Originally published 21 March 2012. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
Last week’s high profile consultation was on gay marriage – or, technically, on equal civil marriage. It sparked a furious controversy with predictable cries of ‘sham consultation’ from opponents, and the Institute itself concluded that aspects of this particular exercise will be a recipe for confusion.
But there was another feature of the consultation that caught the eye.
As part of the consultation document, the Government Equalities Office published the following words:- The Government’s response will take all responses submitted to this consultation into account, and will be based on a careful consideration of the points made in consultation responses, not the number of responses received. [Our underline]
No-one in the Institute can remember seeing such a clause before. But, even if the wording is somewhat ham-fisted, we can hardly complain about the principle. After all, we tell everyone that ‘consultation is not a vote’ and often encourage serious consultor organisations to focus mostly on qualitative methods. Many specialists will welcome a clear signal that little can be gained solely by chasing numbers. In fact, this could be the first discernible sign that Government is becoming frustrated with the evident success of campaign platforms such as 38 Degrees, who are proving adept at gathering tens of thousands of signatures – within or outside a consultation. Is this, perhaps an attempt to dissuade the Churches on the one hand and the LGBT community on the other hand from entering a bidding war for who can mobilise most of their supporters to respond to this consultation?
If that is the intention, it won’t work; there is already too much momentum behind the gay marriage issue. But on future issues, maybe there is more at stake, and if we add too the prevailing scepticism re consultation, this clear message that analysts may not take account of ‘the number of responses’, it could yet have a depressing effect on the likelihood of consultees participating.
And it raises some questions that matter: • If consultors say they disregard the numbers, is this an absolute? Or do they perhaps just intend to signal that the numbers will be relatively less important? • If the numbers are to be disregarded, why bother to undertake any quantitative surveys, or seek any quantitative data? • Where would be the incentive for individuals (compared to organisations) to contribute their views? • To assess the relative popularity of different viewpoints, there needs to be a degree of quantitative analysis
It is far better to appreciate the impact of these questions by looking at a typical and topical consultation. Where better to consider this than in the growing controversies surrounding on-shore wind farms?
Imagine a community unhappy with a proposal for wind-turbines it believes to be a noisy eyesore. Their one hope is that a public consultation provides local people with the opportunity to express not just the arguments they wish to advance, but also the strength of feeling with which they hold to those views. Can we imagine going to such a community and explaining patiently that ‘the numbers don’t matter’ - surely we would be run out of town?
Clearly, in such a situation, there would be a palpable sensation of injustice if individuals felt that their concerns were not being considered, and that the numbers of neighbours and fellow-citizens sharing those views were not being counted. If we are to carry communities with us on major (or even minor) new developments, we can ill-afford to alienate an already sceptical public.
But maybe there is a distinction between consultations on Development Proposals and Policy Changes. Might there be a case for paying less attention to the numbers when the subject is a change in the law, or a different approach to Government policy? Gay marriage, for example, on most interpretations does not impact physical communities in the same way as a Windfarm, a HighSpeed Train or a Nuclear Power Station.
In the rarefied atmospheres of Whitehall or Think Tanks, the abstract minds of academics and civil servants may be able to separate the arguments from the numbers of those who advance them. For the rest of us, this is far more difficult, and the best advice is therefore always to take some account of the numbers responding; the new formula needs a serious re-think
Trigger points
- Does your organisation publish a note similar to that shown above? Do you discourage large numbers of respondents?
- There are two relevant Institute AudioBoos: • The Gay marriage consultation- is it really a sham? • Council rejects windfarm ... But is the industry doing enough to win the argument?
- Issues covered in this Topic also feature in Institute courses on Effective Surveys & Questionnaires and Effective Data Analysis.
- If you are interested in the continuing debate on public engagement re Windfarms, why not join us at the Key Issue Workshop.
This is the 208th 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