The internal dynamics of “scaling up” deliberative mini-publics

Abstract

Recent deliberative systems research has emphasized the need to “scale up” deliberative mini-publics by exploring connections between mini-publics and broader arenas of policymaking. Less is known, however, about how the policy environment in a state or region might itself influence a deliberative event. In this article, we set out to examine how the internal dynamics of mini-publics are affected by the scaling-up process of connecting to larger policymaking domains. To better understand how the external role of deliberation affects the internal dynamics, we analyze two notable cases of deliberative forums addressing public problems. In both cases, the 2017 Our Coastal Future Forum in South Carolina and the 2020 Oregon Citizens’ Assembly on coronavirus disease-19 recovery, citizen participants grappled with the challenge of scaling up to larger policy outcomes. We conduct a thematic analysis of transcripts from both events, focusing on how citizens discuss their role in influencing policy and talk about the potential for policy output from the mini-publics. The analysis reveals that the scaling-up process invites a pragmatic orientation within deliberation, centering on issues of efficiency, scope, and efficacy.

Participatory Science Communication Through Consensus Conferences: Legitimacy Evaluations of a German Consensus Conference on Genome Editing

“…The group, therefore, decided to report a mix of convergent and divergent opinions in their final votum. While many citizens did not perceive this lack of a full consensus as a problem but rather as a result of a pluralistic view on a complex topic, some interviewees showed signs of a pragmatic orientation (Rountree et al, 2022): “ the approach to incorporate every opinion made things endless and watered down the votum ” (Int.CP). Here another, observed and often mentioned criticism comes into play: many citizens felt that there was “ too little time between expert-hearing and then processing the new information and the [formation of the final votum] the following Sunday ” (Int.CP).…”

“…However, inherent challenges, for example regarding unequally distributed abilities to engage in rational discourse, or finding consensus within increasingly contested context remained (Van Bouwel & van Oudheusden, 2017). While some authors urge organizers of deliberation events to remain open for all potential context (Richter et al, 2022; Rountree et al, 2022), a number of interviewees showed a “pragmatic orientation” (Rountree et al, 2022) arguing that the wide scope of the event coupled with a tight time schedule contributed to an output that they saw as too vague and diverse to have an impact on policy making. Instead, like in many previous studies, the main impact was perceived to be on individual learning around genome editing and citizen participation (Dryzek & Tucker, 2008; Guston, 1999; Rask & Worthington, 2012).…”

“…To enable such claims, they usually select participants through random sampling. Due to the small number of participants compared to, for example, representative surveys, a combination with targeted selection is supposed to ensure that a range of social characteristics are represented (Dryzek & Tucker, 2008; Rountree et al, 2022). Sometimes, the initial sample entails self-selection elements for example by posting calls for participation in newspaper advertisements (Dryzek & Tucker, 2008).…”

“…Most prominently, consensus conferences and other mini-publics have been criticized for their limited impact on policy making (Delborne et al, 2013; Dryzek & Tucker, 2008; Guston, 1999; Ureta, 2016). As a result, we can find a “systemic turn” in deliberation research where scholars increasingly investigate how deliberative mini-publics should and can impact broader political systems (Rountree et al, 2022). Authors have proposed, for example, to tailor deliberation activities to windows of policy-making opportunity, in terms of topic (e.g., consideration of competing themes), timing (e.g., early stage engagement), and the involvement of DM (Burgess, 2014; Caluwaerts & Reuchamps, 2015; Delborne et al, 2013; Itten & Mouter, 2022; Kaplan et al, 2021; Rask & Worthington, 2012; Richter et al, 2022).…”

“…Rountree et al (2022) warn though that such impact focus can create “a pragmatic orientation” (p. 2) where participants emphasize notions of efficiency, scope, and efficacy. Tensions with a deliberative orientation can emerge if it results in self-censoring or less creativity and restricts deliberative discussion (Rountree et al, 2022; Worthington et al, 2012). In fact, for political philosophers, such as Cristina Lafont (2015),the more deliberation is insulated from pressures that are exogenous to the discourse at hand (sectarian interests, manipulation, coercion, etc.…”