Guest authored by Audrey Lobo-Pulo

Over the last few months, we have witnessed worldwide disruptions that have been unprecedented in our lifetimes - the covid-19 pandemic, a global recession and climate change has increased the level of complexity in our societies. But in the midst of these tremendous changes, we have also seen a staunch movement towards greater civilian responsibility and action at a grassroots level.

Stories of random acts of kindness and sharing within communities as we collectively seek to respond to crises, have come from many diverse regions across a range of demographics. There is a renewed sense of civic duty and a growing interest in civic participation in our turbulent world.

A few weeks ago, the OECD released its landmark report, “Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave”, the first empirical comparative study of its kind, which looks at how ‘deliberative processes’ are used for decision-making around the world. The results are out - and the evidence suggests that citizen participation in public decision-making delivers better policies, strengthens democracy and builds trust. And the ‘deliberative wave’ is building!

Civic engagement in public policy decisions have many advantages that go beyond creating better outcomes - it serves not only to legitimise choices and build public trust, but also fulfils the ancient Athenian vision of increasing and democratising knowledge in society. But in an age where misinformation and fake news is rife, the need for careful deliberation of public issues is vital for good decision making and strengthening communities.

So how do governments offer citizens more deliberative approaches for engagement?

What is Deliberative Engagement?

The increasing use of deliberative processes (as observed in the latest OECD research), including the recent reforms to the ‘Local Government Bill 2019’ in Victoria, Australia for stronger local democracy and community confidence, suggest that these processes will play an active role in changing the face of modern democracy as we know it today.

OECD research suggests that deliberative processes are also better suited to issues that have a values-based dilemma, are complex in nature in requiring trade-offs, and have long term implications. The most common being issues around urban planning, health and the environment - issues having a direct impact on a communities’ life.

So how can governments embrace this momentum, and what constitutes good deliberative practices?

Deliberative engagement processes today take many forms, including deliberation in research, public dialogue and decision-making, and each of these play an important role in the fairness and robustness of their outcomes. Most deliberative processes have three core specific criteria:

• A representative group at the core that reflects societal diversity including people across the different races, incomes, ages and geographies;
• Time to deliberate, with access to diverse and broad information so that various arguments can be compared; and
• A consideration of a diversity of perspectives, with the aim of finding common ground for developing collective and informed recommendations.

Yet, while these form a framework for deliberative processes in civic-engagement, it is important to also consider the ecosystem where they occur. The conditions provided for these processes are vital for allowing citizens to contextualise their learnings and understand different perspectives.

In their work on deliberative democracy, Lukensmeyer and Torres emphasise that ‘meaning-making’ and ‘information exchange’ allow for richer deliberative processes. Indeed, the conditions that facilitate better sense-making and communication often include an environment where “‘meaningful inefficiencies” can allow for a new vitality in exploring different perceptions and approaches. In her work on ‘mutual learning’, Nora Bateson’s work on ‘warm data labs’ allow participants to explore complexity through multiple contexts for enriching their sense-making processes.

Knowing what’s required in creating the optimal conditions for deliberation could be described as something of an art-form.

Many indigenous cultures, including Aboriginal culture, have long understood the many forms of information necessary for knowledge assimilation. In his work on, “Our Ways of Learning in Aboriginal Languages”, Tyson Yunkaporta details eight ways of Aboriginal learning: Story; Map; Silence; Signs; Land; Shape; Back-tracking; and Homeworld - emphasising the many interrelationships and interdependencies between the land, language and people.

What’s important across these many mediums and connections is a shared understanding and empathy of complex public issues, which ultimately lead to better decision-making and outcomes. Yet, our modern ways of connecting through technology present new challenges in how these processes translate to a digital landscape.

New questions are emerging about whether or not ‘quality’ and effective deliberation is possible on our digital platforms.

Digital Platforms for Online Deliberation

The use of digital platforms for civic participation has been increasing over the last few years - and, more recently, has been particularly important during the pandemic, where most countries have experienced periods of lockdown.

As well as providing a space for citizens to connect on public issues in a ‘covid-safe’ way, digital platforms also provide the flexibility for participants to engage at their convenience and willingness across the different categories of the IAP2 spectrum (inform, consult, involve, collaborate and empower).

But can digital platforms meet the requirements for deliberative engagement - and to what extent?

By its very nature, technology has the ability to connect large numbers of people, provided they have access to it. What this means is that ‘representative’ engagement is not only possible, but that technology has the potential to include almost anyone with access and a willingness to participate.

So the challenge now for digital platforms and its Users is to create the conditions for citizens to have sufficient time for deliberation, access to relevant resources and opportunities and tools to consider diverse perspectives on a public issue.

Using Harvest Digital Planning’s digital engagement platform, The Hive, for community engagement, as an example for what might be possible for deliberative and collaborative engagement is useful for exploring some of these aspects.

The design of the platform allows for ‘deliberative research’ by providing easy access to resources and information on services. For example, the demo providing information on mental health services provides links to Lifeline Australia, private forums, networks for support and factual information from reputable sources such as the Mental Health Council of Australia, Beyond Blue and Black Dog Institute.

The Question & Answer and Conversation tools also allow citizens to ask subject matter experts questions that are more nuanced and specific, and chat with other users with diverse views on the issue for a shared understanding. That these spaces can be curated helps significantly in reducing misinformation that generally tends to distort and polarise communities for a more deliberative public dialogue and collaborative spirit.

The Hive’s ability to accommodate platforms like Zoom, and YouTube live also offer new opportunities for more sophisticated deliberative spaces for meaning-making and shifts in understanding diverse views, such as “People Need People” online sessions developed by the International Bateson Institute.

The Hive’s ‘Have your say on Council’s budget’ demo provides an interactive and visually engaging interface for citizens to vote for specific projects to be funded (via the Fund It tool), by weighing up various spending alternatives, while at the same time allowing them to read more about each option.

The aesthetics of using images and videos (including surveys!) adds a new dimensionality in developing an empathy for the complexity involved, and allows citizens to connect with the issues and places through new avenues. The Social Map tool adds to this, by providing a visualisation tool for users to better navigate, share and collaborate spatially on details about their experiences.

One of the big challenges faced by digital platforms today is the speed at which public dialogue evolves - and this often occurs at the cost of public deliberation. The Hive’s ‘timeline’ tool and curated environment allow for the ‘time to deliberate’ to be incorporated into the design of the engagement process.

The Hive, as a digital engagement platform is more than capable of supporting and enabling deliberative processes however, the planning and strategy of how and when technology will be utilised in the deliberative process requires careful consideration. Research shows wherever possible, when digital engagement is supported by or mirrors some face to face activities the outcomes are always richer.

So the potential for meaningful deliberation is possible on digital platforms! And with a growing deliberative wave, we can expect more nuanced and collaborative efforts in community engagement for a better society.