Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine deliberation in the context of organizational change and introduce an organizational jury as a change facilitator. Design/methodology/approach The research is based on an empirical study of four organizational juries that were organized by a non-profit organization in Finland. The main data of the study consist of a survey that the juries’ participants filled in. The data are triangulated with observations of jury meetings and relevant documents including pre-jury information package, jury presentations and juries’ proposals. In the analysis, the paper adopts deliberative democracy criteria to assess the inclusiveness, authenticity and consequentiality of the deliberative process. Findings The research findings suggest that the juries increased the inclusiveness of decision making and the quality of deliberation about the changes among the employees. The results indicate that juries facilitated the change process by providing a means for information sharing and building a shared understanding among the stakeholders. The main weakness of the juries was their low consequentiality. Originality/value Deliberative jury method provides a participative way to build and preserve socially shared meanings in an organizational change context. However, the studies on the use of deliberative forums in the organizational context are still scarce. Thus, the study provides an important addition to the existing research literature.

In a deliberative mini-public, a representative number of citizens receive information and discuss given policy topics in facilitated small groups. Typically, mini-publics are most effective politically and can have the most impact on policy-making when they are connected to democratic decision-making processes. Theorists have put forward possible mechanisms that may enhance this linkage, one of which is involving politicians within mini-publics with citizens. However, although much research to date has focussed on mini-publics with many citizen participants, there is little analysis of mini-publics with politicians as coparticipants. In this study, we ask how involving politicians in mini-publics influences both participating citizens' opinions and citizens' and politicians' perceptions of the quality of the mini-public deliberations. We organised an online mini-public, together with the City of Turku, Finland, on the topic of transport planning. The participants (n = 171) were recruited from a random sample and discussed the topic in facilitated small groups (n = 21). Pre-and postdeliberation surveys were collected. The effect of politicians on mini-publics was studied using an experimental intervention: in half of the groups, local politicians (two per group) participated, whereas in the other half, citizens deliberated among themselves. Although we found that the participating citizens' opinions changed, no trace of differences between the two treatment groups was reported. We conclude that politicians, at least when they are in a clear minority in the deliberating small groups, can deliberate with citizens without negatively affecting internal inclusion and the quality of deliberation within mini-publics.

Demokratiatutkijat pohtivat parhaillaan, miten puntaroivat kansalaiskeskustelut voitaisiin kytkeä perinteiseen edustukselliseen päätöksentekoon. Tutkimuskirjallisuudessa on esitetty, että poliitikkojen osallistuminen puntaroiviin kansalaiskeskusteluihin voisi vahvistaa puntaroivien kansalaiskeskustelujen kytköstä demokraattiseen päätöksentekoon. Tutkimme Turussa järjestetyn puntaroivan kansalaispaneelin avulla, miten poliitikkojen ja kansalaisten yhteinen keskustelu onnistuu ja miten poliitikot sen kokevat. Poliitikkojen osallistumisen on väitetty muun muassa vahvistavan poliitikkojen sitoutumista kansalaiskeskustelujen pohjalta tuotettuihin suosituksiin sekä lisäävän heidän intressiään edistää suosituksia päätöksenteossa. Toistaiseksi politiikkojen osallistumista puntaroiviin kansalaiskeskusteluihin on kuitenkin tutkittu hyvin vähän. Lisätäksemme tietoa keinoista vahvistaa kytköksiä puntaroivien kansalaiskeskustelujen ja vaalidemokratian instituutioiden välillä tutkimme, kuinka kaupunginvaltuutettujen osallistuminen vaikutti Turku keskustelee -kansalaispaneelin työskentelyyn. Lisäksi tutkimme, kuinka valtuutetut kokivat osallistumisensa paneeliin sekä miten he suhtautuvat kuntalaisten suoraan poliittiseen osallistumiseen. Kansalaispaneeli järjestettiin toukokuussa 2020 ja siihen osallistui 171 kuntalaista sekä 21 valtuutettua. Paneelin aiheena oli kaupungin keskustan liikennejärjestelyt, ja paneelin jälkeen osallistujat äänestivät kolmen erilaisen skenaarion välillä. Tutkimusta varten haastattelimme 11 paneeliin osallistunutta valtuutettua sekä teimme kyselyn, johon vastasi 17 valtuutettua ja 171 kuntalaista. Tutkimuksemme osoittaa, että valtuutettujen osallistuminen ei vaikuttanut kielteisesti puntaroivaan keskusteluun kansalaispaneelissa. Keskustelun aikana valtuutetut saivat lisää tietoa kuntalaisten toiveista ja tarpeista. Lisäksi keskustelu vahvisti valtuutettujen käsitystä kuntalaisten asiantuntijuudesta sekä kyvystä osallistua päätöksentekoon ja muodostaa valistuneita mielipiteitä. Valtuutetut myös suhtautuivat myönteisesti ajatukseen puntaroivien kansalaispaneelien käytöstä valtuustotyön tukena jatkossakin.

Public administrators’ perceptions of public engagement in local government This article is an empirical study of the attitudes of public administrators toward public engagement. Currently there is a gap in the research on the attitudes of senior public servants who are important gate-keepers for the implementation of public engagement policies. This article contributes to filling this gap in the research by using interviews with senior public servants in a Finnish municipality. The study reveals that the administrators positively value citizens and their participation. However, there are differing views concerning the relationships between the new models of civic participation and the traditional models of planning and decision-making. The results indicate that there is an ongoing cultural change within the administration. The main factors that undermine the realization of public engagement policy can be divided into legislative, organizational, individual and cultural capacities.

In recent years, local governments in Finland have been actively adopting participatory arrangements that provide citizens with the means to participate directly in planning and decision-making procedures. The participatory initiatives challenge the traditional representative and bureaucratic model of public governance and have reportedly created tensions, ambivalence, and inconsistency within local governments. This paper’s central research question is: what do local administrators perceive to be the main goals and challenges of public engagement? Local administrators are important gatekeepers within local government, and they have substantial authority in planning and implementing participatory arrangements. The attitudes of administrators consequently have a significant impact on participatory initiatives. The data consists of 15 interviews with senior-level public administrators working in a Finnish municipality. The data is analysed through content analysis focusing on the main goals and challenges of public engagement. In addition, a comparison is conducted between the service sector and the planning sector. The findings show that public administrators acknowledge the democratic value of the participatory arrangements. However, they still draw on the strong tradition of bureaucratic modes of governance in which participatory arrangements are assessed for their instrumental value. The findings also indicate that there are two participatory rationales in place in Finland, the first taking place in the service sector and the other in planning. Finally, there is a discussion on the possibility of reconciling the different motives that are driving participatory initiatives.