What Difference Does the “E” Make? Comparing Communication Channels in Public Consultation and Collaboration Processes

Expectations have been high that offering online, that is, electronic or “e”-communication channels in public participation will improve its outreach and quality. However, so far, there is no empirical evidence that confirms these hopes. Applying a variety of research methods, this chapter presents empirical findings on the advantages and disadvantages of online communication compared to face-to-face communication in six consultation processes and seven collaborative citizen panels. To control for contextual differences, one of the consultation processes has been set up paralleling online and face-to-face meetings. In this case, organizers showed a preference for face-to-face meetings as regards the content of contributions and the style of discussion. For the citizen panels, collaborating with local governments to achieve climate targets, impacts in terms of carbon equivalents (CO2e) savings, and dropout rates have been compared for parallel processes online and via telephone. These comparisons do not, however, deliver clear performance profiles of the communication channels or a generalizable assessment of their appropriateness for particular objectives. The factors influencing the choice of communication channels are complex, and the analysis shows that assessments depend on the type of participation and the role of an actor in the process as well as on time frames and contexts in which the assessments are made. Showing that none of the channels offers clear advantages over the other, we conclude that practitioners are well advised to follow a multichannel strategy and offer a media mix of online and traditional modes of participation.