Ilaria Mariani and Francesca Rizzo
pp. 77 – 108, download
(https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-068-003)
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly embedded in civic technologies, including e-participation tools and platforms designed to support democratic deliberation. Yet, while a growing “participatory turn” in AI design (Delgado et al., 2023) promotes stakeholder engagement, participation is often enacted as a discrete format or early-stage aspiration rather than as a sustained process embedded across the lifecycle of AI systems. This paper examines how Participatory Design (PD) operates as a socio-technical mediation mechanism in the development of AI-enhanced e-participation tools and platforms. Drawing on the Horizon Europe project ORBIS and its six deliberative pilots, the study builds on Delgado et al.’s (2023) four analytical dimensions—goals, scope, participants, and methods—to elaborate an intermediate theoretical account of how PD structures negotiation between differentiated deliberative practices and AI configurations over time. The findings show that AI-enhanced deliberation becomes democratically meaningful not through technological optimisation alone, but through sustained mediation that aligns civic practices with evolving technological affordances under institutional constraints and deliberative needs. The paper contributes a structured account of PD as a longitudinal socio-technical mediation process for developing AI-enhanced civic technologies beyond isolated engagement interventions.
Keywords: AI, E-participation, Co-design, Deliberative Democracy, AI-enhanced deliberation..
References
1. Cazacu, S., Hansen, N.B., Schouten, B.: Empowerment Approaches in Digital Civics. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. pp. 692–699. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3441000.3441069.
2. Duberry, J.: AI and civic tech: Engaging citizens in decision-making processes but not without risks. Presented at the June 21 (2022). https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788977319.00012.
3. Ammitzbøll Flügge, A., Hildebrandt, T., Møller, N.H.: Street-Level Algorithms and AI in Bureaucratic Decision-Making: A Caseworker Perspective. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3449114.
4. Rahwan, I.: Society-in-the-loop: programming the algorithmic social contract. Ethics and Information Technology. 20, 5–14 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-017-9430-8.
5. Ananny, M., Crawford, K.: Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society. 20, 973–989 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676645.
6. Gebru, T.: Race and Gender. In: Dubber, M.D., Pasquale, F., and Das, S. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI. p. 0. Oxford University Press (2020). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067397.013.16.
7. Noble, S.U.: Algorithms of Oppression. New York University Press (2018). https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479833641.001.0001.
8. Oliveira, C., Garcia, A.C.B.: Citizens’ electronic participation: a systematic review of their challenges and how to overcome them. International Journal of Web Based Communities. 15, 123–150 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWBC.2019.101042.
9. Bobbio, L.: Designing effective public participation. Policy and Society. 38, 41–57 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1511193.
10. Henfrey, T., Feola, G., Penha-Lopes, G., Sekulova, F., Esteves, A.M.: Rethinking the sustainable development goals: Learning with and from community-led initiatives. Sustainable Development. 31, 211–222 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2384.
11. Wirtz, B.W., Weyerer, J.C., Rösch, M.: Open government and citizen participation: an empirical analysis of citizen expectancy towards open government data. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 85, 566–586 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852317719996.
12. Gascó, M.: Special Issue on Open Government: An Introduction. Social Science Computer Review. 33, 535–539 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314560676.
13. Lourenço, R.P., Costa, J.P.: Incorporating citizens’ views in local policy decision making processes. Decision Support Systems. 43, 1499–1511 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.06.004.
14. Rosenzweigova, I., Skoric, V., Asipovich, H.: Civil participation in decision-making processes: An overview of standards and practices in Council of Europe Member States (2016). https://rm.coe.int/civil-participation-in-decision-making-processes-an-overview-of-standa/1680701801.
15. Haro-de-Rosario, A., Sáez-Martín, A., del Carmen Caba-Pérez, M.: Using social media to enhance citizen engagement with local government: Twitter or Facebook? New Media & Society. 20, 29–49 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816645652.
16. Lindner, R., Aichholzer, G.: E-Democracy: Conceptual Foundations and Recent Trends. In: Hennen, L., van Keulen, I., Korthagen, I., Aichholzer, G., Lindner, R., and Nielsen, R.Ø. (eds.) European E-Democracy in Practice. pp. 11–45. Springer International, Cham, Switzerland (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27184-8_2.
17. Porumbescu, G.A.: Linking public sector social media and e-government website use to trust in government. Government Information Quarterly. 33, 291–304 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.006.
18. Wukich, C.: Government Social Media Engagement Strategies and Public Roles. Public Performance & Management Review. 44, 187–215 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2020.1851266.
19. United Nations: United Nations E-Government Survey 2014: E-Government for the future we want. United Nations Department of economic and social affairs. (2014).
20. European Commission, Directorate for Communication of the European Committee of the Regions: From Local to European: Putting citizens at the centre of the EU Agenda. EU Commission, Brussels, Belgium (2019).
21. Toots, M.: Why E-participation systems fail: The case of Estonia’s Osale.ee. Government Information Quarterly. 36, 546–559 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.02.002.
22. Karlsson, M.: Democratic Legitimacy and Recruitment Strategies in eParticipation Projects. In: Charalabidis, Y. and Koussouris, S. (eds.) Empowering Open and Collaborative Governance: Technologies and Methods for Online Citizen Engagement in Public Policy Making. pp. 3–20. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27219-6_1.
23. Lidén, G.: Qualities of E-Democracy: Examples from Sweden. In: Geißel, B. and Joas, M. (eds.) Participatory Democratic Innovations in Europe. pp. 225–248. Verlag Barbara Budrich (2013). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvdf0gdc.14.
24. Cardullo, P., Kitchin, R.: Smart urbanism and smart citizenship: The neoliberal logic of ‘citizen-focused’ smart cities in Europe. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space. 37, 813–830 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X18806508.
25. Epstein, D., Newhart, M., Vernon, R.: Not by technology alone: The “analog” aspects of online public engagement in policymaking. Government Information Quarterly. 31, 337–344 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.001.
26. Lember, V.: The increasing role of digital technologies in co-production and co-creation. In: Co-production and co-creation. pp. 115–127. Routledge (2018).
27. Norris, D.F.: e-government… not e-governance… not e-democracy not now! not ever? In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance. pp. 339–346. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2010). https://doi.org/10.1145/1930321.1930391.
28. Dittrich, Y., Ekelin, A., Elovaara, P., Eriksen, S., Hansson, C.: Making e-government happen everyday co-development of services, citizenship and technology. In: 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the. p. 12 pp.- (2003). https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2003.1174328.
29. van Dijk, J.A.G.M., Peters, O., Ebbers, W.: Explaining the acceptance and use of government Internet services: A multivariate analysis of 2006 survey data in the Netherlands. Government Information Quarterly. 25, 379–399 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2007.09.006.
30. Delgado, F., Yang, S., Madaio, M., Yang, Q.: The Participatory Turn in AI Design: Theoretical Foundations and the Current State of Practice. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3617694.3623261.
31. Johnson, D.G., Verdicchio, M.: The sociotechnical entanglement of AI and values. AI & SOCIETY. 40, 67–76 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01852-5.
32. Noorman, M., Swierstra, T.: Democratizing AI from a Sociotechnical Perspective. Minds and Machines. 33, 563–586 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-023-09651-z.
33. Maas, J., Moreno Inglés, A.: Beyond Participatory AI. AIES. 7, 932–942 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1609/aies.v7i1.31693.
34. Ferraro, C., Demsar, V., Sands, S., Restrepo, M., Campbell, C.: The paradoxes of generative AI-enabled customer service: A guide for managers. Business Horizons. 67, 549–559 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2024.04.013.
35. Romberg, J., Escher, T.: Making Sense of Citizens’ Input through Artificial Intelligence: A Review of Methods for Computational Text Analysis to Support the Evaluation of Contributions in Public Participation. Digit. Gov.: Res. Pract. 5, (2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3603254.
36. Benjamin, J.J., Kinkeldey, C., Müller-Birn, C., Korjakow, T., Herbst, E.-M.: Explanation Strategies as an Empirical-Analytical Lens for Socio-Technical Contextualization of Machine Learning Interpretability. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, (2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3492858.
37. Prabhakaran, V., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Gabriel, I.: A Human Rights-Based Approach to Responsible AI, https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.02667, (2022).
38. Amnesty International: Coded Injustice: Surveillance and Discrimination in Denmark’s automated welfare state. Amnesty International Ltd, London, UK (2024).
39. Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., Kirchner, L.: Machine Bias. In: Martin, K. (ed.) Ethics of data and analytics. pp. 254–264. Auerbach Publications (2022).
40. Kalluri, P.: Don’t ask if artificial intelligence is good or fair, ask how it shifts power. Nature. 583, 169–169 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02003-2.
41. Costanza-Chock, S.: Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need. The MIT Press (2020). https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12255.001.0001.
42. Arnstein, S.R.: A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 35, 216–224 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225.
43. Birhane, A., Prabhu, V.U., Whaley, J.: Auditing Saliency Cropping Algorithms. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV). pp. 4051–4059 (2022).
44. Sloane, M., Moss, E., Awomolo, O., Forlano, L.: Participation Is not a Design Fix for Machine Learning. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3551624.3555285.
45. Himmelreich, J.: Against “Democratizing AI.” AI Soc. 38, 1333–1346 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01357-z.
46. Gabriel, I.: Toward a Theory of Justice for Artificial Intelligence. Daedalus. 151, 218–231 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01911.
47. Srnicek, N.: Platform Monopolies and the Political Economy of AI. In: McDonnell, J. (ed.) Economics for the Many. pp. 152–163. Verso (2018).
48. Zuboff, S.: The age of surveillance capitalism. In: Longhofer, W. and Winchester, D. (eds.) Social theory re-wired. pp. 203–213. Routledge, New York, NY (2023).
49. Pettit, P.: Republicanism: A theory of freedom and government. Oxford University Press, Oxford, NY (1997).
50. Bratteteig, T., Wagner, I.: Disentangling power and decision-making in participatory design. In: Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers – Volume 1. pp. 41–50. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2347635.2347642.
51. Robertson, T., Simonsen, J.: Challenges and Opportunities in Contemporary Participatory Design. Design Issues. 28, 3–9 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00157.
52. Cohen, J.: Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (1990). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvcm4g4q.
53. Muller, M., Liao, Q.V.: Exploring ai ethics and values through participatory design fictions. Human Computer Interaction Consortium. (2017).
54. Donia, J., Shaw, J.A.: Co-design and ethical artificial intelligence for health: An agenda for critical research and practice. Big Data & Society. 8, 20539517211065248 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211065248.
55. Fernández-Martínez, J.L., Lopez-Sanchez, M., Aguilar, J.A.R., Rubio, D.S., Nemegyei, B.Z.: Co-Designing participatory tools for a New Age: A proposal for combining collective and artificial intelligences. International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age (IJPADA). 5, 1–17 (2018). https://doi.org/10.4018/IJPADA.2018100101.
56. Kučević, E., von Brackel-Schmidt, C., Lewandowski, T., Leible, S., Memmert, L., Böhmann, T.: The prompt-a-thon: designing a format for value co-creation with generative AI for research and practice. In: Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS2024) (2024).
57. Duerinckx, A., Veeckman, C., Verstraelen, K., Singh, N., Van Laer, J., Vaes, M., Vandooren, C., Duysburgh, P.: Co-creating Artificial Intelligence: Designing and Enhancing Democratic AI Solutions Through Citizen Science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. (2024). https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.732.
58. Schuler, D., Namioka, A.: Participatory design: Principles and practices. CRC press, Boca Raton, FL (1993).
59. Oostveen, A.-M., van den Besselaar, P.: From Small Scale to Large Scale User Participation: A Case Study of Participatory Design in e-Government Systems. In: Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Participatory Design: Artful Integration: Interweaving Media, Materials and Practices – Volume 1. pp. 173–182. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2004). https://doi.org/10.1145/1011870.1011891.
60. Anastasiou, L., Elguendouze, S., Efstathiou, I., Mariani, I., Cabrio, E., Villata, S., Karacapilidis, N., Concilio, G., Rizzo, F., Greco, S., Jermini, C., Coppola, C., Apostolopoulou, A., Domalis, G., Tsakalidis, D., De Liddo, A.: ORBIS: An AI-Enabled Architecture for Scaling Online Deliberation. In: Aikins, S. (ed.) Artificial Intelligence and Government: Examining the Roles and Uses of AI in Enhancing Government Operations. Springer International, Cham, Switzerland (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-12344-2_5.
61. Mariani, I., Anastasiou, L., Elguendouze, S., Rizzo, F., Concilio, G., Cabrio, E., Villata, S., Efstathiou, I., Domalis, G., De Liddo, A.: Enhancing Democratic Deliberations with AI: Insights from the ORBIS Co-Creation Journey. In: Aikins, S. (ed.) Artificial Intelligence and Government: Examining the Roles and Uses of AI in Enhancing Government Operations. Springer International, Cham, Switzerland (2026).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-12344-2_10.
62. Bellò, B., Downe, J.: We asked, you said, we did: Assessing the drivers and effectiveness of an e-participation practice in Scotland. Presented at the February 15 (2022). https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800374362.00009.
63. De Cindio, F., De Marco, A., Ripamonti, L.A.: Enriching Community Networks by Supporting Deliberation. In: Steinfield, C., Pentland, B.T., Ackerman, M., and Contractor, N. (eds.) Communities and Technologies 2007. pp. 395–417. Springer London, London (2007).
64. Wirtz, B.W., Weyerer, J.C., Geyer, C.: Artificial Intelligence and the Public Sector—Applications and Challenges. International Journal of Public Administration. 42, 596–615 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1498103.
65. Steen, M.: Virtues in Participatory Design: Cooperation, Curiosity, Creativity, Empowerment and Reflexivity. Science and Engineering Ethics. 19, 945–962 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9380-9.
66. Geels, F.W.: Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: Refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 72, 681–696 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2004.08.014.