The space between us: Lessons on engagement from Aotearoa
Engagement practitioners are carrying an increasing responsibility, to their organisations, communities and to the integrity of the work itself. The insights from the recent Engagement Institute Symposium in New Zealand reinforce the need for a fundamental shift in how engagement is understood, delivered and resourced. This requires both systemic change and a reframing of the narrative: moving beyond engagement as a compliance activity toward recognising it as a critical lever for stronger social and economic outcomes. Done well, engagement is not a tick-box exercise, it is a driver of better decisions, more resilient communities and more meaningful, long-term impact.
Engagement as Relationship, Not Process
Across multiple sessions, there was a consistent shift away from engagement as a structured process toward engagement as an ongoing relationship. Concepts like the Pacific and Samoan term vā “space between us” reframed engagement as something to be actively held and maintained, not managed through stages or tools. This aligns with reflections from practitioners who moved from formal consultation to more open, relational approaches (e.g. less presentation, more listening). This doesn’t mean a complete move away from structured engagement, but developing adaptable approaches to our audience and acknowledging engagement takes time and trust to build a relationship that is a two-way exchange and not extractive. We need to plan for this in timelines, budgets and embed relational engagement frameworks as business as usual to enrich our findings and connection to the people impacted by change.
Frameworks such as the Fonofale Model “a holistic view of health that symbolises wholeness of a Pasifika person" and Kakala Model “a Tongan research and engagement framework based on the process of making a kahoa kakala and broader Indigenous knowledge systems were presented not as engagement enhancements, but as fundamentally different ways of structuring engagement. These approaches emphasise holism, reciprocity, collective wellbeing and intergenerational thinking, challenging Western models that prioritise efficiency and individual input. There was also a strong link to sustainability and long-term stewardship embedded within these frameworks that we can learn from and adapt to local contexts with local expertise.
Language as a Connector, Not a Function
Language emerged as a powerful theme, particularly the role of Indigenous and Pacific languages in shaping how people understand relationships, place and identity. Unlike more symbolic use often seen in Australia, language here was integrated and functional, enabling more nuanced interpretations of engagement and community dynamics. This reinforces that language isn’t simply a communication tool but a lens through which engagement is understood. This does not mean we all should understand indigenous language in engagement context, but including people that speak the language so they’re available as facilitators and those engaged is critical to understanding the deeper meaning behind their goals and intent as the words we use are precise and not always transferrable. Beyond getting to the right meaning this creates an opportunity for all to learn and embrace the differences of how we engage and relate.
Trust, Transparency and the Weight of History
Trust emerged as both fragile and foundational to effective engagement, particularly in contexts shaped by a legacy of poor or extractive consultation. Discussions reinforced that engagement does not begin from a neutral position, communities carry fatigue and distrust from past processes. This means practitioners often inherit strained relationships and hesitancy to re-engage. In response, there was a clear shift toward greater transparency and vulnerability, stop polishing the message, acknowledge uncertainty and openly address past failures. This approach treats communities as trusted members of engagement and acknowledges their experience and aims to reduce pressure, build credibility and create space for more honest and genuine co-design of solutions.
Lived Experience as Core Expertise
The value of lived experience was consistently reinforced as critical to designing effective solutions. Failures in engagement were often linked to over-reliance on technical or expert-driven approaches, with insufficient integration of community knowledge. This aligns with broader shifts toward co-design and participatory models, where communities aren't just consulted but actively shape outcomes. But it begs the question, if we’re constantly expecting those of lived experience to provide their insight, what are they getting in return and are we repeating these questions when the onus should be on us to do our homework and become advocates for those with lived experiences?
Engagement as Emotional and Relational Labour
An implicit but important theme was the emotional dimension of engagement. Both communities, stakeholders and practitioners carry the impacts of long-term engagement processes, particularly in contested or high-stakes environments. Cultural frameworks naturally embed care and relational responsibility, but this is less visible in institutional models. This is impacting our communities but also us as practitioners. As organisations we must be willing to support professions that inherently cause psychological distress, this may look like exposure training before high stakes engagement, determining when to close engagement and buddy systems for when a colleague needs a way out of a high pressure conversation. These are immediate measures, but what happens after? Are our organisations and leaders certified in psychological first aid to ensure our engagement practitioners are prepared to navigate the at times challenging role of front line engagement?
Youth Engagement as an Indicator of System Change
Youth engagement emerged strongly, particularly in relation to alternative engagement methods such as gamification, visual tools and creative participation. However, this is less about youth specifically and more indicative of broader shifts in expectations of engagement leaning toward authenticity, interactivity and shared ownership. Young people’s broader distrust of traditional engagement mirrors wider community sentiment and it’s the industry’s responsibility to meet them where they are and challenge our understanding to create truly relevant and meaningful opportunities for co-design at all ages.
From Engagement to Co-Design
Across these themes, a clear direction emerges. Engagement is no longer about consultation, participation rates or meeting statutory requirements. It’s about how we design with communities, not for them. Co-design with communities requires more than inviting people into the room. It requires trust built over time, environments grounded in psychological safety and a willingness to adapt our approaches to reflect different ways of knowing, communicating and relating. It asks organisations to recognise lived experience as critical expertise in shaping decisions and give these audiences the space and resources they need to do so.
This is not easy work. It challenges timelines, funding models and traditional governance structures. It requires practitioners to hold complexity, navigate emotion and build relationships that extend beyond the life of a project.
But the opportunity is significant.
When engagement is grounded in trust, cultural understanding and genuine collaboration, it becomes more than a process, but a mechanism for better decisions, stronger communities and more sustainable outcomes.
The future of engagement lies in our ability to design alongside diverse communities, with care, intention and respect for the relationships that sit at the centre of our work.
