What Should E-Participation Training Look Like in 2010?

by Tim on July 1, 2010

The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) just put out a request for proposals to update their certificate program course materials and train-the-trainer program development.

The first of the two RFPs (Updating Course Materials, PDF) notes that the current training materials “are lacking in the area of social media techniques.”

Which brings up a few interesting questions:

  • What should a comprehensive training course in public participation such as IAP2′s cover with regard to e-participation (including, but not limited to social media)?
  • What could the curriculum look like?
  • To what degree might this include elements of learning-by-doing using a variety of tools?
  • And more importantly, what are the underlying patterns and success factors for quality ICT-based engagement, the building blocks, the guiding principles?

Would love to toss around a few ideas before I take the certification training myself week after next.

Related posts:

  1. PACE Conference: The Role of Social Media in Public Participation
  2. Public Engagement in the 21st Century: October 7, 2010 in Oakland, CA
  3. 2010 Conference on Authentic Public Participation: November 4 in Peoria, AZ

{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

Sebastian July 1, 2010 at 2:31 pm

I think such a training necessarily needs to strike a balance between technical literacy and facilitation competences. Many specialists on e-participation might be very familiar with the ins and outs of the technology employed, but unfamiliar with group dynamics, dialogue or communication. On the other hand, professionals that have decades of experience in these areas might be lacking the necessary understanding of the technologies that are used and their capabilities and – shortcomings.

David Newman July 1, 2010 at 5:20 pm

I have run short workshops in e-consultation (and other forms of e-participation) as part of our research into e-consultation (www.e-consultation.org), and for a professional doctorate in Governance.

What works is to make sure the participants do some simple hands-on work with collaborative communication and working tools, interspersed with looking at examples of how they have been used to support public participation. E.g. writing something in a discussion forum, followed by looking at a story collection site like http://www.patientopinion.com/ or http://wheel.e-consultation.org/

Then get them using the tools (+ face-to-face discussion) to talk about how they would use them in their next public participation event. For that part I find a GSS tool like WebIQ is good for electronic brainstorming.

But for use with large numbers of people, go for something simpler. In our current EU project, we will ask young people to discuss Internet governance using their own choice of social media tools, in their own favourite corners of cyberspace – and only later write up their results on http://huwy.eu/ to be read by policy-makers.

Moira July 4, 2010 at 1:51 am

Thank Tim for starting this conversation! It will be interesting to see what comes together in bids.

Beth Offenbacker July 15, 2010 at 11:32 am

Hi Tim, great question. My perspective here is that the tools need to support the kind of engagement that the organization wants to pursue. It’s really easy to become fascinated with a new cool tool and try to make it fit something that it really doesn’t support. In other words, what promise level on the IAP2 Spectrum is the organization committing to, and what tools might be a good fit for that? If we begin with this premise, then selecting the tools becomes a lot easier. Best, Beth

Fraser July 30, 2010 at 2:28 pm

Hi, Tim.

Been running an “effective eParticipation” course with The Consultation Institute for about a year now. I’d say we’ve had over 100 takers.

We go through the theory but also lots and lots of examples. There is also a group exercise.

Regards,

F

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: