Citizens' acceptance of public consultation rules

3 Citizens’ acceptance of public consultation rules Insights into their evaluations Izabela Warwas, Kamil Brzeziński and Agnieszka Kretek-Kamińska Introduction Over the past 50 years, the transformation of democratic systems around the world has been based on several theoretical concepts that point to a number of defects and limitations of representative democracy. These concepts have also stressed the importance of the participation and inclusion of citizens in decision-making processes (Dryzek, 2002; Sroka, 2009; Held, 2010; Krzewińska, 2016) as a kind of remedy for the diagnosed drawbacks (Dias, 2014). Participation, broadly defined as ‘involvement on a voluntary basis in political, governance or decision-making processes at any level’ (Brodie et al., 2009: 14), has gradually become more widespread since the second half of the twentieth century. However, it was the turbulent 1960s – the mass rebellions of the younger generations, including the student revolts and developments in France in May 1968, plus the feminist movements – that led to its intense development (see Pateman, 2012). During this period, Jane Jacobs published her book The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961), which contributed to the emergence of grassroots urban movements. Seven years later, Henri Lefebvre published Le Droit a la Ville (The Right to the City) (1968), initiating a debate on the fair use of the city, along the principles of sustainability, democracy, equality and social justice, which has continued to this day. The following year, Sherry Arnstein published her influential article, ‘Ladder of Citizen Participation’ (1969), with those participation practitioners calling for a real impact on cities still referring to this text. Since then, theoretical alternatives to the classical concept of democracy, in the form of participatory and deliberative democracy theories, have become widespread (see Juchacz, 2006; Pateman, 2012; Pawłowska & Radzik, 2016; Michels, 2017; Bachtiger, Dryzak, Mansbridge, & Warren, 2018). The popularity of both concepts has had an increasingly greater impact on social practices. While a growing number of guides on involving citizens in co-decision processes are appearing in the literature (cf. Wates, 2000; Chambers, 2002), contributing to the spread of democratic innovations based on deliberative principles, among others (Bachtiger, Dryzak, Mansbridge, & Warren 2018); it does not finds standardised procedures to carry out public consultations, relate to the methodology of data analysis, questionnaires, timeline, and facilitators, collaborators, and interviewers. DOI: 10.4324/9781003400943-4 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND license. Citizens’ acceptance of public consultation rules 53 The idea of participation is not limited to the political sphere. Analogous changes can be observed in social and civic practice, as well as in the scientific field, while the need to develop a new relationship between science and society has been emphasised. This relationship should involve democratisation and allow members of the public to play an active role in producing and evaluating scientific knowledge (Liberatore & Funtowicz, 2003; Esguerra et al., 2017). The idea of cocreating scientific knowledge with the active participation of its potential recipients has been accompanied by the development of various research concepts: participatory action research, community action research, cooperative research and so forth (Kindon, Pain, & Kesby, 2007; Lengwiler, 2008; Kemmis & McTaggart, 2009; Dudkiewicz, 2011; Greenwood, 2012; Kafel, 2016). They emphasise the active involvement of participants, their empowerment in the research process and their inclusion in cocreation, as well as the importance of local knowledge and experiences in generating theoretical interpretations of social reality in citizen science. In turn, these developing concepts have been transformed into research practices, as exemplified by the CONCISE project which has employed the WWV methodology (Warwas, 2021). Acculturation of participatory trends in the CONCISE project countries As mentioned above, there has been a growing number of attempts to involve citizens in shaping policies and finding solutions to various public problems. The inclusion of citizens in decision-making processes has also been accompanied by efforts to develop methods to study the progress and effectiveness of these initiatives. Inclusion activities are studied and evaluated based on their impact on public decisions: the quality of communication, deliberation and capturing of turning moments, plus the coherence of reasoning processes (e.g. Capella, Price, & Nir, 2002; Hino, Imai, & Chiba, 2015; Mączka et al., 2020; Steenbergen et al., 2003; Sprain & Black, 2017). However, for such activities to have any chance of success, the dissemination of concepts that emphasise the need to involve citizens in shaping the public sphere must be accompanied by their readiness and willingness to participate in activities carried out in this area. A specific indicator of the budding interest in citizen participation and inclusion in decision-making is the growing popularity of participatory budgeting. Since its introduction in Porto Alegre (Brazil) in 1989, participatory budgeting has gained global popularity over the past three decades, becoming the most widely used participatory tool (Sintomer, Herzberg, Röcke, & Allegretti, 2008, 2012; Dias, 2014; Dias, Enriquez, & Julio, 2019). The study ‘The Participatory Budgeting World Atlas’ shows that this innovative way of involving citizens in co-decision processes occurs on every continent. It is estimated that more than 11,000 participatory budgets are currently being implemented globally at different levels: local, regional and national (Dias, Enriquez, & Julio 2019). According to Dias (2014: 21), the growing popularity of participatory budgeting is due to a type of ‘democratic disenchantment’. This crisis of democracy manifests itself through, among other 54 Izabela Warwas, Kamil Brzeziński and Agnieszka Kretek-Kamińska things, a declining participation rate in elections, an increasingly greater distrust of politicians and institutions and a growing sense of civic alienation (Dias, 2014; cf. Putnam, 2008; Michels, 2017). It is as if people did not feel represented anymore and as if their role as citizens had been reduced to casting their ballot (Dias, 2014; cf. Domański, 2018). In this context, participation in the broadest sense of the word can be seen as a ‘cure’ or ‘remedy’ for the crisis of representative democracy (see Torcal & Montero, 2006; Sintomer, Herzberg, Röcke, & Allegretti, 2012). The aforementioned study ‘The Participatory Budgeting World Atlas’ (Dias, Enriquez, & Julio, 2019) shows that of the European countries whose citizens took part in the CONCISE public consultations, Poland leads the field with the annual implementation of about 1,840 projects. Portugal, where more than 1,680 participatory budgets are being implemented, comes in second place, while also being an unquestionable leader in terms of project innovation. In this country, participatory budgeting is implemented at three levels: national, regional and local. In addition, school and youth participatory budgeting has recently been introduced to teach children and young people about democracy (Abrantes, Lopes, & Baptista, 2018; Paz, 2018). Meanwhile, in Spain, around 350–400 budgets are implemented annually. According to the Spanish constitution, ‘it is the responsibility of the administration to facilitate the participation of all citizens in the country’s political, economic, cultural and social life. In Article 6, moreover, it is stated that participation should be understood as being complementary to the representation system, while the task of political parties should be to meet the needs of stakeholders’ (Nebot et al., 2019: 182). Taking this into account, the number of implemented budgets seems relatively small. In Italy, the idea of participatory budgeting has not caught on at all, with the citizenry’s interest in participation being negligible (Dias, Enriquez, & Julio, 2019) and only 63 projects having been implemented to date, whereas in Slovakia, only 12 projects are started up annually. The phenomenon of participatory budgeting illustrates the growing interest in participation. However, it should be noted that all activities that involve citizens in decision-making, in addition to the opportunities for participation that the organisers of participatory processes offer them, also require, albeit not primarily, their willingness and readiness to become involved. While some claim that the crisis of democracy is evidenced by lower levels of citizen participation in elections (Dias, 2014: 21), others have pointed out that the level of electoral participation is an important indicator of citizen participation in governance (Solijonov, 2016: 13). In other words, it can be presumed that in societies with high levels of citizen participation in elections, public consultations and other participatory processes may also be of significant interest. Furthermore, these societies may more readily accept the ground rules governing public consultations. Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, electoral participation has decreased all over the world (Solijonov, 2016). A significant drop has been registered in Europe and in the former Eastern Bloc countries, the average turnout in the latter declining by around 20 per cent since the first free elections held at the Citizens’ acceptance of public consultation rules 55 end of the 1980s. However, it is important to note a consistent decline in turnout of about 10 per cent in established European democracies during the same period, albeit starting from a higher base (Solijonov, 2016: 25). These observations are partly confirmed by previous analyses comparing participation levels in national elections in the United States and Europe in 1996, 2000 and 2004. They have also shown that the post-communist countries are closer to the relatively low level of voter turnout in the United States than to that in Western European countries. Of the five countries participating in the research conducted in the framework of the CONCISE project, the lowest voter turnout was recorded in Poland and Portugal. In Slovakia, it was higher than the average for the ten former Eastern Bloc countries and close to the level in Spain, which, in turn, was lower than the average turnout in Western European countries. The highest voter turnout was recorded in Italy (Alber & Kohler, 2008). Apart from the level of electoral participation, which can be seen as a predictor of the citizenry’s willingness to participate in public consultations, namely, other forms of participation, the literature points to many additional elements that influence citizen participation. The factors influencing citizen participation and engagement mentioned most frequently include status factors (level of education and wealth) and the possession of appropriate civic skills and capabilities (see Verba & Nie, 1972; Verba, Nie, & Kim, 1978; Michels, 2017). These skills, as well as the need to engage in public affairs, derive from both primary (family home) and secondary (school, work and NGOs) institutions (Marks-Krzyszkowska & MichalskaŻyła, 2018). Furthermore, it has been stressed that involvement depends on psychological variables such as a sense of community and emotional attachment (see Michels, 2017). Social trust is also an extremely important element (Ulsaner, 1998; Putnam, 2008; Klijn, Edelenbos, & Stein, 2010; Michels & de Graaf, 2010), which influences, among other things, the positive evaluation of democracy (see Paxton, 1999). As the level of trust drops, civic participation may also decrease, as confirmed by data analyses in the United States (see Patterson, 1999; Putnam, 2008). Other analyses have confirmed that political trust is positively associated with institutionalised political participation (Hooghe & Marien, 2013). In other words, it can be assumed that a higher level of trust is accompanied by a greater willingness to engage in participatory initiatives and co-decision processes. Involved people have more hope (trust) that their involvement will have an impact on the decisions made and changes implemented. The level of public trust registered in the five countries in which the CONCISE public consultations were carried out, as examined in the European Social Survey, is fairly similar and generally rather low (Domański, 2018). In Europe, the highest levels of trust, both generalised and institutional, are systematically recorded in Scandinavia. The second group comprises countries with long democratic traditions, such as Great Britain, France and the Netherlands. The third group – despite some differences – includes some Mediterranean countries, as well as those belonging to the former Eastern Bloc. As one Polish researcher – Henryk Domański (2018) – notes, the relatively low level of social trust in Spain, Portugal and Italy may be due to the remnants of totalitarian regimes (Franco, Salazar and 56 Izabela Warwas, Kamil Brzeziński and Agnieszka Kretek-Kamińska Mussolini), as well as to a specific type of social ties defined by Banfield (1958) as ‘amoral familism’. Amoral familism is a combination of extreme individualism with the perception of social relationships as a kind of battlefield and competition. According to Domański (2018), the cautiousness in establishing relationships among Italians may be related to the era of fascism, while in the case of Portugal, it is linked to the several decades of the Salazar presidency, and in Spain, to the Franco dictatorship. In turn, the relatively low level of social trust in the former Eastern Bloc countries may be related to the belief that it is associated with high costs and relatively low benefits (Domański, 2018). Domański believes that this is due to the experience of a centrally planned economy and one of the specific features of the former system, the so-called ‘small collectivism’, among other things. Small collectivism was a strategy that involved acquiring the resources needed for living by all means possible. This strategy was accompanied by an attitude of vigilance, tension and acceptance of dishonesty. To some extent, it may still be valid today due to intergenerational transmission (ibid.). The level of trust in the former Eastern Bloc countries has also been influenced by the experience of transformation. An analysis of that transformation highlights the trauma associated with the many negative social consequences (Sztompka, 2000). As Miszalska (1996) notes, the radical and sudden social change became a macro trauma resulting from the decline in living standards and the increase in crime. The sudden change in the system also caused existential anxiety, apathy and depression (Długosz, 2019), while the socio-cultural symptoms of that trauma included mistrust, pessimism, a nostalgic image of the past and political apathy, among others (Sztompka, 2000; Długosz, 2019). Although it is assumed that the transition ended when the former Eastern Bloc countries joined the European Union (Ziółkowski, 2014; Marody et al., 2019), data from the European Social Survey seem to confirm that their societies have not yet managed to build a social trust comparable to that of the ‘old democratic’ countries. To sum up, although the five countries involved in the CONCISE project are characterised by a low level of social trust, they differ in the level of electoral participation. This is highest in Italy, a country that has been quickest in making the transition to democracy. They also differ in the number of participatory budgets. Apart from allocating a certain pool of public funds, they also have an educational role: that of shaping civic attitudes. As a result, it could be assumed that the public consultations held in the framework of the project would be most positively assessed by members of Italian society – the oldest democracy in the group – plus those of Portugal and Poland – shaping civic attitudes through participatory budgets. Citizen participation in science This vogue for participation, for the involvement of citizens in various decisionmaking processes and for the increasingly popular inclusive approach also applies to the field of science. According to EU strategy and the concept of responsible Citizens’ acceptance of public consultation rules 57 science, for public engagement to make a difference, it must become part of routine practice (Public Engagement in Science, 2007). If the scientific community wants to establish an effective dialogue between science and society, it is important to be aware of the opinions and perceptions that both parties have of each other (Llorente et al., 2019). The implication of researchers in public engagement activities is one of the things that the public values most, because they talk from a first-person perspective and with a comprehensive knowledge of the topic (Revuelta, 2014). Science communication is about bridging the gap between various sectors (Cheng et al., 2008). It creates broad avenues for contact and interaction between scientists and different levels of government, industry and business and the community. Bauer (2009) pointed out that when describing the evolution of the public understanding of science (hereinafter PUS), two strands can be observed: firstly, the evolution of discourse from science literacy (1960–1980), through public understanding (1985–1990s), to science and society (1990s–present), with its controversy over the notion of ‘public deficits’; and, secondly, the evidence of substantive changes in the public’s relationship with science. A dialogue-based approach, including the public consultation mechanism, which is designed to discover the ideas, values, beliefs and feelings of citizens as regards science-related topics, can be helpful for identifying the sources and the origin of their decision-making processes (Lezaun & Soneryd, 2007). At a personal level, participation in science communication is thought to benefit people by sharing valuable knowledge (Dawson, 2018). This is important because, just as social research methods contribute to ‘making’ publics and influencing how their practices are understood, so too has research constructed publics and participation in relation to science and its communication (Michael, 2012). Therefore, nonparticipation is problematic for societies in a normative sense, insofar as it may impair political and market processes (Dawson, 2018). In light of the foregoing, there is a need for a new relationship between science and society, with an emphasis on democratising the former. The public and stakeholders should be allowed to play an active role in the production and evaluation of scientific knowledge (Liberatore & Funtowicz, 2003; Berg & Lidskog, 2018). So, the objectives of democratic collective deliberation should be, at least: (1) to enable as broad and diverse a cross-section of citizens as possible to form and express their opinions on the strength of accessible and even-handed information; and (2) to give voice to minority views, to draw out unspoken, perhaps subconscious, opinions and to ensure that they are taken into account. Thus, the inclusion of the public in this process must be deeper and based on dialogue. Science communication draws from deliberation and builds upon it. Citizens should have the right to have a say in knowledge issues. The basis for inclusion is not that people have contextual knowledge and a specialised competence that can complement or question science (Berg & Lidskog, 2018). The general public should be involved in developing the issue by asking questions about the underlying causes of a problem and its broader social consequences (Jasanoff, 2003; Wynne, 2006) and in generating a more inclusive and reflective problem-framing process (Berg & Lidskog, 2018). 58 Izabela Warwas, Kamil Brzeziński and Agnieszka Kretek-Kamińska Researchers simultaneously emphasise that in a changing context, a sceptical public is highly desirable. However, this is contrary to the traditional missions of science communication, which should promote public scientific literacy and a positive image of science and foster public acceptance of new technology. But a sceptical public is necessary to compensate for the proliferation of exaggerated claims. Just as the knowledge society needs a public with critical attitudes, so too does the consumer society need consumers with a consumer awareness. This attitude is necessary but insufficient to increase vigilance. It needs to be cultivated, maintained, mobilised, invested in, amplified and made to resonate by competent social actors. The various social movements that establish the benchmarks for societal progress have an important role to play here (Cheng et al., 2008). The origin of the field of study known as PUS has its roots in the democratisation of the public – at least to some degree. Much of its early impetus was based on improving citizens’ ‘scientific literacy’ (Knight & Barnett, 2010). And although much has changed in recent years since the ‘deficit model’ was abandoned, there are still many challenges facing citizen participation in science. In reality, little is known about the effect of formal public participation initiatives, inasmuch as there are rarely evaluations of processes or outcomes. More generally, empirical research on the relationship between efficacy and public participation in politics has found that people who have a strong belief in the power of their collective voice trust their systems of governance (Knight & Barnett, 2010). A large body of research has identified a wide range of factors, views and values that influence the public’s attitude towards science. They include political and scientific knowledge, ‘culture, economic factors, social and political values, trust, risk perception, and worldviews’ (Sturgis & Allum, 2004: 58). However, the relationship between political efficacy and attitudes towards science has yet to receive attention (Knight & Barnett, 2010). Research has shown that comparing beliefs in ideology and the perception of the societal relevance of science allows for profiling different ‘scientific cultures’ in European countries: • Sceptics are critical on both accounts (such as the Swiss and the Luxembourgers). • Those who mainly see science in a ‘mystical’ light, far removed from real-world issues (such as the Turks and the Italians). • Those for whom science is highly relevant, but who are also mystified by ideological claims (such as the Macedonians and the Maltese). • Those who mainly see science as a demystified utility (such as the Danes). The state of affairs outlined above points to different types of cultural patterns that merit closer examination and further research (Cheng et al., 2008). The study performed by Mejlgaard et al. (2012) showed that in countries where the culture of science communication was weak, where science hardly played any role in policymaking and where institutions and procedures for public engagement were deficient, citizens were relatively less satisfied with their own engagement with science and technology. The different scientific culture is indirectly Citizens’ acceptance of public consultation rules 59 visible in the results of scientific research, namely, publications. The research papers that have been published in the three main journals in the field (Science Communication: Linking Theory and Practice, Public Understanding of Science and the Journal of Science Communication [hereinafter JCOM]) between 1979 (the launching of the first journal) and 2016 illustrate their geographical scope. The majority of them concern the United States (1,401 articles, almost 40%) and the United Kingdom (almost 16%), followed by Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan and Brazil. With only a few papers, Poland is way down the list (Guenther & Joubert, 2017). Weitkamp (2016) arrived at similar conclusions when analysing the first five years of JCOM. She emphasised the journal’s importance in providing a platform for geographically diverse voices to reflect a global field of study like communication. Listing 19 countries from where the authors came, she revealed the predominance of researchers from the Northern Hemisphere (12 out of 19 countries). Conversely, the contribution of researchers from Africa and Asia was noticeably low. Cámara-Hurtado and López-Cerezo (2012) proposed the ‘stairway of scientific culture’, in which the steps reflect a classification of the gradual assimilation of science (see Table 3.1). The stairway comprises four dimensions, two of which are broken down into specific components: (1a) expression of interest – people show interest in science and technology issues; (1b) expression of interest – they consume science information, for instance, on television or in the press; (2a) relevance is attributed to science and technology – they evaluate the potential risks or benefits; (2b) relevance is attributed to science and technology – they evaluate how useful it is in their personal lives; (3) inclination to make use of scientific knowledge, for example, reading the information contained in patient information leaflets or food labels or seeking medical advice before following a diet; and (4) willingness to participate, for instance, are they affected or concerned by something? (Cámara-Hurtado & López-Cerezo, 2012). In this transition, it is possible to observe the evolution in understanding science, from perceiving it as an exceptional and distant concept to considering it as a research process in which non-professionals can participate and co-create. This makes the concept of science more familiar and open to the public. Table 3.1 Stairway of scientific culture (6) Willingness to participate (5) Inclination to make use of scientific knowledge (4) Relevance attributed to science and technology: usefulness in personal life evaluation (3) Relevance attributed to science and technology: evaluation of potential effects (2) Expression of interest: consumption of science information (1) Expression of interest: interest in science and technology issues Source: Cámara-Hurtado and López-Cerezo (2010). 60 Izabela Warwas, Kamil Brzeziński and Agnieszka Kretek-Kamińska The level of acceptance of public consultation rules of the participants in the European public consultations: results of the evaluation research The evaluation research conducted in the five European countries (Slovakia, Spain, Poland, Portugal and Italy) participating in the CONCISE project took the shape of a survey. Questionnaires asking the citizens to evaluate different aspects of the consultation were distributed after each discussion session and after the meeting.1 Although all the citizens took part in the consultations, not everyone answered every question, including those about age and gender (see Table 3.2), for which demographic data are missing from some of the analyses. The objectives of the evaluation research, apart from gathering the citizens’ opinions on their organisation and structure, included examining their level of understanding and acceptance of the procedures and rules of public consultations and identifying factors influencing their involvement. Accordingly, they were asked to give their opinion on the adequacy of the public consultation procedure used to gather information on science communication and to evaluate several dimensions of the discussion sessions in which they had participated. These dimensions were based on the principles of effective deliberation, including the following: free and full participation of all group members in the discussion, this being tantamount to having equal opportunities to influence its course; respect for other people, their views and arguments; trying to reach agreements; and sticking to the point (Chambers, 2018; Dryzek, 2002; Steenbergen et al., 2003; Krzewińska, 2016; Sroka 2009, 2018; Wesołowska, 2013). Additionally, after each session, the citizens were asked to rate the importance of the topic discussed, their level of interest in it, their involvement in the discussion and their satisfaction with the results. They also evaluated the organisation of the consultations. The results of the survey showed that the vast majority of the respondents (98%) felt that the procedure was a good way of obtaining information on science communication (64% – definitely yes, 34% – yes, to a point). It was the Portuguese respondents who were most convinced about its appropriateness (74%), while their Table 3.2 Structure of the study population by the country where the consultation took place, gender and age of participants (%) Country IT (n = 90) PL (n = 100) PT (n = 102) SK (n = 96) SP (n = 100) Total (n = 488) Gender Age brackets Female Male Other No data 18–34 35–49 50–64 65 + No data 48 62 67 57 56 58.2 52 37 33 42 42 41 0 0 0 0 2 0.4 0 1 0 1 0 0.4 31 31 26.5 49 16 30.5 0 2 0 0 24 5.3 29 24 32 27 16 25.6 30 24 27.5 17 30 25.6 Source: CONCISE public consultation, evaluation of participant questionnaires. 10 19 14 7 14 12.9 Citizens’ acceptance of public consultation rules 61 Slovak counterparts were the least convinced (57%). In the other three countries, the proportion of citizens agreeing with the format ranged from 61 to 63 per cent of the total (see Table 3.3). The positive evaluation of the procedure was also emphasised by the additional statements that the respondents provided in the evaluation questionnaire. They not only expressed satisfaction with their participation in the consultations but also asserted that it had enabled them to broaden their knowledge of the topics under discussion and to clarify their position after contrasting their opinions with those of others, often people with whom they had not previously exchanged views: ‘I’m very satisfied with the consultations and I think I’ve learned things I was not interested in; it has helped me to clarify my opinion’ (SK); ‘Having mixed groups with people of different ages has helped to identify more points of view in society. I’m satisfied with this experience (IT)’; ‘A very cool, mind-opening experience; an opportunity to listen to people outside your own information bubble; a nice day’ (PL). Consequently, the respondents also indicated that this type of consultation ‘should happen more often as they’re a way of bringing science closer to the citizenry’ (PT); ‘The results of this consultation should be widely disseminated. They’re very important for improving the relationship between science and society and they can generate more interest’ (PT). They also called for this type of event to have a wider reach: ‘These events should be repeated on other topics, in areas such as education, health and justice. Promoting such discussions with people from different parts of the country fosters sharing and cross culture. The conclusions of these public consultations should be the basis for the reforms to be implemented in these systems. The organisation dynamics allow for the interaction of different ideas’ (PT); ‘Public policies should be designed and developed from activities such as these’ (IT). Therefore, the respondents not only stressed the need for consultations but also pointed to their causal nature – seeing them as a basis for decision-making and the development of different policies. Table 3.3 Assessment of the appropriateness of the consultation formula Evaluation of the public consultation as a way of obtaining views on science communication methods % of respondents choosing a given answer IT PL PT SK SP Total Definitely the right way to collect opinions Mostly the right way to collect opinions Mostly the wrong way to collect opinions Definitely the wrong way to collect opinions No opinion 62 63 74 57.3 61 64 36 37 23 39.3 37 34 2 - 1 2.2 1 1 - - - - - - - - 2 1.1 1 1 Source: CONCISE public consultation, evaluation of participant questionnaires. 62 Izabela Warwas, Kamil Brzeziński and Agnieszka Kretek-Kamińska The respondents’ statements also indicate a high level of acceptance of the discussion rules applicable to public consultations and the willingness of most of them to respect them. The vast majority, regardless of their countries of origin, assessed that the participants in the consultations had treated each other with respect (a mean score of 4.85 on a scale of 1–5) and had avoided making unwelcome or malicious comments (4.63), and that everyone had had an equal opportunity to influence the discussions (4.66). They rated their discussion partners slightly lower in terms of not ignoring other people’s views (4.52), trying to understand their position (4.31), taking their arguments into account (4.28) and not forcing their own opinion on them (4.15). The lowest scores were given to adherence to the rules on seeking agreements (a mean score of 4.06), sticking to the point (3.98) and not sticking to one’s own opinion at all costs (3.97). The composition of the average scores for adhering to the discussion rules was similar in all the countries surveyed, but the proportion of people giving the highest scores to the participants’ adherence to particular rules differed from country to country. Sticking to the point and wanting to reach an agreement gave rise to the greatest discrepancies. The across-the-board compliance with the first rule was reported by only 19 per cent of the Italian respondents and 15 per cent of the Portuguese. By contrast, in Slovakia, it was 52 per cent and in Poland, 60 per cent. The desire of all the participants in a discussion to reach an agreement was noted by 14 per cent of the Italian respondents, nearly 40 per cent of the Slovaks and Portuguese and almost 60 per cent of the Poles (see Table 3.4). Interestingly, across the countries, the differences in the respondents’ scores regarding adhering to the rules were not associated, by and large, with a significant variation in the level of engagement in the discussion. In all the study communities, engagement was rated as high (the average score in each session ranged from 4.17 to 4.55 on a five-point scale). The Slovak respondents gave the lowest average scores, ranging from 3.82 to 4.32, to participant engagement in all the discussion sessions, except for the one on CAM (see Table 3.5). Similar differences were also observed in each country between discussion sessions on different topics. It was the Polish respondents who gave the most similar scores in all the sessions, whereas it was the Italians’ scores that differed most for particular topics. The Italian and Portuguese citizens were most involved in the discussion session on climate change (mean scores of 4.79 and 4.55, respectively). In Poland, vaccines proved to be the most discussed topic among the citizens (4.61), while in Slovakia, it was CAM (4.32). At the same time, however, climate change was given the greatest proportion of highest scores in all the countries. In all the public consultations, it was observed that the citizens were least engaged in the discussions on GMOs (see Table 3.5). Thus, adherence to public consultation rules and involvement in the discussions seemed to be related not only to the socio-cultural context and the different experiences of individual societies in the area of participation in the broad sense newgenrtpdf Table 3.4 Assessment of the level of the participants’ adherence to the discussion rules Behaviour of participants % of respondents giving the highest score IT n = 89 PL n = 99 PT n = 102 SK n = 96 Total n = 386 IT n = 89 PL n = 99 PT n = 102 SK n = 96 Total n = 386 4.67 4.48 4.94 4.62 4.93 4.76 4.85 4.76 4.85 4.66 71 60 94 73 93 79 85 79 86 73 4.09 4.09 4.36 4.12 4.47 4.57 4.28 4.29 4.31 4.28 32 38 50 37 57 64 45 46 45 47 3.17 4.80 4.52 4.84 4.18 4.30 4.06 4.62 4.01 4.63 14 88 58 95 39 64 38 74 38 80 4.27 4.34 3.55 3.84 4.04 4.55 4.31 4.39 3.55 4.29 4.64 4.17 3.50 4.37 4.36 4.59 3.78 4.45 4.10 4.33 4.52 4.15 3.98 3.97 4.26 53 57 19 33 77 60 60 25 75 54 15 52 73 31 52 46 70 50 37 39 Source: CONCISE public consultation, evaluation of participant questionnaires. Notes: aFor the first five statements, 1 point meant that the description did not fit any participant, and five points meant that it applied to the behaviour of all of them. For the next five statements, the maximum number of points meant that no one behaved as described in the statement. Citizens’ acceptance of public consultation rules 63 Treating each other with respect Having equal opportunities to influence the course of the discussion Trying to understand the views of others Taking into account other people’s arguments Wanting to reach an agreement Making unwelcome and malicious comments about each other Ignoring other people’s views Trying to impose their own opinion Speaking off-topic Stubbornly sticking to their opinions Total (mean score) Mean score on a scale of 1–5a 64 Izabela Warwas, Kamil Brzeziński and Agnieszka Kretek-Kamińska Table 3.5 Assessment of participants’ involvement in the discussions Topic Mean score on a scale of 1–5 % of respondents giving the highest score IT PL PT SK Total IT PL PT SK Total n = 90 n = 99 n = 100 n = 95 n = 384 n = 90 n = 99 n = 100 n = 95 n = 384 Climate change Vaccines CAM GMOs 4.79 4.52 4.55 4.27 4.55 80 74 58 53 66 4.52 4.23 3.97 4.61 4.55 4.55 4.46 4.38 4.33 4.25 4.32 3.82 4.46 4.37 4.17 63 49 42 71 66 66 51 46 46 50 54 34 59 54 47 Source: CONCISE public consultation, evaluation of participant questionnaires. Table 3.6 Assessment of the social importance of the topics discussed Topic Climate change Vaccines CAM GMOs Assessment of the social importance of the topics discussed on a scale of 1–5 Assessment of the social importance of topics discussed – % of respondents giving the highest score IT PL PT SK Total n = 90 n = 99 n = 100 n = 95 n = 384 IT PL PT SK Total n = 90 n = 99 n = 100 n = 95 n = 384 4.84 4.80 4.91 4.60 4.79 90 86 91 78 86 4.46 4.18 4.05 4.68 4.56 4.46 4.56 4.43 4.16 4.46 3.96 3.74 4.54 4.25 4.04 69 45 48 77 59 52 59 54 38 65 43 37 68 50 44 Source: CONCISE public consultation, evaluation of participant questionnaires. of the word (which were not examined in the evaluation) but also to the discussion topics themselves. This is primarily about the sense of social importance of the topic and the level of interest in it. In all the countries where the survey on the importance of particular topics was conducted, the respondents gave the highest scores – considering them ‘very important from a social point of view’ – to climate change (ranging from 78% in Slovakia to 91% in Portugal),2 with an average score of 4.79 on a five-point scale, followed by vaccines, GMOs and CAM (see Table 3.6). An analogous distribution of scores was also obtained for the citizens’ interest in the individual topics. However, a lower proportion of respondents gave the highest scores to this aspect than to the importance of the topics. Consequently, the average scores for the level of interest in these topics were also somewhat lower than those for their importance, ranging from 3.85 for interest in CAM to 4.54 for interest in climate change (see Table 3.7). In view of the distributions of the scores given to the importance of particular topics, to the level of interest in them and to involvement in the discussions, it can Citizens’ acceptance of public consultation rules 65 Table 3.7 Assessment of the participants’ level of interest in the topics discussed Topic Climate change Vaccines CAM GMOs Assessment of the level of interest in the topics discussed – mean score on a scale of 1–5 Assessment of the level of interest in the topics discussed – % of respondents giving the highest scores IT PL PT SK Total n = 90 n = 99 n = 100 n = 95 n = 384 IT PL PT SK Total n = 90 n = 99 n = 100 n = 95 n = 384 4.73 4.47 4.62 4.34 4.54 78 63 65 54 65 4.02 3.79 3.85 4.26 4.24 4.03 4.04 3.96 3.75 3.84 3.48 3.74 4.05 3.88 3.85 44 36 44 55 52 47 33 35 30 39 28 35 43 38 39 Source: CONCISE public consultation, evaluation of participant questionnaires. Table 3.8 Comparison of involvement, interest and satisfaction with the results of the discussions between those respondents who considered a given topic to be very important to society and those who gave it lower scores Topic Climate change Vaccines CAM GMOs % of the respondents considering the social importance of the topic to be very higha % of other respondents Very high Very high interest involvement Very high satisfaction Very high interest Very high involvement Very high satisfaction 56 64 51 57 14 11 18 17 55 41 38 45 42 34 28 40 73 68 57 67 68 58 57 67 Source: CONCISE public consultation, evaluation of participant questionnaires. Note: aIn the individual sessions, the number of participants were as follows: 322 (climate change), 252 (vaccines), 188 (GMOs) and 162 (CAM) of the 374 respondents who answered these specific questions. be assumed that they are interrelated. The citizens who considered a given topic to be socially very important also included a higher proportion of those who were very interested in it and very engaged in the discussion than among those who did not consider it to be important. It is also noteworthy that the high scores given to the social importance of the topics were also reflected in a high level of satisfaction with the results of the discussion (see Table 3.8). The survey also showed that all the factors identified as being potentially significant for the structure and quality of the consultations were also related to how their organisational aspects were evaluated. Those expressing the highest level of satisfaction with their organisation included a higher proportion of those who 66 Izabela Warwas, Kamil Brzeziński and Agnieszka Kretek-Kamińska Table 3.9 Comparison of the involvement and interest in the discussions and satisfaction with the results between those respondents who gave the highest scores to the organisational aspects of the consultations and those who gave them lower scores Topic Climate change Vaccines CAM GMOs % of respondents giving the highest scores to the organisational aspects of the consultationsa n = 203 % of other respondents n = 285 Very high Very high Very high interest involvement satisfaction Very high Very high Very high interest involvement satisfaction 72 79 65 56 50 40 52 40 47 72 57 65 64 48 48 31 35 28 41 35 39 40 29 45 Source: CONCISE public consultation, evaluation of participant questionnaires. Note: aThese participants gave maximum scores to at least three of the four aspects of the organisation of the consultations that were assessed: the venue, the catering, the duration of the consultation and the length of the breaks between discussion sessions. claimed to have a greater interest in the public consultation topics, a higher level of involvement in the discussions and a higher level of satisfaction with the results (Table 3.9). Finally, the factors favouring engagement in the public consultations included the citizens’ demographic profile, such as gender and age. While these did not have any negative impact on engagement in the discussions per se, they proved to have a significant influence on interest in certain topics. Age and gender were associated with the level of interest in vaccines and CAM, to wit, those topics most directly related to healthcare or minimising the effects of diseases. More women than men declared a higher level of interest in both topics, while the oldest participants included the highest proportion of people professing to be highly interested in them. Conclusion The results of our research show that the vast majority of the citizens taking part in the public consultations, regardless of their country of origin, considered the procedure followed for gathering information to be appropriate for the issues addressed in the project. In their opinion, conducting research in this way gave them the opportunity to express their own point of view, as well as to acquire information and to learn about alternative perspectives on a given issue, making them more receptive to the views of others. Furthermore, they believed that the public consultation format was a good way of engaging the public with science and involving them in decision-making on socially important issues. They also Citizens’ acceptance of public consultation rules 67 contended that they had had a positive impact on their willingness to participate in such activities. The majority of the respondents were also of the mind that the citizens participating in the consultations had generally complied with the applicable discussion ground rules. Irrespective of their country of origin, the citizens found it easier to follow basic rules of communication and personal culture, such as showing one another respect and avoiding malicious comments. In contrast, they found it harder to stick to the point, to refrain from sticking to their own beliefs and to reach agreements. This is crucial for effective deliberation but is extremely difficult in negotiations, disputes and discussions in which there are differences of opinion. At the same time, it was in these aspects that most differences were observed among the citizens from the five countries. The average scores for the acceptance of each rule were high in all the groups. However, in the case of ‘sticking to the point’ and ‘trying to reach an agreement’, there were significant differences depending on the country in terms of the proportion of the respondents giving them the highest scores (indicating that they were accepted by all the participants in the discussions). These differences were more than 40 percentage points for both the aforementioned rules. It is interesting to note that the lowest level of acceptance of the discussion rules was observed among the Italian respondents, the first country to make the transition to democracy among the five involved in the project. Somewhat surprisingly, however, there was a relatively high level of acceptance of both discussion rules among the citizens of the former Eastern Bloc countries (Poland and Slovakia). Perhaps this has to do with a historical tendency towards conformity. The high acceptance of the discussion rules were reflected in the high scores given to involvement in the discussions, although they varied from session to session and from topic to topic. It was higher in those discussions on topics that the citizens considered more socially relevant and interesting. At the same time, involvement in the discussions on issues considered to be socially important gave them greater satisfaction. In this regard, the relatively high involvement of the Portuguese and Spanish citizens in the discussions on climate change should come as no surprise, for they are the European countries that are most likely to feel its effects first in Europe. In these countries, on the eve of the consultation, climate change was a ‘hot’ topic, raising citizens’ awareness. Both are also characterised by a high culture of science communication. Therefore, the results of the evaluation show that the level of acceptance of the consultation procedures and the level of the citizens’ involvement in them were closely related to the discussion topics. A condition for the success of such an undertaking and for achieving a high level of involvement is their interest in the subject and their conviction that it is socially important. Organising the consultation procedure in line with their needs and expectations also had an impact on involvement. The respondents who gave the highest scores 68 Izabela Warwas, Kamil Brzeziński and Agnieszka Kretek-Kamińska Figure 3.1 Simplified ‘method’ for organising a public consultation. Source: Own elaboration. to the organisation of the consultations included a much higher proportion of those who were interested in the subject, involved in the discussions and satisfied with their results than those who gave slightly lower scores, namely, those who were less satisfied with the way in which they had been organised. In conclusion, as stated by Crawford, Dytham and Naylor (2017), a key driver for evaluation was the feeling that it was important to demonstrate the success of this participatory initiative. We believe that public consultations are the right way to make progress in the democratisation of science, to develop science communication and citizen science and to broaden general social and civic skills. In light of the results, we propose a simplified ‘method’ for organising similar undertakings (see Figure 3.1). It seems to us that, contrary to our original assumptions, sociohistorical factors and sociodemographic characteristics play a lesser role, the key being participant engagement. Although the citizens from the countries surveyed (Poland and Slovakia, Spain, Portugal and Italy) are characterised by different cultures of science communication and levels of willingness to participate, it seems that they are only on the first steps of Cámara-Hurtado and López-Cerezo’s stairway of scientific culture. We believe that initiatives similar to the CONCISE project, following the recipe that we propose (Figure 3.1), may result in positive change. Notes 1 Only the final survey was administered in Spain, which did not include some of the questions posed in the other countries immediately after each discussion session. For this reason, some of the analyses described here are based on the results obtained in only four countries. Citizens’ acceptance of public consultation rules 69 2 In comparison, a recent survey of EU citizens (2019) found that 79 per cent of the respondents considered climate change to be a very serious problem. References Abrantes, P., Lopes, A., & Baptista, J. M. (2018). The Schools Participatory Budgeting (SPB) in Portugal. In Dias, N. (ed.), Hope for Democracy–30 Years of Participatory Budgeting Worldwide (pp. 469–476). Oficina. Alber, J., & Kohler, U. (2008). The inequality of electoral participation in Europe and America and the politically integrative functions of the welfare state. WZB Discussion Paper. Retrieved from: https://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2008/i08-202.pdf Bachtiger, A., Dryzak, J. S., Mansbridge, J., & Warren, M. (2018). Deliberative Democracy: An Introduction. In Bachtiger, A., Dryzak, J. S., Mansbridge, J., & Warren, M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy (pp. 1–31). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1662-6370.2007.tb00086.x Banfield, E. C. (1958). The Moral Basis of Backward Society. The Free Press. Bauer, M. W. (2009). The evolution of public understanding of science–discourse and comparative evidence. Science, Technology and Society, 14(2), 221–240. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/097172180901400202 Berg, M., & Lidskog, R. (2018). Deliberative democracy meets democratised science: A deliberative systems approach to global environmental governance. Environmental Politics, 27(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2017.1371919 Brodie, E., Cowling, E., Nissen, N., Ellis Paine, A., Jochum, V., & Warburton, D. (2009). Understanding Participation: A Literature Review. National Council for Voluntary Organisations. Cámara-Hurtado, M. M, & López-Cerezo, J. A. (2012). Political dimensions of scientific culture: Highlights from the Ibero-American survey on the social perception of science and scientific culture. Public Understanding of Science, 21(3), 369–384. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0963662510373871 Capella, J., Price, V., & Nir, L. (2002). Argument repertoire as a reliable and valid measure of opinion quality: Electronic Dialogue in Campaign 2000. Political Communication, 19(1), 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846002317246498 Chambers, R. (2002). Participatory Workshops. A Sourcebook of 21 Sets of Ideas and Activities. Earthscan. Chambers, S. (2018). Human life is group life: Deliberative democracy for realists. Critical Review, 30(1–2), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2018.1466852 Cheng, D., Claessens, M., Gascoigne, T., Metcalfe, J., Schiele, B., & Shi, S. (2008). Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices. In Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices (pp. 1–3). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8598-7 Crawford, C., Dytham, S., & Naylor, R. (2017). Improving the evaluation of outreach: Interview report. https://pure.northampton.ac.uk/ws/files/6246046/Crawford_ Claire_2017_Improving_the_Evaluation_of_Outreach_Interview_report.pdf Dawson, E. (2018). Reimagining publics and (non) participation: Exploring exclusion from science communication through the experiences of low-income, minority ethnic groups. Public Understanding of Science, 27(7), 772–786. https://doi.org/10.1177/096366251 7750072 70 Izabela Warwas, Kamil Brzeziński and Agnieszka Kretek-Kamińska Dias, N. (2014). 25 years of participatory budgets in the world: A new social and political movement? In Dias, N. (ed.), Hope for Democracy–25 Years of Participatory (pp. 21–27), Budgeting Worldwide. Loco Association. Dias, N., Enriquez, S., & Julio, S. (eds.) (2019). The Participatory Budgeting World Atlas. Epopeia and Oficina. Długosz, P. (2019). Trauma transformacji w Europie Środkowo-Wschodniej. Środokowoeuropejskie Studia Polityczne, 1/2019, 95–121. Domański, H. (2018). Zaufanie do ludzi i systemu politycznego. In Sztabiński, P. B., & Sztabiński, F. (eds.), Polska–Europa. Wyniki Europejskiego Sondażu Społecznego 2002– 2016/17 (pp. 70–85). Wydawnictwo IFiS PAN. Dryzek J. (2002). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford University Press. Dudkiewicz, M. (2011). Metodologiczny kontekst badan aktywizujących. Animacja Życia Publicznego, 2(5), 4–6. Esguerra, A., Beck, S., & Lidskog, R. (2017). Stakeholder engagement in the making: IPBES legitimization politics. Global Environmental Politics, 17(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/ 10.1162/GLEP_a_00390 Greenwood, D. J. (2012). Action research, czyli o badaniach w działaniu. In Dariusz Jemielniak (ed.), Badania jakościowe. Podejścia i teorie (pp. 153–162). PWN. Guenther, L., & Joubert, M. (2017). Science communication as a field of research: Identifying trends, challenges and gaps by analysing research papers. Journal of Science Communication, 16(02), A02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.16020202 Held, D. (2010). Modele demokracji. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Hino, A., Imai, R., & Chiba, R. (2015). Measuring the Quality of Deliberation Within: A Proposal of Reasoning Quality Index, Paper prepared for the 2015 ECPR General Conference, Montreal. https://ecpr.eu/Events/Event/PaperDetails/25992 Hooghe, M., & Marien, S. (2013). A comparative analysis of the relation between political trust and forms of political participation in Europe. European Societies, 15(1), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2012.692807 Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizens participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025557512320 Juchacz, P. W. (2006). Demokracja. Deliberacja. Partycypacja. Szkice z teorii demokracji ateńskiej i współczesnej. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Instytutu filozofii Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu. Kafel, T. (2016). Zastosowanie metody participatory action research w diagnozowaniu organizacji pozarządowych. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie, 7(995), 23–40. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2009). Uczestniczące badania interwencyjne. Działanie komunikacyjne i sfera publiczna. In Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (eds.), Metody badań jakościowych, Tom 1 (pp. 775–831). Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Kindon, S., Pain, R., & Kesby, M. (eds.) (2007). Participatory Action Research Approaches and Methods: Connecting People, Participation and Place. Routledge. Klijn, E., Edelenbos, J., & Stein, B. (2010). Trust in governance networks: Its impacts on outcomes. Administration & Society, 42(2), 210–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/009539971 0362716 Knight, T., & Barnett, J. (2010). Perceived efficacy and attitudes towards genetic science and science governance. Public Understanding of Science, 19(4), 386–402. https://doi. org/10.1177/0963662509352952 Citizens’ acceptance of public consultation rules 71 Krzewińska, A. (2016). Deliberacja. Idea–metodologia–praktyka. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. Lengwiler, M. (2008). Participatory approaches in science and technology. Historical Origins and current practices in critical perspective. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 33(2), 186–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907311262 Lezaun, J., & Soneryd, L. (2007). Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science, 16(3), 279–297. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0963662507079371 Liberatore A., & Funtowicz S. O. (2003). ‘Democratising’ expertise, ‘expertising’ democracy: What does this mean, and why bother? Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 146–150. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780551 Llorente, C., Revuelta, G., Carrió, M., & Porta, M. (2019). Scientists’ opinions and attitudes towards citizens’ understanding of science and their role in public engagement activities. PLoS ONE, 14(11), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224262 Mączka, K., Mielewczyk, M., Matczak, P., Przewoźna, P., & Inglot, A. (2020). Q-deliberacja jako metoda badania i konsultowania kwestii środowiskowych, przegląd założeń i rozwiązań praktycznych. In Młynarczyk, A. (ed.), Środowisko przyrodnicze jako obszar badan (pp. 79–91). Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Marks-Krzyszkowska, M., & Michalska-Żyła, A. (2018). Wyznaczniki gotowości zaangażowania się mieszkańców we współzarządzanie gminą wiejską. Studia Obszarów Wiejskich, 51, 99–117. Marody, M., Konieczna-Sałamatin, J., Sawicka, M., Mandes, S., Kacprowicz, G., Bulkowski, K., & Bartkowski, J. (2019). Społeczeństwo na zakręcie. Zmiany i wartości Polaków w latach 1990-2018. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar. Mejlgaard, N., Bloch, C., Degn, L., Nielsen, M. W., & Ravn T. (2012). Locating science in society across Europe: Clusters and consequences. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 741–750. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs092 Michael, M. (2012). What are we busy doing? Engaging the idiot. Science Technology & Human Values, 37(5), 528–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224391142 Michels, A. (2017). Participation in citizens’ summits and public engagement. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/002085231 7691117 Michels, A., & de Graaf, L. (2010). Examining citizen participation: Local participatory policy making and democracy. Local Government Studies, 36(4), 477–491. https://doi. org/10.1080/03003930.2010.494101 Miszalska, A. (1996). Reakcje społeczne na przemiany ustrojowe. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. Nebot, C. P., Falck, A., Barros, M., Lopez, M. A. A., & Enriquez, Sh. (2019). Spain. Participatory Budgeting Data. In Dias, N., Enriquez, S., & Julio, S. (eds.), The Participatory Budgeting World Atlas (pp. 182–183). Epopeia and Oficina. Pateman, C. (2012). Participatory democracy revisited. Perspective on Politics, 10(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592711004877 Patterson, O. (1999). Liberty against the Democratic State: On the Historical and Contemporary Sources of American Distrust. In Warren, M. (ed.), Democracy and Trust (pp. 151–202). Cambridge University Press. Pawłowska, A., & Radzik, K. (2016). Instytucjonalno-prawne warunki partycypacji i dialogu obywatelskiego na poziomie lokalnym (na przykładzie wybranych miast). Acta Politica Polonica, 3/2016(37), 19–38. 72 Izabela Warwas, Kamil Brzeziński and Agnieszka Kretek-Kamińska Paxton, P. (1999). Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple indicator assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 88–127. https://doi.org/10.1086/210268 Paz, C. (2018). Youth Participatory Budgeting–Portugal. In Dias, N. (ed.), Hope for Democracy–30 Years of Participatory Budgeting Worldwide (pp. 479–490). Oficina. Putnam, R. D. (2008). Samotna gra w kręgle. Wydawnictwo Akademickie i Profesjonalne. Revuelta, G. (2014). Impacts of science communication on publics, cities and actors. Journal of Science Communication, 13(1), 1824–2049. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.13010301 Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., Röcke, A., & Allegretti, G. (2008). Participatory budgeting in Europe: Potentials and challenges. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(1), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00777.x Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., Röcke, A., & Allegretti, G. (2012). Transnational models of citizen participation: The case of participatory budgeting. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.141 Solijonov, A. (2016). Voters Turnout Trends around the World. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Sprain, L., & Black, L. (2017). Deliberative moments: Understanding deliberation as an interactional accomplishment. Western Journal of Communication, 82(3), 1–20. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2017.1347275 Sroka, J. (2009). Deliberacja i rządzenie wielopasmowe: teoria i praktyka. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. Sroka, J. (2018). Współdecydowanie w wielopasmowej polityce publicznej. Dom Wydawniczy Elipsa. Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring Political deliberation: A discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics, 1(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002 Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636 62504042690 Sztompka, P. (2000). Trauma wielkiej zmiany. Społeczne koszty transformacji. ISP PAN. Torcal, M., & Montero, J. R. (eds.) (2006). Political Disaffection in Contemporary Democracies. Social Capital, Institutions, and Politics. Routledge. Ulsaner, E. M. (1998). Social capital, television, and the ‘Mean World’: Trust, optimism, and civic participation. Political Psychology, 19(3), 441–467. Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. Harper & Row. Verba, S., Nie, N. H., & Kim, J-O. (1978). Participation and Political Equality: A SevenNation Comparison. Chicago University Press. Warwas, I. (2021). Prezentacja założeń projektu CONCISE, [w:] I. Warwas, M. Dzimińska, A. Krzewińska (red.), Komunikacja naukowa w Polsce. Partycypacja. Dialog. Zaufanie, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. Wates, N. (2000). The Community Planning Handbook: How People Can Shape Their Cities, Towns and Villages in Any Part of the World. Earthscan. Weitkamp, E. (2016). Five years of JCOM–inclusive, comprehensive or could we do better? Journal of Science Communication, 15(4), E. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15040501 Wesołowska, E. (2013). Potencjały i bariery urzeczywistniania deliberacji w polskich warunkach kulturowych. Kultura i Społeczeństwo, 2, 91–109. Citizens’ acceptance of public consultation rules 73 Wynne, B. (2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science–Hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genet, 9(3), 211–220. https://doi.org/ 10.1159/000092659 Ziółkowski, M. (2014). Annus Mirabilis 1989 i jego dziedzictwo: spełnione obietnice, stracone złudzenia i niespodziewane rezultaty. Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny, LXXVI(2), 25–43.