Chapter 6 - The Who and What of Authentic Engagement
There are six public sector engagement typologies based on who should be engaged and what frame of thinking is most suited to the issue at hand
Deciding who to engage and what type of engagement, are the first steps to work through when designing an engagement process.
Codesign involves service users and professionals as equal partners and aims to balance lived and professional experiences to create innovative solutions. Different voices are valued equally, with neither group dominating.
Codesign typically supports creativity and exploration of complex contexts. Methods include ethnographic studies, prototyping, and journey mapping.
Deliberative Engagements privilege citizen voices to promote democratic legitimacy. Professionals act as informants, rather than equal deliberators, with priority given to citizenship rather than professional expertise.
Deliberative engagements aim to critically consider arguments and determine justified preferences. Methods include citizens panels, assemblies, and participatory budgeting.
In practice, elements of both can be combined to form six public sector engagement types:
Mixed Deliberations: Public and professional stakeholders review evidence and identify shared preferences.
Professional Deliberation: Professional stakeholders review evidence and identify shared preferences.
Public Deliberation: Public members review evidence and identify shared preferences (similar to deliberative engagement theory).
Mixed Design: Public and professional stakeholders explore unknown contexts and develop new ideas (similar to codesign theory).
Professional Design: Professional stakeholders explore unknown contexts and develop new ideas.
Public Design: Public members explore unknown contexts and develop new ideas.
A professionals-only engagement process might be suitable when:
The issue is internal and doesn’t affect the public, like designing new office workflows.
There is no authorization to engage the public, making the engagement inauthentic.
The issue requires technical expertise, such as deciding on medical interventions.
Timeframes are too tight for genuine engagement, or the scope for influence is limited.
Decisive leadership is needed, like during a crisis, and the public expects quick action.
