The scope, complexity, and interconnectedness of modern society should prompt us to develop dynamic understandings of democratic modes of inclusion and exclusion. In particular, democratic theory is becoming more attentive to the mismatch between those who make decisions and those who are affected by them as well as to the need to account for the voice of the latter. In this article I build on James Bohman’s understanding of democracy as a rule by multiple dêmoi to develop a framework for studying and evaluating modes of democratic inclusion that are based on being affected. To develop this framework I turn to law and public administration and examine the democratic properties of different institutions and procedures that give a voice to those who are affected by a decision.

The question of who ought to be included in the demos is distinct from, and yet related to, the question of how to distribute decision-making power among those who are included. Political equality is the most common answer to the former question within democratic theory. In democratic practice, it is usually realized through one person one vote. Within democratic theory, there is not as much agreement as to what the answer to the latter question should be. The answer that has attracted most attention within the scholarly literature is that all those who are affected should be included. However, prominent scholars have argued that this all-affected principle is incompatible with political equality and therefore an unattractive answer to the question of inclusion. This article challenges this critique and argues that it is based on a misconception of political equality and a narrow reading of the all-affected principle.

Museum visitors are not reflective of the diversity present in communities around the nation. In this study, we investigate the racial and ethnic diversity of art museum participants as well as the potential motivations and barriers to visiting a museum. Using the General Social Survey, we examine race and ethnicity and arts participation in the USA. We find Black individuals are less likely to attend an art museum than white individuals. Certain motivations and barriers to participating may explain part of the lack of diversity. We find Black and Latinx individuals are motivated to participate in art museums for cultural heritage reasons more than white individuals, but race and ethnicity are unrelated to perceiving admission fees as a barrier. This research highlights the urgency in the field to make museums more inclusive.

Volunteering is associated with health-promoting benefits for both recipients and volunteers and may contribute to a more inclusive society. However, studies have shown a persistent pattern of social inequality among those who volunteer, and immigrants participate as volunteers less than the majority population. To date, approaches for recruiting immigrant populations have not been sufficiently examined, even though multicultural societies are becoming increasingly diverse. This study investigates how recruitment is carried out in voluntary organizations and how volunteers who are involved in recruitment reflect on the inclusion of citizens with immigrant backgrounds. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 18 volunteers and three employees with recruitment responsibility at five voluntary organizations engaged in welfare and community-related activities in a semirural district in Norway. Our findings show that different structural factors and individual aspects of the recruiter influence the recruitment of immigrants as volunteers. Large-scale organizations are more professionalized and more directed by fundings and frameworks and demand more qualifications due to their volunteer tasks. This might make inclusive recruitment more challenging. Small-scale organizations have more flexibility and less professionalized volunteer activities, making recruitment more inclusive. In addition, if the small-scale organizations are minority driven, it seems to positively influence the recruitment of immigrants through increased diversity sensitivity and more connections with immigrants through their social network.

This response builds upon ideas introduced in Charity Hudley et al.'s (2020) target article by focusing on the themes of excellence and racial justice. In addition to relying on previous academic work on race and racism, I also draw from my own experiences as a person of color in the field of linguistics and as a scholar who works with racially minoritized communities. The primary claims of this paper are that the field of linguistics as a whole benefits from broadening and deepening our conceptualizations of scholarly excellence and from consciously attending to the needs and concerns of scholars and community members from racially minoritized groups. To support these claims, I discuss ways in which institutional structures of universities hinder equity and inclusion by marginalizing contributions of scholars from racially minoritized groups and by promoting extractive and neocolonial work involving minoritized communities. I conclude by offering general principles that can serve as guides for fostering greater diversity, equity, and inclusion in university settings. These principles involve acknowledging present shortcomings, aligning the reward system to a broadened notion of excellence and to inclusion, and embracing creative alternatives.

There are currently millions of people with Alzheimer and other dementia-related conditions. Considering relatives and caregivers among others, this means additional millions of people affected. Despite expansive research also on the impact on welfare and health-care systems, the question of dementia from a democratic perspective has been neglected thus far. However, the current situation and projected developments require us to reflect on how participation and inclusion are fundamentally challenged for citizens with dementia. Consequently, the following explores pressing theoretical implications and emerging democratic deficits for societies where, constrained by conventional forms of participation, a rapidly increasing number of citizens are excluded from political processes. Furthermore, as will be illustrated, non-conventional and participatory-oriented concepts could even exacerbate rather than ameliorate inclusion and participation. Finally, I further hope to prompt reflection on possible avenues to enhancing representation and inclusion, ensuring ‘vote and voice’ to an ever growing group of citizens.

This study examines how performing diaspora philanthropy in the country of origin (Morocco) and the experience of integration and inclusion in the country of residence (Netherlands) influences the sense of belonging amongst cross-border diasporic philanthropists. The examination combines theories on migration, cross-border diasporic philanthropy and the sense of belonging. Based on a qualitative exploration of the perspectives and motives of individual cross-border diasporic philanthropists (N = 30), the analysis reveals a profile of cross-border diasporic philanthropists for whom country of residence serves as a positive reference, due to the constant experience of inclusion. They use their country of residence as a reference for social change in their country of origin. This generates a sense of belonging amongst diasporic philanthropists. The findings of this study contribute to the existing literature on the sense of belonging within diasporic communities and cross-border diasporic philanthropists, thereby enhancing understanding of motivations for diasporic philanthropy.

Japan combines demographic challenges of decreasing childbirths and an ageing population, yet political unwillingness to use immigration to ease labour market and caregiving shortages. Paying attention to gender, diversity, and inclusion would seem to be a ‘rational’ political choice. Although Prime Minister Abe (Abe II) understands the need to appear to be responding to Japanese women qua equal citizens, women remain more an ‘object’ of LDP policy than a substantive beneficiary. To improve his image, Abe has incorporated ‘Womenomics’ into his strategy of economic revitalisation; the result has been a rather incoherent blend of ‘equal participation’ and ‘women’s utilisation’. In 2016, the dearth of diversity and anti-feminist sentiment within Japanese politics continues to be mirrored in both passive and active ways within the discursive and institutional political climate, including within academia. It is largely premature to assume a shared normative or scientific commitment to inclusion and diversity in Japan. Japanese Political Science (JPS) is no exception, and this has obvious implications for what constitutes a ‘serious’ political issue worthy of study, what gets funded, who gets hired, and the extent to which critical debates within feminist political science (FSP) on gender, race, and diversity are taken seriously. In this article, I offer a preliminary evaluation of JPS in light of three indicators: the under-representation of women in Japanese academia generally and political science specifically; the access of FPS to large-scale government funding grants (2003–2013) and its impact on the discipline; and recent efforts by feminist political scientists in Tokyo to create a ‘home’ for debates on gender, diversity, and political representation. I conclude with a hopeful expectation that increasing numbers of political scientists in Japan will begin to genuinely problematise the dearth of diversity in Japanese politics and to approach this fundamental puzzle of Japanese democratisation with the intellectual curiosity that it deserves.

In western capitalist societies the state has become increasingly criticized for its inadequacy as a mechanism for distributing welfare inclusively. In particular, it has been criticized for its lack of flexibility in meeting the needs of increasingly plural populations, and for being too distant to enable service users to participate in the meeting of their welfare needs. Consequently, in many countries, including the United Kingdom, voluntary and community associations have been used to distribute welfare with the belief that it can remedy the defects of universal state provision. This paper suggests the voluntary and community sector can only achieve this if the organizations are democratically organized, ensuring participation from staff and users. Moreover, participation should be based around the norms of deliberative democracy. The paper argues that this form of participation will best ensure that the needs, preferences, and interests of subordinate groups are included in social policy delivery, due to the fostering of public reason.

People with disabilities in the US are now a health disparities population. Though 25% of US adults have a disability, only 5% of medical research grants are disability related. Knowledge about researchers’ perceived barriers to including people with disabilities in research has focused on a single disability/condition and thus has limited translational science applications. Our CTSA’s Disability as Difference: Reducing Researcher Roadblocks (D2/R3) project examined such roadblocks towards inclusion of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD). I/DDs are broad, heterogeneous conditions that originate in childhood, have varying impact and function, and persist throughout the lifespan. Strategies that mitigate their under-representation in research will likely have general applicability to all disabilities. In D2/R3’s first phase we conducted semi-structured interviews with translational science and I/DD program leaders at ten US institutions about perceived barriers and facilitators to including people with I/DD in research. Interviews were held with 25 individuals from partnering Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Centers, University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities, and Clinical and Translational Science Award programs. Collaborative thematic coding identified key themes as: attitudinal barriers (e.g., assumptions about consent capacity), logistical barriers (e.g., accommodation costs), health disparities, and generalizability concerns. Findings informed development of a survey based on Prosci’s ADKAR® model of change management’s five components: Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability and Reinforcement. Exclusion appears to stem from researchers’ lack of awareness, misconceptions, and knowledge gaps rather than insurmountable obstacles.