title: Theoretical models for an intersectional and inclusive citizens’ assembly

authors: Roy, Rituparna

abstract: The aim of the EU-CIEMBLY project is to create a model for EU citizens’ assemblies that maximises intersectional equality, inclusion, and deliberation. To that goal, the researchers mapped the landscape of the relevant scholarship in Deliverable 2.1. Building on that foundation, Deliverable 2.2 initiated the development of theoretical and normative frameworks for fostering intersectional equality, inclusion, and deliberation within citizens’ assemblies. This Deliverable extends the theoretical work of Deliverable 2.2 by proposing innovative models for citizens’ assemblies. Adopting a 'blue sky' approach, it moves beyond practical constraints of resources and capacity to explore creative and conceptual design features, pushing the boundaries of what is possible in the pursuit of truly inclusive and deliberative democratic practices. 

Drawing from political theory, sociology, representational theory, and critical theory on democratic innovations, Deliverable 2.3 proposes different models and design features for citizens’ assemblies that enhance inclusiveness for marginalised groups and PMIMG (people belonging to multiple, intersecting, marginalised groups; see Deliverable 2.2, Appendix I). The models in this Deliverable integrate intersectionality in a way that allows for a focus on a variety of interacting social positions, forces, factors, and power structures that create the barriers experienced by marginalised groups and PMIMG when participating in citizens’ assemblies. By focusing on these dynamics, the models seek to propose design features to enhance intersectional equality, inclusion, and deliberation (as per the project’s analytical framework, presented in Deliverable 2.2). 

The Deliverable consists of six theoretical models. Model 1: Descriptive Representation, presents a range of options through the lens of including PMIMG in the participant body and bureaucracy involved in a citizens’ assembly. Model 2: Discursive Representation, emphasises inclusion of diverse knowledge, perspectives and discourses through various mechanisms by moving beyond the sole focus on identity-based representation of PMIMG. Model 3: Subaltern Counterpublics, acknowledges the systemic marginalisation of certain groups and advocates by providing safe, dedicated spaces for PMIMG to articulate their perspectives without the fear of being pressured by dominant narratives. Model 4: Power Sharing, focuses on the ways in which an intersectional citizens’ assembly could address power imbalances through popular control, governance, and community-driven design. Model 5: Agonistic Pluralism, provides a number of design choices around facilitating conflicting opinions in citizens’ assemblies, to draw out the views of PMIMG and minority perspectives. Finally, Model 6: Relationality and Interdependence, discusses a range of design choices that would complement many of the models through emphasising commonalities, relationships, and bonding between participants, their communities, and other parts of the broader society, such as nonhuman animals or landmarks.  

The exploration of the models is followed by a section that covers alternative design choices or ‘additional considerations’, including using an additive model for sampling, and reconsidering the traditional strive for consensus in citizens’ assemblies, and the subsequent implications for intersectionality. Lastly, the Deliverable sets out the scope for future work in the project. In particular, the section flags considerations of strengths based versus deficit framing, essentialism versus external inclusion, balancing perspectives, and considerations of legitimacy when altering the conventional sampling model. The section also includes broader points around the need for a deliberative system approach and discusses the potential to create an overarching politico-philosophical framework about the project's conceptualisations of democracy, as well as considerations for the creation of policy recommendations. These are important points to consider as the project heads into more practical considerations under Work Package 3. 

The Deliverable concludes with an overall options table (Table 7), which maps all the potential starting points for design choices by model and according to each stage of the citizens’ assembly (i.e., governance, organisation, and management; sampling and recruitment; and facilitation and deliberation). The options explored in this deliverable thus provide a beginning point, based on theory and drawing on the analytical framework from Deliverable 2.2, in order to begin designing the citizens’ assembly pilots. These models are theoretical in nature, so they were designed to help conceive ideas and therefore do not represent an off-the-shelf solution for later work. Instead, they represent a starting point for later work packages, and aim to provide novel ideas for both the EU-CIEMBLY project and others seeking to implement intersectionality in deliberative designs.

text: Theoretical models for an intersectional and inclusive citizens’ assembly The aim of the EU-CIEMBLY project is to create a model for EU citizens’ assemblies that maximises intersectional equality, inclusion, and deliberation. To that goal, the researchers mapped the landscape of the relevant scholarship in Deliverable 2.1. Building on that foundation, Deliverable 2.2 initiated the development of theoretical and normative frameworks for fostering intersectional equality, inclusion, and deliberation within citizens’ assemblies. This Deliverable extends the theoretical work of Deliverable 2.2 by proposing innovative models for citizens’ assemblies. Adopting a 'blue sky' approach, it moves beyond practical constraints of resources and capacity to explore creative and conceptual design features, pushing the boundaries of what is possible in the pursuit of truly inclusive and deliberative democratic practices. 

Drawing from political theory, sociology, representational theory, and critical theory on democratic innovations, Deliverable 2.3 proposes different models and design features for citizens’ assemblies that enhance inclusiveness for marginalised groups and PMIMG (people belonging to multiple, intersecting, marginalised groups; see Deliverable 2.2, Appendix I). The models in this Deliverable integrate intersectionality in a way that allows for a focus on a variety of interacting social positions, forces, factors, and power structures that create the barriers experienced by marginalised groups and PMIMG when participating in citizens’ assemblies. By focusing on these dynamics, the models seek to propose design features to enhance intersectional equality, inclusion, and deliberation (as per the project’s analytical framework, presented in Deliverable 2.2). 

The Deliverable consists of six theoretical models. Model 1: Descriptive Representation, presents a range of options through the lens of including PMIMG in the participant body and bureaucracy involved in a citizens’ assembly. Model 2: Discursive Representation, emphasises inclusion of diverse knowledge, perspectives and discourses through various mechanisms by moving beyond the sole focus on identity-based representation of PMIMG. Model 3: Subaltern Counterpublics, acknowledges the systemic marginalisation of certain groups and advocates by providing safe, dedicated spaces for PMIMG to articulate their perspectives without the fear of being pressured by dominant narratives. Model 4: Power Sharing, focuses on the ways in which an intersectional citizens’ assembly could address power imbalances through popular control, governance, and community-driven design. Model 5: Agonistic Pluralism, provides a number of design choices around facilitating conflicting opinions in citizens’ assemblies, to draw out the views of PMIMG and minority perspectives. Finally, Model 6: Relationality and Interdependence, discusses a range of design choices that would complement many of the models through emphasising commonalities, relationships, and bonding between participants, their communities, and other parts of the broader society, such as nonhuman animals or landmarks.  

The exploration of the models is followed by a section that covers alternative design choices or ‘additional considerations’, including using an additive model for sampling, and reconsidering the traditional strive for consensus in citizens’ assemblies, and the subsequent implications for intersectionality. Lastly, the Deliverable sets out the scope for future work in the project. In particular, the section flags considerations of strengths based versus deficit framing, essentialism versus external inclusion, balancing perspectives, and considerations of legitimacy when altering the conventional sampling model. The section also includes broader points around the need for a deliberative system approach and discusses the potential to create an overarching politico-philosophical framework about the project's conceptualisations of democracy, as well as considerations for the creation of policy recommendations. These are important points to consider as the project heads into more practical considerations under Work Package 3. 

The Deliverable concludes with an overall options table (Table 7), which maps all the potential starting points for design choices by model and according to each stage of the citizens’ assembly (i.e., governance, organisation, and management; sampling and recruitment; and facilitation and deliberation). The options explored in this deliverable thus provide a beginning point, based on theory and drawing on the analytical framework from Deliverable 2.2, in order to begin designing the citizens’ assembly pilots. These models are theoretical in nature, so they were designed to help conceive ideas and therefore do not represent an off-the-shelf solution for later work. Instead, they represent a starting point for later work packages, and aim to provide novel ideas for both the EU-CIEMBLY project and others seeking to implement intersectionality in deliberative designs.

year: 2024

title: Editorial: Biotechnological Uses of Archaeal Proteins

authors: Pecorari, Frédéric

subjects: Science & Technology

abstract: Many industrial/biotechnological processes take place under extreme conditions of temperature, pH, salinity, or pressure which are not suitable for activities of proteins from model eukaryotic or common neutrophilic, mesophilic, and prokaryotic microorganisms. In contrast, Archaea offer a large panel of extremophile organisms that express proteins that are able to remain properly folded and functional under the harshest biophysical conditions.

text: Editorial: Biotechnological Uses of Archaeal Proteins Many industrial/biotechnological processes take place under extreme conditions of temperature, pH, salinity, or pressure which are not suitable for activities of proteins from model eukaryotic or common neutrophilic, mesophilic, and prokaryotic microorganisms. In contrast, Archaea offer a large panel of extremophile organisms that express proteins that are able to remain properly folded and functional under the harshest biophysical conditions.

year: 2015-01-01

title: A Relationships Framework for Organisational Responsiveness to Te Tiriti/Treaty of Waitangi in the Work of Groups and Organisations in the Community and the Public Sector of Aotearoa New Zealand

authors: Spelman, Anthony Cyril

subjects: Organisation Development

abstract: This thesis is focussed on the development and implementation of a Relationships Framework based on Te Tiriti/Treaty of Waitangi.  The Framework has been designed to enable working together between Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti in the community and Public Sector in Aotearoa New Zealand.  Its development is explored and its implementation critiqued.  Within that Framework, an original organisation development tool based on a Tiriti/Treaty two-worldview approach is examined in terms of its potential to facilitate change in the operation and management of public life in Aotearoa New Zealand.
My aim is to establish an effective approach for working with worldview difference in the context of Tiriti/Treaty of Waitangi relationships and their implications.  I have a belief that Tangata Whenua are currently excluded from participating in processes that govern public life due to the dominance of Tangata Tiriti worldviews.  Therefore I am committed to making a contribution to a change in this dynamic so that Tangata Whenua views are not only heard but form an integral part of how the infrastructure of our public life is developed and managed. 
The Tiriti/Treaty of Waitangi Relationships Framework [The Framework] presented in the thesis is critiqued in two ways: i) through an examination of the concepts that inform it, and ii) by exploring six examples of its operation and further development in the community and public sector in Aotearoa New Zealand.  The Framework and the Tiriti/Treaty Two-worldview approach used to inform it has worked effectively in a variety of settings.  Through my research I show that organisation development of this type is complex.  It appears that there need be no fixed starting point in the development process within an organisation.  However all key elements of that process must eventually be addressed if effective relationships are to be achieved and the resulting organisational change is to be sustained.  Commitment to organisation development of this type is therefore long-term and requires a commitment to leading and supporting change in behaviour, systems and processes, and structures.

text: A Relationships Framework for Organisational Responsiveness to Te Tiriti/Treaty of Waitangi in the Work of Groups and Organisations in the Community and the Public Sector of Aotearoa New Zealand This thesis is focussed on the development and implementation of a Relationships Framework based on Te Tiriti/Treaty of Waitangi.  The Framework has been designed to enable working together between Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti in the community and Public Sector in Aotearoa New Zealand.  Its development is explored and its implementation critiqued.  Within that Framework, an original organisation development tool based on a Tiriti/Treaty two-worldview approach is examined in terms of its potential to facilitate change in the operation and management of public life in Aotearoa New Zealand.
My aim is to establish an effective approach for working with worldview difference in the context of Tiriti/Treaty of Waitangi relationships and their implications.  I have a belief that Tangata Whenua are currently excluded from participating in processes that govern public life due to the dominance of Tangata Tiriti worldviews.  Therefore I am committed to making a contribution to a change in this dynamic so that Tangata Whenua views are not only heard but form an integral part of how the infrastructure of our public life is developed and managed. 
The Tiriti/Treaty of Waitangi Relationships Framework [The Framework] presented in the thesis is critiqued in two ways: i) through an examination of the concepts that inform it, and ii) by exploring six examples of its operation and further development in the community and public sector in Aotearoa New Zealand.  The Framework and the Tiriti/Treaty Two-worldview approach used to inform it has worked effectively in a variety of settings.  Through my research I show that organisation development of this type is complex.  It appears that there need be no fixed starting point in the development process within an organisation.  However all key elements of that process must eventually be addressed if effective relationships are to be achieved and the resulting organisational change is to be sustained.  Commitment to organisation development of this type is therefore long-term and requires a commitment to leading and supporting change in behaviour, systems and processes, and structures.

year: 2013