Myself and @gracecooper1.bsky.social presented our paper on climate mini-public professionals in the UK, which uses a qualitative social network analysis to understand the dynamics behind deliberative standards and practices. Massive thanks to everyone who spoke to us and engaged with this research!

(🧵6) Together, these justifications reveal tensions organisers navigate:
⚖️ neutrality vs partisanship
⚡ urgency vs incrementalism
🌱 optimism vs realism

(🧵5) Finally, by involving a representative group of citizens, organisers hope to build legitimacy, consensus, and support for difficult climate policies.

(🧵4) Second, mini-publics are presented as ways to repair local democracy, pioneer new methods of citizen engagement, and rebuild trust.

(🧵3) By analysing 267 documents (reports, council minutes, press releases, etc.), I identified three key justifications. First, that organisers stress the need to act now, framing mini-publics as rapid, solution-finding tools in response to the climate emergency.

(🧵2) Most research looks at what happens inside the room: inclusiveness, deliberation quality, or policy outcomes. My article instead looks backstage: the political justifications organisers give when creating climate mini-publics.

(🧵1) Across the UK since 2019, over 60 local governments and organisations have run climate mini-publics, otherwise known as citizens’ assemblies or juries that deliberate on climate policy. 🌍
But why do organisers set them up in the first place?