Replication Data for: 'What happens when mini-publics are held in a deeply divided place? Evidence from Northern Ireland'

A pessimistic view of the potential of deliberative mini-publics to effectively contribute to democratic decision-making on highly contested issues in deeply divided places asserts that (a) deliberative quality would be low due to the bitterness prompted by discussion of divisive issues and (b) levels of opinion change would be low given the stubbornly enduring nature of political attitudes in divided places. We empirically examine this pessimistic view using a quasi-experiment involving two mini-publics in Northern Ireland, one on the contentious ethno-national question of Northern Ireland’s constitutional status and another on the much less contested and non-ethno-national issue of social care. Contrary to the pessimistic view, we find evidence that, from the perspective of the participants themselves, deliberative quality was higher in the mini-public on an ethno-national issue. However, in line with the pessimistic view, levels of self-reported opinion change were significantly lower in the ethno-national mini-public. Overall, the findings highlight the potential for carefully designed deliberative mini-publics to address divisive ethno-national issues: they provide a space for participants to engage with such issues in open and respectful discussion, even if prospects for attitudinal change are more limited.