This assembly helps bridge the gap between the National Gallery and the general public in an effort to increase visitation and understanding of technology in the future of the National Gallery. Using a national assembly allows the Gallery to gain vital information to improve.
The National Gallery Citizens’ Assembly
The National Gallery Citizens’ Assembly is a landmark experiment, and the first one of its kind. The Gallery has been in London for over 200 years, and the aim of this assembly is to bring it into the present day. A citizens’ assembly is a group of people who are brought together to discuss an issue and reach a conclusion. Those who take part are meant to reflect the general public [1]. The frame of this study was a hybrid representative democracy to explore the challenges for people to access art and how traditional art can be affected by technologies and artificial intelligence. Through the use of sortition, fifty participants were able to learn, discuss and finally present proposals to help improve the gallery. This matters democratically as assemblies are able to provide the general public’s opinions, increasing democratic legitimacy.
This essay will delve into the structure of the assembly and how Graham Smith’s Democratic Innovations have been used to improve the assembly. His six democratic goods coincide with this citizens’ assembly, showing how deliberative democracy is effective in situations other than politics. The Assembly will provide recommendations on how to welcome visitors, share their paintings, and plan for the future within the gallery [2].
Problems and Purpose
The National Gallery is one of the largest hosts of artwork globally. They wanted to appeal to the younger demographics, demonstrating how artwork can span generations. The purpose of the National Gallery Citizens’ Assembly was to ask ‘What do you want from the UK’s National Gallery?’ and ‘How can it bring people and paintings together in authentic and meaningful ways, now and in the future?’ [3]. These two questions were at the centre of the assembly, wanting to increase visitors to the museum in the future. While there was no outright problem, there was a desire to increase public awareness of art and allow people to make contributions towards what they see. The desire to develop understanding in authentic and meaningful ways addresses the desire to have more of the population experience the gallery. This was done through having the assembly be filled with people who mostly had never been to the National Gallery before.
The primary purpose of the Citizens’ Assembly was to gather opinion on artwork preferences and raise priorities to help inform the National Gallery’s future strategy. They wanted to address the unequal access to art galleries and how the sector should adapt to emerging technologies. This would help them evolve with current advancements, staying current while also embracing the history behind the paintings. As the Gallery had recently hit its 200th anniversary in 2024, a want to reimagine its role became a catalyst for the assembly [4]. The Assembly would help inform the gallery director, showing what recommendations could help benefit the gallery, and how it can accommodate the younger generations. The Assembly also wanted to focus on how barriers prevent people from visiting the gallery. While it does have free admission, geographic location, disability and perceptions of elitism are a few reasons why some of the UK population may not want to attend the gallery. The assembly discussed these issues and how to combat them, increasing visitation from all classes. The want to have more young people in the assembly helps increase understanding of how to increase the number of youth audiences visiting. The representation helps the gallery find resolutions to this barrier.
Background History and Context
The National Gallery was founded in 1824 and currently houses over 2,400 pieces of work. Its primary focus is on paintings from 1250 to 1900 [5]. The gallery does not charge for admission, just asks for donations and has some charges for exhibitions. They hold one of the largest amounts of work in the world, and have it open to the public as much as possible. In 2025 alone, over four million people visited the National Gallery, a 29% increase from 2024 [6]. This increase demonstrates the interest in art, but does not display how many of them were not from London. The aim of this assembly is to take people who have never been to the gallery and let them understand its atmosphere before creating new proposals to help increase attendance even further.
The National Gallery is the first of its kind to do a national citizens’ assembly. There have been previous galleries that have run a citizens’ assembly, like Birmingham Museum Citizen Jury, but this was the first to use participants from across the UK. Birmingham was a beneficial initiative, as it was a demonstration of how participatory governance can happen within the cultural sector. The National Gallery is using this and implementing it on a larger scale. These cases are very different, as mentioned in the interview with the independent evaluator, for example, in Birmingham, they had a separate final session to propose the principles created, while the National Gallery combined the final session with the proposal session.
The project was designed as a five-year process. The first year, which concluded in March 2026, consisted of the assembly. This was five sessions over five months, where the participants could learn about the gallery and then form their decisions. These sessions were both in-person and online. This helped immerse the participants in the atmosphere of the gallery, so they could understand what they were discussing, but also cut down costs for those travelling across the country each month. The subsequent four years will involve a citizens panel, monitoring to ensure the recommendations are being implemented.
Organising, Supporting, and Funding Entities
As the National Gallery is a public institution, they were able to commission and sponsor the project. They were able to use external companies to help provide the participants and build the assembly in order to keep it impartial and work as best as possible within the timeline. These neutral, third-party organisations help improve trust among the participants as well as increase legitimacy, as they lack an institutional bias. They used Involve, a public participation charity that helps facilitate citizen assemblies, to organise the design of the assembly and how the sessions will be conducted [7]. This was beneficial as Involve has conducted many assemblies, so understand the components needed for a profitable assembly. Sortition Foundation was used to recruit the participants. The Sortition Foundation are specialists in civil lotteries, so using their database to help produce a diverse number of participants [8]. This helps find people who have never attended the gallery before, but also a breadth of generations, helping broaden the opinions and, in turn, the output.
The decision to use outside organisations, Involve and the Sortition Foundation, allows for a reduction in bias. The National Gallery had no input in the participant selection, meaning that they received genuine responses from the general public, and not frequent visitors. Additionally, the use of sortition is crucial to the legitimacy of the assembly. This is because it reflects the wider society and their opinions, rather than just those who regularly visit the gallery. Sortition also increases the validity of the assembly, due to the level of representation and reduces inequalities as all of the participants are learning about the gallery together, having roughly the same understanding of the gallery going into the assembly.
Due to the final reports being released later this year, the amount of funding is currently undisclosed. It is understood that once the report comes out, there will be more understanding of the organisation process and how much funding was supplied.
Participant Recruitment and Selection
Participants were recruited through a civil lottery. The Sortition Foundation applied to 15,000 households who were invited to register for the National Gallery Citizens’ Assembly. As a result, 50 participants were selected to represent the population. The process was not completely random as it depended on whether individuals responded to the invitation and whether they had visited the gallery before. These participants had to be over 16 to apply, and a key feature of the group was that most of the members had never visited the National Gallery before the process [2]. The self-selection bias does still exist, as politically engaged people are more likely to apply. However, the assembly is still legitimate as they keep representation at the forefront of sortition, balancing the demographics to reduce inequality. There could have been a risk of an information imbalance, so the gallery had an online hub with information about each session, which the participants had constant access to throughout the process.
The selection was a balance of age and location. It leaned slightly towards London’s higher diversity, compared to the rest of the UK. The recruitment also focused on occupation rather than education. This was to balance out the socioeconomic representation within the assembly. The independent evaluator noted that there was a good amount of younger people taking part, allowing for a more accurate representation of the UK population [10]. The choice of hybrid participation allows participants to only have to travel to London three times. This reduces costs and, as these members are nationwide, it saves time for those commuting across the country. The hybrid method makes this assembly more transferable over time.
Methods and Tools Used
The process spanned across five sessions: 1, 3, and 5 were in-person at the gallery; sessions 2 and 4 were online [2]. This would help reduce the cost of transport for those who were not based in London. The participants also had access to an online hub, which had slides about the artwork and an exchange of dialogue with some art experts [10]. This was a useful learning tool for the participants outside of the five sessions, so that they are able to come in with more information. This is important as informed participants are extremely valuable in deliberative democracy. They are able to make decisions based on what they have learned during the assembly process, giving accurate and legitimate recommendations.
Within the in-person discussions, there was difficulty with data collection due to traditional note-taking methods. The facilitators used post-it notes and flipcharts to document the discussions between the participants. This led to inconsistent documentation. Within the interview with the independent evaluation, they even noted how this was a struggle, and that there should have been a prioritisation for digital recording tools to help the conversation flow without interruption to take notes. This would also allow the facilitators to monitor the conversation, ensuring that there is equality within participation to gain as much insight as possible.
The online sessions reduced the travel to London every month, and in turn reduced the overall cost of the assembly. The second and fourth sessions were held online, discussing how the gallery can adapt to technologies and then refining the proposals for the final session. The retention of this assembly was nearing 100% at the time of the fourth session, a rarity in citizen assemblies [10]. It could be argued that this was due to the hybrid method taken, as it allowed the participants to have more engagement, instead of focusing on travelling each month to London for the sessions. The retention is important in the assembly as each of the fifty participants is representative of the UK population. If the attendance declined, it would become less representative and, in turn, less of a legitimate process.
Yet, the in-person meetings were also beneficial. Session three conducted a market-stall activity. This activity was aimed to be free-flowing, where participants are able to move around the room and choose which specific stalls to visit. Each stall was discussing a type of artwork with experts leading it. This had a range of topics from disability access to art to the colonial history of painting materials. The activity helped the participants gain insight into a range of perspectives and helped shape the final principles for the Gallery.
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation
The Assembly has recently finished the learning and deliberative phase. As it is an ongoing process, the implementations of principles will happen over the next four years, due to this being a five-year process.
Preparation and recruitment:
The assembly aimed to have people all across the UK represent the population in the questions, ‘What do you want from the UK’s National Gallery? How can it bring people and paintings together in authentic and meaningful ways, now and in the future?’ [2]. They achieved this through the Sortition Foundation, gathering the assembly members. The selection was based on a range of ages, occupations and whether they had never attended the gallery before.
There was not much preparation beforehand, as a large amount of the sessions would be spent experiencing and learning about the gallery. The aim of preparation was to make sure people had travel and hotels booked if needed.
Learning phase:
The learning stage spanned the five sessions, each with a different objective. These sessions aimed to educate the participants on the gallery and then help produce recommendations to engage more generations. They wanted to answer the question, ‘What do you want from the UK’s National Gallery?’ [2].
Session one was an introduction to the gallery, as many had never visited before. The aim of the session was for people to get to know each other and the aim of the assembly. There were presentations from the staff of the Gallery about its history and tours to experience the space. They explored topics such as how art can be open to everyone, how the gallery can adapt to emerging technologies, and the social value of art [9]. As this was many participants’ first time, there was a large emphasis on the space and how they would be impacting it.
In December, the participants came together online to discuss more complex issues that the gallery faces. The goal of this session was to explore the challenges that art galleries are facing in the UK. They spoke about unequal access to art, the changes the sector will be facing due to emerging technologies and artificial intelligence, and a wider public view of the arts. The online session aimed to reduce costs for those travelling into London, as this was a nationwide group. There was also the beginning of an understanding of the gallery’s audience, highlighting some barriers that prevent people from visiting [10]. This was the first of the online sessions, allowing the participants to gather a further understanding of the intentions of the assembly and how their decisions will affect the gallery.
Session three was a market-stall activity, where the participants were able to experience different forms of art and choose which ones to view. They also had the chance to attend the ‘Friday Lates’ ahead of the Saturday session. This is where the gallery is open till 9 pm so that people can experience workshops or live performances through the evening [11]. This session allowed the participants to discuss inclusion in the arts and understand a range of perspectives. This session also allowed members to begin shaping the principles they were going to suggest to the gallery [12].
The fourth session was held online, bringing the members together to begin drafting their proposals. They had an introduction from the Director of Public Engagement, then developed 21 emerging principles and 19 ideas for action. This session was an opportunity to bring together the ideas from the past three sessions and build some final principles before the final session in March [13].
In the final session, the participants reduced the 21 emerging principles into eight guiding principles to be taken on board. They discussed their overarching Vision Statement and how they want to bring people and paintings together in authentic and meaningful ways. After, the principles were presented to the Director of the National Gallery, Sir Gabriele Finaldi [14]. This session was a combination of a final summary session and a presentation session.
Deliberative phase:
The final session acted as both the learning and deliberative phase, as they presented their final proposals to the Director of the gallery. They concluded with eight proposals and created a team to advise over the next four years, to monitor that these principles are being implemented and not ignored. A final report of the Assembly’s findings has not been published yet, but will come out in the following weeks.
Caveat in deliberative phase:
The project saw nearly a 100% retention rate through to session four, which facilitators noted was exceptionally high for such processes [10]. Yet, as the final session was both refining the proposals and presenting them, those who missed the session were unable to give their opinion on a process they had spent months engaging in.
There was also a challenge with facilitators. As they were freelancers, they would change each session. This caused a lack of consistency between the data collection of each session and an absence of context between sessions for the facilitators. This would not benefit the participants, as they were not able to bring questions from the last session to the next, as the facilitator may not know the contents of the previous session [10].
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
The final output of the assembly created eight principles, narrowed down over two sessions, for the National Gallery to follow. The final recommendations were presented in session five to the director of the National Gallery, Sir Gabriele Finaldi [14]. His attendance at the final session helped solidify the efforts of the participants and his excitement about the new chapter for the gallery.
However, there was a long-term oversight during the last session. Other citizen assemblies have a separate final session to present their findings. Oppositely, the National Gallery Citizens’ Assembly combined the final session and the presentation of recommendations. Four of the 50 participants were unable to attend, and as a result, they were not able to give their final opinion. This meant that the gallery lost out on the full process.
There will be implementation of the eight principles over the next four years, so the full outcome of the citizens’ assembly will not be known until the end of the five-year process.
Analysis and Lessons Learned
The assembly showed how the inclusion of non-visitors is beneficial, as it gives an outside opinion. They are able to learn about the gallery from the experts, helping them form their final decision. The assembly reflects Graham Smith’s six democratic goods, showing how this form of representative democracy is effective [15]. This chapter will discuss each of the democratic goods in relation to the National Gallery Citizens’ Assembly and how they have been used. The increase in democratic quality within the assembly makes this more than just participation, showing its value to the gallery and representative democracy.
Inclusion:
The civic lottery was able to create increasing inclusion by reaching those who have not visited the museum before [2]. Through the invitation of 15,000 households across the UK, the Sortition Foundation was able to create a diverse group of participants, including young people and those not located in London. This reach of people helps create a better understanding of the gallery from fresh eyes, and allows them to be informed by a representative group of the UK population. The sortition process was able to avoid the “upper and middle class tones” (p. 115) by focusing on occupation over education as a factor in the selection process, making sure that demographics are present. Smith warns that this can dominate participation, so it should be avoided if able to [15, p115]. This makes the number of participants aimed to be concurrent with the representation of the UK, as well as furthering the retention level, as the members understand the validity of their presence. This inclusion demonstrates the value of this citizens’ assembly and how assemblies can be used in areas other than politics. While fifty participants cannot fully represent the UK and each perspective, mini-publics aim for diversity among the participants rather than exact representation of each perspective across the UK, due to its unachievability.
The National Gallery Citizens’ Assembly also focuses on inclusiveness with voice. This was done through the hybrid method, as having all the sessions online could prevent some people from participating. The in-person sessions allow the facilitators to monitor the equality of participation and allow those who are quieter to have a chance to give their opinion. Smith discusses how equality of voice is achieved through participants having equal right to contribute (p.22), and this can be seen in the National Gallery, as the facilitators supervised the sessions to ensure this [15, p. 22].
Considered Judgement:
Deliberation was able to be broadened through the use of different activities, as well as online sessions and resources. The market-stall activity did help innovate the learning format by allowing participants to decide for themselves by moving between tables to engage with experts on topics. This links to Smith’s “enlarged mentality” (p. 24), where people can imaginatively place themselves in the position of others, as the participants can appreciate the lived experiences that the experts are telling them about [15, p. 24]. This does mean that the deliberation phase heavily relies on what information the participants have received and how the experts have shaped it.
It could be seen that this difference in teaching, as well as the online sessions, helped keep high engagement. The hybrid method allowed participants to be successfully supported and sustain interest in the deliberation process. This method is also beneficial, as if it were fully online, some participants may stay silent, or not believe there is an opportunity for them to speak. In-person sessions allow for more collaboration. In addition, the hybrid method kept costs down, which allowed for this case to be adaptable to other nations.
Popular control:
As mentioned, there was a critique of the ‘window of opportunity’, where four members missed the final session due to personal reasons, such as moving country, and lost their ability to vote on the eight final principles, rendering their prior involvement in the assembly as redundant. This reduces popular control among the participants as they are unable to take part in collective decisions [10].
The participants were also able to gain popular control, as after the assembly, there is a rotating group of 10 members who will spend the next four years monitoring the implementation of the assembly’s recommendations, to ensure they do not get ignored. While there were limitations, there is still control by the participants all the way up to the implementations.
Transparency:
The flow of information to the participants was utilised through the online hub. However, an interview with an independent evaluator showed that the hub was not always updated with constant information, leaving some questions to go unanswered [15]. A significant barrier to information was that the experts were voluntary, reducing internal transparency. This means they were unpaid and would only be available for one session. As a result, participants who had questions after a session would be left alone in finding an answer. There was also anxiety from the facilitators as they did not want to overwhelm the participants with information. This could have been avoided by having the hub open earlier, allowing participants to absorb information. Therefore, internal transparency was weaker due to the delay in information to the participants. While they were able to seek out further information on the ‘Friday Lates’ nights, the level of internal transparency from organisers to the participants is low [11].
In regard to external transparency, the National Gallery updated its NG Citizens’ Assembly page frequently. A summation of each session was provided, helping illustrate what they are working towards [2]. This helps the flow of information reach the wider public, linking to Smith’s discussion of transparency, and how the public needs to have information in order to make sure the institution’s outputs are legitimate and trustworthy [15]. This helps build a concrete flow of information to the participants and then to the general public, allowing for dependable representation. The external transparency was very strong, compared to internal transparency, and the public had access to constant updates, helping the legitimacy of the assembly.
Efficiency:
From an efficiency standpoint, the assembly could benefit from technological methods. The use of Post-it notes for data collection meant that there was inconsistent data, from different shorthand styles to some not taking enough notes. Some facilitators wrote one or two keywords so that they could remain in the conversation, while others wrote descriptive notes to understand the group’s intentions [10]. The move to digital tools would be beneficial because it would save the facilitator the worry of note-taking and allow them to concentrate more on the conversation and on equal participation. Moreover, the use of freelance facilitators creates an efficiency gap. There was a lack of consistency due to the change of facilitators, and there was often a lack of context from the previous deliberation. This meant that it was difficult for the participants to refer back to previous discussions as the facilitator was not present.
In the interview with the independent evaluator, they highlighted that there were two support members who were present throughout to make sure the participants were compensated for their travel expenses, helped with technology difficulties for the online sessions, and handled the logistics behind the sessions [10]. Smith analyses how administrative costs can burden citizens and reduce the level of participation [15]. The National Gallery Citizens’ Assembly reduced this by having administrative roles from Involve as a solution to the cost burden, allowing the participants to solely focus on the decision-making.
Transferability:
This model would be transferable, due to its simple set-up, timeframe and application to other institutions. This process is the first of its kind for a UK national gallery. As a result, it helps prove that minipublic models can work successfully in environments other than politics. The evaluator noted that there is already a lot of interest in the model globally, specifically mentioning that galleries in Australia and Taiwan were interested [10]. This demonstrates how the template can be used across the world to help collect audience insight and collective decision-making. Furthermore, the hybrid format allows for a balance of physical immersion in the gallery with the accessibility of online work. This helps create a representative democracy and allows for higher retention. The creation of the Citizens Panel, a rotating group of ten members of the assembly, can also be transferred, as it means there is no need for another civic lottery to find participants. The mechanism can be copied and implemented in different galleries to ensure that the deliberation is implemented.
In regard to Smith’s framework, inclusion and considered judgment in the National Gallery Citizens’ Assembly is seen as the strongest [15]. They are both constantly considered throughout the process to make sure that the participants are being taken care of and given recommendations on behalf of the UK population. The most critical is popular control, due to the final session being the proposal session. As some were unable to attend the final session, their efforts seem to be made redundant, and may discourage them from being involved in minipublics in the future. The National Gallery successfully demonstrated the potential of deliberative democracy in a cultural setting. It was able to highlight limitations that future assemblies are able to learn from, due to the transferability of this process. The National Gallery Citizens’ Assembly has just passed the first year of this five-year process, but is already proving how valuable it is, breaking minipublics norms by being used in museums. The future of this assembly is bright and enlightening for the future of deliberative democracy.
References
- Involve. (2020). Citizens’ Assembly. Involve. https://www.involve.org.uk/resource/citizens-assembly
- The National Gallery. (2025). NG Citizens. Nationalgallery.org.uk. https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/news/ng-citizens
- The National Gallery. (2024). NG200. Www.nationalgallery.org.uk. https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/about-us/ng200-programme
- The National Gallery. (n.d). Collection Overview | Paintings. Www.nationalgallery.org.uk. https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/collection-overview
- The National Gallery. (2025). 29% Rise in Visits to the National Gallery in 2025 after Bicentenary and re-opening of Sainsbury Wing | Press Releases | National Gallery, London. Nationalgallery.org.uk. https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/about-us/press-and-media/press-releases/29-rise-in-visits-to-the-national-gallery-in-2025-after-bicentenary-and-re-opening-of-sainsbury-wing
- Involve. (2018, April 20). About Involve. Involve.org.uk. https://www.involve.org.uk/about/about-involve
- Sortition Foundation. (n.d.). Sortition Foundation. Sortition Foundation. https://www.sortitionfoundation.org/
- Roberts, I. (2026, April 24). Interview with an Independent Evaluator of the National Gallery Citizens’ Assembly (I. Francis, Interviewer) [Personal communication].
- The National Gallery. (2025). Session One | NG Citizens | National Gallery, London. Nationalgallery.org.uk. https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/news/ng-citizens/session-one
- The National Gallery. (2025). Session Two | NG Citizens | National Gallery, London. Nationalgallery.org.uk. https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/news/ng-citizens/session-two
- The National Gallery. (n.d.). Friday Lates | Events | National Gallery, London. Www.nationalgallery.org.uk. https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/events/friday-lates
- The National Gallery. (2026). Session Three | NG Citizens | National Gallery, London. Nationalgallery.org.uk. https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/news/ng-citizens/session-three
- The National Gallery. (2026). Session Four | NG Citizens | National Gallery, London. Nationalgallery.org.uk. https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/news/ng-citizens/session-four
- The National Gallery. (2026) Session Five | NG Citizens | National Gallery, London. Nationalgallery.org.uk. https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/news/ng-citizens/session-five
- Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge University Press.
Notes
Please note that in the transcript of the interview with Isabella Roberts, some information has been redacted because it is not public yet. This information will be later available in Roberts’ report on the National Gallery Citizens’ Assembly.
