The Future of Public Participation: Better Design,

Better Laws, Better Systems

Tina Nabatchi
Emma Ertinger
Matt Leighninger

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, conict resolution practitioners faced
a dilemma: they understood how to design better ADR processes but
were often unsure of their authority to oer ADR and were entrenched
in systems that made it dicult to use ADR. Today, public participa-
tion faces a similar dilemma. We know what good participation looks
like, but using better participation is challenging because of legal and
systemic impediments. This need not be the case. In this article, we
assert that tapping the full potential of public participation requires
better designs, better laws, and better systems.

I n the late 1980s and early 1990s, conict resolution practitioners and
specialists faced a dilemma: they understood how to design better alter-
native dispute resolution processes (ADR), but they were often unsure of
their legal authority to oer ADR and were entrenched in organizational
systems that made it dicult to use it. By the mid-1990s, things began to
change. A series of legislative acts (e.g., the Negotiated Rulemaking Act
and Administrative Dispute Resolution Act) authorized federal agencies
to use ADR for a wide variety of disputes, and research emerged to guide
organizations on best practice for dispute systems design (e.g., Costantino
and Merchant 1996). By the early 2000s, ADR had become a xed feature
in the landscape of government (Nabatchi 2007).
Today, public participation faces a similar dilemma. Practitioners
understand how to design better participation processes, but government
ocials are often unsure of their legal authority to use those processes and

Conflict Resolution Quarterly, vol. 33, supplement 1, Winter 2015 S35

2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and the Association for Conict Resolution
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/crq.21142
S36 NABATCHI, ERTINGER, LEIGHNINGER

are entrenched in systems that do not always support participatory innova-

tions. This is unfortunate, but it need not be the case. In this article, we
assert that tapping the full potential of public participation will require
better participatory designs, better laws, and better systems. Drawing from
our forthcoming book, Public Participation for 21st Century Democracy
(Nabatchi and Leighninger 2015), we rst dene public participation
and briey explore the three main forms of direct participation. We then
unpack the most salient variations in public participation and explain the
features of better participatory designs. Finally, we explore how we can
work toward better laws and systems for public participation.

Understanding Public Participation

Public participation is an umbrella term that describes the activities by

which peoples concerns, needs, interests, and values are incorporated into
decisions and actions on public matters and issues (Nabatchi and Leigh-
ninger 2015). The term includes both indirect participation (in which
individuals select an agent who decides and acts for them) and direct
participation (in which individuals are personally involved and actively
engaged in providing input, making decisions, and solving problems).
Within direct participation, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of tools,
techniques, and tactics that can be roughly organized into three main
categories:

Conventional participation describes most of the participation activi-

ties held by government ocials and bodies such as school boards,
zoning commissions, city councils, congressional representatives, and
government agencies (e.g., public meetings, public hearings, advi-
sory committees). Most conventional processes are prescribed by
law. Conventional public meetings have some common elements,
including advance notication, an audience-style room setup, a
strictly followed preset agenda, and a segment of the meeting when
citizens can address public ocials for a short period of time. Other
examples of conventional participation are advisory committees and
thirty-day public comment periods during which citizens can send in
comments or complaints on a proposed rule or law.
Thin participation includes a variety of tactics that allow individuals
(sometimes in large numbers) to aliate with a cause, submit ideas,

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

 The Future of Public Participation S37

indicate preferences, or otherwise receive or provide information in

fast and convenient ways. This participation can occur face-to-face or
by telephone (e.g., with surveys, petitions, and polls), as well as online
(e.g., through crowdsourcing, crowdfunding, ideation, mapping,
wikis, and social media).
Thick participation enables large numbers of people working in small
groups (usually face-to-face but sometimes online) to discuss, learn,
decide, and act together (e.g., participatory budgeting, study circles,
national issues forums, and citizens juries). Thick participation usually
includes some kind of deliberation and shares other common charac-
teristics, such as network-based recruitment, small-group facilitation,
issue framing, and decision making or action planning.

Of these categories, conventional participation is the most common.

Thin participation is proliferating rapidly, in large part because it is the
easiest and most convenient of the three forms. Thick participation is the
most intensive, time-consuming, and least common, but also the most
meaningful and powerful (for more discussion on these forms of participa-
tion, see Nabatchi and Leighninger 2015). While conventional processes
often raise tensions between citizens and public ocials and erode trust in
government, the newer forms of participation, both thick and thin, can
produce many benets (for a review of empirical research on participation,
see Nabatchi and Amsler 2014). In large part, the more positive eects of
thin and thick participation can be attributed to their better designs, which
confer more respect, recognition, and responsibility on citizens than con-
ventional participatory designs. Figure 1 lists some participation tactics,
roughly organized from thin to thick.

Understanding Better Participatory Design

Just as there are many dierences among ADR processes, so too are there
many dierences among public participation processes (for discussion,
see Fung 2003, 2006; Nabatchi 2012; Nabatchi and Amsler 2014). One
fundamental dierence, whether a participation process is interest based
or position based, should be clear to readers of this journal. As with dis-
pute resolution, participation opportunities are more productive when
they focus on interests (why a person or group wants something, or the
needs, values, or concerns underlying a demand) than when they focus

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

S38 NABATCHI, ERTINGER, LEIGHNINGER

Figure 1. Some Participatory Tactics, from Thin to Thick

Thinnest Social Media Aggregation Tools

Surveys and Polls
Focus Groups
Online Platforms for Reporting Problems and Gathering Data
Crowdsourcing and Contests
Crowdfunding and Minigrants
Serious Games
Wiki-Based Platforms for Collaborative Mapping or Writing
Using Online Networks to Connect with Others
Collaborative Planning
Participatory Budgeting
Thickest Public Deliberation

on positions (what a person or group wants, or the demand being made;

Nabatchi 2012).
In general, conventional participation is position based, largely because
of its typical design. Specically, these processes often feature an audience-
style room setup, with a single microphone at which citizens can speak by
signing up in advance or waiting their turn in line. With individuals hav-
ing only two to three minutes at the microphone, the comments, almost
out of necessity, usually turn to demands: declarative statements about the
position the person or group holds. Moreover, given constraints on speak-
ing time and the fact that others are often not allowed to respond to the
speaker, there are few opportunities to uncover underlying interests.
In contrast, thick participation processes are more likely to be interest
based. Specically, these processes typically feature small-group, facilitated
discussion, where people are encouraged to share their stories, ideas, and
concerns. This format enables participants not only to state their positions,
but also to explore their individual interests and the interests they might
have in common with others. Thin participation can be either position or
interest based, depending on other design choices.
Beyond this fundamental dierence, public participation varies by
many other salient features. The four most important dierences center on
participant selection and recruitment, the interactions among participants
and between participants and decision makers, the information provided
to help participants engage eectively, and the impact of participation on
decision making, problem solving, or public action (Nabatchi and Leigh-
ninger 2015).

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

 The Future of Public Participation S39

Participant recruitment is a central issue, and perhaps the most dicult

challenge, in public participation. Most benets of participation depend
on the ability to mobilize, or at least communicate with, a diverse, critical
mass of people. There are several approaches to recruitment, which may
be used alone or in combination. One approach, broadcasting announce-
ments through the media (e.g., with yers and newspaper, radio, and
website notices), almost always is used for conventional participation and
frequently is used in thin participation. While relatively easy and inexpen-
sive, this approach can create participation bias, which means that those
who attend are not representative of the community in terms of sociode-
mographic, political, and other characteristics. Two other approaches,
proactive, network-based recruitment (also called targeted demographic
recruitment) and random selection, are often used to overcome participa-
tion bias. Thick participation almost always uses these approaches, and
thin participation sometimes uses them. Although these approaches are
time-consuming, labor intensive, and sometimes costly, they can gener-
ate a more representative set of participants. Finally, some recruitment
approaches are coupled with participant incentives. Leaders using random
sample recruitment are more likely to oer monetary incentives such as
per diem payments or gift cards, whereas leaders using proactive, network-
based recruitment are more likely to use nonmonetary incentives like food
or music. All recruitment approaches are more eective and equitable when
transportation, child care, translation, or other services that help remove
the immediate barriers to participation are provided.
Participant interaction, or how people will communicate with each
other, is another important design issue in participation. In general, there
are three interaction or communication modes: one way, two way, and
deliberative. One-way communication is the unidirectional ow of infor-
mation between people, and two-way communication is the reciprocal ow
of information. These approaches are generally fast and easy, but they also
limit in-depth consideration of perspectives and encourage position-based
statements. In contrast, deliberation, a type of multiway communication
that occurs in small groups (Gastil 2008), is generally focused on interests.
Deliberation can foster cooperation and lead to more productive conict
management in participation processes. One-way and two-way communi-
cation are common in conventional participation; deliberation is the norm
in thick participation.
High-quality, objective, neutral, and inclusive information is critical
for preparing people to participate eectively and can increase the quality

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

S40 NABATCHI, ERTINGER, LEIGHNINGER

of public input. Information can be shared in many ways, such as web-

sites, infographics, short presentations, panel discussions, and issue guides.
Of course, whether information is needed and what types of materials are
appropriate depend on the complexity of the issue being examined and
the stakes involved. Providing information is central to thick participation
processes but not always a feature of thin and conventional processes.
Finally, determining how participation will have an impact on policy,
problem solving, and/or public action is usually the most dicult question
to answer, in part because impacts are dependent on the recommendations,
ideas, and commitment of participants. When it comes to policymaking,
an essential aspect of this question is how much decision-making authority
will be given to participants. An adapted version of the International Asso-
ciation for Public Participation Spectrum of Public Participation (IAP2
2007) provides a useful heuristic for thinking about how public input will
be used (see also Nabatchi 2012; Nabatchi and Leighninger 2015). At the
very least, organizers must decide how they will show that public input has
been used and support ways for citizens to take part in problem solving.
In sum, decades of experimentation show that participation processes
generally lead to better outcomes when their designs (1) allow for the recruit-
ment of a diverse, critical mass of people; (2) create meaningful interactions
among participants and ocials that focus on understanding interests;
(3) enable the development of informed perspectives and input; and (4)
provide the opportunity to shape public policy, decisions, and action. In
general, thick participation is most likely to have these design features, thin
participation is somewhat likely to have these design features, and conven-
tional participation is least likely to have these design features. Putting this
knowledge about better participatory design to use, however, is dicult,
because of antiquated laws and weak participatory systems.

Working toward Better Participation Laws and Systems

The legal framework for public participation in the United States is prob-
lematic. We have numerous local, state, and federal laws, rules, and regu-
lations that exert a great deal of inuence on how participation happens;
however, in most cases, these laws are obsolete, unclear, or in conict with
one another (Working Group on Legal Frameworks for Public Participa-
tion 2013; see also Bingham 2010; PARCC 2013). Many of the laws are
decades old; many mandate the use of participation but do not fully dene

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

 The Future of Public Participation S41

it; and some narrowly proscribe how participation must be conducted.

For these and other reasons, government ocials are often confused about
when and how to engage the public. Moreover, although the laws do not
necessarily prohibit using nonconventional forms of participation, they
also do not explicitly allow for it, which leaves public ocials wonder-
ing whether the best practices in participation are supportedor even
allowed. Consequently, administrators seldom reach beyond the minimum
standards for compliance; they rely on conventional forms of participa-
tion, which are less productive and constructive, and generally unsatisfying
for either ocials or participants (Bingham 2010; Nabatchi and Amsler
2014). Simply put, the current legal framework is at best inadequate and
at worst an obstacle to democratic innovation.
Recognizing these challenges, the Working Group on Legal Frame-
works for Public Participation (2013), an alliance of people from local gov-
ernments, legal associations, academia, and civil society organizations, has
created a model ordinance on public participation for local government.
The ordinance (and a companion state act developed by the same group)
denes participation and describes its basic principles. This work could
serve as the basis for one or more federal laws that authorize the use of
more productive forms of participation, much like the laws in the 1990s
that supported the use of ADR.
In addition to upgrading the legal framework for participation, we
must also strengthen other aspects of our participatory systems. We need
to upgrade our participation infrastructure to enable regular opportunities
for people to connect with each other, solve problems, make decisions, and
celebrate community (Nabatchi and Leighninger 2015). Some elements of
stronger participation systems already exist and only need to be updated.
For example, many ocial settings for participation exist at the local level:
in K12 education, parent-teacher conferences, school boards, and PTAs
and other parent groups regularly use participation; in health, participation
opportunities exist through patient-caregiver interactions, advisory boards
and commissions, and healthy community coalitions; and in planning and
land use settings, there are public meetings, planning commissions, and
neighborhood and homeowner associations. Similarly, at the state and fed-
eral levels, legislators and administrative agencies oer numerous opportu-
nities for participation, such as town hall and tele-town hall events, notice
and comment procedures, and public meetings and advisory commissions.
In all cases and at all levels of government, these and other venues for par-
ticipation could be improved with the use of thin and thick tactics.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

S42 NABATCHI, ERTINGER, LEIGHNINGER

In addition to ocial settings, participatory leaders from government,

civil society, and the community have used many cutting-edge vehicles and
tactics for participation in numerous policy areas and settings, including
participatory budgeting; online platforms for gathering input, developing
ideas, and ranking preferences; digital applications and geographic infor-
mation systems for collaborative mapping and planning; serious games
for education and decision making; crowdfunding and crowdsourcing to
encourage public work; and myriad approaches to public deliberation for
decision making and action planning. Although these and other examples
of democratic innovation are inspiring, they also are too frequently isolated
from one another. As a result, most participation opportunitieswhether
conventional, thin, or thicktake place as one-o, solitary events rather
than as recurring opportunities that are integrated into the fabric of gov-
ernance.
Taking stock of the existing opportunities for participation, deciding
which work well, which exist but need to be upgraded, and where there
are gaps is a practical way to begin infrastructure planning. In addition,
communities can consider some universal pieces that support and connect
participation infrastructures in many dierent issue areas, including:

Hyperlocal and local online networks, which are rapidly growing and
hold great potential for connecting participation in many dierent
issue areas
Buildings that are physical hubs for participation and can provide
communities with accessible, welcoming, wired public spaces for
participation on a range of issues
Youth councils that can help cultivate and support the participation of
young people, who are frequently undervalued civic assets
Participation commissions (or advisory boards) that can advise a
community on the design, implementation, and evaluation of public
participation tactics and more broadly on building and embedding a
sustainable participation infrastructure

Through these and other eorts, leaders and networks for participation
can be activated and empowered to employ participation tactics that serve a
variety of ends (e.g., disseminating information, gathering input and data,
discussing and connecting, enabling decision making, and encouraging
public work) and to create systemic supports for those tactics (e.g., training,

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

 The Future of Public Participation S43

incentives, procedures, and funding). (For more discussion, see Nabatchi

and Leighninger 2015; for additional ideas on participation infrastructure,
see Lukensmeyer 2013.)

Conclusion

Few would argue that public problems are becoming simpler and easier to
solve. Rather, our shared problems and issues, whether at the local, state,
national, or international level, are increasingly complex and increasingly
divisive. Public participation is an important tool in governance and could
be used to greater advantage in addressing public problems; however, our
participatory processes, laws, and systems are outdated, inecient, and
unproductive. To more eectively use public participation, we need to
focus on better designs, better laws, and better systems. Specically, we
need to encourage public and civic leaders to use participation processes
that address the challenges of recruitment, communication, information,
and impact and that help people articulate their interests. We also need to
upgrade the legal framework for participation, so that our laws and policies
authorize and encourage robust, creative participatory processes. Finally,
we need to develop and sustain participation infrastructuresat all levels
of government and across policy areasthat regularly provide opportuni-
ties for people to come together to discuss issues, solve problems, make
decisions, and celebrate community.

References
Bingham, L. B. 2010. The Next Generation of Administrative Law: Building
the Legal Infrastructure for Collaborative Governance. Wisconsin Law Review
10:297356.
Costantino, C. A., and C. S. Merchant. 1996. Designing Conict Management
Systems: A Guide to Creating Productive and Healthy Organizations. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fung, A. 2003. Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Design Choices
and Their Consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy 11:33867.
Fung, A. 2006. Varieties of Participation in Democratic Governance. Public
Administration Review 66 (S1): 6675.
Gastil, J. 2008. Political Communication and Deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
IAP2. 2007. IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation. Thornton, CO: Interna-
tional Association for Public Participation. www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr
/imported/IAP2%20Spectrum_vertical.pdf.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

S44 NABATCHI, ERTINGER, LEIGHNINGER

Lukensmeyer, C. J. 2013. Bringing Citizen Voices to the Table: A Guide for Public
Managers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nabatchi, T. 2007. The Institutionalization of Alternative Dispute Resolution in
the Federal Government. Public Administration Review 67:64661.
Nabatchi, T. 2012. Putting the Public back in Public Values Research: Design-
ing Public Participation to Identify and Respond to Public Values. Public
Administration Review 72:699708.
Nabatchi, T., and L. B. Amsler. 2014. Direct Public Engagement in Local Gov-
ernment. American Review of Public Administration 44 (Suppl.): 63s88s.
Nabatchi, T., and M. Leighninger. 2015. Public Participation for 21st Century
Democracy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
PARCC. 2013. Priorities for Public Participation and Open Government: Recom-
mendations to President Obama. Syracuse, NY: Program for the Advancement
of Research on Conict and Collaboration.
Working Group on Legal Frameworks for Public Participation. 2013. Making
Public Participation Legal. Denver, CO: National Civic League.

Tina Nabatchi is an associate professor of public administration and inter-

national aairs at the Syracuse University Maxwell School of Citizenship and
Public Aairs.

Emma Ertinger recently earned her master of public administration degree

from the Syracuse University Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Aairs.

Matt Leighninger is the executive director of the Deliberative Democracy

Consortium, an alliance of leading organizations and scholars working in the
eld of public participation.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq