Fishkin part 2: The impact of deliberation and its practical application

Deliberative polling joins together a representative sample, balanced information and moderated debate. The second part of the series examines what this adds compared with the traditional measurement of opinion, and how its results can be put to use in practice (Stanford University, n.d.-a).

01 How is this different from a traditional opinion poll?

Deliberative Polling® begins with the same question as a traditional opinion poll: what do people think about a given issue? According to Fishkin's insight, however, the answer lies not in the sum of the measured opinions but in the process by which opinions are formed. Deliberative polling measures not a snapshot but a potential: what the community would think if it had the chance to reflect, to argue and to inform itself (Fishkin and Luskin, 2005).

Traditional survey research has been one of the most important instruments of social science since the 1930s, but it has numerous limitations. According to Fishkin and Luskin, opinion polls typically measure opinions at a low level of informedness: respondents often do not know the facts, have not seen the alternative arguments, or have not thought their position through consistently. These measurements record rather the "surface preferences" — the literature calls this phenomenon "top of the head", that is, off-the-cuff opinion. Deliberative Polling®, by contrast, is process research: it studies the dynamics of opinion formation. Whereas the traditional poll is a static snapshot, the deliberative poll is an interactive process, extended in time and built on learning (Fishkin and Luskin, 2005).

As the Stanford Deliberative Democracy Lab puts it, the aim of the method is not to find out "what people think" but to show what they would think if they had enough information and a shared opportunity to reflect. Behind this lies a deep philosophical claim: democratic legitimacy depends not on quantity but on quality. Deliberation is therefore not an alternative to representativeness but a qualitative extension of it — it builds a bridge between the traditional opinion poll and the theory of deliberative democracy (Stanford University, n.d.-a; Fishkin, 2018).

The difference between the two models can be grasped in the results. The research has documented several kinds of favourable effect, whose magnitude depends on the topic and on the design of the process as well. Among the possible effects of deliberation are that:

• the knowledge level of participants rises;
• the extremes of opinion and polarisation decrease;
• empathy and willingness to compromise increase;
• the sense of political self-efficacy is strengthened (Fishkin and Luskin, 2005; Fishkin et al., 2021; OECD, 2020).

Deliberative polling is at the same time a democratic pedagogy: participants not only voice opinions but learn about decision-making, the ethics of argument and community communication. For this reason many call it a "mini-democracy", a laboratory of democratic discourse. The OECD's analysis stresses that Deliberative Polling is one of the tools of representative citizen deliberation for institutionalising regular, structured citizen participation, which local community assemblies and urban forums can also adapt — on a smaller scale, but with the same principles: representativeness, informing, moderated debate and the documentation of results. The particular feature of deliberative polling within this is the prior and closing measurement of opinion (OECD, 2020).

02 Case studies

Fishkin and his colleagues have applied the Deliberative Polling® method in many kinds of context. One of the best-known large-scale experiments was America in One Room: 523 registered voters were convened to debate, over four days, five major sets of issues (immigration, the economy/taxation, health care, the environment, foreign policy). Participants completed a preliminary questionnaire, received information packs, took part in moderated debates and plenary phases, and finally filled in the questionnaire again; a control group took part only in the pre- and post-testing. As an effect, political polarisation decreased on several issues, participants' knowledge level and capacity for argument grew, and many revised their positions — on several issues with significant shifts that narrowed the distance between the parties' positions (Fishkin et al., 2021).

The Chinese Zeguo project showed that the method works even in a small-town context with a strongly limited democratic tradition. A sample representing the local residents completed a questionnaire, received information materials, took part in small-group and plenary debates, then completed a post-test in order to set priorities among infrastructure investments (utility development, environmental protection, urban infrastructure). Because of a political culture unaccustomed to open debate, great emphasis was placed on moderation and on balanced information. The study shows how citizen deliberation was connected to the shaping of local investment priorities. The significance of the example is that the method could be applied even in local decision-making within a non-democratic political system (Fishkin et al., 2010).

A further example is the Texas energy-policy deliberation, where consumers' opinions were integrated into energy decisions. Participants debated solar power, renewable energy and energy saving, after a preliminary questionnaire and information materials, in moderated groups. The results were built into the regulatory processes and had an effect on support for renewable energy: the data arising from the deliberation provided "political legitimation" for the decision-makers. According to the summary of the experience, deliberation increases citizen competence and the sense of responsibility, improves the quality of decision-making, strengthens political legitimacy, works even in hybrid systems, turns measurement into participation, and can be adapted to numerous policy areas (Fishkin, 2009).

As a methodological case study, the New Haven deliberative poll can be mentioned, on whose data it was isolated which elements of deliberation (information, debate) are responsible for the change in opinion. The researchers concluded that formalised, structured debate exerts a significant effect in itself — not merely the flow of information — and that the effect also depended on how familiar the issue was beforehand (Farrar et al., 2010).

03 The Fishkin model in practice: forums, councils, assemblies

Local and international applications

Over the past three decades Deliberative Polling® has become one of the most important "export goods" of democratic innovation: municipalities, regional governments, international organisations and civil-society networks have also taken it up and adapted it. Within the wider range of democratic innovations, various forms of deliberative procedure — citizens' councils, community assemblies, participatory budgets — now form a new layer of democratic governance. These procedures are not identical to the Deliberative Polling method, and not all of them are built on random selection. They may have several shared organisational principles, such as informing, moderated debate and a traceable presentation of results (OECD, 2020).

The OECD's 2020 report Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions examines the international spread of representative deliberative procedures and their several different models. The report analyses 289 case studies from 33 countries, and finds that after 2010 ever more deliberative procedures were applied — especially at local level. Deliberative Polling is one of the methodological directions of this wider development. The deliberative assembly (citizens' assembly or community assembly) can likewise be built on the informed deliberation of a representative sample of a community, and can also focus on local issues: public spaces, green infrastructure, social programmes, climate adaptation (OECD, 2020).

The OECD document Eight Ways to Institutionalise Deliberative Democracy (2021) discusses the possibilities for the lasting institutionalisation of deliberation. At local level, application can be helped by a lower threshold of entry (a smaller sample, shorter deliberation, often weekend conduct); high social embeddedness (civil-society organisations, municipal partners); and a direct connection to decision-making (a district body or urban-development council). Important aspects of quality operation are: a balanced information structure, moderated dialogue, documented results and substantive decision-maker feedback (OECD, 2021).

Organising the process: informing, moderation, feedback

The essence of the deliberative process is not merely that citizens voice opinions, but that they do so on a sound basis, listening to one another and in a considered way. A well-organised deliberative forum is a structured learning process. Its organisation can be arranged around three interconnected aspects: informing, moderation and feedback (OECD, 2020).

Informing. The quality of deliberation depends directly on what information the participants have. The three basic principles of the information component are: balance (every important argument and viewpoint with equal weight, with expert review), intelligibility (plain, non-technocratic wording whose aim is understanding, not persuasion) and accessibility (every participant obtains the materials in the same way). According to Fishkin, balanced informing is in itself a democratic innovation, because it counterbalances the usual one-sidedness of political communication. The balance of the materials can be helped by involving experts familiar with the different positions; the finished background materials must also be made publicly accessible. The formats of good informing are: thematic background booklets, interactive data visualisations, expert Q&A sessions (Stanford University, n.d.-a; OECD, 2022).

Moderation. Moderation is not a neutral logistical function but the key to the quality of deliberation. Fishkin and Luskin regard moderated small-group discussions as an important element of the method: the moderator's task is to help create a safe, balanced communicative environment. The three basic principles of good moderation are: neutrality (the moderator steers the process, does not form opinion), equality (everyone can speak, the louder or more educated actors must not dominate) and empathy and focus (participants keep a balance between emotional and rational arguments, the debate does not drift off) (Fishkin and Luskin, 2005; OECD, 2022).

Feedback. Deliberation does not end with the close of the debate. The decision-makers' response and a traceable use of the results are important for preserving the participants' trust. Feedback can be realised at three levels: immediate feedback (results published at the end or a jointly adopted closing document), institutional feedback (the decision-makers formally take it up, put it on the agenda, and respond in writing as to which proposals they will incorporate) and public feedback (the results, documents and decision-makers' responses are publicly accessible) (OECD, 2022).

These three pillars work not linearly but as an interwoven, cyclical system: informing creates the shared knowledge base, moderation guarantees a fair structure, and feedback both closes and relaunches the process. A well-designed deliberative process is thus not a series of steps but a self-reflexive learning mechanism in which knowledge, debate and decision mutually build one another. From the standpoint of community development, it is this threefold logic that decides whether deliberation remains a one-off, ceremonial event or becomes a self-sustaining democratic mechanism.

04 Democratic legitimacy and embedding in decision-making

The key to the success of deliberative democracy is that the process itself should carry democratic quality. According to Fishkin, a procedure is democratic not because many people take part in it but because it reflects, as well as possible, the thinking public opinion of society. The process is legitimate only if the participants genuinely represent society, the deliberation hears every voice, and the final recommendations are connected back to political decision-making (Fishkin, 2018; OECD, 2020).

Legitimacy can be understood along two dimensions. Horizontally it means that the circle of participants is socially and demographically representative, and that everyone can contribute on equal terms — this is "micro-democratic" legitimacy. Vertically the question is how the deliberation fits into the political system: what relationship it has with elected bodies and formal decision-making chains. The two levels build on one another: internal legitimacy is not enough in itself if the results find no institutional recipient; nor does political embeddedness ensure democratic value if the process is not fair and transparent (OECD, 2020).

The random selection and statistical representativeness of the participants ensure that a "miniature mirror" of the community sits at the table. Fishkin formulated this as the principle of the "microcosm of the public". This microcosm carries democratic weight because randomness and diversity together create a kind of "mini-popular sovereignty". Deliberation, however, becomes a legitimate source in the political sense only if decision-makers recognise the process as part of governance — this is the embedding in decision-making. One important possibility of institutional connection is that the results of the deliberation formally enter the decision process; the Texas energy project and the Chinese Zeguo experiment both give an example of this (Fishkin, 2009; OECD, 2021).

The degree of embedding can take several forms. The examples below illustrate the advisory role, the decision-preparatory role, and the role that shapes decision priorities. Advisory deliberations — such as America in One Room — aim at a deeper understanding of public opinion; preparatory models — for example the Irish Citizens' Assembly — inspire concrete legislation; procedures that shape decision priorities — such as the Zeguo city budget — directly influence the priorities. A clear institutional connection can strengthen the acceptance of the process and trust in the meaningfulness of participation. At local level a district or municipal community assembly is legitimate if the process is transparent, the selection is fair, the information is balanced, the moderation is equitable, and the local authority formally undertakes to put the results on the agenda and to respond to them. The Fishkin model thus proposes a new democratic logic: political will is shaped not exclusively from the top down, but receives new inputs and legitimation through horizontal spaces of deliberation (Fishkin et al., 2021; Fishkin et al., 2010; OECD, 2020).

The conditions of application

The practical examples show that the impact of citizen deliberation is shaped jointly by the quality of the organisation and by the connection leading to the decision-makers. The third part of the series examines its limits and the possibilities for further development (OECD, 2020; OECD, 2021).

Sources

• Farrar, C., Fishkin, J. S., Green, D. P., List, C., Luskin, R. C. and Paluck, E. L. (2010): Disaggregating Deliberation’s Effects: An Experiment within a Deliberative Poll. British Journal of Political Science, 40(2), 333–347.
• Fishkin, J. S. (2009): When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford University Press.
• Fishkin, J. S. (2018): Democracy When the People Are Thinking: Revitalizing Our Politics Through Public Deliberation. Oxford University Press.
• Fishkin, J. S. and Luskin, R. C. (2005): Experimenting with a Democratic Ideal: Deliberative Polling and Public Opinion. Acta Politica, 40, 284–298.
• Fishkin, J. S., He, B., Luskin, R. C. and Siu, A. (2010): Deliberative Democracy in an Unlikely Place: Deliberative Polling in China. British Journal of Political Science, 40(2), 435–448.
• Fishkin, J. S., Siu, A., Diamond, L. and Bradburn, N. (2021): Is Deliberation an Antidote to Extreme Partisan Polarization? Reflections on “America in One Room”. American Political Science Review, 115(4), 1464–1481.
• OECD (2020): Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave. OECD Publishing.
• OECD (2021): Eight Ways to Institutionalise Deliberative Democracy. OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, 12. OECD Publishing.
• OECD (2022): OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes. OECD Public Governance Reviews. OECD Publishing.
• Stanford University (n.d.-a): What Is Deliberative Polling®? Deliberative Democracy Lab.