Consultation Guide

Everyone affected by a policy should have a say in shaping it.  Beyond Inclusion notes (at p.9) that participants in public consultation should "reflect the demographic, attitudinal, and experiential diversity of communities that may be impacted by a decision." Each policy may affect a different set of groups, depending on how the subject-matter regulated by the policy interacts with people’s interests and identities. Thus, the interests and communities affected by new or existing policies, programs, and practices may or may not correspond precisely to grounds of discrimination prohibited by the Ontario Human Rights Code or to groups identified in University of Waterloo’s Equity Census Survey.

In all cases, you should consult the following stakeholders:

1. The people and work units who will implement the plan;
2. The people whom the plan is designed to benefit; and
3. Other people who might experience unintended effects from the plan.

All these groups might experience effects of a policy change that the initiators of the policy don't expect. It isn't always easy to predict what potential benefits, hurdles, and unintended adverse effects might look like, especially for groups whose life experience is not shared by the people who are initiating the policy review. That's why participation and consultation are essential.

People are experts on their own experiences. They can tell you how the current policy affects them, what changes could make the policy more workable for them, and they can describe or predict potential pitfalls or adverse effects that might otherwise have been overlooked. If you consult affected communities and implement their feedback, your policy will be more pragmatic and actionable, you will promote stakeholder buy-in, and you will ultimately help your plan to succeed.

This worksheet is designed to help structure your consideration of equity considerations that might be implicated by the current policy or proposed changes to it. Once you've identified groups that might be affected, you will need to consult those groups to find out how your policy looks and feels to them.

This worksheet aims to help policymakers consider, from the beginning:

• Who might be impacted by the current policy or any new policy proposals being considered;
• What those effects might look like; and
• Who should be involved in creating a new policy (e.g., by inclusion on the committee, interviews, focus groups, or surveys)

The worksheet recommends considering policy impacts on campus community members who are protected by the Ontario Human Rights Code, but often experience inequitable treatment and outcomes. Extensive academic and advocacy literature has found that these groups experience structural and systemic discrimination in a broad variety of educational, economic, and social contexts, including this university. If a policy designed for everyone is developed or applied without consideration of these groups, it may fail to benefit them equally, or even disadvantage them. The worksheet guides you to consider the particular effects of a policy might have on these vulnerable groups, to make sure they're not overlooked.

How to use this worksheet?

• The list of affected groups is not exhaustive. The groups listed on the worksheet are not the only ones who should be considered in policymaking: whom you consult will depend on who is affected. The groups affected by a policy will vary depending on what the policy does, and not all affected stakeholders can be identified in advance. We encourage you to consider not only the OHRC-protected groups listed on the worksheet but also other groups, such as homeless students or staff, people experiencing food insecurity, campus community members who aren't fluent in English, and any other groups that could be affected by your policy.
  • Why aren't white, Christian, non-disabled men listed? This group deserves consideration too, but it tends to be well represented in university policy-making, and is often the presumptive norm when universities and other institutions create policy for the collective benefit (e.g., when people imagine a university professor, especially in a STEM field, they might often picture a white, non-disabled, 45-year-old, tenured or tenure-track Canadian man). As explained below, people's identities are complex, and systemic forms of discrimination can intersect. For example, a white, Christian, non-disabled man might be adversely affected by a university policy (e.g., a lack of affirming mental health care) that fails to accommodate 2SLGBTQIA+ students. Likewise, a queer international student from Nigeria who might experience discrimination on various aspects of her identity might not experience disadvantage from an exam schedule that leaves room for her Christian religious observance, while a non-disabled white person who is an observant Jew or Muslim might experience a scheduling conflict.
• Consider intersectionality. Different forms of discrimination might affect students whose identities overlap differently. For example, racial stereotypes are gendered so that, e.g., some people might perceive a Black man as physically threatening while a white man or a Black woman behaving the same way might not be perceived as a physical threat. An East Asian woman could be subject to stereotypical expectations that might not be applied to a white woman or an East Asian man. A Muslim woman who wears hijab might be excluded by a rule against headwear on the sports field even though Muslim men and other non-hijabi Muslims might not be.
  • Ensure that the most affected groups are represented in your policy development/review process.

• It's ok if most cells in the worksheet are blank! Most policies will not affect every one of the listed groups in a unique way. The groups listed in the worksheet are designed to help you consider and anticipate policy effects and stakeholders whose interests might not have been previously considered.
  • Some policies, like an anti-discrimination complaint policy, might affect nearly all the listed groups, in different ways.
  • Other policies, such as class/exam scheduling, might affect some of the listed groups (e.g., students with certain disabilities, students from some religions, and students in some family situations), while not having a particular effect on other groups (e.g. nonbinary students, students whose religious holidays/days of rest are accommodated by the schedule, international students). 
• Avoid tokenism. No identity or interest group is unanimous. All community and student groups are internally diverse: group members' experiences and priorities might differ based on their intersectional identities, their political views, and their priorities in life. No one member of a group should be taken to represent all members of the group.
  • For best representation of a group's views,
    • Seek participation by group members who are advocates for the group, e.g. leaders of campus interest or identity groups.
    • Seek participation by multiple group members whose intersectional identities or priorities encompass the most affected members of the group.
    • Aim to ensure that representatives of racialized or other groups are not exclusively composed of relatively privileged members, such as men, or Canadians, or students in their early 20s, or non-disabled group members, etc.

The most affected and most vulnerable groups should be involved in the policy change at the outset. These would include implementers of the policy change, intended beneficiaries, and others whose interests might be adversely affected.

Early and meaningful participation in—and influence on—policy builds trust in affected communities. Consider inviting two or more differently-situated representatives of each affected group (e.g., both managers and staff from the unit that will implement the policy; students or faculty members of diverse genders and racial identities), both to ensure that internal diversity of stakeholders is represented, and to ensure enough votes to meaningfully influence decisions. Voice or inclusion without authority or power can be tokenism, and is likely to alienate participants.

To invite public participation too late, or to invite participation without explaining what will be done with the feedback, risks undermining trust, potentially leaving group members with the impression that their consultation was pro forma as decisions were made in advance, without their input.

Be mindful of power imbalances at all stages of the process. Most people will hesitate to speak candidly if they risk getting a bad grade, losing their job, or losing their place in university. Most people also won't speak if they think those in authority won't listen.

In particular, be aware of power imbalances between, e.g., professors vs. students, administration vs. faculty, students, and staff; tenured and tenure-track faculty vs. adjunct faculty. Furthermore, many people hesitate to volunteer to speak in front of a group, and studies show that, in mixed-gender groups, men are more likely to speak than people socialized as women. Consider the following protections for people who may hesitate to give feedback in person or virtually:

• Anonymous survey
• Virtual submission drop box
• Talking stick or other turn-taking mode of listening and participation.

Consider protections such as anti-retaliation policies, confidentiality, anonymity, and blind processes such as surveys to build trust and secure candid feedback.

Consider the five-level spectrum of participation identified by the International Association for Public Participation Canada (IAP2), and develop a process that maximizes participation. For groups that are directly impacted by the policy change (whether as beneficiaries or people experiencing unintended adverse impacts), aim for at least the second-highest level of participation--"Collaborate." At this level of participation, affected communities participate at all levels of the policymaking process, their degree of influence is made clear, and reasons are given for why their feedback is or is not implemented in the final policy.

• An example of a University of Waterloo policy that meets and exceeds this threshold is the policymaking procedure mandated by Policy 1 for the development and review of Class F policies (affecting the terms and conditions of employment for faculty). Faculty representatives are involved in drafting new policies and in approval of draft policies; faculty representatives can effectively veto policies they unanimously oppose; and there's a requirement to give reasons if the President, Senate, or Board of Governors declines to approve a policy proposal from the Faculty Relations Committee.

Finally, the way group participation is invited may affect stakeholder trust in the process and their willingness to engage. Consider, for example:

• Representation on the policymaking committee
• Participation in drafting
• Voting representation
• Intersectionality of stakeholder groups
• Compensation for the time of stakeholders. If the participation is a one-off conversation, it may be helpful to offer food and refreshments. If sustained participation is being sought, consider financial compensation. It is inequitable to burden equity-deserving students, staff, or faculty with uncompensated claims on their time.
  • Be aware that racialized and otherwise minoritized students, faculty, and staff are frequently asked to volunteer their time and share their expertise for the benefit of the institution or of other people. This is an inequitable burden which may detract from the time they have for their academic work, scholarship, teaching responsibilities, and personal lives.
  • Ask potential participants what they need to make participation meaningful and minimally onerous.
• Accessibility. Make arrangements to facilitate full participation by members of affected groups. The following accessibility measures will often be necessary:
  • Schedule meeting times to minimize conflict with class schedules and family obligations;
  • Ensure that meeting rooms are accessible to disabled participants;
  • Allow remote access to meetings, via video call or other accessibility technology;
  • Provide transportation for meetings that must occur in person, especially at night;
  • Provide childcare.
• Follow up with participants to explain why some feedback was implemented while other feedback was not.

For more advice about how to engage productively with campus community stakeholders, see the Office of EDI-R Guide to Consultation and Community Engagement.

While surveys will necessarily involve specific questions (e.g., "'I feel like I fit in with my colleagues in this department.' Strongly agree - agree - neutral - disagree - strongly disagree"), in-person (or live remote) consultations should be conducted first, to make sure that survey questions will get at the issues that participants identify in interviews, focus groups, or on the committee. In interviews and focus groups, ask structured but open-ended questions, to allow for participants to raise pertinent issues you might not have foreseen, e.g. 

• What is your experience of [the policy's area of endeavour]?
• What barriers do you face from [the institution, department, colleagues, students, community, etc.] in relation to [the subject-matter of the policy]?
• What policy changes do you think would help?
• What do you wish the [university/department/institution] understood about people in your situation?
• Is there anything you wish we had asked you about, that we haven't asked?