It reminds me a bit of arguments that were made a few years ago about selling organic or fairtrade goods, that there’s simply no demand for them. At a time when very few people are supplying these goods it isn’t easy for consumers to vote with their feet or their cash. Change that and then you can see how sales subsequently grow.

If, to put it bluntly, citizens’ experience of involvement with government has been either a little bit toxic, or at least not very citizen friendly, it’s hardly surprising if a slight majority aren’t goint to vote for more of the same.

What maybe is more surprising, is that even though only 18% of citizens feel able to influence decisions affecting Britain (Citizenship Survey: April – June 2009, England, Communities and Local Government, 29 October 2009) 43% of those who feel that they do not, in practice, have any influence over decision-making are still up for it!

Governments, institutions and bureaucracies may have in the past been reasonably successful at designing participation that works well enough for the purposes and benefits of governments, institutions and bureaucracies. If on the other hand in the future we’re able to design participation which is more citizen centred, then maybe after some time winning back trust in government, the figures could begin to look very different.

Some stats about local decision making:
*29 per cent felt they could influence decisions in their local area
*27 per cent would like to be more involved in decisions affecting their community (again likely to be influenced by what historically has been on offer)
*45 per cent were, taking everything into account, satisfied with the way their local council runs things
(Source: Place Survey, Communities and Local Government, June 2009)

RT [link to post] “The Myth of Engaging with Everyone” (via @govwiki)

– Posted using Chat Catcher

RT Great post – [link to post] “The Myth of Engaging with Everyone” #gov20 http://bit.ly/1txHsp

– Posted using Chat Catcher

RT @adrielhampton: Great post – [link to post] “The Myth of Engaging with Everyone” #gov20

– Posted using Chat Catcher

Great post – [link to post] “The Myth of Engaging with Everyone” #gov20

– Posted using Chat Catcher

I agree with all of this but I think that the dynamics of ‘community empowerment’ are quite difficult, subtle, and hard to predict – so they are also hard to ‘engineer’. (We’re normally dealing with complex adaptive systems, with all that this entails).

So I think we HAVE to start with ‘those who know and care’ – they have most to contribute. But we need to find ways of linking them to other, includeing the hard to reach. After all, they have social networks very different from those of the officers and politicians who are trying to widen the user of power in local communities.

Then, we need to treat very differently ‘those who care but don’t know much about the issue’ – we desperately need their energy, their passion, their preparedness to become involved – but we need to associate them with people who know more than they do, so that they don’t get browned off, noticing that their viewpoint is not usually taken on board.

Similarly, we need to treat differently ‘those who know a lot but dont’ care much’ about the issue or service. Their knowledge needs to be respected – even celebrated – but they have to recognise that their disspassionate approach means that they miss out some very important dimensions of the topic. That means finding ways of getting them into more contact with those who really do care.

Finally, theres is the huge majority – those who don’t know and don’t care. I agree that community empowerment means getting MORE of this group involved. But, hey, let’s stay real. On any one issue or service, only a minority will get involved. Raising the number of that minority is important but let’s not beat ourselves up about the fact that it will remain a minority.

What community empowerment means to me is that the majority of those who care on any one issue get involved in it (although they are not the only ones who will be involved) AND that the majority of the community get involved in SOME issue AND that the majority of the rest (who carefully avoid ANY involvement) accept that they had the chance of involvement in something they were really interested in but turned it down, for whatever reason.

I think those are challenging and difficult criteria for a successful approach to community engagement. They are feasible to achieve. But they don’t involve getting EVERYONE on board or beating ourselves up because some people hold out against our best efforts!

Sometimes, the people who are enthusiastic are the people who will engage, whatever media you’re using. In fact, they’ll proabably engage even if you don’t want them too.

To fully empower a community, you need to engage the reluctant ones, the people who might feel that their contribution would be worthless or pointless.

That said, I entirely take your point about engagement methods. I had an instance when doing counci lPR with an irate local resident who was getting cross that the local swimming pool was closed for refurbishment. When I pointed out that it had been covered three times in two local papers, on the local BBC and ILR station, in the councils newsletter and on posters at the centre he replied that he only watched ITV and only listened to Radio 1.

This was before social media was a viable option for citizen engagement, but it illustrates two points. Firstly, that receivers must take some responsibility to source their own information. Secondly, that we can never use enough different media to reach people.

Maybe the best way for people to get this is to distinguish those who KNOW about an issue or a service and those who CARE about it. Both bring something to the party, but very different things.

Those who KNOW AND CARE are the salt of the earth and should be CENTRAL to decision making. Find them, treasure them, listen to them – but, of course, you’re free to disagree withthem. By and large, they won’t mind disagreement – they just want to find others, who, like them, know and care enough to try to make a difference. These are the core activists whose ideas should shape your future decisions.

Those who KNOW but DON’T CARE (e.g. many top managers, many consultants, etc.) should be tempted into the decision making arena, because we can learn from their knowledge. But because they don’t care much, their knowledge is suspect – it’s abstract, purely cognitive, not experiential – and therefore lacking in emotional richness. Use but beware!

Those who don’t KNOW but really CARE are enormously valuable – they will contribute energy, passion, commitment – they are vital to mobilising the forces of change. But we certainly shouldn’t follow very closely their ideas or recommendations or desired options – they don’t know enough to be ’safe’. So we should respect how much they care, invite them to become engaged – and If we work closely with them, they will grow in expertise and become even more valuable. In the meantime, we should honestly tell them that their views are still unconvincing – most of them will understand that they have to travel some ways to get into the central assembly hall of decision makers.

Finally, there are those who DON’T KNOW and DON’T CARE. As Dave says, we should, by and large, be prepared to leave them alone and not disturb them. Actually, I’ve sometimes suggested that we should explore whether they might be prepared to PAY to be left alone – valuable source of income! And, sure as hell, we should not pay much attention to their views (e.g. as expressed in Daily Mail-sponsored questionnaires), as they themselves understand (and often volubly protest) that they shouldn’t be asked. On the other hand, there will always be a fraction of this group that could be tempted to either KNOW a bit more or CARE a bit more. (Interestingly, when they are recruited to citizen panels, they often develop an interest quite quickly in issues they have long claimed to be shatteringly boring). We shouldn’t abandon them entirely to their passive non-involvement – but nor should be spend too much public money trying to tempt their engagement.

Such an approach may seem hard-hearted to some. However, we need to focus our participation and engagement activities to those people where they are likely to have the biggest pay-offs. The current pretence of trying to engage everyone, while doing it so badly that most people are actually turned off by it, is not sustainable – and certainly not defensible in any logical way.

So, Dave, power to your elbow – and voice for sanity!

You can find a fully exposition of these ideas at Hi Dave – Great stuff and absolutely spot on.

Maybe the best way for people to get this is to distinguish those who KNOW about an issue or a service and those who CARE about it. Both bring something to the party, but very different things.

Those who KNOW AND CARE are the salt of the earth and should be CENTRAL to decision making. Find them, treasure them, listen to them – but, of course, you’re free to disagree withthem. By and large, they won’t mind disagreement – they just want to find others, who, like them, know and care enough to try to make a difference. These are the core activists whose ideas should shape your future decisions.

Those who KNOW but DON’T CARE (e.g. many top managers, many consultants, etc.) should be tempted into the decision making arena, because we can learn from their knowledge. But because they don’t care much, their knowledge is suspect – it’s abstract, purely cognitive, not experiential – and therefore lacking in emotional richness. Use but beware!

Those who don’t KNOW but really CARE are enormously valuable – they will contribute energy, passion, commitment – they are vital to mobilising the forces of change. But we certainly shouldn’t follow very closely their ideas or recommendations or desired options – they don’t know enough to be ’safe’. So we should respect how much they care, invite them to become engaged – and If we work closely with them, they will grow in expertise and become even more valuable. In the meantime, we should honestly tell them that their views are still unconvincing – most of them will understand that they have to travel some ways to get into the central assembly hall of decision makers.

Finally, there are those who DON’T KNOW and DON’T CARE. As Dave says, we should, by and large, be prepared to leave them alone and not disturb them. Actually, I’ve sometimes suggested that we should explore whether they might be prepared to PAY to be left alone – valuable source of income! And, sure as hell, we should not pay much attention to their views (e.g. as expressed in Daily Mail-sponsored questionnaires), as they themselves understand (and often volubly protest) that they shouldn’t be asked. On the other hand, there will always be a fraction of this group that could be tempted to either KNOW a bit more or CARE a bit more. (Interestingly, when they are recruited to citizen panels, they often develop an interest quite quickly in issues they have long claimed to be shatteringly boring). We shouldn’t abandon them entirely to their passive non-involvement – but nor should be spend too much public money trying to tempt their engagement.

Such an approach may seem hard-hearted to some. However, we need to focus our participation and engagement activities to those people where they are likely to have the biggest pay-offs. The current pretence of trying to engage everyone, while doing it so badly that most people are actually turned off by it, is not sustainable – and certainly not defensible in any logical way.

So, Dave, power to your elbow – and voice for sanity!

You can find a fuller exposition of these thoughts at http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/carbs/research/groups/clrgr/policypaper.pdf

@davebriggs Thanks Dave & for post that sparked the thinking.

– Posted using Chat Catcher

@timdavies good stuff – need to think on it – but just adding a quick comment…

– Posted using Chat Catcher