Engagement ‘domains’ - Different professions and different environments have cultures, values and behaviour patterns all of their own

The term ‘domain’ originally meant a piece of land – a territory.

Today we use it in a very different sense. Not only do many of us have a ‘domain name’ but educationalists and others speak of different ‘knowledge domains’ to categorise various spheres of expertise and know-how.

One of the fascinating aspects of public and stakeholder engagement is to look at the ways in which different professions and functions undertake the important but essentially-similar tasks of consultation, engagement or involvement. Despite our attempts to develop and observe a consistent set of definitions for much of the terminology used in this area, cultural issues and business practice vary so much that the gulf in mutual understanding remains considerable.

Legislation does not always help. Those who draft Bills for the Department of Communities and Local Government presumably don’t talk to those who do the same job for the Department of Health. Otherwise why would the concept of public engagement be phrased differently in laws brought to Parliament by such separate departments? But, don’t worry, it’s yesterday’s problem, for the ‘duty to inform, consult and involve’ is (according to Mr Pickles) going to be scrapped anyway. Oh, except that the DoH isn’t going to scrap their equivalent duty (Section 242 of the NHS Act 2006). That is, if we discount rumours that it would quite like to ... and has told Strategic Health Authorities to discourage any more ‘consultations’ in the Health Service. Oh dear! Central Government has its own ‘culture’ and deeply embedded within it is a quaint belief that legislation makes a huge difference. Of course, there are occasions when it can, but often it merely disguises what has to happen on the ground – and that usually reflects the practical politics of what is necessary to carry communities with you on important issues. That is why some people argue that scrapping the ‘duty to involve’ won’t matter and that ‘it never changed anything anyway!’

But there are other cultural influences at work. At last week’s Institute Special Interest Group on Planning, we discussed the training needs of Project Managers regarding public engagement. They have difficulty grasping some of the ‘airy-fairy’ language of involvement and participation. Of course they do. Try telling a Civil Engineer to pour an ‘appropriate’ amount of concrete into the foundations, or telling a Quantity Surveyor to remove a ‘reasonable’ amount of topsoil from the route of the new by-pass. Yes, it’s amusing. But unless we can at least meet these people half way, and talk in language and concepts they find familiar we will not convince them of the relevance of public engagement.

Doctors are another special case. They are intelligent, well educated, hugely experienced in the human condition and the dozens of scenarios that bring patients to their surgeries every day. No wonder they think they already undertake public involvement; in fact they have a surfeit of it. But, if we assume the Government still wants GPs in England to commission NHS services, they will inevitably need to start listening to a range of voices they do not currently hear. Persuading them that this is the case, and that it will take time and money, clearly won’t be easy, and needs to be done by people sensitive to their mindset, and acknowledging the way they will look at their likely role in replacing Primary Care Trusts.

One further example. Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) are getting under way. They’ve had a bad press. Prominent businesspeople, intended to have been the leaders of these new sub-regional bodies are reluctant to devote their time to organisations with an unclear brief, no legal powers and no money. Yet those of the 34 announced LEPs which survive will, by necessity, have to learn sooner or later, how to engage effectively with thousands of businesses as well as huge populations of people likely to be affected by their decisions. Again, the ones to help them will be those who see the difference between old-style Council-speak and the modern, IT-supported language of customer engagement which the private sector understands so much better.

Involving the public is taking us into different cultural ‘domains’ and we all need a better understanding of the way the world looks from these perspectives

Trigger points

• How conscious are your Managers and colleagues of the changing landscape of public engagement, and the need to work within different ‘domains’?
• Have you recently conducted a skills audit, to ensure you have the capability to respond? Look at the Institute’s Public Engagement Skills/Capability self-assessment tools. (Note: Big Society Skills assessment now under development!)
• Are you a public body needing to work with an LEP? Or are you likely to be influenced by a LEP’s plan for your area? If so, are you building the right interfaces and relationships with it?
• Hear how the Consultation Institute is working with the Heart of Birmingham Teaching Primary Care Trust to help transfer responsibility for public engagement to GP Consortia at the Institute's Transforming Public Involvement in Health seminar.
• Join the debate about the likely implications of Scrapping the ‘duty to involve'

This is the 187th 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