Mind the Gap: Using Peer Research to Target Misinformation in Deliberative Processes

Deliberative processes - such as citizen assemblies, deliberative polls or citizen juries - can offer more inclusive and better-informed ways of developing public policy. The literature suggests that such processes provide participants with relevant and balanced information, and can include previously disempowered groups (Beauvais & Warren, 2019; Smith, 2009). While participants can be initially misinformed, deliberation has the potential to correct existing misconceptions (Himmelroos & Rapeli, 2020). Further, thanks to the direct involvement of citizens, deliberative processes can build trust and lead to results that are considered legitimate by the broader population (MacKenzie & Warren, 2012). However, many deliberative practices tend to be expert-led, resulting in the exclusion of some forms of lived experience and incomplete information employed during the development of policy solutions. On the other side, the direct involvement of people with lived experience, especially when the policy issue concerns a public response to a crisis, can raise a range of distinct challenges. These might include the material difficulties associated with engaging participants affected by hardship, and potential harm from employing deeply personal experiences to identify workable public policy solutions. However, they also include the potential exclusion of viewpoints which, while inaccurate or based on misinformation, nonetheless reflect the lived experience of participants. This paper analyses the potential of employing peer research in deliberative processes to resolve these issues, focusing in particular on addressing misinformation during times of crisis. We analyse the potential of peer-review research approaches to: ▪️ Gain a better understanding of the experiences of those experiencing hardship ▪️ Counter misinformation during deliberative processes ▪️ Increase the completeness of information employed for policy development, regarding complex policy issues ▪️ Increase in public legitimacy and wider support for identified policy solutions As a case study, we employ the results from the research project on the understanding of the lived experience of the cost-of-living crisis in three London local councils. The project involved three stages: (1) a peer research stage (digital ethnography and peer interviews) by people affected by the crisis, (2) a series of three deliberative workshops with the broader public employing results from the peer research to identify policy responses, (3) a policy roundtable involving stakeholders from the local and national government. To understand whether there is wider support for these responses we also employed a cross-sectional longitudinal survey of UK residents. References: Beauvais, E., & Warren, M. E. (2019). What can deliberative mini‐publics contribute to democratic systems?. European Journal of Political Research, 58(3), 893-914. Himmelroos, S. & Rapeli, L., (2020) “Can Deliberation Reduce Political Misperceptions? Findings from a Deliberative Experiment on Immigration”, Journal of Deliberative Democracy 16(1), 58–66. MacKenzie, M. K., & Warren, M. E. (2012). Two trust-based uses of mini-publics in democratic systems. Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale, 95-124. Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge University Press.