There are a plethora of case studies of democratic innovation but a paucity of studies that try to cumulate this knowledge systematically. Meanwhile case-researchers are faced with increasing calls for transparency of data sources for replicability. How can we accumulate case-research and ensure satisfactory levels of validity? This paper reports on a study which aims to allow a transparent iteration and re-evaluation of codes among field-researchers working on similar cases. Using fuzzy sets and truth tables, interviews were conducted with field researchers who had produced case-studies of participatory budgeting (PB) in a variety of contexts. Case-researchers were able to visualise their codes and cases in relation to others and were then involved in coding and re-scoping cases based on their relational and theoretical knowledge. The paper reports on the successes and failures of the approach and provides guidelines for future cumulative research on democratic innovations.
