Experts and evidence in deliberation: scrutinising the role of witnesses and evidence in mini-publics, a case study

Experts hold a prominent position in guiding and shaping policy-making; however, the nature of expert input to decision-making is a topic of public debate. A key aspect of deliberative processes such as citizens’ juries is the provision of information to participants, usually from expert witnesses. However, there is currently little guidance on some of the challenges that organisers and advocates of citizens’ juries must consider regarding expert involvement, including the role of the witness, issues around witness identification and selection, the format of evidence provision, the evidence itself, and how these factors affect the experience of the participants and the witnesses. Here, we explore these issues through detailed case study of three citizens’ juries on onshore wind farm development in Scotland, including interviews with the witnesses involved. This is complemented by examining a cohort of mini-publics held on energy and the environment topics, and, where possible, discussion with the program organisers. We identify a series of issues and sensitivities that can compromise the effectiveness and fairness of the evidence-giving in mini-publics, for the participants, the witnesses and the organisers. We recommend approaches and areas for future work to address these challenges. This is the first time that the ways of involving witnesses in such processes have been so comprehensively examined, and is timely given the increasing interest in democratic innovations such as mini-publics and the current discourse concerning experts

Cultivating autonomy : a case for deliberative and associational democracy

The thesis aims to justify liberal democracy on the cultivation of autonomy amongst its citizens. The potential of deliberative democracy and associational democracy to achieve this cultivation are then critically evaluated It is suggested that autonomy has intrinsic value and an intrinsic connection to democracy, particularly in Western democracies. Deliberative democracy is justified as the most suitable model of decision-making to cultivate autonomy due to its enhancement of public reason, speaker and hearer autonomy. All three factors therefore encourage reflective preference transformation. which is the defining mark of deliberative democracy. A perfectionist case of deliberative democracy is further presented and associations in civil society are evaluated as a location of deliberative democracy. It is argued that the associations can achieve this by fulfilling four functions: they can be venues for subsidiarity; provide information and representation; be schools of democracy; and locations for governance. The fulfilment of these functions enables the institutionalisation of deliberative democracy to overcome some of the threats of complexity, pluralism, size and inequality. However, not all associations can achieve all four functions and in order to do so, they must be internally democratic. The associations also need to pursue a dualist strategy in relation to the state. This involves a critical public sphere with informal networks of communication based upon the norms of deliberative democracy. The public sphere should then set the agenda for legislation through the `outside access model'. The second strand of the dualist strategy is to gain access to legislative arenas. Associational mediating forums with power devolved from the state, again based on the norms of deliberative democracy, are advocated as a suitable method by which to achieve this. This associational model differs from the neo-pluralist model of interest groups because it is based upon the norms of deliberative democracy and can therefore promote the common good and avoid the `mischief of factionalism'. Finally, a case study of the Stanage Forum is considered I suggest that it approximates the associational mediating forums and highlights where trade-offs between the ideal and practice need to be, can be, should be and will be made

Deliberative quality and expertise:Uses of evidence in citizens’ juries on wind farms

When addressing socio-scientific wicked problems, there is a need to negotiate across and through multiple modes of evidence, particularly technical expertise and local knowledge. Democratic innovations, such as deliberative citizens’ juries, have been proposed as a means of managing these tensions and as a way of creating representative, fairer decision making. But there are questions around participatory processes, the utilization of expertise, and deliberative quality. This paper considers forms of argumentation in the 2013-2014 “Citizens’ juries on wind farm development in Scotland.” Through a critical-interpretative research methodology drawing on rhetoric and argumentation, we demonstrate that arguments relating to the topoi of the environment and health functioned as de facto reasoning, whereas arguments using social scientific evidence around economics more prominently interacted with local knowledge. The findings offer implications for process design to improve and promote deliberative quality in mini-publics and other forms of participatory engagement on socio-scientific issues

The importance of context and the effect of information and deliberation on opinion change regarding environmental issues in citizens’ juries

Citizens’ juries have become a popular method for engaging citizens in deliberation about complex public policy issues, such as climate action and sustainable development. Empirical evidence routinely indicates that jurors change their minds throughout the process. What is less clear is when and why this occurs and whether the causes are consistent across juries that consider the same topic but are situated within different contexts. We present evidence of opinion change in citizens’ juries through a natural experiment, contrasting three local contexts of onshore windfarm development in Scotland; viz. existing, planned, and absent. Jurors’ individual opinions of climate change, wind energy, and windfarms were measured through questionnaires at four time points: the start, following information-giving, reflection, and deliberation. Statistical examination of jurors’ responses, through paired sample t-tests, Wilcoxon sign-tests, and Generalised Least Squares regression, reveals to what extent substantive changes were associated with different phases and locational contexts. In all three juries, opinion change occurs throughout the process, on different topics, and to different degrees. While the information phase consistently influences jurors’ opinions the most, jury composition affects the magnitude and direction of opinion change, with outcomes contingent on contexts. Our findings are important for informing how mini-publics are designed and used to inform environmental policy-making at different scales

Deliberative quality and expertise : uses of evidence in citizens' juries on wind farms

Today the global political environment increasingly faces issues that spark tensions between expertise and lived experience. Scientific public problems draw attention towards this tension, as they require negotiation across and through multiple modes of claims and evidence, from technical and scientific to personal and moral (Gastil, 2017; Goodnight, 2005). Forms of democratic innovations, such as deliberative citizens’ juries, been proposed as a means of managing these tensions and to inform more representative and fairer decision making. But there are questions around participatory processes, scientific public problems, and deliberative quality. Two prominent forms of argumentation in public deliberation processes are derived from expertise and experience. Deliberative quality does not necessarily mean a reliance on either over the other, but rather a more flexible negotiation of different forms of argumentation. Arguments from expertise are referred to as argumentum ad verecundian, or appeals to authority (Walton, 2010; Woods & Walton, 1974). Yet appeals to expert opinion are not absolute, and may marginalize or ignore the perspectives of citizens. A localized deliberative context invites arguments from experiences. Such arguments are slightly harder to define, as they draw from a number of evidentiary sources, including personal experiences, interests, and local contexts. Frank Fischer (2000: 194-195) has labeled this sort of argumentation “local knowledge,” an expertise found from lived experiences, particular to the local culture and context. Some of the questions around deliberative quality and public deliberation over scientific issues remains around the use and interaction of different forms of argument. How, for example, might a public contextualize scientific evidence within localized values and culture? Or how might a public shift away from previously held values when confronted with compelling scientific claims? The 2013-2014 project “Citizens’ juries on wind farm development in Scotland” offers an opportunity to examine how different types of evidence impact deliberative quality in participatory public deliberations. This project organized and held three citizens’ juries deliberations in Scotland (Roberts & Escobar, 2015). These locations varied in proximity to active or proposed windfarms. In each location, a small group of 15-18 local citizens spent two days considering the question What should be the key principles for deciding about wind farm development, and why? The juries had an information phase when witnesses gave evidence and advocacy on energy, climate change, and wind farms. This was followed by a deliberation phase where the group considered, discussed, and decided their recommendations for key principles to guide onshore wind farm development in Scotland.Using transcripts from the citizens’ juries on wind farm development, this paper analyzes arguments from expertise and arguments from experiences, adopting an interpretative research methodology (Ercan, Hendriks, & Boswell, 2017) and utilizing theories of argumentation (Goodnight, 1982). The analysis will identify prominent forms and consider how they interact and function in decision-making, including when arguments may function to positively or negatively impact the quality of deliberation. As the juries’ experiences and deliberations differed across the sites, the findings here offer insights on discursive contours of the relationship between expertise, evidence, and quality deliberative argument

The resilience of pandemic digital deliberation:An analysis of online synchronous forums

Quality deliberation is essential for societies to address the challenges presented by the coronavirus pandemic effectively and legitimately. Critics of deliberative and participatory democracy are highly skeptical that most citizens can engage with such complex issues in good circumstances and these are far from ideal circumstances. The need for rapid action and decision-making is a challenge for inclusivity and quality of deliberation. Additionally, policy responses to the virus need to be even more co-ordinated than usual, which intensifies their complexity. The digitalisation of the public sphere may be seen as a further challenge to deliberating. Furthermore, these are stressful and emotional times, making a considered judgement on these issues potentially challenging. We employ a modified version of the Discourse Quality Index to assess the deliberative quality in two facilitated synchronous digital platforms to consider aspects of data use in light of COVID 19. Our study is the first to perform a comprehensive, systematic and in-depth analysis of the deliberative capacity of citizens in a pandemic. Our evidence indicates that deliberation can be resilient in a crisis. The findings will have relevance to those interested in pandemic democracy, deliberative democracy in a crisis, data use and digital public spheres