| 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? |
Thin participation techniques are low-threshold, low-intensity and often scalable methods that allow many people to express views, preferences, priorities or support quickly. They include surveys, polls, petitions, e-petitions, crowdvoting, quick feedback forms, classroom response systems, ranking tools and lightweight digital consultations. Compared with “thick” deliberative participation, thin participation usually involves less dialogue, less collective reasoning and less shared decision-making. However, in higher education it can still be valuable when used ethically: to surface student concerns, open discussion, include quieter participants, gather rapid feedback and identify priorities for deeper participatory work on the polycrisis.
| Indicative starter sources for information about these methods |
| Additional sources of information about these methods |
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley.
Margetts, H., John, P., Hale, S., & Yasseri, T. (2015). Political turbulence: How social media shape collective action. Princeton University Press.
Leston-Bandeira, C. (2019). Petitions and parliament: An interconnection not to be taken for granted. Parliamentary Affairs, 72(4), 965–986.
https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsy003Halpin, D., Vromen, A., Vaughan, M., & Raissi, M. (2020). Online petitioning and politics. Australian Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2020.1777397Wright, S. (2012). Assessing (e-)democratic innovations: "Democratic goods" and Downing Street e-petitions. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(4), 453–470.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2012.705251Wright, S. (2016). 'Success' and online political participation: The case of Downing Street e-petitions. Information, Communication & Society, 19(6), 843–857.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1080285Jungherr, A., & Jürgens, P. (2010). The political click: Political participation through e-petitions in Germany. Policy & Internet, 2(4), 131–165.
https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-2866.1044Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609848Boulianne, S. (2015). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 524–538.
Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20.
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-12-0205Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090Harvey, N., & Holmes, C. A. (2012). Nominal group technique: An effective method for obtaining group consensus. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 18(2), 188–194.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-172X.2012.02017.xMukherjee, N., Huge, J., Sutherland, W. J., McNeill, J., Van Opstal, M., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., & Koedam, N. (2015). The Delphi technique in ecology and biological conservation: Applications and guidelines. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 6(9), 1097–1109.
https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12387Salihu, H. M., Salinas-Miranda, A. A., Wang, W., Turner, D., Lo Berry, E., Zoorob, R., & Yusuf, A. (2015). Community priority index: Utility, applicability and validation for priority setting in community-based participatory research. Journal of Public Health Research, 4(2), Article 443.
https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2015.443| Indicative participatory teaching scenarios for these methods |
At the beginning of a course, students anonymously rank which crisis dimensions feel most urgent, confusing or personally relevant: climate, war, migration, inequality, misinformation, public health, energy, food or democracy. The teacher uses the live results to adapt examples, form discussion groups and identify where deeper inquiry is needed.
Students submit short research questions about the polycrisis through a shared form. The class then crowdvotes on which questions are most urgent, original or useful. The highest-ranked questions become group investigation themes, while less-voted questions are reviewed to check whether minority concerns were overlooked.
Groups draft short petitions proposing university actions such as cooling spaces, emergency-alert improvements, food support, energy-saving measures or mental-health provision. Students exchange and critique petitions, asking whose interests are represented, whose voices are missing and whether petitioning alone is sufficient.
At the end of each week, students answer three anonymous questions: “What became clearer?”, “What remains overwhelming?” and “What action feels possible?” Results guide the next session and help the teacher track emotional and cognitive load.
The teacher begins with a quick poll on a controversial crisis policy. Instead of treating the majority result as the class view, the poll becomes the starting point for small-group deliberation. Students examine why people voted differently, what evidence would change their view and which groups are affected.
CC BY-SA 4.0 - Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International
Previous chapter