Consensus Building: Clarifications for the Critics

Abstract

Many critiques of consensus building have been uninformed about the nature of this practice or the theory on which it was built, though there is extensive literature on both. It is grounded in the theory and practice of interest-based negotiation and mediation. It is not grounded in Habermas’ concept of communicative rationality, though theorists have found useful illumination in his ideas. Claims are often made about pathologies of consensus building based on cases where the conditions for authentic dialogue recognized by both practitioners and theoreticians were not met. Documentation of cases shows that when these conditions are met, many desirable outcomes occur. The article examines the various critiques, including the claims that external power differentials are deterministic, that lowest common denominator solutions are the outcomes, that valuable tensions are lost in the process, and that agreements are fleeting at best. It shows how and why each of these is not borne out by experience. Consensus building is time consuming and requires skill and training. It is only appropriate in situations of uncertainty and controversy where all stakeholders have incentives to come to the table and mutual reciprocity in their interests.

Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century

“…This framing is also based on extensive research, such as that cited above, which demonstrates that when the conditions for authentic dialogue are met, genuine learning takes place; trust and social capital can be built; the quality, understanding and acceptance of information can be increased; jointly developed objectives and solutions with joint gain can emerge; and innovative approaches to seemingly intractable problems can be developed (Innes & Booher, 1999b;Innes, 2004). Even when the conditions are not all met, social capital and trust begin to develop through inclusion, deliberation, social learning and co-operation (Bloomfield et al, 2001).…”

Understanding the factors that make public participation effective in health policy and planning: a realist synthesis

“…These include the following: public influence (Lauber and Knuth 1999;Petts 2001;Rowe and Frewer 2000;Butterfoss 2006), consensus (Bass et al 1995;Innes 2004), increased understanding (Petts 1995;Laurian 2009), improved quality of decision (Laurian 2009;Brown and Wei Chin 2013) and increased trust (Wang and Wan Wart 2007;Laurian 2009). Other effectiveness criteria are also identified in the literature, such as representativeness (Crosby et al 1986;Rowe and Frewer 2000), complete information exchange (Crosby et al 1986;Rowe and Frewer 2000), independence (Lauber and Knuth 1999;Rowe and Frewer 2000), transparency (Lauber and Knuth 1999;Drew et al 2004) and cost-effectiveness (Rowe and Frewer 2000;Involve 2005).…”

Understanding the human dimensions of coexistence between carnivores and people: A case study in Namibia

“…Indeed previous research has shown that there are many positive outcomes of the process (Innes & Booher, 1999); sometimes the aim is to build a shared understanding within stakeholder groups or to provide a voice to groups that ordinarily have little power to enact change (Innes, 2004). However, as the majority of African wildlife populations are found outside protected areas (Caro, 2001;Krugmann, 2001;Western, Russell, & Cuthil, 2009), it is imperative for the future of wildlife conservation that landholders become actively engaged in biodiversity management.…”