Appendix: Some of the Key Deliberative Techniques Used in WA
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Appendix: Some of the key deliberative techniques used in WA
Technique When useful Participants Description WA examples Citizens’ Jury When an issue involves A small random sample of Jurors deliberate on the Reid Highway Exit differences in values, is the population – usually issue, freely ask questions Albany Administration complex, or involves a split 16-22 people. of expert witnesses, Centre community, and policy- determine their values, makers want to know what and find options and a thoroughly informed solutions that represent a random sample would common ground. The think. process is guided by a facilitator. Deliberative When there is concern A random sample of the A broad community survey Scarborough Beach Survey/Poll about an issue within the population of is carried out. Random Precinct Development community, and policy- approximately 200 people. sample participants Fremantle Harbour makers want to establish complete a survey at the Limits to Growth whether access to start of a one-day (or Joondalup Family Health comprehensive information longer) deliberative forum Study and deliberation will where they hear all sides change the community’s of the issue. Through small Future of the Fremantle views. team work and plenary Traffic Bridge sessions, participants Victoria Quay learn through inquiry and Commercial Precinct discussion. At the end of the forum, they complete the survey again. Analysis of the surveys details values and preferences, and whether these have shifted following deliberation. Technique When useful Participants Description WA examples Consensus Forum When stakeholder groups A medium-to-large group Participants learn about Road Train Summit strongly disagree on an of people (60 – 150) who the key arguments from Freight Network Review issue. are representative and ‘experts’ , and then work Scarborough Senior inclusive: in small groups to High School 1/3 are respondents to understand each other’s Redevelopment views, deliberate about an invitation to a Gascoyne Muster population random key issues, and seek Leighton Development sample common ground. Themes South West Plantation 1/3 are respondents to from each small group are Timber Transport Forum public advertisements reflected back to the larger group. State Rail Heritage 1/3 are stakeholder Strategy invitees. Consensus Forums provide a way for lay people to Taxi Review deliberate about South West Health technically complex issues Community together with those who Engagement are ‘expert’ in the area. 21st Century When new thinking and A medium-to-large group 21st Century Town Dialogue with the City Dialogue/Town planning is needed and a of people (50 – 1,000s) Meetings involve a large- Dialogue with the Meeting ground-swell of support is drawn from the community scale meeting based on Pilbara: Newman important. – either a fully random small group, facilitated Tomorrow sample or a mix of discussion, with networked Cockburn Vision participants that includes technology to enable the Dialogue stakeholder groups, room’s key themes and Dianelle Local Area interested community priorities to be broadcast Planning members, and random to the entire room in ‘real sample representation. time’. Dialogue with Greater In some cases, additional Bunbury on Regional participants may be Open Space sought to represent specific minority groups.
This chart is based on: Hartz-Karp, J. (2007) 21st Century Dialogue – Initiatives. Available: www.21stcenturydialogue.com. Additional information from the URP Toolbox, maintained by the Urban Research Program, Griffith University. Available: www3.secure.griffith.edu.au/03/toolbox/index.php (Accessed December 2007).