Search Results

Bora Kanra, John Dryzek, Selen A. Ercan, Alessandra Pecci < Back Communication Across Difference In A Democracy: Australian Muslims And The Mainstream Project Team: Bora Kanra, John Dryzek, Selen A. Ercan, Alessandra Pecci Funded through a Discovery Project ($269,000), the Project Team includes: Bora Kanra, Chief Investigator John Dryzek, Chief Investigator Selen A. Ercan, Research Assistant Alessandra Pecci, Research Assistant Project Description Australian Muslims have been at the centre of media attention particularly since September the 11th. Even though they comprise no more than 1,5 per cent of the total population, the debate on the compatibility of Islamic and Western values has been very prominent. To date, this debate has focused little attention on the attitudes of Australian Muslims and how they perceive themselves in relation to Western values. This gap, often filled by negative stereotypes, has a wide range of implications in the area of contemporary governance and public policy. This research project studies the relationship between Islamic communities in Australia and the wider society in the context of ideas about cultural difference and democracy. The degree to which Australian Muslims develop a sense of belonging and social responsibility towards mainstream society is directly linked to the level of their inclusion as well as participation in Australia's multicultural scheme. This project aims to contribute to the possibilities to foster a more productive social and political relationship between Australian Muslims and the mainstream. The empirical substance consists of interviews with both Muslims and non-Muslims, with a view to mapping and analysing discourses about difference and democracy in Australia. The knowledge generated can then be deployed to identify exactly how communication across difference can be promoted in this kind of case. The research is informed by a theoretical perspective that highlights the role of social learning in deliberation in a diverse and democratic society. The project studies both ordinary citizens and opinion leaders in Islamic and non-Islamic communities. Project Outputs Kanra, Bora. (2016) Islam, democracy and dialogue in Turkey: deliberating in divided societies . Routledge. Dryzek, J. S., & Kanra, B. (2014). Muslims and the Mainstream in Australia: Polarisation or Engagement? Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 40(8), 1236-1253. Dryzek, J. S., & Kanra, B. (2014). Australian Muslims’ orientations to secular society: Empirical exploration of theoretical classifications. Journal of Sociology , 50(2), 182-198. Kanra, B. (2012). Binary deliberation: The role of social learning in divided societies. Journal of Public Deliberation , 8(1), Kanra, B. and Ercan, S.A. (2012) Negotiating difference in a Muslim society: A longitudinal study of Islamic and secular discourses in the Turkish public sphere. Digest of Middle East Studies , 21(1): 69-88.

Simon Niemeyer, John S. Dryzek, Nicole Curato, Andrè Bächtiger, Marina Lindell, Mark E. Warren, Hannah Barrowman, Francesco Veri, Nardine Alnemr < Back A Metastudy of Democratic Deliberation: Updating Theory and Practice Project Team: Simon Niemeyer, John S. Dryzek, Nicole Curato, Andrè Bächtiger, Marina Lindell, Mark E. Warren, Hannah Barrowman, Francesco Veri, Nardine Alnemr Funded through a Discovery Project (DP180103014) ($526,411), the Project Team includes: Simon Niemeyer, Chief Investigator John S. Dryzek, Chief Investigator Nicole Curato, Chief Investigator Andrè Bächtiger, Partner Investigator Marina Lindell, Partner Investigator Mark E. Warren, Partner Investigator Hannah Barrowman, Postdoctoral Research Fellow Francesco Veri, Postdoctoral Research Fellow Nardine Alnemr, PhD student Project Description The project combines a meta-study and comparative case study to develop a leading edge understanding of political deliberation by analysing and synthesising results from available studies of deliberation. It aims to reconcile conflicting findings and provide the first comprehensive, theoretically-grounded account of defensible claims about political deliberation. The project will compile the source material and findings in a publicly-available database to facilitate standardisation and enhancement of future research in the field. It will seek to settle important questions that remain among deliberative democrats and, more practically, facilitate avenues for democratic reform in an area where the need for renewal is increasingly pressing.

Pierrick Chalaye and Kei Nishiyama, together with the Centre’s Associate Wendy Russel < Back Deliberation in Schools Project Team: Pierrick Chalaye and Kei Nishiyama, together with the Centre’s Associate Wendy Russel Funded by The International Association for Public Participation, the Project Team includes: Kei Nishiyama Wendy Russell Pierrick Chalaye Project Description This project is a pilot program to introduce deliberation into public schools. Currently, students learn civic communication skills through debating. This may provide skills for the adversarial, win-at-all-cost, antagonistic style of current political debate, but we think our democracy will be strengthened by bringing a different set of skills to young people. The Deliberation in Schools program will build the capacity of school children to listen, reason, think, communicate and collaborate, so that they have the resources to engage productively as citizens in our democracy, both now and in the future. Classroom deliberation enables students to get a clearer understanding of issues in their society and everyday lives, find their own vocabulary to explain the issue at stake, and thereby cultivate their motivation for further engagement in and beyond school. The pilot begins with programs in two public schools in the ACT (a primary school and a secondary college). Each program involves a series of about 5 teaching sessions (approx. 2 hours each) over one term, focusing on topics selected from the Australian Curriculum and skills relating to the General Capabilities. The team will work with teachers to co-design the teaching sessions to fit with the curriculum and the learning needs of the class. It is anticipated that the deliberative approach being piloted will be used by teachers, but will also be delivered in schools by external practitioners/facilitators working with teachers. Based on our experiences and findings from the pilot, we will develop professional development (PD) resources aimed at teachers and engagement practitioners, which will provide guidance and resources to conduct similar programs in other schools and other settings. The first phase pilot and development of the PD resource is supported by the Australasian branch of the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2), through their Pitch for Practice program. A second phase of the pilot is planned that will extend the program to additional schools (including a high school), build on insights and outcomes of the first phase, and develop a collaborative research project. We are particularly interested in exploring student agency, the role of teachers, and how the program can help to empower students from marginalised groups. As well as providing skills consistent with curriculum requirements and building student agency and civic engagement, the Deliberation in Schools program will build the capacity of schools to govern and make decisions in a genuinely student-centred, inclusive way. It will also stimulate schools and school students to engage in political debates and decision-making, as students become motivated to write letters to politicians, make submissions, launch initiatives, and participate in community engagement activities. Beyond advocacy, this will help to build deep and enduring commitment and capacity for public participation and public deliberation. Project Outputs Russell, Wendy., Nishiyama, Kei., & Chalaye, Pierrick. (2019a) Deliberation in Ainslie School . Project Report submitted to International Association for Public Participation Australasia. Russell, Wendy., Nishiyama, Kei., & Chalaye, Pierrick. (2019b) Deliberation in Hawker College . Project Report submitted to International Association for Public Participation Australasia. Public Engagement Nishiyama, Kei., Russell, Wendy., Chalaye, Pierrick. (2019). What is the Deliberation in School pilot? What we learn? DeliberateACT (14 Feb). Nishiyama, Kei. (2018). Democratic education in multicultural societies. At Waseda University Department of Education Lifelong Education Course (15 Oct).

Hemant Ojha < Back Enhancing livelihoods from improved forest management in Nepal (EnLiFT 2) Project Team: Hemant Ojha The project “Enhancing livelihoods from improved forest management in Nepal (EnLiFT 2)”, is a forestry research project with funding assistance from the Government of Australia through the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). The project builds on the success and lessons of the 5-year project FST/2011/076, Enhancing livelihoods and food security from agro forestry and community forestry in Nepal, also known as the EnLiFT project. EnLiFT 2 runs from 2018-2023 aiming to enhance forest management practices in community forests and private land to improve livelihoods, social equity and reasearch paper help environmental impact in Nepal. It is implemented in Kavre and Lamjung Districts in Nepal. Project website: https://enliftnepal.org Project Linkedin Page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/enliftnepal/posts/

Hans Asenbaum, Damith Herath, Janie Busby Grant, Maleen Jayasuriya, Emanuela Savini, Harshith Ghanta, Friedel Marquardt, Isabella Roberts < Back Robots in the Room Project Team: Hans Asenbaum, Damith Herath, Janie Busby Grant, Maleen Jayasuriya, Emanuela Savini, Harshith Ghanta, Friedel Marquardt, Isabella Roberts Robots in the Room explores what happens when embodied artificial intelligence becomes a participant in democratic deliberation. As virtual assistants, chatbots, and social robots increasingly shape how people think, feel, and interact, their influence extends beyond private and workplace settings. Yet little is known about how humans perceive AI in explicitly democratic contexts – especially when AI is physically present in the room. This interdisciplinary project brings together expertise from political science, robotics, and psychology to investigate how human agency, trust, and social dynamics shift when a humanoid robot takes part in democratic forums. The research The exploratory workshops in November 2025 consisted of six small-group deliberations at the University of Canberra, involving 24 participants. In each session, four human participants were joined by a humanoid robot, Pepper, participating as a peer: articulating positions, responding to arguments, and engaging in discussion. The one-hour deliberations were moderated by a professional facilitator and designed to replicate key features of democratic forums. Participants took part in quantitative surveys both pre and post deliberation. In addition, after each session participants took part in qualitative interviews reflecting on their experience and considering what role – if any – robots should play in democratic processes. Public engagement On 15 November, the project hosted a lively public event that examined the promises and challenges of incorporating AI into democratic spaces. Discussion explored a range of topics: from the ethics of robot participation to broader debates around robot personhood in civic and democratic contexts. The project team also shared early findings: humans can form emotional bonds with robots, that the presence of AI can shape group dynamics, and that these developments raise important questions about agency, legitimacy, and representation. The panel included Dr Hans Asenbaum, Dr Damith Herath, Dr Nadine Alnemr, Pepper the robot, supported by Dr Maleen Jayasuriya and was facilitated by Dr Emanuela Savini. Publications Herath, D., Asenbaum, H., Busby Grant, J., Jayasuriya, M., Savini, E., Ghanta, H. (2026). Robots in the Room: A Qualitative Exploration of Democratic Agency and AI-augmented Deliberations. Human-Robot Interaction Conference 2026 More to follow.

John S. Dryzek, Simon Niemeyer, Selen A. Ercan < Back Micropolitics of Deliberation Project Team: John S. Dryzek, Simon Niemeyer, Selen A. Ercan Funded through Discovery Project (DP0558573) ($365,000), the Project Team includes: John Dryzek, Chief Investigator Simon Niemeyer, Chief Investigator Selen A. Ercan, Research Assistant Project Description This project explores the nature of democratic deliberation with a view to improving theories of democracy and prospects for institutionalising the benefits ascribed to deliberative democracy. It aims to systematically address fundamental questions about what it means to deliberate using empirical investigation of actual deliberative process. The methods employed have been trialled with promising results and accepted as being consistent with normative deliberative theory. These involve both formal hypothesis testing and qualitative exploration of results to reveal insights about the process of deliberation. The findings will be used to re-examine theory and formulate recommendations for the instutionalisation of deliberative democracy in both Australian and international contexts.

Simon Niemeyer, John S. Dryzek, Nicole Curato, Andrè Bächtiger and Mark E. Warren < Back A Metastudy of Public Deliberation: Updating Theory and Practice Project Team: Simon Niemeyer, John S. Dryzek, Nicole Curato, Andrè Bächtiger and Mark E. Warren Funded through a Discovery Project (DP180103014) ($526,411), the Project Team includes: · Simon Niemeyer, Chief Investigator · John S. Dryzek, Chief Investigator · Nicole Curato, Chief Investigator · Andrè Bächtiger, Partner Investigator · Marina Lindell, Partner Investigator · Mark E. Warren, Partner Investigator · Hannah Barrowman, Postdoctoral Research Fellow · Francesco Veri, Postdoctoral Research Fellow · Nardine Alnemr, PhD student Project Description The project combines a meta-study and comparative case study to develop a leading edge understanding of political deliberation by analysing and synthesising results from available studies of deliberation. It aims to reconcile conflicting findings and provide the first comprehensive, theoretically-grounded account of defensible claims about political deliberation. The project will compile the source material and findings in a publicly-available database to facilitate standardisation and enhancement of future research in the field. It will seek to settle important questions that remain among deliberative democrats and, more practically, facilitate avenues for democratic reform in an area where the need for renewal is increasingly pressing.

Prof Ricardo F. Mendonça, A/Prof Hans Asenbaum, Prof Selen Ercan < Back The National Institute of Science and Technology in Digital Democracy Project Team: Prof Ricardo F. Mendonça, A/Prof Hans Asenbaum, Prof Selen Ercan The National Institute of Science and Technology in Digital Democracy (INCT.DD) is a Brazil-based research network dedicated to advancing research and practice in digital democracy and governance. The Centre for Deliberative Democracy is an international partner in this six-year initiative, funded from 2025 to 2030. Coordinated by Professor Wilson Gomes and Professor Ricardo F. Mendonça, who is also an Adjunct Professor at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy, the network brings together leading scholars and institutions working on digital democracy. It includes 26 Brazilian research laboratories, 23 international research centres, 20 graduate programs, 51 Brazilian researchers, and 36 international collaborators. Professors Selen Ercan and Hans Asenbaum contribute to this international collaboration through their research on deliberative democracy, democratic innovation, and the role of digital technologies in transforming democracy. INCT.DD undertakes comparative research, maps digital democracy initiatives, and develops evidence to inform the design and implementation of democratic innovations. The network also provides technical and scientific expertise to governments and public institutions, supports the development and evaluation of digital participation tools, and contributes to the design and implementation of digital democracy projects. Its work further includes developing evaluation frameworks aligned with international standards and delivering training for practitioners, public officials, and researchers working in governance and public administration. This collaboration strengthens the Centre's international research partnerships and contributes to comparative scholarship on how digital technologies are reshaping democratic participation and governance. More information about this project can be found here: https://inctdd.org/

Dr Emanuela Savini and Olive Mendoza < Back University Voice Panel for UC’s Social Cohesion Action Plan Project Team: Dr Emanuela Savini and Olive Mendoza The University of Canberra is developing a Social Cohesion Action Plan to strengthen belonging and safety across a community where experiences of identity and connection often differ and sometimes collide. Drawing on their diverse experiences and perspectives, the University Voice Panel will explore this central question: How can the University of Canberra become a place where everyone feels they belong, can express who they are, and connect safely across difference? Through deliberation on this question, panel members will identify actions that address real experiences and practical pathways toward greater connection across our diverse university community. Join the Conversation The Social Cohesion Action Plan is being built from the ground up - starting with you. We are currently at the broad consultation stage, gathering insights from across the entire UC community to inform the University Voice Panel's deliberations. Whether you have five minutes or want to commit to the full panel process, there's a way for you to contribute: Share your experience through our [Survey] – A short questionnaire exploring your experiences of belonging and connection at UC. Respond to the [Discussion Paper] – Engage with key themes and questions in depth through a written submission. Invite us to present at your meeting – We can come to your team, class, or group to facilitate a discussion and gather your collective insights. Email: Emanuela.Savini@canberra.edu.au Host a conversation with your network – Use thi s [Guide] to facilitate your own discussion with colleagues or peers, then share what emerged with us. Your contribution will directly inform the Panel's deliberation. Every perspective strengthens our understanding of what social cohesion means across different parts of university life. Be part of the University Voice Panel and directly influence recommendations! Social cohesion isn't built in isolation - it requires all of us. We're actively seeking students, academic and professional staff, and people who work across campus to join the University Voice Panel. Whether you're a first-year student, a researcher, a facilities team member, or a student services coordinator, you have a role to play in shaping what social cohesion means and looks like at UC. Panel members will meet several times between 18 March and 29 April to deliberate on the recommendations that will directly inform the Social Cohesion Action Plan . Student participants will receive a $200 voucher in recognition of their time and contribution. We need your voice at the table. Apply to join the panel. [Expression of Interest - Join the Panel] Survey and panel registration close 4 March What is the University Voice Panel? The University Voice Panel brings together 35-40 students, academic and professional staff, and partner organisations to develop the actions that will inform the University's Social Cohesion Action Plan. Panel members will meet several times between 18 March and 29 April to deliberate on the conditions that strengthen belonging and connection across our campus community. Following a deliberative engagement process, the University Voice Panel will give the University community space to explore these issues with care and depth. It brings people together to share experiences, weigh up trade-offs and consider the conditions that support cohesion across all parts of university life. The actions developed through the University Voice Panel will help inform a Social Cohesion Action Plan that reflects the needs, priorities and aspirations of the people who live, study and work at the University. You can find out more about this deliberative process in the [University Voice Panel Guide] . Want More Information? Reach out to Dr. Emanuela Savini, Practice Lead, Centre for Deliberative Democracy at Emanuela.Savini@canberra.edu.au if you have any questions or would like to be kept updated about this project. Interested in Deliberative Engagement? Deliberative engagement is a participatory approach that brings people together to thoughtfully explore complex questions, learn from diverse perspectives, and collectively develop solutions. Rather than simply gathering individual opinions, it creates conditions for meaningful dialogue where participants can grapple with nuance, consider trade-offs, and build shared understanding across difference. You can find out more about this form of engagement in our [Guidebook] and explore our [Masterclasses] to deepen your understanding of deliberative practice. Acknowledgement We extend o ur deep gratitude to MosaicLab for supporting this project through their charitable giving. Their partnership has enabled us to design a deliberative process worthy of the complex questions at the heart of social cohesion.

Richard Rowland, Selen Ercan, David Killoren, and Lucy J Parry < Back Moral Disagreements: Philosophical and Practical Implications Project Team: Richard Rowland, Selen Ercan, David Killoren, and Lucy J Parry Funded by the Australian Catholic University, Project Team includes: Richard Rowland Selen Ercan David Killoren Lucy J Parry Project Description Widespread disagreement about moral issues is a salient feature of moral thought and discourse in contemporary pluralistic societies. This project explores the metaphysical, epistemological, and practical implications of moral disagreement and whether deep and fundamental moral disagreements can be overcome. The project involves the world’s first deliberative poll on a fundamental moral issue. In deliberative polls a large number – at least 200 – people with different views on political and policy issues come together to deliberate about a particular policy issue (such as, for instance, whether we should focus on responses to crime other than imprisonment). Participants are given information about the issue in question that has been rigorously vetted to ensure its neutrality. They deliberate with one another in small and larger groups about the issue in question for 1-2 days. Before the deliberation participants are anonymously polled about the issue that they will subsequently deliberate about. They are then anonymously polled again after the deliberation. Over 70 deliberative polls have been conducted on different policy issues in 24 different countries. And significantly more convergence in the relevant views of participants has been found after the two days of deliberation than before the two days of deliberation. Although over 70 deliberative polls have been conducted there has yet to be one on fundamental moral issues; all the polls thus far have concerned issues of policy and the probable consequences of various policies rather than the moral desirability, or rightness or wrongness of particular outcomes. In collaboration with members of Stanford University’s Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Canberra University’s Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance this project will conduct the first deliberative polls on fundamental moral issues. These polls will shed light on whether deliberation can help to overcome deep moral disagreement.

Nicole Curato < Back Strongmen of Asia: Democratic bosses and how to understand them Project Team: Nicole Curato Funded by the Norwegian Research Council (AU$1.8M via University of Oslo). Project Description This research project investigates a set of strongmen – including presently ruling, fledgling, or former strongmen – in order to compare and understand a political style increasingly dominant in South and Southeast Asia and which we preliminarily call ‘bossism’. These strongmen are explored through fieldwork, online ethnography and media analysis of original language sources. This project is funded by the Norwegian Research Council and administered by the University of Oslo. Nicole Curato is examining the case of the Philippines. Preliminary findings of her research are documented in Strongmen , Inc , published in Australian Foreign Affairs .

John S. Dryzek < Back Genome Editing: Formulating an Australian Community Response Project Team: John S. Dryzek

Ricardo F. Mendonça, Camilo Aggio, Viktor Chagas, Selen Ercan, Viviane Freitas, Filipe Motta, Rayza Sarmento, Francisco Tavares < Back Deliberative democracy in the face of democratic crisis: Contributions, dilemmas and the ways forward Project Team: Ricardo F. Mendonça, Camilo Aggio, Viktor Chagas, Selen Ercan, Viviane Freitas, Filipe Motta, Rayza Sarmento, Francisco Tavares Funded by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development ($15,800 via University of Minas Gerais) Project Description The project seeks to specify the challenges contemporary democracies face and advance the ways deliberative perspective can help address these challenges. Selen Ercan teams up once again with our associate Ricardo F. Mendonça to investigate the context of democratic crisis from a perspective of deliberative democracy.

Nicole Curato, Jayeel Cornelio and Filomin Candaliza-Gutierrez < Back Who will Bury the Dead? Community Responses in Duterte’s Bloody War on Drugs Project Team: Nicole Curato, Jayeel Cornelio and Filomin Candaliza-Gutierrez Funded by ANU-DFAT Philippines Project Small Research Grant ($14,000), the Project Team includes: Nicole Curato, Chief Investigator Jayeel S. Cornelio, Co-Investigator Filomin Candaliza-Gutierrez, Co-Investigator Bianca Ysabell Franco, Research Associate Erron Media, Research Associate Project Description This project aims to conduct an exploratory study that examines community responses to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s bloody war on drugs. It is envisioned to be the first phase of a longer-term collaborative project which chronicles the social and political legacies of the drug war on the community level. While international media and human rights groups have called attention to the alarming body counts in the first six months of Duterte’s administration, it is equally important to take a systematic look at the communities that have directly borne the costs of war. The team aims to conduct preliminary data gathering to map formal and informal networks that are created, disrupted or negotiated because of the war, as well as the possibilities and obstructions for grassroots participation to formulate inclusive and humane approaches in solving the problem of illegal drugs. The approach is ethnographic and action-oriented. A team of sociologists will closely observe two communities in Manila that have witnessed a spate of killings and identify spaces for reform. This project aims to generate preliminary insight into how the war has forged or broken social networks within communities, and how it affects formal and informal structures of governance. These insights are crucial to better understand not only the costs of the drug war, but also identify emerging spaces for critical citizenship and collective problem-solving. Academic Publications Cornelio, Jayeel and Medina, Erron (Forthcoming) ‘Christianity and Duterte’s War on Drugs in the Philippines,’ Journal of Politics , Religion, and Ideology. Curato, N. and Ong, J.C. (2018) ‘Who laughs at a rape joke? Crass politics and ethical responsiveness in Rodrigo Duterte’s Philippines,’ in Ethical Responsiveness and the Politics of Difference , T. Dreher and A. Mondal (eds.) New York: Palgrave. Curato, Nicole (2017) The Duterte Reader: Critical Essays in Rodrigo Duterte’s Early Presidency . Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Speaking Engagements Medina, Erron (2019) ‘Christianity and Duterte’s War on Drugs in the Philippines.’ Contemporary Identities in Southeast Asia: A public forum on youth, violence, and transnationalism, Ateneo de Manila University. February 15. Franco, Bianca Ysabelle (2019) ‘Women in the Shadows of Duterte’s Drug War.’ Philippine Sociological Society Socio Caravan, Central Mindanao University. January 18. Franco, Bianca Ysabelle (2019) ‘Women in the Shadows of Duterte’s Drug War.’ Philippine Sociological Society Socio Caravan, Bukidnon State University. January 17. Franco, Bianca Ysabelle (2018) ‘Women in the Shadows of Duterte’s Drug War.’ Philippine Sociological Society (PSS) Conference, Siquijor State College. October 5-6. Cornelio, Jayeel and Erron Medina (2018) ‘Christianity and Duterte’s War on Drugs in the Philippines.’ Third International Conference of the Ateneo Center for Asian Studies. August 24. Cornelio, Jayeel (2018) ‘Philippines under Duterte.’ Invited speaker, Sydney Southeast Asia Centre, University of Sydney. May 18. Cornelio, Jayeel (2018) ‘Christianity and Duterte's War on Drugs in the Philippines.’ Invited lecture, Southeast Asia Research Centre, City University of Hong Kong. April 24. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘Who laughs at a rape joke? Crass politics and ethical responsiveness in Rodrigo Duterte’s Philippines.’ Southeast Asia’s democratic recession: Understanding causes and consequences, Griffith Asia, Griffith University. December 11-12. Gutierrez, Filomin Candaliza (2018) ‘Penal Populism in the Philippines: The Rise of Violence in Duterte’s War on Drugs.’ Invited lecture, Kyoto Sangyo University, Kyoto, Japan. November 8. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘How do populists govern? Lessons from Rodrigo Duterte’s Philippines.’ Yale MacMillan Centre, Yale University. October 16. Gutierrez, Filomin Candaliza. (2017) ‘The Rise of Penal Populism and Violence under the Duterte Regime: Research as Response.’ International Sociological Association PhD Laboratory, the University of Adam Mickiewicz, Poznan, Poland. September 21. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘From Demagogues to Deplorables? Populist publics in Rodrigo Duterte’s Philippines.’ Invited speaker, Philippine Studies-Berlin, Humboldt University. June 26. Blogs and Op-eds Franco, Bianca Ysabelle (2018) ‘Women against women in Duterte’s drug war’ in BroadAgenda . December 11. Cornelio, Jayeel and Medina, Erron. ‘Duterte’s enduring popularity is not just a political choice—it is also religious’ in New Mandala . September 3. Franco, Bianca Ysabelle (2018) ‘Women in the shadows of Duterte’s drug war’ in Rappler.com . June 30. Cornelio, Jayeel (2018) ‘The New Normal’ in Rappler.com . January 23. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘The deeper dynamics of Duterte’s drug war’ in EastAsiaForum.org . September 8. Gutierrez, Filomin Candaliza (2017) ‘Duterte and Penal Populism: The Hypermasculinity of Crime Control in the Philippines’ in Discover Society.org . August 2. Cornelio, Jayeel (2017) ‘Collateral Damage’ in Rappler.com . August 22. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘Women in Duterte’s War on Drugs.’ BroadAgenda . March 1. Media Interviews Curato, Nicole (2019) Interview with David Astle. ABC Radio Melbourne and Victoria. January 31. Curato, Nicole (2018) Duterte’s Despotism. Podcast with Aufhebunga Bunga . November 7. Curato, Nicole (2018) #BabaeAko : Is President Duterte's behaviour sexist, or "taken out of context" in The Stream , Al Jazeera. June 6. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘Criticism of Rodrigo Duterte’s “war on drugs” grows after the death of a teenage boy.’ Interview at Radio National . August 23. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘Duterte refuses to step back from controversial war on drugs.’ Interview at ABC The World . July 24. Curato, Nicole. (2017) ‘Die moisten Toten lebten in Armut.’ Featured interview in Republik.ch . February 27. Curato, Nicole (2017) Interview with BBC’s Up All Night with Rod Sharpe . January 2.

Centre for Deliberative Democracy < Back Deliberative Engagement in Action Masterclass Series Project Team: Centre for Deliberative Democracy We design interactive masterclasses for public servants, engagement practitioners, and researchers seeking to deepen their skills in designing and delivering high-quality deliberative processes. Each session blends practical exercises, peer learning, and expert guidance to equip you with the tools, strategies, and confidence to make deliberation more inclusive, representative, and impactful.  Masterclass topics We've designed a suite of masterclasses on core topics in deliberative engagement, but we also work with organisations to create tailored sessions that address specific challenges or learning goals. Whether you choose one of our existing masterclasses or collaborate with us to design something bespoke, each session is adapted to suit your context and needs. Our core masterclass topics include: From invitation to inclusion: building representative deliberative spaces Representation lies at the heart of effective deliberation, but achieving it requires more than just assembling a group of people. This masterclass explores how representation can be meaningfully achieved in deliberative processes, from recruiting diverse participants to ensuring the voices of those not in the room are still heard. We’ll examine different strategies for inclusion, practical ways to incorporate varied perspectives, and approaches for integrating expert opinion without overshadowing community voices. Through case examples and collaborative exercises, participants will leave with a toolkit of methods to create deliberative spaces that are truly representative and inclusive.    By the end of this masterclass, participants will be able to:  Explore and apply diverse strategies for achieving meaningful, inclusive, and balanced representation in deliberative processes.   Apply strategies to ensure the voices of people not directly participating are meaningfully incorporated into deliberations.  Design recruitment and selection approaches that support diversity and inclusivity.  Integrate expert knowledge in ways that inform, without dominating, community perspectives.  Recognise and address barriers that limit participation from underrepresented groups.  Select and adapt methods to support inclusive discussion and equitable participation during deliberations.  Methods in focus: Crafting the Right deliberative process Different goals, contexts, and communities call for different deliberative methods, but how do you choose the right one? This interactive masterclass begins with an introduction to a “library” of deliberative engagement methods, exploring their purposes, strengths, and trade-offs. Participants will then take part in short, immersive deliberations to experience selected methods in action. In the second half of the day, participants will work in teams to design a deliberative process for a chosen scenario, selecting and adapting methods to suit the purpose and context. Expert facilitators will provide feedback on designs, offering practical insights and strategies participants can take back to their own work.    By the end of this masterclass, participants will be able to:  Compare a range of deliberative engagement methods and understand their respective purposes, strengths, and limitations.  Select appropriate methods to match different policy goals, contexts, and communities.  Experience and reflect on the dynamics of different deliberative formats through hands-on participation.  Adapt and combine methods to address practical considerations such as timeframes, resources, and participant needs.  Design a deliberative process that aligns with clear objectives and desired outcomes.  Critically assess a process design to ensure inclusivity, clarity, and effectiveness.  Registration Our 2026 masterclass series is coming soon, with sessions planned across multiple states. Want to be the first to know when registration opens? Email delibdem@canberra.edu.au to join our mailing list. What's Included Certificate of participation from the Centre for Deliberative Democracy, University of Canberra.  A take-home handbook with resources, links, and recommended readings.  An overview of a range of deliberative methods, provided in a handy reference PDF.  Interactive learning through small-group activities, scenario-based exercises, and opportunities to design and test processes.  Pre-reading to set the scene, plus optional articles and resources for ongoing learning after the session.  Catering, coffee, and a collaborative learning environment.    Who should attend These masterclasses are designed for:  Public servants and policy officers involved in community engagement or strategic planning.  Engagement practitioners working in government, non-profits, or consultancy.  Community leaders and advocates interested in strengthening participatory decision-making.  Researchers and students focused on democratic innovation or public policy.  Anyone looking to deepen their skills in designing and delivering inclusive, representative, and effective deliberative processes.    No prior experience with deliberative engagement is required, just an interest in creating meaningful spaces for public participation.  PAST MASTERCLASSES Deliberative Democracy in Action Masterclasses 14-16 May 2025 Effective community engagement starts with the right tools and approaches—and deliberation offers both. The Deliberative Democracy in Action Masterclasses offer a hands-on introduction to the principles and tools of deliberative engagement—an evidence-based approach that leads to more inclusive, constructive, and legitimate outcomes. Whether you're designing consultations, facilitating conversations, or shaping policy, these masterclasses will equip you with practical strategies to engage communities in ways that build trust and deliver impact. Through these sessions, you'll learn how to: Improve the quality of public engagement by creating spaces where participants feel heard, respected, and empowered to contribute. Broaden the reach of public engagement by designing inclusive processes that engage people from all walks of life—not just the usual voices. Balance diverse perspectives by exploring the trade-offs between competing values and interests. Bridge divisions and disagreements through meaningful dialogue and active listening. Drawing from real-world examples in Australia and around the world, the sessions explore fresh, practical approaches to deliberative engagement. Hosted by the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance — a world leader in the study of public participation — this series brings together expert thinkers and practitioners who are helping to reshape democracy for the better. You’ll also have the chance to connect with some of Australia’s leading experts in deliberative engagement and become part of our growing network of practitioners working to make public engagement more meaningful and effective. Participants will also receive a certificate from the Centre of Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. Full program here: Masterclass Programme .pdf Download PDF • 1.06MB

André Bächtiger, Nicole Curato, John Dryzek, Selen A. Ercan, Eda Keremoglu-Waibler, Simon Niemeyer and Kei Nishiyama < Back Understanding and Evaluating Deliberative Systems Project Team: André Bächtiger, Nicole Curato, John Dryzek, Selen A. Ercan, Eda Keremoglu-Waibler, Simon Niemeyer and Kei Nishiyama Funded by DAAD/German Academic Exchange Service and Universities Australia, the Project Team includes: André Bächtiger Nicole Curato John Dryzek Selen A. Ercan Eda Keremoglu-Waibler Simon Niemeyer Kei Nishiyama In recent years, deliberative democratic theory turned away from a focus on deliberation within small-scale forums, towards a focus on systems embracing multiple sites of deliberation and decision-making. The shift towards a systems approach enabled scholars to move beyond the limitations of focusing on mini-publics and other democratic innovations and instead think about the various ways in which deliberative activity is dispersed in various spaces of political action. The deliberative systems approach opens up a new way of thinking about deliberation, but also raises questions with respect to its practical application and empirical investigation. This project builds upon the existing joint projects of the project partners in this field and seeks to refine the methodological tools to empirically examine and compare the 'deliberative systems' in different political systems and across different policy areas. This project aims to: 1) develop a conceptual framework for assessing the deliberative democratic quality of contemporary political systems; 2) develop a mixed method for the analysis of deliberative systems (by combining the insights gained from qualitative and quantitative methods of analysing deliberation); 3) offer empirical application of these methods in the context of individual research projects of the project partners.

John Dryzek and Robert Goodin < Back The Theory and Practice of Deliberative Democracy Project Team: John Dryzek and Robert Goodin Funded through Discovery Project (DP0342795) ($223,547), the Project Team includes: John Dryzek Robert Goodin Christian Hunold Carolyn Hendriks Aviezer Tucker Project Description This project examined the relationship between deliberative innovations, especially citizen forums, and the larger political contexts in which they take place. Particular kinds of institutional innovation work out quite differently in different contexts. A comparative study of consensus conferences on genetically modified foods revealed sharp differences between the roles such forums play in Denmark (where they are integrated into policy making), the United States (where they are advocacy inputs from the margins of policy making), and France (where they are managed from the top down). A broader survey of cases also revealed systematic differences between the relatively 'promethean' position that policy makers are constrained to take, and the more 'precautionary' conclusions reached by reflective publics, causing problems for the deliberative legitimation of risk-related policy via citizen forums. A close look at Germany enabled systematic comparison of the virtues and problems of forums made up of, respectively, partisan stakeholders and non-partisan lay citizens. Another broad survey of cases looked at the variety of ways in which citizen forums, or 'mini-publics', can have an impact in larger political systems. All these empirical results can help inform the development of deliberative democratic theory, as well as the practice of deliberative innovation.

Simon Niemeyer, Will Steffen, Brendan Mackey, Janette Lindesay and Kersty Hobson < Back Social Adaptation to Climate Change in the Australian Public Sphere: A comparison of individual and group deliberative responses to scenarios of future climate change Project Team: Simon Niemeyer, Will Steffen, Brendan Mackey, Janette Lindesay and Kersty Hobson Funded by Discovery Project (DP0879092) ($378,500), the Project Team includes: Simon Niemeyer, Chief Investigator Will Steffen, Chief Investigator Brendan Mackey, Chief Investigator Janette Lindesay, Chief Investigator Kersty Hobson, Chief Investigator Project Description This project develops an understanding of Australia’s response to climate change and ways to improve adaptation from a governance perspective. An interdisciplinary team will construct and use original climate change scenarios to assess public responses through interviews, survey methods, contrasting individual responses with results of deliberative forums and follow up interviews. Significant developments in methods and concepts and understanding of adaptation will have an international audience.It will produce a series of regionally specific scenarios, statement of likely responses and role of institutional design and policy in improving adaptation.

Jonathan Pickering and Pierrick Chalaye < Back Research report: Towards a coherent energy transition: expanding renewable energy and reducing inequalities in Australia Project Team: Jonathan Pickering and Pierrick Chalaye In this report, Jonathan Pickering and Pierrick Chalaye explore the synergies and tensions between the expansion of renewable energy and efforts to reduce inequalities in Australia . Read and download the report here: Energy transition report (Dec 2023)

Claudia Benham, Simon Niemeyer and Hannah Barrowman < Back Great Barrier Reef Futures Citizens’ Jury Project Team: Claudia Benham, Simon Niemeyer and Hannah Barrowman Funded through James Cook University, the Project Team includes: Claudia Benham Simon Niemeyer Hannah Barrowman Project Description Simon Niemeyer and Hannah Barrowman are collaborating with Claudia Benham (James Cook University) in a project trialling deliberative engagement on the future of the Great Barrier Reef. The three-day Citizens’ Jury examines issues of reef management and regional economic development in the context of climate change.