Lille University – CNRS

Citizen panels, also known as citizens; juries, have been a cornerstone of participatory governance since their introduction in the 1980s in Denmark. These panels engage diverse groups of citizens to deliberate on complex issues and provide recommendations to policymakers. Their relevance has grown with the increasing emphasis on deliberative
democracy, which seeks to incorporate public reasoning into decision-making processes
(Dryzek, 2000; Fishkin, 2018).
Our French experiment aligns with international practices by advocating for interdisciplinary
and participatory approaches in science-society dialogues. It also departs from the deliberative
stance, which sees citizens panels as a tool of participatory democracy, initiated by elected
representatives and focused on public policies. On the contrary, the experiment that we are
analysing was initiated by researchers and aimed at the definition of a research agenda.
Notably, Stirling (2008) advocates for the inclusion of public values in research prioritization,
arguing that it democratizes innovation processes and aligns scientific efforts with societal
needs.
We will discuss an innovative citizen panel experiment conducted in France, aiming to bridge
the gap between scientific research and societal priorities. The focus was on plastics research,
where scientists sought input from citizens on prioritizing efforts for biodegradable,
sustainable, and economically competitive solutions. In order to propose strategies that are
economically viable, but also acceptable to civil society, PLASTILOOP2.0 researchers have
chosen to confront the technologies they implement with the vision of citizens through a
citizens panel.
The project was inspired by the usual citizen’s panels, but differed in four key innovations:
smaller group, less time, coaching of expert presenters, facilitating discussion using tools
from systems science.
As part of this project, about twenty citizens were trained to understand the issues surrounding
plastic and microplastic pollution. They were trained on all aspects of the issue. These
included health, economics, research, biodiversity and water quality. Various researchers then
presented the latest research on the subject. And based on all this information, a dialog began
about the research priorities that need to be developed and the various impacts that need to be
taken into account to maintain a sustainable ecosystem.
It’s important to emphasize that the citizens were recruited on a voluntary basis and had no
specific prior knowledge of the subject. They were confronted with complex scientific and
technical knowledge, which we worked on with different animation and facilitation solutions.
The aim was to make these elements assimilable and then use them in the discussion with the
researchers to feed the orientation given by the citizens.