Abstract

Embedding public participation in political systems and standardizing participation practices are often seen as complementary 'best practices.' Generally, design principles are presented as complementary partners. This article challenges that assumption drawing from STS and Democratic Theory. Embedding aligns participation with formal politics, requiring 'messy' negotiation with political actors and institutions. Standardization, by contrast, aligns with expert frameworks, prioritizing 'sameness.' To explore this tension, I contrast two cases: Chile's Ministry of Science, which embeds participation through legal mandates, and the UK's Sciencewise program, which standardizes it via expert-led standards. Drawing on serial interviews, observations and document analysis, I show how these design principles shape practitioners' work, political influence and the quirks of their designs. This article challenges the view of participatory design as seamless technical undertakings, highlighting the conflicting pressures practitioners face. Through this lens, I showcase the hybridity of design and how design work actively co-produces technocratic, liberal, and emancipatory visions of democracy-in-the-making.