This method implies that three workbooks are produced.

The workbooks contain information and questionnaires that are distributed to selected study groups. The first workbook brings up current issues to be discussed. In parallel with the study groups answering Workbook One, new study circles are started also discussing the current issues. The answers from Workbook One and the study circle are compiled in Workbook Two. In addition, Workbook Two is supplemented with more questions, and once again sent out to the citizens. The comments from Workbook Two are compiled in Workbook Three, and this book is the final result and the basis for the politicians’ decision-making. This method takes about a year to perform, which is one of its disadvantages. Otherwise, it is efficient in communicating knowledge and providing a well-founded dialogue. (de Laval 1999)

Open Space is a very free meeting form where the agenda is not decided beforehand, the only things that are determined are place, time and theme.

Open Space is a useful if there are many participants. The recommended number varies from ten people to several hundred. An Open Space could last anywhere from half a day up to three days and is led by at least one person. The modus operandi is that you meet and together come up with the specific subjects you want to discuss in connection with the theme. Anyone who wants to can propose subjects and the ones that interest enough people to have a discussion are the ones that will be discussed. The discussion subjects are written in a timetable for the meeting’s various sessions, and each discussion is led and documented by the person who suggested the subject. You divide yourselves into groups in different rooms, and discussions are terminated when it is time for lunch or coffee. It is common to divide a full day into three sessions, and to start with an inspiration lecture. During discussions you are free to change group if you want to, and this could enrich other discussions by exchange of good ideas between groups. Finally, the groups get together for a summary of the discussions and an appraisal of the meeting. Some kind of written documentation should be compiled for the participants, and will provide a good basis for continued work in the area.

Another method for enabling dialogue with citizens is to use some kind of web-based dialogue tool.

Such a tool could be used for totally open discussions where everyone is welcome to take part. Another way is to connect it to a smaller group, like a citizen panel, or as a way to continue a discussion after a focus group meeting. The discussion can be conducted entirely text-based or including sound and image according to focus and aim. It is important to consider if the forum should be open to everyone or closed and connected to a limited group, like a citizen panel. By rendering contributions featuring sound and image possible, you support people with difficulties in expressing themselves in writing. Someone must assume the role of moderator and regularly control the comment so nothing unsuitable comes through. (One alternative could be to have direct publishing during office hours and for the additional time publish received contributions the next morning after a quick review.) The discussion is held independent of time and space and many have opportunity to take part. Current issues are often debated fast and the discussion is transparent, everyone can see all contributions. This method requires that the participants have access to a computer connected to the Internet. It also requires watching by a moderator whose work effort depends on the activities of the forum. (SALAR)

The idea is that when you are outside, under the open skies, you think more creatively than when you are sitting in a conference room.

There are several variants of this method. The aim is to release creativity and acquire lots of ideas from the participants in the group. This method can be used for an invited, selected group of about 10-30 participants. What walks have in common is that you walk around in a group and stop at certain points that were selected beforehand, either by the leaders of the walk or by the participants. You stop at those points, either to discuss right there and then, or to take down notes for a discussion afterwards.

A way of using this method is that politicians/officials meet citizens “on the street”, walk along and meanwhile ask questions on the basis of an issue/subject, from a fixed form/questionnaire or suchlike. The answers are taken down as you go along. Politicians and officials compile the results and then present an analysis seminar. The material is used in the continued work on the issue/subject. The results are fed back and presented to the general public in an announcement or in another way as declared to the interviewees. It is important to decide the issue beforehand, with programme, agenda and place. The feedback should also be arranged before you meet the citizens. This method is not a detailed analysis of an issue; it should rather be regarded as a consultation method. Time is required for preparations, performance and the follow-up work with seminars for an analysis of the results. (SALAR)

Chat is a method where participants communicate via short text messages in real time.

A chat could be open for a limited time, e.g. 7.00–8.00 pm, to allow citizens to put questions to the responsible people in a certain issue. It could be regarded as a modern form for call-in. A chat should be quick and it may be a good idea to have several people at hand to answer and to let young collaborators who are familiar with the form help out. In a very short time many people have the opportunity to put their very own question to the responsible people. Everyone can see all the questions and answers, and you can follow the chat without asking. Questions and answers can be saved for continued use, publishing, etc. The disadvantage is that everyone does not venture taking part since the tempo is very high. Besides preparations, marketing and realisation the efforts are relatively small. Access to a chat program is required, as is certain marketing, and a group that is at hand to answer questions during the time the ‘chat’ is open. SALAR has produced a web-based tool for chats that is free to use. (SALAR)

The Café Method is a dialogue method that encourages people to take part in discussions on current topics in informal and comfortable surroundings.

The room is furnished as invitingly as possible, e.g. as a café where you are seated around small tables. The process is led by the moderator of the meeting. The meeting should start with a short account of the facts of the matter. Information materials should also be at hand for the participants. Small dialogue groups around the tables examine a theme or given problems, that should be open and challenging. The participants switch tables/groups at certain times during the meeting. In essence, the process is carried out in three stages: analysis, in-depth analysis, proposal preparation. The work at the tables is documented. Ideas and views are passed on to the other participants during or at the end of the meeting. There are plain rules/principles to aid involvement and creativity among the participants. The leader of the process should have a short education in the method. The furnishing of the room is important. Questions and topics must be relevant and clear. Costs may vary – if the premises are an actual café with just about ten participants the cost may be very modest. For large events with hundreds of participants in a special location, the costs could quickly increase. Since the method does not require a large number of process leaders, it could be an inexpensive way of holding creative meetings. 

In most cases, ‘hearing’ refers to a meeting where a panel of politicians/officials have a dialogue with an invited expert panel, but it could also include representatives for concerned citizens, often in front of a large group of visitors/public.

The aim is that politicians/officials should have a comprehensive exposition and knowledge of the subject/issue that the hearing focus on, from various experts, interested and concerned parties. At the same time, everyone can ask each other additional questions, often resulting in good and rewarding discussions. Sometimes the chairperson concludes the hearing by letting all participants, politicians as well as experts, comment on what they have learnt from this rendezvous. In the invitation, it is important to express the aim of the hearing, and what the results will be used for. Extensive preparation efforts are required for compiling and defining the issues of the hearing, and for finding and inviting appropriate panel members, so the ‘expert panel’ can provide an all-round exposition. An experienced meeting/debate leader is required, and also several people to document the meeting (possibly recording). Plan and inform in reasonable time so everyone can take part, and organise publicity before and after the hearing. Decide how feedback should be brought to panel members and visitors. This method requires a certain competence from the leader to hold a hearing. Resources for information, communication and documentation of the hearing are required. 

This is a method for initiating a meeting place for citizens, local organisations and politicians. The aim is to discuss and have a dialogue on important issues and to answer the locals’ questions.

This method could constitute an on-going collaboration with the local community, and the discussion/dialogue is focused on issues of special interest to the local area. The number of open area meetings may vary, from every second month or once a quarter to twice a year. The meetings take place in the evening, and are led by local politicians with officials assisting in factual matters, methods, etc. The agenda of the meeting is broadly drawn and informed on before invitations to the meeting are made. To assure that a participant will be answered at the meeting, questions or viewpoints should be registered beforehand. There should also be time for a few additional questions from the participants. A summary of the results is reported back to the participants, either on an individual basis or in an information/newsletter that is sent out after each meeting. Normally it is also available on the web. The summary is also communicated inwards in the organisation, boards as well as administrations. In Lund City, citizen assemblies are performed regularly. The citizen assemblies cannot decide that things will be carried out; they can just make recommendations or propositions. The meeting protocol is signed by the chairperson and two selected citizens. The protocols are subsequently posted in citizen bureaux and libraries. The protocols will also be presented to the city council. It is important to make the agenda and invitation early on, and to inform on the meeting in various ways. Resource expenses are relatively low. Often the meetings take place in in-house premises, and the main costs are for personnel, including time for planning and participation in the meeting, and answering for notes/protocol reaching the participants. 

Workshops in dialogue form are actually simplified group discussions with the aim of allowing the participants to examine an issue thoroughly, challenge each other’s views and develop their viewpoints/arguments to reach a deeper understanding of and insight into the issue/subject.

The workshops enable in-depth discussion on a specific topic with a couple of people for a few hours. They are also useful when an organisation wants better insight and understanding of what could lie behind people’s views or a statement. The workshop in dialogue form is similar to the focus group, but tends to focus more on dialogue, discussion and negotiation. A workshop may take anywhere from a few to several hours to complete. It is a small-scale event. Workshops in dialogue form include only a limited number of people and can consequently not be used to collect statistically significant information for measuring the general opinion accurately. The fact that the participants’ views are developed through discussions could also mean that they are not representative of the remaining citizen collective. The method could provide the organisation with valuable information on citizen views and standpoints on a certain issue, however. The participants have the time and opportunity to discuss an issue thoroughly, including expenses, advantages and long-term consequences. Through discussions with others, the participants acquire insights into other perspectives, allowing their own views to develop and be challenged. The dialogues may build and strengthen relations between participants, and could provide them with new knowledge and skills. Usually, 8 to 16 participants meet; who they are depends on what the issue is. Participants may be selected from demographics, interest groups, or at random. The costs for this form are generally not very high, unless you have to find participants through a genuinely random selection which could involve expenditure. Citizens may need carrots to make them take part in the workshop. Additional costs may include rent for meeting premises (choose informal surroundings if possible), catering and supportive arrangements, like childcare. (SALAR)

The basic idea of a counsel is to let people come together to discuss various alternative approaches to problems – their pros and cons, and the consequences of carrying out the plans.

As a rule, counsels are well prepared and organised, with a clearly structured dialogue with citizen, interested parties, entrepreneurs, other actors, e.g. within a geographic area. This method occurs in several different variants, and can be applied to situations where aims as well as courses of action are open. It could be a question of e.g. determining the direction and basis for upcoming changes and developments in dialogue with the residents and actors of an area. Proposals are formulated and prioritised, and then handed over to the politicians for decision. Sometimes, the term ‘Counsel’ is used when a municipality or regional board wants the citizens to take sides and prioritise one of two different proposals, either on the Internet or in meetings in the flesh. It is often promised, too, that the proposal that gains most votes will be the one that is carried out. With that it is a method for participation.

It is important to remember that it is an actual case that is handled. If actors and other interested parties are going to contribute and take an active interest, there must be some kind of rootedness in reality. It cannot be some kind of “swimming practice on land” without a clear aim defined in time and space. Make certain that you have the right target group/interested parties and that the adequate number of participants is invited from the start. Engage an experienced process leader who knows how to make the rules and limits clear, and clarify what the participants can have an impact on – their acting space. Do not forget the feedback to the participants after the project, on what was decided and how. This method requires extensive work and efforts beforehand, during and afterwards from officials and politicians.

The main proposals are already crystallised and with that no new proposals can enter the process in this form for counsel.