title: Tauranga Harbour DELWAQ nutrient modelling to support the implementation of the National Policy Statement on Freshwater (NPS-FM)

authors: Bryan, Karin R.

abstract: A DELWAQ nutrient model coupled to a Delft3D hydrodynamic model was set up for Tauranga Harbour and surrounding shelf, and run for three months during summer and three months during winter for 5 years. Model results were summarised in 34 different regions, aligned to the BoPRC reporting of sensitive receiving environments in Tauranga Harbour. Prior to undertaking the 5-year DELWAQ modelling, a sensitivity analysis was undertaken to tune key modelling parameterisations (primarily sediment denitrification). Nutrient and salinity outputs from the 5-year runs were compared against BoPRC monitoring data to assess performance. Salinity was generally over 30 ppt even in winter, except very near freshwater input zones. Flushing time varied substantially across the harbour from less than one day to 9 days.

text: Tauranga Harbour DELWAQ nutrient modelling to support the implementation of the National Policy Statement on Freshwater (NPS-FM) A DELWAQ nutrient model coupled to a Delft3D hydrodynamic model was set up for Tauranga Harbour and surrounding shelf, and run for three months during summer and three months during winter for 5 years. Model results were summarised in 34 different regions, aligned to the BoPRC reporting of sensitive receiving environments in Tauranga Harbour. Prior to undertaking the 5-year DELWAQ modelling, a sensitivity analysis was undertaken to tune key modelling parameterisations (primarily sediment denitrification). Nutrient and salinity outputs from the 5-year runs were compared against BoPRC monitoring data to assess performance. Salinity was generally over 30 ppt even in winter, except very near freshwater input zones. Flushing time varied substantially across the harbour from less than one day to 9 days.

year: 2022

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: Consequences of cultural satisfaction at work: A study of New Zealand Māori

authors: Haar, Jarrod M.

subjects: cultural satisfaction at work

abstract: To expand our understanding of indigenous workers and the importance of indigenous culture in the workplace, we tested the outcomes of cultural satisfaction at work using structural equation modelling with a sample of 174 Māori employees. We show that, consistent with social exchange theory, Māori who are more satisfied with the level of understanding of their cultural values in the workplace report better job outcomes. Cultural satisfaction at work directly predicted loyalty and organisational citizenship behaviours (OCBs). Furthermore, direct-effects and mediation models were tested, showing that loyalty fully mediated the influence of cultural satisfaction at work on OCBs. The implications for HRM are that indigenous workers who are more satisfied with the way their cultural beliefs are valued in the workplace are likely to be more loyal and may be superior performance. The findings highlight the importance for employers of having regard to the culture of their indigenous workers.

text: Consequences of cultural satisfaction at work: A study of New Zealand Māori To expand our understanding of indigenous workers and the importance of indigenous culture in the workplace, we tested the outcomes of cultural satisfaction at work using structural equation modelling with a sample of 174 Māori employees. We show that, consistent with social exchange theory, Māori who are more satisfied with the level of understanding of their cultural values in the workplace report better job outcomes. Cultural satisfaction at work directly predicted loyalty and organisational citizenship behaviours (OCBs). Furthermore, direct-effects and mediation models were tested, showing that loyalty fully mediated the influence of cultural satisfaction at work on OCBs. The implications for HRM are that indigenous workers who are more satisfied with the way their cultural beliefs are valued in the workplace are likely to be more loyal and may be superior performance. The findings highlight the importance for employers of having regard to the culture of their indigenous workers.

year: 2011