How diversity shapes deliberation: Trade-offs in process and outcomes in an Advisory Group on the Great Barrier reef

Engaging a diverse group of stakeholders and community members in large-scale ecosystem management is widely understood to be important for robust and viable decision-making processes that meet standards of fairness and justice. However, diversity is not a singular concept; rather, it is conceptualised and operationalised differently, therefore requiring different resources and creating differing outcomes within a deliberation processes. In this paper we discuss the trade-offs associated with diversity in process and outcomes of deliberation of establishing membership in advisory groups for ecosystem restoration and assisted adaptation. We draw on the Engagement Advisory Group established within the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program (RRAP) on the Great Barrier Reef, which aimed for ‘deep’ diversity (defined across diversity in gender, indigeneity, geography, committee experience, knowledge and skills, and epistemologies) across members. We investigate both the social and programmatic outcomes from the Advisory Group, and key aspects of the deliberative process employed. We argue that depending on how diversity is conceptualised and operationalised, this will establish trade-offs in how a deliberative process is run (resources required, facilitative style) and both social outcomes (networks gained, knowledge developed, and capacity built) and programmatic outcomes (advice given, and shifts in position). A conceptual model is developed to articulate these trade-offs, called the Diversity Trade-off Model of Deliberation, and can assist organisations to think critically about what they are trying to achieve through deliberation (outcomes), which can further inform their membership, and the process employed.