Deliberative participation methods are distinct from traditional forms of participation because they prioritize informed discussion and collective reasoning over the simple gathering of existing opinions.
While a survey captures “top of the head” reactions and a referendum provides a binary choice, deliberative methods provide participants with the time, resources, and expert testimony needed to form a “considered judgment.” The deliberative methods help to create trust between different groups and try to find wisdom in the different opinions.
Some methods are described below:
1. Lotted Assemblies of citizens
A lotted Assembly of citizens is a large-scale deliberative body (usually 50 to 150 people) selected through sortition (random selection) to be a “mini-public” that reflects the demographic diversity of the entire population.
- Process: It typically occurs over several weeks or months. It consists of three distinct phases: Learning (hearing from experts and stakeholders), Deliberation (small group discussions facilitated to ensure everyone is heard), and Decision-making (voting on final recommendations).
- Usage: They are often used for high-stakes, complex, or polarized issues, such as constitutional changes or climate strategy (e.g., the Irish Citizens’ Assembly on abortion).
2. Citizens’ Juries
Think of this as a smaller, more focused version of an assembly, usually involving 12 to 25 people. It is modeled after the legal jury system but applies to policy questions rather than criminal guilt.
- Process: Because of their smaller size, they are more agile and typically last between 2 and 5 days. Jurors “cross-examine” expert witnesses and work together to reach a consensus or a set of recommendations.
- Usage: They are best suited for local or community-specific issues (e.g., how to revitalize a local high street or where to locate a new waste facility) where a deep, focused dive into a specific trade-off is required.
3. Deliberative Polling
Developed by Professor James Fishkin, this method combines scientific polling with deliberation to answer the question: “What would the public think if they had the time and information to truly consider the issue?”
- Process: A large, representative sample is polled on an issue. They are then brought together for a weekend of deliberation with balanced briefing materials and access to experts. At the end, they are polled again with the exact same questions.
- The “Contradiction”: Unlike a standard survey, the “result” is the change in opinion. It highlights how information and discussion can shift public perspective away from knee-jerk reactions toward more nuanced positions.
4. The World Cafe model
While the World Café is often more informal than a Citizens’ Assembly, it is a powerful deliberative instrument specifically designed to harness the “collective intelligence” of a group through a unique, conversational structure. Unlike a traditional consultation meeting where a speaker talks at an audience, or a survey where people answer in isolation, the World Café creates a web of interconnected dialogue. It is a structured conversational process where people discuss a topic at small tables, periodically switching tables to link their ideas to those of other groups. It is based on the philosophy that “the answers we need are already in the room.”
- Process: The Setting: Participants sit at small tables (usually 4–5 people) in a café-like atmosphere. Discussions are held in several 20-minute rounds. At the end of each round, one person stays as the “Table Host” while the others move to different tables.
Cross-Pollination: “Travelers” carry the seeds of their previous conversation to their new table, linking and building upon ideas.
Harvesting: In the final phase, the collective wisdom is “harvested”—patterns and insights are shared with the whole room and recorded (often via visual mapping or graphic recording on the paper “tablecloths”). - The “Contradiction”: Unlike a referendum or survey, which seeks to find a single “majority” view, the World Café seeks to uncover emergent patterns and shared values. It moves away from “debate” (where someone wins) toward “dialogue” (where everyone learns).
5. Planning cells
A Planning Cell is a German model where several small groups (cells) work simultaneously on the same planning problem for a few days, then merge their results. It is not used in the Netherlands. It consists of approximately 25 randomly selected citizens who are paid to work as “public consultants” for a period of four to five days to solve a specific, complex planning problem.
- Process: Participants are chosen via random sampling from population registers. Uniquely, they are paid a fee (like a professional consultant) and are legally “released” from their jobs for the duration, which ensures that low-income or busy individuals can participate.
- The “Work Units”: The schedule is broken down into small units (e.g., 90 minutes each). Each unit starts with an information session (expert testimony or balanced materials), followed by intense deliberation in alternating small groups (usually 5 people).
- Rotating Composition: To prevent “groupthink” or dominant personalities from taking over, the composition of the small groups changes in every single work unit. You might work with four strangers in the morning and four different strangers in the afternoon.
- The Citizens’ Report: At the end of the process, the participants’ collective recommendations are compiled into a Bürgergutachten (Citizens’ Report), which is then handed over to the commissioning government body
Back to the main participation page
Back to participation methods page