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/

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.

Adele Webb, Nardine Alnemr, Selen Ercan, John Dryzek, Michael Neblo, Hans Asenbaum < Back Connecting to Parliament: Creating authentic engagement between citizens and their elected representatives Project Team: Adele Webb, Nardine Alnemr, Selen Ercan, John Dryzek, Michael Neblo, Hans Asenbaum The world is rapidly changing. Parliaments have a vital role to play in not only recognising new challenges but enabling citizens to connect with and participate in policy-making processes that will impact their lives now and into the future. In amongst the gloomy picture for democracy worldwide, where citizen disengagement is pervasive and palpable, there are glimmers of hope. Instances of parliaments and legislatures finding new ways to augment traditional institutions of representation – exploring innovations in democracy to meaningfully engage with citizens between elections. Project Description Connecting to Parliament (C2P) is one of the CDDGG’s flagship initiatives, which aims to involve more Australians in the processes of parliament, by making democracy more deliberative. The project involves a series of deliberative engagements, including online deliberative town halls, which link a representative sample of constituents with their elected official in productive town hall conversations about the issues that are subject to parliamentary debate in Australia. Through these deliberative processes, parliamentarians gain the opportunity to deepen their understanding of their constituency’s diverse voices, considerations and concerns. Participants make connections with formal decision-makers and have the opportunity for their voice to be heard outside of elections. At the same time, the project provides the opportunity to expand our knowledge about the potential benefits and uses of deliberative democracy. The project builds on the insights gained from the successful Connecting to Congress project led by Professor Michael Neblo and his team at the Institute for Democratic Engagement and Accountability, Ohio State University. Connecting to Parliament replicates this work by designing and analyzing a series of deliberative forums with citizens and elected representatives. Through administering a range of Deliberative Town Halls (in-person, hybrid, and online) C2C aims to identify the modes of deliberative engagement that produce the greatest gains in engagement and increase positive aspects of civic behavior among diverse populations of citizens. Town Hall on Mitochondrial Donation In September 2020, Connecting to Parliament held two Deliberative Town Halls with Member of Parliament Andrew Leigh. These events focused on Mitochondrial Donation, a medical procedure – illegal at the time – that was set to undergo a conscience vote in Parliament. As a “conscience vote,” a relatively rare (occurring roughly once per term) type of vote where MP’s do not have to vote along party lines, Leigh MP was free to vote entirely at his discretion. Greeted with this unique opportunity, Andrew Leigh MP partnered with the Connecting to Parliament project to engage in a deliberative democracy exercise with his electorate. In two town hall meetings, one online and one face-to-face, a series of constituents from Leigh’s electorate of Fenner were randomly selected to weigh the issues surrounding mitochondrial donation. Prior to these events, Member of Parliament Leigh agreed that his vote would be guided by the conclusions of these Deliberative Town Halls. Overwhelmingly, participants in both town halls believed that Mitochondrial Donation should be made legal in Australia. In a statement on the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform Bill in late 2021, Leigh MP said that: “the overwhelming sentiment among those who attended the forum was to support mitochondrial donation, and I will be voting in favour of this bill.” The majority of the House of Representatives, including Leigh MP, voted in favor of the Bill on December 1, 2021. The Bill passed in the Senate on March 30, 2022; mitochondrial donation became legal in Australia starting October 2, 2022. More information on the Bill may be found here at the Parliament of Australia website . Town Hall on Young People and Australian Politics In August 2021, Connecting to Parliament held a Deliberative Town Hall with Member of Parliament Alicia Payne on the issue of increasing youth participation in politics. The focus of young people was chosen as there is an increasing generational gap between those in power and the nation’s youth; today, the average age of an Australian MP is 52. As the decisions these lawmakers make will have lasting effects for decades, including young people more in the political process will give them greater agency over those who make the decisions that will affect their futures. Partner With Us Connecting to Parliament is a collaborative process that seeks to establish innovative and substantive conversations between constituents and public officials on important policy issues. By working with our team, elected officials will: Co-design the goals for deliberative town halls Participate in 60–90-minute non-partisan, unscripted, third-party facilitated conversations with constituents Learn about informed public interests while opening new channels of communication to a broadly representative sample of the local population Work with academic institutions focused on the public good, which means that our processes are designed to be cost-effective Garner qualitative and quantitative information from participants on their experiences attending townhalls as well as their opinions about specific policy issues. For more information, contact Adele Webb at connecting2parliament@canberra.edu.au

Jordan McSwiney < Back The far-right challenge to democracy Project Team: Jordan McSwiney Project description This project examines the varied manifestations of the far right across political parties, social movements, and online platforms in contemporary democracies. It explores the ways far-right groups organise, mobilise, and spread their supremacist ideas. The project aims to generate insights into the challenges the far-right poses to democracy in Australia and abroad, including violent extremism, the undermining of democratic institutions and processes like elections, and the perpetuation (and normalisation) of racism and white supremacy. Project outputs McSwiney, J. (Forthcoming). Far-right political parties in Australia: Disorganisation and electoral failure . Routledge. McSwiney, J., & Sengul, K. (2023). Humour, ridicule, and the far right: Mainstreaming exclusion through online animation . Television and New Media . E-pub ahead of print. Jasser, G., McSwiney, J., Pertwee, E., & Zannettou, S. (2023). ‘ Welcome to #GabFam’: Far-right virtual community on Gab . New Media & Society , 25 (7), 1728–1745. Maher, H., Gunaydin, E., & McSwiney, J. (2022). Western civilizationism and white supremacy: The Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation . Patterns of Prejudice , 55 (4), 309-330. McSwiney, J. (2022). Organising Australian Far-Right Parties: Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and Fraser Anning’s Conservative National Party . Australian Journal of Political Science , 80 (1), 37-52. Public engagement (select list) Why it’s so hard to stop neo-Nazi public hate parade . The Age . 2023, November 12. Jenna Price: How do we stop misinformation spreading online? The Canberra Times . 2022, December 16. Far-right groups targeting young people, inquiry finds . The Age . 2022, August 30. Right-wing parties line up for make-or-break Victorian state election . The New Daily . 2022, 22 June. Dr Jordan McSwiney on One Nation & Western Civilisation . Yeah Nah Pasaran! 2022, 9 June.

John Dryzek, Lyn Carson, Simon Niemeyer, Janette Hartz-Karp, Ian Marsh, Luca Belgiorno-Nettis, Luisa Batalha, Nicole Curato < Back Creating And Analysing A Citizens' Parliament: Exploring The Public's Deliberative Capacity Project Team: John Dryzek, Lyn Carson, Simon Niemeyer, Janette Hartz-Karp, Ian Marsh, Luca Belgiorno-Nettis, Luisa Batalha, Nicole Curato Funded through Linkage Project (LP0882714) ($291,575), the Project Team includes: John Dryzek, Chief Investigator Lyn Carson, Chief Investigator Simon Niemeyer, Chief Investigator Janette Hartz-Karp, Chief Investigator Ian Marsh, Chief Investigator Luca Belgiorno-Nettis, Partner Investigator Luisa Batalha, Postdoctoral Research Fellow Nicole Curato, Postdoctoral Research Fellow Project Webpage http://www.citizensparliament.org.au/ Project Description The pioneering Australian Citizens’ Parliament was held in February 2009 in Old Parliament House, Canberra. The participants were 150 ordinary Australians, selected by stratified random sampling, one from each federal electoral district. They deliberated the question ‘How can Australia’s political system be strengthened to serve us better?’ The project generated a mountain of quantitative and qualitative data which is now being analysed. You can find out more by viewing the informational video of the process.

Simon Niemeyer < Back Deliberative democracy and climate change: building the foundations of an adaptive system Project Team: Simon Niemeyer Funded through Future Fellowship (FT110100871) ($629,090), Simon Niemeyer (Chief Investigator) Project Description This research seeks to develop an appropriate conception of deliberative democracy to identify those elements of democratic systems that impede the ability to identify and respond to the challenges posed by climate change and identify shortcomings in the theory of deliberative democracy and develop solutions. It does so using empirical evidence relating to the operation of deliberation in real world settings, including evidence from a sister ARC funded Discovery project on mechanisms for scaling up deliberation. As well as contributing to the theory of deliberative democracy and earth systems governance, the research will produce practical recommendations and contribute to public debate.

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.

Nicole Curato, Selen A. Ercan, John Dryzek and Simon Niemeyer < Back Monitoring Deliberative Integrity in Australia Project Team: 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

John S. Dryzek, Hayley Stevenson, Beibei Tang < Back Deliberative Global Governance Project Team: John S. Dryzek, Hayley Stevenson, Beibei Tang Funded through Federation Fellowship (FF0883522) ($1,638,730), the Project Team includes: · John S. Dryzek, Chief Investigator · Hayley Stevenson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow · Beibei Tang, Postdoctoral Research Fellow Project Description The project investigates democratisation of the international system, with special reference to climate change issues; as well as the democratisation of authoritarian systems, with special reference to China. Research results find application in the worldwide movement to put deliberative democracy into practice, be it in global politics, in newly democratic societies, or in the institutions of established democracies. The Federation Fellowship has three sub-projects: (1) Deliberative Democratization in China. In China, traditional democratization paths involving constitutionalism and party competition are obstructed or problematic. China has however allowed substantial deliberative innovation at the local level, in part to help cope with the social and environmental dislocation attending rapid economic growth. The broader intent is to develop a generalizable approach to democratization, emphasizing deliberative capacity. (2) The Deliberative Global Governance of Climate Change. In taking deliberative democracy to the global level, no topic is more important than climate change. The idea is to map the key components of the global deliberative system for the governance of climate change, and assess how effectively they are working in deliberative terms. To the extent this proves to be a deliberative system in disrepair, we need to develop ideas for realistic reform of the system. The international system currently suffers from a severe democratic deficit, but any strengthening of democracy at international and global levels will almost certainly look very different from familiar models found in liberal democratic states. (3) A Deliberative Global Citizens’ Assembly. Building on the successful Australian Citizens’ Parliament held in 2009, the idea is to explore the prospects for a global assembly composed of more or less randomly selected participants. This can be contrasted with existing proposals for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, which rely upon problematic combinations of state-nominated participants and a tortuous path to global elections.

John Dryzek, Jonathan Pickering, Jensen Sass, Ana Tanasoca, Wendy Conway-Lamb, Pierrick Chalaye < Back Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice And A Changing Earth System Project Team: John Dryzek, Jonathan Pickering, Jensen Sass, Ana Tanasoca, Wendy Conway-Lamb, Pierrick Chalaye Funded through Laureate Fellowship (FL140100154) ($2,616,265), the Project Team includes: John Dryzek, Chief Investigator Jonathan Pickering, Postdoctoral Research Fellow Jensen Sass, Postdoctoral Research Fellow Ana Tanasoca, Postdoctoral Research Fellow Wendy Conway-Lamb, PhD Candidate Pierrick Chalaye, PhD Candidate Project Description This research extends deliberative democracy to three key areas: global justice, environmental governance in the Anthropocene (where human activities influence the trajectory of the Earth system) and cultural variety. It develops deliberative analysis of global anti-poverty policy, of how environmental governance is configured, and how democracy can be advanced across different cultures and internationally. The knowledge generated will inform worldwide efforts to put deliberative democracy into practice, as well as promotion of global justice, effective environmental governance, and democratisation. The Laureate Fellowship has three sub-projects: (1) Deliberating in the Anthropocene . The Anthropocene is the emerging environmental epoch in which human activity is a major driver of a less stable and more chaotic Earth system, which can be contrasted with the unusual climatic stability of the past 10,000 years of the Holocene (in which human civilization arose). The implications are profound, because dominant institutions such as states and markets developed under unusually benign Holocene conditions. They are not fit for the Anthropocene. To date the response of social scientists has been limited, producing at most calls for strengthened global governance. This project explores a deliberative approach to the Anthropocene embodying ecological reflexivity and recognizing the active influence of the earth system itself. The project is both theoretical and empirical, with applications to issues such as the global governance of climate change, and biological diversity. (2) Deliberative Global Justice . This project develops an encounter between deliberative democracy and global justice, the two most prominent programs in political theory in the past decade and more, both now wrestling with problems that intersect in interesting ways as they encounter a recalcitrant global order. The two topics have become estranged in political theory, where democracy is treated as a matter of procedure, and justice a matter of substantive outcomes that cannot be guaranteed by any procedure. At the same time there is a widely-shared feeling among theorists that the two really do belong together. Amartya Sen argues that global justice requires democracy because in any real setting, multiple conceptions of justice can apply, and public reason will be needed to sort them out. Deliberative democracy can speak to this need. More importantly, without something like deliberative democracy, the standing of the agents necessary to put justice into practice is problematic, and the conditions of their interaction impoverished. This project combines political theory and an application to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development embodying the Sustainable Development Goals. (3) Deliberative Cultures . Deliberative democracy is often viewed as being most at home in the constitutional settings of Western liberal democracies, and when applied elsewhere (to the global political system or non-Western societies) this association often forms a baseline against which other practices are measured. Yet if deliberative democracy is to apply to global contexts – such as that defining global justice and the Anthropocene (see other projects) – it is going to involve people from many cultures, with different presuppositions about appropriate political communication. While deliberation manifests a universal human competence to reason collectively (and as such is more universal than, for example, voting), its character varies considerably across time and place. A fuller understanding of political deliberation requires studying diverse social and political contexts. Such studies promise new insight into the various forms deliberative practice can take and the conditions under which it can flourish. The research begins this line of inquiry by establishing an innovative encounter between an intersubjective account of culture and deliberative theory. This encounter will proceed initially through examination of studies in cultural sociology and anthropology that speak to deliberative concerns, before moving to empirical research. All this can be deployed in response to critics who allege a Eurocentric bias in deliberative democracy. Project Outputs (selected) John S. Dryzek and Jonathan Pickering, The Politics of the Anthropocene . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. André Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren, eds, The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ana Tansoca, The Ethics of Multiple Citizenship . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. Jensen Sass, “The Cryptonormative Swamp”, American Sociologist 49 (2018): 448-55. John S. Dryzek, “The Forum, the System, and the Polity: Three Varieties of Democratic Theory”, Political Theory 2017 . John S. Dryzek and Jonathan Pickering, “Deliberation as a Catalyst for Reflexive Environmental Governance”, Ecological Economics 131 (2017): 353-60. John S. Dryzek, “Can there be a Human Right to an Essentially Contested Concept? The Case of Democracy”, Journal of Politics 78 (2) (2016): 357-67. John S. Dryzek, “Institutions for the Anthropocene: Governance in a Changing Earth System”, British Journal of Political Science 46 (4) (2016): 937-56. John S. Dryzek, “Democratic Agents of Justice”, Journal of Political Philosophy 23 (4) (2015): 361-84. Jonathan Pickering, Frank Jotzo, and Peter J. Wood, “Splitting the Difference: Can the Global Climate Financing Effort be Shared Fairly if International Coordination Remains Limited?” Global Environmental Politics , forthcoming. Jonathan Pickering, “What Drives National Support for Multilateral Climate Finance? International and Domestic Influences on Australia’s Shifting Stance”, International Environmental Agreements 17 (1) 2017: 107-125. Ana Tanasoca, “Citizenship for Sale?: Neomedieval not just Neoliberal”, European Journal of Sociology 57 (1): 169-95. Jensen Sass, “Deliberative Ideals Across Diverse Cultures”, in Andre Bachtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren, eds, The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mark Bevir and Quinlan Bowman, “Qualitative Assessment of Deliberation”, in Andre Bachtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren, eds, The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy . Oxford: OUP. Public Engagement Podcast: Real Democracy Now! Bonus episodes on Deliberation, Culture, Context. Listen here . Public event: Reshaping Planetary Politics: Governance and Activism in the Anthropocene. Watch here .

Centre for Deliberative Democracy < Back Democracy Reimagined: Advancing Democratic Resilience and Renewal Project Team: Centre for Deliberative Democracy Democracy Reimagined: Advancing Democratic Resilience and Renewal 17 - 19 November 2025 | University of Canberra The Democracy Reimagined: Advancing Democratic Resilience and Renewal Conference is hosted by the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Australia and New Zealand at the University of Canberra, in collaboration with the Australian National University and the Australian Resilient Democracy Research and Data Network. As democracies across the globe contend with significant threats, including deepening polarisation, rising extremism, and the proliferation of mis- and disinformation, the urgency of strengthening democratic resilience has never been greater. This conference brings together an international community of scholars and practitioners to deepen and expand the conversation around democratic resilience. Through engaging theoretical, empirical, and practice-oriented perspectives, we aim to address critical challenges such as declining trust in democratic institutions, the resurgence of far-right and anti-democratic actors, polarisation, violent extremism, and the role of political institutions, democratic innovations, civil society, and grassroots movements in creating a more resilient democracy. We look forward to robust discussion on the assessment and implementation of democratic renewal across diverse contexts. The conference provides an opportunity to share practical strategies, forge new connections, and collectively contribute to renewed democratic scholarship and practice. Please see the attached program for further details: Democracy Reimagined Conference Program .pdf Download PDF • 9.73MB Any queries should be directed to Dr Emily Foley ( emily.foley@canberra.edu.au ). Conference Report A full summary of the conference proceedings, panel discussions, and key conclusions is available in the report below. Democracy Reimagined Conference Report .pdf Download PDF • 14.11MB

Julia Jennstål and Simon Niemeyer < Back The Deliberative Citizen: Who deliberates, when, why and how? Project Team: Julia Jennstål and Simon Niemeyer Funded by the Swedish Research Council ( $1,000.000) , the Project Team includes: Julia Jennstål, Chief Investigator Simon Niemeyer, Chief Investigator Project Description The aim of this project is to systematically address foundational questions regarding the possibilities for improving deliberation in civil society by developing an understanding of the citizen and the factors — psychological, situational, personal, structural, etc. — that lead them to engage in political deliberation. Project Outputs Niemeyer, S. J. ((Forthcoming. Conditional Acceptance)). Deliberation and Ecological Democracy: From Citizen to Global System. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning (Special Issue on Ecological Democracy). Niemeyer, S. J. (Forthcoming, Sched 2019). Knowledge and the deliberative stance in democratic systems: Harnessing scepticism of the self in governing global environmental change In J. Glückler, G. Herrigel, & M. Handke (Eds.), Knowledge for Governance (Vol. Knowledge and Space). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Jennstål, J. (2019). "Deliberation and Integrative Complexity: Assessing the Development of Deliberative Norms in Minipublics." Swiss Political Science Review 25(1): 64–83. Niemeyer, S. J., & Jennstål, J. (2018). Scaling Up Deliberative Effects: Applying Lessons of Mini-Publics. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, M. E. Warren, & J. J. Mansbridge (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy (pp. 329–347). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jennstål, J. (2018). "Deliberative Participation and Personality: The Effect of Traits, Situations and Motivation." European Political Science Review 10(3): 417-440. Niemeyer, S. J. (2017). Rebuilding Trust in Political Discourse: What deliberative democracy can tell us about how to deal with a changing world . Labor Club: ACT Labor Party. Niemeyer, S. J., & Jennstål, J. (2017). Knowledge and Socratic humility in deliberative systems: Harnessing scepticism of the self in governing global change . Paper presented at the 15th Interdisciplinary Symposium on Knowledge and Space: Knowledge for Governance, Studio Villa Bosch, Heidelberg. Niemeyer, S. J., & Jennstål, J. (2016). The Deliberative Democratic Inclusion of Future Generations. In A. Gosseries & I. González Ricoy (Eds.), Institutions for Future Generations . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jennstål, J. (2016). Deliberative Participation and Personality: The Effect of Traits, Situations and Motivation (1/2016). Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance Working Paper Series, University of Canberra Niemeyer, S. J., Curato, N., & Bächtiger, A. (2016). Assessing the deliberative capacity of democratic polities and the factors that contribute to it . Paper presented at the ECPR Joimt Sessions, Pisa.

Nicole Curato < Back Global Assembly on the Climate and Ecological Crisis Project Team: Nicole Curato We are the institutional lead for research and evaluation of the world’s first global assembly on the climate and ecological crisis. Mohammad Abdul-Hwas, Wendy Conway-Lamb and Nicole Curato are part of this pioneering research team.  2021 Report

John Dryzek < Back Medical Research Future Fund Project Team: John Dryzek Funded through Genomic Health Futures Mission Grant (2020-2022) Genome Editing: Formulating an Australian Community Response (AU$420,000), Project Team includes: John Dryzek Project Description