained
• “Inform and educate”
• Considers desirability only
• “Command and control” communication

Consultation . . .

• Uses Traditional Methods of  Public Involvement
• Specialists prepare detailed planning documents.
• Opportunities for public comment are provided, such as hearings, open houses, and letters.
• How public input is used is not clear.
• The decision authority (e.g., agency) is in the role of arbitrator.

Agency as Arbitrator

• IGs lobby for their own positions and advocate extreme stances
• Mutual learning is not likely
• Decisions appear as  unwarranted compromises ... “No one is happy so the decision must be good”
• Potential chilling effect on citizen participation
• Risks the 3 “I” model

• Inform
• Invite
• Ignore

• A decision making goal
• Desire for full agreement
• Outcome centered
• Degree of joint decision making
• Some shared power
• Possibility of negotiation
• Collaboration is possible but not required

• The majority’s will determined by democratic voting procedures
• Unanimous agreement (consent or support)
• Absence of objection
• Commitment of a decision without full agreement
• Commitment to implementing a decision
• Group compliance

• Dictated consensus is consensus as a mandated, pre-determined goal (“we will work on this until we reach consensus”).
• Emergent consensus is consensus that comes from the “ground up” as a result of group interaction.
• Consensus is a desirable goal, but in complex situations, may be difficult to achieve.

• Science is interpretive.  Scientists make different judgments about what data mean.
• Stakeholders (including agencies) may hold different scientific views, and support different scientists.
• Are venues adequate for scientific debate?
• Can citizens and scientists interact constructively?

• The need for technical competence--”the best available science”--in complex issues (politics of expertise).
• The need for an involved citizenry and open public discourse (politics of inclusion).

Collaboration

• Emphasis on process and procedure
• Open communication; disagreement is respected
• Mutual gains/integrative negotiation interaction
• Joint decision making
• Shared power
• Consensus is possible
• Desirability and feasibility
• Civic communication

• An emergent process
• Interdependent stakeholders
• Differences addressed constructively
• Joint ownership of decisions
• Stakeholders assume shared responsibility for outcomes

• Is less competitive than traditional decision making
• Emphasizes mutual learning
• Guides stakeholders (e.g., interest groups and agencies) to learn from one another
• Respects both traditional (local, indigenous) and scientific/technical knowledge
• Fosters systems thinking
• Values diversity of parties and viewpoints
• Encourages innovation
• Promotes dialogue and mutual gain negotiation
• Addresses both desirability and feasibility of change
• Is accessible and inclusive
• Builds individual and social capacity

IG1IG6

“Healthy” Collaborations

• Accept new players
• Promote joint learning
• Explore value differences
• Address intangibles
• Key on mutual gains
• Share implementation
• Are on-going processes

• Slow
• Expensive
• Time consuming
• Requires a minimum level of goodwill
• Must operate in the face of competitive options
• Raises expectations

• It must be a viable option for parties/stakeholders; strategic behaviors will persist.
• It demands commitment - up and down as well as across.
• It requires meaningful decision space.
• It occurs in a historical context; building trust and overcoming skepticism takes time.

An Assessment Goal: Collaborative Potential

• The potential for open, constructive, and respectful interaction in a decision making situation
• The potential for mutual gain results

                                                                    Substance
                          Procedure
                                                                       Relationship
 

Assessment and the Progress Triangle
Assess the Relationship . . .

• Can the parties work together?
• What are the parties’ values and interests?

• Is decision space sufficient?
• Is the process accessible?

• Is knowledge adequate?
• Are mutual gain improvements possible?