Facilitating Public Deliberations

As we draw this podcast series to a close, it’s fitting to take a global perspective on public deliberation with Claudia Chwalisz who leads the OECD’s work on innovative citizen participation.  Claudia is co-authoring a number of influential reports, convening a global network and maintaining an online digest, Participo. LINKS Catching the Deliberate Wave report Leading Deliberative Democracy short course Doing Deliberative Democracy short course     Music acknowledgement

Bobbi Allan was randomly selected for a public deliberation in early 2018. Coincidentally, she has a background as a facilitator so can offer an unusual perspective as she describes the residual effect of a deliberative experience.

This conversation is with Rhiann McLean (in Scotland) and Max Hardy (in Australia).  Both are dedicated to amplifying the voices of people with disability—through research and public deliberations.” LINKS Research Voices Citizens’ Jury Video of the Research Voices Citizens’ Jury Report from Research Voices Citizens’ Jury NDIS Citizens’ Jury Video of NDIS Citizens’ Jury   Music acknowledgement

Kara Dillard is an Assistant Professor at James Madison University in the US. She is also the operations specialist for Common Ground for Action (CGA), an online variant of National Issues Forum (NIF). In this episode, Kara explains this short-form process, as well as its strengths and challenges. As a moderator training specialist for NIF she offers insight into the difference between online and face-to-face facilitation. LINKS Kettering Foundation Amy Lee, Department of Political Science, Ohio State University Common Ground for Action: A 90-min Forum in a 5-min Video   Music acknowledgement

Dr Kath Fisher is an extremely experienced professional facilitator. She is also an academic at Southern Cross University (Lismore, Australia). In this episode, Kath shares some of her journey and offers a number of useful techniques that she uses routinely in public deliberations. Documents Kath referred to in this episode A summary of the report produced from the CSIRO project A copy of an excellent consensus decision making resource she uses in her facilitation An example of a feedback/evaluation form she uses for evaluating citizens’ juries You can find these documents on the newDemocracy Foundation website page for this podcast: https://www.newdemocracy.com.au/category/library/podcast/   Music acknowledgement

Abbie Jeffs has a background in urban planning and public policy but was an excellent facilitator in a successful consultancy, Straight-Talk, for many years. She’s now working for a public sector organisation—a loss for the field of public deliberation—although Abbie remains a strong advocate. She has much wisdom to impart in this episode and several terrific tools.   LINKS Bliss Browne’s ‘Imagine Chicago’ Tuckman’s stages Visit  to newDemocracy’s podcast page to access Kaner’s diverge/converge guide to participatory decision-making. Music acknowledgement

Lucy Cole-Edelstein has over 30 years’ experience as an engagement practitioner, as a facilitator and process designer. She established and ran a successful consultancy, Straight-Talk, for some of those years and later sold her company to RPS with whom she now works. In this episode, Lucy shares several activities that build the group’s skill set and pave the way for the choice-work that is integral to public deliberation. Visit newDemocracy’s podcast page to access the DOPE test handout.   Music acknowledgement

Jason Diceman is an experienced facilitator based in Toronto, Canada. He created a very useful tool, Feedback Frames (previously in the form of Idea Rating Sheets and, earlier, Dotmocracy templates). His latest invention enables score-voting on participant-generated ideas, rather than a crude survey or voting tool.  It’s being used throughout the world and deserves attention from those who facilitate public deliberations.   Music acknowledgement

This is a conversation with Nicole Hunter, Keith Greaves and Kimbra White, the founders of MosaicLab.  It covers what happens in the room with a face-to-face long-form deliberation when MosaicLab facilitators are at work. This episode contains an enormous amount of practical advice: the physical space, co-facilitation, templates, report writing, managing data and conflict, as well as many of the creative activities they use routinely.   LINKS Evaluation of youth jury Critical thinking video   Music acknowledgement

Rosa Zubizarreta is an American group facilitation practitioner and theorist and the founder of DiaPraxis. This episode is a companion piece with a previous episode that featured Jim Rough, the original designer of Dynamic Facilitation and Wisdom Councils. In the conversation with Rosa, the focus is on relational facilitation: attending to the emotional work of deliberation to order to enable a group to fully realise its goals. LINKS Rosa’s website DiaPraxis is where many of her writings can be found Citizens Council: What are they, and why are they so popular in Austria? Better Angels Project, now called Braver Angels De Bono’s Six Thinking Hats   Music acknowledgement

Jim Rough is a social innovator and Director of the Center for Wise Democracy. Jim Rough started thinking about Dynamic Facilitation in a timber mill in Buffalo, New York. An unlikely beginning for a process that is now embedded in one Austrian state and has been used in multiple countries. This podcast episode explores Dynamic Facilitation and Wisdom Councils and makes connections between choice creation and deliberative democracy. LINKS Dynamic Facilitation website Conversation between Ned Crosby (originator of Citizens’ Juries and Jim Rough originator of Wisdom Councils) Facilitating Inclusion: Australian Wisdom Councils as Democratic Innovation between Consensus and Diversity, Hans Asenbaum. Music acknowledgement.  

Dominik Hierlemann is a Senior Expert, Participation in Europe at Bertelsmann Stiftung. Dominik heads the project Democracy and Participation in Europe. He facilitates large-scale public deliberations in Europe with multiple languages and diverse cultures. In this episode, we explore the unexpected benefits that can arise from that when facilitation is done well.   Music acknowledgement.

Linn Davis leads Healthy Democracy’s program development and process design. He coordinates Healthy Democracy’s complex public processes, trains its facilitation teams, and consults on deliberative projects in the U.S. and abroad. In this episode, recorded prior to the pandemic’s impact, Linn explains the Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) and the skills needed for excellent facilitation in volatile political circumstances.   Music acknowledgement.

Laurie Drake is an experienced facilitator working as the Director of Research and Learning with MASS LBP in Canada. She comes to facilitation, as many do, via teaching and this explains her strong focus on the learning elements of deliberative processes. Laurie is passionate about the power of deliberative mini-publics to improve democracy broadly and for individuals. In Episode 8 we interviewed Peter MacLeod also from MASS LBP about their approach to designing and delivering deliberative processes.   Music acknowledgement.

Dr Chris Foreman graduated in 1999 with a Masters in theoretical physics from Edinburgh University. He spent four years doing defence research in the UK, first with DERA and then QinetiQ in satellite communications before returning to education in Cambridge in 2004 to complete a Masters in Nanotechnology and a PhD in Protein Engineering at Cambridge University UK graduating in 2010.  He took two postdocs - one in bio-inspired manufacturing and one in computational simulations of proteins. He moved to the US for a research position at Northwestern University in 2016 and currently he researches how to build computers out of chemicals with a view to changing the way that we manufacture materials to be more like biology.  In 2015, during his second postdoc, he became local area co-ordinator for 38 Degrees in Cambridge and organised and facilitated many public seminars, injecting scientific reasoning into helping locals discuss topics of interest to them. On transferring to the US he became a Fellow of the RSA and in that capacity is the director of Deliberation Gateway—a national RSA-US network supporting the conversion of the US democracy to deliberative democracy. He is also on the co-ordination committee of Democracy Without Elections—a new grassroots organisation that is the US off-shoot of the Sortition Foundation, and he is the founder of Community Deliberation Network—a local society at Northwestern University which promotes and teaches the proper use of deliberation. He has recently co-authored a book entitled Brave Green World which is published by MIT Press and will be available in March 2021. LINKS What unmet needs could be met by deliberation? Deliberation Gateway   Music acknowledgement.

Unusually for a town planner, Anna Kelderman does her own facilitation of engagement processes and sees it as a natural and effective way to do town planning. She wishes more of her planning colleagues would do their own public deliberations with diverse groups to co-design their futures. In this episode, Anna shares what she has learnt and some of her project successes in Western Australia.

A slice of history since this was recorded with Scott Newton a year-and-a-half ago when he was less experienced with public deliberations than he is now. However, it’s illuminating to hear the voice of a rookie. Even though Scott was familiar with facilitating workshops and public meetings, this conversation follows his first foray into the world of public deliberations, co-facilitating a citizens’ jury. Scott is a very accurate observer of group process and the key role of the facilitator. LINKS Here’s a link to another conversation – one that Scott had with a CJ participant: https://www.futureseeds.news/the-art-of-consensus/   Music acknowledgement.

Arantxa Mendiharat was relatively new to the field of deliberative democracy when this was recorded in May 2019. She was also involved with an exciting project in Madrid that she helped design and implement — a combination of direct and deliberative democracy that was written into the city’s laws. Arantxa has gained a great deal of experience and knowledge since then and plays a significant role in the international network, Democracy R&D, as well as establishing, with others, a new NGO in Spain, Deliberativa (in Spanish only).   LINKS newDemocracy R&D Note: Learnings from Madrid: Institutionalising deliberative democracy through its Observatorio de la Ciudad   Music acknowledgement.

Max Hardy was one of the earliest adopters in Australia of deliberative methods such as citizens’ juries. Currently, he is working primarily with local and state governments and government authorities. After many years Max has retained his early enthusiasm for facilitating public deliberations, in particular collaborating with citizens in order to deal with complexity. Here Max shares some of the important lessons that he has learned over several decades. LINKS Jason Diceman’s Feedback Frames   Music acknowledgement.

Marcia Dwonczyk has been facilitating for decades and it shows. Her tremendous experience will be invaluable for those who are new to facilitating public deliberations. Marcia’s primary role is on the Leadership Team of the international Partnership Brokers Association but she has also facilitated a number of public deliberations in Australia. Here she compares and contrasts the differences between working with diverse stakeholders and randomly-selected strangers, supporting each group to explore their common ground.   LINKS The Partnership Brokers Association Handouts: The Dynamics of Group Decision Making, The Role of the Facilitator in Deliberative Processes and Symposium Roadmap and Process Skeleton - can be found on the newDemocracy Foundation podcast webpage     Music acknowledgement.      

Dr Don Lenihan is Co-Chair of Open Government Partnership’s Practice Group on Dialogue and Deliberation.  He is an extremely-experienced facilitator with a willingness to share his immense experience with others. Much of his thinking, along with input from others in seven countries, can be found in the guides developed by the OGP Practice Group. He covers some of that helpful content in this podcast episode.   LINKS Middle Ground (Don’s consultancy) https://www.middlegroundengagement.com/personal-profile/ You can find the three guides referred to in the conversation here https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/deliberation-getting-policy-making-out-from-behind-closed-doors/ newDemocracy’s R&D Notes https://www.newdemocracy.com.au/research-and-development-notes/     Music acknowledgement.

Kaela Scott and Dominic Ward from Involve UK come together in this episode to share their experience of facilitating long-form deliberations like citizens’ assemblies. They cover how to structure one and how to adapt that plan for different circumstances.  They also offer their experience of facilitation training: one as an extremely experienced facilitator and trainer, the other as an enthusiastic beginner.   Music acknowledgement.

Wendy Faulkner has an academic background as well as an enormous amount of practical wisdom to offer in this conversation which has been split into part (1) and part (2) because of its length. Wendy and her colleagues have produced an incredibly useful handbook that they generously share with others, and also offer some excellent facilitation training from their base in Scotland. LINKS How to design and plan public engagement processes: a handbook Dialogue in Public Engagement: A Handbook IAP2 Spectrum   Music acknowledgement.

Wendy Faulkner has an academic background as well as an enormous amount of practical wisdom to offer in this conversation which has been split into part (1) and part (2) because of its length. Wendy and her colleagues have produced an incredibly useful handbook that they generously share with others, and also offer some excellent facilitation training from their base in Scotland. LINKS How to design and plan public engagement processes: a handbook Dialogue in Public Engagement: A Handbook IAP2 Spectrum   Music acknowledgement.

André Bãchtiger has been researching the way people deliberate for 20 years. In this episode, he shares some fascinating findings from formal spaces such as parliamentary environments in Switzerland, as well as a deep analysis undertaken of a Deliberative Poll in Europe. André uses the Discourse Quality Index to explain the way people deliberate together. LINKS Journal of Deliberative Democracy Europolis project Mary (Molly) Scudder to find link to her book Beyond Empathy and Inclusion: The Challenge of Listening in Democratic Deliberation   Music acknowledgement.

Kathy Jones has had decades of experience with community consultation and stakeholder engagement. She is currently a director of The newDemocracy Foundation (as is the interviewer). This conversation covers the thrill of facilitation at the micro-level and its specialist nature, including the distinction between stakeholder engagement and deliberative democracy. Kathy also looks toward systemic change when she imagines possibilities at the macro level. Post-COVID, she speculates that there is a real opportunity right now to build a greater understanding and appreciation of civic responsibility.   LINKS KJA – the firm that Kathy founded  John Gastil & Erik Olin Wright (2019) Legislature by Lot. Transformative Designs for Deliberative Governance  Geelong case study    Music acknowledgement.

In this episode, Simon Burall, Senior Associate with Involve (UK), explores the institutional arrangements that might effectively bring the public into important decisions about science and technological innovation. This is less about how to facilitate a public deliberation and more about the creation of a deliberative system by effectively combining public dialogue and public deliberation elements.   LINKS Nuffield Council of Bioethics Simon Burall’s “Room for a View: Democracy as a Deliberative System” Deliberative Systems Thinking (citing John Dryzek’s work) Steven Lukes – Power: A Radical View Ortwin Renn et al (1993) “Public Participation in decision making: A three-step procedure” Goulburn Valley Water’s Annual Performance Forum     Music acknowledgement.

Vivien Twyford has been at the forefront of public engagement in Australasia, and internationally, for decades. She established Twyfords in 1988. In this conversation, the focus is on a particular tool, ORID. Vivien describes how she used this tool for a difficult conversation about bushfire recovery. Her approach has relevance for all situations of disaster or crisis management.     Power of Co: The Smart Leaders’ Guide to Collaborative Governance https://www.amazon.com/Power-Co-Leaders-Collaborative-Governance/dp/0646579169 ORID handout (visit https://www.newdemocracy.com.au/category/library/podcast/) for this handout. Message Mapping, VT Covello (visit https://www.newdemocracy.com.au/category/library/podcast/) for this paper. Carson, L (2006) “Art of conversation as an antidote to cultural exclusion”, Accounting Education, Vol. 15, No. 1, March, pp. 109-111     Music acknowledgement.

This episode ranges from the democratic potential of the online world to an examination of several particular cases. Dr Dannica Fleuß and her fellow researchers looked at three different online spaces and evaluated them for the quality and forms of their communication. Do different online spaces in a deliberative system affect how people talk and reason? Dannica Fleuß discusses these findings and more in this episode. Different Arenas, Different Deliberative Quality? Using a Systemic Framework to Evaluate Online Deliberation on Immigration Policy in Germany by Katharina Esau  Dannica Fleuß and Sarah‐Michelle Nienhaus. Here is the link to this article, which is open-access.   Music acknowledgement.

This is a conversation in two parts with Chad Foulkes from Liminal by Design and Viv McWaters from Creative Facilitation, both of whom are skilled facilitators. The aim was to replicate an earlier brainstorming session that took place among a larger group of facilitators. The discussion is about how to use the ‘marginal times’ to create group cohesion online. New ideas emerged throughout the conversation, as well as recalling many that were borrowed from others. About Dark Angels writing:  https://darkangelswriters.com/about/approach/ The Naked Facilitator on-line series:  http://thenakedfacilitator.mystrikingly.com The Surprising Science of Meetings by Steven G. Rogelberg Talk on the Surprising Science of Meetings Carson’s chapter on The Telephone as a Participatory Mechanism (1999) Lists of online facilitation, engagement and deliberation tools: https://www.involve.org.uk/resources/blog/opinion/digital-tools-participation-where-start http://www.participatedb.com/categorizationshttp://www.participatedb.com/categorizations https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lPIlL4Cktzse5xKeIbMz0C6s747neqO6vUD0K_JAAjY/edit?pli=1 http://www.deliberatelyengaging.com.au/2020/04/01/virtual-engagement-neednt-be-second-best/ https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1NyrEU7n6IUl5rgGiflx_dK8CrdoB2bwyyl9XG-H7iw8/mobilebasic?usp=gmail https://www.publicvoice.co.nz/lets-get-digital-52-tools-for-online-public-engagement/   Music acknowledgement.

This is a conversation in two parts with Chad Foulkes from Liminal by Design and Viv McWaters from Creative Facilitation, both of whom are skilled facilitators. The aim was to replicate an earlier brainstorming session that took place among a larger group of facilitators. The discussion is about how to use the ‘marginal times’ to create group cohesion online. New ideas emerged throughout the conversation, as well as recalling many that were borrowed from others. About Dark Angels writing:  https://darkangelswriters.com/about/approach/ The Naked Facilitator on-line series:  http://thenakedfacilitator.mystrikingly.com The Surprising Science of Meetings by Steven G. Rogelberg Talk on the Surprising Science of Meetings Carson’s chapter on The Telephone as a Participatory Mechanism (1999) Lists of online facilitation, engagement and deliberation tools: https://www.involve.org.uk/resources/blog/opinion/digital-tools-participation-where-start http://www.participatedb.com/categorizationshttp://www.participatedb.com/categorizations https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lPIlL4Cktzse5xKeIbMz0C6s747neqO6vUD0K_JAAjY/edit?pli=1 http://www.deliberatelyengaging.com.au/2020/04/01/virtual-engagement-neednt-be-second-best/ https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1NyrEU7n6IUl5rgGiflx_dK8CrdoB2bwyyl9XG-H7iw8/mobilebasic?usp=gmail https://www.publicvoice.co.nz/lets-get-digital-52-tools-for-online-public-engagement/   Music acknowledgement.

Susanna Haas Lyons has 15 years’ experience, designing and facilitating in both face-to-face and online environments. Here she generously shares her knowledge of multiple tools, as well as expressing her deep concern about how best to achieve equity and include diverse input, as well as building civic capacity.     LINKS FOR RESOURCES MENTIONED BY SUSANNA National Issues Forum Common Ground for Action Online Forums Digital Engagement Social Media & Public Participation IAP2 Canada white paper written by Susanna Haas Lyons Public Participation Technology in a Time of social distancing slides and webinar recording IAP2 Canada June 8-11, 2020: Social Media and Public Participation: How to design and host effective digital public engagement, online course Digital Public Engagement Tools, collaborative in-progress list of digital tools.   Music acknowledgement.  

Leanne Piggott is an award-winning and highly-skilled curriculum designer and university teacher. Public deliberations require deep learning by participants who come to a gathering with different levels of knowledge and understanding about a topic. As facilitators increasingly move public deliberations online, understanding the principles of transformative learning has become even more important. Anything less keeps us in the domain of opinion collection only and deliberative democracy promises so much more than that. Leanne Piggott shares her approach to adult learning in this interview. It will be of value to all deliberative designers. Leanne refers to Mezirow's transformation theory and Garrison et al's learning framework as well as Salmon's five-stage model.   Music acknowledgement.

Emily Jenke is a very experienced facilitator of public deliberations. She is a Co CEO of democracyCo. In early 2020 she was taken out of her comfort zone when Covid-19 forced the world into physical isolation. Emily and her colleagues were mid-project, having started face to face. They were now forced online. This episode is one facilitator’s story. Emily Jenke, previously sceptical about deliberation online, began with trepidation and finished with enthusiasm. Emily shares the lessons that she learnt here and in her blog.   Music acknowledgement.

Professor Graham Smith is a Professor in Politics at the University of Westminster, London. Graham has a wealth of experience with deliberative democracy. The COVID-19 pandemic led to some swift re-design among those who facilitate face-to-face public deliberations. In this episode, Graham Smith raises many interesting questions and offers some warnings as well. But, importantly, the conversation ends with a level of excitement about the potential for deliberative designers to radically improve the practice of public deliberations through online experimentation.   Music acknowledgement.

Dr Oliver Escobar is an academic at the University of Edinburgh and has offered training in facilitation for public deliberations for more than a decade. It is this training that provides the focus of the podcast conversation. Oliver is unusual because of this combination of scholarship and being an experienced trainer. In this interview, he explains the background and theory behind the training program, as well as the people who offer themselves for learning and considerable detail about the training itself. Oliver and his team are growing the field of skilled UK facilitators in very impressive ways. Oliver has written a monograph Public Dialogue and Deliberation: A communication perspective for public engagement practitioners  Oliver also works with What Works Scotland Beltane Public Engagement Network Edinburgh Futures Institute  Oliver and Stephen Elstub wrote the Research Note ‘Forms of Mini-publics…’ You can find out more about the book Oliver and Stephen edited, the Handbook of Democratic Innovation and Governance, as well as read two open-access chapters.   Music acknowledgement.  

Matthew Taylor is the Chief Executive of RSA, an organisation whose people are thinking about new models for change, influencing policymakers, practitioners and the public to effect long-lasting change. In this podcast, recorded in 2019, Matthew talks about building mandates for change while ‘thinking like a system and acting like an entrepreneur’. The RSA has deliberative democracy as a core strategy to address anachronistic ways of governing, as well as winning legitimacy for political decisions. The conversation travels from Ancient Athens to contemporary UK and RSA’s strong advocacy for public deliberation. RSA Matthew's blog RSA podcasts David Runciman's podcast - Talking Politics   Music acknowledgement.

Two seasoned players in the deliberative field: one from a research foundation, the other from a consulting firm. Iain Walker (newDemocracy Foundation) and Nicole Hunter (Mosaic Lab) bring a wealth of experience to a discussion about public deliberations. They explore: identifying the policy challenge, timeliness, convincing elected representatives, knowing what the most appropriate process would be, what commitment is the decision-maker prepared to make and challenges that arise with polarised communities. They also, together, reflect on facilitation that works well, Nicole as an experienced facilitator, Iain as an observer of many mini-publics.   newDemocracy Foundation projects Democracy in Geelong Nuclear Fuel Cycle Engagement     Music acknowledgement.

British Columbia led the way with a citizens’ assembly in 2004, a deliberative method which has been deeply influential among deliberative democrats. In 2006 a similar process, the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform was undertaken in Ontario. Peter MacLeod was part of the secretariat that oversaw the Students' Assembly on Electoral Reform which ran alongside the Ontario Citizens' Assembly and whose findings were presented to the Citizens' Assembly. Peter has applied the principles of those democratic innovations to make it a routine occurrence in Canada. He’s done this through his efforts with MASS LBP over the past decade, using civic lotteries and long-form deliberations, among other methods. Peter offers a model for working closely with the public sector and everyday people in constructive ways. This particular episode would resonate for those charged with the difficult task of overseeing government decisions.   Fran Peavey’s Listening Post   Music acknowledgement.    

Janette Hartz-Karp has decades of experience as an academic and as an award-winning deliberative practitioner. She has an enormous amount to teach others. She is one of the most experienced facilitators of public deliberations in the world, having designed and conducted many, many trials of mini-publics. Many of these were designed and convened for an elected minister in the Western Australian Government, as well as with decision-makers in other countries. In this podcast, Janette generously shares her knowledge and experience about the distinctive elements that arise depending on the task that is being undertaken by a diverse group of citizens, in both small-scale and large-scale processes. Some other links Dialogue with the City Empowering Participation   Music acknowledgement.

Mark Warren is a political scientist based in North America whose original interest in democracy theory broadened to encompass deliberative democracy when he studied the British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly in 2004. Mark’s analysis of that case study and all that followed has been extremely influential in the field. In this conversation, Mark wonders aloud about the resistance to using deliberative methods on the part of politicians even though bureaucrats are increasingly seeing their advantages, i.e. to help them do their job better. He cautions deliberative designers to pay close attention to a clear remit and other design options and advises them against convening a mini-public if the design is flawed. Mark is interested in the way that public deliberations can help to overcome the current ‘democratic malaise’. He believes that these methods can help citizens to own their democracy and enable them to work together constructively despite their differences. newDemocracy Foundation R&D Note on Framing the Remit   Music acknowledgement.

This is part two of a conversation with John Gastil during which the history and practice of deliberative democracy is explored. What interests John and Carson is the way in which theory and practice intersect. They reflect on their own academic journeys and also note the many scholars and practitioners who have defined this field of endeavour. Both are clearly inspired and excited by any robust practices that work and that can be supported by solid theory. They share an ambition: to advance abstract theory and to simultaneously improve the quality and vibrancy of democracy. Links to resources mentioned in this episode: The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy Is Democracy Possible? by John Burnheim By Popular Demand by John Gastil The Journal of Public Deliberation Real Democracy Now! a podcast   Music acknowledgement.

Lars Klüver, is a skilled innovator, designer and convenor of public deliberations and has been for more than 30 years. His work with the Danish Board of Technology, was an early inspiration for many deliberative designers with his Consensus Conference method—a modification of an approach used in the US among scientists. Klüver understood the importance of expert knowledge but also the importance of bringing citizens into the mix, especially when considering future technologies. Since then he has experimented with Citizen Summits for policy direction, and World Wide Views, an ambitious global project. Klüver is wary of advocating a single method, there is no one-size-fits-all in his opinion. He has also found robust ways to bring decision-makers into the deliberative space so that there is real ownership of citizens’ decisions.   Music acknowledgement.

Hans-Liudger Dienel spoke with Carson about the work of his father Peter Dienel who developed the planning cells model of deliberative engagement in the early 1970s and which Hans has continued to work with through the Nexus Institute in Germany.   Hans identifies that his father was a missionary for planning cells. Planning cells began out of Peter’s experience in the church. Planning cells were standardised to maximise acceptance of the process. Planning cells have 25 citizens on each and often multiple planning cells are run in parallel sessions, with expert speakers followed by un-facilitated small group work to deliberate on the ‘conflictual problem.' The process was designed to be immune to “bad” facilitators.   They hold multiple parallel processes is to generate a deliberative atmosphere in small groups meeting over four days. In particular, small groups allow people who may be less confident to be active participants.    Over the years since the planning cells model was developed they have focused on standardisation though there has been some changes. For example, citizens vote at the end of the process to reach their final recommendation which they hand over to the Government who commissioned their work, in a public event. More recently they have required the Government to report back to the planning cell members one year later. Another change has been to use the internet to promote the process to the broader public both before it happens and afterwards.   Research by one of his PhD students found that many years later participants in planning cells were still very much aware of the progress of their work and had become more politically efficacious (this research is currently only in German).    Hans noted that in Germany there is a law that workers can have up to five days off work to participate in further education or to voluntary activities. This leave isn’t paid and so people participating in planning cells are paid by the organisers for their time.    Carson and Hans have a discussion about the value of standardisation versus tailoring processes to the particular context. A potential compromise was the idea of having common standard principles but allowing some flexibility in the design of individual processes.      Music acknowledgement.  

Ned Crosby is the American inventor of Citizens' Juries. He and his wife Pat Benn have supported and developed these processes over many years.    In this interview, he and Pat talk about the development of the process, its refinement over the years and the more recent development of Citizens' Initiative Review in Oregon.   Ned created the citizens' jury process in 1971 in response to his concerns about moral relativism. He decided to ask a randomly selected group of citizens to reason and consider issues. It wasn’t until the 1980s that academics started writing about using randomly selected citizens to deliberate without much awareness of Ned or Peter Dienel’s practical work.    They set up the Jefferson Centre in 1974 to work on basic ways to improve the workings of democracy. They ran many citizens’ juries over the years including one to evaluate gubernatorial candidates’ stance on issues in Minnesota in 1990, another to evaluate US Senate candidates in Pennsylvania, and two national citizens’ juries in the US in 1993.   The Citizens’ Initiative Review process was based on the citizens’ jury process to evaluate ballot measures. Citizens’ panel is asked to determine whether to support or reject a proposed ballot measure and then their view is included in the voter pamphlet that is distributed ahead of the vote.   Ned identifies the importance of witnesses to the citizens’ jury process.    Ned and Pat identify as important elements of facilitation of citizens’ juries  respect and minimising facilitator bias and lead process without dominating the people. Ned mentions John Gastil and Jim Fishkin, both of whom you will hear from in future episodes of this podcast series.   Music acknowledgement.

In this episode, Carson speaks with Professor John Gastil from Penn State University about the history and development of deliberative mini-publics.    John is the author of many books and papers on deliberative democracy including Democracy in Small Groups and is currently undertaking research on the Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review and has a book coming out about this research soon.   John identifies that the term mini-public has become a term of art and means a randomly selected group with a focused charge, although there is a lot of varieties to how these processes are designed. The core idea of deliberation is ‘weighing’ of evidence, concerns, perspectives before making a decision or recommendation.   John sees these type of processes starting with Ned Crosby (see episode 1) and Peter Dienel (see episode 2). With the next major developments being deliberative polls run by James Fishkin (who we will interview in a later episode) the British Columbia’s Citizens’ Assembly where a citizens’ assembly was charged with drafting new legislation the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review which he is researching, and finally The Irish Citizens’ Assemblies which have had perhaps the most real-world impact.  John suggests that the inter-disciplinary nature of deliberative democracy and the practical nature of the field may be both strengths and weaknesses for the field. Whilst he has an affinity with the practical side of facilitation deliberative processes he sees that his value add is being able to get research grants and write academic articles.   Both Carson and John note that facilitators often come from backgrounds where they have developed interpersonal skills particularly around working with groups, for example as educators, within religious groups. He recommends the book Freedom is an Endless Meeting by Francesca Poletta which talks about group processes in social movements.    He thinks the processes of deliberative mini-publics have become more structured over time and he sees this as a good thing because structure and process provide protection to all participants. See The Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman.   John identifies the best facilitators as being  humble yet confident good listeners, and  flexible. John and Carson agree that having more than one facilitator allows for a range of skills to be made available to the deliberative mini-public as well as a way to build the skills of facilitators new to the deliberative processes. Sometimes co-facilitation is done by splitting the focus of facilitation roles between process and task.   John suggests that we should think about both deliberative democracy and democratic deliberation to provide a focus on different aspects of the process.    His key conclusion is that deliberative mini-publics work - they demonstrate that all is not lost in democracy today.    Music acknowledgement.

Welcome to the Facilitating Public Deliberations podcast. In this series, we will be talking with practitioners, advocates and academics about the history of public deliberations and the various approaches to facilitating them.