• European Participatory Technology Assessment (EUROPTA) (2000) Participatory Methods in Technology Assessment and Technology Decision-Making. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Board of Technology.
• Health Canada, Office of Consumer and Public Involvement (2000). Public Involvement: Framework & Guidelines. Ottawa, Ontario: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
• Health Canada, Corporate Consultation Secretariat, Health Policy and Communications Branch (2000). Health Canada
• Policy Toolkit for Public Involvement in Decision Making. Ottawa, Ontario: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

• OECD (2001) Citizens as Partners: Information, consultation and public participation in policy-making. Links to a range of published resource and reference material on the 21st Century Town Meeting©, large-scale citizen engagement work in general and more than 15 organizations working in this field can be found on www.americaspeaks.org.

Charette

• Corporate Consultation Secretariat, Health Policy and Communications Branch (2000).
• Health Canada Policy Toolkit for Public Involvement in Decision Making. Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
• Glenn, J. (Ed.) Futures Research Methodology. Version 1.0. AC/UNU. The Millennium Project.
• Segedy, J. and Johnson, B. The Neighborhood Charrette Handbook: Visioning and Visualising Your Neighborhood’s Future. Sustainable Urban Neighborhoods.
• University of Louisville. www.louisville.edu/org/sun/planning/char.html Newer version available at:www.bsu.edu/cbp

• The Charrette: A Uniquely Effective Way of Defining A Proposed Projects’Viability. http://home.att.net/~visualizer/Charrette.html http://www.Charretteinstitute.org/Charrette.html

Citizens´ Jury

• Armour, A. (1995). The Citizens’ Jury Model of Public Participation: A Critical Evaluation. In O. Renn, T.Webler and P. Wiedemann (Eds), Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation, pp. 175-187. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Crosby, N. (1995). Citizens Juries: One Solution for Difficult Environmental Questions. In O. Renn, T.Webler and P. Wiedemann (Eds), Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation, pp. 157-174. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Crosby, N. [2003]. Healthy Democracy: empowering a clear and informed voice of the people. Edina, Minnesota: Beavers Pond Press. (May be ordered through www.BookHouseFulfillment.com )
• Glenn, J. (Ed.) Futures Research Methodology. Version 1.0. AC/UNU The Millennium Project.
• ICIS Building Blocks for Participation in Integrated Assessment: A review of participatory methods.

• Veasey, K. (2002). Citizens Jury Handbook, updated and revised version. Provided by the Jefferson Center.

Consensus Conference

• Banthien, H., Jaspers,M., Renner, A. (2003). Governance of the European Research Area:The role of civil society. Interim Report. European Commission Community Research.
• Chevalier, J. Forum Options. The Stakeholder/Social Information System. http://www.carleton.ca/~jchevali/STAKEH.html
• Danish Board of Technology, Lars Klüver and Ida Andersen, http://www.tekno.dk

• Einsiedel, E. and Eastlick, D. Unpublished paper. Convening Consensus Conferences:

A Practitioner’s Guide. University of Calgary. Calgary, Canada.
• ICIS Building Blocks for Participation in Integrated Assessment: A Review of Participatory Methods.

• Joss, S. and Durant, J. (1995). Joss, S. and Durant, J. (1995). Public Participation in science. The role of consensusconferences in Europe. London, Science Museum, 144 p.

Deliberative Polling

• Belcher et al (2001) Framing Issues for Public Deliberation (Charles F. Kettering Foundation)
• Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, Representation in Cyberspace Study http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/fish.html
• The Center for Deliberative Polling®, University of Texas http://www.la.utexas.edu/research/delpol/bluebook/execsum.html
• Centre for Deliberative Democracy, Stanford University http://cdd.stanford.edu/
• Discussion of Public Choice Theory http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Public_choice_theory
• Fishkin, J. (Revised 2004) Deliberative Polling®:Toward a Better-Informed Democracy (Stanford University: Center for Deliberative Democracy)
• Fishkin, J.; Rosell, S. (Winter 2004) Choice Dialogues and Deliberative Polls:Two Approaches to Deliberative Democracy, (National Civic Review, Vol 93, #4)
• Fishkin, J; Ackerman, B. (2005) Deliberation Day 2004 (Yale University Press)

• Lynegar, S.; Luskin, R.; Fishkin, J. (2004) Facilitating Informed Public Opinion: Evidence from Face-to-Face and Online Deliberative Polls, (Center for Deliberative Democracy, Research Papers)

Delphi

• Brown, B. (1968) The Delphi Process: A Methodology Used for the Elicitation of Opinions of Experts. Rand Document No. P-3925. www.rand.org
• Dalkey, N. and Helmer-Hirschberg, O. (1962) An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts. RM-727-PR. www.rand.org.
• Dick, B. (2000) Delphi face to face [On line]. Available at http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/delphi.html

• Glenn, J. (Ed.) Futures Research Methodology. Version 1.0. AC/UNU The Millennium Project.

Expert panel

• Practical Guide to Regional Foresight in the United Kingdom.

• Royal Society of Canada (1998) Expert Panels: Manual of Procedural Guidelines. Version 1.1. Ottawa (Ontario), Canada. Source:www.rsc.ca./english/expert_manual.pdf

Focus group

• Gearin, E. and Kahle, C. (2001) Focus Group Methodology Review and Implementation.
• ICIS Building Blocks for Participation in Integrated Assessment: A review of participatory methods.
• Krueger, R. and Casey, M. (2000) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 3rd ed. Sage.
• Kruger, R. Analysis: Systematic Analysis Process. www.tc.umn.edu/~rkrueger/focus_analysis.html
• Morgan, D. (1996) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, 2nd ed. Sage.

• World Bank. Social Analysis: Selected Tools and Techniques. World Bank Social Development Paper Number 36, June 2001.

Planning Cell

• Dienel, P. (2003) Kostensparen durch Bürgergutachten: Die revitalisierte Demokratie. Forschungsstelle Bürgerbeteiligung & Planungsverfahren, Bergische UniversitätWuppertal.
• Dienel, P. (1989) Contributing to Social Decision Methodology: Citizen Reports on Technological Projects. In C. Vlek and G. Cvetkovich (eds.), Social Decision Methodology for Technological Projects, pp. 133 – 151. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Dienel, P. Die Planungszelle. Eine Alternative zur Establishment Demokratie. 4. Aufl. mit Statusreport 1997, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen 1998.
• Dienel, P. and Renn, O. (1995) Planning Cells: A Gate to ‘Fractal’ Mediation. In O. Renn, T.Webler and P. Wiedemann (eds.), Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation, pp. 117 – 140. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Fiorino, D. J., Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms. In Science, Technology, and Human Values, 15, 2 (Spring 1990), 226-243.
• Was sind Planungszellen? http.//www.die-planungszelle.de/pz.html

• Seiler, H. (1995) Review of ‘Planning Cells’: Problems of Legitimation. In O. Renn, T.Webler and P. Wiedemann (eds.), Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation, pp. 141-155. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Scenario-WS/building exercises

• African Futures and Phylos IPE (2002) A Guide to Conducting Futures Studies in Africa. Ottawa, Canada: St. Joseph Print Group.
• Futures Group, The (1994). Scenarios. In J. Glen (Ed.) Futures Research Methodology. AC/UNU Millennium Project.
• Global Exploratory Scenarios. Millennium Project.
• ICIS Building Blocks for Participation in Integrated Assessment: A review of participatory methods.

• Practical Guide to Regional Foresight in the United Kingdom.

• Ringland, G. (2002) Scenarios in Public Policy.West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
• Schwartz, P. (1991) The Art of the Long View. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
• Social Analysis: Selected Tools and Techniques. World Bank Social Development Paper Number 36, June 2001.
• Van der Heijden, Kees (1997) Scenarios:The Art of Strategic Conversation. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
• Wehmeyer,Walter, Clayton, Anthony and Lum, Ken (eds) (2002) Greener Management International, Issue 37: Foresighting for Development.
• Andersen, I. And Jaeger, B. Scenario workshops and urban planning in Denmark. PLA Notes 40, February 2001.

• Danish Board of Technology:www.tekno.dk

World café

• Brown, J. (2002) The World Café: A Resource Guide for Hosting Conversations That Matter. Mill Valley, CA:Whole Systems Associates.
• The World Café website: http://www.theworldcafe.com

• Brown, J., Isaacs, D. and the World Café Community (2005) The World Café: Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter. Berrett-Koehler.

Partizipative Evaluierung

• Booth,W., Ebrahim, R and Morin R. (2001) Participatory Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting: An Organisational Development Perspective for South African NGOs. Braamfontein, South Africa: Pact/South Africa.
• Case, D’Arcy Davis (1990) The community’s toolbox: The idea, methods and tools for participatory assessment, monitoring and evaluation in community forestry. Bangkok, Thailand: FAO Regional Wood Energy Development Programme. http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5307e/x5307e00.htm
• Pahl-Wostl, Claudia (2002) ‘Participative and Stakeholder-Based Policy Design, Evaluation and Modeling Processes’. Integrated Assessment 3(1): 3 – 14.
• UNDP (1996) ‘Participatory Evaluation in Programmes Involving Governance Decentralisation: A Methodological Note’. Unpublished Paper.
• USAID Center for Development Information and Evaluation (1996) ‘Conducting A Participatory Evaluation’. Performance Monitoring and Evaluation TIPS, Number 1.

• Zimmermann, A. and Engler,M. (Comilers) Process Monitoring (ProM).Work document for project staff. Eschborn, Germany: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH.