How can stakeholder engagement and mini-publics better inform the use of data for pandemic response?

The New York City Data Assembly demonstrated the value and potential of deliberation

Stefaan G. Verhulst
Feb 19 · 9 min read

By Andrew Zahuranec, Andrew Young and Stefaan G. Verhulst

“What does the public expect from data-driven responses to the COVID-19 pandemic? And under what conditions?” These are the motivating questions behind The Data Assembly, a recent initiative by The GovLab at New York University Tandon School of Engineering — an action research center that aims to help institutions work more openly, collaboratively, effectively, and legitimately.

Image from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases on Flickr

Launched with support from The Henry Luce Foundation, The Data Assembly solicited diverse, actionable public input on data re-use for crisis response in the United States. In particular, we sought to engage the public on how to facilitate, if deemed acceptable, the use of data that was collected for a particular purpose for informing COVID-19. One additional objective was to inform the broader emergence of data collaboration — through formal and ad hoc arrangements between the public sector, civil society, and those in the private sector — by evaluating public expectation and concern with current institutional, contractual, and technical structures and instruments that may underpin these partnerships.

The Data Assembly used a new methodology that re-imagines how organisations can engage with society to better understand local expectations regarding data re-use and related issues. This work goes beyond soliciting input from just the “usual suspects”. Instead, data assemblies provide a forum for a much more diverse set of participants to share their insights and voice their concerns.

This article is informed by our experience piloting The Data Assembly in New York City in summer 2020. It provides an overview of The Data Assembly’s methodology and outcomes and describes major elements of the effort to support organisations working on similar issues in other cities, regions, and countries.

Engaging with the public and diverse experts

As part of The Data Assembly, The GovLab assembled held three deliberations (two stakeholder groups and one mini-public), each focused around specific types of expertise. Each group addressed questions related to data re-use and the city’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, such as what types of objectives for data re-use are most appropriate and potentially impactful and which local actors should be engaged in such efforts.

The first group involved New York-based data holders and policymakers. Identified through research and coordination with partners at the New York Public Library and Brooklyn Public Library, this group included leaders in New York City’s government and local and international companies. Their participation provided perspective from those directly involved in forming data re-use arrangements.

The second involved civic rights and advocacy organisations. These New York-based professionals included individuals involved in promoting privacy and free speech as well as the rights of marginalised groups. This cohort gave perspectives from groups with unique or prominent concerns related to responsible data practices.

Finally, The Data Assembly included a mini-public of New Yorkers themselves. The mini-public deliberation featured 55 New York City residents, identified through a random sampling methodology. This group was recruited by and worked through Remesh, an online research and public engagement platform designed to facilitate input from large groups. Starting with their existing pool of contacts interested in participating in online focus groups, Remesh populated the New York City residents mini-public with a focus on ensuring diversity across age, gender, income, and borough of residence. The Remesh platform then provided these participants with the ability to respond to polling questions, free-form text prompts, and to indicate their reaction to the contributions of their peers.

We held three deliberations to ensure that: 1) each engagement was aligned with participants’ level of familiarity and experience with key issues and concepts; 2) to avoid having the most experienced or expert voices dominate the conversation, and 3) to allow room for participants representing certain communities or constituencies often hard to reach through regular mini-publics to share their perspectives. This three-pronged approach might not have been necessary had COVID-19 not necessitated remote engagement. In a traditional citizens’ assembly, deliberations occur over an extended period across multiple in-person sessions and engagements, providing more opportunity to ensure participants use similar vocabulary, all voices have an opportunity to participate meaningfully, and a diversity of perspectives and experiences are brought to the table.

Using real-world examples as prompts

Summary description of a Data Re-Use Exhibit focused on mobility data analysis

To avoid introducing bias, the exhibits did not include the names of specific companies or organisations. Rather, they described possible scenarios and practices. The first example, relating to telecommunications data, asked participants to consider whether governments should use data collected from mobile phones to track patterns of movement and assess the effectiveness of lockdown measures. The second exhibit, relating to consumer data, looked at an analysis of spending patterns by a credit card company to understand regional patterns of economic recovery. The final exhibit focused on 311 data, asked whether city departments should be able to collect and publish data about complaints related to a failure to adhere to mask-wearing or social distancing.

Overview of key considerations regarding the Data Re-Use Exhibit on mobility data analysis

By focusing on the instances in which organisations are already using data, participants were able to gain a sense of the broader context of data re-use, and ground their feedback in relation to real-world, tangible activities. Participants explained their concerns, expectations, and opportunities in data-driven responses to COVID-19, providing the research team with a chance to draw out actionable insights.


The report also highlights five core recommendations: matching urgency with accountability; supporting and expanding data literacy; centering equity; engaging legitimate, local actors; and developing positions for responsible data re-use.

Our experience with the New York City Data Assembly demonstrated the value and potential of the mini-public methodology. By using mini-publics to engage with small cohorts, organisations can promote more sophisticated deliberations around the use of data, responding to the concerns of additional stakeholders. As The GovLab prepares to launch The Data Assembly in other cities, it encourages organisations to create similar spaces to allow for the collection of feedback and the development of legitimate, inclusive policies.

Stefaan Verhulst is Co-Founder and Chief Research and Development Officer of the Governance Laboratory @NYU (GovLab) where he is building an action-research foundation on how to transform governance using advances in science, data and technology.

Andrew Young is The GovLab’s knowledge director, where he leads research efforts focusing on the impact of technology on governance and institutional decision-making.

Andrew J. Zahuranec is a research fellow at The GovLab, an action research center at New York University. He is responsible for studying how advances in science and technology can improve governance.

This post is part of the Digital for Deliberation series. Read the other articles:

Digital for deliberation: Catching the deliberative wave

How can digital tools support deliberation? Join the conversation!

Designing an online citizens’ assembly: A practitioner perspective

Engineering for deliberative democracy

Designing text-based tools for digital deliberation

Online deliberation: Opportunities and challenges

The digital participatory process that fed into the French Climate Assembly

Digital solutions can complement real world participation — but mustn’t exclude

Digital parliaments: Adapting democratic institutions to 21st century realities

Public discussions on Covid-19 lockdown in Scotland

Digital tools to open the judiciary: A perspective from Argentina

Digital participation in Taiwan: Lessons for Europe

Please note that this is a moderated forum that is subject to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy of the OECD website. The views expressed and arguments employed herein are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the OECD or its member countries. The Organisation cannot be held responsible for possible violations of copyright resulting from the posting of any written material on this website. Your comments to posts are valuable; please contribute in a civil and constructive way. OECD reserves the right to delete or edit any comments before they are published. The OECD Secretariat will not respond systematically to each contribution. Note that the views expressed can be personal views.


A digest on innovative citizen participation research & practice

Medium is an open platform where 170 million readers come to find insightful and dynamic thinking. Here, expert and undiscovered voices alike dive into the heart of any topic and bring new ideas to the surface. Learn more

Follow the writers, publications, and topics that matter to you, and you’ll see them on your homepage and in your inbox. Explore

If you have a story to tell, knowledge to share, or a perspective to offer — welcome home. It’s easy and free to post your thinking on any topic. Write on Medium

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store