Whereas case studies on deliberation are widespread, there are fewer investigations on deliberative procedures across a large set of case studies. The purpose of this paper is to examine how case studies that use different methodological approaches can be combined meaningfully. We discuss some parts of a methodological framework that is applied within a meta-analytical pilot study examining the impact of deliberative processes in Germany. In contrast to traditional meta-analyses that focus on calculating effect-sizes from quantitative data, we developed a comprehensive coding scheme that allows transforming qualitative information into quantitative variables. The coding scheme includes numerous independent variables representing context, stakeholders, and processes (causes of effects of deliberation) as well as several dependent variables representing the results of deliberative procedures at micro, meso and macro level (effects of deliberation). In our paper we develop a systematic approach of examining deliberative procedures in large-n case studies with predominantly qualitative information.
