The death of geography

Will face-to-face consultation make a comeback?

The inexorable rise of digital engagement is undisputed.

It has been a significant feature of the last fifteen years; and the pandemic has certainly accelerated the trend. Where once we had volumes of paper sent to policymakers working nationwide or across large geographical area, they are now almost all by email. Where public meetings and deliberative events dominated the local discourse, we rely on the Council website to promote a consultation and an online survey to gather the data. Simples!

It illustrates the thesis that modern technology radically reduces the role of geography. The first with this idea was Alvin Toffler who wrote a 1970 book called Future Shock – which this author read over 40 years ago. Long before the internet he predicted the ‘decline of geography’ because greater mobility of the population meant that ‘differences between people no longer correlate closely with geographical background.’ As soon as the online revolution came, everyone agreed that it no longer mattered so much where you were…It became a consensus, and it took till 2004 before Professor Kevin Morgan wrote an influential paper on the The Exaggerated Death of Geography, and applied a correction. Part of his rebuttal was that physical proximity is necessary for many forms of knowledge exchange.

The debate has raged ever since. Except that now we are experiencing the practical application of these theories. For months we have consulted people ether through surveys or through technology-assisted direct dialogue. We know what this means. Seeing individuals on screen and trusting to the skill of a facilitator to ensure that everyone has their say. It was a novelty at first, but many people have grown weary of screen images and crave for a return of genuine people-to-people sessions. Clearly head-and-torso alone is not enough. Communication, we are told, is whole body language, and the way that people interact with others in a room – not just on screen. Instead of zoom fatigue, let us re-embrace those real people and find out their real views; so goes the argument.

A separate argument holds that over-reliance on online engagement ignores the voices of those who have no access to the internet, or those who are, for whatever reason, seldom online. We are often reminded by groups representing equalities categories that direct human contact is a far better model. Moreover, decision-makers like local Councillors have much experience and quite enjoy the traditional public meeting; we all know politicians who pride themselves on their ability to ‘read the room’. I’m not sure there are many who claim to be able to ‘read the zoom’

But consider this. Far too many of the meetings and dialogues we organised before the pandemic favoured attendance by the metropolitan elite – or at least those close to the centres of decision-making. The Government’s Consultation principles encourages a mix of of stakeholder interaction mechanisms, so in addition to the obligatory online questionnaire, London-based Ministries would organise an event in Manchester, or Leeds. Birmingham or Newcastle as well, if we are lucky.

At last week’s Wednesday Wisdom, a member based in North Wales bemoaned that consultation events were too often held in Cardiff. Similar complaints are often heard in Scotland or the furthest parts of England. Maybe we underestimate the bias that may unintentionally creep into policy-making if too many roundtables or other events are not spread equitably around the country. Or around a county? Does the switch to online events eliminate this? Are we witnessing a ‘levelling up’ of influence as geography ceases to be a critical factor?

Traditional relationship-building relies a lot on what are often called networking skills, and individuals’ credibility stems from being able to impress with personal authority and authenticity. Social media mimics these behaviours. On platforms like LinkedIn or Facebook, a few minutes research can tell us what someone has done, what they’ve said, what they’ve published and who else they work or play with. Contrast this to arriving at the Village Hall, not sure who comes with what agenda, and conscious that they are often a meeting place for the ‘usual suspects’ and not very diverse.

In best practice consultations, what matters is identifying who is most impacted and ensuring they are properly heard … regardless of where they live. Digital engagement is often better at targeting specific demographics – and in a sense, can break free of the constraints of social as well as physical geography. With growing experience and new tools, serious consultors should have confidence in planning ahead with continuous engagement that relies on this technology.

Face-to-face will stage a comeback. Many organisations worry that a year of social distancing has eroded trust and can’t wait to renew and revitalise key stakeholder relationships. Modern forms of involvement and engagement reflect attempts to rebalance the power equation. Co-production, for example, is more than just working together; it is about pooling resources, ideas, skills and perceptions – far easier in person than online.

If all goes well and the pandemic subsides in 2021, both channels will be used extensively this year. Geography still matters, but maybe not as much as in earlier generations.

TRIGGER POINTS

• Reading Alvin Toffler’s Future Shock half a century later is a fascinating experience as he got so much right! For a one minute summary click here.
• Cardiff-based Professor Kevin Morgan’s 2004 article is one of the seminal contributions to the subject and, even though written 16 years ago, is relevant today. For example, note his case that there is an “over-exaggerated sense of what can be accomplished at a distance, whether it is through the virtual proximity of digital technology or the occasional proximity associated with business travel.” Click here.
• To what extent has your organisation embraced the new world of digital engagement?
• And to what extent will you plan to resume traditional people-to-people dialogue mechanisms later in 2021?
• Might you revisit your stakeholder mapping processes to ensure you predict better who can contribute their views electronically, and who might prefer traditional methods. To revise what you need to know about stakeholder mapping, follow the Institute's unique e-learning course. Click here.

This is the 367th 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