Chapter 5. Thick participation techniques

Chapter 5

Participatory teaching for the polycrisis in Higher Education using: Thick participation techniques

Preamble

This Chapter is part of the PolyCIVIS Handbook on Participatory Methods for Teaching about the Polycrisis in Higher Education. The objective of this Handbook is to serve as a reference resource for teaching about the polycrisis in Higher Education in a participatory manner, a need which has not only been foreseen by the PolyCIVIS project in its inception phase, but also confirmed and further substantiated in a number of meetings and workshops during the project’s lifetime.

This Handbook is not a coursebook to teach what the polycrisis is, but a methods book, to provide instruments for teaching about the polycrisis in a participatory manner. It is to be made available online as a multimedia live resource, presenting different participatory teaching methods for uptake by the Polycrisis-interested community in Higher Education, together with supporting materials such as method descriptions, references, examples and case studies.

The different methods proposed are presented in one chapter for each group of methods, which also includes, in the digital edition of this Handbook, a live survey to collect peer feedback from the community itself, on the usefulness and ease of use that community members (Higher Education tutors, students, researchers as well as practitioners) may themselves find specific methods to have within, and for, their own contexts and audiences.

What do we mean by thin participation techniques?

Thick participation techniques are sustained, deliberative and meaningful forms of participation in which participants do more than express quick preferences. They discuss, listen, question evidence, negotiate values, co-create priorities and sometimes make or influence decisions. These methods include appreciative inquiry, citizens’ assemblies, citizens’ juries, Open Space Technology, participatory budgeting, crowdmapping, crowdsensing, design charrettes, study circles, sustained dialogue and World Café. In higher education, thick participation can transform students from passive recipients into co-inquirers, co-designers and democratic learners. For teaching the polycrisis, these methods support slow thinking, disagreement, stakeholder inclusion, public reasoning and collective responsibility.

Indicative starter sources for information about these methods

Appreciative inquiry — Organizing Engagement: Strength-based change method focusing on discovery, shared aspirations, design and collective action.
Citizens’ assemblies: Deliberative democratic model using informed, representative groups to examine complex public questions.
Citizens’ juries — Involve: Small deliberative groups hear evidence, question witnesses and produce reasoned recommendations.
Open Space Technology — Facilitator School: Participant-led agenda-setting method for complex issues where no single actor controls the conversation.
Participatory budgeting: Democratic process in which participants help decide how part of a budget should be allocated.
Crowdmapping: Collective mapping of risks, needs, resources, events or community knowledge through distributed contributions.
Crowdsensing. Distributed data collection through people, mobile devices or sensors to understand environments or crises.
Design charrettes — Involve: Intensive collaborative design workshops bringing multiple stakeholders into proposal development.
Study circles — Participedia: Small-group democratic learning format based on repeated dialogue, reading and shared reflection.
Sustained Dialogue: Repeated dialogue process for transforming relationships, understanding conflict and supporting civic engagement.
World Café: Rotating small-table dialogue method designed to generate collective insight around important questions.

Additional sources of information about these methods

Bushe, G. R. (2012). Foundations of appreciative inquiry: History, criticism and potential. AI Practitioner, 14(1), 8–20.
Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2008). Appreciative inquiry handbook: For leaders of change (2nd ed.). Berrett-Koehler.
Fishkin, J. S. (2009). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford University Press.
Farrell, D. M., O'Malley, E., & Suiter, J. (2013). Deliberative democracy in action Irish-style: The 2011 We the Citizens pilot citizens' assembly. Irish Political Studies, 28(1), 99–113.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2012.745274
Suiter, J., Farrell, D. M., & O'Malley, E. (2016). When do deliberative citizens change their opinions? Evidence from the Irish Citizens' Assembly. International Political Science Review, 37(2), 198–212.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512114544068
Pilet, J.-B., & Reuchamps, M. (2022). Public support for deliberative citizens' assemblies selected through sortition: Evidence from 15 countries. European Journal of Political Research, 62(2), 394–413.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12541
Jefferson Center. (2004). Citizens jury handbook. Jefferson Center for New Democratic Processes.
http://jefferson-center.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Citizen-Jury-Handbook.pdf
Street, J., Duszynski, K., Krupinski, S., & Braunack-Mayer, A. (2014). The use of citizens' juries in health policy decision-making: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 109, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.005
Owen, H. (2008). Open space technology: A user's guide (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler..
Wampler, B., McNulty, S., & Touchton, M. (2021). Participatory budgeting in global perspective. Oxford University Press.
Schugurnesky, D., & Mook, L. (2024). Participatory budgeting and local development: Impacts, challenges, and prospects. Local Development & Society, 5(3), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1080/26883597.2024.2391664
Meier, P. (2015). Digital humanitarians: How big data is changing the face of humanitarian response. CRC Press.
Ziemke, J. (2012). Crisis mapping: The construction of a new interdisciplinary field? Journal of Map & Geography Libraries, 8(2), 101–117.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15420353.2012.662471
Capponi, A., Fiandrino, C., Kantarci, B., Foschini, L., Kliazovich, D., & Bouvry, P. (2019). A survey on mobile crowdsensing systems: Challenges, solutions, and opportunities. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 21(3), 2419–2465.
https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2019.2914030
Guo, B., Yu, Z., Zhou, X., & Zhang, D. (2014). From participatory sensing to mobile crowd sensing. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communication Workshops (pp. 593–598). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/PerComW.2014.6815273
Lennertz, B., & Lutzenhiser, A. (2014). The charrette handbook: The essential guide for accelerated, collaborative community planning (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Zhang, H., Mao, Z., & Zhang, W. (2015). Design charrette as methodology for post-disaster participatory reconstruction: Observations from a case study in Fukushima, Japan. Sustainability, 7(6), 6593–6609.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su7066593
Study Circles Resource Center. (2001). Organizing community-wide dialogue for action and change: A step-by-step guide. Study Circles Resource Center/Topsfield Foundation.
McCoy, M. L. (2007). Study circles. In P. Holman, T. Devane, & S. Cady (Eds.), The change handbook: The definitive resource on today's best methods for engaging whole systems (2nd ed., pp. 331–342). Berrett-Koehler.
Saunders, H. H., Nemeroff, T., Parker, P. N., Slim, R. M., & Stewart, P. D. (2011). Sustained dialogue in conflicts: Transformation and change. Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137011817
Sustained Dialogue Institute. (n.d.). About sustained dialogue.
https://sustaineddialogue.org
Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2005). The world café: Shaping our futures through conversations that matter. Berrett-Koehler.
Vogt, E. E., Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2003). The art of powerful questions: Catalyzing insight, innovation, and action. Whole Systems Associates.

Indicative participatory teaching scenarios for these methods

Scenario 1. Mini citizens’ assembly on AI, climate and public trust

Students form a mini citizens’ assembly examining whether a university or city should use AI tools for crisis prediction and emergency communication. They hear evidence cards, deliberate in mixed groups and produce recommendations. The process highlights uncertainty, democratic legitimacy, affected groups, data ethics and unintended consequences.

Scenario 2. Participatory budgeting for campus resilience

Students receive a fictional campus resilience fund. They develop proposals for cooling spaces, food support, mental-health services, renewable energy, emergency communication or accessibility improvements. After deliberation and proposal revision, the class votes on a budget and reflects on justice, trade-offs and majority power.

Scenario 3. World Café on crisis fatigue and student agency

Students rotate across café tables discussing questions such as: What makes the polycrisis feel overwhelming? What forms of agency are realistic? What support should universities provide? Each round builds on earlier notes. The final harvest identifies themes, tensions and possible course or institutional actions.

Scenario 4. Open Space polycrisis agenda

The teacher provides a broad theme: “Learning and acting in the polycrisis.” Students propose discussion sessions, such as climate anxiety, food insecurity, misinformation, emergency alerts, migration or digital surveillance. Participants choose where to go, document insights and co-create an action agenda.

Scenario 5. Sustained dialogue across disagreement

Across several weeks, students participate in repeated dialogue circles about contested crisis issues, such as migration, energy transition, protest, austerity or surveillance. The emphasis is not debate victory but relationship-building, listening, complexity, changed understanding and possible collaborative action.