Problems and Purpose

The purpose of the Birmingham Museums Citizens’ Jury was to engage Birmingham’s public in shaping the future of their city's museums. It aimed to democratise the institute's decision-making by including voices often excluded, particularly from working-class and underrepresented communities. In addition to addressing funding and engagement issues within the museum, the jury was also a step toward facing the museum’s colonial past and acknowledging the need for inclusivity as well as more representative storytelling to closer align with the desires of Birmingham’s diverse population.

The Birmingham Museums Citizens’ Jury was commissioned by the Birmingham Museum Trust (BMT), and was created in response to longstanding challenges affecting the museum sector: declining public sector funding and low levels of engagement among key demographics, with Birmingham city councils declaration of bankruptcy highlighting the severity of the issues. The BMT recognised they were failing to connect with visitors from lower socio-economic backgrounds in particular, especially individuals with limited or no formal education. These issues were further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing cost of living crisis, which intensified inequalities and limited the museums capacity to serve the public effectively. Confronted with these pressures, Birmingham Museums Trust, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, hosted a Citizen jury aimed to place the people of Birmingham at the centre of reimagining their museums, asking the question: “What does Birmingham need and want from its museums, now and in the future; and what should Birmingham Museums Trust do to make these things happen?”. The Citizens’ Jury format was chosen to ensure that voices typically excluded from elite decision-making could shape the future of Birmingham’s cultural locations. The project aimed to foster inclusive, democratic dialogue about how BMT could realign its priorities and practices to reflect Birmingham's history.

Background History and Context

The Birmingham Museums Citizens’ Jury emerged at a critical moment for the UK cultural and heritage sector. Like many public institutions, the Birmingham Museums Trust (BMT) faced increasing financial pressure due to sustained cuts in public sector funding, a notable impact due to the majority of funding coming through this budget, alongside growing criticism for a lack of engagement with marginalised communities. In particular, BMT struggled to attract and represent visitors from lower socio-economic backgrounds and those with limited or no formal education, with those with a degree attending museums of rates up to 4.6 times more, a challenge that was further amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in visitation to plummet in numbers that recover at much slower rates, as well as the ongoing cost-of-living crisis.

This jury initiative, commissioned by BMT, was the first of its kind to take place in a British museum, and marked a significant shift in how the organisation approached institutional accountability and public participation, as more cultural institutes explore such practices as part of social responsibility. The project also took place against a backdrop of wider national debates around the role of museums in reckoning with Britain’s colonial past and the demand for more inclusive storytelling in cultural spaces. Unlike traditional consultation methods, this citizens’ jury aimed to give ordinary residents that would otherwise be overlooked, or remain disengaged themselves, a direct voice in shaping the future of Birmingham’s museums, an important factor due to the high number of marginalized groups within the city.

The question posed to the participants: “What does Birmingham need and want from its museums now and in the future?”, framed the museum not merely as an institute dedicated to preserving history, but as a site of cultural responsibility and public engagement.

Organising, Supporting, and Funding Entities

The Birmingham Museums Citizens’ Jury was a collaborative initiative that involved several key entities, each playing different roles, from organizing, supporting and funding the process. The primary organizing body was Birmingham Museums Trust (BMT), the city's leading museum operators a, which commissioned the jury to help redefine the role of museums in response to the numerous problems facing the institutes under its command. This decision was inspired by, and reflects, the wider trend of institutes incorporating greater democratic frameworks into the decision making processes, such as the the New Art Exchange in Nottingham has also recently incorporated a permanent citizens’ assembly into its leadership structure (1) or, In Germany, the Bundeskunsthalle, an art gallery in Bonn, and Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, a decorative arts museum in Dresden, ran a similar process to the birmingham citizen jury in 2023 (2).

To design and facilitate the process, BMT partnered with Shared Future CIC, an organization with extensive experience in running deliberative democratic processes, such as citizens’ juries and participatory democracy, all across the UK, such as Blackburn (3) and Bude (4). ‘SharedFuture CIC’ oversaw the participant selection, training facilitators, designing the sessions and the moderating discussions to ensure inclusivity and neutrality. Their team provided neutral facilitation throughout the jury process to ensure balanced discussions and prevent dominant voices from skewing outcomes.

To ensure that the Birmingham Museums Citizens’ Jury was both inclusive and representative, the Birmingham Museums Trust partnered with The Sortition Foundation, a non-profit specializing in random selection, was enlisted to recruit jury participants using stratified random sampling. This method ensured that the 28-member jury reflected Birmingham’s demographic diversity, with those being selected including variety in age, ethnicity, education, religion, gender, disability, LGBT statutes, geographic location and the deprivation index.

Financial support for the entire operation came from the National Lottery Heritage Fund. The fund is nationwide and aims at facilitating heritage projects in hopes of connecting communities to their history through financial assistance. The grant offered to the BMT amounted to just under £250,000 (5), and enabled the project to cover the costs of participant stipends, expert fees, venue costs, accessibility services and professional facilitation. This all ensured a high quality service and equal participation for the members of the jury.

In line with best practices, An oversight panel was created to ensure ethical governance of the operation and to maintain the feeling for the recruits that the entire process was fair and stood up to scrutiny. With 16 members, chaired by Tony Simpson of the BMT Board, the panel represented a broad spectrum of local organizations and individuals, including (6):

1. Andrew Smith, Church of England
2. Anita Shervington, BLAST Fest
3. Chris Jordan, Birmingham City Council
4. David Mba, Birmingham City University
5. Esther Slater, Feast
6. Luís de Melo Jerónimo, Calouste Gulbenkian
7. Marcia Lewis, Witton Community Hub
8. Mark O’Neill, Independent Museums Consultant
9. Nicole Curato, Birmingham University
10. Paul Slatter, Childrens’ Quarter
11. Rabiyah Latif, Near Neighbours
12. Robert Alden, Birmingham City Council
13. Saima Suleman, Birmingham City Council
14. Tom Keavney, BeIN Media Group
15. Tom Wakeford, Freelance Consultant

The panel met four times in total, to ensure the fairness of the process, suggest topics to be considered for the citizens jury and push for the implementation of many of their ideas. Further support to ensure transparency was provided, offering the opportunity to observe the process of the citizen jury from start to finish to independent stakeholders, though this was capped at three per session to prevent the jury from feeling overwhelmed or outnumbered. These observers were permitted to watch the deliberations only and could not engage, being instructed to remain silent for its duration. The list of those who attended at least one session goes as follows (6):

1. Andrea Bonnell, Birmingham Museums Trust
2. Hayley Pepler, West Midlands Combined Authority
3. Isabella Roberts, External Evaluator
4. Lucien Smith, Department for Culture, Media and Sport
5. Lucy Reid, DemocracyNext
6. Mark O’Neill, Independent Museums Consultant
7. Niels de Vos, Birmingham Museums Trust (Chair)
8. Rob Lewis, Birmingham Museums Trust
9. Rosie Barker, Birmingham Museums Trust
10. Sara Wajid, Birmingham Museums Trust
11. Siobhán Stevenson, Birmingham Museums Trust
12. Stuart Tulloch, Arts Council England
13. Tismena Bashir, National Lottery Heritage Fund
14. Tony Simpson, Chair of Oversight Panel and Trustee, Birmingham Museums Trust
15. Zak Mensah, Birmingham Museums Trust

Finally, additional assistance was provided by DemocracyNext, an international organization that is working to accelerate the spread of high quality and permanent citizen assemblies. Lucy Reid was named primarily (6) as a serving advisor to the BMT and the citizen jury as a whole.

Participant Recruitment and Selection

Participation in the Birmingham Museums Citizens’ Jury was by invitation only, with the goal of assembling a demographically accurate group of representatives in comparison to the residents of Birmingham itself. The Sortition Foundation used a process aptly named sortition, which uses a method called stratified random sampling, drawing 5,000 household addresses from the Royal Mail database within the confines of the Birmingham metropolitan area and sending each an invitation letter coupled with answers to frequently asked questions. The letter emphasised the value of lived experience over specialist knowledge or skills to encourage greater turnouts, even offering £330 in vouchers plus expense reimbursement to further support participation, especially for those who might be prevented in the face of financial or logistical barriers.

Of the 87 individuals who responded, 28 were selected to reflect the city’s diversity based on characteristics such as gender, age, ethnicity, disability, education, religion, socio-economic status, and LGBTQI+ identity. Special effort was made to overrepresent those with lower educational attainment, who are statistically less likely to visit museums, though this was only partially successful due to a low response rate from this group.

Each selected jury member was invited to a 1-on-1 introductory phone call in advance of the main session, done in order for the participants to establish a relationship with a member of the Shared Futures team, reassure Jury members, answer any questions, and identify any further support or travel needs. While jury members were the sole decision-makers, external commentators provided presentations and answered questions. These experts, chosen by the previously mentioned Oversight Panel, informed deliberations but did not participate in decision-making.

The recruitment targets for various demographic groups and the final composition of the jury members are as follows (6), and highlight the success in the citizens jury to hit there targets in attendance for marginalised communities present in the city:

Methods and Tools Used

The Birmingham Museums Citizens’ Jury employed the method of a Citizens’ Jury, a deliberative democratic process designed to involve a small, demographically representative group of citizens in informed discussion and decision-making on a specific issue. This method enables diverse voices to be heard and encourages collective reflection, ultimately leading to informed recommendations.

To support the deliberative process, several facilitation tools and techniques were employed. These included small-group deliberation, where participants were divided into diverse “home groups” to build rapport and allow deeper discussion. Commentator presentations, followed by question and answer sessions, served to provide expert information without steering decision-making. The use of opinion lines allowed participants to physically or visually place themselves along a spectrum of agreement or disagreement in response to key prompts, fostering self-reflection and open discussion.

Another important technique has prioritization through ranking exercises, where groups ordered roles or recommendations by perceived importance. Facilitators also used interactive activities such as games, drawing, Lego modeling, and storytelling exercises to engage different learning and communication styles, build trust, and surface insights from lived experience.

These tools were chosen for their capacity to support inclusivity, engagement, and critical thinking, aligned with the Jury’s theory of change: to center community voices in shaping the future of Birmingham’s museums. Tools like structured Q&A and small group dialogues helped balance input from experts with deliberation among participants, mitigating power imbalances and reinforcing the Jury’s autonomy in decision-making.

Together, these methods and tools created a structured, supportive environment for inclusive deliberation, allowing participants to reflect on complex issues and produce informed, community-rooted recommendations.

What Went On: Deliberation, Decision, and Public Interaction

The Birmingham Museums Citizens’ Jury engaged 28 participants in a six-session deliberative process held over two months in Autumn 2024, consisting of 3 in-person saturday sessions and 3 online sessions on thursday evening, resulting in a combined total 30 hours of structured debate. The sessions were facilitated by Shared Future and guided by a variety of deliberative tools and techniques intended to ensure meaningful public engagement, and will be expanded on further into this section.

Session 1: At the first session, hosted on October 5th at the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery, with the aim of making the jury acquainted with each other as well as the impact the museum may have on their community. Shared Futures went on to explain the process and structure of the whole process and any questions they have, then following this, the jury's first activity involved a game of ‘people bingo’ enabling people to open up and create a welcoming atmosphere for discussion.

Following this, the jury were then split into 4 ‘home groups’, a set of pre-arranged groups to maintain a diverse selection, which were then assigned personal facilitators. This would allow for the members to form connections to stipulate conversation. These groups would then develop their own guidelines for the jury, as research shows it increases the likelihood of adoption when self-developed, with each person putting forward one thing they needed from the session to make it work. They were the groups that merged to create a useful set of guidelines and were then emailed to the participants at the start of the next session.

The home groups then engaged in a number of team-building activities, done in order to get the participants warmed up to the citizen jury, but also, and more importantly, they were done to address the need for the ‘lived experiences’ of the prescient of Birmingham. These included: exercises involving creation with either pencil, Lego modelling, freeze frames or group conversation, based on the question “what does Birmingham mean to you”. Another based on the participants “hopes and fears” , where these drawings were then shared. A ‘speed date’ style rotation of conversations were then set up to tell each other personal stories of Birmingham. Next up was a sticky note exercise, where the jury would answer the question “what does the museum mean to us”. The groups then answered questions using ‘opinion lines’, placing themselves at points along a line between “agree” and “disagree”. Finally, after exploring there lived experiences, commentators would share information about the museum sector to the participants, where they were then sent into there groups once more to discuss what they have learnt and then shared these thoughts, as well as information the jury wishes to hear more about in the future session, to be shared with the oversight panel.

Session 2: Taking place online, the jury reconvened into their home groups once again to reflect on the previous session, and discussion based warm up activities. This session involved commentators giving talks on the questions “ideas for how to get more people in”, and “research on existing and new audiences”. The jury then discussed the information with their group to then be relayed back to the commentators as questions, and any questions not answered due to time constraints were subsequently emailed to the commentators after the session duration. To maintain an accessible atmosphere, any participants that were uncomfortable asking questions had the option for separate commentators to speak on their behalf.

Session 3: online once again, the jury began with the home group check-in with and a short on critical thinking, with time to reflect afterwards, preparing them for the future questions as well as what questions still needed answering to full address overarching question of: ‘What does Birmingham need and want from its museums, now and in the future; and what should Birmingham Museums Trust do to make these things happen?’. The session focused on two themes chosen by the Jury: museum funding and presenting diverse historical perspectives. Presentations were delivered by Zak Mensah on museum budgets and Mark O’Neill on managing polarized narratives in Glasgow’s museums. Jury members discussed the content in their home groups, posed follow-up questions to the commentators, and reflected on key takeaways to guide future sessions.

Session 4: Also conducted online, this session focused on preparing the jury to begin shaping their recommendations. The sessioned opened with the typical home group discussion and check in, once again to maintain a talkative atmosphere, and reflect on the main question once again. Facilitators introduced the idea of recommendations, stressing that they could be specific, broad, or even propose further research, with no ‘right' or ‘wrong’ answer. They made sure the participants were not expected to know all the answers to every question. A key visual exercise followed: participants viewed an image of a tree with various figures in different positions and all with different emotions. They were asked to select one figure that best represented where they felt Birmingham Museums currently stood, and another that reflected where they believed it should be in the future. This was used to spark group dialogue about museums direction.

The second half of the session involved engagement with exhibition content. Commentators presented on “Made in Birmingham exhibition,” “Victorian Radicals exhibition,” and “The Past is Now exhibition,” with pre-recorded videos on the Museums Collection Centre and Thinktank Science Museum. Jury members rotated in breakout groups for timed Q&A with each commentator, clarifying all content and fostering mutual interaction. Finally, participants were each given time to share with their group one or more things they thought should be remembered when writing their recommendation.

Session 5: Taking place in person at the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery, this session also starts with a reconvening of home groups to discuss the overarching question posed to the jurors. After an initial home group check-in and icebreaker activity done to stimulate discussion for the day, involving pulling questions out a hat for all to answer, the participants revisited the outputs from previous sessions, displayed around the room, to reconnect with their earlier reflections. The random groups, based on their birth year, tackled the question “What should our museums be for?”, where facilitators encouraged participants to think of museums in terms of the service they provide and as a space within the city to broaden the discussion, and facilitators probing for specific answers where necessary, to artificially deepen discussion. This generated 11 proposed ‘roles of the museum’, which were later ranked through a laddering exercise, where new, randomly assigned groups would collaborate on their priorities, supported by facilitators who encouraged debate through open ended questions. The results were shared back with the full Jury for more discussion.

Participants also toured two exhibitions: The “Made in Birmingham” and “Victorian Radicals”, to let the jury observe how museum content realistically aligned with the roles discussed. They were given 30 minutes of free exploration, letting participants feel free to develop their own opinions. Afterward, they reflected on the exhibitions’ impact on themselves, such as their feelings eliciates. Later, in open-space Q&A sessions, participants interacted with commentators from the education and employment sectors, deepening understanding of the museum’s wider role in society, providing context for their recommendations.

Finally, Jury members began drafting their first recommendations. Divided into themed groups based on the previous comments of the jury on what they thought the rest needed to remember:

1. Group A: Community involvement and collaboration (including schools and young people).
2. Group B: Funding and Marketing.
3. Group C: New audiences, diversity and representation.
4. Group D: Understanding who is coming and who isn't and balancing education and entertainment for our unique audiences.

They engaged in structured deliberation, sitting at a table of their choosing, dedicated to one of the 4 themes. Told to draw on the list of things to remember to encourage discussion, as well as reassuring the jury they can pick and present opposing ideas for recommendations, as they will all vote on later. They were also reminded of the guidelines they set for themselves to maintain polite discourse. Drawing on personal experience, prior sessions, and expert input from commentators, the session solidified shared priorities and marked the start of collective decision-making. All draft recommendations were typed up and emailed to all participants.

Session 6: As the final session of the Birmingham Museum Citizen Jury, hosted in person at the Thinktank Science Museum, they focused on concluding the deliberation process regarding the recommendations, given the extent of information provided from trip and commentator talks and Q&A’s. It began with an ‘Opposite game,” designed to challenge the habitual thought of the participants, stimulating new perspectives. It involved the participants doing dynamic movements based on the commands of the facilitators, such as “Walk” or “jump”, but half way they would switch the words' meanings, making “Walk” now mean to stop. Afterwards, the home groups all discussed how it made the participants feel, and to make them reflect on the meaning and use of words, done in order to draw emphasis to the words the jury used, helping maintain productive conversations. In each of the deliberative processes, the groups were asked to produce a statement, different from the recommendations by focusing on the participants’ feelings and the journey they’d undertaken. To ensure every voice was heard, all jurors were invited to respond to two prompts: “As a result of our work together I feel…” and “As a result of what I have learned I feel the museum must…”. Participants wrote their responses on sticky notes and placed them under each prompt, allowing all to view and discuss. These contributions were later grouped and used by a smaller writing group to draft a final statement representing the Jury’s collective reflections. This exercise allowed participants to articulate not just what they believed Birmingham’s museums should do, but how the deliberative process had impacted them personally

Jury members then returned to their themed groups to review the draft recommendations created in Session 5. Facilitators helped ensure respectful dialogue based on the guidelines, merging similar proposals and refining wording for clarity and impact when discussed for implementation. Participants later given the option rotated into new groups to write additional recommendations, addressing any remaining gaps that lack definition by the 4 themes already presented. Finally, all jurors cast anonymous votes to indicate their level of support for each recommendation, ensuring fairness and democratic participation. The session closed with a reflective statement-writing activity, where participants contributed personal reflections on their journey and the future of Birmingham’s museums, completing the Jury’s collective voice and formal output. Throughout session 6, participants were given repeated opportunities to discuss, refine and add to their recommendations, in a supportive, non-conflictual and relaxed manner. This helps maintain levels of comfort for the jury, cultivating an atmosphere acceptable for communication, while also strengthening community bonds and involvement. The Jury’s final recommendations and collective statement were compiled and shared with Birmingham Museums Trust to be used to inform future planning.

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

Due to the recency of the Birmingham Museum Citizens Jury compared to the time of writing, the long-term institutional or policy changes have yet to be observed, but the short-term impacts have already achieved several goals that align with its theory of change. Designed to center community voices in the discussion for the future of civic institutions, that so depend on public engagement, the process resulted in 20 recommendations and a collective jury statement, both unanimously supported by the Jury. The output of the jury was then compiled into a public report to inform BMT’ strategic vision. The trust has formally committed to integrating the jurys guidance into its future plans through the development of the ‘laying the foundation’, the overall plan to rebuild Birmingham's museum sector

At the institutional level, the initiative influenced internal practices by shaping the long-term plan the BMT has for its museums, being ‘Laying the foundation’. It also helped reframe the museum’s role as a community-focused and democratically accountable entity, with the jury acting as a catalyst for shifting the focus onto inclusive and community-lead approaches.

Leadership even noted that the process surpassed expectations, shifting from initial concern about disengagement to clear evidence of renewed public trust and enthusiasm for museums. Early examples of institutional change include renewed emphasis on attracting younger audiences, more targeted outreach to previously disengaged communities, and a recognition of the need to decentralize authority, for instance, exploring how public spaces in museums might be repurposed for co-use with local communities. While these shifts are still developing, the Jury reframed internal discussions about the museum’s role as a civic entity, and helped leadership prioritize transparency and sustained engagement over traditional methods.

On an individual level, participants reported increased pride in Birmingham, greater openness to differing views, and a deeper understanding of the museum’s civic role. Some expressed intent to act as informal ambassadors within their communities, alluding that the grassroots effects may extend beyond the process itself. While no immediate policy changes have occurred, the Jury clearly enhanced participants’ civic capacity and community spirit.

The process also contributes to broader democratic innovation in the cultural sector. As one of the first Citizens’ Juries held within a UK museum sector, it has now inspired others to look at potential models for participatory governance. Its inclusive format that emphasises respectful deliberation along with shared learning demonstrates that citizens can produce thoughtful and actionable guidance on complex institutional questions that would otherwise lack popular input. In the long-run, ongoing public accountability and continued engagement from the Birmingham community will be essential to translating recommendations into lasting and positive institutional change.

Analysis and Lessons Learned

The Birmingham Museums Citizens’ Jury was a significant step toward democratic innovation in the British cultural sector, with notable achievements in championing fairness and inclusivity for civic institutions. One of its most important strengths lay in its ability to realise the democratic good of political equality, ensuring that citizens from a variety of social, economic, and cultural backgrounds could contribute meaningfully to institutional decision-making that they would otherwise be left out on, pushing public institutions to better reflect the desires of the people they aim to attract. Applying Graham Smith’s six-part framework of four democratic goods (inclusiveness, popular control, considered judgement, transparency) and two institutional goods (efficiency and transferability), provides a structured analysis of its democratic quality.

Inclusiveness

The Jury excelled in fostering equality, ensuring that citizens from diverse social, economic, and cultural backgrounds could contribute meaningfully to decision-making that would typically exclude them. Participants were selected using stratified random sampling to reflect Birmingham’s demographic diversity across gender, age, ethnicity, disability, education, and LGBTQ+ identity. Even going as far as supplying laptops and dongles to those lacking the necessary equipment, drastically lowering the barriers to entry. Importantly, the Oversight Panel explicitly prioritized outreach to underrepresented educational groups, recognizing that those without formal qualifications are statistically less likely to engage with museums. While full overrepresentation of this group proved difficult due to lower response rates, the inclusion strategy was clear and well-justified, resulting in a diverse set of participants and a success for the facilitators.

Internally, inclusiveness was strengthened through facilitation tools that accommodated varied communication styles, such as: LEGO modeling, storytelling, anonymous Q&A, and drawings. Participants co-developed group guidelines and engaged in regular check-ins, fostering a safe space for equal voice and progressive discussion, that had a higher likelihood of adherence due to the participants personal input. Several jurors who had never entered a museum before reported feeling heard and empowered, with one stating, “I feel like I’ve become a bit of an active citizen through this process.” (6)

Considered Judgement

The Jury produced 20 nuanced recommendations and 11 defined “roles of the museum.” Despite little prior knowledge, participants developed sophisticated proposals such as AI-enhanced exhibitions and community-led programming. The commentators, selected independently by the oversight to avoid bias, offered factual and value-based input, followed by structured Q&A sessions to delve deeper into the reason behind the juror's choice. Deliberation alternated between academic learning and emotional reflection, encouraging thoughtful disagreement. Tools like “cheerleader and critic” roles enhanced critical engagement during final drafting.

Popular Control

While citizens had strong control during the deliberation phase by setting priorities, choosing experts, and drafting recommendations, their control diminished post-deliberation. The recommendations were endorsed by Birmingham Museums Trust and integrated into their ‘Laying the Foundations’ strategy for long-term change. Yet, without a permanent advisory group or formal accountability mechanism, institutional uptake remains uncertain.

Transparency

Internal transparency was high. Participants were kept informed, co-authored process outputs, and received technical support for full participation. External transparency was more limited. Though a final report was published and sessions were observed by outside stakeholders, the wider public had few opportunities to engage. They lack livestreams or public forums. Future iterations should enhance public visibility through social media, public events or participatory exhibitions to engage the remainder of the community.

Efficiency

Backed by a £250,000 National Lottery Heritage Fund grant, the Jury was relatively cost-effective. It delivered actionable outputs and strengthened institutional trust, especially among marginalised communities, and set democratic precedents in the British heritage sector. While this jury demonstrated genuine co-production, without sustained implementation, its long-term value could diminish.

Transferability

This model has already inspired similar projects in Nottingham and Germany, showing clear potential for replication in cultural contexts. Future applications should combine in-person deliberation with digital platforms to broaden engagement and ensure continuity.

Overall, the Birmingham Museums Citizens’ Jury achieved high standards of democratic deliberation and inclusion. With added accountability structures and external engagement strategies, it offers a replicable model for embedding public opinion into governance.

See Also

Southwark Citizen Jury on Climate Change: https://participedia.net/case/12484

References

Bibliography:

1. New Art Exchange | NAE. (n.d.). New Art Exchange | NAE | Creative Arts in Nottingham. [online] Available at: https://www.nae.org.uk/#:~:text=The%20New%20Art%20Exchange%20(NAE,call%20this%20the%20VOICE%20assembly. (1)
2. Buergerrat.de. (2024). Museums democratise by sortition. [online] Available at: https://www.buergerrat.de/en/news/museums-democratise-by-sortition/ (2)
3. Shared Future. (2025). Blackburn with Darwen People’s Jury follow-on - Shared Future. [online] Available at: https://sharedfuturecic.org.uk/reports/blackburn-with-darwen-peoples-jury-follow-on/ (3)
4. Hall, J. (2024). Bude Area Community Jury on Climate Change - Shared Future. [online] Shared Future. Available at: https://sharedfuturecic.org.uk/bude-area-community-jury-on-climate-change/ (4)
5. The National Lottery Heritage Fund. (2023). Laying the foundations for the transformation of Birmingham Museums Trust. [online] Available at: https://www.heritagefund.org.uk/projects/laying-foundations-transformation-birmingham-museums-trust (5)
6. Birmingham Museums Citizens’ Jury. (n.d.). Available at: https://sharedfuturecic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Birmingham-Museums-Citizens-Jury-Report.pdf (6)
7. Smith, G. (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Online] Available at: https://www-cambridge-org.soton.idm.oclc.org/core/books/democratic-innovations/7887AF1095A7546F8AE2E072CEF760F4 (7)