Originally published 4 May 2016. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
People speculate about Donald Rumsfeld’s often-quoted reference to known unknowns and unknown unknowns. According to Wikipedia, the latter term was first used in a D.H.Lawrence poem. Despite this, few people argue against the analysis – and it most certainly applies in the world of public consultation.
Let us take the current debate on the forthcoming EU referendum. Our media is awash with information and advice, yet there is a widespread view that it may serve to obscure rather than enlighten. We are literally drowning in data and many people feel that they need a Ph.D. in statistics and economics, before they can form a view as to the balance of advantage for one side or another of the argument. Might we call this information overload?
For those who plough through the competing claims and counter-claims, there may dawn the realisation that in between the cracks, there is a lot that we just do not – and maybe can not know. It is this that poses such a challenge to anyone organising public consultations.
The public likes certainties. Figures that are soundly researched; outcomes that are meaningful; predictions that are credible. But try to launch a consultation paper saying: On balance we think fewer people will die, but we can’t be sure. We would be sent back to the word processor quicker than we can say U-turn.
Our second attempt will be say something like: If we assume a similar caseload to last year, and based upon current levels of staffing, we think there will be 20% fewer deaths. The trouble with this is that it sends the debate hurtling towards the validity of the assumptions – itself a classic area of uncertainty.
Finally, we might resort to the use of experts – people whose views we hope will command respect from their peers and the public. This acts as a proxy for our own judgements. Psychologists argue that if we find it difficult to make up our minds, we may be influenced by the judgement exercised by someone we admire. In the NHS it is now recognised that it is more persuasive for a senior clinician to express a view on potential changes than for any politician or administrator to speak on the subject. The public’s reaction is effectively: We may not know the answer, but we trust this person, and it looks as if we can believe what he/she says. For us it may still be a Known Unknown, but we think we have found someone who does know.
The same logic fuels the massive growth in celebrity endorsements in the commercial world. Sportsmen or women who are role-models for millions of children and young people can earn a fortune just by associating themselves with a product. Their endorsement carries most weight where the public feels most uncertainty. Note how celebrities are increasingly used to recommend food, medical or lifestyle choices, where conflicting advice leaves people in a similar quandary to the dilemmas encountered by those who are trying to make up their minds on the EU referendum
This explains the rash of published lists of endorsements. Be they academics, business leaders or maybe prominent names from the creative arts, the idea is to make up for the confusion and the amazing noise of passionate debate by offering a substitute rationale for voting one way or another. The key ingredient is empathy – offering people someone with whom they can identify – or an impressive quantity of an approved group with whom they can make common cause.
But what if we are offered these endorsements not because of information overload – but because of the absence of information. Under-load may be the term we’re looking for. The truth is that the EU referendum is pretty exceptional. More frequently, consultations are poorly publicised and target audiences extremely poorly informed about proposals and their likely impacts.
We have a current case in point. Devolution of powers and (to an extent) money to English councils provided they cluster together in Combined Authorities or other groupings is a pivotal Government policy right now. The speed with which the Treasury has obliged local authorities to agree has meant that there has been little opportunity for local consultations. The relevant Select Committee has bemoaned a lack of public engagement, but as most Councils are keen to proceed, few have wanted to run the risk of formal consultations. In effect, the public has been kept relatively uninformed, and asked to trust Council Leaders who have effectively given the plans their endorsement.
However, a democratic deficit of this kind could create many problems for the future. Citizens of Combined Authorities may question what happened to the ability of their own Councils to take certain decisions which now may need to be shared with another half-dozen authorities. Shared sovereignty ...if you like. Interestingly, it is rather like the UK having chosen to share its sovereignty with another 26 Countries in Europe. So in such a model, when one has second-thoughts, there will be echoes of Rumsfeld’s Unknown Unknowns. And some will cry We never knew about these changes to our local communities, and we never knew that the consequences were so unknown.!
Let us not let that happen.
Trigger points
- On Wednesday, 6th April 2016 at 12.00 noon, the Institute’s Webinar is on Applying Consultation best practice to the forthcoming Referendum. Click here
- On 27th April 2016 in Birmingham, the Institute is hosting a Roundtable on Addressing the Public Engagement Deficit in Local Government Devolution Initiatives, where the issues discussed in this Topic will be discussed.
This is the 294th 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