Citizens' Jury Method

A focus group gathers a small number of people for a relatively short, often unstructured discussion to explore attitudes, with participants typically recruited by convenience or targeted criteria rather than random selection. A citizens' jury is larger in ambition: it uses random, stratified selection to be broadly representative, runs over several days, supplies balanced information and expert witnesses, and aims to reach reasoned recommendations. The jury is designed to produce an informed, legitimate collective judgement, whereas a focus group surfaces existing, less-informed views.

Not in a statistical sense. With only a dozen or two participants, a citizens' jury cannot measure the distribution of opinion in the population the way a survey can. Its claim to legitimacy is different: the panel is a random, broadly representative microcosm whose members reach a considered view after informed deliberation, which is offered as what the public might conclude under similar conditions. If the goal is a precise, generalisable measure of mass opinion, a deliberative poll with a much larger sample is more appropriate.

Several design features act as safeguards: random selection to prevent stacking the panel, deliberately balanced briefing material, a range of witnesses presenting different sides whom jurors can cross-examine, and neutral professional facilitation. Transparency about who set the charge and chose the witnesses is also important. None of these is foolproof — framing of the question and selection of evidence can still bias outcomes — which is why independent oversight of the process and a clear, public commitment from the commissioner to respond are considered marks of a credible exercise.