Design of Citizens' Parliaments (Deliverable 6.2)

Design of Citizens’ Parliaments Laurence Monnot (COMMIT) and Andrea Sedlaczek (COMMIT) Contributors: Helmut Peissl (COMMIT), Nico Carpentier (CU), Vaia Doudaki (CU), Josef Seethaler (OEAW), Rosemary Day (MIC) and Brankica Petković (MI) DELIVERABLE 6.2, V1.0 MeDeMAP – Mapping Media for Future Democracies Grant Agreement number: 101094984 Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority c an be held responsible for them. MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 2 Document Information Project Grant Agreement no. 101094984 Funding scheme HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions Project title Mapping Media for Future Democracies Project acronym MeDeMAP Project starting date 01/03/2023 Document Work package no. 6 Work package title Supply Meets Demand Work package lead beneficiary P5 - COMMIT Task(s) 6.2 Deliverable no. 6.2 Deliverable title Design of citizens’ parliaments Deliverable type DEM — Demonstrator, pilot, prototype Contractual date of deliverable 28.02.2025 Actual date of deliverable 28.02.2025 Editor(s) Laurence Monnot and Andrea Sedlaczek (COMMIT) Author(s) Laurence Monnot (COMMIT), Andrea Sedlaczek (COMMIT), Helmut Peissl (COMMIT), Nico Carpentier (CU), Vaia Doudaki (CU), Josef Seethaler (OEAW), Rosemary Day (MIC) and Brankica Petković (MI) Reviewer(s) Manuel José Damásio (Lusófona), Beata Klimkiewicz (JU), Andrea Miconi (IULM), Josef Seethaler (OEAW), Nico Carpentier (CU) Version 1.0 Status Final Total number of pages (including cover) 123 Dissemination level PU - Public MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 3 Table of Contents Introduction and executive summary ..................................................................................................... 5 1 CP design and organization .................................................................................................................. 6 1.1 The national project teams ......................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Structure and content of the CPs.............................................................................................. 7 1.3 Participants .................................................................................................................................... 9 1.4 Support group/Advisory board ................................................................................................ 11 1.5 Identification and selection of experts ................................................................................... 12 1.6 Venue, dates and logistics ......................................................................................................... 12 1.7 Communication with the participants and external communication before the CPs ... 13 1.8 The CP Platform and what CP participants will access ...................................................... 14 1.9 Tasks to achieve before the start of the CPs ........................................................................ 15 2 CP implementation ............................................................................................................................... 17 2.1 Framework for the CP script .................................................................................................... 18 2.1.1 CP Script: mandatory components .................................................................................... 18 2.1.2 Activities between and after the CP sessions ................................................................... 19 2.1.3 Guiding questions for the four CP sessions ...................................................................... 20 2.2 Facilitation .................................................................................................................................... 21 2.2.1 Role of facilitation .............................................................................................................. 21 2.2.2 Recommendations collected from guidebooks on the organization of CPs ................... 22 2.3 The learning phase ..................................................................................................................... 23 2.3.1 Learning objectives ............................................................................................................ 23 2.3.2 Training videos .................................................................................................................... 24 2.3.3 Expert briefing ..................................................................................................................... 24 2.4 Communication and dissemination of CP national implementation and results, including D6.3 - Blog on CPs (M25-30) ............................................................................................... 24 2.4.1 Blog and guidelines for blog posts .................................................................................... 24 2.4.2 Dissemination at the national level ................................................................................... 25 2.4.3 Presentation of the results in Brussels ............................................................................. 26 2.4.4 Dissemination of the results in academic and non-academic publications ................... 26 3 Data collection and analysis ............................................................................................................... 27 3.1 Research questions .................................................................................................................... 27 3.2 Data collection ............................................................................................................................ 27 3.2.1 Minutes of the CP sessions including resolutions and photos ........................................ 28 3.2.2 Audio recording and transcription ..................................................................................... 28 MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 4 3.2.3 Ethnographic observation .................................................................................................. 28 3.2.4 Online surveys and interviews ........................................................................................... 29 3.3 Data analysis ................................................................................................................................ 29 3.3.1 Qualitative analysis and national reports ......................................................................... 29 3.3.2 Group feedback analysis ................................................................................................... 29 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 30 4 References ............................................................................................................................................. 31 5 Annexes .................................................................................................................................................. 33 Annex 1: Questionnaires for applicants – COMMIT, CU, MI .......................................................... 33 Annex 2: Learning Objectives ................................................................................................................ 44 Annex 3: Indications for briefing the experts ..................................................................................... 50 Annex 4: Model CP-script COMMIT .................................................................................................... 51 Annex 5: Model CP-Script CU ............................................................................................................... 59 Annex 6: Facilitation tools or techniques and references ................................................................ 68 Annex 7: CP Platform - Structure.......................................................................................................... 71 Annex 8: CP Platform – Structure specs ............................................................................................. 72 Annex 9: Guidelines for blog posts ....................................................................................................... 77 Annex 10: MeDeMAP Task 6.3/6.4 - Research questions .............................................................. 79 Annex 11: Overview of data gathering, analysis and dissemination .............................................. 80 Annex 12: Indications for the CP observers’ training........................................................................ 81 Annex 13: Examples of publications on the forthcoming CP in Austria, the Czech Republic, Ireland and Slovenia ................................................................................................................................. 83 Annex 14: WP6 Methodological Guidelines ....................................................................................... 93 MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 5 Introduction and executive summary Deliverable D.6.2 “Design of citizens’ parliaments” aims to provide a framework for the Design of the citizens’ parliaments that will be organized by the WP6 partners COMMIT, CU, MIC, MI face-to-face in Austria, the Czech Republic, Ireland and Slovenia and later, based on their results, online and as a scientific experiment by OEAW in Germany. While the implementation of the Citizens' Parliaments (CPs) is part of the MeDeMAP research project, for the partners and local citizens involved, it is also a socio-political and learning action with an impact on them and on the local context. D6.2 seeks to answer the research question “How to conceptualize and organize a citizens' parliament?” with the approach of Participatory Action Research (PAR). It is designed as a practical guide for the implementation of the CPs and for the subsequent data analysis in view of MeDeMAP tasks 6.3 (Analysis of the sessions and final decisions of citizens’ parliaments) and 6.4 (Evaluation of PAR research). D6.2 corresponds to MeDeMAP Task 6.2 “Implementation of Citizens' Parliaments in the local context of the countries covered”. As specified in the Grant Agreement p. 28, “the design (is) based on results of Task 6.1 and reflection on components of the PAR cycle (Participation Action Research cycle)”. Besides the lessons learnt from the Research Report on Successful Practice of Policy Development with Citizens’ Parliaments in Europe (Deliverable 6.1) concerning the design of CPs, the content of the CP sessions draws on the results of the other MeDeMAP packages. This document includes guidelines and also descriptions of steps that have already been implemented by the WP6 partners. A large part of the corpus consists of annexes, hence the hybrid form of what is not a report but a pilot document. Part 1 presents organizational steps to follow before the implementation. Part 2 focuses on the implementation stage with its learning phase and facilitation. Part 3 provides indications for the research design for data collection and analysis. The annexes compiled with the contribution of CU, OEAW, MIC and MI are intended to present guidelines (e.g. expert briefing, learning objectives, research questions) or offer some models, such as the CP scripts of COMMIT and CU. MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 6 1 CP design and organization As specified in the Grant Agreement, the design of the CPs is based on the results of Task 6.1, i.e. the Research Report on Successful Practice of Policy Development with Citizens’ Parliaments in Europe (Deliverable 6.1) and on reflection on components of the PAR cycle outlined in Carpentier & Wimmer (2024a). The content of the CP learning phases of the CP sessions draws on the results of the other MeDeMAP packages. After reviewing historical models and good practices of citizens' parliaments in Europe, Deliverable 6.1 recalls that current CPs are a hybrid construction, borrowing features from different models. As stated in the OECD comparative study conducted in 2020 on nearly 300 cases (organized or initiated by public institutions) „the process of choosing and tailoring the most appropriate representative deliberative model for a given context, level of government, phase of the policy cycle, and policy issue at hand is a creative one, with opportunities to combine features from different models “. The international organization further underlines that “it is of essence to ensure that all fundamental phases of a representative deliberative process are preserved: learning, deliberation, and developing informed collective recommendations” (OECD, 2020, p. 62). The design proposed in D6.2 builds on the lessons presented in section 3.4 of D6.1, and is also inspired by the quality standards developed over the last thirty years and resumed as 'principles' in OECD (2020). These lessons are recalled throughout Part 1 of this deliverable. The main recommendations and also the constraints of the MeDeMAP CPs can be briefly recalled here. Constraints: The topic of Media and Democracy is complex; the budget is tight; the CPs will be a socio-political action embedded in a specific local context and at the same time a scientific experience whose process and results must be comparable; both the process and the data collection must follow a participatory approach. The main quality criteria advocated by OECD (2020) are o The CP should include the following phases: a learning phase with experts; a deliberation phase, a phase dedicated to the adoption of the outcomes, a closure. o It should have a purpose related to a public issue; o The process should be transparent o The recruitment of participants should achieve representativeness and inclusiveness; o Sound group deliberation should be ensured Furthermore, the OECD estimates that four days is the minimum for a CP on a complex topic “to allow citizens adequate time and resources to develop considered and detailed collective recommendations” (OECD, 2020, p. 34). 1.1 The national project teams Unlike large citizens' assemblies with a generous budget, where many teams have different duties and functions (DemocracyNext, 2025, 3 January), the WP6 partners are both the commissioner and the operator. With the help of the Support group/Advisory board, they will MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 7 plan and implement the communication, control the content and format of the learning phase and participate in the facilitation. Data collection and analysis will also be carried out internally by the WP6 partners. The project team will also be the point of contact for participants, for the support group and for external contacts. It's important to define the roles of the team members in advance. A distinction should be made between organizational and facilitation tasks and the task of monitoring the process as a whole. Main tasks and human resources involved - Two facilitators: a main facilitator and a second facilitator (or more) - Two observers: Each of them in charge of compiling field notes for one research question - Team members responsible for logistics - Team members responsible for collecting data and uploading documents to the CP platform - Team members responsible for blog posts - Team members responsible for transcription, analysis and writing of national report Facilitators: The plenary and small group discussions will be facilitated by two people (or three in Ireland), a main facilitator (also called moderator in some annexes) and a co-facilitator. In Austria and Slovenia, the main facilitator will be a professional hired for the occasion, while in the Czech Republic and Ireland, it will be an experienced team member. The tasks of presenting content issues or reminding the participants to consult the documentation or fill out the feedback survey, express opinions of confirmation or dissent, etc. will be done by a WP6 team member. Observers: There will be two observers in the room with no role other than ethnographic observation. They will focus on collecting data in the form of field notes for the two research questions. CU will train the observers online on 25 February 2025. Apart from the field notes by the observers, team members are responsible for other data collected during and after the CPs, i.e. the final resolutions; posters and flip charts (in some cases including drawings from graphic reports); minutes of the CP meetings; audio recordings; online surveys and interviews with a selection of participants (after the end of the CP). There will be no video recording. Team members are also responsible for selective transcripts of the audio recordings, the analysis and the writing of the national report (see section 3.3). 1.2 Structure and content of the CPs The CP sessions will take place on four Saturdays between March and May 2025, followed by a presentation of the results at the national level in June. In each session, a targeted number of 20 citizens will learn, deliberate and decide on resolutions. MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 8 Each CP session will be devoted to a topic: - CP1: Media and Democracy and overview of the CP objectives and process - CP2: Media systems and media regulation - CP3 or CP4: Representation in the media - CP3 or CP4: Participation in/through the media More details of the content can be found in the Learning Objectives in Annex 2. They are based on lessons learned from other MeDeMAP packages. There were two main options for the structure of the process: Option 1: To go through all the topics from the beginning, with the first session dedicated to learning, followed by day sessions for deliberation and later sessions for decision-making. It would have been more difficult for citizens to focus with the same depth on a topic and there would have been no iterative path between the phases of learning, reflecting, deliberating and adopting resolutions. For these reasons, the option adopted is a script structured around the topics. Each day session will be devoted to one topic. Following a PAR approach as outlined by Carpentier & Wimmer (2024a), each session will follow the same common thread: check-in & introduction, learning phase with expert inputs and inputs from MeDeMAP, reflection on the learning, deliberation on (CP1)/refinement of (CP2,CP3, CP4) topics to prioritize, draft of resolutions (for CP2,CP3, CP4), adoption of resolutions (CP2,CP3, CP4). This allows for a smoother circular relationship between the learning, deliberation and adoption phases. A facilitation team will guide participants through these stages, alternating between small groups and plenary sessions. 20 citizens 2-3 moderators, 2 observers, experts 4 Sessions on Saturdays March-May 25 (Dates for CP Austria) 1. Sat. 22.3: Media & Democracy 2. Sat. 5.4: Media systems & media regulation 3. Sat. 26.4: Participation in and through the media 4. Sat. 17.5: Representation in the media and Closure Sequences Check-in and presentation CP1: Presentation of MeDeMAP. Presentation of CP: objectives, agenda and topics. CP2, 3,4: Check-in and objectives for the day. Introducing the experts. Learning phase Expert inputs, Videos, Q&A Reflection on learning and (re)defining the sub-topics Small groups work to define the subtopics to be addressed. Experts are available for further questions. MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 9 Draft of resolutions Small groups draft resolutions. Resolutions are refined. Resolutions adopted in plenary. Wrap-up, check-out & info on follow-up Participants are informed about follow-up and about the survey and expression of approval/disapproval to be completed on the CP platform. (CP4 information on national presentation event in June 2025 and European presentation in Brussels 2026) After the CPs National event (June 2025) Presentation of resolutions/recommendations to media and political stakeholders and to the broader public European event (January or February 2026) Presentations as part of WP7 dissemination in Brussels (participation of 2 citizens per national CP) 1.3 Participants WP6 partners aim to recruit 20 participants for each CP by the end of February 2025. A higher number should be selected to create a reserve list (see Annex 14 Methodological guidelines). The German foundation Bertelsmann Stiftung (2025) advises to start recruiting at least six weeks before the event and to over-recruit by almost 15% to ensure the final participation of the expected number of participants. A preselection of 23 to 25 applicants should ensure to retain 20 participants on Day 2 of the CPs. The three main steps are information, recruitment and selection of participants and, at a later stage, consolidation of the list of participants and obtaining their consent for data collection. • Recruitment and information Recruitment forms: WP6 partners have the option of recruiting from the focus groups established for WP5 and/or through a call published on their website and with the help of their local partners (members of the support group and other stakeholders) or they can also recruit the participants through an agency. In any case, WP6 partners should issue a letter of invitation or launch a call with information on the purpose of the CP, its context (local and MeDeMAP research project) and its organization (venue and dates). The call should emphasize the benefits for participants (a participatory experience in policymaking, co-creating resolutions on the future of media and democracy, meeting and learning from experts, and the benefits of allowances). - Call online: COMMIT and MI have set up an application form online (see COMMIT Application form, MI Application form). CU and MIC have created a webpage promoting the call (see CU webpage, MIC webpage), while applications should be addressed to their teams by mail. In all cases, a team member acknowledges applications and informs the applicants about the next step, as applicants will be asked to complete a selection questionnaire. MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 16 2 weeks WP6 Partners Recruitment of participants Individual calls or meetings of/with selected participants (COMMIT info meetings face to face 3.3, online 10.3) 2 weeks WP6 Partners Communication/Blog First blog post (post in English for WP6 blog curated by COMMIT / WP6 partners on own blog or social media in local language) 2 weeks WP6 Partners Participants/ Research Prepare national page for CP Platform After CP1 (15.3 or 22.3) WP6 Partners Organization List of participants on CP Platform. Consent forms collected. Remarks - Consent Forms: It is recommended to already communicate the criteria for consent with CP applicants when sending out the selection questionnaire. The final versions of the consent forms will be ready for signature at the beginning of CP1. - Training videos: COMMIT will make the three training videos (Media Systems, Media Representation and Media Participation) available as part of the learning material on the CP platform and on the Austrian community TV “DORFTV” for communication to a wider public. The videos will remain online for the duration of the project. MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 17 2 CP implementation COMMIT and CU have designed detailed scripts shown in Annexes 4 and 5, which can be used as models. The common CP design follows mandatory sequences with common mandatory elements described in 2.1.1. • Summary of the 4 days sessions (CP walkthrough, extract from the Methodological Guidelines, October 2024) Day 1 Arrival and get-together Host welcome, check-in, overview of the CP’s process Participants agree on CP objectives & procedures, and establish discussion rules Learning phase: Introduction to the main theme and the 3 topics, Q&A session. Discussion on the sub-topics for each of the three topics (output: three lists of sub-topics). Wrap-up & outlook for the next meetings Day 2 Arrival and get-together. Learning phase: topic 1 (Media systems) Confirming list of sub-topics for topic 1 (or modifying it) Deliberation: Discussion & development of proposals Decision-making: Voting on the resolutions/recommendations Wrap-up & outlook for the next meetings After Day 2 Creation of Minutes, with all resolutions Online opportunity for dissenting opinions Day 3 Arrival and get-together. Learning phase: topic 2 (Participation in the media) Confirming list of sub-topics for topic 2 (or modifying it) Deliberation: Discussion & development of proposals Decision-making: Voting on the resolutions/recommendations Wrapup & outlook for the next meetings After Day 3 Creation of Minutes, with all resolutions/recommendations Online opportunity for dissenting opinions Day 4 Arrival and get-together Learning phase: topic 3 (Representation in the media) Confirming list of sub-topics for topic 3 (or modifying it) Deliberation: Discussion & development of proposals Decision-making: Voting on the recommendations/resolutions Face-to-face opportunity for dissenting opinions CP wrap up and conclusion National event (June 2025) Presentation of resolutions/recommendations to media and political stakeholders and to the broader public European event (January or February 2026) Presentations as part of WP7 dissemination in Brussels (participation of 2 citizens per national CP) MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 18 2.1 Framework for the CP script 2.1.1 CP Script: mandatory components Both the COMMIT and the CU CP scripts (Annexes 4 and 5) serve as models to be adapted, but WP6 partners are expected to follow the following mandatory steps: - Check in and check out with the participants at the beginning and end of each CP session - At the end of the day: Indications for participants for the next CP session (documentation available, expression of approval/dissent, short feedback survey on CP platform). Availability of the team to help access CP platform. - The experts have been briefed on the learning outcomes, on the audience and on the input format and have received the links to the videos. The role of an expert can also be fulfilled by an expert member of the national team. Day 1: - Agreeing on the CP’s objectives, procedures and discussion rules - Learning stage with experts’ inputs: The theme “Media and Democracy” will be presented according to the learning objectives, as a basis for the participants' deliberations. The inputs are followed by Q&A or a deliberation session where experts are available. Two options: presentation of the videos and one or two expert presentations OR the team make sure participants have watched the videos before the CP. In that case, the experts and the team can answer questions related to the videos’ content. - Outcome of CP1: Establishment of a preliminary topic list for the three topics. Day 2, 3 and 4: - CP days order: The order of processing the topic “representation in the media” and “participation in and through the media” on Day 3 or Day 4 might differ. COMMIT will have “participation in and through the media” on Day 3. CU and MIC will have this topic covered on Day 4. - Learning stage with experts’ inputs (and one video), followed by Q&A and/or deliberation session on inputs where experts are available. Establishment of final subtopic list: - Refinement of sub-topic list of the day (suppression, addition, refinement). (Small groups, topic café with several rounds) - Adoption of refined list in plenary - Prioritization of topics of final list (i.e. dot-voting) Draft and adoption of resolutions: - Participants are divided into small groups to develop resolutions on clustered sub-topics (action café, rotation tables with 3-5 rounds, see scripts) with support from the moderators for drafting MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 19 - Presentation of resolutions for confirmation/veto/amendment - Adoption of resolution Day 4: same sequences as Day 2 and Day 3 with additional closure sequence and “celebration” - CP wrap up, information regarding the presentation of results before checking out. - Celebration For further details, refer to the COMMIT and CU CP scripts in Annexes 4 and 5, respectively. 2.1.2 Activities between and after the CP sessions Activities between CP1 and CP2 Activities Start End Description Material outcomes Tech./Mat. Needs Blog post 2 After CP session 1 Post in English for WP6 blog curated by COMMIT/on own blogs or social media in local language Blog post to disseminate on social media COMMIT WP6 blog and EPALE Minutes of CP1 After CP1 Uploaded 1 week after CP1 Brief factual minutes of CP process by national teams (focus on 3 subtopics list) Minutes uploaded on CP Platform CP Platform Short feedback survey After CP1 Published together with the minutes A very short survey online for the CP participants, about the experiences of CP1 Survey answers Survey form part of CP Platform Subtopics cleaning proposal After minutes are uploaded Before CP2 MeDeMAP national team analyses the subtopics and respectfully enhances quality, uploads it, and informs CP participants to read it Improved three lists of subtopics (to be refined in next CP sessions) CP Platform Activities after CP2, CP3 and CP4 Activities Start End Description Material outcomes Tech./Mat. Needs Blog posts 3, 4, 5 After CP session 2, 3 and 4 Posts in English for WP6 blog curated by COMMIT/on own blogs or social media in local language Blog post to disseminate on social media COMMIT WP6 blog and EPALE Minutes of last CP After last CP Uploaded 1 week after last CP Brief factual minutes of CP process by national teams (focus on 3 subtopics list) Minutes uploaded on CP Platform CP Platform MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 20 Resolutions uploaded After last CP Uploaded 1 week after last CP Each resolution is uploaded separately on confirmatory/dissenting section of the platform Resolutions separately uploaded on platform Resolution response on CP Platform Invitation to participants to express confirmatory/dissenting opinions One week after last CP Before next CP Participants are invited to express confirmation or dissent with resolutions on the platform. MeDeMAP team to assist. New opportunity for participants to reflect on topic and results Resolution response on CP Platform Short feedback survey After last CP together with the minutes A very short survey for the CP participants, about the experiences of last CP Survey answers Survey question part of CP Platform 2.1.3 Guiding questions for the four CP sessions The Art of Hosting method, which will be used for facilitation, recommends framing the main theme of a CP in the form of a question (called the "calling question"). This question embodies the purpose of the meeting and invites people to explore solutions together (Corrigan, 2009, p. 26). The Dutch foundation DemocracyNext (2023), which is committed to promoting citizens' parliaments, advises the following when framing the questions: - Think about what decisions the Assembly can influence to help solve the problem(s) - Involve stakeholders in defining the question - Find the balance between a frame that is too broad to result in useful recommendations and too narrow to miss a chance to generate new and helpful ideas For its part, Citizenlab (2022, p. 12), a platform specialized in assisting the organization of CPs, recommends breaking down the topic to allow for a “brainstorming about concrete measurable solutions” and suggest formulations such as “what could be done on the side of … to improve…”. Based on the MeDeMAP Learning objectives (see Annex 2) and on the questions addressed to media representatives in MeDeMAP Deliverable 4.3 on media production from the angle of political participation (Klimkiewicz, 2025), the following questions could be used to introduce the topics of each session: - CP1 Media and Democracy: How can media best serve democracy? What are the most important roles the media should play? - CP2 Media system & Media regulation: What characteristics must the media system have to best support democracy? What are the threats? What kind of regulation can help the media system support democracy? - CP3/4 Participation in and through media: How can greater participation in the media support democracy? What can more participation in the media look like? MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 21 - How can participation through the media facilitate political participation/support democracy? - CP4/3 Representation in the media: What are the conditions that support cultural/societal and political diversity in news coverage? 2.2 Facilitation The purpose of this section is to review the role of facilitation and to present some techniques and tools from the Art of Hosting that can be used during CPs following the model scripts. 2.2.1 Role of facilitation As noted in Report D6.1, a high-quality deliberative process prevails when - Facilitation ensures respect, mutual understanding, and equal access to expression, - Co-creation of solutions is achieved in small group and panel discussions. According to Krenzer & Socher (2024, p. 22), the role of facilitation is to ensure that - All participants have their say and express their points of view. - There is a pleasant, protected atmosphere and rules of discussion are followed. - Communication is respectful and at eye level. - The exchange is structured and leads to a result. Hence, facilitators must support respectful interactions, make sure all have equal chances to speak, and that any judgments made are based on evidence and careful deliberation (DemocracyNext, accessed 2025, January 3). • A participatory action research (PAR) approach Adopting a PAR approach in the CPs means that CP participants go through a circular process of learning, reflecting on that learning, developing solutions, and reflecting again in an iterative co-creation process, as expressed in Deliverable 2.2 for Work Package 2 (Carpentier & Wimmer, 2024a, p. 35). To ensure a PAR approach, WP6 partners have agreed that iteratively - CP members determine how many resolutions (approximately) the CP intends to make and set the rules for deliberation and adoption (agreement on the CP’s objectives, procedures and discussion rules on Day 1) Based on what - CP members decide which sub-topics to prioritize before deliberating and adopting resolutions After adopting resolutions after deliberation during the CP session - CP members will get the opportunity to express again approval or dissent or to give any feedback after the CP sessions on Day 1, Day 2 and Day 3 (online form on CP Platform) - And CP members will be involved in the research process through online surveys after the CP sessions, interviews conducted with a selection of participants (after the end of MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 22 the CP) and through a group feedback analysis after the production of the national reports. 2.2.2 Recommendations collected from guidebooks on the organization of CPs This section summarizes some recommendations from various guidebooks. Further references and resources on facilitation can be found in the References in section 4. • Introduction to purpose and walkthrough of the CP Usually, it is the role of the commissioner to welcome the CP members, and elicit the purpose of the CP, its expected outcomes, and what will be done with them. The facilitators introduce the agenda and often start with an icebreaker to get members to know each other (DemocracyNext, 2025, January 3). • Agreement on the CP’s objectives, procedures and discussion rules This can be introduced with questions like - What do we need to do to ensure we feel comfortable in our discussions? How can we support each other when this is not happening? - Drafting recommendations and voting: Criteria must be defined to help the facilitator manage time when it is difficult to reach consensus. “How can we manage to keep the discussion within the available time and come to results/resolutions at the end of each day?” - Drafting recommendations: Keep them short, aim at clarity and have the last version endorsed in plenary “Once the group has feedback, they can revisit their recommendations and make any changes. You should remind them that they do not need to write long and complex recommendations, their focus is on clarity of intent. It’s good practice to ensure you are continuing to mix the small writing groups so that the final words are owned by everyone rather than just a passionate small subset of the group.” (NewDemocracy/UN, p. 193) “Rewritten recommendations will need to be reviewed by the whole group to ensure their original intent has not been lost in the rewrite. This can be as simple as printing the recommendation and having them posted for feedback around the room.” (NewDemocracy/UN, p. 193) • Closing the CPs Facilitator: Allow reflecting on the process (each say a few words in a circle). “This is often a nice affirmation of the integrity of the process” reminds NewDemocracy/UN (p. 198) WP6 Partner: Wrap up the outcomes and inform about the follow-up: what will be done with the results, how they will be presented. Let CP members decide who will present the results at the national presentation. NewDemocracy/UN (p. 199) recommends that “Presentation to decision maker by participants The group should decide themselves who they think should present the final report. At most 3 MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 23 participants should give a quick speech re-capping the process and telling the story to decision makers. This is a powerful aspect of the process because it is a chance for everyday people to speak directly to decision makers on a topic that they have spent a lot of time learning and deliberating on. It conveys the ability of everyday people and gives additional weight to the recommendations in the report. “ Annex 6 presents facilitation tools and references that could be used for CPs. 2.3 The learning phase The learning phase aims to enable CP members to make an informed judgment before drafting and adopting resolutions. In large citizens' assemblies convened by public authorities, the number of experts is usually high and includes a mix of government speakers, independent experts, civil society representatives, and practitioners (Deutscher Bundestag, 2023, p. 9). As stated in report D6.1, the diversity of perspectives and completeness are the most important quality criteria concerning the content of the inputs. The learning phase in the CPs will be followed by a reflection on the learning before the participants prioritize the topics to be dealt with. The learning inputs will include training videos and expert interventions. One expert intervention will provide a broader overview of the issues at stake and a second expert intervention will provide a case study or examples. In the latter case, the expert can decide which type of media to address, but CP organizers should avoid that all case studies/examples are about one type of media. As it might be difficult to find practitioners with a good overview of the whole media landscape, this may lead to asking academics to present case studies. In practice, the choice will be restricted by the availability of experts. Transparency is another aspect advocated by the OECD (2020, pp. 118-119). Some learning documents should be promoted not only on the CP platform, which is only accessible to participants, but also on the national websites of the partners. The following documents will be available for participants on the CP platform: - MeDeMAP training videos on Media Systems, Media Representation and Media Participation on CP platform (also on the Austrian community TV “Dorf TV”); - Information materials prepared by the national teams (on their section of the CP platform); - A selection of relevant publications as background material. 2.3.1 Learning objectives The Learning objectives developed by CU and COMMIT are presented in Annex 2. This document has provided the common thread for the training videos. It also serves as guidelines for the briefing of the two experts on the expected learning outcomes. MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 24 2.3.2 Training videos The three MeDeMAP training videos, produced by CU and COMMIT with support from Lusofona and featuring interviews with WP leaders and team members from CU, JU and IULM, each present in about ten minutes the main learning points related to media systems, media representation and participation in and through media. They were guided by the learning objectives. The scripts and production were developed by CU and COMMIT. The WP6 partners all contributed to the translation of the subtitles into their own languages. The videos will be published by COMMIT on the CP platform and will also be available on the Austrian community TV "Dorf TV". These videos serve not only as learning material for CP participants, but also as reference material for experts. Another reference for experts is Democracy and Media in Europe by Carpentier & Wimmer (2024b), published as Open Access. 2.3.3 Expert briefing Concerning the experts’ presentations, the main recommendations gathered from interviews with CP organizers and CP facilitators for D6.1 and from guidebooks are: - Experts should have didactic skills; their contributions should be short and clearly formulated so that they can be understood by everyone (Handler, 2024); - CP members should be asked if they feel there are any gaps in the information (DemocracyNext, 2025 January 3); - Experts should be available for Q&A sessions (OECD, 2020, p. 37; Ingruber, 2024 and Handler, 2024); - Information packages should be accessible and include different types of documents like text, videos, podcasts or graphics (Handler, 2024). The expert briefing guidelines (Annex 3) aim to inform experts about the audience of the CP and the expected format of their contributions. 2.4 Communication and dissemination of CP national implementation and results, including D6.3 - Blog on CPs (M25-30) 2.4.1 Blog and guidelines for blog posts COMMIT has set up a CP blog https://medemap.commit.at/ that both communicates the national Austrian CP and has a subsection in English dedicated to the CPs of the MeDeMAP partners to publish the contributions of the WP6 partners as part of the third deliverable of WP6 (D6.3), see: https://medemap.commit.at/medemap-blog/. WP6 partners will each draft and provide at least 6 blog posts in English (max. 3000 characters, including one or two photos with credits), one before the start of the CPs, one after each session and one after the national presentation. WP6 Partners will send their blog posts by mail to [email protected]. Annex 9 provides guidelines for writing blog posts. MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 25 Partners may decide to create their own blog to inform and disseminate at national level in their local language. COMMIT will publish articles and blog posts also on EPALE, the European adult learning platform. WP6 partners are invited also to open accounts on EPALE and to share and support the EPALE posts with comments. 2.4.2 Dissemination at the national level Sensibilization of the public as an aspect of dissemination started already in November 2025 with the national calls to apply for participation in the Citizen Parliaments. This has been achieved so far via websites, posters or flyers but also by the use of social media platforms and newsletters by all partners. As an example for very large reach out might be seen the call for participation in Austria published in Vienna’s quarterly paper “Mein Wien” - with a circulation of 1.3 million copies, this magazine reaches every household in Vienna (see Annex13). CP resolutions and other outcomes of the CPs will be compiled in a "CP Results" document to be presented to relevant stakeholders at the national level by all WP6. A special role will play here the national events in June 2025, where the CP results will be presented and discussed with members of the citizen parliaments. Each partner will also use this event for presence on social media platforms and to reach out to stakeholders and a broad public. Each partner is responsible for setting up its detailed outreach plan and is encouraged to identify the best ways to reach out to decision-makers and interested groups to maximize the impact of CP decisions and outcomes. Potential stakeholders to be addressed are among others: • representatives of political parties – responsible for media and fundamental rights policy • media regulation authorities • representative organizations from the media industry including public service, commercial and non-commercial sector • Press and/or Media Councils • journalist unions • professional representatives of consumers and chambers of commerce • national UNESCO committees • NGOs active in the field of social justice, support for minority groups, Human Rights and Media Freedom • academic institutions active in the field of social science and media economy • adult education providers active in the field of Media Literacy Some of the stakeholders mentioned are already involved in the advisory councils which have been set up for each country. A supplementary way for dissemination might be the presence as speaker or panellist at cultural and educational events. MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 32 for MeDeMAP project. Grant Agreement 101094984. https://www.medemap.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2025/01/MeDeMAP-Deliverable-6.1_V1.0.pdf NewDemocracy Foundation & United Nations Democracy Fund. (2019). Enabling National Initiatives to Take Democracy Beyond Elections, Sydney: newDemocracy Foundation. https://www.un.org/democracyfund/sites/www.un.org.democracyfund/files/newdemocracyundef-handbook.pdf Nowak, Z. (2021, October 20). Communicating about Citizens’ Assemblies. Lessons from the Citizens’ Assembly in Poznan, Poland. https://medium.com/participo/communicating-aboutcitizens-assemblies-2ad0195541d9 OECD. (2020), Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/339306da-en Websites Bertelsmann Stiftung. Collection of Materials on “Random Selection and Invitation” – Document 2. (Accessed 2025, January 3). https://www.bertelsmannstiftung.de/fileadmin/files/Projekte/Demokratie_und_Partizipation_in_Europa_/Zusammenar beit_Europ_Ausschuss_Regionen/Example_of_recruiting_processe.pdf DemocracyNext. “Conditions for success”, Assembling an Assembly Guide. (Accessed 2025, January 3) https://assemblyguide.demnext.org/before-the-assembly#conditions-for-success DemocracyNext. “Facilitating learning and deliberation”, Assembling an Assembly Guide. (Accessed 2025, 3 January). https://assemblyguide.demnext.org/during-theassembly#facilitating-learning-and-deliberation GoVocal (former CitzenLab). How to create a communications plan for community engagement. (Accessed 2025, January 3). https://www.govocal.com/guides/how-to-create-acommunications-plan-for-community-engagement Experts interviewed Handler, Martina, Moderator of citizen parliaments, 16.10.2024 Ingruber, Daniela, Researcher, evaluator and moderator, 8.10.2024 MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 33 5 Annexes Annex 1: Questionnaires for applicants – COMMIT, CU, MI Annex 1a: COMMIT- -Bürger*innenrat Medien und Demokratie – Fragebogen für Bewerber*innen Wir freuen uns, dass Sie am Bürger*innenrat Medien und Demokratie in Österreich teilnehmen wollen! Für den Bürger*innenrat wollen wir eine möglichst diverse Gruppe an Teilnehmenden zusammenstellen, die die Vielfalt der österreichischen Gesellschaft abbilden. Ihre Antworten auf den folgenden Fragebogen werden uns bei der Auswahl helfen. Bitte beachten Sie, dass wir Ihre Bewerbung nur berücksichtigen können, wenn Sie den Fragebogen vollständig beantworten und am Ende abschicken. Die Informationen, die Sie in diesem Fragebogen zur Verfügung stellen, verwenden wir nur für die Auswahl von Teilnehmer*innen für den Bürger*innenrat Medien und Demokratie. Wir verwenden sie nicht für andere Zwecke und geben sie nicht an Dritte weiter. Der Bürger*innenrat Medien und Demokratie wird von COMMIT – Community Medien Institut für Weiterbildung, Forschung und Beratung im Rahmen des europäischen Forschungsprojekts MeDeMAP organisiert. Weitere Informationen dazu finden Sie auf unserem Blog unter: https://medemap.commit.at/ Voraussetzungen für die Teilnahme am Bürger*innenrat Medien und Demokratie Bitte beachten Sie: Der Bürger*innenrat Medien und Demokratie ist ein demokratisches Instrument, das Bürger*innen dabei unterstützen soll, Empfehlungen und Forderungen zu formulieren, die sich an die Politik und die Medien in Österreich richten. Daher können Sie nur teilnehmen, wenn Sie selbst keine politische Funktion in Österreich ausüben und Ihre Haupterwerbstätigkeit nicht im Medienbereich liegt (z.B. professionelle*r Journalist*in, Redakteur*in, Medienherausgeber*in). Aufgrund der Bedingungen des europäischen Forschungsprojekts müssen Sie für eine Teilnahme über 18 Jahre alt sein. Wenn Sie zur Teilnahme am Bürger*innenrat Medien und Demokratie ausgewählt werden, werden wir Sie darum bitten, eine Einverständniserklärung zu unterzeichnen, mit der Sie der Verwendung aller erhobenen Daten im Rahmen des Bürger*innenrats für die Zwecke der Forschung und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit im Projekt MeDeMAP zustimmen. Sie können diese Einverständniserklärung vorab hier einsehen: https://medemap.commit.at/einverstaendniserklaerung/ Bei Rückfragen und Unklarheiten wenden Sie sich bitte an COMMIT unter [email protected]. Ich bestätige, dass ich die Voraussetzungen für eine Teilnahme am Bürger*innenrat Medien und Demokratie erfülle. 1. Wie alt sind Sie? 18-24 Jahre 25-34 Jahre 35-44 Jahre MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 34 45-54 Jahre 55-64 Jahre Über 64 Jahre 2. Was ist Ihr Geschlecht? männlich weiblich divers / anderes Möchte ich nicht sagen 3. Was ist der höchste Bildungsabschluss, den Sie erreicht haben? Grundschulabschluss Mittelschule / Pflichtschulabschluss Lehre mit Berufsschule / Fachoder Handelsschule Höhere Schule mit Matura (AHS/BHS) Abschluss an einer Universität/Hochschule (Diplom/Bachelor/Master) Doktorat Anderer Abschluss (bitte beschreiben) .................................................. 4. Wo haben Sie Ihren Hauptwohnsitz? ......................................................................... 5. Welche Staatsbürgerschaft haben Sie? Österreichische Staatsbürgerschaft (seit der Geburt) Österreichische Staatsbürgerschaft (später erworben) Andere Staatsbürgerschaft: .................................................................... 6. Was ist derzeit Ihre Haupterwerbstätigkeit? (Sie können mehr als eine Option auswählen. Zum Beispiel: Selbstständig + In Ausbildung, usw.) In Ausbildung (Schule, Lehre, Studium) Angestellt Selbstständig Arbeitslos Haushaltsführend In Karenz In Pension Sonstige (bitte beschreiben) ________________ 7. Falls Sie erwerbstätig sind, was ist Ihre berufliche Tätigkeit? Falls Sie studieren, was ist Ihr Studienfach? .................................... 8. Wie interessiert sind Sie an den Nachrichten? MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 35 Sehr interessiert Ziemlich interessiert Nicht sehr interessiert Überhaupt nicht interessiert 9. Wie viel Zeit verbringen Sie im Durchschnitt an einem normalen Tag mit dem Lesen, Schauen oder Hören von Nachrichten? (Es spielt keine Rolle, welches Medium Sie dafür benutzen) Weniger als 10 Minuten 10-30 Minuten mehr als 30 Minuten, aber weniger als 1 Stunde 1 Stunde oder mehr 10. Haben Sie in den letzten 5 Jahren an einer politischen Wahl teilgenommen (z. B. gewählt)? Ja Nein 11. Sind Sie Mitglied einer politischen Partei oder einer politischen Bewegung? Ja Nein 12. Sind Sie in einer anderen politisch engagierten Organisation erwerbsmäßig oder auf Freiwilligenbasis tätig (z. B. NGO, Organisation der Zivilgesellschaft, aktivistische Organisation)? Ja Nein Wenn ja, in welcher Art von Organisation? (optional) ______________________ 13. Haben Sie in den letzten 12 Monaten an Demonstrationen, Protesten oder Petitionen (auch online) teilgenommen? Ja Nein Wie sehr stimmen Sie den folgenden Aussagen zu? Wählen Sie für jede Aussage eine Option aus. 14. Die Regierung sollte mehr Mittel investieren, um soziale und wirtschaftliche Ungleichheiten in der Gesellschaft abzubauen. Stimme voll und ganz zu Stimme eher zu Neutral (stimme weder zu noch nicht zu) MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 36 Stimme eher nicht zu Stimme nicht zu Ich weiß es nicht 15. Die Migration von Menschen aus anderen Teilen der Welt ist eine Bereicherung für die österreichische Gesellschaft Stimme voll und ganz zu Stimme eher zu Neutral (stimme weder zu noch nicht zu) Stimme eher nicht zu Stimme nicht zu Ich weiß es nicht 16. Wie viel Vertrauen haben Sie in die folgenden Institutionen, dass sie eine positive Rolle in der Gesellschaft spielen? Wählen Sie für jede Institution (Regierung, Medien, Wissenschaft) eine Option aus. a. Regierung Vollkommenes Vertrauen Einigermaßen Vertrauen Neutral [weder Vertrauen noch Misstrauen] Etwas Misstrauen Völliges Misstrauen b. Medien Vollkommenes Vertrauen Einigermaßen Vertrauen Neutral [weder Vertrauen noch Misstrauen] Etwas Misstrauen Völliges Misstrauen c. Wissenschaft Vollkommenes Vertrauen Einigermaßen Vertrauen Neutral [weder Vertrauen noch Misstrauen] Etwas Misstrauen Völliges Misstrauen Damit wir Ihre Antworten zuordnen können, bitte geben Sie Ihren Namen und Ihre E-MailAdresse an: Name: _______________ E-Mail: _______________ Vielen Dank, dass Sie den Fragebogen ausgefüllt haben! Wir werden Sie ab Mitte Februar 2025 über die Auswahl an Teilnehmenden für den Bürger*innenrat Medien und Demokratie informieren. MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 37 Annex 1b: CU - Czech Citizen Parliament on Media and Democracy – Survey questionnaire We appreciate your interest in joining the Czech Citizen Parliament on Media and Democracy! Filling out this questionnaire will help us to recruit participants for the citizen parliament. Please note that you are expected to answer all questions (leaving questions unanswered will not allow you to complete and submit the filled-out questionnaire). The organiser of the Czech Citizen Parliament on Media and Democracy is CULCORC, the Culture and Communication Research Centre at the Institute of Communication Studies and Journalism at Charles University, as part of the European MeDeMAP research project. You can find more information about the organisation of the Czech Citizen Parliament on Media and Democracy here: https://medemap.fsv.cuni.cz/op/ 1. What is your age? □ Less than 18 y/o □ □ 18-24 y/o □ □ 25-35 y/o □ □ 36-44 y/o □ □ 45-54 y/o □ □ 55-65 y/o □ Over 65 y/o 2. What is your gender? □ Man □ Woman □ Other □ Prefer not to say 3. What is the highest level of education you have completed? □ Elementary school □ Middle school □ High school □ University/ Higher education □ Master’s degree □ PhD □ Other (please describe) 4. Where do you live? (city, town or village) (if you live in different places, please add the location where you spend most of your time) ………………………………………………………………. 5. What is your current socio-professional status? (You can select more than one option. For example: Self-employed + student, etc.) □ Employed □ Self-employed □ Unemployed □ Student □ House person MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 38 □ On parental leave □ Retired □ Other (please describe) 6. If you are employed, what is your professional activity? 7. How interested are you in the news? □ Very interested □ Fairly interested □ Not very interested □ Not interested at all 8. How much time do you spend on average reading, watching or listening to the news on a typical day? (It doesn’t matter which medium you use.) □ Less than 10 minutes □ 10-30 minutes □ more than 30 minutes , but less than 1 hour □ 1 hour or more 9. Have you participated in any political elections (e.g. voted) in the last 5 years? □ Yes □ No 10. Are you a member of any political party or political movement? □ Yes □ No 11. Are you engaged in the activities of any other organisation (e.g., NGO, civil society organisation, activist organisation)? □ Yes. If Yes, in what kind of organisation? □ No 12. Have you participated in demonstrations, protests, or petitions (including online) in the last 12 months? □ Yes □ No How much do you agree with the following statements? Select one option for each statement. 13. Being Czech is the most important part of my identity. □ Completely agree □ Somewhat agree □ Neutral [neither agree nor disagree] □ Somewhat disagree □ Completely disagree □ I Don’t know 14. The migration of people from other parts of the world is enriching for the Czech society. □ Completely agree MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 39 □ Somewhat agree □ Neutral [neither agree nor disagree] □ Somewhat disagree □ Completely disagree □ I Don’t know 15. The world is already complicated enough, and it’s better that we maintain our traditional values and our traditional family and gender roles. □ Completely agree □ Somewhat agree □ Neutral [neither agree nor disagree] □ Somewhat disagree □ Completely disagree □ I Don’t know 16. Each one of us should focus on taking care of our lives and defending our own interests; the other people’s problems should not be our priority. □ Completely agree □ Somewhat agree □ Neutral [neither agree nor disagree] □ Somewhat disagree □ Completely disagree □ I Don’t know 17. We can overcome social problems, if we express solidarity to our fellow humans and help one another. □ Completely agree □ Somewhat agree □ Neutral [neither agree nor disagree] □ Somewhat disagree □ Completely disagree □ I Don’t know 18. Authorities and institutions have the responsibility to support our needs and help us solve our problems. □ Completely agree □ Somewhat agree □ Neutral [neither agree nor disagree] □ Somewhat disagree □ Completely disagree □ I Don’t know 19. We can trust other people to support our needs and help us solve our problems. □ Completely agree □ Somewhat agree □ Neutral [neither agree nor disagree] □ Somewhat disagree □ Completely disagree □ I Don’t know 20. The taxes and contributions for high-income individuals and companies should be increased MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 40 to provide for public education, healthcare and pensions. □ Completely agree □ Somewhat agree □ Neutral [neither agree nor disagree] □ Somewhat disagree □ Completely disagree □ I Don’t know 21. Water, energy and main natural resources should be under state control. □ Completely agree □ Somewhat agree □ Neutral [neither agree nor disagree] □ Somewhat disagree □ Completely disagree □ I Don’t know 22. The government should invest more resources to reduce social and economic inequalities. □ Completely agree □ Somewhat agree □ Neutral [neither agree nor disagree] □ Somewhat disagree □ Completely disagree □ I Don’t know 23. The government should invest more resources on national security. □ Completely agree □ Somewhat agree □ Neutral [neither agree nor disagree] □ Somewhat disagree □ Completely disagree □ Don’t know 24. How much do you trust the following institutions, for their beneficial role in society? Select one option for each institution. a. Government □ Completely trust □ Somewhat trust □ Neutral [neither trust nor distrust] □ Somewhat distrust □ Completely distrust b. Media □ Completely trust □ Somewhat trust □ Neutral [neither trust nor distrust] □ Somewhat distrust □ Completely distrust MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 41 c. Science □ Completely trust □ Somewhat trust □ Neutral [neither trust nor distrust] □ Somewhat distrust □ Completely distrust 25. Please, write down your name and your contact information (email address or telephone number), so that we can reach you about the citizen parliament recruitment. Do note that if you do not provide this information, we will not be able to reach you and we cannot consider you a potential participant of the citizen parliament. Name: …… Email: ………. Telephone number :……… Thank you for filling out the questionnaire! We will get back to you in due time to inform you about the recruitment of participants for the Czech Citizen Parliament on Media and Democracy. The information that you provide in this questionnaire will be collected only for the purposes of recruiting participants for the Czech Citizen Parliament on Media and Democracy and will not be used for any other purpose nor will it be shared with third parties. All data related to the Czech Citizen Parliament on Media and Democracy is handled in compliance with GDPR. In case you wish to have your data removed or altered, or have concerns about stored data, please contact dr. Miloš Hroch at [email protected]. MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 48 2/ CP3 – case study media representations (20 minutes) Participants understand the role of media representation in democracy through a particular media-related example or case study. In particular, they understand: • the context of the case study and its specificity (and limits) • how this example / case study relates to issues of inclusion/exclusion, dignity, pluriform/reductionist representations and/or the representation of the political • how this example / case study relates to the political struggles over democracy and media (specifically related to the above-mentioned issues, and to the threats posed by reductionist representations and symbolic exclusions) 4. Expected learning outcomes for CP4: Participation in and through the media Participants are able to reflect on how participation in and through the media functions, how it is restricted and how the media could play a role in protecting and developing pro-democratic participation. 1/ CP4 – overview lecture media participation (20 minutes) and training video 3 (10-15 minutes) • CP participants understand: o what (media) participation is, what the difference between participation in and through the media is, how (media) participation is connected to power and ideology (and dominant actors), how there can be different participatory intensities in particular processes (ranging from minimalist to maximalist participation), and how more populist interpretations of media participation compete with approaches that allow for structural participation (e.g., through community media) o how the nature of (media) participation impacts on a democracy, with a focus on: ▪ the importance of voice and the right to communicate ▪ the limits that are imposed on voice, for instance, by how the diverse media infrastructures (and different types of media) function and the power centralizations embedded in them ▪ the importance of a democratic media culture (made visible through its performance in mediated communication) and its participatory ethics, and the role of mediation and curation to protect them o how the strong reduction of participatory intensities (through silencing and lack of recognition, and the frustration and disenchantment it causes), and the undermining of (always situated) knowledges by disinformation and propaganda can pose threats for democracy MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 49 2/ CP4 – case study media participation (20 minutes) Participants understand the role of media systems in democracy through a particular mediarelated example or case study. In particular, they understand: • the context of the case study and its specificity (and limits) • how this example / case study relates to issues of the right to communicate, the affordances of media infrastructures (and the different types of media), and/or a democratic media culture • how this example / case study relates to the political struggles over democracy and media (specifically related to the above-mentioned issues, and to the threats posed by strong limitations on participatory intensities and the undermining of (situated) knowledges through disinformation/propaganda) MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 50 Annex 3: Indications for briefing the experts This document briefly outlines the briefing instructions for the experts. • Information for experts The experts will be informed about the MeDeMAP project, the aims of the CP, the participants and the expected learning outcomes. Participants: 20 citizens from different socio-demographic and educational backgrounds with no previous knowledge of media and democracy. The participants will be asked to reflect on their needs to use the media in a way that supports more democracy and propose resolutions. Purposes: The aim is to provide participants with relevant knowledge to help them identify issues at stake on which they can develop resolutions. Videos: The three learning videos will be used not only as learning material for the participants but also as thematic orientation for the experts and should be shared with them. • Experts’ inputs as part of the learning phase The experts’ inputs conform part of the learning phase together with the learning videos and other information documents. Like in the videos, the topics covered by the experts are the three core themes addressed in the CPs: media system and regulation, media representation and participation in and through the media. The experts' contributions, videos and documentation aim to help participants make decisions based on informed deliberation. • Profile of the experts We propose having two complementary presentations in each session, with Expert 1 to provide a broad overview of the issues at stake (nonetheless with concrete examples and not just theory) Expert 2 to present cases that illustrate the day topic (narrowing the lens). The cases should deal with different types of media. Team members can also take on the role of experts if this makes sense in terms of content. In general, a gender balance of experts is recommended. • Tasks of the experts 20 min. input: The experts should give an input of about 20 minutes (up to 30 minutes for Expert 1 on Day1), addressing the issues described in the learning objectives below in a didactic and lively way for an audience of uninformed citizens. The presentations should be easily understandable for all participants, didactic and illustrated with concrete examples. Availability for Q&A: Experts will be asked to be available after their presentation either for a Q&A session or for answering questions from the small groups working on the subtopic lists for about 1.5 hours. Short note with key points: Experts will be asked to provide a short abstract of their presentation or slides with comments (max. 2 pages). Technical setting and material: The experts should be informed about the setting of the room. They should be asked to communicate their presentation in advance and indicate what technical equipment they need (beamer, flip-chart, etc.). MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 51 Annex 4: Model CP-script COMMIT CP Script COMMIT 06.02.2025 When How long Purpose What Details CP 1 Presentation of the CP on Media and Democracy. Agreement on purpose and process. Introduction to main theme. Preparation of the room Setting the room. Technical check. Control of material. Check-in team. chair circle/group tables. name tags... 9.30 AM Arrival of participants and get together 10:00 AM 5 min Start and welcome Welcome & orientation Welcome by MeDeMap team. Call to participate 10:05 AM 10 min Presentation of facilitation. Presentation of observers 10:15 AM 30 min Check-in Emotional and cognitive arrival in the room. All voices heard. Speed dialogs on 3 questions with 3 different people OR line-up according to criteria and discussion of impulse questions: e.g. socio-demographic/ preferences/ content-related OR short exchange at the tables (if tables). Possible questions: Why did you decide to take part? how long did you think about taking part? ...which media you consume regularly/ how you inform yourself ...where do you live (country - city), ...pets, ...etc. 10:45 AM 10 min Agenda & how do we want to work together Faciliation presents agenda. Facilitation presents frame for discussions. Framing/attitude: openness and curiosity; accepting and exploring differences and different perspectives => getting smarter together, helping each other to think, and naming differences. 10:55 AM 10 min Orientation: What is MeDeMap? Theme and 3 topics. What is a CP? -- >Participants know the purpose of the CP and the structure; participants understand that their contributions are valued; participants understand their role. Input from MeDeMAP team: - Overview of research project & purpose, - why is this topic important? - why do we need the CP? - what is our invitation to the participants? Beamer: PP with core information, CP sequence, key question(s). max. 4-5 slides CHECK: who makes the input? 11:05 AM 10 min Q&A Small groups (SG) discussing questions (5') asking questions (5') Documentation MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 52 CP1 11.20 AM 40 min Rules for co-creative discussions -->safe space for open and respectful communication Introduction (5') Group work: establish conversation rules (20') - 2 groups - each group collects their “Yes” and “No” (max 4-5) - write on moderation cards - collect cards on pinboard and compare (15') - Have them agree in turn in the circle Hand out moderation cards. If table groups: 2 tables 12:00 20 min BREAK 12:20 25 min Learning phase 1 -->Participants have basic knowledge about “Media and Democracy" Main input / overview on Media & Democracy Beamer. Expert has been briefed. 12:45 15 min Small groups discussing questions (5') asking questions (10') 13:00 60 min LUNCH Preparation of the tables & materials for World cafe 4 pinboards for main themes and sub-topics 14:00 60 min Learning phase 2: introduction to sub-topics -->Participants have an overview of the 3 topics. They have information about the relevance of the topics for their own lives and democracy. 3 inputs of 10', each followed by 10' Q&A Check who makes the inputs. Beamer? Handouts? Notepads for participants 15:00 85 min Mindmap of questions --> Participants process all inputs and develop first ideas for questions they want to work on in during CP for all 3 subtopics. (Result: first mapping of work topics) Introduction to World Café (10'). 4 topic tables. 3 rounds. Table host stays at table. Other participants rotate. Round 1: "What do you think about media & democracy (and subtopics 1, 2, 3) now?". What issues do you care about? (25') Round 2: "What questions or issues would you like to work on?" (25') Round 3: repeat question 2 and harvest (25') 4 tables with large table sheet. A4 sheets for collecting results. Pens. Prepare harvest sheets with instructions on how to formulate topics 1) Topic: What do you want to work on/what issues do you want to address? 2) Why is this topic important to you? Option 1: Limited number of sheets. 3 sheets/table = 12 sheets Option 2: as many sheets as needed, then prioritize 16:25 20 min BREAK Table hosts prepare presentation of results with sheet of papers to stick on pin walls. 4 pin walls with titles MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 53 CP1 16:45 45 min Presentation of results (lists of subtopics). Priority setting -->Participants have established a list of topics for which they want to develop recommendations Introduction Step 1: - 4 table hosts present the results of their table (4x3' = 12') - Harvest sheets are collected and pinned to topic pinboards. Clustering by MeDeMap team (approx. 8') Step 2: Prioritization of subtopics (25') - participants are given sticky dots: “In your opinion, what are the 5/7/9 (?) most important topics for which the CPshould develop resolutions?” - Participants stick their dots on pinwall - count, write down the total Sticky dots distributed to participants CHECK: how many dots? 17:30 30 min Wrap-up and check-out --> cognitive and emotional closing. Information on next steps. Outlook for the next meetings Next steps and organizational information (MeDeMAP Team) Check-out: one sentence per person “What do you take away from the first CP?” 18:00 End of CP1 When How long Purpose What Details CP2 & CP3 10 Preparation of the room and team check-in Setting the room. Technical check. Control of material. Table groups (4 tables with 5 people each) 9.30 AM Arrival of participants and get together 10:00 AM 10 min Start and welcome Welcome from MeDeMAP and from facilitation 10:10 AM 15 min Check-in Emotional and cognitive arrival in the room. All voices heard. Speed dialogs? 10:25 AM 50 min Learning phase: Input on media systems and regulation (or on topic 2) -->Participants have enough knowledge to develop resolutions Presentation of videos and experts by MeDeMAP team (5') Video on topic. (10') Expert input (overview). (20') Expert input cases. (15') Beamer. Experts have been briefed. Q&A MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 54 11:15 AM 1520 min Small groups discussing questions (510') asking questions (10-15') 11.35 AM 15 min BREAK Preparation of the pin walls/ flip charts with subtopic list from CP1 2 more chairs for experts. CP2 & CP3 11:50 40 min Enhance and refine subtopic list 1 (or 2) => final list of working questions for subtopic Intro: Recall results of CP1 (10') Work in 3-4 small groups (30') - “What questions do you want to work on after listening to the inputs?” - Each group identifies 4-5 topics and writes them on moderation cards Experts remain in the room and are available to answer questions, but do not actively participate in discussions at the tables. Moderation cards, pens Table moderation for 3 groups, otherwise instructions for participants 12:30 30 min Presentation of the new questions for subtopic 1 and clustering Introduction - Each SG presents its topic suggestions (5'/group) - all cards are collected and put up on a pin board (clustering by MeDeMAP Team) Approx. 20 new topics (controlled by allocation of moderation cards) 13:00 20 min Prioritization and allocation of working groups --> list of topics is fixed Introduction - Participants receive sticky dots and stick them on - count, write down sums - put the list of topics in the appropriate order Distribute sticky dots Check: decide in advance if participants choose a cluster of their choice for afternoon or are assigned during the lunch break 13:20 60 min LUNCH If needed, finish clustering and find cluster names (MeDeMAP team) Either a) Participants stick their names to a cluster => (new group distribution, same size) b) Allocation of participants according to heterogeneity of groups) Important: equal distribution number of topics/table! MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 55 14:20 90 min Drafting resolutions Introduction: explanation of procedure incl. how to deal with disagreement (10´)Work in 3 Small groups (SG) of 67 people (40')Objective: develop 3-4 recommendations, write on cards (important: complete sentences)Determine SG speakerGroup moderation.- Ritual dissent/ feedback through neighboring table (15'): SG speaker goes to a neighboring table, presents recommendations and listens to feedback on themIntegration of the feedback (30'): SG speaker tells own home group the results, SG incorporates them to improve recommendations: What is new? What are we going to ignore? What do we take into account? Template for recommendations and template for dissenting opinionsto decide: a) 3 "large" groups with table moderation or 4 parallel groups => self moderation, instructions. (Moderators as troubleshooters)CHECK: what happens if there is no consensus?Suggestion => what needs to change for you to participate? (consensus)=> If no solution is found, the resolution is dropped. Ritual dissent: if logistically/timely possible, feedback from mixed tables 16:00 20 min BREAK All suggestions are put up on pinboards SG speakers prepare for presentation CP2 & CP3 16:20 30 min Presentation of resolutions Introduction - SG speakers present the results of their groups (with 3-4 recommendations each = max. 16 recommendations) - Comprehension questions Decision about proposed recommendations - confirm - veto/ majority vote? if no consensus then majority vote plus dissenting opinions. (qualified majority vote?) Pin walls and pins 16:50 40 min Vote on resolutions Introduction - Presentation of the voting method - Participants receive sticky notes in two or three colours - Sticky notes for reasons for vetoes - Summary of results (what was accepted, what was rejected) MeDeMap: what are the requirements for voting? (simple majority/ qualified majority) green = approval/ affirmation red = veto Check: are all proposals accepted that do not have a veto (or vice versa) or should there also be abstentions? Add sticky notes for reasons for vetoes MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 56 17:30 30 min Wrap-up and check-out 10 Next steps and organizational information (MeDeMAP Team) Check-out: one sentence per person “What do you take away?” 18:00 End of CP2 / CP3 When How long Purpose What Details CP4 Subtopic 3 and closure 10 Preparation of the room and team check-in Setting the room. Technical check. Control of materials. Table groups (4 tables with 5 people each) 9.30 AM Arrival of participants and get together 10:00 AM 10 min Start and welcome Welcome from MeDeMAP and from facilitation 10:10 AM 15 min Check-in Emotional and cognitive arrival in the room. All voices heard. Speed dialogs? 10:25 AM 50 min Learning phase: topic 3 -->Participants have enough knowledge to develop resolutions Presentation of videos and experts by MeDeMAP team (5') Video on topic. (10') Expert input (overview). (20') Expert input cases. (15') Beamer. Experts have been briefed. 11:15 AM 1520 min Q&A Small groups discussing questions (510') asking questions (10-15') 11.30 AM 15 min BREAK Preparation of the pin walls/ flip charts with subtopic list from CP1 2 more chairs for experts. 11:45 40 min Enhance and refine subtopic list => final list of working questions for subtopic Intro: Recall results of CP1 (10') Work in 3-4 small groups (30') - “What questions do you want to work on after listening to the inputs?” - Each group identifies 4-5 topics and writes them on moderation cards Experts remain in the room and are available to answer questions, but do not actively participate in discussions at the tables. Moderation cards, pens Table moderation for 3 groups, otherwise instructions for participants 12:25 30 min Presentation of the new questions for subtopic 3 and clustering Introduction - Each small group presents its topic suggestions (5'/group) - all cards are collected and put up on a pin board (clustering by MeDeMAP Team) Approx. 20 new topics (controlled by allocation of moderation cards) MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 57 12:55 20 min Prioritization and allocation of working groups --> list of topics is fixed Intro - Participants receive sticky dots and stick them on - count, write down sums - put the list of topics in the appropriate order Distribute sticky dots Check: decide in advance if participants choose a cluster of their choice for aftrenoon or are assigned during the lunch break 13:15 60 min LUNCH If needed, finish clustering and find cluster names (MeDeMAP team) Either a) Participants stick their names to a cluster => (new group distribution, same size) b) Allocation of participants according to heterogeneity of groups) Important: equal distribution number of topics/table CP4 14:15 95 min Drafting resolutions Introduction: explanation of procedure incl. how to deal with disagreement (10´)Work in 3 small groups of 6-7 people (40')Objective: develop 3-4 recommendations, write on cards (important: complete sentences)Determine SG speakerGroup moderation.- Ritual dissent/ feedback through neighboring table (15'): Group speaker goes to a neighboring table, presents recommendations and listens to feedback on themIntegration of the feedback (30'): speaker tells own home group the results, SG incorporates them to improve recommendations: What is new? What are we going to ignore? What do we take into account? Template for recommendations and template for dissenting opinionsto decide: a) 3 large groups with table moderation or 4 parallel groups => self moderation, instructions. (Moderators as troubleshooters)CHECK: what happens if there is no consensus?Suggestion => what needs to change for you to participate? (consensus)=> If no solution is found, the resolution is dropped. Ritual dissent: if logistically/timely possible, feedback from mixed tables 15:50 15 min BREAK All suggestions are put up on pinboards Speakers prepare for presentation 16:05 30 min Presentation of resolutions Introduction - Speakers present the results of their groups (with 3-4 recommendations each = max. 16 recommendations) - Comprehension questions Decision about proposed recommendations - confirm - veto/ majority vote? if no consensus then majority vote plus dissenting opinions. (qualified majority vote?) Pin walls and pins MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 64 decide on which ones to add (same decision-making procedure) Morning 12:00 Prioritization of subtopics 20m Dot-voting (or dotmocracy) - The final subtopic list is projected on a wall (or one flipchart is used) -Each participant is given five dots, which they can stick to whatever subtopic they want (from 5 dots for one, to 1 dots for five subtopics) -Mods count the votes for each subtopic Projection on wall where people can stick dots Lunch 12:30 60m MeDeMAP Team creates ordered list on basis of votes Afternoon 13:00 Discussion subtopics and creation resolutions 60m World café (rotation model) -MM divides the participants in 4 small groups -The first four subtopics are allocated to one table each -Each small group rotates into these four subtopics -At a table, the first small group writes one (or two) resolutions (on a resolution form), on the table’s subtopic, clearly formulating “what needs to change (or be strengthened) for media to better serve democracy” -At the next iteration, the small group can adjust the formulation of existing resolutions, or add (only) one new resolution (as long as it’s (very) different) Resolution form (paper) MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 65 -there are five iterations, so each small group ends up at the table where it started 15m break MedeMAP team collects resolutions 60m Circle All resolutions are projected (or on a flipchart) and friendly amendments on particular resolutions can be proposed by an individual CP participant. A friendly amendment requires a (fairly) precise formulation from the person who proposes it. If no consensus about the amendment, there is a simple majority vote on which version (the original or the amended version) to select Projection Afternoon 16:00 Voting resolutions 30m Plenary voting - All proposed resolutions are projected on screen (or on a flipchart) - The MM organises a vote for each resolution, if there is no clear consensus (using the 2/3 majority, or other majority system agreed before) Afternoon 16:30 Wrap-up & outlook for the next meetings 30m Closing circle -Tour de table with short statements about what the CP participants take home - Briefing on next steps (online and next meeting) End 17:00 MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 66 Activity Start moment End moment Description Material outcomes Tech Needs After CP2 and before CP3 Minutes of CP2 After CP2 Published 1 week after CP2 Short (factual) minutes of the meeting, focussing on the resolutions and voting results Minutes uploaded on platform Platform Resolution upload After CP2 Uploaded 1 week after CP2 Each individual resolution is uploaded on the confirmatory/dissenting opinions section of the platform Resolutions seperately uploaded on platform Resolution response part of platform Invitation for confirmatory/dissenting opinions to CP participants One week after CP2 Before CP3 Participants are invited to go to the online platform to express confirmation or dissent with resolutions. If they have access problems, the MeDeMAP team will assist Communication to CP participants Resolution response part of platform Short feedback survey After CP2 Before CP3 A very short survey for the CP participants, about the experiences of CP2 Survey answers Survey question part of platform CP & Timeslot Activity Duration Description Material outcomes Tech Needs CP3 (media representations) Same structure as CP2 Activity Start moment End moment Description Material outcomes Tech Needs After CP3 and before CP4 Same structure as in-between CP2 and CP3 CP & Timeslot Activity Duration Description Material outcomes Tech Needs MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 67 CP4 (media participation) Same structure as CP2 except for the last session ( “Wrap-up & outlook for the next meetings”), which is replaced by: Afternoon 16:30 Wrap-up, thank you & and next (dissemination) steps 30m Closing circle -Tour de table with short statements about what the CP participants take home - Briefing on next steps: the national resolution presentation, the European presentation, … End 17:00 Activity Start moment End moment Description Material outcomes Tech Needs After CP4 Same structure as in-between CP2 and CP3 MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 68 Annex 6: Facilitation tools or techniques and references • Materials The following materials are recommended for facilitation of the CPs: - 2-4 flip charts plus paper - 4-6 bulletin boards (pinboards or surface for the posting of group results) covered with large paper, - Pins - Moderation Cards - Sticky Notes (post-it notes to stick on flip chart) - Markers and felt-tip pens - Scotch Tape - Name Badges • Some facilitation tools or techniques that could be used during the CPs Dialogue rules Chris Corrigan, an influential practitioner of the Art of Hosting has summarized the main principles for practicing dialogue (2004, p. 25). These are examples of rules CP participants might agree with: - Each member should have his/her say. (“Your opinion is important.”) - Suspend judgments and assumptions - Accept that divergent opinions are okay - Link and connect ideas Speaking and listening rules - Speak one at a time - Speak with intention. - Listen to each other with attention. (We do not interrupt each other.) - Listen together for insights and deeper questions Have fun! The circle and checking in and out (at the beginning and end of each session The circle format puts all members on an equal footing and encourages sharing. Leadership rotates among all circle members, responsibility is shared, the group is called to rely on wholeness rather than personal agendas. The circle is especially recommended for phases such as check-in and check-out, and for plenary discussions to reach consensus. (Corrigan, 2004, p. 30) MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 69 - “Checking in” at the beginning of each session allows for a smooth introduction and presentation of each member. - “Closing the circle” by "checking out" before ending the session provides a formal end to the meeting while giving each member an opportunity to reflect on the process and outcomes. How does it work? The circle host typically opens the circle with a gesture to indicate that the circle is about to begin. In the center of the circle are usually objects that represent the intention of the circle and can be used as "talking pieces”. A volunteer takes the initiative and passes the intention to his or her neighbor. If a person is not ready to speak, the turn is passed, and another opportunity is offered after others have spoken. The talking piece is passed from hand to hand. The person holding the piece is invited to speak and everyone else to listen. The Guardian: Having a circle member volunteer to be the guardian can be helpful in bringing the circle back to the intention. Setting: A room free of tables that can hold the group in a circle. Talking pieces can be placed in the center. Other tools: a gentle noise maker to remind people of the time or the end of the session. Speed dialogue Participants at a speed dialogue have a series of short one-to-one discussions with different partners (it gives the opportunity to have discussions with more people). The Pro-Action Café (topic café) - to establish first draft of 3 subtopic lists on Day 1 (afternoon) - to develop proposals on Day 2, Day 3, and Day 4 (afternoon) The Pro-Action Café technique encourages co-creation. As in the World Café, one participant hosts a table. The host briefly shares key insights, questions, and ideas with new table members, and then allows people to develop questions and suggestions. After participants have moved through the rounds, the harvest can be shared in plenary. In the Pro-Action Café, participants visit different tables in several rounds. Each table is dedicated to one topic. To create a dynamic flow of ideas, each round can focus on specific questions. MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 70 • References and resources for facilitating / The Art of Hosting Corrigan, C. (2020, January 4). The Four-Fold Practice, meeting design, and facilitation/3. https://www.chriscorrigan.com/parkinglot/the-four-fold-practice-meeting-design-andfacilitation/ Corrigan, C. Art of Hosting. (2012). The Art of Hosting. (informal guide for the Vancouver Island Aboriginal Transition Team based on material developed by the Art of Hosting practitioner's community). https://b-m-institute.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Corrigan-Art-ofHosting-Fieldguide.pdf Brown, J, Isaacs, D, et al. (2005). The World Cafe, Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter. Minnesota Communities Caring for Children. (2018). The Art of Hosting Conversations that Matter. Participatory Leadership Tools for Community Change. Workbook. https://familywiseservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Art-of-Hosting-Workbook.pdf Websites Art of Hosting. www.artofhosting.org Art of Hosting Ning. http://artofhosting.ning.com/ Chris Corrigan. https://www.chriscorrigan.com/parkinglot/facilitation-resources/ Videos Art of Hosting. https://artofhosting.org/resources-2/videos/ The Circle Way. https://www.thecircleway.net/resource-videos Art of Hosting Ning. http://artofhosting.ning.com/video/video/listFeatured Podcasts NewDemocracy is an Australian research organization focusing on citizens’ participation collaborating with local, national and international institutions for the organization of CPs. The podcast serie produced by Lyn Carson is particularly inspirational NewDemocracy. https://www.newdemocracy.com.au/category/library/podcast/ NewDemocracy. Episode 40: Reflecting on deliberation and valuable techniques with Kath Fisher - newDemocracy Foundation. https://www.newdemocracy.com.au/2021/01/04/episode-40-reflecting-on-deliberationand-valuable-techniques-with-kath-fisher/ NewDemocracy. Episode 23: Long-form deliberation – Perspectives from experienced and new facilitators with Kaela Scott and Dominic Ward - newDemocracy Foundation. https://www.newdemocracy.com.au/2020/08/05/episode-23-long-form-deliberationperspectives-from-experienced-and-new-facilitators-with-kaela-scott-and-dominic-ward/ MeDeMAP project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions under Grant Agreement No 101094984 71 Annex 7: CP Platform - Structure 72 Annex 8: CP Platform – Structure specs TITLE: The Citizens’ Parliament Platform (MeDeMAP) Structure, Specs Version 2.2 (17 February 2025, by JS and NC) BASIC INFORMATION • Citizens’ Parliament = CP • 4 CPs (CP1 to CP4) in each of the five countries: Austria, Czech Republic, Germany; Ireland, Slovenia • Only Germany: Online CPs Timetable: Country Place CP1 CP2 CP3 CP4 Public Event Austria Vienna 22.3. 5.4. 26.4 17.5 Czech Rep. different cities 15.3. 5.4. 26.4. 17.5 Germany online Ireland Limerick 22.3. 5.4. 26.4. 10.5 Slovenia Ljubljana 15.3. 29.3. 12.4. 10.5. Partners websites on CP-activities and useful information: • Austria https://medemap.commit.at/ • Czech Republic https://medemap.fsv.cuni.cz/op/ • Germany • Ireland • Slovenia Contacts: Josef.Seeth[email protected].at; Helmut Peissl [email protected]; Nico Carpentier [email protected]; Rosemary Day [email protected]; Brankica Petković [email protected] Additional country organizers: Czech Republic: Vaia Doudaki - [email protected]; Miloš Hroch - [email protected]; Štěpán Šanda - [email protected] LOCATION OEAW Server 73 ACCESS Organizers (Note: Country Organizers are the organizers of a national CPs) Participants Availability 28 February 2025 Entire duration of the project (28 February 2026) 15 March 2025 July 2025 (= 1 month after end of CP4) Access • Password-protected (individual PWs) • Email address (= username) must be provided; URL and PW are provided via email • Option to apply for a new PW (provision of new PW may take up to a day) User rights Not restricted Partly restricted to the • read (*), • download (**) and • fill-in (***) function Landing page Central landing page, • which gives access to the five national CP landing sub-pages, which gives access to the three main sections Redirected directly to ‘their’ national CP page (= one of the five landing sub-pages) in the national language (Czech, English, German, Slovenian), which gives access to the three main sections Redirect decided on the basis of login (name or email) 80 Annex 11: Overview of data gathering, analysis and dissemination Overview of data gathering, analysis and dissemination for Tasks 6.3/6.4 (and Task 2.4) By Andrea Sedlaczek and Nico Carpentier 18 January 2025 • Data to be collected in the CP process: o Final resolutions/recommendations adopted on each of the 3 topics (with votes and expressions of dissent) o Minutes of the CP meetings o Flipcharts and posters produced during the CP meetings o Audio recordings and selective transcripts of plenary discussions o Field notes (from ethnographic observers for T6.3 and T6.4) o Online surveys after each CP o Interviews with a selection of participants after the end of the CPs • Background: o D2.1 - Theoretical framework on democracy, participation and representation o D2.2 - Operationalization proposals for T6.3 and T6.4 o Analytical concepts developed in WP3, WP4 and WP5 deliverables • Methodology: o Participatory Action Research (PAR) to structure the project (and enrich CP) o Qualitative textual or discourse analysis for data analysis o Data-gathering methods: textual productions by the participants, transcription of audio recordings, ethnographic observation, interviews, surveys, group feedback analysis o Group feedback analysis as closing participatory research component • Analysis and outcomes: o National reports with two sections, one for each research question o Group feedback analysis of the national reports o Aggregated analysis in deliverable D6.4 (on basis of national reports, more section one) o Re-theorization in D2.4 (on basis of national reports, more section two) o Popularized / accessible version in D6.5 (Leaflets and online guidance on participatory media practices) o Academic and non-academic dissemination (see dissemination plan – still to be developed) 81 Annex 12: Indications for the CP observers’ training Citizen parliament observers’ training (v1) - CU 25 February, 9:00 – 15:00, online Please, read before the training: Carpentier, N., & Wimmer, J. (2025). Democracy and media in Europe: a discursive-material approach. Routledge. Carpentier N. (2016). “Beyond the ladder of participation: An analytical toolkit for the critical analysis of participatory media processes”, Javnost-The Public, 23 (1), p. 70-88. Main structure - Introduction to the project and to the WP6 research questions - Introduction to ethnographic research and methods - The setting of the citizen parliament – The role of observers in the citizen parliament - Unpacking the WP6 research questions for the observers  RQ1 - What to look for  RQ2 - What to look for - Observing and taking notes Research question 1: How do the citizen parliament participants envision the democratic roles of media in their recommendations/resolutions for future perspectives and in the processes leading to these recommendations? • Secondary research questions: a. What articulatons of the media’s democratic roles did the participants in the CP prioritise, which were omitted and which received only limited attention?  Reading: Carpentier & Wimmer (2025). Chapter 7. The Roles of (European) Media in Democracy (pp. 52-64) b. Which recommendations on future perspectives received consensus within the CP? Which future perspectives were the object of political struggle, and which ideological perspectives structured these differences?  Reading: Carpentier & Wimmer (2025). Chapter 8 Struggles over Media’s Democratic Roles (pp. 64-74) c. How balanced were the power relations that characterized the process of producing the recommendations of the CP? How was conflict handled during the process? How was collaboration achieved during the process?  Reading: Carpentier Nico, 2016, “Beyond the ladder of participation: An analytical toolkit for the critical analysis of participatory media processes”, Javnost-The Public, 23 (1), p. 70-88. Research question 2: How are democracy and media constructed in the participatory process of the CP? 82 • Secondary research questions: a. How is participation performed in the CP? Which (sub)processes are forms of minimalist / maximalist participation?  Reading: Carpentier & Wimmer (2025). Part 1. Democracy (pp. 5-41), focusing on pp. 11-13. b. How is democracy constructed in the CP? Which core components are accepted (or not), and how do the citizens in the CP position themselves towards the relevant political struggles and threats?  Reading: Carpentier & Wimmer (2025). Part 1. Democracy (pp. 5-41). c. How are media constructed in the CP? Which core components are accepted (or not), and how do the citizens in the CP position themselves towards the relevant political struggles and threats?  Reading: Carpentier & Wimmer (2025). Part II. Media and Democracy (pp. 44-95). 83 Annex 13: Examples of publications on the forthcoming CP in Austria, the Czech Republic, Ireland and Slovenia Annex 13a: CP in Austria - COMMIT • Article in daily newspaper Der Standard. 14. Februar 2025, 13:39. https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000257394/buergerinnenrat-ueber-medien-unddemokratie-sucht-noch-buergerinnen 84 • Article in monthly free newspaper of the city of Vienna. Mein Wien -01/2025 – reaching each household and available at info spaces of the town. 85 • Post card (©Verena Hochleitner) calling for participation shared as print and online version in Austria 86 Annex 13b: CP in the Czech Republic - CU For more publications see https://medemap.fsv.cuni.cz/op/news/ • Denik 17.12.2024 https://medemap.fsv.cuni.cz/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/IV-V.pdf 87 88 • Patek-Nedele 20.-22.12.2024 https://medemap.fsv.cuni.cz/wpcontent/uploads/2024/12/IV-V.pdf 89 • Dobrovolnik.cz18. 12. 2024 | https://archive.ph/kJ23l 96 Time frame and next steps 7.3.24 1st WP6-Meeting in Lisbon: presentation of WP6 goals and tasks 8.4.24 2nd WP6-Meeting on Zoom: presentation of core design features of CP and upcoming WP6 activities 14.5.24 Short questionnaire on national experiences with CPs sent to WP6 partners (objective: clarify national contexts in which CPs will take place & identifying stakeholders) 15.5.24 Rough cost categories for CP’s design sent to partners 7.6.24 3rd WP6-Meeting on Zoom: first findings on CPs’ design, main design features of our CPs, next steps 1.8.24 Initial methodological guidelines for CP design and organization 6.8.24 4th WP6-Meeting on Zoom 31.8.24 Replies to questionnaire expected to be submitted (from WP6 partners) 18-19.9.24 WP6-Meeting slots in Krakow (one closed, one open) End of September 24 Invite the members of the Support Group in each country. Identification & information of relevant stakeholders 12-14.11.24 WP6-Meeting in Vienna with training in AoH Oct. to Dec. 24 Recruitment of participants. Book CP locations (and accommodation & catering). Communication: Information of participants. Identify, book and brief external facilitator if needed. Invite experts for training. Finalizing training videos (with MeDeMAP experts, 12 minutes each). January-March 25 Confirm registration of participants Confirm experts’ participation Public communication advertising CP March-June 25 CP implementation Data collection June-Sept. 25 Data selection & translation. Production of national reports by WP6 partners (CP organisers). Autumn 25 Official presentation of CP recommendations (national level) End of project (Jan. Feb. 26) Participation of CP members in presentation in Brussels (part of WP7 dissemination) 97 Part 1: Citizens Parliaments and Participatory Action Research: definitions, features and principles This section presents elements that will feed into D6.1, the research report on successful practices of policy development with citizen parliaments in Europe. Citizens’ Parliament (CP) In academic literature, the generic term most often used is "deliberative mini-publics" or sometimes "citizens' assemblies". For our project, we will prefer "Citizens' Parliament" or CP, which is the term used in the Grant Agreement. Definition For Gąsiorowska, quoting Escobar & Elstub (2017), “(A) mini-public (is) an institution consisting of randomly selected citizens who are representative of their population with regard to different demographic characteristics (such as age, gender, ethnicity, education, etc.) and who deliberate on a given issue through facilitated discussion, on the basis of evidence and advocacy provided by experts” (Gąsiorowska, 2023, p. 2). Dahl, also quoted by Escobar & Elstub, emphasized the collective deliberation on public issues and defined “minipopulus” as an assembly of citizens, demographically representative of the larger population, brought together to learn and deliberate on a topic in order to inform public opinion and decision-making (Escobar & Elstub, 2017, p. 6). Podgorska, quoting Chambers and Curato, underlines the participatory process and its “impact on public policy-making by adding a civic perspective to the decision-making process” (Podgorska, 2024, p. 152). Main features The generic term “mini-public” encompasses all types of deliberative people assemblies, regardless of their size, duration, organization of meetings, facilitation and outcomes, including Citizens’ Assemblies, Citizens’ Juries or panels, Consensus Conferences, Planning Cells, Deliberative Polls, etc. Confusingly, the “mini-public” concept is also used for other types of (small) public gatherings, e.g., at public screenings, which is another reason why we prefer CP. According to the academic literature review done so far, a CP could be defined as - a forum of selected citizens who are representative of a population, - expressing an informed opinion on the basis of evidence and perspectives provided by experts, - a process of collective deliberation, - producing an outcome in the form of resolutions, recommendations or assessments on issues of public interest (e.g., media and democracy). 98 Overview of different CP models (draft for D 6.1) CP form History parti cipa nts Compact / over WE # days Stages Outcome Selection Addressee Citizen assembly 2002, Canada 100160 8-14 mo over WE 20-30 Learning/ information consultation deliberation adoption detailed recommen dations random + self selection public institution Citizens’ jury /panel (original) 1971, USA, Crosby 1226 compact 2-6 Learning/ information consultation deliberation adoption collective position report random selection sponsor mass media Citizens’ jury /panel Canada, Australia 3645 over WE 2-6 Learning/ information consultation deliberation adoption collective position report random selection + correction Citizens’ Council (Bürgerrat) Vorarlber g, Austria Jim Rough 15 compact 1-2 (information) consultation deliberation adoption Consensus Conferenc e 1987 Danish board of technolo gy 1025 compact over WE 7-8 10-30 Information deliberation collective position report random + self selection parliament mass media Planning cell 1970, Germany Dienel 100500 2550 compact 3-5 Information deliberation survey opinions collective position report random selection sponsor mass media Deliberati ve polls 1994, USA, Fishkin 100500 compact 2-3 Information deliberation survey opinions random selection sponsor mass media 99 Principles Based on the analysis of 300 representative deliberative practices (initiated by public institutions) the OECD (2020) has published a list of “Good Practice Principles for Deliberative Processes for Public Decision Making”, which are commonly retained in most practical guidebooks issued by associations supporting CPs. These principles are -Have a purpose: “The objective should be outlined as a clear task and is linked to a defined public problem. It is phrased neutrally as a question in plain language.” -Accountability: “There should be influence on public decisions.” -Transparency: The deliberative process should be announced publicly. The process design and all materials should be available to the public. The funding source should be disclosed. -Inclusiveness: Inclusion should be achieved by considering how to involve under-represented groups. -Representativeness: “The participants should be a microcosm of the general public. (…) In some instances, it may be desirable to over-sample certain demographics during the random sampling stage of recruitment to help achieve representativeness.” -Information: Participants should have access to a wide range of accurate, relevant, and accessible evidence and expertise. They should have the opportunity to hear from and question speakers. -Group deliberation: “Participants should be able to find common ground to underpin their collective recommendations to the public authority. This entails careful and active listening, weighing and considering multiple perspectives, every participant having an opportunity to speak, a mix of formats that alternate between small group and plenary discussions and activities, and skilled facilitation.” -Time: “To achieve informed citizen recommendations, participants should meet for at least four full days in person (…). It is recommended to allow time for individual learning and reflection in between meetings.” -Privacy: “There should be respect for participants’ privacy to protect them from undesired media attention and harassment, as well as to preserve participants’ independence (…). Small group discussions should be private. The identity of participants may be publicized when the process has ended, at the participants’ consent. All personal data of participants should be treated in compliance with international good practices, such as the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).” Source: OECD. (2020). Innovative citizen participation and new democratic institutions: Catching the deliberative wave. Highlights. Paris: OECD Publishing, pp. 9-11 100 Participatory Action Research (PAR) The use of PAR for WP6 is anchored in the Grant Agreement. The function of WP6, as defined in the Grant Agreement, is the one hand to create a thematic junction with other WPs (this junction is called “Supply meets demand”) and on the other hand to open up the research process to a wider public. For the implementation of the CP, the GA prescribes a PAR approach, which is defined as “an approach within the broad field of responsive science (…) based on open cooperative work and sharing of knowledge.” (Part B, p. 15). Giving a voice to concerned citizens within a research project is in itself a participatory practice, that is related to PAR, but PAR requires more. The philosophy of participatory action research is based on involving citizens in the research of which they are the subjects, so as (1) to make the most of their insights and (2) to involve them in the design and the decisionmaking process. How does PAR apply to the design and implementation of WP6 CPs? A PAR approach will impact WP6 in various ways: -The CP’s successive stages (learning, deliberating, adopting resolutions) should enable a circular and iterative process, following the PAR cycle of observing, reflecting, acting, evaluating and modifying; -Participants should, within the general framework of the CP theme and the three main topics (media systems, representation and participation in and through the media), be given the space to develop subtopics themselves. The participants will decide on the first day what kind of outcome (i.e. recommendations or resolutions) they want to achieve and what wording they prefer. The facilitation process should also have a participatory dimension; -We should not forget to try to add a participatory dimension to the recruitment of participants (engaging, e.g., the Support Group in the recruitment process). A circular and iterative modus As emphasized by CU in D2.2, PAR implies a circular and iterative modus and a focus on deliberation. Applied to the CP’s design, this means that the different stages (e.g. learning, deliberating, adopting resolutions, …) need to empower the participants, using the PAR cycles. We should be aware that this creates a tension with the limited time available (4 days). Facilitation should pay attention to the needs for iterative steps and space for deliberation, for instance when first formulating the proposed recommendations … while still respecting the tight time schedule. The opportunity for participants to express their dissenting opinions online after the CP sessions on days 2, 3 and 4 also creates a link with PAR. The most vital component, though, is the general CP time plan, where during day one, for each of the three main topics (structure, representation and participation), the participants will decide on the subtopics (which will then, most likely, produce the recommendations /resolutions according to the expected outcome they will have defined on Day 1). At the start 101 of CP days 2, 3 and 4 (which will each focus on one main topic), these lists of subtopics will be placed on the agenda again, and finalized (by the participants) in the morning sessions of days 2, 3 and 4. This will empower the participants to take control of the agenda as much as possible (within the main framework set by the WP6 team). Where and to what extent can participants be involved in the design process? As pointed out by CU in D2.2, there will be a tension between CPs purposes (adopting resolutions on three complex topics, within one general theme) and an extensive PAR approach involving the CP participants in the design process. Nevertheless, participation in and through the CPs will occur at several levels. Inclusiveness and participation in the CP process: -The Support Group should include representatives from diverse organizations, making suggestions for participants, but also giving feedback on the set-up. -The Art of Hosting facilitation method will ensure that all CP participants will be able to express their voice or request knowledge support and participate equally in the collective deliberation and adoption of resolutions. -Between meetings, participants should have the opportunity to provide feedback or express diverging opinions. (The minutes of the daily session, with the accepted resolutions, will be sent to the participants soon after each day session with a link to a form which enables them to express diverging opinions with particular resolutions, if they want to do so). The diverging opinions will be documented in an annex to the resolutions. -Participation in the reformulation of the topics discussed: As pointed out in D2.2 pp. 35-37, “Some of the key characteristics of the citizen parliaments in the original project proposal limit the number of themes that these meetings can handle” (for instance the number of meetings is set at four). Moreover, the choice of the three main topics (media systems, participation in the media, representation in the media) is guided by the results of WP2, WP3, WP4 and WP5, and had to be predefined. However, participants will need to be autonomous in deciding on the subtopics for each of the main topics, and on developing resolutions in relation to these subtopics. Other PAR aspects (and some additional limits): -While the rules for the procedures will be adopted by the participants, the walkthrough and the rules for adopting resolutions (qualified majority with expression of dissent) will be fixed beforehand. -The outcome of the CP in the form of the resolutions or recommendations adopted will be published and communicated. An advocacy system for their implementation will be set up, thus enabling participation through the CP. WP6 will support this process, at the national and European level. 102 -Respect for privacy: The participants will sign a consent form framing the use of their data and ensuring compliance with the GDPR during the process and follow-up stages. The collection of data for further analysis and the dissemination must respect their privacy, but also private deliberations (e.g. no video recordings of small groups, etc.). 103 Part 2: Practical design and steps This section presents elements that will feed into D6.2, Design of citizens’ parliaments. CP Design for WP6: main features What model for our CPs? The design of WP6 CPs will be tailor-made, taking into account our objectives and resources, as well as local contexts. It will consider the lessons learned from the evaluation reports of previous CP experiences and will borrow features from different models. Design features Details Number of participants 20 From focus groups & through open calls Number of sessions & duration 4 x 1 day sessions (8 hours/day including breaks) Meeting dates Between March and June 2025 If possible (according to local calendars) every 2-3 weekends. Preferably on Saturdays, avoiding holidays. Theme and Topics Main theme: media & democracy 3 topics: media systems (supply and regulation), representation in the media, participation in & through the media Subtopics for each of the 3 topics to be decided by participants Proposed walkthrough Day 1: CP rules of procedures, CP goals; learning phase: introduction to main theme and 3 topics, (first) drafting of sub-topics Day 2, Day 3, Day 4: learning phase (training & questions), confirming (or changing) sub-topics for the day 2 topic, deliberation, elaboration of resolutions/recommendations, adoption of resolutions/recommendations After Day 2 & Day 3: online opportunity for dissenting opinions (with accepted resolutions) Day 4: additional slots for (1) dissenting opinions, and (2) general CP wrap-up and conclusion Location(s) Physical space for deliberation in large and small groups. Accessible with public transport for all. Consider catering and overnight. 104 CP walkthrough more in detail Day 1 Arrival and get-together Host welcome, check-in, overview of the CP’s process Participants agree on CP objectives & procedures, and establish discussion rules Learning phase: Introduction to the main theme and the 3 topics, Q&A session. Discussion on the sub-topics for each of the three topics (output: three lists of sub-topics). Wrap-up & outlook for the next meetings Day 2 Arrival and get-together. Learning phase: topic 1 (Media systems) Confirming list of sub-topics for topic 1 (or modifying it) Deliberation: Discussion & development of proposals Decision-making: Voting on the resolutions/recommendations Wrap-up & outlook for the next meetings After Day 2 Creation of Minutes, with all resolutions Online opportunity for dissenting opinions Day 3 Arrival and get-together. Learning phase: topic 2 (Participation in the media) Confirming list of sub-topics for topic 2 (or modifying it) Deliberation: Discussion & development of proposals Decision-making: Voting on the resolutions/recommendations Wrapup & outlook for the next meetings After Day 3 Creation of Minutes, with all resolutions/recommendations Online opportunity for dissenting opinions Day 4 Arrival and get-together Learning phase: topic 3 (Representation in the media) Confirming list of sub-topics for topic 3 (or modifying it) Deliberation: Discussion & development of proposals Decision-making: Voting on the recommendations/resolutions Face-to-face opportunity for dissenting opinions CP wrap-up and conclusion Separate event (Autumn 2025) Official presentation of resolutions/recommendations at national level Presentation at European level (as part of WP7 dissemination) 105 Next steps in details Tasks to achieve until December 2024: - Anchoring CP’s objectives and identifying relevant stakeholders according to the local context - Constitute a Support Group - Recruitment of 20 participants - Information and communication on CP to stakeholders, participants and the public - Identifying experts and practitioners for the learning phase - Creating MeDeMAP training videos (and subtitling them) - Determine locations - Setting up facilitation modus and a full walkthrough 1. Identify stakeholders and set up a Support Group Anchor CP’s objectives and identify relevant stakeholders according to the local context. The questionnaire sent out to WP6-partners in May aimed to establish the local context to identify the stakeholders to be involved in the process, who should also become the addresses of the resolutions/recommendations adopted by CP participants. Stakeholders supporting the CPs could be representatives of media & media world (unions, press councils, users’ associations), political decision-makers involved in the field of media & democracy at large, relevant NGOs. The formation of a Support Group involving around 5 to 10 stakeholders will increase the participatory component of the project and reinforce its legitimacy. Stakeholders from the media world will bring different perspectives, but also relevant NGOs and social movement actors can actively contribute. We would recommend not to include politicians in the Support Group. The Support Group is a body representing civil society. Its task is to provide support according to the capacities of the individual members: -in the recruitment of participants/experts -to communicate about the CP and disseminate the results to civil society and/or decision-makers - for access to disadvantaged groups/ensuring diversity. The support group should ensure legitimacy; therefore, membership should be transparent. 112 Part 3: Data collection and partners´ deliverables During the implementation of the CPs, WP6 partners will collect data that will serve for the next phases of the MeDeMAP project. Furthermore, the outcome of each CP, in the form of final resolutions/recommendations will be published and disseminated. Purpose of data collection: analysis by WP6 and WP2 The data collected during the CP will nourish the reports for - Task 6.3: Analysis of the sessions and final decisions of citizens’ parliaments, focus: the content of the recommendations. - Task 6.4: Evaluation of PAR research, focus: the generation of the content -Task 2.4: Theory-driven re-analysis of the project’s interventions, focus: analysis of the participatory process & the construction of media and democracy Data collected The following data will be collected: - the final resolutions/recommendations adopted on each of the 3 topics (with votes and expressions of dissent), - minutes of the CP meetings, - audio recordings and selective transcripts of discussions (no video recording), posters, flip charts observation and field notes - online surveys - interviews with a selection of participants (after the end of the CP) Data selection, translation and pre-analysis The data selected for further analysis will be transcribed and translated into English by each partner. Depending on the partners, the persons involved in data collection may be their own staff or volunteers/interns. CU proposes to train them online. After the CP, each partner will write up a national report with these two sections: - analysis of the recommendations and, of their development process, - analysis of the participatory process Dissemination of final resolutions/recommendations The final resolutions/recommendations are the result of the CP and, as such, are not simply data to be analyzed, but also the outcome of a participatory citizen process, which will need to be made available to the public and disseminated to relevant stakeholders for further advocacy. This will take the form of - dissemination of reports with resolutions/recommendations, e.g., through 113 presentations to (political) institutions at national levels and later in Brussels in January or February 2026 - dissemination of experiences and analysis on blog posts on COMMIT website 114 References Bertelsmann-Stiftung (2023). Praxishilfen für inklusive, deliberative und wirksame Bürgerbeteiligung. Retrieved 13.6.2024 https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/de/unsereprojekte/demokratie-und-partizipation-in-europa/praxishilfen-fuer-inklusive-deliberativeund-wirksame-buergerbeteiligung Carpentier, N., & Wimmer, J. (2024). Analytical Models for Examining Media Supply and Demand Side and the Legal and Regulatory Context of Both Sides: Operationalization Proposals (Deliverable 2.2 for MeDeMAP project. Grant Agreement 101094984.) https://www.medemap.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2024/02/MeDeMap_Deliverable_2.2_Final.pdf Carson L. (July 2017). The newDemocracy Foundation. Research and Development Note. Importance of Facilitation. https://www.newdemocracy.com.au/docs/researchnotes/2017_July/nDF_RN_20170710_Im portanceOfFacilitation.pdf DemocracyNext (2023), Assembling an Assembly Guide. Retrieved 22.6.2024 https://assemblyguide.demnext.org/ Escobar, O. & Elstub, S. (8 May 2017). Forms of Mini-publics. Research and Development Note. NewDemocracy. https://www.newdemocracy.com.au/docs/researchnotes/2017_May/nDF_RN_20170508_F ormsOfMiniPublics.pdf Gasiorowska, A., (2023) “Sortition and its Principles: Evaluation of the Selection Processes of Citizens’ Assemblies”, Journal of Deliberative Democracy 19(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.1310 IiDP. (2020). How to run a citizens’ assembly. https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/reports/2020/IIDP-citizens-assembly.pdf Krenzer, S. & Socher, S. (2024). Kommunale Bürgerräte organisieren. Handbuch für den Weg von der ersten Idee bis zur Verwendung der Empfehlungen. Hrsg.: Mehr Demokratie e. V., IDPF Wuppertal, RIFS Potsdam. https://www.mehrdemokratie.de/fileadmin/pdf/2024/Leitfaden_Kommunale_Burgerraete_organisieren.pdf Lawson, H. A., Introducing Participatory action research in Lawson, H. A., Caringi, J. C., Pyles, L., Jurkowski, J. M., & Bozlak, C. T. (2015). Participatory action research. Oxford University Press, USA. Nowak, Z. (2021, October 20). Communicating about Citizens’ Assemblies. Lessons from the Citizens’ Assembly in Poznan, Poland. Participo. https://medium.com/participo/communicating-about-citizens-assemblies-2ad0195541d9 Pain, R., Whitman, G. and Milledge, D. (2019) Participatory Action Research Toolkit: An Introduction to Using PAR as an Approach to Learning, Research and Action. Practice Guide. 115 Durham University. https://www.youngfoundation.org/institute-for-communitystudies/repository/participatory-action-research-toolkit-an-introduction-to-using-par-as-anapproach-to-learning-research-and-action/ OECD. (2020). Innovative citizen participation and new democratic institutions: Catching the deliberative wave. Highlights. Paris: OECD Publishing. Podgórska-Rykała J. (2024). Deliberative Mini-publics as a Response to the Crisis of Representative Democracy: First Attempts at Institutionalization in European Cities. DOI : 10.14746/pp.2023.28.4.11 Redman K., Carson L. Research and Development Note. How to Recruit Participants for Citizens’ Assemblies. 11 January 2022 https://www.newdemocracy.com.au/wpcontent/uploads/2022/01/RD-Note-Recruitment.pdf Schneidemesser, D., et al. (2023). Diversity in Facilitation: Mapping Differences in Deliberative Designs. Journal of Deliberative Democracy,19(1), pp. 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.1096 UN Democracy Fund & the newDemocracy Foundation. (2019). Enabling national initiatives to take democracy beyond elections. https://participedia.net/case/5873 Art of Hosting And Harvesting Conversations that Matter. Retrieved 12.7.2024 https://artofhosting.org/what-is-aoh/ Interviews Yonne Wolf, FEB (Vorarlberg’s Office for Volunteering and Participation). https://vorarlberg.at/-/feb-aufgaben-und-leistungen Roman Huber, Mehr Demokratie (German federal NGO promoting direct participation) Federal Executive Board https://www.mehr-demokratie.de/mehrdemokratie/organisation/vorstand Erwin Mayer, Mehr Demokratie.at (Austrian Branch) https://mehr-demokratie.at/ Florian Wagner, Zukunftsrat Demokratie and Zukunftsrat Verkehr Guter Rat für Rückverteilung (privately initiated Citizens' Council for Wealth Distribution) Cilli https://guterrat.info/en/ 116 Annex 1: Draft information flyer Take part! Austrian Citizen Parliament on Media and Democracy How can the media better serve democracy? • Which functions should pro-democratic media play in our society to strengthen democracy? • How should the Austrianmedia landscape be regulated to guarantee high-quality content? • How can the media become more representative of the diversity of views? • How can we foster more citizen participation in the media? 20 citizens learn, reflect, deliberate and adopt recommendations to strengthen the democratic role of the media in Austria. The recommendations will be presented to policy makers, regulators, and civil society organizations dealing with media policy but also to representatives of the media sector itself. When? The Austrian Citizen Parliament on Media and Democracy will meet four Saturdays between March and June 2025. Initiative and organization The Austrian Citizen Parliament on Media and Democracy is organized by the Community Media Institute COMMIT in cooperation with… as part of the European MeDeMAP research project. Citizens' parliaments are democratic instruments that give citizens a greater voice by carefully organizing deliberations on a particular social issue and helping them to formulate decisions that contribute to the improvement of society. To take part in the Austrian Citizen Parliament on Media and Democracy send an email to… [email protected] or register online (link to online form) 117 Annex 2: WP5 Screening questionnaire for focus groups recruitment(D5.3.Methodological protocol, p. 13) 1. Age: 18-24 y/o 25-35 y/o 36-44 y/o 45-54 y/o 55-65 y/o Over 65 y/o 2. Gender: Man Woman Non-binary Prefer not to say 3. Education level: No title Elementary school Middle school High school Degree or Master’s degree Postgraduate Prefer not to say 4. Where do you live? ………………………………………………………………. 5. How interested are you in political news? Very interested [3] Fairly interested [2] Not very interested [1] Not interested at all [0] 6. How much time do you spend on average reading or watching political news on a typical day? Less than 10 minutes [0] 10-30 minutes [1] 30 minutes - 1 hour [2] 118 More than 1 hour [3] 7. Have you participated in any political elections (e.g. voted) in the last 5 years? Yes [1] No [0] 8. Are you part of a political party, movement or organisation (like NGOs) ? Yes [1], please specify ………………………………………………………………………………… No [0] 9. Have you participated in demonstrations, protests, petitions or other political activities (including online) in the last 12 months? Yes [1] No [0] 10. How would you best describe your political views? Prefer not to say Extreme Left Left Slightly lef Center Slightly right Right Extreme Right 119 Annex 3: CU Screening questionnaire for the recruitment of candidates Czech Citizen Parliament on Media and Democracy – Survey questionnaire We appreciate your interest in joining the Czech Citizen Parliament on Media and Democracy! Filling out this questionnaire will help us to recruit participants for the citizen parliament. Please note that you are expected to answer all questions (leaving questions unanswered will not allow you to complete and submit the filled-out questionnaire). The organiser of the Czech Citizen Parliament on Media and Democracy is CULCORC, the Culture and Communication Research Centre at the Institute of Communication Studies and Journalism at Charles University, as part of the European MeDeMAP research project. You can find more information about the organisation of the Czech Citizen Parliament on Media and Democracy here: https://medemap.fsv.cuni.cz/op/ 1. What is your age? • Less than 18 y/o • 18-24 y/o • 25-35 y/o • 36-44 y/o • 45-54 y/o • 55-65 y/o • Over 65 y/o 2. What is your gender? • Man • Woman • Other • Prefer not to say 3. What is the highest level of education you have completed? • Elementary school • Middle school • High school • University/ Higher education • Master’s degree • PhD • Other (please describe) ________________ 4. Where do you live? (city, town or village) (if you live in different places, please add the location where you spend most of your time) ………………………………………………………………. 5. What is your current socio-professional status? (You can select more than one option. For example: Self-employed + student, etc.) • Employed 120 • Self-employed • Unemployed • Student • House person • On parental leave • Retired • Other (please describe) ________________ 6. If you are employed, what is your professional activity? .................................... 7. How interested are you in the news? • Very interested • Fairly interested • Not very interested • Not interested at all 8. How much time do you spend on average reading, watching or listening to the news on a typical day? (It doesn’t matter which medium you use.) • Less than 10 minutes • 10-30 minutes • more than 30 minutes , but less than 1 hour • 1 hour or more 9. Have you participated in any political elections (e.g. voted) in the last 5 years? • Yes • No 10. Are you a member of any political party or political movement? • Yes • No 11. Are you engaged in the activities of any other organisation (e.g., NGO, civil society organisation, activist organisation)? • Yes. If Yes, in what kind of organisation? ______________________ • No 12. Have you participated in demonstrations, protests, or petitions (including online) in the last 12 months? • Yes • No How much do you agree with the following statements? Select one option for each statement. 13. Being Czech is the most important part of my identity. • Completely agree • Somewhat agree • Neutral [neither agree nor disagree] • Somewhat disagree • Completely disagree • I Don’t know 121 14. The migration of people from other parts of the world is enriching for the Czech society. • Completely agree • Somewhat agree • Neutral [neither agree nor disagree] • Somewhat disagree • Completely disagree • I Don’t know 15. The world is already complicated enough, and it’s better that we maintain our traditional values and our traditional family and gender roles. • Completely agree • Somewhat agree • Neutral [neither agree nor disagree] • Somewhat disagree • Completely disagree • I Don’t know 16. Each one of us should focus on taking care of our lives and defending our own interests; the other people’s problems should not be our priority. • Completely agree • Somewhat agree • Neutral [neither agree nor disagree] • Somewhat disagree • Completely disagree • I Don’t know 17. We can overcome social problems, if we express solidarity to our fellow humans and help one another. • Completely agree • Somewhat agree • Neutral [neither agree nor disagree] • Somewhat disagree • Completely disagree • I Don’t know 18. Authorities and institutions have the responsibility to support our needs and help us solve our problems. • Completely agree • Somewhat agree • Neutral [neither agree nor disagree] • Somewhat disagree • Completely disagree • I Don’t know 19. The taxes and contributions for high-income individuals and companies should be increased to provide for public education, healthcare and pensions. • Completely agree • Somewhat agree • Neutral [neither agree nor disagree] • Somewhat disagree • Completely disagree • I Don’t know