CECAN will be hosting a variety of events, workshops, courses and seminars to which we welcome external participants from Government, academic and public sectors.

If you would like to book on to any of our events please contact us early to avoid disappointment.

CECAN Workshop: Commissioning Complex Evaluations

CECAN Workshop


CECAN Workshop - Commissioning Complex Evaluations


Monday 29th April 2019, 10:00 - 16:00 

Prince Philip House, 3 Carlton House Terrace London SW1Y 5DG

You are warmly invited to join us for this workshop hosted by CECAN, the Centre for Evaluating Complexity Across the Nexus.  


Workshop Overview: 

Many policies are ‘complex’, that is, they have multiple objectives and multiple actors with possibly conflicting objectives, feedback loops, and policy outcomes that are dependent on the details of the policy history. Evaluating such policies is correspondingly difficult, because often the impact of the policy is unpredictable and the outcomes may be highly context dependent.  

CECAN Webinar: Citizens’ juries: how public policy should be made?

CECAN Webinar


CECAN Webinar -  Citizens’ juries: how public policy should be made?


Tuesday 9th July 2019, 13:00 - 14:00 BST

Presenter: Dr Malcolm Oswald


You are warmly invited to join us for the following CECAN Webinar...


Webinar Overview: 

Public policy questions are often complex. Decisions rely on both evidence and values. Where should these values come from: politicians, public officials, independent experts, or the public? 

A citizens’ jury brings together a cross-section of the public for several days, where they hear evidence from expert witnesses, and deliberate together to reach reasoned conclusions about the questions they are set. Citizens’ juries can be used in research, but they are primarily a form of “deliberative democracy” – a method for engaging the public in policy decisions that affect them. They can (unusually) be used as a means to make policy decisions, but more often juries make recommendations to which policymakers respond, either backing their recommendations or justifying why their policy decisions deviate from one or more of a jury’s recommendations.