Conference Agenda

Public administrations today face increasingly complex forms of diversity (cultural, linguistic, religious, and gender-based), not only among the populations they serve but also within their own structures. In such contexts, disagreement and value conflict are not exceptions but routine features of public interaction.

Institutional discourse typically relies on two dominant models of argumentation: adversarial debate, where interlocutors aim to win, and cooperative deliberation, which assumes shared goals and mutual willingness to converge. Both approaches often prove inadequate in diverse societies, where deep disagreements are identity-based, enduring, and not easily resolved.

This paper draws on Jean Goodwin’s theory of coordinated argumentation to propose a third model tailored to the communication challenges of the public sector. According to Goodwin, argumentation need not aim at consensus. Rather, it can serve as a technique of social coordination: a way for individuals to interact meaningfully and respectfully, even in the absence of shared goals or agreement.

Coordination rests on a pragmatic ethics of co-presence: in the public square, we meet whoever we meet. Just as passersby move through shared space without colliding, by anticipating each other’s actions, arguers can interact by recognizing each other’s presence and adjusting their behavior accordingly. In this view, coordination emerges not from harmony, but from mutual recognition, expectations of respect, and minimal normative alignment.

Building on Goodwin theory of coordinated argumentation, the paper argues that arguers can manage diversity not only through external scripts (e.g., legal procedures), but also by generating situated resources and shared expectations. These expectations ("I respect your path, and you respect mine") enable inclusive, non-domineering interaction.

To illustrate the limits of conventional models and the promise of coordinated argumentation, the paper examines two common exclusionary strategies in institutional discourse:

a) Social positional disqualification: dismissing an argument by claiming the speaker’s social identity (e.g., gender, class, religion) disqualifies them from even making the claim;

b) Poisoning the well: a disqualifying ad hominem that silences the speaker in advance, rendering future contributions illegitimate.

These moves exemplify mechanisms of exclusion that cannot be addressed effectively through debate or cooperation. A coordinative approach, by contrast, calls for recognizing personhood, engaging arguments despite disagreement, and sustaining respect as a civic norm.

Based on this framework, the paper presents a training program for public administration professionals, that aims at:

a) reframe argumentation as a practical tool for coexistence rather than agreement;

b) train staff to recognize when cooperation is not feasible and use coordinative strategies;

c) build awareness of discursive asymmetries and support inclusive, respectful engagement.

Through this model, public institutions can move beyond the binary of conflict versus consensus. They become spaces where diversity is not neutralized or resolved, but actively managed through rhetorical coordination and shared expectations.

This approach offers a practical foundation for inclusive governance in pluralistic societies, grounded in the micro-practices of everyday argumentation.

As societies grow increasingly diverse and interconnected, public policies play a critical role in fostering inclusion, equity, and societal cohesion. However, research highlights persistent discrepancies between the intent and execution of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, with systemic barriers, inadequate leadership accountability, and insufficient community engagement hindering their success. This proposal advocates for refining public policies to better manage diversity and ensure equitable access to opportunities, particularly for marginalized groups. Key strategies, including stakeholder engagement, measurable DEI goals, and targeted policy interventions in healthcare, education, and leadership, will be presented to demonstrate how diversity can be effectively harnessed as a societal and organizational asset. The discussion will aim to bridge the gap between theoretical frameworks and practical implementation, offering actionable insights for policymakers and academics alike.

The classical structures of democracy – popular elections and parliaments – are now crumbling under the weight of the ‘democratic deficit’. Crucial decision are taken through bargaining among political and bureaucratic elites, meanwhile markets and hierarchies pose limits that are not set by the democratic process. The increasing abstentionism, the mistrust of politicians, and the lack of identification with existing political parties, require new instruments to facilitate greater citizens’ engagement in the EU. The role of private actors, in particular third sector entities, started to increase to tackle these issues. The Conference on the Future of Europe was a first step that led to the Commission recommendation on promoting the engagement and effective participation of citizens and civil society organisation in public policy-making processes and to the Commission work programme in 2023. Putting citizens at the earth of European democracy is a goal that cannot be reached only via classical democratic structure and policies enacted by the public, but it is fundamental for the EU to consider the work, efforts and results of these private organisations. Public administrations, in particular, play a crucial role as intermediaries, facilitating dialogue between civil society organisations and EU institutions. Their procedural function ensures that participation is not merely an abstract principle but an operational reality embedded within governance structures. Without well-defined administrative channels for collaboration, revitalising democracy in the EU remains a complex challenge.

This paper aims at identifying and assessing the opportunities for a public-private partnership between EU institutions and third sector organisations to foster a stronger citizens’ participation in EU decision-making. Citizens increasingly identify with organisations they voluntarily associate with and EU institutions must acknowledge and integrate these actors within the procedural fabric of democratic governance. A particular focus is placed on the role of public administration as a facilitator of structured engagement, ensuring that participation is embedded within administrative procedures. By examining how administrative processes can serve as effective mechanisms for interaction, this study highlights the evolving function of public institutions—not just as decision-makers but as enablers of inclusive governance.

To reach this purpose, a content analysis of the most relevant instruments developed by the EU to ensure the engagement of citizens outside the usual democratic methods is carried out. Particular attention is given to administrative tools that support participatory mechanisms at both the European and national levels. Furthermore, various citizens initiatives at EU level and national level are considered, in particular under the respect of their statues, the number of associates, and the number and type of successful initiatives reached.

This paper stands out for its originality since it addresses a topic – the public-private collaboration – that is not usually considered under the realm of human rights, democracy, and citizens’ engagement. Moreover, there appears to be a gap in literature with regard to the role of third sector entities in fostering citizens’ participation, mainly due to the fact that the emergence of these private institution and their increasing role in this area is very recent.

In recent years, the growing complexity of social and economic challenges has prompted researchers and policy makers to explore new welfare models that emphasise horizontal and circular subsidiarity. These approaches aim to promote community resilience by activating local support networks and enhancing endogenous resources.

Horizontal subsidiarity, which encourages cooperation between citizens and informal groups, and circular subsidiarity, which integrates sustainable practices and the circular economy, can contribute to a more inclusive and sustainable welfare system. Furthermore, the practical experiences of these innovations in the context of economic and social crises are discussed, highlighting how they can act as catalysts for change and resilience, promoting a rethinking of traditional social policies towards more flexible and participatory models. The research suggests that the integration of these models can not only address current inequalities, also from an interventional perspective, but also build stronger and more cohesive communities for the future.