A Working Model for Public Participation

70 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

tional and economic expansion, productivity, tech sional technologist feel he resides? Where do his nical virtuosity-in a word, growth. The purpose of loyalties lie and in what degree? a constitutional polity is the limitation of and We have no reason to despair. Public partici participation in power: liberty. The purpose of a pation in the decision processes of our common covenantal community is the formation of a life may be at a greater level than ever before. It people, fulfillment of the quality of life: peace and may just be that our expectations are higher than righteousness. they ever have been, too! Even with these opti At this point we can each begin to think of mistic comments, is it possible that public partici ourselves as a citizen and/or as a professional. As pation in technology assessment is basically a sham we shift from role to role and sometimes are in and a fraud? If it isn't, why then is it that citizens two, if not all three, in what community are we and the public are always asked to choose among residing? The technical community of the modern alternatives which others have designed and pre corporation? The volitional community of a con sented to them? Why is it that citizens are not stitutional polity? Or in a covenantal community asked to specify the world they want and the alter of comfort, affection, and beauty? natives which they desire? These considerations raise the question of trust. Until this question can be honorably answered Trust is, after all, the bedrock of legitimacy. If we by managers and professionals, then I believe that don't trust our fellow residents and what they are the fundamental issues and concerns underlying doing in our common communities, then funda true public participation will not be addressed. If mentally we are withholding legitimacy in varying the concept of public participation in technology degrees. The withholding of legitimacy has various assessment is real, it means that bureaucrats and consequences in various times, and no one as yet business managers are not going to be able to allo has been able to derive a formula which enables cate resources with the freedom and abandon they firm predictions to be made. have heretofore had. Public participation implies a It is clear, I believe, to most of us that there is a profound involvement in determining what re lack of mutual trust amongst ourselves, our mana sources are available to the covenantal community, gers, our professionals, and our' institutions. What and to whom those resources are available. The then does this mean to those of us who are con ultimate question is whether those who have been cerned about public participation in technology accustomed to making the key decisions, the assessment? bureaucrats and the managers, are willing to hold Philosophers have postulated that there are themselves accountable to the citizenry and par three elements required for informed action, ticularly to the covenantal community rather than "memory, understanding, and will." In my view, to the polity or the business corporation. memory and understanding are not the principal problem areas. But have we the will to accept re sponsibility for ourselves and our actions? Are we willing as citizens, managers, and professionals to A WORKING MODEL design systems by which we cannot only hold our FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION selves accountable, but also voluntarily offer to show how others can hold us accountable? For example, I am not a physician and I know Sherry R. Arnstein little about medicine. If I entrust my health and Consultant, Arthur D. Little, Inc. my life to a doctor I want him to articulate the standards by which he is holding himself account able. I know that if I need to have a serious opera Demands for public participation have in tion, I would choose a university teaching hospital creased dramatically in recent years in almost all because the pathology department there is a publicly financed arenas, including education, mighty rein on unchecked surgery! Question: in transportation, environment, social services, land any discipline what is the professional technolo use, and community development. Of some 40 gist's equivalent of a "department of pathology"? technology assessments conducted to date, how To whom does the professional technologist feel a ever, less than five have involved the public or responsibility? In which community does a profes- public interest spokesmen-and in these five cases,

JANAURY/FEBRUARY 1975 ------Text continues after this page ------

This publication is made available in the context of the history of social work project.

See www.historyofsocialwork.org

It is our aim to respect authors’ and publishers’ copyright. Should you feel we violated those, please do get in touch with us.

Deze publicatie wordt beschikbaar gesteld in het kader van de canon sociaal werk.

Zie www.canonsociaalwerk.eu

Het is onze wens de rechten van auteurs en uitgevers te respecten. Mocht je denken dat we daarin iets fout doen, gelieve ons dan te contacteren.

------Tekst gaat verder na deze pagina ------TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 71 the involvement was limited to one-way methods participatory process from the perspective of of communication, such as surveys, interviews, and the technical team.) public hearings. l The original model-proposed by ADL as a Now that the newly articulated field of technol "modest approach" -called for a non-technical ogy assessment is becoming more visible to the panel to be selected on the basis of lay interest public eye, there is a growing interest in consider and/or experience in the energy or environmental ing how active and meaningful public participation field, e.g., social action, environmental, consumer, can become a normative facet of the assessment youth, or religious groups. Selections were to be methodology. In light of the limited state-of made by ADL after an extensive search for the-art, interest should be focused on several cen relevant public interest groups and were to be tral questions: Who represents the public based on three criteria: (I) their non-technical but interest-particularly the multiplicity of public serious knowledge of energy and environmental interests? What levels of public involvement are issues; (2) their relative degree of representa feasible? Who should manage the involvement tiveness of relevant public interest constituencies; process? What methods of interaction between lay and (3) their commitment to participating on the people and the technology assessors are produc panel. tive? What costs are involved? The budget included travel funds for three Answers to such questions are not likely to be meetings of the PIGAP during the course of the available until a variety of alternative models have nine-month study and an honoraria pool of been demonstrated and evaluated. Certainly, the approximately $5,000 to pay panel members $100 participatory demonstration which was recently per day for their work. The work plan specified launched at Arthur D. Little, Inc. (ADL) , in that both the groundrules and the methods for Cambridge, Massachusetts, can offer no answers at achieving the desired level of interaction were to this time. What can be shared at this early date are be left open to a joint agreement to be arrived at the specifics of the proposed model, the reactions by the technical team and the PIGAP, subject only to it from more than 30 public interest representa to the constraints of the honoraria and travel tives who were invited to critique it, and ADL's budget allotted in the contract. revisions of the model made in response to the Thus, the objectives of the ADL approach are public interest feedback. three-fold: Funded by the National Science Foundation, 1. To demonstrate that the public interest is the ADL model calls for continuous interaction best served when representatives of the between a six-member Public Interest Group concerned sectors of the public interest are Advisory Panel (PIGAP) and the ADL technical integrally involved in the process and sub team during the course of a nine-month assessment stance of a technology assessment; of terrestial based solar energy. The PIGAP has 2. To analyze, through the participant-observer three functions: method, the costs and effectiveness of the 1. To advise ADL on issues to be studied and sustained interactive advisory model posited; to provide non-technical judgments on rele and vant political and socioeconomic conse 3. To crystallize from the ADL-PIGAP experi quences; ence improved models and/or techniques for 2. To critique ADL's interim work products such public participation in future technol during the course of the study, and to review ogyassessments. and critique the final ADL report; To search for PIGAP candidates, a member of 3. To prepare an independently written chapter the technical team mapped the network of rele of the final report which offers a process vant public interest groups and pinpOinted the description of the way it interacted with the specific spokesmen who were reputed to be highly ADL team, an evaluation of the interaction, regarded for their analytic skills and influence in an analysis of the substantive impact of that formulating their organization's policies on envi interaction on the study, and recommenda ronmental and/or energy issues. Each organiza tions on how future technology assessments tional representative interviewed was invited to might productively involve citizens. (This suggest names of others to be contacted. Addi independent PIGAP analysis will be juxta tional candidates' names were derived from review posed with a counterpoint analysis of the ing selected public interest literature and congres-

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1975 72 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

sional testimony. More than 100 names were 4. The name-Public Interest Group Advisory generated, and these were reduced to approxi Panel-should be changed. ("PIGAP is a poor mately 30 by seeking out those organizations and acronym"); individuals most frequently recommended. 5. ADL should not select the panel members. Discussions with the 30 public interest groups ("It is entirely possible that ADL will make on the proposed role of the PIGAP (and the a good decision ... but ... other companies objectives of the solar energy technology assess who may get future contracts may not ment) generally lasted two hours. For the most devote as much time to the decision of who part, reactions were highly enthusiastic: "What a will be on the panel or may pick people who great idea," "It's just what we've been hoping are not truly representative of public interest for," or "Finally, we're being invited to sit down views"; "A contractor hired to perform a at the technology assessment table instead of technology assessment ought not also select having to protest at a public hearing." persons who will review the assessment"); They were particularly favorably impressed that and the PIGAP members would receive a $100 per day 6. It is inappropriate for a profit-making con honorarium ("Finally, someone has recognized sulting firm to handle public participation in that the public interest groups really need the conducting a technology assessment. ("I money"); that ADL had· recognized the impor recommend that the funds available for this tance of negotiating with the PIGAP on a modus purpose be returned to the National Science operandi for interacting with the technical team Foundation, and that interested public inter ("How nice that we can help define our own est groups submit bids for the performance role"); and that the final report would include of this function.") both a PIGAP and an ADL evaluation of both The ADL technical team was delighted by the their successes and failures ("I like the idea that many favorable responses to what it had posited as the PIGAP analysis doesn't get forced into the a first "modest approach" to public interest mold of the usual minority report"). involvement in technology assessment. In response There were, however, some negative reactions to the critical responses, it changed several aspects particularly from environmentalists who were ex of the proposed model. ceedingly distrustful of profit-making research Instead of convening a completely lay panel, firms-including ADL-which they perceived as the composition of the PI GAP will include three "industry-biased" and "anti-public interest." Reac lay representatives and three public interest staff tions on the negative side of the ledger were as representatives, one of whom is a scientist well follows: versed in solar energy technology. In addition, the 1. The PIGAP should not be limited to lay budget was restructured so that it allows for four representatives. ("Why should we recom day-long meetings of the PIGAP with the technical mend a lay board member when we have a team. Further, the honoraria budget was increased staff scientist who is paid by the member to $7,500, thereby enabling increased options for ship to advise it on solar energy?"; "Are you ADL-PIGAP interactions, e.g., written critiques, trying to create a panel that you can co-opt field trips, independent analysis, etc. and manipulate?"; "Shouldn't the PI GAP While the technical team agreed with the have independent scientific technical capa criticism that no six organizations can totally bility?"); represent the fractionated spectrum of public 2. The number of PIGAP man-days and meet interest groups and certainly can't claim to repre ings proposed were insufficient. ("Not sent "the public interest," it decided that this issue enough learning time"); should be negotiated with the PIGAP after it is 3. The PIGAP should be enlarged. ("No six created. Thus, if the panel members feel that some organizations can possibly represent the significant public interest perspectives are not highly fractionated spectrum of public inter represented, additional representatives can be est groups"; "A six-member panel isn't jointly selected by the PIGAP and the technical democratic; any citizen who is interested in team. The rationale behind this decision is the participating ought to be able to take part in assumption that there is no such thing as "the any assessment"); public interest," but a variety of sectors of public

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1975 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 73

interest. While an ideal democratic model might pleased that ADL had opened the door for public enable all interested citizens to participate, it is participation they had become convinced that the unlikely that unlimited numbers of people can be firm should not be managing the participatory meaningfully involved in the complexities of a process. They felt that ADL should return the solar energy technology assessment. The ADL demonstration funds to NSF so that a coalition of model, therefore, opts for organizational surro public interest groups could apply for a grant to gates of various sectors of the public interest and select the panel members and independently trades off depth interaction for large numbers of manage the process. 3 public interest actors. 2 NSF staff, when asked by ADL to review the Similarly, while ADL agreed with the criticism issues, declined to select members of the PIGAP or lodged against the PIGAP acronym, it decided to the organizations from which they were to be invite the PIGAP to select a better name. The drawn. They also said they were quite satisfied rationale for this decision was strictly pragmatic, with the integrity of the approach being used, since the name had been selected reluctantly particularly in light of ADL's commitment to during the proposal-writing stage, after considering negotiate with the PIGAP on the work plan and on the acronyms which would have resulted from the question of enlarging the panel. alternative names, e.g., Public Interest Panel (PIP), Since other participatory demonstrations in Public Interest Groups (PIGs), and Public Advisory technology assessment have not been articulated Panel (PAP). and exposed to public interest spokesmen as the Space limitations of this mini-symposium pre ADL model has, it is not known whether the clude a full discussion of two criticisms-that a reactions to it are typical or atypical. They are private contractor should not select the members offered here as a possible harbinger of issues which of a public interest panel and should not manage may be raised as the momentum for public the public participatory process. ADL delayed the participation builds. formation of the panel for several weeks while a While the ADL model does not embrace the member of the technical team informed those idea of a participatory process independently spokesmen who had raised the issue of contractor created and managed by public interest groups, selection of the firm's willingness to consider some members of the ADL team are interested in viable alternatives. After several individual discus experimenting with such a model in a future sions and an informal group meeting, no consensus technology assessment. For the present, however, was reached, and there remained different defini the team is committed to carrying out the current tions of what would be viable, ranging from demonstration and to opening the results to public selections made by NSF or the League of Women view. Hopefully, other technology assessment Voters, to nationwide balloting among public teams and public interest representatives will interest groups. experiment with other models and share their As a result of these discussions, three represen findings. If this happens, the public interest will be tatives concluded that while they were initially well served.

Notes

1. Vary Taylor Coates, Examples of Technology Assess The Wilderness Society. Each representative is ex ments for the Federal Government, Staff Discussion pected to react to the ADL study in terms of the Paper 208, Program of Policy Studies in Science and perspectives of their organizational constituency; ADL Technology, The George Washington University, Wash will not be asking their organizations per se to take an ington, D.C., January 1970; and Martin V. Jones, A official position on the study findings. Comparative State-ofthe·Art Review of Selected u.s. 3. Space limitations of this mini-symposium preclude a Technology Assessment Studies, The Mitre Corpora full description of the representatives' points-of-view, tion, May 1973. since they had somewhat different perspectives rang 2. The PIGAP includes representatives from Environ ing from general advocacy of an independently man mental Action of Colorado, League of Women Voters, aged participatory process to specific criticism about National Council of Churches, National Tenants ADL's potential management role in light of the firm's Organization, Natural Resources Defense Council, and wen-known proprietary multi-client study on solar climate control.

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1975 ------end of text ------