Social Indicators Research

, Volume 123, Issue 3, pp 857–877 | Cite as

Consulting with Citizens in the Design of Wellbeing Measures and Policies: Lessons from a Systems Science Application

  • Michael J. HoganEmail author
  • Helen Johnston
  • Benjamin Broome
  • Claire McMoreland
  • Jane Walsh
  • Bryan Smale
  • Jim Duggan
  • Jerry Andriessen
  • Kevin M. Leyden
  • Christine Domegan
  • Patricia McHugh
  • Victoria Hogan
  • Owen Harney
  • Jenny Groarke
  • Chris Noone
  • Ann Marie Groarke


Internationally, there is increasing interest in, and analysis of, human wellbeing and the economic, social, environmental, and psychological factors that contribute to it. Current thinking suggests that to measure social progress and national wellbeing we need more than GDP. Experts across a range of disciplines have increasingly highlighted a number of key values and domains of measurement that are influencing the way governments in different countries are thinking about wellbeing measures and policies. Most agree that it is important to involve citizen consultation in the design of wellbeing measures and policies. There is no real consensus on how to best do so. There are, however, the warnings of recent case studies that underscore the dangers of failing to consult with citizens adequately. The current paper examines the value of citizen consultations and considers how best to optimize deliberation and co-design by experts, citizens, and politicians using systems science tools that facilitate collective intelligence and collective action. The paper opens with an overview of the international wellbeing movement and highlights key issues in the design and application of wellbeing measures in policy practice. Next, an applied system science methodology, Interactive Management (IM), is described and affordances of IM considered in relation to the challenge of facilitating citizen consultations in relation to wellbeing measurement and policy design. The method can be used to provide insight into the values, goals, and preferences of citizens; engaging all stakeholders in a democratic, consensus building process that facilitates buy-in and enhances the legitimacy of decision-making groups; facilitating transparent understanding of the reasoning that informs the systems thinking of groups. A recent application of our applied system science methodology to the design of a notional national wellbeing index for Ireland is outlined. The paper closes by highlighting the importance of adopting a wider social science toolkit to the challenge of facilitating social progress.


Wellbeing Policy Systems thinking Governance Consultation 


  1. Ackoff, R. L. (1981). Creating the corporate future: Plan or be planned for. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Alberts, H. (1992, March). Acquisition: Past, present and future. Paper presented at the meeting of the Institute of Management Sciences and Operations Research Society, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  3. Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organizational. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Ashby, W. R. (1958). Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems. Cybernetica, 1(2), 1–17.Google Scholar
  5. Ballantyne, D., & Varey, R. (2006a). Introducing a dialogical orientation to the service-dominant logic of marketing. In R. F. Lusch & S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The service dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate and directions (pp. 224–235). New York: M.E. Sharpe Inc.Google Scholar
  6. Ballantyne, D., & Varey, R. J. (2006b). Creating value-in-use through marketing interaction: The exchange logic of relating, communicating and knowing. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 335–348. doi: 10.1177/1470593106066795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barry, M. M., Van Lente, E., Molcho, M., Morgan, K., McGee, H., Conroy, R. M., et al. (2009). SLÁN 2007: Survey of lifestyle, attitudes and nutrition in Ireland: Mental health and social well-being report. Dublin: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  8. Boulding, K. E. (1966). The impact of the social sciences. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Broome, B. J. (1995). The role of facilitated group process in community-based planning and design: Promoting greater participation in Comanche tribal governance. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Innovations in group facilitation: Applications in natural settings (pp. 27–52). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  10. Broome, B. J., & Chen, M. (1992). Guidelines for computer-assisted group problem-solving: Meeting the challenges of complex issues. Small Group Research, 23, 216–236. doi: 10.1177/1046496492232005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Broome, B. J., & Christakis, A. N. (1988). A culturally-sensitive approach to tribal governance issue management. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12, 107–123. doi: 10.1016/0147-1767(88)90043-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Broome, B. J., & Cromer, I. L. (1991). Strategic planning for tribal economic development: A culturally appropriate model for consensus building. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 217–234. doi: 10.1108/eb022700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Broome, B. J., & Fulbright, L. (1995). A multi-stage influence model of barriers to group problem solving. Small Group Research, 26, 25–55. doi: 10.1177/1046496495261002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bruni, L., & Porta, P. L. (2005). Economics and happiness: Framing the analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Canadian Policy Research Network (CPRN). (2001a). Asking citizens what matters for quality of life in Canada. Report prepared for the Canadian Policy Research Networks. Results of Public Dialogue Process, Quality of Life Indicators Project. Ottawa, ON: CPRN.Google Scholar
  16. Canadian Policy Research Network (CPRN). (2001b). Indicators of quality of life in Canada: A citizen’s prototype. Report prepared for the Canadian Policy Research Networks. Results of Public Dialogue Sessions and Prototype of National Indicators, Quality of Life Indicators Project. Ottawa, ON: CPRN.Google Scholar
  17. Christakis, A. N. (1987). Systems profile: The Club of Rome revisited. Systems Research, 4, 53–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cleveland, H. (1973). The decision makers. Center Magazine, 6(5), 9–18.Google Scholar
  19. CMEPSP (2009). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Retrieved from [10 April 2013].
  20. Coke, J. G., & Moore, C. M. (1981). Coping with a budgetary crisis: Helping a city council decide where expenditure cuts should be made. In S. W. Burks & J. F. Wolf (Eds.), Building city council leadership skills: A casebook of models and methods (pp. 72–85). Washington, DC: National League of Cities.Google Scholar
  21. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  22. Dhéret, C., Zuleeg, F., Chiorean-Sime, S., & Molino, E. (2011). Well-being 2030: A new vision for ‘Social Europe’. EPC Issue Paper, 65(18).Google Scholar
  23. Diener, E., Lucas, R., Schimmack, U., & Helliwell, J. (2009). Well-being for public policy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In R. David & M. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth: Essays in honor of Moses Abramovitz. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Easterlin, R. A. (2005). Building a better theory of well-being. In L. Bruni & P. L. Porta (Eds.), Economics and happiness: Framing the analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Farrell, C., McAvoy, H., Wilde, J., & Combat Poverty Agency. (2008). Tackling health inequalities: An all-Ireland approach to social determinants. Dublin: Institute of Public Health & Combat Poverty Agency.Google Scholar
  27. Feeg, R. (1988). Forum of the future of pediatric nursing: Looking toward the 21st century. Pediatric Nursing, 14, 393–396.Google Scholar
  28. Flanagan, O. (2007). The really hard problem: Meaning in a material world. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Goldberg, A. L., Kevin, M., & Scotto, T. J. (2012). Untangling what makes cities livable: Happiness in five cities. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers: Urban Design and Planning, 165, 127–136.Google Scholar
  30. Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2013). World happiness report 2013. New York: UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network.Google Scholar
  31. Hogan, M. J., & Broome, B. (2012). Well-being in Ireland: Overcoming barriers to well-being in Ireland. Collective Intelligence Conference Report, NUI, Galway.Google Scholar
  32. Hogan, M. J. & Broome, B. (2013). Wellbeing in IrelandDesigning measures and implementing policies. Collective Intelligence Conference Report, NUI, Galway.Google Scholar
  33. Hogan, M. J., Harney, O., & Broome, B. (2014). Integrating argument mapping with systems thinking tools—advancing applied systems science. In A. Okada, S. Buckingham Shum, & T. Sherborne (Eds.), Knowledge cartography: Software tools and mapping techniques. Advanced information and knowledge processing series. Springer (in press).Google Scholar
  34. Kahneman, D. (1999). Objective happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwartz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  35. Keever, D. B. (1989, April). Cultural complexities in the participative design of a computer-based organization information system. Paper presented at the international conference on support, society and culture: mutual uses of cybernetics and science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  36. Kemeny, J. (1980). Saving American democracy: The lesson of Three Mile Island. Technology Review, 83(7), 64–75.Google Scholar
  37. Kroll, C. (2011). Measuring progress and well-being: Achievements and challenges of a new global movement. Berlin: Friedrich Ebert Foundation.Google Scholar
  38. Layard, R. (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a new science. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  39. Layte, R., Nolan, A., & Nolan, B. (2007). Health and Health Care. In T. Fahey, H. Russell, & C. T. Whelan (Eds.), Best of times: The social impact of the Celtic tiger. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.Google Scholar
  40. Leyden, Kevin M. (2003). Social capital and the built environment: The importance of walkable neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1546–1551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Leyden, Kevin M., Goldberg, A., & Michelbach, P. (2011). Understanding the pursuit of happiness in ten major cities. Urban Affairs Review, 47, 861–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maani, K., & Cavana, R. Y. (2000). Systems thinking and modelling: Understanding change and complexity. Auckland: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  43. Matheson, J. (2011). Measuring national wellbeing: Measuring what matters. London: Office of National Statistics. Retrieved October, 2, 2012.Google Scholar
  44. McMoreland, C., Hogan, M. J., & Walsh, J. (2014). A lifespan perspective on wellbeing in Ireland. DClin Thesis, NUI, Galway.Google Scholar
  45. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychology Review, 63, 81–97. doi: 10.1037/h0043158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morgan, K., McGee, H., Watson, D., Perry, I., Barry, M., Shelley, E., Harrington, J., Molcho, M., Layte, R., Tully, N., Van Lente, E., Ward, M., Lutomski, J., Conroy, R., & Brugha, R. (2008). SLÁN 2007: Survey of lifestyle, attitudes & nutrition in Ireland. Main report. Dublin: Department of Health and Children.Google Scholar
  47. NESC. (2009). Well-being matters: A social report for Ireland [NESC Report No. 119]. Dublin: NESC.Google Scholar
  48. New Economics Foundation. (2009). National accounts of well-being. Retrieved from [12 June 2009].
  49. NUI Galway. (2012) Overcoming barriers to well-being in Ireland: Workshop Report. Retrieved from [12 April 2013].
  50. Reis, H. & Gable, S. (2003). Toward a positive psychology of relationships. In C. L. M. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10594-006.
  51. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1974). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. DMG-DRS Journal, 8, 31–39. doi: 10.1007/BF01405730.Google Scholar
  52. Sato, T. (1979). Determination of hierarchical networks of instructional units using the ISM method. Educational Technology Research, 3, 67–75.Google Scholar
  53. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of management decisions. New York: Harper & Row.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Stiglitz, J. (2009). Speech at launch of the Report of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Retrieved from [1 October 2009].
  57. Wallace, J., & Schmueker, K. (2012). Shifting the dial: From wellbeing measures to policy practice. Dunfermline: Carnegie UK Trust.Google Scholar
  58. Warfield, J. (1994). A science of generic design: Managing complexity through systems design (2nd ed.). Salinas, CA: Intersystems.Google Scholar
  59. Warfield, J. (2006). An introduction to systems science. Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do better. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  62. World Health Organisation. (2004). Global strategy on diet, physical activity and health. Retrieved from [10 April 2013].

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. Hogan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Helen Johnston
    • 2
  • Benjamin Broome
    • 3
  • Claire McMoreland
    • 1
  • Jane Walsh
    • 1
  • Bryan Smale
    • 4
  • Jim Duggan
    • 5
  • Jerry Andriessen
    • 6
  • Kevin M. Leyden
    • 7
  • Christine Domegan
    • 8
  • Patricia McHugh
    • 8
  • Victoria Hogan
    • 9
  • Owen Harney
    • 1
  • Jenny Groarke
    • 1
  • Chris Noone
    • 1
  • Ann Marie Groarke
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PsychologyNUI GalwayGalwayIreland
  2. 2.National Economic and Social CouncilDublinIreland
  3. 3.School of CommunicationsArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  4. 4.Canadian Index of Wellbeing, Department of Recreation and Leisure StudiesUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  5. 5.School of Information TechnologyNUI GalwayGalwayIreland
  6. 6.Wise and Munro Learning ResearchDen HaagThe Netherlands
  7. 7.School of Political Science and SociologyNUI GalwayGalwayIreland
  8. 8.School of MarketingNUI GalwayGalwayIreland
  9. 9.School of Health PromotionNUI GalwayGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations