This multi-pronged project seeks to provide rapid public input for policymaking. It proposes a repeatable online deliberative process that addresses pressing policy questions and trade-offs related to the COVID-19 public health emergency in British Columbia.
Problems and Purpose
The policy response to the public health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic involves important trade-offs for individuals, communities, and the economy. For instance, although social distancing helps flatten the curve, it produces costs such as isolation and the loss of income. Policymakers can navigate these trade-offs by engaging with the public — including marginalized groups — and building trust. This initiative proposes a deliberative design to explore trade-offs and use public input to inform an effective collective response to the crisis. The proposed design uses online deliberation to determine what residents of British Columbia value, want, and need. The purpose is to provide public input for planning the next steps in the provincial pandemic response [1].
Background History and Context
The deliberative design used by the Public Input into Pandemic Planning initiative has gone through various iterations. It has been used in more than 25 projects in Canada, Australia, the US, the UK, and Europe, including the debate on Biobanks in British Columbia. Due to the current public health crisis, adjustments to the design have been made to move the deliberative process online [2].
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
This initiative is developed by a multi-disciplinary collective of researchers from British Columbia and Ontario [3].
Participant Recruitment and Selection
There are three different ways participants can be involved in the project. First, citizens will be invited (through social media, news organizations, networks, etc.) to host self-facilitated online deliberations — called community conversations — with their friends and family. Second, in parallel to this voluntary participation, some participants will be selected to take part in 20 facilitated small-group deliberations of 8 to 10 citizens. These participants will have completed a survey, and the selection process will be based on demographic, socioeconomic, geographic, and ethnic diversity. The third and final component of the participation cycle will be a facilitated large-group deliberation held with 20 to 24 selected participants who haven't taken part in the previous facilitated small-group process.
Methods and Tools Used
This multi-pronged deliberative process uses online deliberation to engage citizens in identifying issues and developing recommendations. In collaboration with policymakers, the organizers identify the questions and trade-offs for which they seek public input [4] and create a background information booklet that will be available to the participants on the project website [5]. The project relies on facilitated deliberation in small and large groups, and on community-based deliberation. The leaders of the community conversations will have to submit a summary of their discussion and recommendations on the website. The facilitated groups will be recorded and transcribed, and the facilitators will provide summaries of their group's discussions.
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation
The deliberative cycle is designed to produce public input for decision-makers quickly. The first topic identified is the use of contact tracing apps and the associated potential benefits and drawbacks [6].
Figure 1: Deliberative cycle
Source: Background Information Booklet [7]
The questions for the facilitated online deliberation and the self-facilitated community conversations are available on the website [8]. As depicted in Figure 1, community conversations (1) and small-group deliberations (2) will be held in parallel. Both will meet once, and the latter will be limited to 90 minutes. Following this first stage, the 8 to 10 participants selected for the facilitated large-group deliberation will meet over four days for 90-minute sessions (3). They will first deliberate among themselves before focusing on the summaries and recommendations generated in the previous stage. They will then create a final report for decision-makers that includes recommendations and the reasoning used in support of the recommendations.
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
Know what influence and effects this initiative had? Help us complete this section!
Analysis and Lessons Learned
Want to contribute an analysis of this initiative? Help us complete this section!
See Also
Biobanking in British Columbia
References
[1] Let’s Talk About Pandemic Policy, http://chspr.ubc.ca/covid19/
[2] Burgess MM, Longstaff H, O’Doherty KC. Assessing deliberative design of public input on biobanks. In: Dodds S, Ankenhy A, eds. Big Picture Bioethics: Developing Democratic Policy in Contested Domains. Routledge Press; 2016: 243-276.
[3] Let’s Talk About Pandemic Policy, http://chspr.ubc.ca/covid19/
[4] Deliberation Questions, http://chspr.ubc.ca/covid19/deliberation-questions/
[5] Background Information Booklet, http://chspr.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2020/05/Background-Information-Booklet.pdf
[6] Let’s Talk About Pandemic Policy, http://chspr.ubc.ca/covid19/
[7] Background Information Booklet, http://chspr.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2020/05/Background-Information-Booklet.pdf
[8] Deliberation Questions, http://chspr.ubc.ca/covid19/deliberation-questions/
