The need for engaging citizens in climate policymaking is increasingly recognised. Despite indications that the form of expert involvement can strongly influence participatory processes, this remains scarcely researched. We analysed two unique and contrasting cases of citizen engagement in national climate mitigation policy: (1) the Irish Citizens’ Assembly (ICA), the first national climate assembly involving live expert presentations and face-to-face deliberations; and (2) the Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) on Dutch climate policymaking, where more than 10,000 citizens compared policy options in an online environment based on expert-based information on policy effects. Taking a dramaturgical approach, we found that the opening up and closing down of policy options and perspectives was influenced by the setting, staging and scripting of expertise. Apart from providing information on policy options, experts had significant roles in design choices and formulating recommendations, which shaped citizens’ deliberations and policy advice. In deliberative processes, citizens’ deliberations can be further influenced by putting experts in a privileged spot and emphasising their authority, whereas in the setting of an online tool, experts’ design choices may be masked by the fact-like presentation of expertise. Future research should further investigate the role of experts and expertise across a wider range of practices. Nevertheless, we conclude that the high degree of required technical knowledge in climate mitigation policy naturally implies strong expert involvement, which concomitantly steers the results. Alternatively, we may search to enhance citizens’ engagement in guiding climate policymakers by focusing on citizens’ normative perspectives.

人们越来越认识到让公民参与气候政策制定的必要性。尽管有迹象表明专家参与的形式可以强烈影响参与过程，但对此的研究仍然很少。我们分析了公民参与国家气候减缓政策的两个独特且对比鲜明的案例：（1）爱尔兰公民大会（ICA），这是第一个涉及专家现场演讲和面对面审议的国家气候大会；(2) 荷兰气候政策制定的参与式价值评估 (PVE)，超过 10,000 名公民根据基于专家的政策效果信息在在线环境中比较政策选项。采用戏剧化的方法，我们发现政策选择和观点的开放和关闭受到专业知识的设置、舞台和脚本的影响。除了提供有关政策选择的信息外，专家在设计选择和提出建议方面也发挥着重要作用，从而影响公民的审议和政策建议。在审议过程中，通过将专家置于特权地位并强调他们的权威，可以进一步影响公民的审议，而在在线工具的设置中，专家的设计选择可能会被专业知识的事实呈现所掩盖。未来的研究应该进一步调查专家和专业知识在更广泛的实践中的作用。尽管如此，我们得出的结论是，气候减缓政策所需的高度技术知识自然意味着专家的大力参与，从而引导结果。或者，我们可以通过关注公民的规范观点来寻求加强公民对指导气候政策制定者的参与。