Democratising science? Citizen deliberation on climate research in the Netherlands

Can citizen deliberation play a role in decision-making within the world of science? What could this look like? These were some of the questions a Netherlands-based team of researchers and practitioners has tried to address in the past year, as they embarked on an experiment to apply the merits of deliberative dialogue to decisions about climate research. Here Remco van der Stoep reflects on the process and lessons from Climate Research in Dialogue.

Just like politics, science can only fulfil its responsibility if, by and large, people think it can be trusted. In recent times, politics and science alike have seen public trust erode, at least among some groups. If we accept that deliberative democracy is part of the answer to restoring trust between citizens and politics, shouldn’t we extend this observation to science? Perhaps even more urgently so, given that citizens have no structured or direct ways to exercise influence over science. Typically, decisions about research priorities are made within scientific institutions, part-based on what’s important to funders, including governments.

This is why we – a project team of science communication researchers from VU Amsterdam’s Athena Institute and dialogue practitioners from G1000.nu – have turned our attention to the science community, which is embracing citizen engagement in many ways, but as far as we know, not to the extent of giving citizens a say in setting the agenda for research through deliberation. The Climate Research in Dialogue project gave us an opportunity to explore how deliberative dialogue can take its place in science.

We designed and organised a dialogue process loosely based on citizens’ assembly approaches. Between November 2023 and May 2024, we held nine meetings with citizens in four regions of the Netherlands. Participants explored their views on climate matters and agreed priorities for climate research, to inform the Dutch research agenda.

Our initial aim for recruitment was stratified sortition, selecting based on demographic criteria as well as how close people perceived themselves to be to the world of science. To encourage people to register, a financial incentive of fifty euros per event was available.

We thus used additional recruitment methods to bolster registrations. This included recruiting through local networks and organisations, distributing posters and flyers in public places, and advertising the events on social media and in local newspapers. Of course, this meant that a proportion of those who participated were self-selecting. Since the total number of registrations was too low to conduct the sortition, everyone who registered was able to attend. Despite this challenge, there was still considerable diversity in gender, age, and education background. Indeed, various participants remarked that the process was valuable to them partly due to the opportunity to speak to fellow locals who were living in different social circles.

Done well, mixing citizens and professionals at dialogue tables can foster empowerment of (all!) participants.

We designed the process acknowledging that the connection between climate research and people’s everyday lives is, at best, indirect. We aimed to elicit participants’ needs and desires for the Dutch research agenda, which sets out priorities for research, informing funding allocation.

We organised separate two-day dialogue processes in four different regions, so that people from all over the country could participate. We took inspiration from the G1000.nu approach to citizens’ assemblies, which has had a material impact on deliberative practice in the Netherlands over the past decade. Central to this approach is an emphasis on participant autonomy throughout the process and the development of collective ownership between citizens and professionals.

In practice, this means that participants self-facilitate their small-group sessions, guided by our prompts and designs. We recruited climate researchers and policy makers to join citizen participants at the second event. Rather than present their work or knowledge, the scientists participated in the small-group dialogues, bringing along their professional perspective. By the time they joined, the citizen participants had already prioritised the themes and ideas that mattered most to them, starting from their lived experience and discovering common ground through a series of small-group dialogue rounds. This way, a more or less equal dialogue was possible between citizen participants and their ‘professional’ counterparts, avoiding the traditional setting where experts are placed on a pedestal as suppliers of knowledge and citizen participants feeling schooled. Done well, mixing citizens and professionals at dialogue tables can foster empowerment of (all!) participants.

At the end of the second dialogue event, the groups agreed on a set of priorities for climate research. All participants were then invited to a national dialogue event. Its purpose was to facilitate exchange between participants from the different regions and to convey the outcomes to relevant decision-makers and funders in the scientific community.

There is work to be done to bring research priorities and findings closer to citizens’ lives.

The scientific community’s interest in engaging with citizens is surging. We’re seeing funding schemes in the EU, the UK and until recently, the US, emphasise its importance. This emboldened us to trust that the fruits of citizen deliberation on climate research would be welcomed and embraced by those responsible for the research agenda. The 114 citizens and 41 professionals who participated produced a clear and concise set of outputs organised into six main themes.

However, the relevant decision-makers weren’t as ready to work with the outcomes as we had hoped. It transpired that their aspirations for engaging with the dialogue were mostly around sourcing new themes and questions for research from the participants’ input. Looking at the priorities the participants had come up with, they felt that these were broadly catered for in past and current research and saw this as a confirmation that their work was adequate. Even if this is the case, the project demonstrates that there is work to be done to bring research priorities and findings closer to citizens’ lives. And, of course, to invite a two-way dialogue about what those findings imply for society.

This project has taught us a lot, far more than fits into this short piece. What stands out for us are three key points for reflection and further research.

1. Our observations suggest that joint deliberations of citizens, researchers and policymakers are needed and welcomed. Participants from both groups found great value in such exchanges. How can we facilitate more spaces for such deliberation? How can we ensure that these spaces are purposeful and accessible?
2. There is a strong case for citizen involvement in decision-making about priorities for research. Yet, the distance between residents’ lives and interests, and climate research, has hampered its potential, in terms of recruiting citizen participants and connecting with decision-makers. How can we put forward a more succinct and compelling case for greater citizen participation in research agenda-setting?
3. Pathways to policy impact remain a challenge for many deliberative processes as this was the case for our work too. A firmer mandate should be negotiated at the outset, which would require a formal commitment of all those responsible for deciding the research agenda. What would a credible mandate for this type of deliberative process look like?

Our project was a first step into new territory for citizen deliberation. Hopefully, we’ll soon see researchers, practitioners and citizens taking next steps. We are keen to share more of our findings and experiences, and would love to hear your thoughts.

About the Authors

Remco van der Stoep is a deliberative democracy practitioner in the Netherlands and an associate of G1000.nu. Jaron Harambam is Assistant Professor of Media, Truth Politics and Digitalization at the University of Amsterdam (UvA) and Willemine Willems is Assistant Professor Science Communication for Wicked Problems at Athena Institute (VU Amsterdam). They ran the project with Athena Institute researchers Esther de Weger, Julia Schuring and Eline Ramaaker.