A NETWORK FOR CITIZEN
PARTICIPATION
IN EUROPE: FIVE OPTIONS
Workshop: How to Make Citizen Participation
Relevant in European Regions
Stuttgart, Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany
December 5, 2012
FIVE OPTIONS
 Not the only possible options – feel free
to suggest others;
 Options can be combined;
 Need to
consider pros
and cons;
 Need to
consider
resources.
OPTION 1 – RESOURCE SHARING NETWORK
Goal: Circulate wide range of resources to a
wide range of people
Optimal size: Large
Resources required: Low
Example: National Coalition for Dialogue and
Deliberation
OPTION 2 – PROFESSIONAL/ACCREDITING NETWORK
Goal: Ensure that people doing the work have
the right skills and credential (quality control)
Optimal size: Large
Resources required: High
Example: none squarely in the field of
participation; many in related fields
OPTION 3 – TRAINING NETWORK
Goal: Distribute participation skills among a wide
variety of people
Optimal size: Smaller set of trainers; large
number of trainees
Resources required: High
Example: International Association for Public
Participation
OPTION 4 – PROACTIVE LEARNING NETWORK
Goal: Tackle the biggest conceptual challenges
facing the field
Optimal size: Small
Resources required: Medium
Examples: DDC, LogoLink
OPTION 5 – ADVOCACY NETWORK
Goal: Champion the field, through manifestos
and/or lobbying
Optimal size: Large
Resources required: High
Example: Campaign for Stronger Democracy
FACTORS TO CONSIDER
 What will give members the sense that they
belong to the network?
 What will help members describe the work
they do?
 What will best bring together different groups?
(for example, practitioners, researchers, public
officials, others)
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
Options:
1. Resource sharing
2. Professional/accrediting
3. Training
4. Proactive learning
5. Advocacy




What is the purpose of the network?
What are the incentives?
Are there other options you would add?
Which option, or combination of options,
seems best to you?
 What kinds of resources would be required?