Search Results

< Back Genevieve Johnson Associate About Genevieve Fuji Johnson studies and teaches democratic theory, feminist political thought, interpretive approaches to policy analysis, and a range of current public policy issues. She is a Professor of Political Science at Simon Fraser University, in Burnaby, Canada.

< Back The Crisis of Democracy and the Science of Deliberation Dryzek, J.S., Bächtiger, A. et al 2019 , Science 363: 1144-46. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw2694 ​ Summary Read more Previous Next

< Back Friedel Marquardt Research Assistant About Friedel is a Research Assistant in the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance for the global research project Participedia’s Participatory Governance Cluster. She is also a PhD student at the University of Canberra, in the School of Politics, Economics and Society in the Business, Government and Law faculty. Dissertation Friedel’s PhD thesis considers whether social media is a viable platform for marginalised groups to engage with dominant narratives. She is specifically looking into the Black Lives Matter movement in Australia, which had a strong focus on First Nations deaths in custody, to try to understand if and to what extent this takes place. PhD Supervisors Mary Walsh (primary supervisor) Selen Ercan (secondary supervisor) Hans Asenbaum (secondary supervisor) Administration Cluster Coordinator, Participedia, 2021-present Scholarships and Prizes Research Training Program Stipend Scholarship (2021-2023), University of Canberra University Medal (2019), University of Canberra Key Publications Gagnon, J.P., Asenbaum, H., Fleuβ, D., Bassu, S., Guasti, P., Dean, R., Chalaye, P., Alnemr, N., Marquardt, F. & Weiss, A. (2021) The Marginalized Democracies of the World. Democratic Theory, 8(2), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3167/dt.2021.080201 Conference Presentations The Politics of Narrative in Media, Political Organisation and Participation (POP) APSA Standing Group Annual Workshop, 6-7 December 2022, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA. Australian Political Studies Association Annual Conference, 26-28 September 2022, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT. The Politics of Narrative in Media, Political Organisation and Participation (POP) APSA Standing Group Annual Workshop, 16-17 February 2022, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD. “First Nations in Contemporary Australia: Present, but Heard?”, Australian Political Studies Association Annual Conference, 20-22 September 2021, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, (online due to COVID restrictions). Teaching Tutor, Introduction to Politics and Government, 2022 – present Tutor and guest lecturer, Introduction to Public Policy, 2021 - present Public Engagement Levin, M., Parry, L., & Marquardt, F. (2022) ‘Best-Interests Decision Making,’ Just Participation Participedia Podcast, 16 August. Marquardt, F. (2022) ‘People’s participation in process design,’ in Risks and lessons from the deliberative wave. Edited by N. Curato. Deliberative Democracy Digest. 2 May. Marquardt, F. (2022) Who determines the practical meanings of democracy?. ECPR The Loop. 7 April. Marquardt, F. (2022) Who Controls the Narrative? The Power of Social Media, Murra Magazine. February. Marquardt, F. and Ercan, S.A. (2022) Deliberative Integrity Indicators: Some Insights from Participedia. Research Note #3, Deliberative Integrity Project. January.

< Back Janosch Pfeffer Associate About Janosch Pfeffer's work concerns Earth System Governance and the intersection of environmental governance and the systemic perspective in deliberative democracy. He is also affiliated to the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) in Potsdam.

< Back A Q study in waiting: Three hunting discourses Lucy Parry, University of Sheffield Mon 16 March 2015 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract Here I present some tentative findings from my pilot Q study which aims to map out the current discourses that exist around the hunting of wild mammals in the UK. I first provide an overview of Q methodology, before going on to outline how I approached the study. I will then present some initial interpretation of three anti-hunting discourses and return to my original aim of the study - to understand how animals are represented in hunting discourses and to understand the role of scientific knowledge in people's evaluation of hunting - and query whether it is possible to achieve these or even desirable in the context of Q. Relevant to this is the 'Q community's' particular approach to using the method which can pose challenges to researchers. Finally, I will ask the audience to inspect my Q statements and there will be an opportunity to participate in a Q sort for those who are interested. As this research is still in the developmental stages, feedback is most welcome and as such I advance an informal, discussion style seminar. About the speaker Lucy Parry is a PhD Student from the University of Sheffield, and is here to take part in the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance’s Summer School. Lucy will be here for slightly over 2 months, and to read more about her research topic and research interests please click on this link: http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/politics/research/phd/lucy-parry Previous Next

< Back Belgium: The rise of institutionalized mini-publics Julien Vrydagh, Vrije Universiteit Brussel and UCLouvain Tue 28 January 2020 11:00am-12pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In less than a year, Belgium has witnessed a large and sudden rise of institutionalized mini-publics. After the Ostbelgien model, the Regional Parliament of Brussels has institutionalized Citizens’ deliberative commissions, while multiple municipalities of Brussels are launching neighbourhood councils and a political party got elected based on a single promise to organize citizens’ assemblies. Belgium seems to become a leading laboratory of deliberative democracy and citizen participation. This ‘revolution’ is nonetheless surprising, for Belgium was known to be a copy-book example of neo-corporatism, whereby citizens tended to be excluded from political decision-making. How can we explain this increase? Is it a revolution or an incremental change? What do these new institutionalized mini-publics entail? What are their promises and pitfalls? This informative seminar will try to answer these questions by discussing dimension of this rise. First, I present its genesis and background. Examining Belgian mini-publics from 2001 until 2018, it provides both a descriptive analysis of what preceded and a narrative accounting for this expansion. Second, it explains in detail the design and competencies of four specific institutionalized mini-publics : a brief remainder of the Ostbelgien model; the Brussels’ Deliberative Commission (composed by elected representatives and randomly selected citizens); the atypical Citizens’ Assemblies organized by the political party Agora the neighbourhood mini-publics (sometimes combined with participatory budgets), which are mushrooming in Brussels’ municipalities. About the speaker Julien Vrydagh is a PhD student and a teaching assistant at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel and the UCLouvain. His PhD thesis investigates the conditions under which mini-publics influence public policy in Belgium. His other research interests include the link between the mini- and maxi-public, the integration of mini-publics in collaborative governance, and youth parliaments. Julien Vrydagh also provides the City of Brussels with advices on its randomly selected neighbourhood councils. Previous Next

< Back Expressive deliberation Jensen Sass, University of Canberra Tue 4 July 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Political theorists routinely distinguish between deliberative and non-deliberative political practices, but they have seldom examined the basis of this distinction - it is largely taken as self-evident, i.e., there are deliberative practices (which approximate the deliberative ideal) and that there are non-deliberative practices, including voting but also "everyday deeds", "direct action", and the repertoires of social movements. In this paper I suggest that there is a meaningful distinction to be drawn between deliberative and non-deliberative practices, but that it should be drawn differently. Many of the practices usually considered non-deliberative are in fact deliberative but in an expressive sense. Expressive deliberation relays normative and epistemic claims in an indirect and sometimes oblique fashion. About the speaker Jensen Sass is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. His work at the Centre examines the way social norms and cultural meanings shape the character of deliberation within different contexts. In addition to his work on deliberation, Jensen is undertaking a long-term project on the history of the Monsanto Company and its role in the development of agricultural biotechnology. Previous Next

< Back What prevents or promotes listening? A relational content analysis of reciprocity in online political discussions Katharina Esau, University of Dusseldorf Tue 11 September 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In recent years, governments have created non-conventional opportunities for participation in order to respond to a perceived crisis of democracy. Frequently, online tools are used to include large numbers of participants in deliberation processes. From the perspective of deliberative theories, analyzing, evaluating, and developing these participatory procedures requires the application of normative standards. While conceptualizations of deliberation vary in detail, most authors agree that deliberation is a demanding type of communication characterized by equality, rationality, reciprocity, and respect. Regarding structural equality or equality in terms of access, anyone affected should have the chance to participate regardless gender, ethnic, or social background. In the past, participation procedures repeatedly have fallen short in creating structural equality. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that once citizens find their way to a discursive space and speak, they at least then experience discursive equality in the form of listening. Against this normative background, “being listened to” can be considered one crucial outcome of successful deliberative procedures. However, most studies are focusing on discursive equality in terms of voice. In contrast to this, this presentation focuses on the distribution of listening in online political discussions and on factors that prevent or promote listening. About the speaker Katharina Esau is a PhD candidate in Communication Studies at the University of Düsseldorf and part of the NRW Graduate School for Online Participation and the Düsseldorf Institute for Internet and Democracy. Her research interests include digital democracy, online deliberation, online public sphere, and public opinion formation. Her PhD project deals with online deliberation processes created by state actors on the local and regional level of government. Combining relational content analysis and sequence analysis, she investigates the interrelations between argumentation, narration, expression of emotion, and humour and how these fundamental forms of communication foster or impede reciprocity, reflexivity and empathy in online discussions. The PhD project is supervised by Prof. Christiane Eilders. In Düsseldorf, Katharina lectures on democratic theory, public sphere theory, deliberation research, and deliberative design. Previous Next

< Back How to get away with murder? The everyday politics of justification in illiberal times Nicole Curato, University of Canberra Tue 16 October 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract This presentation enquires into the everyday politics of justification that legitimize President Rodrigo Duterte’s bloody war on drugs in the Philippines. Since the President took office in 2016, over 22,000 unsolved killings were documented that may be related to the antidrug campaign. Despite these figures, the drug war, as well as President Duterte continue to enjoy broad support from the public based on the latest polling data. What accounts for this phenomenon? Using in-depth interviews with families left behind by victims of summary executions, community leaders, public officials, and inmates jailed because of drug-related charges, this presentation unpacks the everyday logics of justification that provide discursive power to a controversial policy. It argues that denialism, complicity and deservingness are three logics that structure the ways in which reasons are articulated, negotiated, ignored, and silenced in the public sphere. The presentation concludes by reflecting on the politics of reason-giving during what is described to be illiberal times in one of Asia’s oldest democracies. It also re-examines the virtues of deliberative democracy in dark times. This seminar is co-presented by the Australian National University’s Philippines Project. Previous Next

< Back Janette Hartz-Karp Associate About Janette Hartz-Karp, professor, Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute Western Australia (WA) is a renowned practitioner, teacher and researcher in deliberative democracy. Janette was the co-designer and co-facilitator of Australia’s first Citizens’ Parliament in Canberra.

< Back Kimmo Gronlund Associate About Kimmo Grönlund is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Social Science Research Institute at Åbo Akademi University. He is also Director of The Future of Democracy – a Center of Excellence in public opinion research.

< Back Li-Chia Lo Associate About Li-Chia Lo has adopted the interpretivist approach to investigate the cross-cultural transformation of political ideas and he is curious about how introducing new ideas can trigger political participation and promote political communication. His broader areas of interest include critical theory, democratic theory, China studies, and Taiwan studies.

< Back From code to discourse: Social media and linkage mechanisms in the deliberative system Ben Lyons, University of Pennsylvania Tue 11 October 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Some researchers have critiqued the evaluation of online deliberation by Habermasian standards, instead employing expanded definitions. Implicitly, this approach is informed by a systemic view of deliberation: Not every discussion space needs to meet every criterion, but the spaces must be connected. However, these studies do not examine how forums might connect. And although deliberative theorists have begun highlighting the importance of such connections, they have been criticized for lacking specificity (Parkinson, 2016). To address these gaps, this presentation will focus on the core concept of linkage, with emphasis on mediated links. The potential for social media to serve as a ‘macro’ link between spheres is explored before concentrating on observable connections within and among deliberative exchanges on these platforms. I present an overview of digital media objects’ differing means of connection – from technical to discursive – and their capacities for deliberative virtues. About the speaker Ben Lyons is the Martin Fishbein Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center, where he works in the Science of Science Communication division. He researches political communication and public opinion, especially at their intersections with science, health, and the environment. His work has been published in outlets such as Mass Communication & Society, Environmental Communication, and Journal of Political Marketing. Previous Next

< Back Cracking the whip: The deliberative costs of strict party discipline Udit Bhatia, University of Oxford Tue 26 September 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract This paper explores how strict party discipline over legislators can harm a legislative assembly’s deliberative capacity. I begin by showing different ways in which control over legislators can be exercised, and why some warrant more attention than others. Next, I discuss three ways in which such control stifles the discursive autonomy of legislators. In the third section, I outline two ways in which deliberation in the context of legislatures can be understood: the classical and distributed approach. The fourth section argues that the stifling of discursive autonomy of legislators imposes costs on deliberation in parliament, whether this is viewed in the classical or the distributed sense. In the fifth section, I outline different approaches we might adopt to party discipline in order to minimise its deliberative costs. About the speaker Udit Bhatia is a doctoral candidate and lecturer (Lady Margaret Hall) at the University of Oxford. His research interests lie at the intersections of democratic theory, political representation and social epistemology. He is currently examining the exclusion of persons from democratic citizenship on the basis of epistemic inferiority. Previous Next

< Back The role of evidence, evidence-providers and the evidence-giving format in citizens' juries Jen Roberts, University of Strathclyde Tue 28 March 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Three citizens’ juries were run in different locations across Scotland in 2013/14, each with varying proximity to built and planned wind farms. One of the aims of this multi-disciplinary research project explored how deliberative processes, such as citizens’ juries, could be used to engage citizens and inform policy on public issues. One of the key lessons for designing, organizing and facilitating citizens’ juries that arose from the project concerned the provision of information. This includes issues surrounding witness selection, the format of evidence provision, the evidence itself, and how the witnesses were supported through the project. Although the juries were successful overall, it was felt that the jurors might have benefited from more support to make sense of the issues at hand and relevance to their task. To enhance the valuable outcomes from this unique project it is important to establish if, and how, these issues could be avoided or managed for future deliberative processes. Here, we revisit the process and consider how it could be improved so that contested evidence might be put forward in a way that is most useful (supportive, informative) to participants and most fair to the witnesses presenting the evidence. To inform our work, we draw on the experiences from other citizens’ juries that have been conducted on environmental or energy topics together with the learnings from the citizens’ juries on wind farms in Scotland project. We also interview the witnesses involved in the wind farms project to draw on their perspectives. These data are synthesised to examine the role of witnesses in presenting expert information, the processes of doing so, and how different roles or formats affect the experience of the witness and the audience. This enables us to recommend processes or approaches that will encourage a fair environment. About the speaker Jennifer Roberts is a pioneering young researcher linking energy systems with social and environmental risk. She uses her technical background in geoscience to address questions on the social and environmental impacts of energy developments, including CCS, unconventional gas, and onshore wind. Her work aims inform how a low-carbon energy system can be optimised and implemented in a way that is acceptable for the environment and society. On the strength of her genuinely interdisciplinary research she was awarded the Scottish Energy Researcher of the Year 2015 - Energy Infrastructure and Society category. Jen’s work is closely linked with Scotland’s Centre of Expertise on Climate Change (ClimateXChange), which works to provide independent advice, research and analysis on climate change & policy in Scotland, and she regularly contributes to policy briefs, public events, and training workshops. Jen was the Research Co-ordinator for a ClimateXChange research project that conducted citizens’ juries in three locations in Scotland on the topic of onshore wind farm development, to trial the deliberative method and also to find out the publics’ views on the issue. The research highlighted some of the complexities of involving experts in deliberative processes, which is a theme she continues to follow in her research. Previous Next

< Back Problems with liberal proceduralism in normative democratic theory Quinlan Bowman, University of Canberra Tue 2 May 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Reflection on lived experience seems to indicate that when we reason intelligently about how to craft a “democratic” process, we recognize the need to reason about procedures, virtues, and cultural practices in conjunction. And this would seem to suggest that the role of normative democratic theory should partly be to help democracy’s participants to engage in such reasoning. Yet, a close consideration of the prominent normative democratic theories of Robert Dahl, Joshua Cohen, and Jürgen Habermas reveals that none of these theorists has explicitly depicted the role of normative democratic theory in this way. Part of the explanation for this concerns the kind of “liberal proceduralism” that characterizes their respective theories. A related concern is that in each case it is either unclear how, if at all, the author views his theory as having emerged out of empirical inquiry or how he expects it to guide further such inquiry (or both). Correspondingly, none of these authors presents the “proper” status and function of normative democratic theory in the way that I believe we should: as emerging out of reflection on lived experience with the values of treating persons as free and as equal and as guiding further inquiry into the procedures, virtues, and cultural practices that, in some particular context, are most apt to promote the realization of those values. About the speaker I joined the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance as a Postdoctoral Fellow in 2016, after completing my PhD in Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. Currently, I am working on a book project, based on my PhD dissertation, entitled “Deliberative Democracy as Reflexive Social Inquiry.” The project juxtaposes selected aspects of the literature on deliberative democracy with ideas drawn from pragmatist approaches to ethics and social inquiry. Broadly speaking, pragmatists theorize by explicitly drawing on the resources provided to us by our actual practices and by reflecting on the consequences they have for actual lives. I deploy pragmatist ideas to develop a normative theory of the democratic process, meant as a contribution to a public philosophy for citizen participation in democratic governance under conditions of significant cultural diversity. The theory is developed through what I refer to as “anthropological-interpretive inquiry” into lived experiences with “treatment as free and equal in joint or collective decision-making.” The theory is basically a deliberative one; yet, my pragmatist orientation makes me critical of certain depictions of deliberative democracy. While at the Centre, I will also be collaborating with John Dryzek on his Australian Research Council Fellowship project, Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice and a Changing Earth System. In particular, we will be collaborating on the topic of “deliberative cultures.” Cognitive science suggests that deliberation manifests a universal human competence to reason collectively. Yet, the character of deliberation varies considerably across space and time. Cross-cultural studies of political deliberation thus promise to provide new insight into the various forms that deliberative practices can take and the various circumstances in which they can flourish. A third project, jointly undertaken with Mark Bevir at the University of California, Berkeley, is entitled “Innovations in Democratic Governance.” The book project, based on a previously published book chapter by the same name, explores how direct citizen participation can feature throughout the varied stages of the public policy cascade. It discusses a range of democratic innovations for public participation. Drawing on case studies from all over the world, the project investigates how public participation can operate at multiple geographical scales – ranging from the neighborhood level all the way up to the transnational – and illustrates how participation at different levels might be linked up. The discussion explores ways that citizens might craft their own rules for participation; monitor those rules and the policies they help generate; and cooperatively implement their own local policies. It also investigates ways in which the role of experts and officials might be transformed into one of largely supporting and facilitating public participation. Previous Next

Associates Albert Dzur Associate View Profile Andrew Knops Associate View Profile Carolyn Hendriks Associate and Former PhD Student View Profile Alexander Geisler Associate View Profile Baogang He Associate View Profile Catherine Clutton Associate View Profile Andre Bachtiger Associate View Profile Benjamin Lyons Associate View Profile Catherine Settle Associate View Profile Andreas Schaeffer Associate View Profile Bob Goodin Associate View Profile Dannica Fleuss Associate View Profile 1 2 3 4 5 1 ... 1 2 3 4 5 ... 5

New Books on Democracy Play Video Play Video 07:33 Book Drop S2E3: Mapping and Measuring Deliberation Part II Play Video Play Video 15:41 Book Drop S1E2: Mapping and Measuring Deliberation Play Video Play Video 13:05 Book Drop S1E1: Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy Play Video Play Video 08:15 Book Drop Series S2E4: Between Representation and Discourse Play Video Play Video 08:02 Book Drop Series S2E6: Cambridge Handbook of Deliberative Constitutionalism Play Video Play Video 10:00 Book Drop S1E6: Global Environmental Politics: Problems, Policy and Practice Play Video Play Video 11:27 Book Drop Series S2E5: Meaning and Action: Play Video Play Video 09:49 Book Drop S2E2: Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy Part II Play Video Play Video 12:10 Book Drop S1E5: Deliberative Systems in Theory and Practice Play Video Play Video 07:56 Book Drop S2E1: Power in Deliberative Democracy Play Video Play Video 08:19 Book Drop S1E4: Ethics of Multiple Citizenship Play Video Play Video 16:31 Book Drop S1E3: The Politics of the Anthropocene Play Video Play Video 13:20 Book Drop Series S3E1: Anthropocene Encounters Play Video Play Video 12:31 Book Drop Series S3E3: Deliberative Global Governance

< Back Public Sphere Deliberation (PSD) Index: Analyzing public deliberation through aggregated data Esha Madhavan, University of Sydney Tue 18 April 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The Public Sphere Deliberation (PSD) Index analyses speech text through content analysis and delivers aggregated scores useful for evaluating discussions in forums formed for citizen deliberation. The PSD Index approaches public deliberation through the application of the public sphere concept. A framework of normative conditions or criteria of public sphere has been developed through reviewing the works of some notable public sphere deliberation theorists and this was used to arrive at the two main components of the model. Each of these components consists of 21 and 14 indicators. The final score for each forum is derived through weighted additive aggregation standardized to 100-points scale. PSDI‘s strength lies in the design of the comprehensive instrument for content analysis (the indicator questions), yielding a highly replicable design. A multilevel analysis model has also been designed in order to adequately elaborate and engage the outcome of the research methods with the underlying theory. The PSD Index has been applied to measure the democratic potential of public sphere deliberation of forums formed for citizen deliberation during an important law making event in India called the ‘The Lokpal (Ombudsman)Bill’ as part of the ‘India against corruption’ movement during 2011. PSD Index could be the tool to evaluate the processes of deliberative democracy in terms of (i) maintaining of democratic safeguards during deliberative projects, (ii) enhancing the efficiency of the deliberative process along with validating its transparency and legitimacy values and (iii) the extent to which a process of deliberative decision making has been inclusive and decentralized. About the speaker Esha Madhavan investigates the public sphere potential of Internet in the context of India’s democratic politics. As a visiting fellow at the Sydney Democracy Network, University of Sydney, she is conducting research that focuses on the growing significance of citizen deliberation with shifting attention towards self-governance and civic problem solving, scrutiny of arbitrary power beyond the scope of elections, and institutional innovations within monitory democracy. Previous Next

< Back A humble ethos for democracy Christopher Hobson, Waseda University Tue 1 March 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In the quarter of a century since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the confidence surrounding democracy has been replaced with growing concerns about whether it is now in crisis. What is needed is an approach to democracy that avoids both the excessive optimism of the 1990s and the more corrosive pessimism that has emerged in recent years. Responding to this situation, this paper considers the old idea of humility, which has moved from virtue to vice to now seeming irrelevance. This may seem like a strange alternative to explore at a time when democracy is facing a growing array of serious challenges, especially given that humility has often been associated with self-abasement or accepting a lower position than one is due. Certainly such passivity does not cohere well with democracy, but if humility is understood in terms of an awareness of one’s limits and an acknowledgement of what has yet to be achieved, it has the potential to offer a powerful way of approaching democratic government. This paper explores the different meanings the idea has taken, and considers what a humble ethos for democracy might mean. It is suggested that humility entails reflection on one’s own standing, but this is done in reference to others. In this sense, there is a social dimension to humility, which can have productive consequences for democracy. In developing this approach, the paper will also consider recent arguments by Aikin and Clanton (2010) and Kyle Scott (2014) that humility plays a valuable role in facilitating deliberation. If this is indeed the case, humility may be an idea that deserves greater attention by deliberative democrats. About the speaker Christopher Hobson is an Assistant Professor in the School of Political Science and Economics, Waseda University (Japan). He has previously held positions at the United Nations University and Aberystwyth University, and has a Ph.D. in Political Science and International Relations from the Australian National University. His work lies at the intersection between democracy and international politics. He is the author of The Rise of Democracy: Revolution, War and Transformations in International Politics since 1776 (Edinburgh University Press, 2015), and has co-edited three books including The Conceptual Politics of Democracy Promotion (Routledge 2011). For more information, visit his website: http://christopherhobson.net or check his Twitter feed: @hobson_c Previous Next