Periodic Reporting for period 2 - EUCOMMEET (Developing Participatory Spaces using a Multi-stage, Multi-level, Multi-mode, Multi-lingual, Dynamic Deliberative approach (M4D2))
Reporting period: 2022-03-01 to 2024-06-30
Liberal representative democracy is put under strain by several, interconnected pressures. Digital developments and economic inequalities are undermining citizens’ political participation and inclusion; the political debate is polarized both among citizens and politicians; the European integration has eroded national identity’s ties, which have not been replaced by a European identity; the technological developments have reduced the costs to access information, but have also exposed people to fake news and misinformation; finally, the delegation of political decisions to technocratic supranational bodies has increased citizens’ dissatisfaction towards politicians. These elements have posed a serious challenge to the representative mechanisms of liberal democracy.
Yet, although it is not a panacea, deliberative democracy could help reviving representation with participation, by introducing elements of moderation and reflection in political participation.
The EUComMeet project has sought to examine the conditions under which deliberation can be an effective response to the challenges besetting liberal representative democracies.
More specifically, EUComMeet aimed at making deliberation work in multilevel contexts and testing whether and to what extent deliberation can effectively help address the main challenges to liberal democracy, such as: low inclusion, polarization, reflexivity, a weak European identity, and the gap between citizens and political elites.
Yet, although it is not a panacea, deliberative democracy could help reviving representation with participation, by introducing elements of moderation and reflection in political participation.
The EUComMeet project has sought to examine the conditions under which deliberation can be an effective response to the challenges besetting liberal representative democracies.
More specifically, EUComMeet aimed at making deliberation work in multilevel contexts and testing whether and to what extent deliberation can effectively help address the main challenges to liberal democracy, such as: low inclusion, polarization, reflexivity, a weak European identity, and the gap between citizens and political elites.
To achieve its goals, EUComMeet has experimented with several design innovations, supported by technological tools. They have been implemented into an online deliberative event, which represents the core project’s activity, with about 350 citizens from 5 countries (France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Poland). The main event consisted of several deliberative mini-publics, running for about 10 days each in Spring 2023. It was preceded by a pilot experiment with students of high schools and universities in Autumn 2022. An online platform, renamed “Convivium”, which integrates tools for the project’s design innovations, was specifically developed for EUComMeet minipublics.
The first design innovation consisted in developing a multi-level process, where people could gradually raise awareness of multilevel contexts. Accordingly, the mini-publics changed their composition during the deliberation days: first, they were composed by citizens from the same city, then by people from two cities of the same country, and finally by people from different countries. To support interactions among European citizens, the “Convivium” platform integrated a machine translation tool.
The second innovation concerns the mode of interaction, to allow participants to experiment with forms of dialogue that require different skills, motivations, and types of communication.
Accordingly, the mini-publics alternated live interactions in video conferencing (synchronous sessions) with text-based forums (asynchronous sessions). To make this possible, the online platform integrated video- and text-based platforms into a single Participatory Space.
A third innovation experimented with different modes of moderation, to assess the potential of automated systems, as compared to human facilitators. Minipublics where thus randomly assigned to either automated or human facilitated discussions. To support this design innovation, the platform implemented a chatbot, renamed “Meety”, which was “trained” to launch the agenda of discussion, as well as the rules of the debate at specific intervals of time.
Finally, EUComMeet has sought to examine the dynamics of group interaction between people expressing different attitudes and opinions on a salient topic like climate change. Accordingly, there were different types of mini-publics, ranging from polarized groups, composed of people with diverging attitudes to like-minded groups, made of people sharing the same views, through cross-sectional mini-publics, where a variety of opinions on climate change, including neutral ones, were represented.
The main deliberative event represented the core project’s activity (the Make it Happen phase), with all other project’s tasks conceived as preparatory (Lessons Learned and Fill the Gap phases) or follow-up activities (Hindsight&Foresight phase).
The Lessons Learned phase collected aggregate data on deliberative events and the observers’ survey of selected cases, to get an overview of past deliberative experiences, as well as citizen and elites survey data. It also provided literature reviews on identity, polarization, and reflective judgements. These activities served the purpose to identify likely gaps in deliberative processes to be filled with the design innovations and technological tools developed for the main deliberative event (Fill the Gap phase). The Hindsight&Foresight stages of the project provided practically oriented reports, based on the analyses of the main event’s outcomes, to inform the organization and design of deliberative events.
The first design innovation consisted in developing a multi-level process, where people could gradually raise awareness of multilevel contexts. Accordingly, the mini-publics changed their composition during the deliberation days: first, they were composed by citizens from the same city, then by people from two cities of the same country, and finally by people from different countries. To support interactions among European citizens, the “Convivium” platform integrated a machine translation tool.
The second innovation concerns the mode of interaction, to allow participants to experiment with forms of dialogue that require different skills, motivations, and types of communication.
Accordingly, the mini-publics alternated live interactions in video conferencing (synchronous sessions) with text-based forums (asynchronous sessions). To make this possible, the online platform integrated video- and text-based platforms into a single Participatory Space.
A third innovation experimented with different modes of moderation, to assess the potential of automated systems, as compared to human facilitators. Minipublics where thus randomly assigned to either automated or human facilitated discussions. To support this design innovation, the platform implemented a chatbot, renamed “Meety”, which was “trained” to launch the agenda of discussion, as well as the rules of the debate at specific intervals of time.
Finally, EUComMeet has sought to examine the dynamics of group interaction between people expressing different attitudes and opinions on a salient topic like climate change. Accordingly, there were different types of mini-publics, ranging from polarized groups, composed of people with diverging attitudes to like-minded groups, made of people sharing the same views, through cross-sectional mini-publics, where a variety of opinions on climate change, including neutral ones, were represented.
The main deliberative event represented the core project’s activity (the Make it Happen phase), with all other project’s tasks conceived as preparatory (Lessons Learned and Fill the Gap phases) or follow-up activities (Hindsight&Foresight phase).
The Lessons Learned phase collected aggregate data on deliberative events and the observers’ survey of selected cases, to get an overview of past deliberative experiences, as well as citizen and elites survey data. It also provided literature reviews on identity, polarization, and reflective judgements. These activities served the purpose to identify likely gaps in deliberative processes to be filled with the design innovations and technological tools developed for the main deliberative event (Fill the Gap phase). The Hindsight&Foresight stages of the project provided practically oriented reports, based on the analyses of the main event’s outcomes, to inform the organization and design of deliberative events.
The EUComMeet project has brought together about 350 citizens from 5 European countries and engaged them in 10-days discussions on climate change. This resulted in a significant amount of different types of data, including transcripts, and interviews. They add to the citizens’ and elites’ surveys and the dataset on deliberative events, which provide a full-fledged overview of how deliberative processes work and what citizens and politicians expect from democratic innovation. This data will be used in the next few years for a variety of research, including studies on the quality of deliberation and the impact of deliberation on attitudes.
Moreover, by developing the customized FLOSS platform “Convivium” and the related tools of automated translation and moderation, EUComMeet has promoted reflection on the need to develop a responsible and socially sustainable process of technological innovation with high democratic potential. Finally, the project raised interest in several municipalities and local bodies. Cooperation with municipalities and policymakers was key to the successful organization of the events.
A few “takeaway” messages from the project are that:
- Citizens are eager to join deliberative processes, but their participation is encouraged by short-term events with flexible schedules.
- To be effective, deliberations must take place within the framework of visible institutions and rules and make clear expectations about the policy impact of recommendations and their route to policy.
- It is thus important to establish a transparent follow-up system that is open to all citizens, allowing for the clear tracking of policy recommendations and providing explicit answers.
- Investing in online platforms would better address technical challenges, such as language barriers and connectivity issues, for deliberation to be accessible to as wide an audience as possible.
- Likewise, the provision of high-quality information can help level the playing field and promote a more reflective and deliberative environment.
Moreover, by developing the customized FLOSS platform “Convivium” and the related tools of automated translation and moderation, EUComMeet has promoted reflection on the need to develop a responsible and socially sustainable process of technological innovation with high democratic potential. Finally, the project raised interest in several municipalities and local bodies. Cooperation with municipalities and policymakers was key to the successful organization of the events.
A few “takeaway” messages from the project are that:
- Citizens are eager to join deliberative processes, but their participation is encouraged by short-term events with flexible schedules.
- To be effective, deliberations must take place within the framework of visible institutions and rules and make clear expectations about the policy impact of recommendations and their route to policy.
- It is thus important to establish a transparent follow-up system that is open to all citizens, allowing for the clear tracking of policy recommendations and providing explicit answers.
- Investing in online platforms would better address technical challenges, such as language barriers and connectivity issues, for deliberation to be accessible to as wide an audience as possible.
- Likewise, the provision of high-quality information can help level the playing field and promote a more reflective and deliberative environment.