Deliberative research
The trend for deliberative research events seems to be reaching a fever pitch, on the back of Gordon Brown’s recent pledge to involve citizens more in policy making. All parts of government are setting up events to deliberate on a range of issues, including national and local politics and service provision.
These events are a broad church: they are called lots of different things and take many forms. They are undoubtedly useful: they bring together people from different points of view to consider and debate issues in detail. They can demonstrate how consensus on an issue can be formed. They can help to emulate group effects, which may powerfully demonstrate likely future behaviour on a certain issue. They offer an opportunity to collect qualitative and quantitative data. And they can create engagement and goodwill between citizens and government, which is probably sorely needed in the current climate.
However, their success rests on the event design being able to deliver these benefits. In reality a huge number of contingencies might limit this: a small window of time to prepare and design an event, budgetary constraints (which restrict the number of events to be held or moderators available), or client expectations/specifications over how they want an event to be run.
Where there is leeway, we think that the best events are the most focused, where everyone is clear about what they are there for and the aims of the day are relatively proscribed.
This can mean that small is good, as long as the principle of heterogeneity is upheld and the event manages to feel big enough to be important to participants. This may – obviously – minimise the ability of an event to collect quantitative data, and admittedly this may be a priority for some briefs, however this does not necessarily reduce the relative depth of insight that emerges.
This carries through into the size of breakout groups: often events are forced to accommodate groups with 10-12 people in each. Coupled with a strict schedule to follow (typically 45 minutes to 1 hour to discuss one aspect of a complex issue), this does not necessarily allow for true deliberation. We find that 4-8 people per session often works better.
And of course building in a variety of activities and pacing the sessions is critical, to help participants engage with the subject and also ride the inevitable mid-afternoon slump (if the event is all day).
We strongly encourage clients to get involved and be part of the sessions – whilst observing is good, engaging/contributing is better and everyone gains more from this. We know that some clients might not be used to this kind of interaction but as researchers we are committed to supporting this so that we are actively facilitating meaningful dialogue.