Bringing lived experience into deliberative democracy: Methodological potential and pitfalls

Deliberative democratic theory has increasingly highlighted the value of an inclusive approach to deliberation, and a broad consensus has emerged in recent years suggesting that one of deliberative democracy’s strengths is its potential to meaningfully include a plurality of differing views in deliberative encounters, as opposed to limiting the scope of perspectives that might be included. Approaching deliberation in this way is held to generate benefits for those who take part, including beneficial effects on their policy preferences, individual efficacy, the development of civic skill. At the same time, an inclusive approach to deliberation can have a wider value for the democratic system, increasing the legitimacy of policy decisions and the levels of trust in democratic processes. In this context, this paper explores the issues raised by the inclusion of lived experiences of ordinary citizens in deliberative settings. While there is obvious (and demonstrable) potential in including these views alongside the contribution of subject matter experts, we suggest that there are a number of issues which need to be considered if this kind of inclusion is to be successful. These include both practical questions regarding the most effective way of harnessing lived experience, as well as important ethical issues over the potential for harm amongst vulnerable participants. The paper draws on the experience of a multi-method study across three local government areas in London, UK, in order to highlight these points.