The Consultation Institute has published a discussion on whose views we may be hearing through consultation activities, arguing that stakeholder mapping is needed and that we should consult both the ‘worried’ and the ‘wider’ public, suggesting methods for this as we consider: ‘Who should consultation documents aim to reach out to?’
The Consultation Institute writes:
Consulting the worried or the wider public? Almost certainly, you need to do both. They need not be separate exercises as in the TfL example. A well-designed consultation can yield valuable data from both types of stakeholders. In general, the worried will take the initiative, and they will find you, assisted probably by campaigners who will mobilise their supporters. If you want the wider public, you may need to go out and find them. Hold meetings that will attract a broader range of people. Secure the involvement of representative institutions like Parish Councils. Meet the Women’s Institute, or the Rotary Club. Visit local pubs (popular, that one!). Hold deliberative events; Use citizens panels. There is no shortage of dialogue methods…
What we lack is a realisation that the techniques for engaging the worried are different from those we use for the wider public. In between these two categories of course, there could be lots of other groups or individuals affected to a different or lesser degree – which is why stakeholder mapping remains one of the most critical forward planning steps of all. No serious consultation should proceed without such an analysis, and, if done properly, would reveal the extent to which the whole community should also be engaged. The other indicator is the anticipated reactions of those working in the political system. Stakeholder mapping must extend to elected politicians and other sources of political influence, for, as is now widely recognised, The Politics of Consultation has to be appreciated and understood. But we would say that, wouldn’t we?
IHBC Newsblogs on consultations
