Search Results

< Back Creative publics: Deliberation in Canada and the story of MASS LBP Peter MacLeod, Principal, MASS LBP Wed 9 May 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Since its founding in 2007, MASS LBP has led some of Canada's most original and ambitious efforts to engage citizens in tackling tough policy choices. From privacy legislation to community planning to health policy, MASS has conducted more than 35 major reference panels, citizens’ assemblies and commissions involving more than 1500 Canadians, and reaching more than 300,000 households. Today, MASS is an internationally recognised leader in the design and delivery of deliberative processes for government. About the speaker Peter MacLeod is the founder and principal of MASS LBP, and one of Canada's leading experts in public engagement and deliberative democracy. He is a former researcher at Britain's Demos think tank, and a long-time friend to Denmark's Kaospilots, a school for business design and social innovation. He writes and speaks frequently about the citizen's experience of the state, the importance of public imagination, and the future of responsible government. He currently serves on the board of Tides Canada, a national environmental charity, and chairs Toronto's Wellesley Institute, a leading think tank dedicated to improving health equity and the social determinants of health. He also lectures in the politics and governance department at Ryerson University. Previous Next

< Back Olivia Mendoza has received the prestigious Deliberative Democracy PhD Scholarship ​ ​ This semester we are excited to welcome a new PhD student, Olivia Mendoza, to the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. Olivia is the recipient of the prestigious Deliberative Democracy PhD Scholarship offered to students aiming to specialise in one of the core research areas of the Centre. Olivia's PhD project advances the Centre's research focus on theory and methods of deliberative democracy . It lies at the intersection of feminist philosophy and democratic theory focusing particularly on the role of emotions in public deliberation. Olivia's research is on ethics, feminist, and socio-political philosophy, with focus on emotions and social justice. She will investigate the role of emotions in the context of online political discussions in the Philippines. More specifically, she unpacks how emotions such as hate, resentment, or anger shape the dynamics of political participation and deliberation leading to exclusions, marginalization, illegitimate decision-making, or harms in the affective level. Prior to joining the Centre, Olivia was an Assistant Professor of Philosophy in the University of the Philippines Baguio (UP), where she taught courses on ethics and the history of philosophy and the social sciences. Her most recent work, "Emotions and Filipino Resilience," is forthcoming in Routledge, and is part of a collection of works of Filipino philosophers. She was also recently awarded the 'One UP Faculty Grant Award' in Philosophy (Ethics) for Outstanding Teaching and Public Service in UP. Asked what she is most looking forward to about her PhD, Olivia said that she is keen to learn more from other scholars in the Centre and how they masterfully blend theory and practice and produce impactful works on deliberative democracy. She finds the Centre's collegial atmosphere very conducive to intellectual work: "My supervisory panel is composed of very fine scholars who are experts in their fields and who are generous in their mentorship." Olivia’s PhD project is supervised by Dr Hans Asenbaum , Dr Adele Webb and Professor John Dryzek .

< Back Deliberative Minipublics: Core Design Features Curato, N., Farrell D., Geißel, B., Grönlund, K., Mockler, P., Renwick, A., Rose, J., Setälä, M. and Suiter, J. 2021 , Bristol Policy Press ​ Summary Bringing together ten leading researchers in the field of deliberative democracy, this important book examines the features of a Deliberative Mini-Public (DMP) and considers how DMPs link into democratic systems. It examines the core design features of DMPs and their role in the broader policy process and takes stock of the characteristics that distinguish them from other forms of citizen participation. In doing so, the book offers valuable insights into the contributions that DMPs can make not only to the policy process, but also to the broader agenda of revitalising democracy in contemporary times. Read more Previous Next

< Back Practicing and Visualising Democratic Disagreements in the Classroom Investigator(s): Kei Nishiyama Funded by the Uehiro Foundation on Ethics and Education ($7,468.92), Project Team includes Kei Nishiyama Project Description The project aims to understand the role of democratic disagreements and deliberation in democratic education. Working with school teachers (National Institute for Technology, Tokyo College) in Japan, Kei will engage in action research by introducing and practicing well-designed deliberative activities in the classroom where students talk and think about controversial ethical, moral, and political questions (e.g. abortion, ethics of human enhancement, animal rights). The project considers the following questions: (1) What is the role of deep political, moral, ethical disagreement in democratic education? (2) When students are deeply divided as a result of deliberation, what sort of activities should be designed for enabling them to engage in "democratic" disagreement (rather than merely political, moral, ethical disagreements)?(3)How can meta-consensus mitigate students' deep disagreements and how can we visualise our meta-consensus?

< Back Monitoring Deliberative Integrity in Australia Investigator(s): Nicole Curato, Selen A. Ercan, John Dryzek and Simon Niemeyer Funded by the Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative (AU$ 202,156) Project Description This project aims to develop and apply the concept of deliberative integrity as a counterpart to more familiar ideas about electoral integrity in the evaluation of democratic processes. The project develops significant new knowledge about the ethical conduct of Australian citizen engagement processes through conceptual and methodological innovation to produce a Deliberative Integrity Monitoring Tool that will be applied to the expanding range of deliberative democratic innovations in Australia. More on this project: https://deliberativeintegrityproject.org

< Back Life in polis: Beyond hegemony and collective identity Henrik Bang, University of Canberra Tue 17 May 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract There is no abstract for this talk, but Henrik shared his paper presentation. Read here . About the speaker Henrik P. Bang is professor of Governance at IGPA. He studies innovations in practices of democracy and steering. From his recent works shall be mentioned: Foucault’s Political Challenge, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2015. Previous Next

< Back DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND DIGITAL PLATFORMS:JOHN GASTIL IN CONVERSATION WITH NARDINE ALNEMR This is the final seminar in our Media, Digital Communication, and Deliberative Democracy series. About this event Digital platforms provide new potentials and challenges to deliberative democracy. In his recent works, Professor John Gastil argues that we need to advance the potential of online deliberation by seeking commitment from political actors and increasing their responsiveness to citizens. Join us in this conversation to explore questions about using digital platforms in deliberative democracy, changes in deliberative thinking about the potential of online deliberation, and some of the persistent challenges such as inclusion. John Gastil (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison) is a Distinguished Professor in the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences and Political Science at the Pennsylvania State University, where he is senior scholar at the McCourtney Institute for Democracy. Gastil’s research focuses on the theory and practice of deliberative democracy. The National Science Foundation has supported his research on the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review, the Australian Citizens’ Parliament, and American juries. His most recent books are Hope for Democracy (Oxford, 2020) with Katherine R. Knobloch, Legislature by Lot (Verso, 2019) with Erik Olin Wright, and two novels published in 2020, including the near-future sci-fi Gray Matters about the interplay of Alzheimer's, American politics, and artificial intelligence. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

< Back A multi-level cluster analysis of young scholars' studies in deliberative democracy Francesco Veri, University of Canberra Tue 28 July 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Mutz, in 2008, criticized deliberative democracy for being an unfalsifiable theory. However since then, the theory has evolved into a systemic dimension, and a new generation of scholars has emerged. This presentation analyses the issue of theory falsifiability in young scholars' research through a holistic cluster analysis. First, I classified the type of researcher into a specific framework in order to provide qualitative and descriptive accounts of scholars’ methodologies. This allowed me to perform a two-step cluster analysis and identify patterns across cases associated with theory falsifiability. Finally, through coincidence analysis (CNA), I examined deliberative democracy in light of the systemic turn. As shown by the results, deliberative democracy needs a sophisticated analytical approach to individuate the site, define concepts and individuate causal relationships between such concepts. About the speaker Francesco Veri is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. He is currently working on the Australian Research Council's (ARC) project " A Meta-Study of Democratic Deliberation: Advancing Theory and Practice” led by Simon Niemeyer, Nicole Curato and John Dryzek. Previous Next

< Back 2024 Deliberative Democracy Summer School ​ ​ On 7-9 February, the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance (CDDGG) hosted the 2024 Deliberative Democracy Summer School at the Ann Harding Conference Centre, University of Canberra. Over the course of three days, more than 50 leading academics and talented PhD students from around the world delved into deliberative democracy’s most pressing issues, including global challenges on the climate emergency, pandemics and populism. The event provided a unique opportunity to discuss emerging themes, empirical findings and methodological innovations in deliberative democracy research, on a wide range of topics such as deliberative systems, mini-publics, social movements, transnational deliberation, non-human deliberation to feminist and decolonial deliberation. What metaphor best captures the state and future of Deliberative Democracy? Insights by participants and speakers. Visualised by Arran McKenna. "My experience during the Summer School was fantastic, both intellectually and personally. I was able to develop ideas and thoughts regarding my PhD research project. I also met so many wonderful new people and friends whom I'll be taking with me into the future," PhD student participant Maria Fernanda Diaz Vidal (University of Edinburgh) said. The event was generously supported by the Office of the Deputy Vice Chancellor for Research and Innovation and the Faculty of Business, Government and Law. Watch the summer school video here . Photo by David Beach

< Back Connecting to Congress during Covid-19: Political representation and two-way crisis communication Michael Neblo, Ohio State University Tue 25 May 2021 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Abstract As the COVID-19 crisis rapidly escalated in the United States, Congress needed to pivot from its normal representational activities to: 1) find ways to disseminate reliable information regarding the crisis, 2) find ways to gather relevant information about the rapidly evolving needs of their constituents to inform responsive legislation, and 3) encourage compliance with public health measures. We were in the field running experiments with Deliberative Town Halls (DTHs) when the pandemic hit. So we quickly adapted the structure of the standard DTH model to facilitate the kinds of interactions called for by the crisis: whereas pre-COVID-19 DTHs focused on a single issue with a single member of Congress, the COVID-19 events often featured a bipartisan pair of members, participating alongside subject matter experts. This structure vividly communicated bi-partisan messages regarding public health compliance, sent credible signals about the information being provided to constituents of both parties, and reassured them that normal partisan jousting would not interfere with the crafting policy to manage the urgent needs of the crisis. They also allowed members to gather the information necessary to develop policies that would be responsive to needs as articulated by their constituents. They also allowed constituents to express their opinions and feelings on COVID-19 related policies, Congress’s handling of the pandemic, and the personal struggles they had faced as the effects of the pandemic unfolded. N.B. – 1) This presentation is based on joint work with Abigail Kielty and Amy Lee; 2) the analyses are preliminary and largely descriptive at this point; and 3) I will begin the presentation with a more general overview of the research strategy behind the larger connecting to Congress project. About the speaker Michael Neblo is Professor of Political Science and (by courtesy) Philosophy, Communication, and Public Affairs & Director of the Institute for Democratic Engagement and Accountability (IDEA) at The Ohio State University. Neblo's research focuses on deliberative democracy and political psychology. His most recent book, Politics with the People: Building a Directly Representative Democracy develops and tests a new model of politics connecting citizens and elected officials to improve representative government. He has twice been invited to testify before the U.S. Congress about these findings. His first book, Deliberative Democracy between Theory and Practice cuts across the deadlock between supporters of deliberative theory and their empirical critics by focusing on the core goals of the larger deliberative political system. His work has appeared or is forthcoming in a wide range of academic journals across several fields, Neblo holds a PhD in political science from the University of Chicago and a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy and Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences (MMSS) from Northwestern University. He is currently an Andrew Carnegie Fellow. Previous Next

< Back Molly Scudder Associate About Molly Scudder specializes in democratic theory, especially practices of citizenship and the conditions of meaningfully democratic deliberation in contexts of deep difference. She is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Purdue University.

< Back Diasporas involved: How Jewish diaspora is involved in constitutional deliberations in Israel Shay Keinan, Australian National University Tue 2 June 2015 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract Diaspora studies has emerged as a distinct academic field in recent years, focusing on the relationship between dispersed ethnic populations and their countries of origin (“kin-states”). Democratic states face increasing challenges when interacting with these often large and influential groups: How and to what extent can a democracy accommodate the interests of non-citizens who nevertheless maintain a strong connection to the nation kin-state? In this paper I suggest that deliberative democratic theory can be useful in addressing such issues of diaspora involvement. Deliberative processes can enable people in the diaspora to affect the shaping of laws in their kin-states in ways other than voting. One way this can be done is by allowing diaspora representatives to participate in deliberations that take place in Constitutional Courts regarding constitutional matters that are of special relevance to diaspora populations. For concrete examples, I refer to illustrative cases from the Israeli Supreme Court, in which diaspora groups have been involved in deliberations regarding constitutional questions with direct impacts on the Jewish diaspora, their relationship with the state of Israel and the rights of Israel’s minorities. About the speaker Shay Keinan is a PhD candidate at the ANU College of Law, he holds an LLB degree (magna cum laude) from Tel Aviv University and an LLM degree from the University of Hamburg, Bologna University and the University of Manchester. Previous Next

< Back Defending education: A democratic role for courts in education policy Alexandra Oprea, Australian National University Tue 16 June 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract What should be the role of courts when it comes to defending education rights in democratic communities? Drawing on decades of education litigation in the US concerning integration, school finance, and special education, this paper provides a democratic theory of court involvement in education policy. Courts have a key democratic role in defending minority rights, particularly under non-ideal circumstances where political power is unequally distributed. However, overreliance on courts in education policy can have important democratic costs. This paper discusses four such costs worth considering from a democratic perspective: (1) policy effectiveness costs, (2) standardization costs, (3) democratic education costs; and (4) special interest costs. In constructing a democratic theory of courts, the paper therefore argues for legal strategies that minimize the relevant costs while protecting minority rights. Such an approach favors bottom-up approaches that focus on specific harms to individuals and groups without aiming directly at controlling the legislative agenda. About the speaker Alexandra Oprea is a lecturer in the School of Politics and International Relations at The Australian National University (ANU). Her research interests include education policy, collective decision-making, institutional design, and the history of political thought. Her work has appeared in a number of journals and edited volumes, including Review of Politics, Polity, Philosophical Perspectives, and Politics, Philosophy & Economics. Previous Next

< Back Understanding and Evaluating Deliberative Systems Investigator(s): 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.

Our Projects Deliberative Democracy Toolkit (NSW) Investigator(s): Prof. Selen A Ercan, Prof. Nicole Curato, Dr Hans Asenbaum, Dr Jordan McSwiney, and Dr Lucy Parry Read More Deliberative democracy in the face of democratic crisis: Contributions, dilemmas and the ways forward Investigator(s): Ricardo F. Mendonça, Camilo Aggio, Viktor Chagas, Selen Ercan, Viviane Freitas, Filipe Motta, Rayza Sarmento, Francisco Tavares Read More Who will Bury the Dead? Community Responses in Duterte’s Bloody War on Drugs Investigator(s): Nicole Curato, Jayeel Cornelio and Filomin Candaliza-Gutierrez Read More Research report: Towards a coherent energy transition: expanding renewable energy and reducing inequalities in Australia Investigator(s): Jonathan Pickering and Pierrick Chalaye Read More Democratic Resilience: The Public Sphere and Extremist Attacks Investigator(s): Selen A. Ercan, Jensen Sass, John Dryzek and Peter Balint Read More Protests and Political Engagement Investigator(s): Selen A. Ercan, Ricardo F. Mendonca, Umut Ozguc Read More Beyond Demagogues and Deplorables: Transforming populist rhetoric for participatory futures Investigator(s): Nicole Curato Read More Medical Research Future Fund Investigator(s): John Dryzek Read More Building Back Better: Participatory Governance In A Post-Haiyan World Investigator(s): Nicole Curato and April Porteria Read More Strongmen of Asia: Democratic bosses and how to understand them Investigator(s): Nicole Curato Read More Communication Across Difference In A Democracy: Australian Muslims And The Mainstream Investigator(s): Bora Kanra, John Dryzek, Selen A. Ercan, Alessandra Pecci Read More Deliberative Democracy in the Public Sphere: Achieving Deliberative Outcomes in Mass Publics Investigator(s): Simon Niemeyer, John Dryzek, Robert Goodin, Andrè Bächtiger, Maija Setålå, Julia Jennstål, Nicole Curato Read More 1 2 3 1 ... 1 2 3 ... 3

< Back Meeting great expectations through democratic innovations? Studying the effect of citizen involvement on democratic legitimacy Sofie Marien, University of Amsterdam / University of Leuven Tue 14 March 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract As a result of rising expectations, democratic political systems are confronted with a citizenry that fiercely questions the democratic legitimacy of their political system. Widespread distrust in political actors and institutions and the increasing popularity of populist and anti-establishment candidates and parties are just a few of the indications of this societal challenge. Interestingly, this discontent is by no means paralleled by eroding support for democratic principles as this support is stronger than ever before. Therefore, this discontent has frequently been interpreted as a demand for democratic innovations. In particular, the involvement of citizens in political decision-making processes through deliberative processes is often proposed as a potential solution to meet citizens’ expectations and to address this democratic legitimacy deficit. In this talk I will focus on a recent study that investigates the potential of citizen involvement in political decision-making processes through a deliberative democratic instrument to foster losers’ consent with unfavourable political decisions. About the speaker Sofie Marien is an Assistant Professor at the University of Amsterdam and the University of Leuven. She has a B.S. in Political Science and a P.h.D. in Social Sciences from the University of Leuven (Belgium). She was a visiting scholar at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in the Spring of 2016 and 2017. She is president of the Belgian Political Science Association VPW. Her substantive research interests include political trust, political engagement, deliberative democracy and political communication with a regional focus on Europe. To investigate these topics, she draws on cross-national surveys, panel surveys and experimental methods. Her studies appeared in journals such as Political Research Quarterly and European Journal of Political Research. Previous Next

< Back Activist inclusion in deliberative systems Anna Drake, University of Waterloo Tue 20 April 2021 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Deliberative democrats speak positively of activists’ systems-wide impact. This attention to activists and, more broadly, to an expansion of deliberative democracy’s inclusive capacity, underpins much of the recent deliberative systems work, where the aim is to underscore the ways that deliberative and decision-making bodies benefit from deeper inclusion, such as paying attention to activists. These benefits include a deeper pool of knowledge, increased legitimacy, and a deepening of deliberative democracy’s democratic aspects. From this vantage point, Black Lives Matter Toronto’s sit-in during the 2016 Pride parade—and the subsequent dialogue on, and responses to, BLMTO’s demands— appears to be an excellent case to support arguments for activists’ positive contributions to, and to the inclusive potential of, deliberative systems. However, I challenge this perspective by focussing on a deeper, structural problem that challenges deliberative systems’ success stories. In the case of BLMTO and the unfolding systems-level dialogue, what started as a critique of anti-Black racism ended up as a watered-down discussion of inclusion: one that largely avoided the topic of systemic anti-Black racism and structural violence. The core problem, I argue, is due to deliberative systems bringing activism into established processes that rest on deeply-ingrained structural racism (and sexism, etc.). The inclusion framework that deliberative systems rely upon fails to address the racist balance of power. As a result, this prevents the systems-level deliberation necessary to facilitate a meaningful exchange between BLMTO activists and those who continue to benefit from strictures of white supremacy and privilege. Despite deliberative systems’ good intentions, an inclusion framework undermines core values of moral & political equality that underpin normative deliberative democratic theory. About the speaker Anna Drake is an Assistant Professor in Political Science at the University of Waterloo. She works in the area of contemporary political theory, with a focus on democratic theory and practice, intersectional feminist politics, and activism. She is the author of Activism, Inclusion, and the Challenges of Deliberative Democracy (UBC Press, 2021) and has published in a number of journals, including Contemporary Political Theory and Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism. Previous Next

< Back Decision makers with a deliberative stance? The hidden world of public deliberation between ministers and their publics Carolyn Hendriks, Australian National University Tue 7 June 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In this seminar I will discuss a work-in-progress paper that I am currently co-authoring with Associate Professor Jennifer Lees Marshment, University of Auckland. Much of the democratic burden in deliberative democracy rests on effective communication taking place between potentially affected publics and those empowered to make decisions. Yet remarkably little is known about the way contemporary decision makers receive and make collective sense of multiple forms of public input. In our paper we prise open this ‘black box’ by discussing ground breaking empirical findings on how senior political decision makers themselves understand the relationship between public input and their work. An analysis over 50 interviews with former ministers and state secretaries in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand finds that political leaders based at the federal or national level view public input as an integral component of their work. Decision makers place a high premium on personal interactions with the public, such as conversations with individual citizens, or one-one-one exchanges with affected groups. In these informal interactions, decision makers connect with everyday people, hear ‘real world’ stories and learn how issues affect people’s lives. This represents a hidden world of public deliberation taking place between decision makers and their publics that has hitherto been hidden from debates in deliberative democracy. The paper considers what these findings imply for public deliberation, particularly the place of leaders and executive government in contemporary deliberative systems. Please find here the paper. About the speaker Carolyn M. Hendriks is an Associate Professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University. Her work examines democratic aspects of contemporary governance, particularly with respect to participation, deliberation, inclusion and representation. She has taught and published widely on democratic innovation, public deliberation, network governance and environmental politics. Carolyn is an appointed member of newDemocracy's Research Committee and sits on the editorial board of several international journals, including the European Journal of Political Research. Previous Next

< Back Carolyn Hendriks Former PhD student About Carolyn Hendriks' work examines democratic aspects of contemporary governance, particularly with respect to participation, deliberation, inclusion and representation. She has taught and published widely on democratic innovation, public deliberation, policy evaluation, network governance and environmental politics and is an Associate Professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University.

< Back Filipe Motta Associate About Filipe Motta is Brazilian journalist and researcher. His research looks at the constraints to public debate about mining activities in Minas Gerais State, Brazil, with a broad deliberative systems perspective, examining ways in which the dichotomy between conflict and deliberative democracy can be overcome in the context of an environmental conflict.