Following a recent IAP2 Northern California chapter meeting, I came across this definition of public participation:
What is Public Participation?
Public participation is the process by which an organization consults with interested or affected individuals, organizations, and government entities before making a decision. Public participation is two-way communication and collaborative problem solving with the goal of achieving better and more acceptable decisions. Public participation prevents or minimizes disputes by creating a process for resolving issues before they become polarized. Other terms sometimes used are “public involvement,” “community involvement,” or “stakeholder involvement.”
We are currently working on our first product, a web-based software application for problem solving and decision making in large groups. To some degree, what we have in mind is a public participation engine (at least for those parts of an engagement project that can feasibly be run online).
Related Posts
- October 30, 2009 by Tim:
Talking About Participation - March 10, 2009 by Tim:
Public Engagement Principles Project - February 20, 2009 by Tim:
Public Participation and the Open Government Directive
IAP2 defines “participation” as always including collaboration.
So, if the public is asked for comments to a specific proposal, then that would not include “collaboration” (since the public was not invited to craft the proposal or offer alternatives).
So that means that, when the pubic participates in a “request for public comments” (i.e, non-collaborative), the IAP2 would say that it does not qualify as “public participation”.
Ne c’est-pas?
Which IAP2 definition are you referring to? I’m pretty sure they do not require collaboration but instead have a much broader definition of public participation.
According to their Spectrum of Public Participation (PDF), they explicitly include “inform” (to provide the public with balanced and objective information, to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions) and “consult” (to obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions) as valid public participation goals.
So even efforts where the public is offered nothing more than information on the issue or where an opportunity to comment is offered only after a decision has been made could still be considered public participation according to IAP2’s model, though the level of public impact will probably be small (compared to, say, public co-creation of policy).
The spectrum lists “public comment” as an example technique for the “consult” goal.
Tim,
I was referring to the definition (IAP2/Northern Calif. chapter)that you cited in your original posting:
“Public participation is two-way communication and collaborative problem solving …”
So, does that mean that the Northern California chapter of IAP2 has crafted different language and is presenting its own definition of “public participation” (i.e., it requires “collaboration”) than that of the larger IAP2 organization?