Originally published 8 February 2011. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
As the media struggles to come to terms with the messy results offered by the British public, consultation professionals will reflect that data is frequently inconclusive and that interpreting what people really meant is quite an art. With public consultation, an overwhelming clear-cut result is actually rare, provided it has been conducted properly. After all, if there are no divisions of opinion, might we not wonder what there was that justified going to consultation in the first place?
More typical is a consultation that has only engaged effectively with one side of an argument. Town Planners frequently complain that only the ‘objectors’ to new developments choose to participate in certain consultation exercises. Recently, there was a Government consultation on circus animals where a large majority of respondents wished to see them outlawed. But critics claimed that only the Animal Welfare lobby had heard about the exercise!
Asymmetrical (or ‘lop-sided’ if you like) consultations can, of course produce seemingly conclusive results. But where stakeholders have been properly identified and engaged on an even-handed basis, the results may well be mixed and, unlike an Election where votes cast must be given equal weight, assessing those results is a process that requires judgements about consultees’ credibility.
Divining an overall ‘intent’ is pretty difficult as we enter the world of trends and nuances. Because consultation involves the use of quantitative, qualitative and participatory techniques, there is much scope for different interpretation. It may well boil down to the relative importance we attach to each piece of evidence, and the means by which it was obtained.
It is by no means unusual to find totally contradictory messages; yet someone has to make sense of it, and probably take decisions that one group or another will find unacceptable.
The search for the kind of consensus that Party leaders are today attempting is made easier if there is sufficient evidence to support it. In politics, the arithmetical result of last Thursday’s contests can be supplemented by a wealth of detailed polling data of people’s views on a staggering range of topics. In consultation, there is a similar need to understand relevant stakeholder’s views over a wider agenda; call it context maybe.
What makes a consultation inconclusive is not the existence of competing arguments but a dearth of supporting evidence that can help figure out what it means. That’s why the best public engagement looks for evidence rather than decisive results one way or another. Therein lies the opportunity for creative problem-solving, consensus-building and increased public confidence in the value of constructive dialogues.
Trigger points
- The Institute is holding an event to consider the post-election situation. Implications of a New Government – what next for Public Engagement?
- We are starting work on a brand new course – building on the themes from this Topic. Listening to the Evidence will focus on Data analysis and interpretation; members with ideas, suggestions and case studies.
- Citizens and Community Panels provide a means to gather large amounts of data; places are still available in the next specialist Course on this subject.
This is the 161st Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement