Okay. Let me shift gears a little. As you probably know from our discussions on the platform, one of the themes that has come up in some of the interviews I have been doing — especially with people from FOSDEM — is the question of AI and citizen participation.
There seems to be a lot of ambivalence around it. Some people think AI tools could make it easier for citizens to interact with institutions, for example by summarising policy discussions or helping people draft proposals or emails. Others are worried that these technologies will lead to more disinformation or even further centralise power.
So from your perspective, especially through the work you do with young people, what role do you think AI could play — if any — in civic engagement and citizen participation in the future?
That is a good question.
From my point of view, AI could play a guiding role in the participatory process. For example, if you want young people to create a policy recommendation and the process involves, say, five steps, then you could train an AI tool to guide them through those five steps. Starting from zero knowledge, they could answer simple questions, follow the process step by step, and by the end arrive at a policy recommendation while also understanding how that process works.
That is one way I imagine AI could be useful.
Another thing AI could do concerns the political system itself. A lot of decisions are constantly being made and voted on, and it is often hard for citizens to understand who voted for what, who supported what, and especially who did so several years ago.
I think AI could help by functioning almost like a more targeted search engine for political accountability. For example, if someone wants to know whether a political party supports or opposes a specific issue, AI could help them search through past positions, policy recommendations, or decisions made by that party’s representatives. Or they could search for a specific political figure and see what kinds of decisions that person has supported over time.
So I think AI could be very useful in strengthening accountability — helping citizens trace what policymakers, politicians, and decision-makers have actually done.
Okay, that makes sense. Now I want to shift gears a bit and ask you some more meta-level questions — about our project, about the relationship between research and practice, and about your perspective on that. As someone who works directly with participants, how do you think the goals of our INTERFACED project align — or do not align — with what you see happening in real participatory processes?
I think they are connected, because the project can be a starting point.
Normally, people have these kinds of conversations in their families, or with friends. But they do not usually have them in schools or libraries. They do not go there expecting to talk about politics — or, not only politics, but civic life more broadly. And they also do not imagine an ordinary workshop as a space for these kinds of conversations.
So I think the project creates a very good starting point for that.
And here I am thinking especially about the methods you use — for example, the Civic Signals exercise. It is a simple method, easy to understand, but very effective. For many participants, it is the first time in their lives that someone has asked them: when was the first moment you became active in your community or in society? Just creating that context, where they can share those moments with others, creates something important for them.
It creates a good memory. And after the workshops, many of them mention exactly these exercises.
What happens is that they have the opportunity to share with others and connect with others through these memories. In doing that, they create a kind of shared group memory. And then, when they enter the platform itself — the INTERFACED platform — they are already, in a way, fans of the project, because what stays in their mind is that memory they built with the group.
So that is what I would say the project is doing well: it creates a meaningful first point of connection.
Yes, that makes sense. Let me ask a broader question. As someone who works directly with people as a practitioner, are there aspects of activation, involvement, organising, or facilitation that you think academic research tends to misunderstand, overlook, or simply not pay enough attention to?
It is a bit hard for me to answer that, because I am not doing academic research myself.
I mean, I could guess, but I do not really want to do that. I would rather stay with things I actually know from experience — like what I mentioned before about young people not really talking about issues unless they have some real insight into them. But beyond that, I do not want to speculate too much, because I am not the one doing the academic side.
That makes sense. So maybe let me narrow it down a bit. Since joining this project, have there been moments when the research context or research perspective has actually been useful for your work as a practitioner?
Yes, definitely.
I remember telling you from the beginning that I also came into this project to learn. And I really did. For example, the exercises I mentioned earlier — for me now they have become something almost mandatory in the workshops we run.
Why? Because we saw how powerful they are in creating the right context to start conversations and to create these moments between participants. That is the first thing I took from the project.
The second thing is the platform itself. I like the platform and the way it looks.
And third, I think that what you are doing now on the platform could become even more powerful if another layer were added in the future — for example, AI. In that case, you would have enough data there to cluster information and work with it differently after the research process.
So when I look at the platform, I also see it as an inspiration. And I connect that inspiration with the possibility of AI in the future.
Can you say a little more about that? How do you imagine connecting the platform with AI in the future?
I imagine it as a way of guiding people through the process without us having to be present at every step.
So, for example, if a method follows three steps, that is something AI could support in the future. Then we, as practitioners, could focus more on the activation part — the part where we bring people in and create those shared moments and memories, which we know are important.
After that activation stage, the platform should be there. And that is already what we are trying to do now: invite people onto the platform. But once they are there, after one answer or one question, usually we as facilitators have to step in with the second question, and then the third, in order to get more insight.
That is something AI could potentially do in the future. It could understand the goal of the process and, based on what someone says, generate the next question instead of requiring us to be there each time.
So the first layer is asking. But maybe the second layer should not only be about asking more questions. Maybe it should do something more than that. But in general, this is how I imagine it: AI as a guide through the process.
Great. I think this will be the last question, and perhaps you have already answered parts of it. But based both on your broader experience and on your experience in this project: when we write the final report, one of the things we will need to include is a set of policy recommendations.
So, thinking about the people and organisations who design these points of interface or engagement between citizens and decision-makers: what do you think they could do better? When designing these interfaces between citizens and institutions, or citizens and people in power, what should be improved? What would you see as good practice for the future?
The first thing I would say is: just do it.
At this point, I do not think the method matters as much as the fact of creating these links in the first place. Right now, in many communities, these links between citizens and decision-makers simply do not exist. And if we want people to be part of the process, then we need to create those connections.
What I would really like to see — and what I hope will happen — is something closer to what I saw in the Conference on the Future of Europe, which started around 2021. That was also a consortium-based process, but at the European level. And what is important is that the process has continued. Policymakers can go back to it when they want insights on specific topics. They can consult the recommendations that came out of it and use them.
I think that kind of connection is still missing in many other contexts, and this is where projects like INTERFACED could connect more strongly in the future.
I say this also because I took part in that project, so for me it is an easy comparison to make. But overall, I do not think the key issue is the method itself. The key issue is making sure that people understand the value of the process, and that they can integrate it into their lives in an accessible way, even if that starts with something as simple as beginning a conversation.
So for me, the best practice is not only about design. It is about making participation real, understandable, and easy enough for people to enter into.
So it is about removing barriers, and also about making sure people understand why the process matters.
Well, thank you. I will let you get on with your day. I cannot remember whether we are meeting this Friday or not, but I will either see you then or at the next one. I also need to check with Boyan whether, in addition to the oral consent, you may also need to sign the informed consent form. If so, I will ask you to do that. But thank you again, this was really informative.