From Citizen Science to Human Security
A tool to facilitate Members of Parliaments' engagement with constituents.
Abstract
Citizen science projects across various fields demonstrate the transformative potential of citizen engagement as a catalyst for structural change and democratisation within society. This paper explores the application of citizen science tools to facilitate Members of Parliament (MPs) engagement with constituents, emphasizing the integration of human security principles. Human security, which focuses on protecting individuals from critical threats while empowering them, aligns with the goals of citizen science by advocating for inclusive and participatory methods. The paper highlights the role of parliamentary institutions, committees, and secretariats in enhancing the reach and effectiveness of these initiatives through extensive research, public consultations, and the development of engagement tools. It also addresses the challenges of traditional top-down approaches to public engagement and proposes interactive, two-way conversational deliberation as a solution. By leveraging citizen science tools, this approach aims to foster open dialogue, empower individuals, and democratize policy development, ultimately bridging the gap between parliament and society and igniting innovation in addressing complex societal challenges.
Citizen science projects across various fields demonstrate the transformative potential of citizen engagement as a catalyst for structural change and democratisation within society (Cerrato and Balli, 2024). Based on the content of The Step Change Navigator (Cerrato and Balli, 2024), the tools used for citizen science projects can equally assist in enabling human security-focused outputs through policy-society dialogues, user-centred engagement tools, participatory strategies, community engagement, and co-creation processes.
Incorporating human security principles
The concept of human security emphasises the importance of protecting individuals from critical and pervasive threats while empowering them to take charge of their lives. This approach aligns well with the goals of citizen science by advocating for inclusive and participatory methods that ensure the voices of all constituents are heard and valued. The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) underscores the importance of addressing human security concerns through legislative processes, highlighting that MPs should be at the forefront of such initiatives (IPU, 2024).
To enhance the reach and effectiveness of these initiatives, it is crucial to involve various parliamentary institutions beyond MPs. For instance, parliamentary committees and sub-committees can play a pivotal role in scrutinising and shaping policies through extensive research and public consultations. These bodies, often comprising experts, stakeholders, and civil society members, can facilitate a more in-depth analysis and diverse perspectives on issues of human security.
Further, the role of parliamentary secretariats and research departments can be expanded to include the development and dissemination of engagement tools and participatory strategies. These institutional arms can ensure that the information and tools provided are of high quality, accessible, and tailored to the needs of different constituencies.
While the "open interplay of opinion and policy is the distinguishing mark of popular rule” (Lasswell, 1941), this traditionally has been facilitated through town meetings, which were an “iconic form of direct citizen democracy” (Field, 2019) that consisted of propositions, deliberations, and votes. However, this approach has now morphed into town hall meetings, which is the established tool of engagement with constituents and the public, where Field argues “those in power unilaterally convey information to their constituents,” involving “announcements and questions about foregone conclusions”.
This top-down approach can deter engagement from constituents, except those with already polarized opinions, that is those already committed supporters of the politician or proposal participating in such engagements (Field, 2019) or those opposed to the politician or proposal. Furthermore, the personal abuse and stress faced by politicians, exacerbated by social media (RTE, 2024), discourage public town hall-type meetings.
Interactive and inclusive engagement
In an attempt to move away from this top-down approach, politicians are now more open to “interactive, two-way conversational deliberation” (Schooler, 2023) that facilitates dialogue, deliberation, and public engagement. However, they remain wary of the potential for polarised opinions among participants. Neblo, Esterling, and Lazer (2019) emphasise the importance of public deliberation in revitalising democracy. They argue that engaging citizens in thoughtful and informed discussions can lead to better decision-making and more robust democratic processes. They outline several criteria essential for ensuring meaningful public involvement in democratic decision-making, including opportunities for participation from under-represented cohorts of the population, the promotion of trust, balanced information, and quality reasoning. Importantly, they stress the need for follow-through with outputs impacting subsequent policies or political approaches.
To support such efforts, parliamentary libraries and information services could be leveraged to provide balanced and comprehensive information to both citizens and parliamentarians. These services can ensure that all stakeholders have access to the necessary data and context to engage in meaningful deliberations.
Additionally, parliamentary outreach programs can be established to actively engage with diverse community groups, ensuring their voices are included in the decision-making process. These programs can be instrumental in fostering trust and promoting civic education, thereby empowering individuals to participate more effectively.
Empowering individuals through citizen science tools
A mechanism to achieve non-polarised engagement is through the application of citizen science tools within the framework of human security. This empowers individuals to contribute to the policy process in several ways (adapted from Cerrato and Balli, 2024):
Sharing Knowledge: Individuals can contribute their expertise, including indigenous knowledge, to inform decision-making.
Shaping Policy: Constituents can actively participate in shaping policy through advocacy and dialogue with parliamentarians and policymakers.
Raising Awareness: Human security-focused constituent dialogue initiatives can raise public awareness about pressing issues and foster a sense of collective responsibility.
Taking Action: By participating in dialogue activities and advocacy efforts, individuals can take concrete actions to address societal challenges.
These tools can address current weaknesses in the town hall engagement process, making policy more democratic, inclusive, and accessible by involving a broader range of people and benefiting from diverse knowledge sources, thus reflecting the principle behind human security.
Fostering open dialogue and collaboration
For such engagements to be effective, organisers, be they parliamentarians or parliament as an institution, must clearly define the main objectives behind the human security framework of dialogue without overpromising outcomes. Meetings with the public should foster open dialogue, allowing individuals to share their perspectives, recount experiences, and raise relevant issues from diverse societal viewpoints. It is, however, vital that parliamentarians should adopt a listening approach, transitioning from providing answers to actively listening to public concerns.
Parliamentary dialogue with citizens
By fostering two-way dialogue and empowering stakeholders, a human security-focused constituent dialogue process can become a powerful catalyst for bringing people together and harnessing collective knowledge to address complex societal challenges. Providing various participation options, incorporating assistive technologies, including Artificial Intelligence (McKinney, 2024), and offering materials in multiple languages ensures inclusivity. Advance training and support tailored to different experience levels empower participants to contribute meaningfully, as seen in The Citizens’ Assembly (2024) in Ireland.
Managing stakeholder relationships
Managing relationships between stakeholders and constituents is vital, as interactions can be complex. Potential challenges include divergent viewpoints and collaboration conflicts. Project organisers must develop a clear picture of stakeholder relationships, understand roles and interests, and strategize on the dialogue process to facilitate productive communication and collaboration.
Maximising impact through effective communication
Effective communication is crucial throughout the project lifecycle (adapted from Cerrato and Balli, 2024):
Identifying policy questions: Engaging diverse stakeholders can spark valuable insights and shape relevant research questions.
Designing the dialogue process: Clear communication fosters collaboration and ensures understanding of goals and methodologies.
Implementing the dialogue process: Consistent communication keeps participants informed and motivated.
Interpreting results: Collaborative interpretation allows diverse perspectives to inform analysis.
Disseminating findings: Effective communication ensures findings reach relevant audiences, maximising impact.
Building trust and reputation
The public image of members of parliament or the parliament itself significantly influences the effectiveness of the citizen or constituent dialogue process. A strong reputation fosters trust and increases participation. MPs should be mindful of their public image or that of their party or parliament, integrate trust-building strategies, and prioritise transparency, openness, and accountability.
Unlocking the power of collective intelligence
Constituent dialogue can unlock the power of collective intelligence and empower individuals to actively participate in policy development. It serves as a tool for uniting diverse stakeholders to tackle societal challenges. By fostering dialogue and collaboration, a constituent dialogue process can (adapted from Cerrato and Balli, 2024):
Build a more informed society: Foster understanding and equip individuals with critical thinking skills, which are more important today than ever before.
Empower communities: Give communities a voice and a sense of ownership over issues impacting their lives.
Bridge the gap between parliament and society: Foster mutual understanding, trust, and collaboration.
Democratising policy development: Make the policy process more transparent and accessible.
Igniting innovation: Foster novel ideas and approaches to addressing complex issues.
This approach transcends traditional policy development, contextualising policy within the community and allowing the public to relate it to everyday experiences.
Participatory dialogue processes
Appendix 1 is a list of participatory processes where people engage in conversation, dialogue, deliberation, reflection, organization development, group process, community renewal, collective intelligence, democracy, etc. (Process Arts, 2024). Some processes might be more effective for parliamentarians, political parties, or parliaments in policy engagement, but there is a broad suite of potential tools available, many of which would be very effective in delivering a human security approach to solving critical policy issues at both community and national levels. The use of Artificial Intelligence applications can also play a significant role in enhancing the effectiveness of these processes across various stages, from recruitment and planning to follow-up. McKinney (2024) has outlined eleven potential applications but has cautioned that this requires a balancing of the potential enhancement of the capacity with maintaining democratic quality. McKinney goes on to advise on proceeding cautiously and implementing hybrid approaches to help mitigate these issues, ensuring AI supports rather than undermines democratic processes.
As the Process Arts (2024) source did not provide a clear explanation of each participatory process, Microsoft Copilot was specifically utilised to provide a simple explanation for each process, which is set out in Appendix 1.
References
Cerrato, S., and E. Balli. 2024. The Step Change Navigator. Berlin: ECSA. Accessed June 29, 2024. https://cs-navigator.stepchangeproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/CS_NAVIGATOR_V4_20240304.pdf
Field, J.B. 2019. Town Hall Meetings and the Death of Deliberation. University of Minnesota Press. https://books.google.ie/books?id=oeivDwAAQBAJ
IPU. 2024. Human Security and Common Security to Build Peace: A Toolkit for Parliamentarians. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union. https://www.ipu.org/resources/publications/toolkits/2024-09/human-security-and-common-security-build-peace
Lasswell, Harold D. 1941. Democracy Through Public Opinion. Menasha, WI: George Banta Publishing.
McKinney, S. 2024. "Integrating Artificial Intelligence Into Citizens’ Assemblies: Benefits, Concerns and Future Pathways." Journal of Deliberative Democracy 20 (1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.1556
Neblo, M.A., K.M. Esterling, and D.M.J. Lazer. 2019. 'Democracy When the People Are Thinking: Revitalising Our Politics Through Public Deliberation By James S. Fishkin. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. 272p. $24.95 cloth.' Perspectives on Politics 17 (2): 529–531. doi:10.1017/S1537592719001312.
Process Arts. 2024. Participatory Processes. Accessed January 20, 2025. https://processarts.decko.org/Participatory_Processes.
RTE. 2024. “Nastiness.” RTE Radio 1. Accessed January 20, 2025. https://www.rte.ie/radio/doconone/1469184-nastiness.
Schooler, L. 2023. “Beyond the Town Hall, From Chaos to Collaboration in Community.” In Listening, Community Engagement, and Peacebuilding: International Perspectives, 1st ed., edited by G.D. Bodie, D.L. Worthington, and Z. Beyene. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003214465
The Citizens’ Assembly. 2024. Citizens’ Assembly. Accessed January 20, 2025. https://citizensassembly.ie/
