Mind the Gap: Using Creative & Deliberative Approaches to Target Misinformation

• In Event: Democratic Innovations against Misinformation

Abstract

Deliberative processes - such as citizen assemblies, deliberative polls or citizen juries - can offer more inclusive and better-informed ways of developing public policy. It has been argued that such processes provide participants with relevant and balanced information, and can include members of previously disempowered groups (Beauvais & Warren, 2019; Smith, 2009). While participants can be initially misinformed, deliberation has the potential to correct existing misconceptions (Himmelroos & Rapeli, 2020). Further, thanks to the direct involvement of the citizens, deliberative processes have been argued to build trust and lead to results that are considered legitimate by the broader population (MacKenzie & Warren, 2012; Parkinson, 2006).

However, the current deliberative practice tends to be expert-led. Expert-led processes can result in the exclusion of some forms of lived experiences and in incomplete information employed during the development of policy solutions. On the other side, the direct involvement of people with lived experiences during the deliberative processes, especially when the policy issue concerns a public response to a crisis, can raise a range of distinct challenges. These challenges concern working with participants affected by the hardship, researchers’ responsibilities, and the possibility of employing deeply personal experiences to identify workable public policy solutions.

Based on the results of the mixed-method research project on the costs-of-living crisis in London (GB), this paper analyses the potential of employing peer research in deliberative processes to target misinformation at the time of crisis. In particular, we analyse the potential of peer-review research approaches to:

- Gain a better understanding of the experiences of those experiencing hardship
- Counter misinformation among peer researchers about the available help
- Counter misinformation during the deliberative events by employing the results of peer research as evidence
- Increasing the completeness of information employed for policy development, regarding complex policy issues
- Increase in public legitimacy and wider support for the identified solutions

As a case study, we employ the results from the research project on the understanding of the lived experience of the cost-of-living crisis in three London local councils. The project involved three stages: (1) a peer research stage (digital ethnography and peer interviews) by the people affected by the crisis, (2) a series of three deliberative workshops with the broader public employing results from the peer review stage to identify policy responses, (3) a policy roundtable involving stakeholders from the local and national government. To understand whether there is wider support for these responses we also employed a cross-sectional longitudinal survey representative of the Great Britain adult population.


References:
Beauvais, E., & Warren, M. E. (2019). What can deliberative mini‐publics contribute to democratic systems?. European Journal of Political Research, 58(3), 893-914.
Himmelroos, S. & Rapeli, L., (2020) “Can Deliberation Reduce Political Misperceptions? Findings from a Deliberative Experiment on Immigration”, Journal of Deliberative Democracy 16(1), 58–66.
MacKenzie, M. K., & Warren, M. E. (2012). Two trust-based uses of mini-publics in democratic systems. Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale, 95-124.
Parkinson, J. (2006). Deliberating in the real world: Problems of legitimacy in deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge University Press.

Authors

• Marta Wojciechowska, King's College London

• Suzanne Hall, King's College London

• Zara Regan, The Policy Institute

• Tianne Haggar, King's College London

• Hannah Piggott, King's College London