| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Bottom-up and top-down dialogue
The GM Nation? debates (2003) and the Newcastle Do-it-yourself Citizens' Jury (2001-3) provide useful case studies of top-down and bottom-up engagement.
GM Nation? was a Government consultation that involved a variety of engagement techniques including focus groups, public meetings and questionnaires. However a widespread scepticism existed among some of those involved in the process and in spontaneous statements made by randomly chosen members of the public that key policy decisions been taken before GM Nation? began. This led to a scepticism by many people about the value of being consulted, which was widely reported. For example, a Times editorial titled “Genetic Defects” commented: “Consultation is one of the buzzwords of public sector management. Promising to consult the public is the perfect way to put off making a decision or to provide cover for an unpopular decision that has already been made.
At any one time government bodies may be “consulting” the public on dozens of matters, while the public remain blithely unaware that their views are being sought. When the outcome is finally announced, everyone involved can claim to have been open to different views, when in fact the whole process changed nothing” (4 June 2003).
Since 2001, the PEALS Research Centre at Newcastle University has been undertaking DIY juries – innovative "bottom-up” processes of engagement funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (JRCT). Unlike conventional citizens' juries in which the topic is set by the relevant decision-making institution, DIY juries allow citizens to decide on which topic they feel that they are most in need of a greater voice. Two areas that have been chosen by such a bottom-up process have been the prevention and treatment of falls among older people (Tyneside since 2001), and reducing crime related to alcohol and illegal drug use among young people (Blackburn since 2004).
