informed engagement

#MONTHLYMYTH: MORE IS MORE

#MONTHLYMYTH: MORE IS MORE

Often, the purpose of an engagement process (or one phase of an engagement process) is to cast the net wide, capturing as many views and voices as possible.   Often, this is a good approach, particularly at the beginning of a longer engagement process.  What you generally don’t want to aim for, however, is the highest possible volume of feedback and data, with no regard for how useful or informed that input is.

Today we’re highlighting why you might get an overload of responses – many of which aren’t relevant to the issue at hand, why this is a problem, and how you can avoid it for your next process.

#MonthlyMyth: Glossy, simple content = informed participants

#MonthlyMyth: Glossy, simple content = informed participants

When you’re preparing information inputs for a community engagement process, organisations can spend a lot of time producing glossy brochures and simplified, summarised content.  It’s easy to get lost in all the posters and paragraphs and lose sight of what’s important - what you’re really saying about the issue or decision at hand.

Getting the balance right can be challenging.  So, in this post we’ll not only address this months myth, we’ll also give you 6 simple tips for providing the right information at the right level of detail.

DILEMMA DISCUSSED: MIXED LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE

DILEMMA DISCUSSED: MIXED LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE

We’re committed to sharing our learnings, contributing to the practice of quality engagement and supporting others to improve their engagement skills wherever we can. 

As part of this commitment, today we’re responding to an engagement challenge put forward by one of the subscribers to our e-newsletter The Discussion. The issue this subscriber is facing is: 'Engaging with people when there is a mixed level of knowledge about a subject. ‘