Search Results

< 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 Power in Deliberative Democracy: Norms, Forums, Systems Nicole Curato, Marit Hammond and John B. Min 2019 , Palgrave Summary Deliberative democracy is an embattled political project. It is accused of political naiveté for it only talks about power without taking power. Others, meanwhile, take issue with deliberative democracy’s dominance in the field of democratic theory and practice. An industry of consultants, facilitators, and experts of deliberative forums has grown over the past decades, suggesting that the field has benefited from a broken political system. This book is inspired by these accusations. It argues that deliberative democracy’s tense relationship with power is not a pathology but constitutive of deliberative practice. Deliberative democracy gains relevance when it navigates complex relations of power in modern societies, learns from its mistakes, remains epistemically humble but not politically meek. These arguments are situated in three facets of deliberative democracy—norms, forums, and systems—and concludes by applying these ideas to three of the most pressing issues in contemporary times—post-truth politics, populism, and illiberalism. Read more Previous Next

< Back When deliberative democracy travels to China: An example of cultural exceptionalism Li-chia Lo, University of Melbourne Tue 7 February 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract As Edward Said elaborates in his Travelling Theory, theory is like human beings who travel from its birthplace to other foreign places. This is where the meaning of theory begins to transform, and Said’s work points to a new direction of investigating the transcultural transformation of knowledge when theory is disseminated in our globalised world. By following this line of thinking, the development of deliberative democracy in China offers an excellent example to review how the actual contexts transform the meaning and implication of deliberative democracy. Engaging with the issue of translation and its related contexts, the development of deliberative democracy in China is deeply connected with its culture, institution, and socio-political traditions. Also, the background of introducing deliberative democracy to China is also tightly bridged with the studies of democratization. The double movements between the local contexts and the universal trend of democratization form the basic theme of deliberative democracy in China. Deliberative democracy in China is therefore, struggled between universalism and exceptionalism. By making use of Giorgio Agamben’s concepts of example and exception, I will go into details about why and how the development of deliberative democracy in China is heading toward a cultural exceptionalism rather than embracing the universalism prescribed in the normative goal of deliberative democracy. About the speaker Li-chia Lo is a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Melbourne. His doctoral thesis is about deliberative democracy and participatory budgeting in China. He is particularly interested in formations of related knowledge and local experiments in Chinese cities. Previous Next

Postdoctoral Research Fellow < Back Hayley Stevenson Postdoctoral Research Fellow About Hayley Stevenson's principal research interests include: global environmental politics and climate change, global civil society, legitimacy in international relations, and deliberative global governance. She is a Reader in Politics and International Relations at the University of Sheffield.

< Back Revitalising intra-party democracy through digital democratic innovations: The case of Danish political party Alternativet Nikolai Gad, Newcastle University Tue 3 July 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The Danish political party Alternativet constitutes a recent example of an emerging political party that claims to promote and practice new and inclusive ways of doing politics, experimenting with digital technologies for this purpose. In this respect, they share many characteristics with other emerging, European political parties, including the Pirate Parties in Germany, Iceland and elsewhere, Podemos in Spain, and M5S in Italy. Similarly, to these parties, Alternativet also experienced electoral success relatively quickly and has been represented in parliament since 2015. Thus, Alternativet, like similar emerging parties, is an attempt to combine democratic innovations with party politics and traditional political institutions in liberal representative democracies. This is interesting considering how democratic innovations are often conceptualised in contrast to classic representative political institutions, and these parties’ potential ability to provide consequentiality to citizen participation. In my PhD, I explore how digital democratic innovations are used in Alternativet, to involve members and supporters directly in intra-party policy formation and decision-making. Based on semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in Alternativet, I identify four different models of intra-party democracy promoted by the party elite; each with their own justifications for and aims of involving people in party politics. These include an aggregative crowd sourcing model, a participatory DIY model, a deliberative model, and a more traditional delegation model. I theorise that different digital technologies utilised by the party, each cater for different models of intra-party democracy, and test this through a membership survey. About the speaker Nikolai Gad is a RCUK (Research Council UK) funded PhD candidate at Newcastle University, where he studies the role of digital technologies in emerging European political parties, that claim to re-invent how to “do politics” from the bottom up. Here, he is based at the Centre for Doctoral Training in Digital Civics based at the university’s Open Lab, from where he also earned a Master degree in preparation for the PhD. Additionally, he is part of the School of Geography, Sociology and Politics at Newcastle University, and he holds a BSc degree in Political Science from the University of Copenhagen, and an MSc degree in Digital Design and Communication from the IT-University of Copenhagen. Previous Next

< Back Luisa Batalha Associate About Luisa Batalha's work examines themes related to social identity and deliberative democracy, in addition to research on multiculturalism and prejudice, and the psychology of climate change. Luisa works at the Department of Psychology at the ANU and has conducted quantitative analysis on the Australian Citizens' Parliament.

< Back Deliberative andragogy: The role of education in deliberative democracy Timothy J. Shaffer, Kansas State University Tue 21 July 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract As we think about public discussion shaping political decisions, the role of education plays a part in shaping how people come to think about complex issues and the place of deliberative democratic engagement in public forums, mini-publics, and the like. Today, there is a growing literature exploring deliberative pedagogy—teaching and learning for democratic engagement in formal and non-formal settings such as universities, schools, and community-based settings. While the language does not necessarily denote these distinctions, there is a philosophical difference between pedagogy and andragogy—the education of children and the education of adults—as it influences and shapes the way in which we think about education in democratic practice in multiple settings. This talk will make an argument for why we should think about deliberative andragogy as an impactful way to think about the role of education and why we should consider how this conceptual approach to civic learning offers an important perspective on expertise and lay knowledge in deliberative democracy. About the speaker As an interdisciplinary scholar and practitioner of deliberative democracy, civic education, and group communication, Dr. Timothy J. Shaffer focuses on the advancement of democratic practices by focusing on the role of civic professionals in institutional settings such as higher education, local government, and non-governmental organizations in relationship with diverse communities. Dr. Shaffer is the editor of Deliberative Pedagogy: Teaching and Learning for Democratic Engagement (Michigan State University Press, 2017), Jumping into Civic Life: Stories of Public Work from Extension Professionals (Kettering Foundation Press, 2018), Agri-Culture and Future of Farming: An Interactivity Foundation Discussion Guidebook (Interactivity Foundation, 2018), A Crisis of Civility? Political Discourse and Its Discontents (Routledge, 2019), and Creating Space for Democracy: A Primer on Dialogue and Deliberation in Higher Education (Stylus, 2019). He has published dozens of articles and book chapters in academic publications; presents and engages diverse public audiences through radio, TV, and print; and offers workshops and training to professionals in universities, non-profit organizations, government agencies, and with legislative bodies. Dr. Shaffer currently serves an associate professor in the Department of Communication Studies and as director of the Institute for Civic Discourse and Democracy at Kansas State University. He is also principal research specialist with the National Institute for Civil Discourse at the University of Arizona. Connected to these efforts, Shaffer serves as the associate editor of the Journal of Deliberative Democracy and as a country expert on deliberative democracy in the United States with the Varieties of Democracy project based at the University of Gothenburg. His research centers on the advancement of democratic practices through deliberative politics and civic engagement in higher education and other institutional and community settings. He received his B.A. in Theology and Philosophy from St. Bonaventure University, Master’s in Theology and Master’s in Public Administration from the University of Dayton, and his Ph.D. in Education (Adult and Extension Education, City and Regional Planning, and Community-Based Natural Resource Management) from Cornell University. Previous Next

< Back DEMOCRACY, CRISIS, RESILIENCE - IN CONVERSATION WITH PROFESSOR JEFFREY ALEXANDER ABSTRACT This conversation will focus the prospects of democracy in the context of current crisis characterised by waves of populist backlash; extremist attacks; the Capitol building imperiled; ever-worsening economic inequality; the insidious erosion of privacy; the epistemic collapse of the public sphere; the rise of a new form of techno-authoritarianism, ready for export. These crises are compounded by the practical challenges of averting climate collapse and ending a pandemic skillfully adapting to our best attempts at control. At stake are not only the institutional structures of democratic governance but the cultural structures which lend meaning and collective motivation to democratic self-governance. In this conversation with one of the world’s leading sociological theorists, we explore the cultural dimensions of crisis and the sources and prospects for democratic resilience. BIO Jeffrey C. Alexander is the Lillian Chavenson Saden Professor of Sociology at Yale University and Founder and, with Philip Smith, Co-Director of the Center for Cultural Sociology. Jeffrey Alexander works in the areas of theory, culture, and democratic politics. A leading exponent of the “strong program” in cultural sociology, he has investigated the cultural codes and narratives that inform diverse areas of social life. His recent work has tackled question of crisis, radicalism, and solidarity in democratic politics in the United States and beyond. 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 Andre Bachtiger Associate About André Bächtiger's research focuses on deliberation and political communication, and understanding the preconditions and outcomes of high-quality deliberation in the contexts of representative institutions and mini-publics. He is Professor of Political Theory and Empirical Democracy Research at the University of Stuttgart.

< Back The Forum, the System, and the Polity: Three Varieties of Democratic Theory John S. Dryzek 2017 , Political Theory 45 (5): 610-36. Summary Read more Previous Next

< Back Spaces of hope: Theorizing hope in an imperfect yet open democratic system Antonin Lacelle-Webster, University of British Columbia Tue 27 April 2021 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Hope is a complex phenomenon. While it is a common fixture of political life, its meaning remains elusive, and many reject it as simply naïve or disconnected from “reality.” Despite its political salience, democratic theory has yet to engage with hope as a political concept. In this paper, I propose to explore its relation to democracy and democratic innovations through a focus on hope’s spatial and political features. I argue that the spaces that democracy holds open for individuals to act, think, and come together can not only mitigate the anxiety generated by the uncertainty of politics but also nurture hope. More precisely, deliberative spaces provide a setting that substantiates a collective understanding of hope distinct from its individual manifestations. As such, I ground the political problem of hope not in the nature of the hoped-for ends, but in the critical and imaginative process it requires from a collectivity. Drawing from Hannah Arendt’s faculty to make and keep promises, I contend that deliberative minipublics represent one example of a space in which such collective hopes can emerge. I use the French Citizens’ Convention on Climate to illustrate my argument and conclude by briefly discussing the subsequent challenge of sustaining this form of hope. About the speaker Antonin is a PhD candidate in political theory at the University of British Columbia. He is broadly interested in issues related to democratic theory, democratic innovations, the politics of hope and despair, and the political thought of Hannah Arendt. Previous Next

< Back Alexander Geisler Associate About Alexander Geisler's research interests are in the fields of deliberative democracy, political behaviour, the theory and practice of democratic innovations, and social cognition.

< Back Joachim Blatter Associate About Joachim Blatter has published extensively on cross-border institution building in Europe and North America, on environmental politics and on transformations of governance, citizenship and democracy. He is Professor of Political Science at the University of Lucerne (Switzerland).

< Back The institutionalization of deliberative democracy in European multi-level states: A comparative analysis of the experience of South Tyrol Elisabeth Alber, Institute for Comparative Federalism at Eurac Research in South Tyrol Tue 9 October 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The institutionalization of deliberative democracy is progressively experimented as a means to ameliorate decision-making processes at various levels of government, in Europe and worldwide. To what extent the recourse to ordinary citizens as co-creators properly meets the requirements of normative deliberative theory or, in the end, simply serves as an instrumental purpose, heavily depends on the context in which so-called democratic innovations take place. Empirical research shows that the increasing lack of trust in traditional channels of representative decision-making and the structural limits of direct democracy translate in what has been defined with the metaphor of the dam effect: the water tries to flow in alternative ways, and additional channels in decision-making processes have to be used so as not to waste too much water. Scholars of political and legal science, at different pace and with different foci, are increasingly paying attention to the proliferation of practices of deliberative democracy and looking for the development of sound criteria on how to define, classify and explain this phenomenon. Common to all attempts is the fact that practices of deliberative democracy go beyond the majoritarian rule of interest aggregation by voting and, in order to improve the quality of democracy itself, they propose tools that are centered on public reasoning among individuals (and groups). The institutionalization of such tools is increasingly discussed in academia, and among practitioners: both call – even though for different reasons – for an ever more articulated attention to the procedural design of deliberative processes and its impacts on both the organization of a deliberative process itself and the role of persons/groups, not only in the preparation and implementation phase of a deliberative process itself, but also when it comes to evaluating it (a phase which mostly is neglected). Moreover, when it comes to deliberative democracy in ethnically plural (divided) societies, the institutionalization of a deliberative democracy process faces additional challenges. Even though from a normative basis it can be argued that negotiations between groups (typical for consociational democracy arrangements) should be replaced by deliberation aiming at rendering any divided society more sustainable in the long run, in practice, the institutionalization of deliberative democracy does highlight (and eventually also increase) tensions, rather than reducing them. Therefore, particular attention has to be paid on the procedural aspects of processes of deliberative democracy. In this presentation, I firstly outline general principles of institutionalized deliberative democracy at subnational level in European federal and regional States. I present some examples and highlight how deliberative democracy processes came into being. Secondly, I briefly present an excursus on the geographical Alpine region and introduce South Tyrol and Trentino, two autonomous provinces that together form one out of five autonomous regions in Italy. Their autonomy arrangements developed over seven decades. While Trentino is predominantly Italian-speaking, South Tyrol is home to three language groups (German-, Italian- and Ladin-speakers, with German-speakers being the majority). The broad spectrum of complex regulations enshrined in South Tyrol’s autonomy statute (1972) establishes a model of consociational democracy that is characterized by cultural autonomy of the groups, a system of veto rights to defend each group’s vital interests, language parity between the groups, and ethnic proportionality ranging from the field of public employment to education and finances. Thirdly, my presentation aims at comparatively analyzing the two large-scaled deliberative processes that were undertaken from 2016-2018 in South Tyrol and Trentino. Ordinary citizens, organized civil society, stakeholders and politicians were asked to elaborate proposals for the amendment of the autonomous statute of the region Trentino-South Tyrol (which contains a few provisions applying to the regional level and two large distinct parts containing provisions applying to Trentino and South Tyrol). Both in its scope (revision of the basic law) and method (inclusiveness in territorial, intergenerational and socio-linguistic terms) the deliberative processes in Trentino and in South Tyrol are certainly a novum to the respective autonomous province, and in Italy as well as Europe. Especially in South Tyrol, the institutionalization of such a process challenged core principles of its autonomy. Using data from both processes, I examine key aspects of the institutionalization of each process by both referring to principles of normative deliberative theory and emerging literature on constitutional deliberative democracy/participatory constitution-making (a classification valid also for the two processes in Trentino and South Tyrol, because their basic law is of constitutional rank). About the speaker Elisabeth Alber is Senior Researcher, Leader of the Research Hub “Institutional Innovation and Participatory Democracy” and Academic Lead of the Eurac Federal Scholar in Residence Program at the Institute for Comparative Federalism at Eurac Research in South Tyrol, Italy (www.eurac.edu/sfere). She holds a PhD in Comparative Politics from the University of Innsbruck (Austria) and a degree in International Sciences and Diplomacy (Focus on Comparative Public Law) from the University of Turin (Italy). Her research interests are deliberative democracy and participatory constitution-making, comparative federalism and regionalism, decentralization and democratization processes (South-East Asia, especially Myanmar), ethno-linguistic minorities, territorial and personal autonomies. Her working languages are English, German and Italian. Elisabeth can be contacted at elisabeth.alber@eurac.edu and by phone at +39 0471 055 211 (office) or +39 339 32 98 604 (mobile). Her most recent publications in English are: (co-editor with F. Palermo) Federalism As Decision-Making: Changes in Structures, Procedures and Policies, Brill Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2015; (single authored peer-reviewed article) „South Tyrol’s Negotiated Autonomy“, in: Treatises and Documents - Journal for Ethnic Studies, 78, 2017, 41-58; (co-authored peer-reviewed article), “Autonomy Convention and Consulta: Deliberative Democracy in Subnational Minority Contexts“, in: ECMI et al. (eds.), European Yearbook of Minority Issues, Volume 16, Brill Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2018, 194-225. Previous Next

< Back When does deliberation occur, and how do you know you've found it? Simon Niemeyer, University of Canberra Tue 26 July 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract This presentation focusses on the question of how the process of deliberation takes place in mini public settings. In part it revisits the findings of Goodin and Niemeyer (2003) who found that most of the transformation takes place during the early phase of deliberation where information is acquired. The findings draw from a real-world deliberative event in Uppsala Sweden involving 60 participants considering options for addressing the issue of begging by internal EU migrants. As for Goodin and Niemeyer, transformation is measured in terms of position on underlying issues (attitudes/beliefs, values) at three stages (pre; mid, following information presentations; and post-deliberation), but in this case policy preferences were also surveyed permitting a wider range of analysis. The results are consistent with Goodin and Niemeyer, where the greatest transformation occurs during the early information phase of the event. However, another measure of transformation (intersubjective consistency) is most strongly affected during the later deliberation phase. The results raise the question in respect to what counts as deliberative transformation. They also suggest that deliberation from the individual perspective may involve a sequence whereby the initial opening of minds induces a higher level of receptiveness to information and transformation, which is followed by a subsequent process of reflection. To the extent that this model of internal deliberation is valid it potentially accounts for wildly conflicting results obtained from observing deliberation, as well as potential implications for understanding the possibility of both deliberation within and deliberation in mass settings. About the speaker Simon Niemeyer is an Australian Research Council (ARC) Future Fellow whose research covers the broad fields of deliberative democracy and environmental governance, particularly in respect to climate change. His focus is on the forces that shape public opinion and how this can be improved so that the expressed preference of the public better reflects their collective long-term interests. This has guided his research in the direction of exploring the nature of preference change during deliberative minipublics, which is now moving into a phase of understanding the possibility for deliberative preference formation in mass public settings and the institutional features that best facilitate deliberative democratic governance. Simon completed his PhD at the Australian National University and since then has been the recipient of a number of Australian Research Council Awards, including his current Future Fellowship. As well as his Future Fellowship he is the lead investigator on an ARC project concerning the possibilities for achieving mass public deliberation; a co-investigator on another ARC project on deliberative democracy and achieving just outcomes when adapting to climate change (with David Schlosberg), and a co-investigator on a Swedish Research Council project (with Julia Jennstål) concerning the nature of the deliberative person. He is currently co-located between the University of Uppsala and the University of Canberra while he develops international links for the next phase of research in assessing deliberativeness of national political settings. Previous Next

< Back Baogang He Associate About Baogang He has become widely known for his work in Chinese democratization and politics, in particular the deliberative politics in China. He is Alfred Deakin Professor and Chair in International Relations since 2005, at Deakin University, Australia.

< Back Karin Backstrand Associate About Karin Bäckstrand is a Professor in Environmental Social Science at the Department of Political Science at Stockholm University. Karin’s work is published in journals including Global Environmental Politics, European Journal of International Relations and Journal of European Public Policy.

< Back Jonathan Pickering Associate Professor About

< Back The consensus project and three levels of deliberation Emmanuel Ani, University of Ghana Tue 5 December 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The basic argument is that the consensus debate has not been very meaningful until now because deliberation as well as issues for deliberation have not been categorized into different levels to expose the varying challenges of reaching common agreement and the kinds of deliberative approaches entailed in each category. The research attempts this categorization. The objective is to further clarify the debate and outline a few implications for further research regarding the viability of making consensus a stopping rule for deliberation. About the speaker Emmanuel Ifeanyi Ani is currently a Senior lecturer at the University of Ghana, Legon. He obtained a National Diploma (ND) and a Higher National Diploma (HND) in Mass Communication with Distinction from the Institute of Journalism, Management and Continuing Education, Enugu State University of Science and Technology (ESUT) Consult, a BA in Philosophy from the University of Ibadan, a B. Phil in Philosophy from the Pontificia Università Urbaniana Roma (Urban Pontifical University, Rome), Italy, an MA and a PhD in Philosophy from Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Nigeria. Awarded best graduating student at graduate and post-graduate levels, he is a member of the Nigerian Philosophical Association. He was editor of Fact Magazine and is co-founder of Teleads Career Services. Previous Next