Engagement during COVID-19: Digital Democracy or Digital Divide?

Governments and planners have always struggled with how to achieve meaningful, inclusive engagement. Recently, the global COVID-19 pandemic has forced public engagement strategies to adapt in creative and sometimes unexpected ways that have brought a new combination of both opportunities and challenges. With the major shift to virtual and digital platforms, we have an opportunity to learn more about what digital barriers exist along with what opportunities they might provide.

Life has changed rapidly in the past year since coronavirus swept the globe, and the way we communicate has shifted to accommodate the limits to our in-person interaction. As a result, the practice of engagement and public participation has also had to adapt. Public participation is based on the belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process. While many engagement events were canceled at first, a Canadian study found that engagement was seen to be more important now than ever, across all levels of government. In fact, more than half still want to be consulted on issues other than coronavirus and many participants (79%) felt that government consultations online can be as effective as in-person (Hill+Knowlton Strategies, 2020). I believe this study demonstrates that governments have an obligation to continue to seek public participation despite the challenging circumstances.

We have seen in the past months that adapting engagement strategies often means moving fully online. We are more reliant on technology than ever before, and in some ways, this has pushed humans to learn new tools and technology to advance more in the last ten months than in the last ten years. While digital communication and increasingly digital engagement strategies are not new, it is common for engagement today to combine in-person and digital strategies. For example, an online survey might gather information about a community’s ideas and concerns about a project so the results can inform how an in-person design charette is planned. With the shift to virtual and digital platforms, we have an opportunity to learn more about what digital barriers exist and how we might address them. Furthermore, it may be possible to learn when in-person dialogue is crucial or when digital platforms might be equal or even better depending on the community and the context.

With this, we must consider how online engagement methods may result in inequitable processes. To provide a few examples: many rural communities and First Nations reserves do not have adequate access to Wi-Fi, someone who is unhoused may not have easy access to a digital device, not all online platforms are assessable to people with disabilities, and seniors have often struggled with digital literacy.

On the other hand, in what ways has digital engagement has made public participation more equitable, or increased accessibility for a larger diversity of people? Are there ways that digital engagement has made it possible to include a greater number of underheard voices in visioning and decision-making processes? For example, do people disabilities prefer to access opportunities online, where they don’t need to worry about the whether the meeting room is physically accessible? Would single parents prefer to join a virtual meeting from their home rather than worry about missing work or finding childcare to attend a session at City Hall?

Coronavirus has exacerbated pre-existing inequalities and made experiences of poverty, racism, and gender inequity even more prominent. But what has it done to engagement? How have engagement practices adapted in response to coronavirus and what have we learned that might enable more inclusive and equitable engagement practices?

I have begun to ask fellow planners these very questions. For some, these changes have demonstrated the resilience and capacity for human adaptation. Seniors who may have previously struggled with digital literacy have been joining zoom calls to let their voices be heard. Another planner shared that the zoom “box” equalized participants in the (online) space that may not be possible in person. Parents with young children and single parents have been showing up to meetings. Cities who were resistant to change have been forced to upgrade and modernize their engagement and communication strategies. For others, they can’t wait to get back to how things used to be. In person engagement can be a fulfilling exercise that energizes and enables community building. Online, It can be easy to get distracted by your environment when you’re joining a zoom meeting from home, so the content must be that much more captivating. It can be difficult to read body language and interpret subtle cues when there is a screen between you. Internet connections notoriously fail and there's always that one person who forgets to mute themselves.

I don’t have a single answer to this question, and I don’t expect there be one. Context, timing, tools, people, capacity, project type, privilege, access, energy, politics… these are just a few of the factors that contribute to how engagement practices have adapted in response to coronavirus and what lessons have been learned, for better or worse.

---

A note on definitions:

The term “equity” is used in many ways, so I’d like to provide a definition of the word as it pertains to engagement as well as “accessibility” which I consider to be part of equity. These definitions are from the recent report out of Simon Fraser University called “Beyond Inclusion – Equity in Public Engagement” (2020) which I recommend to anyone involved in public participation or engagement.

Equity in public engagement exists when resources and opportunities for participation are distributed in a manner that responds to historic and ongoing disadvantages faced by marginalized groups. Equitable public engagement provides mutually beneficial opportunities for people to contribute and is mindful of power and privilege within engagement processes, institutions and broader systems.

Accessibility in public engagement exists when all members of the communities impacted by a decision can access and fully participate in the engagement space and processes.

References

Hill+Knowlton Strategies. (2020). Government Consultations in the Era of COVID 19. https://www.iap2canada.ca/resources/Documents/1%20-%20HK%20-%20COVID%2019%20-%20Government%20Consultations.pdf

Simon Fraser University’s Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue. (2020). Beyond Inclusion: Equity in Public Engagement.