with representation from farmers themselves. Other proposals included: planning permission for
reservoirs should only be granted where wildlife benefits are included in the design; stricter control
of boreholes and of irrigation practices, with abuse attracting penalties.
Option 4, no deliberate action, was unani- mously rejected.
Additional Option. An entirely new option for a local wholesale centre to distribute fruit and veg-
etables produced in the Fens titled a ‘Fens Covent garden’ after a famous market in Lon-
don, was developed and supported in principle by the Jury. It was developed following consider-
able discussion about the nature of agriculture in the Fens and food consumption and retailing
patterns in society generally. Jurors were dis- turbed at the distances travelled by Fen produce
and felt that more of the added value in distribu- tion should be retained in the Fens area. They
thought the job creation and economic develop- ment potential of a wholesale centre would be
significant. However, some jurors expressed fears that it would become monopolised by the
larger firms; they argued that care had to be taken in its design and management. The Jury
recommended that local produce should be branded and marketed as such for example as
‘Fen food’ and distributed from a local wholesale centre.
4. The Ely Jury methodology
The development of CJ methodology so far has been largely driven by research institutes which
have concentrated on the role of CJs as decision- recommending bodies. This has strongly influ-
enced the design of the process. Unlike most previous juries, the aim in conducting the Ely CJ
was not solely to reach a decision on the matter in hand. There was no commissioning authority that
sought to employ the Jury as a decision-aiding technique; this gave us more freedom in designing
the process, although it introduced several poten- tial problems not faced by previous juries, such as
the difficulty of making the jurors take the process seriously. The Ely Jury departs from previous
practice, notably in its interpretation of a ‘repre- sentative’ Jury sample, and in stressing the
social process
as much
as the
decision reached. Although many institutions involved in
developing CJs wish quickly to establish an agreed ‘best practice’ methodology for CJs, it is
important to emphasise that this has not yet been developed. While aiming to contribute to this
process of development, we are doubtful about the virtue of establishing a methodological ‘tem-
plate’ for CJs, not least because an agreed — and hence unquestioned
— CJ process is more
prone to progressive capture by commissioning bodies.
The design and execution of the Ely Jury was in general considered very successful. The atmo-
sphere in the meeting room over the 4 days was appropriately
relaxed, with
much laughter
and all jurors appearing at ease to speak. All jurors were given an evaluation form on the final
day; the comments on the forms returned 14 out of 16 were generally very positive. Most of the
significant
criticisms raised
had already
been recognised and acknowledged by the re- searchers.
4
.
1
. Researcher in6ol6ement In an attempt to avoid influencing the Jury, the
researchers agreed not to participate in the pro- cess, for example, via making comments or asking
questions of the witnesses. This proved harder than anticipated. It rapidly became clear that the
role of the moderator and facilitators needed much more thought in this respect. During
breaks, the researchers, in attempting to put the jurors at ease with them, went ‘off duty’ and
began to participate in the discussions. It might be thought obvious that the moderatorfacilitators
should not repeat only part of the information that has already been provided to a Jury, but
what if the intervention is merely to clarify dis- putes between jurors who cannot remember what
a witness said? Similarly, should the moderator facilitators hereafter the ‘organisers’ correct wit-
nesses who have misrepresented, in a strictly definitional sense, one of the options facing a
Jury? If the jurors request additional information,
should the researchers always provide it, espe- cially where this provision will be particularly
affected by the researchers’ interpretive filter? Two interpretations of the situation appear
possible.
On one interpretation, the problems of re- searcher involvement just outlined reveal an en-
demic difficulty with deliberative methods. It is not possible to construe the valuation process
within a deliberative institution in a neutral way. At best, rules need to be determined that pro-
scribe the permitted forms of researcher involve- ment. This difficulty with deliberative methods is
contrasted with the supposedly ‘neutral’ stance claimed by researchers conducting contingent val-
uation CVM exercises neutrality is implicitly claimed by, for example, Mitchell and Carson,
1989.
An alternative interpretation maintains that re- searchers are inextricably interlinked with the val-
uation process; however, after a good CJ, jurors should judge that researcher interventions did not
manipulate the process. But in the early stages of a CJ, the Ely Jury experience suggests that sub-
stantial participation by moderators is often es- sential. The main purpose of the first sessions was
to make the jurors comfortable with one another and their surroundings and let them become ac-
customed to deliberating. In the first sessions, many Ely jurors seemed ready to judge themselves
to have ‘failed to make progress in answering the question’. Instead the presence of a moderator
legitimated discussion which would otherwise have been regarded as ‘pointless’. More generally,
it is unclear whether absence of moderation re- duces the effectiveness of deliberation among
members of a group. Absence of moderation may have significant costs as well as benefits. Regard-
ing the claimed neutrality achievable by CVM researchers, they have long argued over the extent
to which CVM results are dependent on the infor- mation provided — itself a judgement of the
survey designers — but the debate is interesting because of the extent of disagreement about
whether this dependency is a ‘problem’ for CVM. This parallels disagreement about whether re-
searcher involvement is a ‘problem’ for CJ methodology.
4
.
2
. Pro6ision of written information Central to the Habermasian method for deliber-
ative institutions is that all individuals must have equal access to relevant information concerning
the question at hand, and equal opportunity to assess the authenticity and sincerity of claims
made by others Armour, 1996. It is generally accepted that both these requirements are more
likely to be satisfied if most information is pre- sented verbally by witnesses rather than in written
form. In the Ely Jury, we expected that jurors would be intimidated by large quantities of writ-
ten material and would be unlikely to read it. Moreover, some jurors’ facility with written mate-
rial was anticipated to be greater than others, so written material could not be used to provide
background information at the beginning of the Jury since some jurors would not absorb it. Thus
a brief written summary of each option was given to each juror after that option had been verbally
presented to them.
Although our fears seemed warranted for a very few jurors, for many others the absence of
prior information often seemed to undermine their ability to question witnesses as closely as
they would have liked. Several jurors observed in the post-jury focus group that they used the ques-
tion and answer sessions to obtain additional information that they believed should already
have been made available to them. Regarding the total quantity of information, both written and
verbal, some jurors appeared over time to lose their determination to reach consensus, partly be-
cause of a feeling that ‘no more progress can be made in resolving arguments without more
information’.
On the other hand, all jurors handled informa- tion which was local and related to their daily life
practices with much more ease and confidence than relatively abstract information or data not
strongly rooted in their experiences. For example, in line with standard CVM practice, the re-
searchers wished to emphasise to the Jury that they could reject all the fen creation options and
recommend that the resources be spent elsewhere. Option 4 was seen as a platform to communicate
this point, and the witness presenting it was in-
structed accordingly. Several jurors reported on the evaluation forms and in the focus group that
alternative spending possibilities should have been outlined explicitly. This suggests that jurors find it
difficult to consider relatively abstract notions such as ‘spend resources elsewhere’.
Written information is usually less approach- able in this sense than information from a well-
motivated speaker. Notwithstanding the jurors’ comments that they would have liked more writ-
ten information e.g. to outline alternative spend- ing possibilities, they appeared to ignore much of
what was provided, and there was some evidence of a few jurors concluding from the information
provided that they were incapable of forming judgements about it and instead withdrawing
from debate. Notably in the focus group, when asked how they would have reacted to an entirely
written presentation of option 1, the jurors in- cluding those who had been most insistent on
more written information imagined they would have reacted ‘What’s going on here then?…Forty
million quid, you’ve got to be joking…Spend the money on a hospital.’ As it was, the jurors made
clear in the focus groups that option 1 was fa- voured because of its broad concept and mode of
presentation, both of which captured the jurors’ imagination, rather than its precise details. The
experience of the Ely Jury suggests that no level and type of information provision can entirely
avoid the tension between equality of access to deliberation and ensuring jurors can deliberate
competently.
5. Representativeness
