Behind the scenes: The UK’s first museum assembly
How 26 randomly-selected Birmingham citizens are helping to reshape their city's museums
Last month, DemocracyNext co-hosted a webinar with Birmingham Museums Trust (BMT) to share the remarkable story of the UK’s first citizens’ jury in a museum. The jury ran from September to November 2024, bringing together 26 people who reflected Birmingham’s diversity to answer a crucial question:
What does Birmingham need and want from its museums now and in the future, and what should Birmingham Museums Trust do to make these things happen?
The 90-minute webinar brought together jury members, facilitators, evaluators, and museum leadership to reflect on both the process and its profound impact on trust — between citizens and institutions, and among citizens themselves.
You can watch the recording here, or by clicking on the video below.
We’ve also pulled out some of the highlights from the webinar below as part of this long read newsletter.
Why a museum needed a citizens’ jury
BMT found itself at a crossroads. The city council had declared itself effectively bankrupt, commissioners had been brought in from central government, and cultural organisations faced severe cuts. Meanwhile, the cultural sector was navigating what became known as the “culture wars” — heated debates about heritage, representation, and whose stories museums should tell.
Sara Wajid, Co-CEO of BMT, explained the context:
“We were in a deep crisis... At the very same time, we were embarking on establishing a business plan for the next five years to basically resolve how we would achieve our ambitions for greater cultural representation and a fairer, more effective, more engaging museum service, while also making these savings and finding a new route to financial stability.”
Rather than imposing a top-down vision during this turbulent time, BMT made a bold choice. Sara continued:
“We didn’t quite know what to do, and that’s not really something you will hear often from leaders confessing openly, but we really had lots of good, educated ideas about what we should do, but we ourselves were nervous about how to make the next step... We need something more powerful that could potentially be quite destabilising, but at this point, we’ve got nothing to lose. We need to go to the people of Birmingham for the answers that we need.”
The process: From strangers to decision makers
The jury met for 30 hours over three full days and three evening sessions. Rowan Harris from Shared Future CIC, who facilitated the process, explained the recruitment:
“We randomly selected 5,000 addresses across Birmingham, sent letters to all of these addresses and the people living at those addresses were invited to share their demographic information... With the people that responded, we did a second selection process to ensure that the people that we had in the room, based on their responses, were broadly reflective of Birmingham’s diverse population.”
100% of jury members had never heard of a citizens’ jury before receiving their invitation.
Maya, who at 18 was the youngest jury member and a museum enthusiast, recalled her excitement:
“I didn’t get the call that I’d been confirmed to be on the jury on the day they said they were going to send it. And I was really devastated about that. But then it came a little bit later, and I was really happy. It was just a really exciting experience.”
James, whose last museum visit had been as a child, was candid about his initial motivation:
“The last time I went to a museum was when I was a young lad... I think most people went [to the jury] because of the vouchers, let’s be honest about it... But it was something different, and we were being allowed to participate in something different, our views and our opinions were sought after, and it wasn’t a tick box exercise.”
The jury heard from 14 commentators including museum practitioners, academics, school representatives, and activists. They visited exhibitions — for many, their first time in a local museum since a school trip.
Rowan Harris reflected on how the process empowered jury members to direct their own learning:
“We asked the jury to tell us what they wanted to learn more about. So they gave us a long list of things… and these included things like the different kinds of audiences that a museum might want to attract, the different ideas that are available for attracting people, how marketing works and what budgets and revenue streams look like.”
The jury deliberated on complex trade-offs: Should museums focus on new or established audiences? Should entrance be free or paid? Should the council fund museums more?
Ultimately, they produced 20 specific recommendations, 11 roles for the museum, and a powerful group statement expressing their feelings about the process.
Building trust in the room
One of the most striking aspects of citizens’ juries is how quickly strangers with different backgrounds can develop trust and work together effectively.
Both Maya and James described themselves as introverts who needed time to open up. Maya explained:
“For the first one, it was very much, ‘Okay, I’m going to sit here with my notebook and listen to what people are saying, and agree when someone says something that I think is important, but that’s me. I’m quite introverted. It was really exciting, but also really daunting to actually be there amongst all these random people that I’d never seen in my whole life. But it got a lot easier throughout the process.”
James added:
“The first session... I just looked through all the empty chairs, looked at all the people in the room, going into the room, and I thought, ‘Who’s that?’ That’s how I thought. And when we had a game of people bingo... that was a way of getting to know people. But it took me about two or three times before I [felt comfortable].”
Rowan reflected:
“I think a big part of this, of our role [as facilitators], is building trust with both the people taking part, and the museums… being a third party, and being able to build and maintain trust that way with the interests of the jury very much at the forefront of what we do… And to give the jury the space to explore their ideas and go to the get to the places that the commissioner might not feel comfortable with or want.”
Mathew Beckett, the filmmaker who documented the process, observed:
“My first realisation that this process was completely open and full of trust was when I realised I didn’t actually know any of the content of the film until we started filming it, which was wonderful... I really noticed these individuals starting the process as individuals and then coming together as a group that actually were really, truly discussing and trying to find solutions to the issues that they felt were important.”
The evaluation: Trust under scrutiny
BMT commissioned Isabella (Bella) Roberts, an independent researcher, to evaluate the process. Bella began by noting that:
“The fact that there was an independent evaluation in the first place is already very promising. That shows that BMT really wants to take this process seriously, and that they’re willing to have someone from the outside come in and scrutinise and really assess that this process was run rigorously and properly.”
She added that according to the OECD Deliberative Democracy Database, this is typically done in less than 10% of deliberative processes.
In the webinar, Bella highlights some key questions about trust from her evaluation. On the question of whether this process was ‘democracy-washing’ - or a tick-box exercise to validate a pre-existing agenda, Bella reported that:
“100% of jury members agreed with the statement that, ‘in my opinion, the final recommendations fully represented the views of the citizens’ jury’ with another commenting that ‘everything was in there’.
When asked about the best use of a citizens’ jury, 100% of oversight panellists surveyed selected: ‘To bring a diversity of people and perspectives together’. Followed by 83% selecting: ‘To allow organisations and institutions to connect directly with people’, meanwhile 67% selected ‘For democratic decision-making’.
Jury members also prioritised ‘bringing a diversity of people together’ as the best use for a citizens’ jury, but this was joint first place with being used ‘for democratic decision-making’, selected by 94% of jury members.
This disparity in perception between 94% of jury members, and 67% of oversight panel members who believe the citizens’ jury is best used for democratic decision-making may raise concerns of democracy-washing in instances where jury members believe they are contributing to real decision-making, but the Oversight Panel sees the citizens’ jury as having a more advisory function. This could lead to questions of ‘democracy-washing’. But as we’ll see [in the BMT jury], this actually wasn’t the case.”
When it comes to how much the framing could influence the outcomes of the jury, Bella noted that:
“One of the assembly commissioners said in an interview: ‘The citizens’ jury is totally open-ended, uncertain, uncontrollable. And sort of quite exciting / anxiety-making because you know it is genuinely open and we don’t know where they’re going to go’.
Another commissioner commented: ‘The single most important thing is that everybody felt confident to speak… And that’s the key, irrespective of what the museum wants out of it.’
So here you can see that commissioners were so open and willing for the jury members to speak as freely and as confidently as they liked.”
Bella also looked at whether the recommendations represented the views of the jurors and noted that:
“100% of jury members agreed with the statement: ‘In my opinion, the final recommendations fully represented the views of the citizens’ jury’. One jury member commented: ‘Everything was in there’. However, when it came to reflecting how the final recommendations represented ‘my overall views’ of each jury member, the results were mixed. This time a slight majority of 53% only agreed, rather than strongly agreed.
One jury member stated: ‘I don’t think anyone could feel 100% represented within such a diverse group of differing experiences, but I’m still happy with most of the final recommendations.’
There is a question about groupthink, and homogenisation of results when forming consensus and being represented as an individual versus a collective… [this] wider question applies to citizens’ assemblies and other deliberative models as a whole.”
Real impact: From recommendations to action
Perhaps most importantly, the museum is already acting on the recommendations. The Co-CEOs formally responded to the jurors, and committed to continuing to meet with them for a period of 18 months to report against progress. BMT is also collaborating with the jurors on a new exhibition. Furthermore, BMT’s new strategic plan leads with the powerful statement from the citizens’ jury. It commits to implementing the recommendations, to running future juries focused on individual sites and collections, and to exploring ways to involve Birmingham citizens in the governance of the museum.
Perhaps the most immediate manifestation of the jury’s impact is the significant new exhibition on Birmingham heavy metal legend, Black Sabbath front man, Ozzy Osbourne, after the jury recommended an increased focus on the city’s musical heritage.
Jury member James reflected:
“I feel now that the payments don’t even come into it. It’s not about payment anymore. It’s more about what it’s doing for Birmingham. We see that with the Ozzy Osbourne exhibition. How great that... there were 123,000 [visitors] the last time I went there, that had come through the door, that was brilliant, so they’re listening to us, and that’s the most important part — we’re being listened to.”
On how jury members continue to be involved. Maya shared:
“The jury has also… just been in the news, they’re going to be bringing us back to do more stuff on working on our existing recommendations and building on that, which I’m really excited about.”
And on embedding the process in future work. Sara explained:
“The Museum and Art Gallery needs a big overhaul, so we’re applying for a big chunk of capital funding to redevelop [it]... The capital project… will need to involve either these jurors or more of the same practice of deliberative democracy.”
Restoring hope in democracy
Perhaps the most powerful impact was on trust itself. Sara reflected:
“Having seen the citizens jury at work, I feel more optimistic because I read the headlines and I see what everybody says, but then I remember what it was like in the room, and the amount of goodwill there was underneath everything from people to their fellow citizens, even though they’re quite often from very different life experiences and backgrounds and different by class, race, age, religion... It really restored my faith in the ability of people to trust each other given the right conditions.”
Maya, as a young person often excluded from meaningful decision-making, emphasised:
“A lot of the time there’s just not many opportunities for people my age to get to speak…. It’s actually a chance to make that happen.”
And in a moment of refreshing honesty, she added:
“I’m naturally distrustful of CEOs, but Sara and Zak definitely beat the expectations. They’re not just random posh people who were democracy washing, as you say, they really cared about our opinions.”
Mat noted what made this project unique:
“This was one of those rare occasions in film where I didn’t experience [people] feeding you lines... everybody was so brutally honest about how they felt and what they thought about the process at various stages. And that, to me, was just very, very refreshing.”
Zak Mensah, Co-CEO alongside Sara, reflected:
“The process for me has just been... one that helps confirm the fact that you should always listen to people and find the best ways of doing that... Have there been lots of challenging questions? Yes, there have. Will there continue to be lots of challenging questions? Yes, there will be. And I think that’s exactly what the amazing thing about this has been.”
DemocracyNext’s perspective
This citizens’ jury demonstrates several crucial lessons for museums, cultural organisations, and anyone interested in democratic innovation:
Power-sharing requires real commitment. As Lucy Reid from DemocracyNext noted: “A citizens’ jury or a citizens’ assembly is about power, and it’s about who decides. Any commissioner undertaking a citizens assembly really needs to think about what shifting power actually looks like.”
The process cost is an investment, not an expense. The jury cost approximately £65,000 as part of a wider £250,000 business planning package funded by the National Heritage Lottery Fund. Sara noted: “The changes that we’ve seen... have led very directly to an increase in visitor numbers. And I also think it’s led to more confidence in us as an organisation from some of our important funders.”
Independent evaluation matters. Having an external researcher scrutinise the process added legitimacy and provided valuable learning for future initiatives.
Museums and cultural institutions have an existing strong grounding in participation and co-creation. Thanks to this, they are well placed not only to continue involving citizen jurors in what happens at the end of the jury / assembly in both practical, and creative ways. But, also to explore how deliberative democracy, and the practices of sortition, deliberation and rotation can continue contributing to and strengthening their work.
Watch and learn more
The full 90-minute webinar recording is available here, featuring conversations with jury members James and Maya, facilitators from Shared Future, filmmaker Matthew Beckett, evaluator Isabella Roberts, and museum leadership.
You can also watch a film documenting the jury process, and another sharing what happened at the launch of the recommendations - both by River Rea Films.
The complete evaluation report (80 pages) provides in-depth analysis of what worked, what challenged, and what we can learn for future democratic innovations in cultural spaces.
The recommendations and further information on the jury can be found here.
Have thoughts on this story? Interested in running a citizens’ jury in your context? We’d love to hear from you — reply to this email or reach out to us at lucy@demnext.org
Questions from the audience
Q: What was the cost of the process?
Sara: “The overall cost of the project, which was entirely funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund, was extremely good value... It was part of a wider package of business plans that had an overall cost of about a quarter of a million. And I will say that about 65,000 of that was specifically needed to run the jury... the changes that we’ve seen, including some of the projects... like the Ozzy Osbourne exhibition, and the scale of the way that we did it, in the way that we did it has led very directly to an increase in visitor numbers.”
She emphasised the importance of proper investment:
“The level of skill needed in the facilitation of those conversations in the room... that level of expertise is, you know, again, extremely good value, but it must be paid for.”
Q: Are any of the citizen jurors integrated into Birmingham Museum structures now as volunteers or employees?
James: “The only way I’m involved is by going around to seeing museums... I’m more involved in museums now than I was in the past, but only from a layman’s perspective, not from working there.”
Maya: “We are doing stuff in that respect, which I will say, wait and see on. The jury has also just been in the news. They’re going to be bringing us back to do more stuff on working on our existing recommendations and building on that, which I’m really excited about. But no, we haven’t been employed or anything.”
Rosie Barker (Head of Curation and Participation at BMT added: “The jurors have been involved continually in various different ways since the official end... We’re still meeting the jurors regularly to give updates on the recommendations that they made and show that we’re making progress against their actions... What’s also great is that we have this external perspective. What we found with past consultations we’ve done is that the more people become embedded in the structures, they actually can give, I think, less of a kind of critical perspective on what we’re doing.”
Q: How is the museum approaching sharing and reflecting on what happened more publicly? Is it widely known or advertised when people come into the space?
Rosie: “We are working on an exhibition with the jurors, so they are going through the process with us of thinking about how you create an exhibition about the jury process, and about how we make it accessible to all of our visitors who come in, so that they can understand from a real, sort of lay perspective, that process that we all went through.”
Sara added about future involvement:
“The capital project to redevelop the museum and art gallery will need to involve either these jurors or more of the same practice of deliberative democracy, i.e. more citizens’ assembly-type work. Frankly, I don’t think funders or anybody else who’s heard about this work will look favourably on grant applications that don’t embed and include this work.”
Q: How culturally ready was the organisation and staff in advance of the assembly for the jury to have impact internally?
Sara: “This could have gone very differently. And I think those who were involved early on, early doors in the process, could see how nervous we were and a bit confused, and we ourselves needed a lot of help and a lot of reassurance... I think we were about average ready, but in the pandemic and in this time of extreme social flux, everybody, not just in the museum, but in all social and public services, I think, are keenly aware... that it’s not working most of the things that we’ve been trying and not working.”
She continued:
“I think we were more scared of being hypocrites than of getting it wrong.”
Rowan reflected on jury members testing the boundaries:
“I remember one of the first conversations we had on that first day was sort of the jury testing the boundaries of where they could go with this. And they asked about, you know, whether they could recommend closing some of the historic properties. And I imagine this would have been a really hard question for Zak and Sara, but they were also very clear that this was something they were all ears for.”
Q: For filmmakers interested in documenting similar processes, what should they consider?
Mat: “The most important thing isn’t that you’re inviting a kind of a standard filmmaker to work her magic on a situation. I think you’re looking for filmmakers that are really in touch with their communication skills with people, and are very aware of the sensitivity in the process and not colouring the process in any way, because the fundamental focus here is that the jury has this unimpeded experience that is their voice and is their... owned by them... it’s less about filmmaking skills and more about personal skills and the type of people you want to invite into that space.”
To delve deeper into the work with Birmingham Museums Trust, visit their dedicated web page here, or read more on DemocracyNext’s website here.
🎨 On the radar - cultural edition!
The Guardian explore how citizen leadership is reshaping New Art Exchange in Nottingham.
The National Gallery in London have launched their five-year citizens’ assembly.
Read about BMT’s plans to create a ‘Cultural Citizenship Research Centre’.
Lucy Reid and DemocracyNext Communications Lead, Ruba Asfahani, will be attending the Citizens in Power residency on 25 and 26 November.
🍂 Events
Last week, Claudia Chwalisz, DemocracyNext CEO, gave a talk at the FARI AI Conference on ‘Public deliberation can’t be an afterthought: Why AI needs democratic (not just technocratic) governance’. You can read her post and see the slides here.
23 & 24 January, Berlin, Germany
Claudia will be hosting a workshop with Kyle Redman from the AI & Democracy Foundation on deliberative technology during the Political Tech Summit.