This guide is about how to run a deliberative dialogue process to add to your knowledge about your policy. A deliberative dialogue is not simply a meeting with the public and a discussion: it is a carefully structured session. It uses different creative techniques to get people to develop and explain their views on an issue through conversation with other participants, policy makers and experts. These techniques elicit people’s deeper views on issues and, crucially, what values and understandings underpin those views: they are rich discussions that produce valuable insights into tricky issues from diverse perspectives.
The result of a public dialogue process is a deep understanding of public views on an issue. It provides a source of evidence that can be used in the rest of the policy process. This means stronger policies that are more likely to be accepted by citizens.
Best practice examples
In the civil service a lot of deliberative dialogue is done on topics relating to science and technology. There is a special programme, Sciencewise, which helps to organise public dialogue projects. In recent years there have been dialogues on:
the ethical, social and regulatory issues around mitochondrial replacement
public views and concerns around synthetic biology
exploring with young people and community leaders how the UK should reduce greenhouse gas emissions
what wellbeing data tells us about policy making on issues like loneliness, the labour market and being involved in your community
When to use or not use deliberative dialogue
Use deliberative dialogue:
when you are at an early stage of developing a policy, especially in a controversial area, and want to understand and explore public responses and values and engage stakeholders deeply
Don’t use deliberative dialogue:
when the direction of policy is already set and the findings cannot be built into what happens
Benefits
Public dialogue can:
give policy makers an understanding not just of what the public think about an issue but why they think it and the values that underlie it – informing better policy decisions
make participants feel engaged and confident that their views have been heard
produce new ideas or perspectives
help legitimise policies as members of the public have been involved in them
reduce risk by giving policy makers an accurate view of what people think, especially about controversial and sensitive issues
result in more positive public reaction and buy-in from citizens and stakeholders to policy issues
be two-way: everyone involved gets something from the process, it’s beneficial to participants and policy makers
in complex policy areas where there are trade-offs involved for people or between different groups, it can help to balance those trade-offs by showing what people think about different alternatives and priorities
be more cost effective in the long term because it improves chances of a policy being successful and reduces costs managing conflict, reputational damage, and tackling policy mistakes
To be aware of
dialogues should be done by somebody who can be seen as independent and impartial and work best when policy people are present in the room – but are not running the dialogues
deliberative dialogue is suitable when policy makers want to hear public views about complex issues
public dialogue should be used at an early point so it can affect important decisions, then citizens can trust the process and be confident they have been heard; you need to assess what aspects of the policy are open for change, what has already been decided and how the results of the dialogue might influence the policy
public dialogue isn’t a consultation or a statistical survey – it doesn’t involve lots of people or try to produce absolute numbers about what people think: it explains in depth what different groups feel or think about an issue
it is effective when there is a need to get people’s buy-in so they follow through a whole process; it’s also effective when there is high conflict, because people feel part of building a solution that is acceptable to them
each dialogue process is different and there are different deliberative techniques, objectives, people, and resources available – however, it is a complicated process and needs time and thought to be done properly so you might want to contact experts like Sciencewise, or consider bringing in external expertise to help with process design and facilitation
How to run a deliberative dialogue
There are 3 stages to running a public dialogue:
Analyse the context.
Decide the purposes of the dialogue.
For deliberative dialogue, design a process that enables the right people to have the right conversations about the right issues within the time and budget available.
With the support of Sciencewise and external contractors to run the dialogue itself, commissioning a public dialogue typically takes around 4 to 5 days for a policy lead, and 15 to 20 days from a project coordinator, spread over 6 months.
Analyse the context
Use existing information and your knowledge of the policy issue to develop the fullest possible understanding of the situation. At this stage you will want to understand what the public already knows and thinks about the issue – likely to be quite different to your understanding.
You might want to answer questions like:
what is the historical background to the situation or the issues?
what is important to whom?
what has been stated publicly about the situation?
what are the specific issues on which dialogue may be required?
You will also want to map the different stakeholders involved, who are likely to have very different understandings of the same issue.
Stakeholders can contribute to the process in ways like being involved in an oversight group, commenting on the planned dialogue process, and looking at materials being sent to participants. Ask:
what do different stakeholders want?
what do different stakeholders fear?
Decide the purposes
The key question to ask is, “What do we want to have at the end of the dialogue process that we don’t have at the beginning?” Answers may range from the desire to have a fuller understanding of public views about a policy issue to less obvious things such as ‘the community’s trust’ or ‘reassurance’ or ‘new relationships’. Different stakeholders might want different things.
You also need to decide at this point what products you want from the process. These might be concrete (a report or responses to a policy document) or more abstract (better relationships with stakeholders and raised public awareness).
Design a process
A public dialogue is different from a public meeting: it involves the structuring of conversations and exercises to elicit deeper discussion of the issues. Public dialogue methods can be crudely described as different ways to have different types of conversation. To work successfully with the participants, everything they see needs to be carefully planned – from the invite and any background reading they get to prepare for the sessions, to the discussion materials and what they are told about the policy issue to start conversation, to the actual questions and techniques used to develop a rounded understanding of what people think. The session plan should include all the details of what facilitators will ask and do at what time; the purpose of each element of the dialogue and how they flow into each other.
The planning stage is likely to take longer than you think. Framing the question properly and figuring out what you actually want to know from the participants may need time and negotiation between stakeholders, but taking the time to do this will help get a better result.
Recruiting the right participants is also a part of this stage. Members of the public can be recruited at random or against particular profiles with relevance to your policy issue. You will want to consider getting people who are representative demographically and geographically – dialogues should not be run in London by default.
At this stage you will also need to plan a venue. Ideally this will not be a government building but somewhere where participants will feel comfortable. Remember that some stakeholders may need special assistance in order to participate on an equal footing. For example, consider what languages written material should be translated into, ensure physical access to meeting places for people with disabilities, time meetings to enable parents with small children to attend, and hold meetings in different venues to reach certain cultural groups (eg religious centres).
A successful public dialogue needs:
a clear purpose agreed with everyone involved, especially the policy teams using the results of the project
senior support – an oversight group with key senior stakeholders will make sure there is credibility for the project and a commitment to using the results
the right mix of methods with the right number of members of the public – for credibility the dialogue needs a strong methodology with careful consideration of how it will be run and who will be involved; ideally people should have lots of time to think, including time between sessions, and participants should be representative of the country
well-written reports - policy makers and the participants should have accurate reports summarising the process and what came out of it
good relationships with those involved - everyone should feel respected for their time, expertise and views, including getting feedback on how they have helped
sufficient resources of time, money and people: dialogue projects can be demanding and resource intensive so you need to think carefully about whether you have the resources and capacity to run such a project – if not, this might not be the right technique for you
Other resources
Departmental dialogue index. This tool helps organisations to identify which ways of engaging with the public might work best for them
Tell us what you think
Send us feedback on what other information you would like to see on this page.
Take me back to the toolfinder
Go back to the toolfinder page.