🎈📢New research brief📢🎈
Democratic innovations like #ClimateAssemblies should be equitable and accessible, right? Right!
What about for the experts that give evidence to the participants?
We looked at this:
Thread 🧵👇🏽👀
[2/14] We set out to examine:
1⃣ Diversity and inclusion amongst the experts informing the citizen deliberations on climate action.
2⃣Approaches to ensuring that participants hear from experts with a diversity of identities and experiences.
[3/14] We studied published reports from 23 citizen deliberations on climate action (Climate Assemblies, Citizen Panels, and Citizen Juries) held between 2019 - 2022 in the UK, looking for information about expert diversity and inclusion 🏳️🌈🦻🏿🧑🏽🦯👩🏽🦼👩🏽🦽🦾🧕🏼👳🏿♂️🏳️⚧️
[4/14] But we couldn’t find anything.
Nothing. At. All 🤷🏽♀️🔎
The reports emphasise transparency and inclusion to ensure representation among citizen participants (which is important!). But the process is opaque for those involved as experts, and other roles, too.
[5/14] *None* of the reports we studied:
a) include #EDI targets or measures supporting participation of experts from minority or marginalised demographics or identities
b) give a transparent account of the process of identifying and selecting experts, or other such roles
😲
[6/14] Our findings present a call to action: organisers and governing bodies of deliberative processes must resource and implement transparent and inclusive processes for expert involvement.
[7/14] How? Embedding inclusion principles throughout the design and delivery of deliberative processes requires commitment and action from all roles, including the commissioning body, those in in governance roles, the organisers, the experts, and the wider public.
[8/14] We lay out 16 recommendations for what action should be taken by who, with three overarching messages:
[9/14]
Action 1⃣: The processes of identification and recruitment for all roles should be transparent and reported.
[10/14]
Action 2⃣: Targets for equity, diversity, and inclusion for all roles should be set, demographic information collected and reported (while safeguarding anonymity).
[11/14]
Action 3⃣: Barriers to expert participation should be clearly identified and reported and sufficient measures taken to mitigate these barriers and to ensure an inclusive environment for witnesses.
[12/14] Why does this matter?
1⃣democratic processes should be equitable & accessible for all
2⃣ underrepresented & marginalised voices must be included & elevated for #ClimateJustice
3⃣expert diversity will influence perceived legitimacy of the process and its outcomes
[1/9] Ahead of #COP26, these @royalsociety policy briefs lay out 12 science & technology areas key for enabling #netzero.
Inadvertently the briefs also lay out clear lack of representation in #STEM and #academia
Reduced inequalities is part of netzero solution #SDG10
👇🏾Thread👇🏾
[2/9]
✅120+ authors from 30+ countries were included in these briefs, plus another ~40 reviewers. Impressive. ❌Less impressive is the representation within the list of contributors:
🌍the authors are predominantly from the global north
♀️ <25% of the authors are women
[3/9] In fact, 3 out of the 12 briefings are all-male authors (briefing 3: #lowcarbon heating & cooling, 5: #CCS, 12: #ClimateAction).
2 of these (briefings 3 & 5) have all-male reviewers, also.
⁉️Where are the incredible women working in these topics? Their absence is visible.
[1/6] 🤚🏽Heads up, Twitter community!✋🏽
Calling all folk who have been asked to be an evidence-giver (e.g. speaker, expert, etc) in a mini-public, like a Citizens’ Jury, Citizens’ Assembly and so on. 🎺We want to hear from you. 🎺
[2/6] ❓Why did you *decline* the invitation? Was it workload? The timing of the event? A bit of imposter syndrome? Hatred of public speaking? Unfamiliarity of the role?
[3/6]❓ Why did you *accept* the invitation? How did you find the experience? Would you be an evidence-giver again? What might have made it easier for you, as an evidence-giver?