Reaching the most marginalised: sharing learning between participatory research and mini-public initiatives

Deliberative mini-publics face threats to their integrity such as risks of co-option, manipulation and tokenism which have long been familiar to citizen participation experts (Cooke & Kothari 2001; Taylor, 2007; Christensen and Grant 2020). This paper explores further questions of deliberative integrity with relation to inclusion and power dynamics throughout the deliberative process: How might a mini-public process ensure that very marginalised groups and individuals have access to these spaces, and their voices listened to; are there grounds for purposive rather than random selection? During deliberation, how is the process and proximity to decisionmakers managed to avoid silencing the perspectives of very marginalised groups? Participatory research processes can open up opportunities for intersectionally marginalised groups to share experiences, reflect, and construct knowledge, using a range of methods that enable different ways of knowing to be expressed. This knowledge is brought into dialogue, but usually in separate spaces that are ‘safe’, before entering some kind of public forum to engage with duty bearers (Howard, Ospina and Yorks, 2021). We see the process that leads up to engagement with duty bearers as crucial; it is where communicative confidence is grown, and divergent views amongst marginalised individuals can be expressed and acknowledged in order to move towards a sense of collective, and capacity for collective action (Shaw, Howard & Lopez-Franco, 2020). This paper will draw on research conducted in Uganda, India, and South Africa which sought to support marginalised groups to analyse their experiences of marginalisation and to engage with dutybearers to build more accountable relationships. Using Bradbury and Reason’s (2001) quality choice points, the paper will reflect on how concepts and practices of validity and ethics in participatory research can inform democratic practice (Brydon-Miller, 2008) and ‘integrity’ in deliberative mini-publics. References Bradbury, H. and Reason, P. (2001) ‘Conclusion: broadening the bandwidth of validity: issues and choice points for improving quality in action research’, in Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (eds.) Handbook of Action Research: participative enquiry and practice (1st ed.). London: Sage, pp. 447-455. Brydon-Miller, M. (2008) ‘Ethics and action research: deepening our commitment to principles of social justice and redefining principles of democratic practice’ in P. Reason and H. Bradbury Handbook of Action Research: participative enquiry and practice (2nd ed.), Chapter 13. London Sage, pp. 199-210. Christensen, H. E., and Grant, B. (2020). Outsourcing local democracy? Evidence for and implications of the commercialisation of community engagement in Australian local government. Australian Journal of Political Science, 55(1), 20-37. Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The new tyranny?. Zed books. Howard, J., Ospina, S. and Yorks, L. (2021) ‘Cooperative Inquiry as dialogic process’ in D. Burns, J. Howard and S. M. Ospina Handbook of Participatory Research and Inquiry. London: Sage, pp.427-443. Shaw, J., Howard, J., and López Franco, E. (2020) Building inclusive community activism and accountable relations through an intersecting inequalities approach, Community Development Journal, 55: 1, pp7–25, https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsz033 Taylor, M. (2007). Community participation in the real world: opportunities and pitfalls in new governance spaces. Urban studies, 44(2), 297-317.