From a talk on community engagement
Last year I was invited to give a talk on the shapes of community engagement for a conference sponsored by the BC Treaty Commission called Forging Linkages and Finding Solutions. This is the slide deck I used and here is a transcript of my talk.
Hello Chris,
Thank you for sharing this.
I’ve been reflecting on systems design and asking myself the question of different types of design in relation to different system complexities. When it comes to community engagement, I see how the complexity implies that consultation is dead. I wonder when it doesn’t, like imagining a time where we’ll invite a master architect, have a consultations, feedbacks, etc, and let him/her hold the stick.
I’m looking at this because I saw many people doing consultation when it does not make sense, but also many forcing co-ownership when the matter is simple and simply requires letting go and trust (probably built in co-ownership :).
Would love to hear your thoughts.
best,
A>
That’s one of the reasons I think consultation is dead…it’s kind of used as a catch all…we have an idea, let’s consult then we’ll implement. I’m amazed at how often that is the extent of th eplan. The people involved in the consultations come to one meeting then never appear again.
So the call is to consciousness in working together. Just pay attention. What can we do together. How can what we are doing make MORE social capital and not less?
Chris, I agree with you that consultation is dead for community engagement and know examples of interventions that created more community apathy than anything else.
My point here is, because building more social capital is what everyone is talking about, many in process ‘consultation’ invite the whole room to change a light bulb.
So what I’m saying is that not only people invite experts when it does not make sense to have (only) them, but also people invite a community when what they want it’s an expert.
Yes…I agree with you there. That’s why I try to clarify the point of working with community before we do engage people and build social capital. I think there are probably two great instances when consultation, or engagement has the efect you describe. First is when, ans you brilliantly put it “the community is asked to change a lightbulb.” The second, is when the community is avoiding a decision.
I am discovering that decision making in community is at a pretty undeveloped level. Either autorcratic methods are used, or referenda are used or community engagement is employed to “get more clarity.” Often this last tactic is actually a ruse, and everyone knows it. The decision is usually pretty clear and the time for divergent thinking is long since passed. But people fear the responsibility of making the call, so they start up a new community conversation.
I think I’ll craft up a post around this. Thanks for the comments Augusto.
Hi Chris
I just sent a link of your transcript to a community member (in my own community) who is keen to start up a Transition town group. I think the principle of turning the recruitment into an invitation and a process from within the community is right on the money. Your current reading on the Transition Wiki was very synchronous and I sent this to her also.
cheers
Geoff