D 2.2 – Preferred scenario co-creation workflow development journal

YouthDecide2040 has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement nº 101177438. D 2.2 – Preferred scenario co-creation workflow development journal – YouthDecide 2040: Visions of Democracy with and for Future Generations Work program: Grant No: 101177438 Start date: 01.01.2025 Duration: 36 months Project website: https://youthdecide2040.eu/ Deliverable Report Deliverable No. D2.2 Deliverable Name Preferred scenario co-creation workflow development journal Version (No.; Date) (DD/MM/YYYY) 2; 31/10/2025 Responsible partner [No] Fraunhofer ISI [FhG] Prepared by (Name; email) Aaron B. Rosa, [email protected] Due date of deliverable (DD/MM/YYYY) 31/10/2025 Actual deliverable date (DD/MM/YYYY) 31/10/2025 Justification if delayed N/A Dissemination Level of this Report (please indicate): PU Public – fully open X SEN Sensitive – limited under the conditions of the Grant Agreement [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 2 of 95 1 Project Coordinator Disclaimer Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or other granting authorities. Neither the European Union nor the granting authorities can be held responsible for them. YouthDecide 2040 Consortium Acronym 1 AIT AUSTRIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GMBH 1 AIT 2 EDYN N.O. EDYN N.O. 3 STRATEGIC DESIGN SCENARIOS SPRL SDS 4 WEDO PROJECT INTELLIGENCE MADE EASYSL WeDo 5 MISSIONS PUBLIQUES MP 6 FRAUNHOFER GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER ANGEWANDTEN FORSCHUNG EV Fraunhofer 7 INSTYTUT FILOZOFII I SOCJOLOGII POLSKIEJ AKADEMII NAUK IFIS PAN 8 EUROPEAN PARTNERSHIP FOR DEMOCRACY EPD 9 EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE EUI 10 EUROPEAN YOUTH FORUM YFJ 11 MAKE.ORG MAKE.ORG [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 3 of 95 Authors List Lead Author Name Beneficiary ORCiD Aaron B. Rosa Fraunhofer ISI https://orcid.org/0000-0003-00850163 Co-authors (in alphabetical order) Name Beneficiary ORCiD Max Priebe Fraunhofer ISI https://orcid.org/0000-0001-97504990 François Jégou SDS Christophe Gouache SDS https://orcid.org/0000-0002-81914853 Version Control Version Author Date Status 1 Aaron B. Rosa 10-13-25 Review Draft 2 Aaron B. Rosa 10-23-25 Final List of Abbreviations Abbreviation Definition EC European Commission EP European Parliament LLM Large Language Model WP Work Package [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 4 of 95 Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 6 Main objective ..................................................................................................................... 7 Creative Retreat ................................................................................................................ 12 Duration of the Workshop .................................................................................................. 18 Data capture design .......................................................................................................... 19 Analysis: workflow data & outputs ..................................................................................... 58 Recommendations on finalisation and use in National Assemblies ................................... 67 References ........................................................................................................................ 72 Annex 1Post Creative Retreat Notes ............................................................................... 73 Annex 2 - Initial Data Analysis Results .............................................................................. 73 Figures and tables Figure 1: Visual representation of the workflow as defined at the Youth Decide Creative Retreat near Sienna, Italy. ................................................................................................. 12 Figure 2: A visual representation of the revised workflow used for the first regional workshop in Bratislava, Slovak Republic. .......................................................................................... 23 Figure 3: Workflow diagram created for participant handbook. To be finalised as the workflow becomes more complete. .................................................................................................. 27 Figure 4: Image of test page from participant handbook draft using the 'mission' theme. . 29 Figure 5: Visualisation presenting nearly all the revised and revamped activity worksheets that accompanied the Bratislava workshop ....................................................................... 30 Figure 6: Initial concept of the 'Meta-tagging' system that could facilitate the analysis of the data being produced at each of the workshops. This shows early versions of democratic innovations (seeds) in combination with context factors (assessed after podcast) and the selection of a scenario ‘medium’ (an approach that was later discarded in favor of the more comparable scenario building process in the workflow. ..................................................... 31 Figure 7: Participants together for a photograph at the Skopje workshop ......................... 32 Figure 8: Visual representation of the workflow used at the Skopje regional workshop. some earlier activities were removed or replaced to test new activity versions or agenda ordering. .......................................................................................................................................... 33 [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 5 of 95 Figure 9: Visual representation of the workflow finished in the Southern Europe regional workshop (Barcelona, Spain). ........................................................................................... 38 Figure 10: Youth Decide Project workflow developed to contextualise the regional workshops as leading to the national assemblies ................................................................................ 39 Figure 11: Participants at the Paris workshop ................................................................... 44 Figure 12: Visual representation of the workflow adopted for the Western Europe regional workshop in Paris, France. Note the new timing of the agenda as composed of two half day workshops. ........................................................................................................................ 45 Figure 13: Screenshots of digital response forms (in both web and mobile friendly formats) designed to enable more efficient and accurate analysis .................................................. 46 Figure 14: Early draft of the facilitator guidebook cover. Additionally, in the lead up to the Paris workshop, a draft version of the facilitator’s guidebook was produced. The guidebook was made ready for the first workflow facilitator training, conducted with two facilitators who had no prior knowledge of the workshop design, in order to test the comprehensibility of the handbook. The Facilitator’s guidebook was created to clarify the agenda of the workflow, the instructions for each activity, a suggested facilitator script and facilitator advice, and lastly material requirements (print outs, and materials). ............................................................. 51 Figure 15: Participants at the Oslo workshop .................................................................... 53 Figure 16: Visual representation of the co-creation workflow used in the Northern Europe regional workshop in Oslo, Norway. Note the switching of the order for the context factor focused activities, and the activities involving the democratic innovations. ....................... 54 Figure 17: Early Data collection schema from version 1 of the workflow. Tracking individual and group data, capture formats. ...................................................................................... 59 Figure 18: A detailed look at the types of data that were to be collected from the workflow version that emphasised the role of the policy situation cards (in combination with the context factors) as central to the scenario building process. .......................................................... 60 Figure 19: This revised data capture diagram for the Phygital workflow. This shows the elimination of scans, and the inclusion of both digital forms (blue smartphone icon) and the use of the participant handbook (booklet icon). This is not a final version, but represents a critical step along the design journey. ................................................................................ 61 Figure 20: A bar graph showing quantitative results from one digital form question regarding the selection of Democratic Innovations. Initial data overview accessible within 24 hours of the conclusion of the workshop. ........................................................................................ 63 Figure 21: Initial notes on the collection of data during the scenario building and presentation processes. ......................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 22: Day 1 Individual Data capture through digital formats. ..................................... 65 Figure 23: Day Two focuses more on Group work, and thus requires more emphasis on the people in the room, working together, and building a good collective design. Probably fewer options for digital data collection via survey forms. ........................................................... 66 Table 1: A list of expert participants’ professional affiliations and focus of work related to the Youth Decide workflow creation and testing. ..................................................................... 13 Table 2: Initial co-creation workflow tested at the Creative Retreat in May 2025. .............. 14 Table 3 - Questions to guide further development of the workflow as compiled from comments of the creative retreat participants. ................................................................... 15 Table 4 - Consortium Meeting feedback on the Creative Retreat, the workflow, and the preparations for the regional workshops. ........................................................................... 16 Table 5: YouthDecide 2040 Regional Workshops, including location, date, and participation information ......................................................................................................................... 20 [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 6 of 95 Table 6: Agenda and Changelog of the Bratislava regional workshop ............................... 24 Table 7: Agenda for Skopje workshop, held 26-27 June 2025 ........................................... 33 Table 8: Agenda for the Barcelona workshop held 06-08 July 2025 .................................. 39 Table 9: The prepared agenda and changelog associated with the Paris workshop. ........ 46 Table 10: Agenda for Oslo Regional Workshop ................................................................. 54 Table 11: Recommendations resulting from the co-creation workshop development journey. .......................................................................................................................................... 67 Introduction The Youth Decide 2040 project is funded by the EU Horizon Europe program and is designed to foster the co-creation of scenarios outlining preferred futures for EU democracy. These scenarios should demonstrate how democracy might evolve in a desirable manner - taking advantage of emergent opportunities that a changing world presents while remaining resilient to threats and challenges. By engaging with European youth in this future-oriented work, the project aims to support new policies and practices in Europe’s democratic systems that reflect expectations and preferences across generations. The three-year project runs from January 2025 to December 2027, and its consortium includes 11 partners from across European research institutions, academia, SMEs, and large youth-focused organisations. The project's second work package (WP2) was conceived of as a phase of the project to design and test a scenario co-creation workflow. The workflow's primary purpose would be to help European youth articulate and visualise visions of desirable futures for European democracy in the year 2040. This workflow aims to promote inclusivity, diversity of perspectives and experiences, procedural transparency and trust building between the participants, the project, and ultimately the European Commission. Based on an iterative and reflexive design process, the co-creation workflow itself was dynamic, encompassing the design of multiple modules that were tested in different arrangements based on participant feedback, workshop contexts, and the ongoing development of research findings from other parts of the project into useable workflow assets. In this way, the design team has endeavoured to create a co-creation workflow that is adaptable to different contexts, facilitates genuine dialogues between diverse participants, and ultimately leads to shared ownership of the desirable scenarios that are made by participants in workshops as the YouthDecide 2040 project advances. This deliverable was written to track key moments and decisions across the workflow design process, so that other groups may learn and adapt from the lessons we have gathered along the way. The entirety of the design and testing phase included a creative retreat for bringing expert design feedback into the workflow, and five regional [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 7 of 95 co-creation workshops for testing the workflow across Europe’s diverse social, cultural, and democratic contexts. In this journal, we present the designed workflow that was tested at each phase, the key lessons that were taken from each test, and the resulting recommended workflow that is to be finalized and used across the 20 national assemblies scheduled for work package three of this project. Main objective This document aims to provide a record of the design decisions made during the creation of the Youth Decide 2040 scenario co-creation workflow. The main objective in doing so is to allow others to examine and learn from the process that was used, the assets and modules that were created, and final results of the scenario co-creation workflow development. However, before diving into the details concerning the design, the deliverable introduces the working definition of ‘co-creation’ that has guided the process. Co-creation in practice The term co-creation, specifically as it is used within the field of design, is often attributed to the writing of Elisabeth Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers (2008) who worked on defining comprehensive frameworks for advancing user inputs across design processes. The terminology has a rich history, related to aspects of action research (Lewin 1946, 2007) and participatory action research (Borda 1987), and participatory design and planning of and by communities (Sanoff 1985, 2000). With literature relating to socio-political participation more generally (Arnstein 1969) and critiques of how participatory process can remain tokenistic and / or abusive of public trust (Cooke and Kothari 2001, Cornwall 2008), many participatory approaches such as co-creation have gained critical self-reflexivity. For the purposes of designing the YouthDecide 2040 scenario co-creation workflow, their work and the work of many others were formative in shaping our approach both to the structure and activities included in the workflow and to the design of the workflow itself. Given that we would be asking a diverse group of European young people to engage in an act of creative and critical speculation, having a shared understanding of co-creation principles and fundamental values seemed critical for the design process to move forward on the project’s tight timeline. More to the point, understanding the political implications of designing new systems (Battistoni 2019), particularly new democratic systems and governing institutions that are directly political, requires a fundamental integration of cocreation principles within the development of this workflow. Given that the literature substantiates both the concept of co-creation, the practice of scenario development, and the quantitative and qualitative forms of speculation that support participatory foresight, we proposed the following principles of co-creation as related to the development of this workflow: [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 8 of 95 • Inclusivity & Diversity - Engage a broad spectrum of voices (to capture multiple perspectives). These principals foster equity, respect for difference and pluralism. • Iteration & Reflexivity - Embed cycles of prototyping, feedback and reflection, allowing concepts to evolve in response to emergent insights. Helps embed adaptability and a humble learning orientation among all participants. • Transparency & Trust - Maintain open communication about goals, constraints, methods and emerging findings throughout the process. This helps maintain project integrity and build a sense of mutual reliability between participants and the project team. Efforts must also be made to shore up psychological safety. • Dialogic Engagement - Foster genuine two-way dialogues where listening is as valued as speaking, enabling co-learning and sense-making. Builds a sense of reciprocity and empathy between participants and encodes respectful communication. • Context-Sensitivity - Ground activities in the social, cultural and institutional realities of participants, acknowledging power dynamics. Helps to demonstrate an open respect for relationality and cultural competence, as well as promoting ethical awareness. • Shared Ownership - Ensure all participants have an active role in decision-making and outcome validation. Helps develop agency, empowerment, and mutual accountability among participants. As a foundation of design, these co-creation principles can be used as sounding boards for different workflow activities, assets being developed, language clarity and accessibility, and other sensibilities that the workflow must both encourage and embody. Co-Creation Workflow: design parameters There are a number of design parameters that have influenced the design of the workshop, including time limits, participant background and diversity, workshop language, facilitator training and knowledge, and the expected outcomes that the workshop is to provide, namely scenario narratives depicting preferred states of European Union democracy. • Time limitations: one-day workshop format. o In regional workshops, we tested single-day and lunch to lunch (two day) formats to compare participant experience. • Language of workflow activities and materials that would be accessible and inclusive of the many ways people learn, process information, and express understanding, including: o In each regional workshop, approximately 20 European youth, wherein participant selection emphasised candidates who demonstrated experience some of the following characteristics: working on creative engagement, youth engagement, a diversity of ages within the ‘youth’ designation (18-35), balanced gender (inclusive to LGBTQ+ backgrounds). o For national assemblies, up to 30 participants accounting for a broad array of socio-economic backgrounds, educational and vocational experience levels, and at least half with little to no experience with fields like political science, design, or foresight/long-term planning. o Keeping in mind that public release of the workflow toolkit will be available in multiple languages for use across Europe and with groups of unknown [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 9 of 95 background, the language should remain as accessible and clear as possible. • A workflow that is easily replicable, adaptable, and accessible for facilitators with no prior training to conduct, including clear instructions and introductory movies to support facilitators’ understanding and preparation. • A workflow that is sufficiently future oriented to ensure production of desirable future states of democracy that are resilient to novel challenges emerging from complex systems Additionally, in alignment with the expectations of this research, • The regional workshops and national assemblies aim to deliver insights into the preferred future scenarios for European Union Democracy in the year 2040 and beyond. • Future scenarios are to be divergent in pursuit of outlining pathways to a more robust and resilient future democracy. This means that alongside the desirable/preferrable qualities that should guide the co-creation activities, there should be activities that actively challenge participant perspectives and account for multiple possible futures. • A workflow that allows for data to be collected regarding: o Participants opinions on what is preferrable/desirable for future democracy o Participants adoption or inclusion of democratic innovations (stemming from T1.3) o Participants assessments of, and accounting for, context factors that may shape future societal conditions in which democracy is asked to operate Defining preferred future scenario There are a number of ways that the term ‘scenario’ has been used by many different fields but given the future-oriented nature of these expectations, the workshop design process has been guided in part by a definition of scenario as used in futures studies and foresight (Spaniol 2019). Accordingly, the key elements for foresight scenarios are: • The described phenomena (scenario content) should be future-oriented • And it should concern external context • The description should be narrative in style • And it should describe something that is plausibly possible • The ‘scenario’ should be part of a systematised set • And should be comparatively different from other narratives in that set At the same time, by appending the adjective ‘preferred’ to the scenario, we find that Spaniol et al. and others (Wright & Cairns (2011), Dator (2019)) correctly identify that these scenarios must speak to desirable qualities (e.g. normative) of a possible future and in so doing will relate key values that are to be preserved and or fostered. Therefore, a working definition of a ‘preferred scenario' for the design and development of the YouthDecide 2040 workshop is: a plausible story about a future of EU or European [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 16 of 95 Guiding review/revision questions based on participant feedback How do we better represent the future element – i.e., the 2040 component? Where should the seeds be best introduced and how can new seeds be collected? Where should the scenarios be created? What scales do they need to outline (local, national, EU)? What should they articulate (systems or visions)? How should the final workshop toolkit look like? How will we get translations accomplished? Secondly, the creative retreat was followed directly by the YouthDecide 2040 project’s first in person consortium meeting, which allowed the consortium to discuss comprehensive feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the co-creation workflow. By reviewing the workflow activities and the products of the participants in the first part of the consortium meeting, partner representatives were able to assess the current state of the workflow and consider what would be required to transform the creative workflow into a comprehensive toolkit. Additionally, the consortium meeting outlined next steps for all of the partners, including a number of tasks that were essential for the running of the upcoming regional workshops. Given that the regional workshops were to be the next phase of development for the workflow, as we tested different activities, agendas, and materials with youth participants across Europe, the development of the workflow became intertwined with the development of different assets for the workshops themselves (see Table 4). In the end, this confluence resulted in a better overall workshop experience that holds and extends the cocreation workflow. Table 4 - Consortium Meeting feedback on the Creative Retreat, the workflow, and the preparations for the regional workshops. Scenario Toolkit Assessment – Key Elements from Consortium Meeting Aspects of workflow design and regional workshop preparation Specific Notes recorded during Consortium Meeting Recruitment process information – This had been developed primarily by EDYN, Fraunhofer ISI, WeDo and AIT, with support from other consortium members, including: Email templates Digital application forms (prototype, and final versions) Web and social media campaigns (graphics, messaging) Participant selection process and parameters Digital registration forms including participant information for meals, travel, accommodation, mobility, and other circumstances. [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 17 of 95 Scenario Toolkit Assessment – Key Elements from Consortium Meeting Workflow for the coordination of communication between participants and organisers (Email (primary), phone) Workflow for the communication between participants and facilitators (Social Media groups) Facilitation details: script, timing, presence, posture The facilitation guide was started based on the creative retreat exercise and became a focal document for discussions about workflow revisions before the regional workshops Material needs Included in the facilitators guide is a comprehensive list of the various materials needed for running the workshop. The material list has been iterated based on the regional workshop experiences (some notes are included below, though final materials list recommendation will be noted in the recommendation section here in D2.3). Background materials for participants Decision to keep these minimal in the regional workshops. Justification: no guarantee all will read any background materials, and repetition of the materials will still be needed in the workshop. Audio tracks were sent via email prior to the workshop kick-off. Blank cards for new seeds and future context factors Done, though the timing of their introduction and how best to encourage contributions remains testable. Are these introduced at the beginning or middle of group discussions regarding seeds and context factors? To be tested during the regional workshops. Postevent reporting documentation Major adjustments needed. Idea to digitise some aspects of capture. (More details below in D2.2 - Regional workshop section and final discussion). Informed consent process and reporting Two different forms were developed in the lead up to the first regional workshop. The version created by WeDo was useful for both GDPR clarification and for clarity on the capture and use of digital media artifacts for use by the project. In the end, physical copies of signature pages were collected from all participants and documented digitally via scan. This consent form has also been digitised and will be integrated into the final registration process for the national assemblies (including translation). Media and press kit content WeDo has continued to collect photos, videos, and audio files documenting the creative retreat, the consortium meeting, and one of the regional workshops in Barcelona. SDS and ISI have also collected different photo and video files for compilation in the Documenting the Journey production (D6.3) Press Kit is still under development and will be translated into national languages. Brand Identity and Social Media campaigns will be a central part of the outreach. [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 18 of 95 Scenario Toolkit Assessment – Key Elements from Consortium Meeting Ensure products are streamlined with a clear results and analysis process Data capture, collection, and analysis processes were developed and iterated upon during the regional workshops. QR codes linking to translations, audio, video, and other content Toolkit workflow must allow translation into host languages and translation of results back to English. Notes on inclusive design / accessibility This remains a central concern despite efforts to account for this across the regional workshops. More details in notes on regional workshops below. An inclusivity and accessibility task force was also initiated composed of members of YJF, MP, AIT, SDS, ISI, and WeDo to provide advice and confer on the workflow design comprehensively and its compositional materials. Additional adjustments Apart from the workflow and its constituent activities, additional adjustments were suggested based on the review of the constraints and accessibility demands of the national assemblies. Looking towards the multiple languages that would be needed for the national assemblies, as well as the shortened timeframe that the assemblies would operate under (two days total including transit), adjustments to the workflow included a new order and timing of activities for the regional workshops in order to test workable alternatives. In addition, we needed to find and adopt a document format for all workflow materials that could enable more rapid translation and collective editing (PPT files were selected in this regard). Lastly, Creative Retreat participants and project consortium members offered additional suggestions, that are described below. Duration of the Workshop In addition to the changes made in response to the feedback noted above, one significant change stemmed from the realisation that the current design of the workshop for the creative retreat stretched over 1.5 days while the co-creation workshops in the national assemblies would have only one day1. This was an important change in the workflow parameters, as it meant that certain activities would have to be condensed, or even discarded, if the workflow was to be fit to purpose. It also enabled each of the regional co-creation workshops to utilise one half day to schedule a more rigorous participant feedback activity. This feedback could then be used to help shape the design of the co-creation process, and ensure that the 1 It was later verified that while the workshop would be designed to be completed in one day, the national assemblies would be conducted on two consecutive days starting at lunch on the first day, and finishing at lunchtime of the second day. This is scheduled to ensure that travellers will have ample time to arrive at the national assemblies. However, the final co-creation workflow should be completable within a single full day. [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 19 of 95 YouthDecide 2040 project was being conducted with reflexivity to feedback and adaptation to emerging needs, and concerns. Accessibility and Inclusivity Following the creative retreat, a long discussion concerning the accessibility and inclusivity of the toolkit’s activities took place at the first consortium meeting. A number of discussion points were covered, including: • Accessibility of the language used throughout the activities • Too much emphasis on text descriptions? • Too much emphasis on writing as a key participant activity? • Adaptations for the hearing and visually impaired communities • Adaptations and considerations for diverse communities and culturally sensitivity • Sensitivity to individuals with other conditions (e.g. mental health conditions) These notes have informed the design of the workflow and continue to remain under discussion as the toolkit enters finalisation and production. The incorporation of additional types of participant input (e.g. collage, graphic descriptions, audio recording) and more orientation towards group discussion and individual presence in the community of participants were part of the design’s changes. Also, the consortium organised a accessibility and inclusivity taskforce to help ensure the workflow would be improved according to good practices. Data capture design It became evident during the collection of data from the creative retreat workshop that several adjustments were needed. Ideas were proposed drawing from the work of the U.S. based ECAST Network2 – a collaboration of university, NGO, and science museums specialising in collecting designing and delivering deliberative processes similar to the Youth Decide 2040 co-creation workflow (in particular a project on gathering public input into the democratic design of a science and technology decision process3). Design notes were written by consortium partners suggesting various amendments to the agenda and workflow (see links to digital notes in Annex). This led to many adjustments in the design of activities in the co-creation workflow, in particular: • The creation of a participant naming and IDCode system that could be used to track individual data streams across the process. • The creation of a greater number of individual activity sheets to enable better support data capture. • Adjustments to text prompts across all activities, to improve clarity of questions, intent of activity towards the larger process, and • An initial data collection plan for the participant products during all activities. • A detailed facilitation guide. 2 https://ecastnetwork.org/ 3 Project name: Community, Capacity, and Collaboration in Arizona (3CAZ): https://3c.cspo.org/ [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 20 of 95 Five Regional Workshops Following the creative retreat, five workshops were planned across the five European regions that had been defined by the YouthDecide 2040 project in its initial stages (Markowski and Zagorski 2025). Given the necessity to have a tested and finalised version of the co-creation workflow in time for the facilitator training sessions (M14), and the time required for the finalisation and translation workflow materials and the accompanying facilitators’ guide (M13), the regional workshops took place from July 2025-September 2025, with no workshops scheduled for August given overlapping and asynchronous summer holidays schedules across Europe. Given the very short development window, these two primary objectives consumed the most significant amount of time during the regional workshop timeframe: • Testing and refinement of the co-creation workflow through its design iterations • Testing and refinement of the data capture and analysis process from the workshops At the same time, the regional workshops provided the opportunity for achieving secondary goals, namely: • Collection of additional Democratic Innovations from participant contributions • Collection of additional context factors from participant contributions • Insights into regional or cultural differences that could shape the presentation of each modular activity • Insights into regional differences and commonalities in the presented scenarios of desirable democratic futures • Potential links between these insights and research results from project Work Package 1 (WP1) Planning and recruitment for the five regional workshops was carried out by project partners EDYN, ISI, and WeDo, with assistance from AIT and the European Youth Forum. Each workshop was to include 20 participants assembled from the various countries within the respective region. Here is the final list of regional workshops: Table 5: YouthDecide 2040 Regional Workshops, including location, date, and participation information Region Countries Location Date Number of participants Central and Eastern Europe Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Czechia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania Bratislava, Slovakia June 23-24, 2025 20 participants (9 male, 11 female) ‘Future’ Europe Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, North Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey, and Ukraine Skopje, North Macedonia June 26-27, 2025 20 participants (9 female, 11 male) Southern Europe Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Malta Barcelona, Spain July 06-08, 2025 20 participants (12 female, 8 male) Western Europe Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands Paris, France September 05-07, 2025 20 participants (10 male, 10 female) [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 21 of 95 Northern Europe Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Iceland Oslo, Norway September 10-12, 2025 18 participants (13 females, 3 males, 2 no shows (one illness, one flight cancellation)) In the following sections dedicated to each regional workshop, we present the design notes that were collected during the workflow activities as well as comments on the workshop overall. As there was no standardised format for taking or recording the design notes, the notes gathered by facilitators are presented below in a manner that best represents the information that was collected and process at each of the workshops. As such, the design journal entries that follow are not uniform in their presentation or notation style, though we have attempted to make the document more coherent and uniform for clarity where possible. Workshop Participant Feedback In alignment with the co-creation ethos that the project organises around, there were options for participants to provide feedback on the workflow activities and the workshop in general. At first this was designed as an integrated component of the workflow for the regional workshops, with each activity being accompanied by a brief feedback and reflection survey. This idea was viewed as too intrusive to the co-creation workflow that was to be used for the national assemblies, and thus the participant feedback session was moved to a standalone activity. However, given the evolving nature of the workflow during the regional workshops, the participant feedback activity varied somewhat across the workshops. For the workshops in Bratislava, Skopje and Barcelona, participant feedback was collected on an activity worksheet that included the following prompts: • Worksheet Side 1: (intended for individual reflection) o What effects have you observed on participants, on exchanges and outcomes? o Why do you think these effects occurred and what evidence supports this? o If you feel short on inspiration, you can look at these different dimensions to consider possible effects in terms of...**this prompt was followed by the following terms**: o ...efficiency, atmosphere, fluidity, foresight, mindset, future, reflexions, usefulness, pleasure, perspectives, new ideas, rhythm, creativity, learning, difficulties, collaboration, food for thoughts, emotions. • Worksheet Side 2 – Composed as a note sheet for a discussion between pairs of participants, along the left side of the worksheet was a list of the different sections of the workflow, accompanied by main activities within each section. Next to each of these section was a space for writing about the discussion in response to two questions: o What effects have you observed? o Why do you think these effects occurred? The participant reflection components of the Paris and Oslo workshops were conducted as a more brief discussion accompanied by facilitators taking notes on a whiteboard. The [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 22 of 95 whiteboard was also opened up to participants to make drawings or add comments. This primary reason for this shift was a shift to the scheduling of agenda for these two regional workshops. In the last adjustment to align the timing of the workshop activities with the available time for the national assemblies, the workflow was moved from a full-day workshop with a half-day for reflection (AM-PM (Day 1) + AM (Day 2)), to a two half-day schedule (PM (Day1) + AM (Day 2)). This significantly curtailed the time that was available for participant reflection and feedback on the workflow, though useful comments and suggestions were still fielded in the group reflection session. [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 23 of 95 Central and Eastern Europe Regional Workshop: Bratislava (23-24.06.2025) The first regional workshop was held in Bratislava, Slovakia on the 23-24th of June, 2025. This workshop invited participants from Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Czechia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and was organised by consortium partner EDYN. Facilitators at this workshop were from SDS, with further observations and facilitation assistance from members of AIT. The workshop itself was held in some of the conference rooms at the hotel that had been booked for all participants, thus making transportation to and from the venue quite streamlined logistically. There were some comments about the ‘corporate’ look and feel of the workspace, but for the most part participants found the setting unremarkable. After the feedback from the creative retreat was taken into account, the Bratislava regional workshop reflected a tremendous number of changes to the workflow activities, the different formats that each activity used for participant input, and adjustments to workflow agenda based on creative retreat feedback (see Figure 1), and new timing considerations. In total, the pre-Bratislava revision was one of the main overhauls that we completed of the workflow during the regional workshop testing process. As such, not all changes will be accounted for in detail here. Figure 2: A visual representation of the revised workflow used for the first regional workshop in Bratislava, Slovak Republic. A 6-step schema was developed to help structure the co-creation workflow and create a sense of the different objectives of each phase of the workshop. These steps included: Meeting, Exploring, Dreaming, Envisioning, Sharing, and Reflecting (See Table 6). It was ExploringMeeting SharingDreaming Envisioning Self Introduction Hopes & Expectations Discover Mission Envelope Democratic Innovation Marketplace Demo Inno Discussion and Selection Podcast Listening Pairing and Team Building Context Map Situation Cards Scenario Building Preferred and Concerning Aspects Scenario Presentations Scenario Ranking Reflection Outcome Harvesting Discuss Conent Discuss Process Bratislava Workflow Day 1Day 2 [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 24 of 95 noted that these initial section titles were used for prototyping during the regional workshop and may need to be revised for the finalised version of the workflow. Table 6: Agenda and Changelog of the Bratislava regional workshop Planned Agenda BRATISLAVA [Day 1 - AM] Changelog / Notes Meeting • 30’ - Welcome words & Self introduction • 10’ - Discover you Mission Envelop • 30’ - Hopes & expectations Changes made for this workshop: • Accessibility: Support and assistance for a visually impaired participant • Newly developed ‘Workshop Rules’ printed on nametag • Name badges include IDCode and animal pseudonym. • Hopes and Expectations activity worksheet (new version) Notes from activities: • Mission envelope idea was not well received Exploring • 35’ – Exploring democratic innovations seeds • 30' – discussing democratic innovation seeds Changes made for this workshop: • Democratic Innovation Marketplace: Cards on walls • Top 5 Promising Seeds activity handout. Participants largely self-organise or explore DIs in small groups • Discussion of Democratic Innovation (Seeds) in groups is focused on relating seeds to hopes for democracy (from previous activity) Notes from activities: • Engaged curiosity of participants • Not enough time for some participants • Create option for participants to add their own innovations. Dreaming • 30’ - Podcast time • 60’ – Lunch • 25’ – Pairing & Team building • 15’ - Break Changes made for this workshop: • Individual Reflection sheet accompanies Podcast (prompt revisions suggested for Skopje or Barcelona) • New ‘sleeping mask’ introduced. • Headphones no longer required as listening will occur in plenary and audio will be relayed via blue tooth speakers. [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 25 of 95 • This is no longer a walking activity, as participants mainly will sit. • Podcast is now group listening, not individual on phones or with headphones. • Reflection sheet serves as key artifact for scenario team building. Individuals with similar desired futures for democracy should group together Notes from activities: • Participant Comment: Podcast not attached to next activity • Participant Comment: Podcast too long • Participant Comment: Podcast voices are American, and no European perspectives are presented. Envisioning • 10’ - Introducing scenario building • 15’ - Context map & Situation cards • 20’ - Select one situation card & Situated seed • 20’ - Select second situation card & Situated seed • 120’ - Scenarios of preferred European democracy • 15’ – Break Changes made for this workshop: Verbal introduction to scenario building (Note: This should be accompanied by a visual, or even included in the background materials for participants) • Context Map – New design of context map (based on D2.1 research, still ongoing) • Situation and Seed Activity (newly developed activity) • Revised Scenario Creation Board • System-level questions are introduced as stickers, to be used on scenario board • Resilience Factor content is developed for sticker or card production • Preferred and Concerning Aspects of 2040 democracy (activity sheet under development (this is later transformed into 'distillation' exercise in Skopje) Notes from activities: • Context Map activity requires some refinement. • Round I and II of situation activity sheets can be brought into the scenario creation activity. • The resilience factors were not utilised • Desirability attributes are not clearly addressed Sharing • 30’ - Preferred & concerning aspects of your scenario Changes made for this workshop: • Set up camera and tripod for video presentation. Groups explain scenario/systems via one or two person presentations [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 32 of 95 ‘Future Europe’ Regional Workshop: Skopje (2627.06.2025) Figure 7: Participants together for a photograph at the Skopje workshop The second regional workshop was held only a few days after the Bratislava workshop, and included twenty participants from across the ‘Future’ Europe region. This region includes Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, North Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey, and Ukraine, and participants were organised by EDYN who have a strong network among these countries youth. Skopje, the capital of North Macedonia, was the host city for our workshop which took place in a conference room at the hotel where participants were staying. This close proximity made travelling logistics more streamlined, though some comments were made about the rather generic and uninspired atmosphere. Members of SDS and Fraunhofer ISI served as primary facilitators, with some logistical support provided on site by members of the EDYN local chapter. Given the very short window of time between the Bratislava and Skopje workshops, there was limited time for the redesign activity assets. However, we were able to test different configurations of the agenda, and new ways of introducing existing activities or assets during the timing of the workflow (See Figure 8). [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 33 of 95 Figure 8: Visual representation of the workflow used at the Skopje regional workshop. some earlier activities were removed or replaced to test new activity versions or agenda ordering. As the design team was still attempting to test many of the major revisions that had occurred since the creative retreat, a number of changes were made, sometimes created as the workflow proceeded, in response to participant perceptions or reactions. Wherever possible, the design team took notes on both the perceived changes to the mood and behaviour of participants within each activity, and recorded impromptu observations made by participants or the facilitation team (see Table 7). Table 7: Agenda for Skopje workshop, held 26-27 June 2025 Planned Agenda SKOPJE [Day 1 - AM] Changelog/Notes Meeting • 30’ - Welcome words & “My first Memory of Democracy” • 30’ – Keep/Change in Democracy Changes made for this workshop: • New prompt for welcome circle: My first memory of Democracy is… (replaces “I am here because…”) • Hopes and Expectations is replaced with a new prompt: "What would you keep/change about Democracy?" Notes from this workshop: • Note: Facilitators Guide - Collect Memory Sheets • Audio Recording of 'My first memory'? …because the stories being told are much larger and more rich than what is written on the papers. • The word hope was not well received in Bratislava, and this activity has been reworded. Desirability is captured (but simplified) in the idea of "want to keep/change…" ExploringMeeting SharingDreaming Envisioning First Memory of Democracy Hopes & Expectations Discover Mission Envelope Democratic Innovation Marketplace Demo Inno Discussion and Selection Podcast Listening Pairing and Team Building Context Map Situation Cards Scenario Building Preferred and Concerning Aspects Scenario Presentations Scenario Ranking Reflection Outcome Harvesting Discuss Content Discuss Process Skopje Workflow What would you Keep/Change? Day 1Day 2 Collective Distillation What’sNext and Close [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 34 of 95 Exploring • 35’ – Exploring democratic innovations seeds • 30' – discussing democratic innovation seeds Changes made for this workshop: • Democratic Innovation Marketplace – Cards on floor (mixed up the colour coded 'families' of Democratic Innovations). • Discussion of Democratic Innovation (Seeds) in groups is on new prompts (verbal) "why now?" Why in 15 years?" How can the innovations you've chosen still be useful in the future?" How might they grow or evolve?" Notes from this workshop: • Top 5 Promising Seeds activity handout: Some individuals prefer to look at Democratic Innovations by themselves; others form small groups (seems like groups form from people who already know one another). • Consider adding elements of these new prompts to the Democratic Innovation worksheet. • Democratic Innovations: New prompt (?): Have the groups decide on a 'top 5' for the group through discussion and some kind of voting mechanism. 5-minute warnings and +5 minutes when the discussion needs more time. Dreaming • 30’ - Podcast time • 35’ Factor Map & Individual Reflection • 25’ – Pairing & Team building • 60’ – Lunch Changes made for this workshop: • Podcast is 18 minutes. Let's try to cut this down in future renditions. • Lunch was moved until after the Context Factor Map and the Individual Reflections. Notes from this workshop: • Double check the content (repetitions, order of themes/factors) • Change content focus on some factors (new focuses) • Context Map: This exercise seems disconnected. Should we mention that the situations codes are referred to in the map, per factors. • The prompts for reflection feel a bit repetitive, need to be adjusted. The reflection doesn't track well with the product/context factor map • The sharing exercise drags a bit. [Day 1 - PM] Notes Envisioning • 10’ - Introducing scenario building • 15’ - Context map & Situation cards • 20’ - Select one situation card & Situated seed • 20’ - Select second situation card & Situated seed • 120’ - Scenarios of preferred European democracy • 15’ – Break Changes made for this workshop: • Situation activity directly after lunch works well. • *New* - Reintroduction of role during scenario creation activity. At the beginning of the scenario development phase of the workshop, groups were given the prompt: “ Congratulations, given your past success in handling difficult policy situations with novel democratic designs, your group has been elected into power as leading a coalition government. You have the authority and support to implement broad systemic change to your democratic government. Good Luck!” • Democratic Innovations are left on the table to keep the ideas close to the groups hands as they design scenarios. • A self-organised break was encouraged for small working groups during the situation and scenario building activities. Notes from this workshop: [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 35 of 95 • Possible prompt: the situation can occur anytime in the next 15 years (up to 2040) • Situation Board asks participants to combine one situation card with 2-3 democratic innovation cards. • Democratic Innovations can combine/evolve to meet future situation needs (capture these changes on the situation response worksheet). • It may be preferable to have at least one example of how this works? • Participant Question: "What is a scenario?" • Scenario Prompt: " You are the new government…" (see below). • Example prompts "This is the canvas (followed by a step-by-step introduction to the canvas and the work) (have a visual on hand?) • Add prompt "We believe this is how democracy should work…"(?) • Introduced a 'surprise' situation card 1/2 through the scenario building to help shake up group dynamics and system designs. Sharing • 40’ – Video presentations + Q&A • 35’ - Sharing & Distillation • 10’ – Check-out of day 1 Changes made for this workshop: • Set up camera and tripod for video presentation. Groups explain scenario/systems via one or two person presentations. • All groups share their group’s scenarios, and after, Q&A (5.10 minutes). Videos are to be uploaded to repository for later analysis. • 'Distillation' (Collective Intelligence) exercise more formalised after Bratislava: Individual and then as a group. Notes from this workshop: • Distillation should incorporate clear language about desirability or preferability regarding democratic futures from individual participant perspectives. [Day 2 - AM] Notes Reflecting • 60’ - Outcome Harvesting & Sharing • 30’ - Discussing content • 15’ - Break • 30’ – Discussing process • 30’ – What’s next in Youth Decide 2040? • 15’ - Checkout & Farewell Changes made for this workshop: • The reflection marketplace idea was not done (was just an idea>). • Most of the questions regarding the process were not asked. Reflection was more open discussion with facilitation. • Facilitator uses time to capture video testimony from participants to be included in the documentary. • Question/prompts for interviews: What are your hopes for democracy? • Why do you think processes like Youth Decide 2040 are important? (or not!?) Notes gathered during this workshop: • Overall participant feedback is positive, though notes for improvements have been made (see above). [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 36 of 95 Adjustments (Transcribed handwritten notes from notebook): My First Memory of Democracy – this activity was more formalised in this regional workshop, including a specific small handout that can be written on by participants and then placed in the centre of the welcome circle. In this workshop, the handout becomes a data capture point with the inclusion of the IDCode. Additional policy situations were created, increasing the total number of policy situation options and connecting them to the context factors. However, not all factors had associated policy situations at this point in the design. The policy situations were allocated by random selection to each of the groups (1 situation card per person), with groups working on two situations in small sub-groups to create systemic response using the democratic innovations. The workflow reincorporated a role-play element during scenario creation activity. At the beginning of the scenario development phase of the workshop, groups were given the prompt: “ Congratulations, given your past success in handling difficult policy situations with novel democratic designs, your group has been elected into power as leading a coalition government. You have the authority and support to implement broad systemic change to your democratic government. Good Luck!” About 15 minutes after the introduction of the role-playing element in the group scenario development phase of the workshop was accompanied by the introduction of an additional, randomised policy situation. While group were encouraged to use their previous work on policy situations to as part of their system designs, the introduction of a new policy situation was intended to evoke thinking about new problem areas that had not already been addressed, and new democratic innovations that might still be brought into the revised system. The Skopje workshop also introduced some new worksheets to accompany the distillation process after the video presentations of the group scenarios. The new worksheet asked participants to consider their own preferences and concerns about the future of democracy, now that all had heard presentations from their peers. Conclusion from Skopje: There were many important takeaways from the ‘Future Europe’ regional workshop with respect to the workflow design. Among the most notable was the successful reintroduction of a role-playing mechanic/ narrative during the scenario building part of the workshop. A more complex form of role play was originally included in the creative retreat workflow, and its reincorporation here seemed to be well received by participants and led to more effective scenario and future democratic system building. The policy situation cards, as they grow in number and diversify in content, also seem quite effective in providing helpful challenges to the scenario building teams, and have become an effective connector for the democratic innovations and the scenarios. The seemingly disconnected nature of the context factor activity remains to be remedied, as the context factors are an important aspect of the futureorientation of the preferred future scenarios. The context factors are designed to highlight the potential for wide-ranging types of change that European democracies might be [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 37 of 95 preparing or redesigning for. At the end of the ‘Future Europe’ regional workshop our question remained: how can we connect all of the pieces together in a way that is accessible, and aligned with the rest of the workflow? We had clearly made progress, but there were still pieces of the workflow that needed refinement and adjustment. [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 38 of 95 Southern Europe Regional Workshop: Barcelona (06-08.07.2025) The Southern Europe regional workshop was held in Barcelona, Spain nine days after the conclusion of the Skopje workshop. This workshop was also facilitated by members of the SDS and Fraunhofer ISI teams, though consortium partners WeDo and EDYN were also present and provided different kinds of support including managing the logistics of food, video and photo documentation, and general observation. In particular, WeDo played host to the workshop in the open area of their office space, and also coordinated the organisation of material supplies and other workshop elements. The workshop was attend by twenty participants from Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Malta, with backgrounds ranging from civil society organisers to students and graphic designers. Figure 9: Visual representation of the workflow finished in the Southern Europe regional workshop (Barcelona, Spain). While there was more time between the Skopje and Barcelona workshops, most of the notes and suggestions received at this point indicated that larger changes, such as digital data collection, requiring more time investment would be needed. As such and looking ahead to the longer design revision period between Barcelona and Paris, no major changes were made to the materials or workflow used in the Southern Europe regional workshop. That said, there were some alterations to the workflow that could be accomplished without major material development (see Figure 9, and Table 8). The workshop introduction, for instance, was bolstered by a new project poster designed by WeDo that outlined the project flow from ExploringMeeting SharingDreaming Envisioning First Memory of Democracy Democratic Innovation Marketplace Demo Inno Discussion and Selection Podcast Listening Pairing and Team Building Context Factor Mapping Context Map Situation Cards Scenario Building Individual Distillation Scenario Presentations Reflection Outcome Harvesting Discuss Content Discuss Process Barcelona Workflow What would you Keep/Change? Day 1Day 2 Collective Distillation What’s Next and Close [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 39 of 95 work package to work package, and showing how the regional workshops are an important step along the project journey. The development of the project poster (see Figure 10) asset helped give participants some greater context to the purpose of the regional workshops goals and visualise the larger scope of the project. Figure 10: Youth Decide Project workflow developed to contextualise the regional workshops as leading to the national assemblies Table 8: Agenda for the Barcelona workshop held 06-08 July 2025 Planned Agenda BARCELONA [Day 1 - AM] Changelog/Notes Meeting • 30’ - Welcome words & “My first Memory of Democracy” • 30’ – Keep/Change in Democracy Changes made in this workshop: • Mission "Theme" is permanently scrapped. • Welcome circle done in a small plaza not far from venue. • Outdoor environment for the welcome circle and the ‘my first memory of democracy…” activity. Notes gathered during this workshop: • Data Capture needs to be digitised. This becomes clear after "My first memory of democracy" and welcome circle. If we want data, we need to get it without scanning and deciphering handwriting. • Use an outdoor environment for the welcome circle and the ‘my first memory of democracy…” activity. [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 40 of 95 • When possible, try to get participants out and about. Fresh air, shared experiences, help build common bonds spatially. Exploring • 35’ – Exploring democratic innovations seeds • 30' – discussing democratic innovation seeds Changes made in this workshop: • No changes were made to this section during this workshop. Notes gathered during this workshop: Participant notes: • Democratic Innovations that are included are only workable in peaceful, democratic societies • Where is non-violent, civil disobedience? Blockades? Protests? and training and tools to be safe in these kinds of actions? • Neighbourhood councils and other types of community democracy are already at work, just not named the same thing as in the democratic innovations. • Some innovations are not applicable in places (Hungary, Serbia -both of which experienced massive protests in summer 2025). • Some participants: "Focus more on local democracy!" (Not national). • Can the Democratic Innovations be distributed beforehand? • Make a simple poster of all the Democratic Innovations? • Making Group Top 5 sees different methods of selection: voting, clustering, compromise. Dreaming • 30’ - Podcast time • 35’ Factor Map & Individual Reflection • 25’ – Pairing & Team building • 15’ – Break • 60’ – Lunch Changes made in this workshop: • Podcast: Changes the energy in the room following the table discussion and the group selection. • Context Factor description is quite important: What is a context factor? Why are they important? • "Democracy doesn't exist in a bubble…" "Environment shapes democracy" (introduction to activity) • Context Factor Map Notes: Still feels out of place and disconnected. Should this go back to before the innovation marketplace (high energy). Should the podcast reflect more the challenges and opportunities of each factor? Notes gathered during this workshop: • Notes: New flow suggestion 1) Factor Map 2) Individual reflection with new prompt, 3) New Groups made through matchmaking. • Matchmaking prompts: Who presents things that are close to your wishes or concerns? Listen for things that are similar to your own future desires or aspirations. • The matchmaking after the democratic innovations and factor discussion is difficult with lower energy from participants. Is this group shuffling necessary? [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 41 of 95 • Lunch remains after new groups formed. Lunch needs to be introduced: What options there are (vegan, vegetarian, allergenic, etc.), where to eat, and how long for lunch. [Day 1 - PM] Notes Envisioning • 10’ - Introducing scenario building • 15’ - Context map & Situation cards • 20’ - Select one situation card & Situated seed • 20’ - Select second situation card & Situated seed • 120’ - Scenarios of preferred European democracy Changes made in this workshop: • Before situations, listened to audio track " are you worried about the future of democracy?" • Situation prompt: You do not need to solve the situation, you need to find a democratic way to help a community solve the problem. How can democratic means help in the situation presented? Who needs to be heard from? Who is controlling power and influence? • Situations are still randomly distributed (not connected to factor map or previous content). • New approach to the first and second situation activities before the scenario building. Participants work in pairs and are asked to write two solutions to a single situation, using different democratic innovations. Each pair is asked to do this twice. The intent is to approach situations from multiple democratic solutions, and then using the difference as the starting point for learning and sharing. • • Situation board has a new design in this workshop • • Individuals are asked to work in pairs (sub-groups) to come up with two solutions to one of the situations. • Sub-groups are now asked to come up with 2 solutions to a second situation (this seems to be taking a lot of time). • Break skipped (or at least shortened and moved). • Scenario Board still seems too blank, but the instructions are 'really good and clear' according to one or two participants. Notes gathered during this workshop: • Context Factor Map introduction: what are context factors and why to do we address them? It is becoming clear that the context factor map remains unintegrated into the other workflow. • We will propose to make the integration more direct, by tying these to the situation cards (which are already being developed to reflect the factor cards). • Additionally, we will work on a map that the participants can build themselves…or more appropriately, a mosaic that can better reflect the group’s thinking about the context factors. Sharing Changes made in this workshop: [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 48 of 95 • 35’ Factor Mosaic & Individual Reflection • 25’ – Pairing & Team building • End of the day (18:00) and dinner (19:00) • • Participants listened to a new version of the podcast. Shortened in length to 12 minutes, following feedback from the previous workshops. Facilitators should be prepared to provide summary of what was done today and for what objective, and quick outlook what will happen tomorrow. Notes from this workshop: • Factor selection and pairing works quick and smooth • Podcast was received as a welcome media • However, some did not understand what the objective of the podcast exactly is. • New group formation focused on policy situations, so group discussion later revolved around those same issues. • Context Factor Podcast / Audio Stimulus • Apply general language guidance: rename or define “podcast” if you keep the format. • Context Factor Mosaic : If split-pack of factors cards in subgroups is retained, ensure glossary terms are at each subgroup’s table. • Sharing & Matching : Ensure group-size instructions are explicit in the guide. [Day 2 – 09:00 AM] Notes Envisioning • 30’ - Situation cards and selection Changes during this workshop: • Start with recap of first day and outlook for today (yesterday more stocktaking, today moving towards the future) • Situations were deployed in two rounds, with each round having a different digital input form. The first round was for an individual to fill out. The second round was for a pair to fill out together. • Notes from this workshop: • Facilitators noted that there was some frustration with the repetition between physical media worksheet questions and the digital forms. • Ensure forms complement but do not repeat the activities. Digital prompts should pursue research goals. Physical activities should pursue individual and group work goals. • Jargon check, and language accessibility • Apply synonyms/glossary to the term “situation.” • Reduce each card to one key data point, a brief definition, and a prompt for “what might change here by 2040?” • Visual aids • Provide a small printed diagram of how to place cards (e.g. sample layout) on each table. Building • 60’ Scenario building Part I • 15’ Break • 60’ Scenario Building Part II Changes during this workshop • Scenario roles were reintroduced during this workshop, with participants being informally assigned roles during the scenario building process. Roles were to guide systemic level thinking of the task at hand. • Scenario Building process now includes a digital participant form at the end, so that participants [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 49 of 95 highlight the most preferred aspect of their groups scenario. Notes from this workshop • Observation: The scenario building process is mainly focused on assembling different democratic innovations with one another without engaging in speculations concerning possible future developments • Facilitators should support the groups pose question (e.g. system-level questions) and reflect what they here – critical friend • Participants found it strange to work as a group, but assess their scenario as individuals. • Scenario Building • Introduce a brief theatrical narration (inspired by Deep Time Walk) at the outset: facilitators as narrators with a tight script, transporting participants into “the year 2040.” • Reinforce the metaphor here: example “Your seedlings(?) from 1.1 are growing into this scenario.” • Scope definition • Explicitly note “we are not redesigning the entire EU democratic system—focus on local/regional/national.” • Materials & form logic • Again use paper for initial ideation; reserve digital entry as “quiet wrap-up time.” • Contingency planning • In the guide’s appendix, list " IF discussion drifts to present issues → use ‘future check’ token to refocus.” Sharing • 40’ – Video presentations + Q&A • 35’ - Sharing & Preferred/Concerning aspects of your scenario • Distillation • 30’ - Check-out & Lunch & Farewell Changes during this workshop • No major changes were introduced to the scenario sharing activity. Notes from this workshop: • Observation: The presentations are often quite technical and focused on policy issues, largely ignoring the role of politics • Observation: Participants are not focusing on building systems or democratic pieces, and are too focused on politics of the present. • Facilitator comment: Many groups focused on the same issues that they had addressed during the situation responses This linked to the formation of groups based on policy situations. • For example, if asked to address an education issue in the situation response activities, their scenario system would largely focus on education. While facilitators considered the scenarios to be not future focused enough, participant feedback indicated that they were quite pleased with the results of the scenarios. • Optionally assign quick roles (e.g. “timekeeper,” “scribe,” “future-lens checker”) to keep teams on track and future oriented. Participant and Facilitator Feedback: [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 50 of 95 Following the Paris workshop, the following suggestions were made by team members to inform adjustments for the final Regional Workshop, held in Oslo, Norway: • Adjust workshop objectives with instructions (be ambitious, disruptive…) • Workshop choreography poster with objectives/links at each steps + “we are here” for both project and workshop posters • End of day 1 to start of day 2 - make sure that participants find their cards in the evening and keep them at their place to begin the next morning • Provide discussion rules poster • Participants should be given a role in the team during the scenario building step (critical friend at the table) • Jargon & definitions: Terms like “context factors,” “democratic innovation,” “systemlevel question,” “policy situation,” “democratic system” confuse participants. Either remove them from the template or provide a handheld glossary (e.g. on the back of the ID card). Prepare 1–2 simple synonyms for each term (e.g. “democratic innovation = a way/process of collective decision-making”). Remove or define any jargon (even “memory,” “memory trigger”) in a one-page glossary. • Visual flow / red thread: Supply a one-page visual map of the workshop’s activities, showing how “memory” ties into later steps (marketplace → scenarios → visions). • Always announce the time allotted (e.g. “5’ for your turn”) so participants feel contained and focused. • How do we enhance the futuristic approach of this workshop? Transport participants into a future world – Deep Time Walk? Workshop Narrative? Red Thread? • Post-project space for feedback: provide a link or QR code where facilitators and participants can log learnings and impact stories. • Ambassador program: recruit and onboard external facilitators in advance; supply a visual run-through (drawings, photos, short video). Facilitator Suggestions: Nice to test (IN OSLO) • Perhaps suggest or test that participants change tables after first half-day break (?) • Participants could be given formal roles in the team during the 5.1 scenario building step (self-moderated tables…): o …Responsible for system organizer/’infrastructuring’: does the vision address system (using the System Level Questions) o …Responsible for inclusiveness: does the vision give voice to voice-less? o …Responsible for transparency: does the vision ensure transparent decision making? o …Responsible for efficiency: is the vision compatible with resource consuming, reasonable delays for decision making? o …Responsible for robustness: is the vision able to tackle unforeseen issue, adapt to entirely new situations? o …Responsible for desirability: is the vision engaging, attractive and desirable? Additional Notes Additional Notes were received regarding post-workshop follow up steps, including: [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 51 of 95 • Post-workshop engagement • Provide participants with a clear point of contact for follow-up (email/Slack link) • Offer optional participation certificates or open badging to recognise their contribution. • Media & consent • Remind facilitators to announce photo/video plans, secure consent, and share channels where outputs will appear. Facilitator Guidebook Figure 14: Early draft of the facilitator guidebook cover. Additionally, in the lead up to the Paris workshop, a draft version of the facilitator’s guidebook was produced. The guidebook was made ready for the first workflow facilitator training, conducted with two facilitators who had no prior knowledge of the workshop design, in order to test the comprehensibility of the handbook. The Facilitator’s guidebook was created to clarify the agenda of the workflow, the instructions for each activity, a suggested facilitator script and facilitator advice, and lastly material requirements (print outs, and materials). In addition to the notes on the workflow, the design team also received additional feedback on the facilitator's guidebook (figure15) that can be integrated into upcoming versions: • Pre-workshop tasks: encourage facilitators to draft synonyms, practice scripts, and note potential pitfalls. • Room-setup checklist (at guide-start): media consent forms, QR codes, name tags, tables in clusters, pens, flip-charts, speakers. • Contingency appendix: offline forms, refocusing tokens, alternative activities when technology or group dynamics go awry. • Universal workflow tips: design modular activities that can be dropped or extended by local partners without requiring a project lead’s presence. [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 52 of 95 • Post-project space for feedback: provide a link or QR code where facilitators and participants can log learnings and impact stories. • Ambassador program: recruit and onboard external facilitators in advance; supply a visual run-through (drawings, photos, short video). Conclusion from Paris: The Western Europe regional co-creation workshop was a critical moment for the development of the workflow, given the new ‘phygital’ activities combining physical assets (like cards, worksheets, and in room materials) with the digital data capture forms that were used to collect participant data at key points in the workflow. While the data capture and collections proved successful, there were still many notes by facilitators, observers, and some participants regarding the workflow and it accessibility (language issues) and clarity (instructions and purpose requiring explanation). While there was limited time to make adjustments to the materials or the digital forms in the few days between the end of the Western Europe regional workshop and the Northern Europe regional workshop, the design team and members of the consortium sketched out a few last tests that could be done at the final regional workshop. These included adjustments to the order of activities within the workflow, formalising the new role-playing element for the preferred future scenario building activity, and finding a ‘red thread’ or meta-narrative that could work as an understandable mental heuristic for participants to better understand each phase of the workflow. These adjustments were planned and ready to go in time for the workshop in Oslo. [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 53 of 95 Northern Europe Regional Workshop: Oslo (1112.09.2025) Figure 15: Participants at the Oslo workshop The Northern Europe regional co-creation workshop was held in Oslo, Norway just a few days after the conclusion of the Paris workshop. This workshop was also facilitated by members of the SDS and Fraunhofer ISI teams, though another new facilitator from Fraunhofer was brought in for this workshop. The seventeen participants came from Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland, and was rather gender imbalanced despite outreach and recruitment efforts. This workshop took place in the European Wergeland Centre, which situates itself as an institution focused “strengthening the capacity of children and young people, educators, educational institutions, and educational systems to build and defend a culture of democracy and human rights.” As such, the facilities are uniquely positioned to events like the Northern Europe regional workshop. Although no entirely new activities were deployed in the Oslo Workshop, there were small changes to the order of the activities, the addition of facilitation instruments, and a new aspect to the “scenario building” activity that are being recommended for the final version. One structural change was switching the activity order of the democratic innovations focused activities and the context factor activities (see Figure 16). The democratic innovation marketplace, group discussion, and individual selection activities were positioned before the context factor podcast and mosaic/map exercise in previous workshops. In Oslo, the context factor podcast listening and factor mosaic creation activities were done before the democratic innovation activities. This recommendation will be approached during the finalisation. Due to the changing order of the context factor activity, it was noted that the design should revisit the idea to separate the context mapping cards and the situation cards. [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 54 of 95 Figure 16: Visual representation of the co-creation workflow used in the Northern Europe regional workshop in Oslo, Norway. Note the switching of the order for the context factor focused activities, and the activities involving the democratic innovations. This workshop also included the introduction of a ‘talking stick’ as a tool to help regulate conversation flows and encourage mutual respect during discussions. Facilitators noted that it was not entirely needed for most of the workshop. Another facilitation instrument added was the ‘Ground Rules’ poster that was hung from the wall was considered necessary and the printable sheet has been added to the workflow digital materials folder. The introduction of the ‘Phone Parking’ worked well in this group and is likely to be carried over into the final design. Monitoring participant inputs was used to ensure that all participants were responding to the forms in the given time. Table 10: Agenda for Oslo Regional Workshop Planned Agenda OSLO [Day 1 - PM] - New Start at 13:00 after catered lunch Changelog/Notes Discovering • 30’ - Welcome words & “My first Memory of Democracy” • 20’ - "I'm here because…" • What works and doesn’t work so well in democracy Changes during this workshop: • Reframed "rules" as "foundation for building together" • Introduced talking stick (noted as potentially useful instantiation) Notes from this workshop: • Participants requested more space on "My first memory of democracy" template • Positive community building effect of reading ground rules while standing • What works/what doesn’t: • Suggests more precise instructions for template completion ExploringMeeting SharingDreaming Envisioning First Memory of Democracy Democratic Innovation Marketplace Demo Inno Discussion and Selection Podcast Listening Pairing and Team Building Context Factor Mapping Situation Cards pt. ! Situation Cards Pt. II Scenario Building Individual Distillation Scenario Presentations Reflection Outcome Harvesting Discuss Content Discuss Process Oslo Workflow What works and what doesn’t in democracy? Day 1 PM Day 2 AM Collective Distillation What’s Next and Close [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 55 of 95 • Participants asked about response detail level (keywords vs. developed answers) • Confusion about democracy scope (local/regional/national/EU level) • Suggests adjusting form instructions based on these participant questions: • “Should the answers be just one key word or be developed more in detail?” • “What is meant by “democracy” here? “ • “At the local/regional, national or EU level?” Dreaming (New Order with Marketplace) • 30’ - Podcast time • 35’ Factor Mosaic & Individual Reflection Changes during this workshop: • The podcast and context factor card activities were moved ahead of the democratic innovation marketplace. • New leading questions for the Individual reflection Notes from this workshop: • Context Factors Podcast • Some participants questioned "podcast" terminology (content too scripted/dense) • Participants wanted note-taking capability during listening • Leading questions worked effectively • Need for clearer instructions about exercise purpose • Tested workflow inversion (podcast before marketplace) and recommends stabilizing this • Noted: less AI resistance compared to other locations • Suggests alternative terminology ("research audio track") • Context Factors Organization • Suggested splitting context factor cards into subgroups • Tested this approach with positive results • Tested plenary sharing of different organizational approaches • Recommend incorporating these methods into the facilitation guide. Exploring (Now Follows Context Factor/Podcast) • 35’ – Market place of democratic innovations • 30' – Discussing democratic innovations & agreeing on top 5 • 25’ – Pairing & Team building • End of the day (18:00) and dinner (19:00) • Changes during this workshop: • Changed the order so that the democratic innovation marketplace and activities come after the podcast and context factors. Notes form this workshop: • Democratic Innovations Marketplace Observations: • Positive observation: participants took substantial time for thoughtful selection • Suggestion: switching groups between context factors and democratic innovations sessions • Democratic Innovations Discussion: • Participants confused about hierarchical vs. nonhierarchical top 5 selection • Both recommend clarifying instructions • Individual Reflection: • Signs of participant fatigue [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 56 of 95 • Task comprehension difficulties (concerns/hopes scope and relationship) • One group's objection to "hope" terminology (passivity connotations) • Changed session title from "Dreaming!" to "teaming-up" for clarity • Sharing & Matching: • Lack of clarity about new group sizes • Misalignment between context factor card titles and online forms • Technical problem with browser tabs resetting overnight • [Day 2 – 09:00 AM] Notes Envisioning • 30’ - Situation cards and selection Changes during this workshop: • Policy cards are attached to situation cards. • Democratic Innovation cards are on the wall also. Notes from this workshop: • Facilitators Observations Situation Cards • Despite physical demonstration, participants struggled with task comprehension • Both suggest clearer instructions, possibly visual aids on tables Building • 60’ Scenario building Part ! • 15’ Break • 60’ Scenario Building Part II Changes during this workshop: • Progressive tool introduction worked well • Democratic innovation cards on wall effectively (avoided "Lego effect") • Detailed description of participant role assignment between Parts I and II: o System organizer/infrastructure o Inclusiveness advocate o Transparency monitor o Efficiency assessor o Robustness checker o Desirability evaluator Notes from this workshop • Initial vision attempts were abstract and vague • Participants needed explicit prompting for concrete explanations. • The role-playing innovation accelerated completion and improved presentation quality. • Data collection confusion about system integration vs. selective online form entry • Sharing • 40’ – Video presentations + Q&A • 35’ - Sharing & Preferred/Concerning aspects of your scenario • Distillation • 30’ - Check-out & Lunch & Farewell Changes during this workshop • No changes were made to the format of the sharing and presentations in this workshop. Notes from this workshop: • Vision Sharing: • Visions remained rooted in present (possibly due to 2040 time horizon) • Participants built systemic rather than problemspecific solutions [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 57 of 95 • Good articulation of differences from current democratic systems Additional facilitator notes: General Feedback • Facilitators observed participants' strong preference for physical paper over digital forms for idea development • Participant characteristics: groups required more time for exchange and discussion • Uncertainty regarding process: participants showed hesitation and need for reassurance despite high motivation and engagement. Many were concerned with whether or not they were doing the activity correctly. • Language barriers: political jargon (e.g., "situation") needed simplification • Creative outcomes: once comfortable, participants invented original democratic innovations rather than copying provided ones Key Differences • Specific timing observations (longer initial phases, catching up later, finishing on time) • Technical observation about digital form monitoring capabilities • Section-by-Section Comparison Overall Key Structural Recommendations 1. Process sequence: Test and potentially adopt podcast-before-marketplace workflow 2. Context factors: Implement subgroup card organization method 3. Participant roles: Consider systematic role assignment during scenario building 4. Technical alignment: Ensure consistency between physical materials and digital forms 5. Time horizon framing: Develop explicit future-oriented mindset instructions Conclusions from Oslo: The final regional workshop was successful on two fronts. Firstly, it allowed us to make a few final test with respect to the workflow and the order of activities and gave us a second set of feedback regarding the new two half-day schedule. Secondly, it showed us that even across different cultures of democracy, the workflow is still able to help young Europeans craft forward-looking designs for improved democratic systems. The workflow was once again successful in helping participants create preferred futures scenarios for European democracy, and the new digital data collection methods are providing us with important detailed information about individual and collective assessments (of present democratic systems) and designs for systemic improvements or innovations for democracy. The final workshop also reemphasised some of the adjustments that can be made to the materials to make the workflow improved in time for the national assemblies – reworking the meta narrative and helping participants understand from start to finish how what they are doing will help shape the futures of European democracy. [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 64 of 95 helped the LLM decipher the text files (what to omit, and what the general presentations were about). The prompt included some guidelines for the aggregate analysis of all the transcripts (see figure 22), including how to structure the analysis, how to compare across the presentations (commonalities and differences) and to identify explicit or latent values that were encoded in the scenarios. Figure 21: Initial notes on the collection of data during the scenario building and presentation processes. Testing this method of data capture and analysis in the different languages of the national assemblies must still be undertaken. Relying on automated process for both the transcription of presentations, and the comparative analysis of those presentation texts, presents some very real challenges given biases in LLM training data that are then reflected in the model’s outputs. Secondly, as the final reporting on the national assemblies, and their use in the online consultation, will also require translation of results into English, this process must be tested. Individual data points that should be captured via digital form: Day 1 (see Figure 22): • What Works and What Doesn't Work in Democracy - This questionnaire has been designed to better understand the contemporary assessments of democracy that participants are bringing into the workshop. It is conducted early in the process, and it precedes a group discussion about the current state of democracy. For an initial sample of the types of data being collected and the types of automated analysis that can be accomplished, please see Annex 2.1. • Selection Top 5 Democratic Innovations – These will give us an idea of how democratic innovations are received (potentially indicating gender-based, socioeconomic, educational or national specifics). Quantitative: Top 5 selections across participants, and Qualitative: arguments why those democratic innovations are [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 65 of 95 selected to address individual opinions and expectations towards democracy. For an initial sample of the types of data being collected and the types of automated analysis that can be accomplished, please see Annex 2.2. • Selection of Context Factors related to future aspirations and concerns. Context Factors help outline the way that future change is perceived by participants. These factor selections might shape individual concepts of preference and possibility regarding future states or systems of democracy. Figure 22: Day 1 Individual Data capture through digital formats. Day 2 (see Figure 23): • Situation response I (individual) - This data will include the policy situations that are addressed (which are currently related to multiple context factors), and the democratic innovations that are being deployed to address those situations. Combined with the qualitative explanations, this data can provide insights into aspects of governance design with regard to specific elements of the context factors. • Situation response II (team) – For individual tracking, this continues to contribute in the ways outlined above. This is also the first data point tracking collaborative work between participants. The data gathered regarding strengthening previous response architectures, and new innovations that are brought in as needed, can be insightful on how innovations can broaden their applicability and be combined with other innovations • Reflection on Scenario presentations/Distillation - At the end of the workshops, participants are asked to assess all that they have heard in the scenarios, and reflect on what aspects of the different scenarios they found the most preferable. In [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 66 of 95 earlier versions of the workflow, these responses were captured through double sided 'individual distillation' worksheets. During the Paris and Oslo workshops, the prompt was somewhat different, with participants asked to reflect on their specific group scenarios and highlight what they found most preferrable. It is recommended that participants use a digital form to reflect on all scenarios and their respective preferability in the final digital form, before the collective distillation and closing exercise. Figure 23: Day Two focuses more on Group work, and thus requires more emphasis on the people in the room, working together, and building a good collective design. Probably fewer options for digital data collection via survey forms. YouthDecide2040 has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement nº 101177438. Recommendations on finalisation and use in National Assemblies A Learning Journey Throughout the regional workshops, the adaptations of the co-creation workflow provide insights into how different activities were received by participants and the overall atmosphere that the workflow created. With an eye towards the goals of the workflow development in helping participants generate preferred scenarios for future European Democracy, the design and development team has some additional recommendations with respect to the finalisation of the workflow. We think that these recommendations might be best structured by returning to the co-creation principles that were first defined by the team in order to approach this politically charged and necessary work. Table 11: Recommendations resulting from the co-creation workshop development journey. Co-creation Principle General Definition Understanding within scenario development workflow Learnings Inclusivity & Diversity Engage a broad spectrum of stakeholders (users, experts, marginalised voices) to capture multiple perspectives Scenarios should account for multiple perspectives and stakeholder positions, thus diverse participants and the inclusion of role-playing mechanics in their development and reflection activities. Along the journey, the design team has been very aware of the importance that inclusivity and diversity play across not just the design of the workflow, but across the entirety of the project’s focus theme. As such, we have learned that it is never to late to receive and integrate feedback on these issues into the design process. The purpose of the creative retreat and the subsequent regional workshops was to open up the workflow to exactly this kind of constructively critical [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 68 of 95 analysis and allow for reflexivity in the workflow design. This has shaped the workflows choice of language, selection of different media for activities, the emphasis on different type of participant input, and the framing of the workflow as a part of the larger project. Shared Ownership Ensure all participants have an active role in agenda-setting, decision-making and outcome validation The scenario development project should allow for all members of a group to bring in democratic innovations that appeal to their preferred image of the future of democracy, and through discussion and co-design, find a way for those desires to be integrated into the scenario. The workflow attempts to create a sense of shared ownership in the creation of the preferred future scenarios. It is in this section of the workflow that participants are given the agency to make choices about the shape their groups’ future democracies will take. We are aware that this sense of ownership is in danger of being eroded, as preferred future scenarios are analysed across workshops. The IDCode is one measure that we have taken to address this, as it allows us to track individual contribution across the workshops in an anonymous way. In this manner, when we are presenting highly amalgamated Visions at later stages of the project, we will still be able to present the different individual and group contributions to them in a genuine way. We are trying to avoid the idea of superficial co-creation, and we think that the workflow accomplishes this. Iteration & Reflexivity Embed cycles of prototyping, feedback and reflection, allowing The building up of the scenario through the address of hypothetical situations and appropriate democratic innovations, The workflow has attempted to be integrate iteration and reflexivity into its of design process and allow for these principles to be [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 69 of 95 concepts to evolve in response to emergent insights combined with internal group discussion, and activities focusing on reflecting on the scenario from multiple viewpoints should facilitate an iterative and reflexive approach. present in a process that is not optimal. The design of the workflow has been reflexively approached with input on the workflow coming from consortium partners, outside excerpts, and over 100 participants. We have gone through months of iterations, and this document aims to be evidence of those iterations. At the same time, building iteration and reflexivity into this workflow is difficult. While the workflow is designed to be accessible and easy to replicate across multiple contexts, it does not strictly embody iteration or reflexivity. There are multiple activities that ask participants to reflect on their creative solutions and the preferred future scenarios they have developed. The composition of the groups can be reflexive, but since there is limited opportunity to redesign the preferred future scenarios, and there is limited outside input, it is difficult to justify that this has been achieved as a part of the workflow. While the overall project might be able to make some claims when looking across the entirety of the workflow uses (regional workshops, national assemblies, and to some degree the online consultation), it has been difficult to integrate these principles into the workflow itself. Transparency & Trust Maintain open communication about Accessible statements on each activities goals, accompanied by explanations of The workflow design process, and particularly the piloting of the workflow [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 70 of 95 goals, constraints, methods and emerging findings throughout the process. the methods being used and the exchange of results among the groups at multiple points in the process is helpful in promoting trust and transparency. Additionally, as is being piloted for the regional workshops, a clear summary of workshop results, accompanied plans for the data to be used in the coming project phases will be developed. This workshop analysis workflow remains under development but will be included in the final workflow package. iterations at different regional workshops, has noted the importance of working transparency into the design of the workflow and the provision of necessary information at every stage of the workflow. Reiterating the purpose of each activity, and as importantly the reason for collecting and analysing data, are critical to maintaining trust between the workflow (and the project overall) and the participants. Especially as the workflow moves outside the design and facilitation team from within the consortium. Dialogic Engagement Foster genuine twoway dialogues where listening is as valued as speaking, enabling co-learning and sensemaking. The structured dialogue elements of the group activities are meant to foster this type of dialogue. This will be one of the challenges that facilitators will manage during the national assemblies, and that the facilitator guidebook will help foster in the co-creation workflow released to the public. The designs for this workshop have often emphasised the importance of participant dialogue and discussion. The dialogic designs include paired conversations, facilitated plenaries, and self-managed small group discussions. While we cannot guarantee that all voices will be heard, we think that the workflow in its current form embodies these principles well. We hope to learn more about whether we have been successful I this regard. ContextSensitivity Ground activities in the social, cultural and institutional realities of participants, acknowledging power dynamics. While efforts have been made to account for some contextual differences across the regional workshops, and some small notes might be provided on observations that can help facilitators adjust to their circumstances, single workshops with relatively small participants groups are The workflow has been designed to be adaptable to different contexts, and allow future facilitation teams to make decisions about the order of activities for their specific groups. We have also continued to refine the language of the activity prompts and in the data collection forms to ensure that these [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 71 of 95 not enough to provide substantiating evidence for contextual differences strong enough to alter the co-creation workflow. remain accessible, even after translation to multiple languages. Final Thoughts The co-creation workflow is an incredibly important asset to the YouthDecide 2040 project, as the workflow become the basis for the national assemblies (WP3) that are an important component of the digital consultation (WP4) and will provide critical data to the final meetings in WP5. Given the role that the co-creation workflow plays, it was the focus of intense design work, prototyping, testing and experimentation, and constructive critique from multiple perspectives. As such, it was both a rewarding and demanding design process, as summary of which is presented in the above pages. YouthDecide2040 has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement nº 101177438. References Arnstein, Sherry R. (1969): A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. In Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 (4), pp. 216–224. DOI: 10.1080/01944366908977225. Battistoni, Chiara; Giraldo Nohra, Carolina; Barbero, Silvia (2019): A Systemic Design Method to Approach Future Complex Scenarios and Research Towards Sustainability: A Holistic Diagnosis Tool. In Sustainability 11 (16), p. 4458. DOI: 10.3390/su11164458. Cooke, Bill; Kothari, Uma (2001): Participation: The new tyranny?: Zed books. Cornwall, A. (2008): Unpacking 'Participation': models, meanings and practices. In Community Development Journal 43 (3), pp. 269–283. DOI: 10.1093/cdj/bsn010. Fals-Borda, Orlando (1987): The Application of Participatory Action-Research in Latin America. In International Sociology 2 (4), pp. 329–347. DOI: 10.1177/026858098700200401. Dator, Jim (Ed.) (2019): Jim Dator: A Noticer in Time. Cham: Springer International Publishing (Anticipation Science). Lewin, Kurt (1946): Action Research and Minority Problems. In Journal of Social Issues 2 (4), pp. 34–46. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x. Markowski, R., & Zagórski, P. (2025). D1.2: Support for Democracy and its Alternatives among European Youth and Older Generations. Zenodo. Sanders, Elizabeth B.-N.; Stappers, Pieter Jan (2008): Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. In CoDesign 4 (1), pp. 5–18. DOI: 10.1080/15710880701875068. Spaniol, Matthew J.; Rowland, Nicholas J. (2019): Defining scenario. In Futures & Foresight Science 1 (1), Article e3. DOI: 10.1002/ffo2.3. Wright, George; Cairns, George (2011): Scenario Thinking. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 73 of 95 Annex 1Post Creative Retreat Notes Suggested workflow (AIT, Michael): YD2040_Regional_Workshop_v3_deck.pptx Suggested workflow adjustments (ISI, Aaron and SDS, Francois): YD2040 workflow_10_06_FJ_AR.pptx Annex 2 - Initial Data Analysis Results The following data analysis track the digital data capture from Paris and Oslo workshops. We are using these two data sets to build a more comprehensive analysis workflow resulting in standard report formats. Top 5 Democratic Innovation Selections - Aggregate Results and Analysis Aggregate – Democratic Innovation selection frequencies Democratic innovation Selections Children and Youth Assemblies 12 Participatory Budgeting 11 Campaigning for more Inclusive Cultures in Democracies 11 Future Design for Future Generations 9 Civil Disobedience 9 [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 80 of 95 Liquid Democracy • 15: “Why not” • 17: “I’m curious about this one” • 30: “Increased participation is needed …” • 32: “Party-based voting encourages … polarisation … normal to not agree with your party on every issue.” • 34: “Not having to fix on one party/candidate … different aspects … represented by the person one trusts …” • 37: “Being able to choose and adjust accordingly would increase representation.” • 40: “Allows flexibility and sort of amplifies your voice …” • 48: “Decrease the monopoly of the one representative … specialists can work the issue more effective.” Compulsory Voting • 15: [missing] • 26: “We need people to vote more … if you don’t vote then you don’t have the right to complain … people need to be informed properly …” • 27: [missing] • 30: “Push younger people to vote … raise awareness at high school …” • 33: “Not enough people vote putting democracy at risk” • 36: “More responsibility to citizens to be part of its nation’s process” • 43: “Important that everyone vote, even if they vote blanc.” • 48: “Will increase the voting and help to be more inclusive” Re-Thinking Voting Rights • 18: “Not everyone should have a say on certain matters … if you don’t make use … mentally unwell … too low IQ.” [controversial] • 24: “Include non-citizen residents in elections.” • 27: [missing] • 28: “Migrants should also have a voice.” • 30: “Rethought for certain ages … older people rarely vote for the future of younger generations …” [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 81 of 95 • 32: “Younger voting age is important, are nature rights too.” • 34: “Access to voting rights is really hard … affected people don’t have a say … adapt system.” • 41: “Lowering the voting [age] would make sense … outdated system.” Electronic Voting • 17: “Important for more participation … access due to distance, sickness etc.” • 18: “We live in 2025 … how is there no system online yet … helps with counting votes … money spent on volunteers.” • 22: “Nice additional voting tool … should not be the only way … online accessibility is not available to everyone.” • 25: “As you can vote from whenever you are” • 28: “Give the option … improve data security policies to ensure transparency and avoid fraud.” • 34: “Get more people to vote also in more remote areas … easier to ask about specific problems …” • 39: “Cheaper and easier to organize referendums … easier for everybody to participate.” • 41: “Reduces crowds … engages more young people … opportunity to people with disabilities.” Voting Advice Tools • 21: “It could help people who have no idea of politics” • 27: “Would be great … if objectively presented … help people make up their minds without emotion-filled rhetorics and propaganda” • 33: “Most of the time people don't vote because [they] don't know what and for Who they're voting for” • 35: “Broadening access … different phrasing, languages, perspectives … gain of time …” • 37: “Dissolve the barrier of information … simplify parties’ agendas … bridge the information gap” • 40: “Tools would have to be … informed … validated … ethical … to avoid biases” [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 82 of 95 • 41: “Helps people who are not engaged … makes sure they vote on what’s important to them” • 46: “Helping citizens to first understand where they stand … better informed decisions … behavioural change” Mixed Citizen Assemblies • 23: “Elected representatives meet their people. I think it’s great!” • 30: “Give back power to citizens … many citizens feel … disconnection … 1 vote cannot resume [one’s] thoughts” • 35: “Exchange views … experts/professionals and citizens … revealing the real impacts …” • 45: “Mix both citizens and other stakeholders … help understanding and implementation” • 46: “Important to gather people not usually involved … create a discourse … hear the view from the side” • 47: “Give a chance for everyone to share their opinions and raise their voices” • 48: “Reach out the citizens without the chance to use their voice to make difference” Democracy in the Workplace • 18: “Gen Z needs bottom-up strategy … democracy also counts in workplaces” • 20: “Bring democratic principles … present in everyday experiences …” • 21: “Another place to be taught democracy properly” • 31: [missing] • 34: “Representative option on getting the population involved … also in not that populated areas …” • 36: “If a person … has an impact on processes, this will translate to other parts of life” Direct Voting on Topics • 15: “Creates more direct democracy” [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 83 of 95 • 20: “Opportunity to feel direct ownership and control over topics” • 22: “Citizens … should have the possibility to vote directly on urgent issues” • 28: “If we could implement direct voting on certain topics, these issues would be addressed” • 39: “Concrete sense of what you are supporting … tackle frustration with party politics” • 43: “Important for big topics … e.g., membership of the EU” Institutional Citizen Assemblies • 16: “Ongoing citizen consultation … trust through transparency by the government” • 20: “Embedding … allow for any topic to be discussed … alongside politicians” • 23: “Works very well when doing evidence-based policy … may slow down … brings value” • 35: “Integration of random citizens in the decision-making process …” • 42: “Great results … openness to finding compromises … common ground face to face” Anticipatory Governance • 23: “Address … planning ahead beyond election cycles” • 32: “Policymakers see the long term perspective of citizens” • 38: “Backcasting … powerful … democratic literacy” • 44: [missing] • 45: “Policies are too reactive instead of being proactive” Neighbourhood Councils • 26: “Gather together and discuss issues formally … higher ups will take it more seriously” • 29: “Begin at a microcosmic level … scalable” • 37: “People who live in a place know what's best … higher decision-makers detached” [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 84 of 95 • 40: “Give a voice at the most local level … everyone’s voice deserves to be heard” • 43: “Citizens … decide and solve their own cases” Problem-based Ad Hoc Citizen’s Assembly • 20: “Citizens can argue and seek for solutions actively” • 24: “New perspectives and different skills … find a solution together” • 31: [missing] • 39: “Problem based solution will work best … new group for every specific issue … anyone can participate” • 42: “Ordinary people … strengthens belonging and trust” Majority Judgement Voting • 18: “It helps to vote per topic” • 28: “Know the real opinion … significant part finds [some] candidates unacceptable” • 37: “More fluid and comprehensive voting system … express perspectives … high institutional distrust … more representative” • 46: “Interesting concept … could lead to … awareness or voter fatigue … need the same judging criteria” Citizens Guidance Panels • 29: “It helps to ‘educate’ about democracy. To involve people is the most important.” • 31: [missing] • 32: “Hard … to understand all implications of a policy … guidance from peers helpful” • 39: “Allow a lot of people to contribute … make participation easier and more information based” [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 85 of 95 Democratic Workplace – Sociocracy • 23: “Opportunity to address centralised systems … forget less relevant regions” • 33: “More equal workplace and constantly updating” [+ “Less hierarchy and nepotism” noted separately] • 42: “Give people agency … happier … encourage them to be active members” • 45: “Feels adaptive … research consensus quicker” Online Citizen Consultations • 26: “Important to get people's opinions … online forms … easier … time and money … data” • 37: “Include citizens more in decision-making … laws … taken with a democratic perspective” • 47: “Reach a greater number of people and get diversified opinions … strengthen participatory approaches” Friday For Future Movement • 19: “Focuses on environmental and climate change. Without a good environment nothing else works” • 25: “Ensure youth are truly involved in politics” Online Petitions • 15: “Creates more direct democracy” • 33: “Not anybody can access voting sites” Climate Constitutionalism • 38: “Potential to keep policy uptake high … advocate for environmental protection … governance of the common goods” [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 86 of 95 • 44: [missing] Participatory Political Parties • 21: “Get acquainted with parties and join to innovate” Grassroots Citizen Assemblies • 21: “Grassroots are the people … people’s opinion is important …” Participant suggested democratic innovations • Voting system and electoral processes o “What about to give an extra option to vote against policies or parties” (negative voting) [24] o “Respectful candidate debate” (structured, civility-focused debate formats) [31] • Participation/observation mechanisms o “Open invitation for a specific number of citizens to observe political procedures, processes and discussions” (citizen observers) [20] • Equality and representation o “Racial quota in politics” (race-based quotas) [20] • Education and democratic literacy o “Media literacy education” [25] o “School and academic contributions directly to shape policies and political debates” [20] • Accountability and follow-up o “Having an independent body … to check the implementation … and to follow up—what happens after I participate … When will I get information about what happens after?” (feedback loop/implementation watchdog) [46] • Youth engagement (reinforcement) [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 87 of 95 o “Children and youth assemblies should be a must” [28] • Notes (contextual, not new proposals) o “In NL we already have … neighbourhood council and citizens assembly” [18] o “Neighbourhood councils … Civil disobedience … Unity of opinion and place of discussion” [36] o “Citizen guidance panels …” (already an innovation in the list) [45] with extended rationales on trust, engagement, responsibility, diverse voices, futures. What works and what doesn’t in democracy? Aggregate Results from Paris and Oslo • Common = mentioned by ≥4 unique respondents • Uncommon = ≤3 respondents • Duplicate IDs consolidated (e.g., PRS3402 counted once) • 2–4 verbatim quotes per theme • Counts and percentages based on N=37 unique respondents Below is the analysis. A) What works in democracy (Columns G–H–I) Summary of common themes (N=37) Theme n % Electoral mechanisms and participation legitimacy (voting, elections, referendums, suffrage, proportionality) 20 54.1% Civil liberties and human rights (freedom of speech/expression, rights protection) 11 29.7% Democratic participation and deliberation beyond voting (engagement, consultations, debate) 9 24.3% Representation, diversity, and pluralism 8 21.6% Cross-border mobility and exchange (Erasmus, Schengen, freedom of movement) 8 21.6% Accountability and checks on power (alternation in power, oversight) 6 16.2% Information flows and transparency 5 13.5% Illustrative quotes (2–4 per theme) • Electoral mechanisms and participation legitimacy o “Elections work” [OSL7643] o “Universal suffrage” [PRS8165] [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 88 of 95 o “In theory at least, every adult citizen has equal opportunity to vote. So the basic process is working.” [OSL5829] o “Transparency in elections (at least in Belgium)” [PRS1284] • Civil liberties and human rights o “personal freedoms” [PRS9350] o “Protection of human rights” [PRS6381] o “freedom of speech and expression” [OSL3608] o “Liberty to express our opinions, freedom of speech, to present ourselves to elections, vote” [OSL9350] • Democratic participation and deliberation beyond voting o “Inclusion and Participation” [PRS3098] o “Giving people the possibility to get engaged” [OSL4721] o “It’s far-reaching: not only on the decision level but also on ‘consultations’ level.” [OSL4590] o “democratic decision-making in everyday life - not just politics” [OSL3608] • Representation, diversity, and pluralism o “Representation of different opinions” [PRS7643] o “Pluralism” [OSL2047] o “General representation of citizens on local, regional and national level” [OSL7816] o “More gender balance than before in representation” [PRS1284] • Cross-border mobility and exchange o “Erasmus” [PRS2047] o “Schengen” [PRS2047] o “Between country exchanges e.g. Erasmus” [PRS5437] o “Traveling freely” [PRD4721] • Accountability and checks on power o “Check on authority” [PRS3098] o “If a party fails to deliver usually they are held accountable and we have to vote again” [PRS6975] o “Checks & balances” [PRS8152] o “Peaceful transition of governments” [OSL7816] • Information flows and transparency o “Transparency on who people vote for and what they want” [OSL4721] o “Flows of information” [OSL6903] o “Knowledge and information sharing” [OSL0974] o “Transparency in elections (at least in Belgium)” [PRS1284] [101177438] [Youth Decide 20240] [Deliverable 2.2] Page 89 of 95 Uncommon responses (≤3 respondents), with attribution • “Internet” [PRS0974] • “Graffiti, Cartoon (i.e. Winnie Pooh), Art” [PRS0974] • “Attention towards democracy and emphasis on its importance” [PRS0137] • “Local level democracy where the things are closer to everyday lives of people” [OSL6975]; “Locally politicians are more aware about the people needs” [PRS7291] • “Representatives at different levels” [OSL5437] • “Having a European mindset instead of a national one” [OSL7291] • “Big democracy groups across countries to protect them all; Countries helping each other defend themselves; Social media, to guiding, propaganda, information, directing etc” [OSL3402] • “It’s so hard to find things that work! … Already the fact that there is democracy in the EU is great.” [OSL6281] • “We have space to express ourselves” [PRS5829] • “Openness for debate” [OSL3098] B) What does not work well in democracy (Columns J–K–L) Summary of common themes (N=37) Theme n % Underrepresentation and participation gaps (youth, migrants, marginalized groups; people feel unheard/disconnected) 15 40.5% Polarisation, extremism, propaganda/misinformation 12 32.4% Bureaucracy, complexity, and decision-making gridlock 9 24.3% Low trust, low turnout, and apathy 7 18.9% Corruption, undue influence, and lack of transparency 6 16.2% Short-termism and election-cycle myopia 5 13.5% Electoral system shortcomings (blank vote options, non-proportional systems, majoritarian issues, infrequent elections) 4 10.8% Illustrative quotes (2–4 per theme) • Underrepresentation and participation gaps o “Many people don't feel represented by the politicians and loose the connections to the politicians or the things that happen” [OSL4721] o “Especially underprivileged groups have more acute problems like surviving everyday life so participation in democracy and following politics is not realistic for them” [OSL5829] o “Migrants voice is silenced (most of the times)” [PRS8165] o “Youth participation in elections” [PRS8152]