Climate change research is challenged by the interdependencies and the multi-dimensionality of the problem, the evidence of the predictive capacity of climate scenarios and the successful implementation of suggested adaptive measures into real-world decision-making processes. To cope with the complexity, the scientific uncertainty and the aim of producing useful and actionable knowledge various kinds and degrees of stakeholder dialogues emerged. The need of intense communication processes in a science-policy and science-stakeholder-interface before, during and after an assessment takes place is identified and marked the participatory turn in the application of one of its most prominent methods: the regional integrative vulnerability assessment. The empirical investigation of vulnerability studies however scrutinizes this endeavour. Participatory activities predominately in workshop formats are characterised by the top down nature of communication and numerous stakeholder selection efforts, which primarily match the modellers need for efficiency and effectiveness. Research in the field does neither work with an interested public nor with stakeholders criticising the hegemonic assumptions. The choice who participates or not is solely dependent on the willingness of stakeholders and the stakeholders membership in already existing or to be constructed bounded communities and supported by numerous incentives or technical tools of engagement. The paper concludes arguing that as there is no right to participate in vulnerability assessments any normative objective of deliberation is challenged.
