How e-consultation can become e-manipulation

Email, web forums, text messages, digital TV and so on are all empowering tools that can re-enliven democracy and help engage people in discussion about the future of their neighbourhoods and cities. Or they are elitist tools used mainly by the well-off and literate to get yet more advantage in consultation about the delivery of public services and facilities.
That's the usual polarisation between enthusiasts and sceptics....but at a round table today organised by E-consultancy we enjoyed a more enlightening discussion. However, it still left me with the feeling that many e-consultation processes - perhaps well meant - can easily become part of the growing body of pseudo-engagement processes. As my friend Drew Mackie has put it, we end up Dancing while standing still.
The discussion started with a focus on what e-tools could be used in consultation, drawing the response from several people that first you have to establish who you wish to engage, over what time, using a range of methods that meets people's preferences. You have to think about the whole system of interested stakeholders, and how much say they will get. Power-holders - whether government, agencies or developers - should be honest about how consultation results will be used.
"If you ask people whether they want a new road, tunnel, building, and they say no - do you stop or just change the colour" as one participant put it.
The same experienced community engagement practitioner made the point that all engagement process are particular to the people and circumstances.... so it is a mistake to take a cook-book approach and, he added, "we find that 95 per cent of people asking us to help plan engagement processes have left it too late". It takes time to plan, to communicate, to get feedback, and most important of all to build trust and relationships in which different parties understand each other's needs and preferences.
I explored some of these issues in a Guide to Effective Participation written in the pre-Net era, and one model that is still useful is the idea of the ladder of participation, originally formulated by Sherry Arnstein. At the top of her ladder is citizen control and delegated power, and at the bottom manipulation and therapy, where people think they are getting a say but find they are conned, stroked... and we would now say, spun.
One danger with e-tools is that bodies who have to fulfill the increasingly tough requirements for consultation or more substantial participation, but leave it too late, may think that putting up a web site and blitzing people with emails and text messages will help them cut corners. It may look pretty fancy, but it is potentially highly manipulative for several reasons. It only works well with those who have access, confidence, literacy. It doesn't enable people to see and hear the proponents and judge their honesty. It only allows conversations among those who use the technology... unlike a well-run event where everyone can join in if the facilitation is appropriate.
E-tools and processes can, of course, enliven politics and participation, and e-democracy evangelist Steven Clift has a great collection of resources documenting how. Better still, catch Steven when he is in town.... even e-gurus are better face to face.
I think that by the end of the two-hour session there was general agreement that e-tools are an increasingly important part of the engagement mix, but unlikely to work on their own. I think they have at least two important catalytic and empowering roles beyond that.
The first is that committing to put all significant content and comment online has a cascade effect on other media and meetings. It opens things up. It doesn't matter if not everyone has access - providing those that do use it to spread the word to others, and use open access to challenge the controllers.
The second is that activists are becoming increasingly capable online. Power-holders that try and stage inadequate processes that are too short, or pretend to offer full engagement but only provide for 'tick the box', will increasingly find citizens using e-tools to organise and challenge them.
As Jello Biafra put it: Don't hate the media, become the media.
More here on engagement

Comments

[Tim]

Thanks for that post - a useful and thoughful piece. One thing you might be able to clear up for me: do you think that any of your main points apply only to e-consultation?

I suspect that part of the problem is that much of the same can be said for any kind of stakeholder engagement process - starts too late, people expectations are unrealistic etc... Perhaps the significant aspect is that more companies a) are expected to engage with stakeholders, and b) think that technology has made it more feasible.

Entirely agree about activists tooling up - reminds me of some of the stuff in Paul Miller's Open Policy pamphlet, I assume you've seen it. If not, there's a copy on the Forum for the Future site at http://www.forumforthefuture.org.uk/publications

[David Wilcox]

Tim - as you suggest, similar issues arise generally in engagement processes. The danger is that people think adding 'e' solves everything. As usual it wakes us up to the old problems as well as offering some new solutions, if properly handled.
More on this blog in the engagement archive.

[Kevin]

David - thanks this is a really useful post. Some thoughts on a few pinciples for community engagement, with or without the e-:

Early - point clearly made in your post.
Ongoing - a mistake to take a snapshot consultation approach.
Mix - ensure a mix of stakeholders and techniques.
Empower - the process should empower all participants for future opportunities whatever the outcome of the present exercise.
Community sector - people generally find it harder to engage with the policy or planning process than they do to engage with the community sector: therefore some effort must go into strengthening the latter to help engage with the former.