© All rights reserved
As part of Public Innovation Month, Make.org and Res publica organised a collaborative workshop on November 25 at the CESE headquarters, dedicated to the complementarity of digital and face-to-face interaction.
Consultations, dialogues, conventions... How can we amplify citizen participation by combining digital and in-person elements? As part of Public Innovation Month, organized by the Interministerial Directorate for Public Transformation (DITP), Respublica and Make.org , two civic tech companies committed for several years to democratic and societal issues, held a collaborative workshop on November 25th at the Palais d'Iéna, headquarters of the Economic, Social and Environmental Council (CESE), to share best practices for various participatory mechanisms combining digital and in-person elements. A shared conviction prevailed: “To be commensurate with the challenges, participatory democracy must broadly involve the population by exploring all existing methods.”
In his “general philosophy is to create a hybrid between organized civil society and citizens ,” is “convinced that digitizing a portion of citizen discourse can produce extremely useful results . However, he specifies, it is essential that “the question be extremely well framed, within a supportive context that leaves no doubt about the potential for this work to be misused .” And that “we are perfectly clear about what we do with the final result, and how we organize accountability to citizens over a longer period .
Alicia Combaz, co-founder and CEO of Make.org, reiterated the question posed to participants at this workshop: “Civic tech and grassroots citizen participation: a winning combination?” This “combination” is concretely illustrated in Make.org’s approach: “Our company was created five years ago around this mission of massively engaging civil society in the positive transformation of society. This mission involves two key aspects: engagement, which is achieved through very large-scale digital citizen consultations, and societal transformation, which involves implementing actions stemming from these participatory processes and monitoring their impact. Therefore, from the outset, in-person interaction has been an integral part of our highly tech-driven approach, because following our digital consultations, we gather in collective intelligence workshops to develop and implement actions on the ground.”
Sophie Guillain, CEO of Respublica, explains that at a certain point, her firm, a specialist in consultation and collaborative dialogue, needed digital tools to amplify and scale up its in-person processes, particularly through its Jenparle . “How do we get people to contribute who wouldn't attend a face-to-face meeting? How do we structure and frame online discussions so that people can exchange ideas calmly, productively, and usefully? How do we ensure that the discussion is part of a broader consultation process where other things are happening, avoiding digital technology for its own sake, and instead offering interconnected building blocks?” These are the questions that workshop participants (local elected officials, association leaders, entrepreneurs, consultants, etc.) are invited to answer in small groups this Thursday evening in the Eiffel Room of the Palais d'Iéna.
First step, each table is invited to choose the mechanism it wishes to analyze: participatory budget , citizens' convention , consultation for a local development project , national consultation such as the Great Debate, or regional or metropolitan public policy.
Advantages and disadvantages
We quickly get to the heart of the matter. The first obstacle: whether in person or remotely, “there will always be audiences we can't reach . Generational divide, digital divide … Excerpts from the discussions: “Digital technology and social media allow us to reach audiences we don't usually see at public meetings, such as young people. Remote participation also allows people who don't dare speak in public or who censor themselves to express themselves. And thanks to digital resources, participants can learn and develop their skills. But on the other hand, we also have to reach people who can't participate online. And in a face-to-face debate, there's a solemnity, non-verbal communication, and the reactions of the other person that allow us to modulate the discourse.” Another perspective on the equation: “When you're online, your credibility to mobilize people is very difficult. Conversely, when you have a local presence, scaling up is difficult . The discussion is progressing towards the need for complementarity between the two systems…
Disagreements
However, some points of contention arise. First, there are the costs . On the one hand, “digital technology saves on the costs of organizing a physical debate, such as renting a venue,” but on the other hand, “managing and using the data collected online also represents a budget.” Another point of contention is anonymity . “Behind their screens, people say anything and everything!” complains one participant. “When we talk about politics, we don’t necessarily want to give our names,” counters another. The issue of moderation is also controversial: does a person spontaneously moderate their remarks more when speaking in person, or when writing remotely? Do we need more moderators to rein in a physical debate that risks getting out of hand, or to verify the accuracy of comments written online? Finally, is it essential to ask the speaker "where they're coming from" ? In face-to-face settings, people are generally asked to introduce themselves. Online, this isn't mandatory. Sophie Guillain points out that on Jenparle , Res publica, for example, has chosen to leave the choice to the participants.
Areas for improvement
So, how can we make the complementarity of in-person and remote approaches that famous “winning combination”? Several avenues are suggested:
- requesting more precise information participants' digital profiles aligning the questions asked in in-person and remote formats to facilitate data analysis;
- adjusting the “granularity” between digital and in-person formats: “If the digital format raises a broad, open question, it can be complemented with more specific in-person roundtables. Or vice versa” ;
- using random selection (“a cornerstone of democracy since antiquity”) for in-person discussions to create diverse groups;
- creating a “participating citizen status” for in-person initiatives , potentially with remuneration for their participation. “Whether you’re an elected official or a citizen, the time you spend not doing your job and contributing to a participatory process must be compensated ,” argues Fanny Bénard, deputy mayor of Paris’s 18th arrondissement, responsible for citizen participation, consultation on development projects, and the implementation of participatory budgeting.
Finally, the last area for improvement, which seems to garner consensus, is the issue of “accountability” by representatives, whether elected or citizens. “Whatever the mechanism, before consulting or engaging in dialogue, we must know what we will do with the results of the process and the time people have dedicated to it. We must take the risk that these results might change what we initially planned to do ,” Fanny Bénard adds. “ It’s the only way to restore confidence in our ailing democracies.” Another participant agrees: “Any initiative that doesn’t have a follow-up demotivates citizens more than anything else.”
In “we probably wouldn’t have had the same debates before Covid.” “Digital technology, which became widespread before the crisis, also proved to be a powerful substitute for the connections we could no longer maintain. Today, remote learning has joined the digital and in-person formats, reinforcing this winning combination !”
- requesting more precise information participants' digital profiles aligning the questions asked in in-person and remote formats to facilitate data analysis;
- adjusting the “granularity” between digital and in-person formats: “If the digital format raises a broad, open question, it can be complemented with more specific in-person roundtables. Or vice versa” ;
- using random selection (“a cornerstone of democracy since antiquity”) for in-person discussions to create diverse groups;
- creating a “participating citizen status” for in-person initiatives , potentially with remuneration for their participation. “Whether you’re an elected official or a citizen, the time you spend not doing your job and contributing to a participatory process must be compensated ,” argues Fanny Bénard, deputy mayor of Paris’s 18th arrondissement, responsible for citizen participation, consultation on development projects, and the implementation of participatory budgeting.
Finally, the last area for improvement, which seems to garner consensus, is the issue of “accountability” by representatives, whether elected or citizens. “Whatever the mechanism, before consulting or engaging in dialogue, we must know what we will do with the results of the process and the time people have dedicated to it. We must take the risk that these results might change what we initially planned to do ,” Fanny Bénard adds. “ It’s the only way to restore confidence in our ailing democracies.” Another participant agrees: “Any initiative that doesn’t have a follow-up demotivates citizens more than anything else.”
In “we probably wouldn’t have had the same debates before Covid.” “Digital technology, which became widespread before the crisis, also proved to be a powerful substitute for the connections we could no longer maintain. Today, remote learning has joined the digital and in-person formats, reinforcing this winning combination !”
In conclusion, Sophie Guillain emphasizes that “we probably wouldn’t have had the same debates before Covid.” “Digital technology, which became widespread before the crisis, also proved to be a powerful substitute for the connections we could no longer maintain. Today, remote learning has joined the digital and in-person formats, reinforcing this winning combination!”
Gilles-Laurent RAYSSAC, Camille BOURDIER and Pétronille CAMPHUIS
May 2025
