Internal evaluation

Internal evaluation of Meeting of Minds by Alison Mohr from the Centre for the Study of Democracy, University of Westminster

Executive summary

Pre-Final Evaluation report  (pdf - 468,17kb) October 13, 2006

Executive Summary

OVERVIEW

The Meeting of Minds partner consortium undertook a process of self-evaluation by focusing on the internal aspects of its methodological design, implementation and organisation and aimed to:

(i) Feed directly into the planning and implementation process of the Meeting of Minds initiative by enabling progressive methodological, organisational and procedural adjustments.

(ii) Strengthen and enrich the ‘new’ knowledge, insights and experiences (learning) of its participants.

Furthermore, how these internal aspects contributed to maintaining the balance between the national and European dimensions of the initiative was of particular interest.

SUMMARY

Citizens’ interest in, and perceptions of, Meeting of Minds

The issue of brain science rather than the process itself was the primary interest for participating in the Meeting of Minds initiative while the key objective/goal of the initiative was perceived as encouraging communication between citizens, the scientific community and policy-makers’.

Logistics

The vast majority of citizen’s expectations were met with regard to logistical arrangements for the First European Citizens’ Convention and increased at the National Citizens’ Assessments. For the Second European Citizens’ Convention, that level rose even higher.

Information and resource provision

The citizens felt adequately informed and prepared for the First National Citizens’ Meeting as a result of the information provided to them. The citizens were satisfied with the range of expertise provided to address their questions during the National Citizens’ Assessments and that the involvement of experts was well-timed. The citizens later acknowledged that the dialogue with the experts [resource persons] and the public helped to significantly shape their opinions.

Facilitation

Throughout their deliberations, the citizens felt that their facilitator/s succeeded in encouraging and guiding discussions and interactions between all participants.

Deliberation

The First European Citizens’ Convention had encouraged the citizens to engage with and/or further explore issues related to Brain Science over the summer break. They were also able to communicate effectively and with ease with citizens from other national panels during the European Conventions.

A rewarding experience?

The provision of more time to deliberate and more information on Brain Science and the method were particular aspects the citizens indicated would make the process more rewarding. The citizens had a clear understanding of the objectives of the forthcoming events. Furthermore, their personal expectations were highly congruent with the outcomes of the European conventions.

Transparency

The vast majority of citizens agreed the Meeting of Minds process appeared fair and transparent throughout, falling slightly following the Second European Citizens’ Convention

National/ European identity

The citizens positively viewed the format of the European Citizens’ Conventions as conducive to fostering the emergence of a European group identity while enhancing the dynamics and/or opinions of the national citizens’ panels.

Outputs and impacts

The overwhelming majority of citizens agreed there is an urgent need for a common European citizens’ declaration about issues relating to Brain Science. Consequently, when preparing the findings for both the National Citizens’ Assessment Report and the European Citizens’ Panel Report, their relevance to policy and policy-makers was a significant consideration. Similarly, the citizens felt that the contents of the reports were highly congruent with their personal expectations. In spite of this, less than half of the citizens were confident that the European Citizens’ Panel Report would significantly influence the European policy agenda on Brain Science while approximately the same number thought it would have a significant influence on broader public debate. Following the citizens’ presentation of their final report at the European Parliament, the vast majority of citizens perceived the feedback of the invited stakeholders at the European Parliament to be positive.

Policy advice and dissemination

On average the citizens each communicated with between 10 and 50 people about the Meeting of Minds initiative with over half of the respondents indicating that they had participated in some form of local, national or European-wide media. All but one respondent emphatically indicated that they would participate in further participatory initiatives held at the European level.

Citizens were sceptical of the initiative’s effectiveness in raising the issue of Brain Science with regard to public policy and media debate. The initiative’s effect on expert discourse was viewed with guarded optimism by most of the respondents while its effectiveness in exposing the issue to wider public debate was perceived as problematical. “