Co-laboratories of Democracy: Best Choices for Designing Sustainable Futures

  • Yiannis LaourisEmail author
  • Kevin M. C. Dye
  • Marios Michaelides
  • Alexander N. Christakis
Part of the Translational Systems Sciences book series (TSS, volume 1)


This chapter frames one of the greatest challenges of our time: the invention of methods and technologies that harness the collective intelligence and wisdom of thousands of stakeholders working together on a complex societal systemic problem. The worldwide failures of democracy to respond to global challenges, especially in the domain of governance, call for such massive but still authentic and democratic participatory systems. The authors assert that the need to reinvent democracy is urgent and that it can be done using co-laboratories of democracy. It concludes with a presentation of key findings of co-laboratories that aim to reinvent democracy using structured dialogic design methodology applied in small group settings and an introduction into the challenges of scaling up this process to engage thousands.


Digital democracy Reinventing democracy Stakeholders Structured dialogic design 



The authors acknowledge the facilitators, participants and supporters of the co-Laboratories of Democracy cited here with special mention to the President of the 21st Century Agoras Tom Flanagan and the young people who initiated and kindled some of them with special mentioning of Mrs. Elia Petridou, Mrs. Eleni Michail, Mrs. Maria Fotiou, and Mrs. Zoe Apostolidou. Special thanks go to Mrs. Maria Georgiou for investing countless hours in the analysis and preparation and publishing of the reports. Two dialogues have been supported by the Youth in Action program of the European Commission (Contracts: CY-13-03-2011-R5; CY-51-06-2011-R5).


  1. Albrecht, K. (2003). Albrect’s law. In The power of minds at work: Organizational intelligence in action (pp. 3–16). New York: AMACOMGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participatio. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashby, R. (1958). Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems. Cybernetica, 1, 1–17.Google Scholar
  4. Boulding, K. (1966). The impact of social sciences. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  5. CARDIAC Consortium. (2012). Questionnaire: CARDIAC – Advancing research & development in the area of accessible & assistiveGoogle Scholar
  6. Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307–326. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christakis, A. N. (2010). Laws and axioms of the science of dialogic design. Accessed 20 Aug 2013
  8. Christakis, A. N., & Bausch, K. (2006). How people harness their collective wisdom and power. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Christakis, A. N., & Laouris, Y. (2010). CSAP seminar in structured dialogic design. PireausGoogle Scholar
  10. Christakis, A. N., & Underwood, G. (2008). SDDP report: Anticipating the challenges to the Obama vision of bottom-up democracyGoogle Scholar
  11. Coleman, J., & Ferejohn, J. (1986). Democracy and social choice. Ethics, 97, 6–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. COST Action-219ter. (2010). Accessibility for all to services and terminals for next generation mobile networks. In European Commission: COST Office. Accessed 30 Jan 2013
  13. COST Action-298. (2007). Participation in the broadband society! In European Commission: COST Office. Accessed 30 Jun 2013
  14. Cyprus Civil Society. (2009). Cyprus Community Media Center. Accessed 30 Jun 2013
  15. Digital Futures Task Force. (2012a). Digital futures: A foresight projectGoogle Scholar
  16. Digital Futures Task Force. (2012b). Digital futures first core foresight workshop – Future and present snapshots. In European Commission. Accessed 30 Jun 2013
  17. Dye, K. M., & Conaway, D. S. (1999). Lessons learned from five years of application of the CogniScope™ approach to the food and drug administration. Pennsylvania: Paoli.Google Scholar
  18. Estlund, D. (1997). Beyond fairness and deliberation: the epistemic dimension of democratic authority. In B. James & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy (pp. 173–204). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  19. European Commission. (2010). Europe 2020 growth strategy.
  20. Finkel, S. E. (1985). Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: A panel analysis. American Journal of the Political Science, 29, 891–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Flanagan, T. R., & Christakis, A. N. (2009). The talking point: Creating an Environment for exploring complex meaning. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Floridi, L. (2012). Hyperhistory and the philosophy of information policies. Philosophy & Technology, 25, 129–131. doi: 10.1007/s13347-012-0077-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fung, A. (2003). Survey article: Recipes for public spheres: eight institutional design choices and their consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11, 338–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Future Worlds Center. (2011). Using democratic dialogue to reinvent democracy. Accessed 30 Jun 2013
  25. Future Worlds Center. (2012a). Reinvent democracy (YiA 1.3). Accessed 30 June 2013
  26. Future Worlds Center. (2012b). Reinventing democracy in the digital era. Accessed 30 Jun 2013
  27. Future Worlds Center. (2012c). Engaging citizens to reinvent democracy. Accessed 30 Jun 2013
  28. Genesis. The tower of babel (Vol. 11, pp. 1–9) Accessed 30 Dec 2013
  29. Global Agoras. (2008). Anticipating the challenges to the Obama vision of bottom-up democracy. In Institute for 21st Century Agoras.
  30. Heylighen, F. (1999). Collective intelligence and its implementation on the web: Algorithms to develop a collective mental map. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 5, 253–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. King, D. (1997). Kasparov v deeper blue: The ultimate man v machine challenge. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
  32. Laouris, Y. (2012a). CSAP workshop using structured dialogic design to re-discover SDD. PireausGoogle Scholar
  33. Laouris, Y. (2012b). The ABCs of the science of structured dialogic design. International Journal of Applied Systemic Studies, 4, 239–257. doi: 10.1504/IJASS.2012.052235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Laouris, Y. (2014). Reengineering and reinventing both democracy and the concept of life in the digital era. In: Floridi, Luciano (Ed.), The Onlife Manifesto: Being Human in a Hyperconnected Era, Springer Verlag, (in press).Google Scholar
  35. Laouris, Y., & Christakis, A. N. (2007). Harnessing collective wisdom at a fraction of the time using structured dialogic design process in a virtual communication context. International Journal of Applied Systemic Studies, 1, 131–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Laouris, Y., Christakis, A. N., Dye, K. M., et al. (2012). Webscope Accessed 30 Dec 2013.
  37. Laouris, Y., Laouri, R., & Christakis, A. N. (2008). Communication praxis for ethical accountability: the ethics of the tree of action: dialogue and breaking down the wall in Cyprus. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25, 331–348. doi: 10.1002/sres.890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Laouris, Y., & Michaelides, M. (2007). What obstacles prevent practical broadband applications from being produced and exploited? In R. Patrick (Ed.), Towards an inclusive future: Impact and wider potential of information and communication technologies (pp. 281–299). Brussels: COST.Google Scholar
  39. Laouris, Y., Michaelides, M., Damdelen, M., Erel, A., Taraszow, T., Dagli, I., et al. (2008). A systemic evaluation of the state of affairs following the negative outcome of the referendum in cyprus using the structured dialogic design process. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 22, 45–75. doi: 10.1007/s11213-008-9111-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Laouris, Y., Michaelides, M., & Sapio, B. (2007). What are the obstacles that prevent the wide public from benefiting and participating in the broadband society? In J. Ierson, E. Mante-Meijer, E. Loos, & B. Sapio (Eds.), Innovating for and by users, COST Actio (pp. 171–180). Brussels: COST Office.Google Scholar
  41. Luskin, R.C., & Fishkin, J.S. (2002). Deliberation and “Better Citizens”. Paper presented at the Joint Sessions of Workshops of the ECPR, Turin, Italy, 3/2002.
  42. Malone, T. (2006). The MIT Center of Collective Intelligence.
  43. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limitations on our capacity for processing information. Psychology Review, 63, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nabatchi, T. (2010). Addressing the citizenship and democratic deficits: The potential of deliberative democracy for public administration. The American Review of Public Administration, 40, 376–399. doi: 10.1177/0275074009356467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Obama, B. (2006). The audacity of hope: Thoughts on reclaiming the American dream (Vol. 92). New York: Crown Publishers.Google Scholar
  46. Özbekhan, H., Jantsch, E., & Christakis, A. N. (1970). The Predicament of mankind: Quest for structured responses to growing world-wide complexities and uncertainties, Club of Rome, Rome, Italy.
  47. Papandreou, G. (2013). Imagine a European democracy without borders. Accessed 30 June 2013
  48. Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Petridou, E., Michail, E., Georgiou, M., & Psilla, D. (2012). Reinventing democracy in the digital era, Nicosia. Accessed 30 Dec 2013
  50. Sankar, S. (2012). The rise of human-computer cooperation. In TED. Accessed 30 June 2013
  51. Schreibman, V. (2007). World premiere webscope email dialogue: “Root cause mappoints of Failures of democracy. Accessed 30 Dec 2013
  52. Tsivacou, I. (1997). The rationality of distinctions and the emergence of power: A critical systems perspective of power in organizations. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 14, 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Turrisi, P. (1997). Pragmatism as a principle and method of right thinking. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  54. Warfield, J. N. (1995). Spreadthink: Explaining ineffective groups’. Systems Research, 1, 5–14.Google Scholar
  55. Warfield, J. N., & Teigen, C. (1993). Groupthink, Clanthink, Spreadthink, and Linkthink: Decision- making on complex issues in organizations. Fairfax, VA: Institute for Advanced Study of the Integrative Sciences, George Mason University, pgs 4–5, 31Google Scholar
  56. Whyte, W. H. J. (1952). Group think. Fortune, 45, 145–146.Google Scholar
  57. Zakaria, F. (2007). The future of freedom: Illiberal democracy at home and abroad (Revised ed.) New York: WW Norton & CompanyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yiannis Laouris
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kevin M. C. Dye
    • 2
  • Marios Michaelides
    • 1
  • Alexander N. Christakis
    • 1
  1. 1.Future Worlds CenterNicosiaCyprus
  2. 2.Institute for 21st Century AgorasArchanes, CreteGreece

Personalised recommendations