RANDOM SAMPLING FAQ’s –Lyn Carson from Active Democracy

  1. Surely people are too apathetic to participate in deliberative processes?
    Is it apathy, I wonder, or have people's participatory muscles become atrophied through lack of use. We learn to participate by participating. People are often unwilling to participate because they lack the confidence needed to do so. Organisers of deliberative designs in Australia have usually appreciated this. Organisers must be prepared to make personal contact with the people who have been randomly selected by phone or face-to-face. This is necessary to assure reluctant participants that they are exactly the type of participant that organisers are seeking. Once persuaded, citizens come along, participate fully and become more engaged citizens (and some interesting longitudinal studies are being undertaken in the UK which support this claim).
  2. How do you randomly select participants for a deliberative poll or a citizens' jury or consensus conference?
    Not all of the deliberative designs that have been conducted have used random selection, though this is the ideal. Organisers have used a variety of selection methods; some have used stratified random selection and some have used self-selection. With small deliberative designs like citizens' juries the aim is find a pool that reflects a cross section of the population, to draw together a very diverse range of attitudes, values and opinions (usually randomly matching them to a profile). With a larger method like the deliberative poll the aim is create a statistically significant, representative sample. Genuine random selection would involve conscription and this has never occurred with a deliberative design.
    Method 1
    A profile of the population is developed to suit the issue eg gender, age, class, ethnicity, housing tenure, occupation, education, geography, religion, attitude. Recruiters find participants to match profile using combination of door-to-door, approaching people in street etc, eg some UK citizens' juries.
    Method 2
    Advertisements are placed in local, state or national newspapers asking for participants. The issue is specified and respondents are asked to write a brief explanation about their interest. Respondents are then selected according to diversity, eg some consensus conferences.
    Method 3
    Advertisements are placed in newspapers. No detail is given except that it involves research and their views as a citizen are sought. Respondents are then phoned, a survey is completed, then respondents are matched to a profile, eg Australian consensus conference.
    Method 4
    Letters are sent to citizens who are randomly selected from electoral roll, inviting them to participate. Given minimal information about issue except date & duration. Respondents complete a questionnaire to provide demographic data. Responses are matched to profile criteria then randomly selected, eg more recent Danish consensus conferences.

Method 5
Prospective participants are randomly selected via electoral roll. Sent invitation to participate.Followed up with telephone call or personal visit.Suits small community, eg Boulder transport plan.
Method 6
Random digit dialling. Ask to speak to a person in the household over specified age, the one who has a birthday closest to today's date. Then invitation extended to participate, eg deliberative polls.

  1. Aren't we simply too busy to participate?
    This is one of the strengths of deliberative designs. They are one-off events. Committees can feel like a lifetime sentence. In contrast, a week-end of deliberation with total strangers seems to be stimulating, challenging, educative and empowering. There is a surprisingly high take-up rate for these consultation methods, probably because they are seen to be more meaningful than completing a superficial opinion poll or perhaps they are less daunting than a committee without end.

Source: (Lyn Carson)