Consensus conferences
-
Upload
daniellelee454 -
Category
Documents
-
view
374 -
download
2
description
Transcript of Consensus conferences
![Page 1: Consensus conferences](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081413/547d68845906b561378b4699/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
CONSENSUS CONFERENCES
PLANNING CELLSLay citizen deliberations
![Page 2: Consensus conferences](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081413/547d68845906b561378b4699/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Consensus Conf + Planning Cells
1. Include “ordinary” citizens
2. Unorganized organized– HIGHLY structured
3. Randomly selected citizens
4. 10-25 per group – (100-500 total)
5. 3-4 days of deliberation +
6. Elicit citizen preferences on policy issues (social research)
![Page 3: Consensus conferences](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081413/547d68845906b561378b4699/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
STRUCTURERelationship to Expertise?
Briefing materials
Present.sField Trips
FacilitationDevelop report
Present andDisseminate
![Page 4: Consensus conferences](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081413/547d68845906b561378b4699/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
NO EXPERTISENO SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE AND YET
PRIORITIZE CITZENS
![Page 5: Consensus conferences](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081413/547d68845906b561378b4699/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
PLANNING CELLSINFORM ON ISSUE
HEARINGS
SITE VISITS
SMALL GROUP DISCUS
SION
MULTIPLE
STEWARDS
INFORM ON ISSUE
HEARINGS
SITE VISITS
SMALL GROUP DISCUS
SION
MULTIPLE
STEWARDS
INFORM ON ISSUE
HEARINGS
SITE VISITSSMALL GROUP
DISCUSSION
MULTIPLE STEWARDS
CITIZENS’ REPORT
PRESENTED
![Page 6: Consensus conferences](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081413/547d68845906b561378b4699/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Planning Cells Cont.
• Emphasize small group work (5)– More opportunities to be heard/interact– Lessen fear of large audience
• Rotate group membership• Resistance to team-building “games” = do
these manipulate?• Results Aggregated, not synthesized = huge
amount of data (quantitatitive)
![Page 7: Consensus conferences](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081413/547d68845906b561378b4699/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
BOTH• One time events• Take huge efforts to plan (6-18 mo.)• Often convened by research institutes
• Real concrete problem – not hypothetical's
• Close ties to state – Have a direct input (+)– Are highly vulnerable to manipulation (-)
![Page 8: Consensus conferences](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081413/547d68845906b561378b4699/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Democracy in Denmark
• Highly participatory (150+)
• Home of consensus conferences
• Focused particularly on technology assessment (1987 +)– Gene technology– Air pollution– Infertility
• 50 + in 13 countries
![Page 9: Consensus conferences](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081413/547d68845906b561378b4699/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Planning Cells/Citizens’ Report
1970sinfrastructure problems
• 50 + worldwide (most in Germany)• 12 weeks? 3 weeks? 4 day standard?• Citizens’ report
![Page 10: Consensus conferences](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081413/547d68845906b561378b4699/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
EFFECTS/OUTCOMES
• Direct effects– Can change policy– Change citizen
deliberators
• Indirect– Change public discourse– Change ideas of policy
makers
• Randomly invited citizens do tend to participate (many)
• Do roughly represent community
• take it seriously• shift preferences• find it fulfilling• Most support extending
process
![Page 11: Consensus conferences](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081413/547d68845906b561378b4699/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Success/Failure
• REPORTS compete with advice from:– Political parties– Expert committees– Interest groups
• Success depends on OUTSIDE factors:–Willingness of decision makers to LISTEN– Ferocity of competing agendas– Nature of public discourse
![Page 12: Consensus conferences](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081413/547d68845906b561378b4699/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
• “Dramatic shift from the elite, technocratic model of decision making”
• Commitment from politicians and administrators are key to outcome (lead to policy outcomes)
• AIM = “elicit considered input from lay citizens on complex policy issues”
![Page 13: Consensus conferences](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081413/547d68845906b561378b4699/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
DRAWBACKS
Resource intensive – strong financial support
Administratively demanding
Require someone to champion them
Unsustained contact (1 time)
Subject to manipulation via planning
![Page 14: Consensus conferences](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081413/547d68845906b561378b4699/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
BEST FOR ADDRESSING
• Publicly significant and current issue
• Relevant to the lives of citizens
• Relatively urgent problem with
• Different options which have very different benefits and risks
• involve social, ethical and technical consequences
• Demarcated but controversial
LESS SUCCESSFUL WHEN
• Binary outcomes
• Highly polarized issue
• Large inequalities within community
• A very quick decision needs to be made
![Page 15: Consensus conferences](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081413/547d68845906b561378b4699/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
QUESTIONS
1. Random selection means some who want to have a voice in the process do not.– How is this problematic or unjust?– How could it be justified?
2. Can non-experts and unaffiliated citizens make legitimate contributions to public policy? Why or why not?
![Page 16: Consensus conferences](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081413/547d68845906b561378b4699/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
GOALS/OUTCOMES
• Rearranges power dynamics– Policy actors become presenters– Expose coercive forms of power
• Transform communicative conditions– Remove competition and– Use reasoned argument and reflection
• Collective will? Individual will?• Aiming for demographic diversity, not
statistical representation
![Page 17: Consensus conferences](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081413/547d68845906b561378b4699/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
cooperative discourse model (Ortwin Renn)
Stakeholders – values and
criteria
Expert – develop
performance profiles of
options
lay public – evaluate and design policy
Feedback from public -- accountability