It is Hard to Design Participation Close to Both Political Embedding and Technical Standards

Embedding public participation in political systems and the standardisation of participation practices are often seen as complementary and part of "best practice." In this presentation, I challenge this assumption by drawing on Science and Technology Studies and Deliberative Democracy. Embedding participation within political systems involves aligning processes with formal power, often requiring navigation through political agendas and the "messiness" of change. In contrast, standardisation seeks "sameness" and consistency through expert-led frameworks, making difficult trade-offs between safeguarding integrity and limiting plurality. From a democratic design standpoint, embedding aligns participation with formal politics, while standardisation aligns it with formal expertise. To illuminate this tension, I contrast two case studies: Chile's Ministry of Science, which embodies the embedding approach through legally mandated participation, and the UK’s Sciencewise programme, which favours standardisation created by participation experts. Both cases employ similar citizen participation designs — “public dialogue” —that may appear similar from the perspective of citizens; a series of institutionally sponsored, facilitated roundtable discussions. However, through serial interviews with participation designers in both cases, I identified significant differences in the backstage of their design work. I organise these differences into three key dimensions: Directionality of work: In the Ministry of Science, designers leverage their formal authority to connect with powerful political actors but must adapt to their terms. Sciencewise, on the other hand, establishes its own terms as experts in participation, and are contacted by public servants looking to get their support. I summarise this as the difference between "we go to them" versus "they come to us" models of work. Inclusion and exclusion from power: The Ministry’s embedded approach affords external inclusion, with designers having a seat at the decision-making table. However, once at the table, they often have fewer tools to ensure their voices are heard (internal inclusion). Sciencewise designers, due to their positioning as experts, enjoy greater internal inclusion but struggle to secure external inclusion, often lacking “a seat” in the implementation stage. Design quirks: Although both cases engage in similar designs of public dialogue with technoscience, direct observation reveals quirks that cannot be easily explained by their explicit policies. For example, in the Ministry of Science, public dialogues often allocate over a third of their time to political speeches. Similarly, Sciencewise dialogues, with an emphasis on creating a “safe environment” and partnering with large delivery companies, can lead to market research inspired designs. Despite their differences, both cases and their orientations towards embedding and standardisation share a common social imaginary that divides citizens in two ways: ordinary citizens versus professional politicians, and lay citizens versus experts. The work orientation towards political embedding aligns with the first division, while standardisation aligns with the second. What is left out is the emancipatory potential of participation to challenge these socially-constructed boundaries. In this sense, this comparative research critiques participation discourses that present technocratic (standardised), liberal (embedded), and emancipatory dimensions of democratic engagement as unproblematic partners.