Originally published 8 August 2015. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
A common critique of public consultation is that it tends to tell you little more than you knew already. In theory, a well-run consultation should add considerably to the evidence available to decision-makers but the hard truth is that many organisations feel they already know all the arguments and that no amount of further dialogue will add value to their process.
A few years ago, part of the NHS in England sought to close a small Community hospital in the south-west and were taken to the High Court for not having consulted appropriately. Part of its defence was that there had been a sequence of engagement exercises – and that the subject had genuinely been consulted to death. Uncertainty, said the NHS, was causing much local disquiet and it would be better to avoid further delay. None of this convinced the Judge who commented:-
“ …the mere fact that the grounds of opposition are already known or that it is well understood that the opposition is widespread and deeply felt does not mean that there is no room for a process of consultation whereby not just opposition but also the offer of alternative solutions is advanced.“
Another frequently heard criticism is that consultations act only as a platform for already committed protagonists. Indeed, there are occasions where the entire consultation response is dominated by one side of the argument, especially if it is particularly well-organised and has been able to mobilise a substantial popular participation in the exercise. Many attempts to engage the public on budget reductions fall into this category.
It is as well that many people now acknowledge that consultation is not a vote and that decisions should not be over-influenced by the weight of numbers. Unfortunately, not everyone holds this view, and there remains too much emphasis on statistical analysis of responses. Would that mean that the qualitative aspects were given more prominence!
So what happens when one or more ‘lone voices’ contribute? Can they make a difference? Or is this just a happy platitude we all use to exhort potential responders to take part?
By ‘lone voice’ we mean a contribution that says something different. Maybe it provides a singular perspective arising from the contributor’s unique experience. Possibly it alights upon little known research, or offers insights which others have missed. For whatever reason, it expresses something else – beyond the normal range of responses.
When this occurs, the first and vital requirement is to notice it. This is not as easy as it sounds. Few coding structures have a category called ‘something different’ though it might be a good idea if they did.
The second requirement is to note who is making the contribution. The salience of a particular consultation response will not always depend upon the identity of the contributor, but sometimes it does. Something said by a recently-retired Professor of Surgery in a clinical discipline might carry more weight than an enthusiastic medical student (though not always!) Similarly the views of an experienced youth case officer working with disadvantaged children might be more relevant to some of today’s issues than septuagenarian pensioner recalling the halcyon days of the 1950s.
The third requirement is to try to work out the significance of what’s being said. Ironically, the contributor/consultee is not always in the best position to judge. It may be that the single respondent expressing his or her own views has no idea that anything unusual is being said. Quite often people assume their thoughts are shared by everyone else. They do not realise that they are a ‘lone’ voice.
Enter the consultation specialist. One of the most demanding roles performed by Institute members and other specialists in public engagement is to spot the rogue remark, or to watch out for thought-provoking contributions that might otherwise be missed. It is immensely important, but sadly frequently undervalued.
Even more is required. Spot the Difference is just the start. Then comes deciding what prominence to give the lone voices. How then to ensure that decision-makers are given a proportionate account of these views. Being lone does not make them right, but highlighting minority views or unfashionable positions can help redress the balance in an argument when higher numbers and stronger voices predominate.
When we convene for the Institute conference in October, and build on the much-praised book The Blunders of our Government, we will no doubt focus on the perils of Groupthink and the need to ensure that we listen to all voices – including the occasional whisper.
TRIGGER POINTS
- How well does your organisation listen to ‘lone voices’
- Is there a bias towards high-volume responses?
- The legal quote is from Mr Justice Moses in the 1997 case of Pow v NE Devon Health Authority
- The Blunders of our Governments by Anthony King and Ivor Crewe was published by Oneworld Publications in 2013; it forms the inspiration for the Institute’s Annual Conference 14th October at the Emirates Stadium, London.
This is the 279th 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.