Search Results

Former PhD Student < Back Alex Lo Former PhD Student About Alex completed his dissertation at the Australian National University in association with CSIRO, and supervised by Clive Spash and John Dryzek.

< 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 Hope for democracy John Gastil, Pennsylvania State University / Katherine R. Knobloch, Colorado State University Tue 2 June 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Concerned citizens across the globe fear that democracy is failing them, but civic reformers are crafting new tools that bring back into politics the wider public and its capacity for reason. This book spotlights one such innovation—the Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR). Each review gathers a random sample of twenty voters to study a statewide ballot measure. These citizen panelists interrogate advocates, opponents, and experts and distill what they learn into a one-page analysis for the official Voters’ Pamphlet. The Oregon government permanently established the CIR in 2011, and reformers have tested it in locations across the United States and Europe. This book introduces the citizen activists responsible for the development of the CIR, as well as key participants at the inaugural CIR whose experiences changed their lives. Along with these stories, this book provides evidence of the CIR’s impact on voters, who not only make better decisions as a result of reading the citizen analysis but also change the way they understand their role in government. The CIR fits into a larger set of deliberative reforms occurring around the world and into a long history of democratic experiments that stretch back through the American revolution to ancient Athens. The book weaves together historical vignettes, contemporary research, and personal narratives to show how citizens, civic reformers, and politicians can work together to revitalize modern democracy. About the speaker John Gastil is a professor in the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences and Political Science at the Pennsylvania State University, where he is a senior scholar at the McCourtney Institute for Democracy. Gastil's research focuses on the theory and practice of deliberative democracy, especially how small groups of people make decisions on public issues. The National Science Foundation has supported his research on the Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review, the Australian Citizens' Parliament, jury deliberation, and cultural cognition. In July of this year, UK imprint Cosmic Egg will publish Gastil's first novel. Gray Matters is a near-future sci-fi tale about the limits of AI and the prospects for--what else?--deliberation. And it prominently features an Aussie transplant, who's slang was enhanced by none other than the irreverent Dr. Lyn Carson. Katie Knobloch is Assistant Professor and Associate Director of the Center for Public Deliberation in the Department of Communication Studies at Colorado State University. Her research focuses on creating a more informed and engaged citizenry and explores the impact of deliberative participation on individuals and communities. She earned her PhD in communication from the University of Washington, and she has received National Science Foundation funding to study the expansion of the Citizens’ Initiative Review beyond Oregon. Her work has appeared in The Journal of Applied Communication Research, American Politics Research, Public Administration, and The International Journal of Communication. With John Gastil, she is the author of Hope for Democracy: How Citizens Can Bring Reason Back into Politics (Oxford, 2020). Previous Next

< Back John Parkinson Adjunct Professor About John Parkinson is Professor of Social and Political Philosophy at Maastricht University. He is one of the originators of the deliberative systems approach. His current work is on communicative norms and practices in the digital public sphere.

< Back Beyond sustainability as usual: Democratising sustainable development for the Anthropocene Jonathan Pickering, University of Canberra Tue 21 November 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The emergence of the Anthropocene – a new epoch in which humanity exerts a pervasive influence over the Earth system – calls for new conceptions of sustainability that are open to democratic contestation while being grounded in emerging scientific understanding of global environmental risks, including climate change and biodiversity loss. Yet discourses of sustainability are often co-opted by actors whose interests lie in upholding patterns of production and consumption that are neither environmentally nor socially sustainable. This paper (which forms part of a book project co-authored with John Dryzek on The Politics of the Anthropocene) sets out a new framework for understanding sustainability, then applies the framework to analyse the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted in 2015. Efforts to craft the SDGs involved a range of consultations whose scope was unprecedented in the UN’s history. We discuss the deliberative strengths and shortcomings of the consultation and negotiation process, and the extent to which the process and the goals themselves offer meaningful responses to global environmental risks. This paper is co-authored with John Dryzek. About the speaker Jonathan joined the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance in 2015. He is a Postdoctoral Fellow working with Professor John Dryzek on his Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship project, ‘Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice and a Changing Earth System’. He completed his PhD in philosophy at the Australian National University, based in the Centre for Moral, Social and Political Theory and graduating in 2014. His thesis explored opportunities for reaching a fair agreement between developing and developed countries in global climate change negotiations. Before joining the University of Canberra he taught climate and environmental policy at the Crawford School of Public Policy at ANU, and has been a Visiting Fellow at the Development Policy Centre at ANU since 2014. Jonathan’s research interests include the ethical and political dimensions of global climate change policy, global environmental governance, development policy and ethics, and global justice. He has a Masters' degree in development studies from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), and undergraduate degrees in arts and law from the University of Sydney. Previously he worked as a policy and program manager with the Australian Government's international development assistance program (AusAID, 2003-09). Previous Next

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back Digital Media and the Public Sphere Seminars this May 1 May 2023 This May, Eminent scholars Professor Axel Bruns and Professor John Dryzek will be featured in three seminars: Axel Bruns | The Filter in Our (?) Heads: Digital Media and Polarisation 2 May John Dryzek | Deliberative Democracy for Diabolical Times 9 May Both scholars - Panel Discussion | Future-Proofing the Public Sphere 16 May Seminars take place from 11:00am to 12:30pm 1. The Filter in Our (?) Heads: Digital Media and Polarisation – Professor Axel Bruns Climate change, Brexit, Trump, COVID, Ukraine: there is hardly a major topic in contemporary public debate online that does not attract heated discussion, entrenched partisanship, widespread misinformation, and conspiracy theorists. Rational, evidence-based contributions often fail to cut through while affective polarisation is prevalent and difficult to overcome. Professor Bruns argues that the simplistic view of these developments is that digital and social media has disrupted the traditional ‘public sphere’, enveloped us all in ‘echo chambers’ and ‘filter bubbles’ that contain our narrow ideologies, ushering in the post-truth age. But he points out that these explanations have been debunked as not acknowledging the full complexity of the present moment in public communication. Professor Axel Bruns is an ARC Laureate Fellow (2021-2026) and Professor at the Digital Media Research Centre at QUT. Chaired by Dr Katarina Esau Building 24 at the University of Canberra (in the research centres' meeting room) Zoom link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/7220752429 2. Deliberative Democracy for Diabolical Times – Professor John Dryzek Most people forget that, in spite of the advance of democracy in the 1990s and 2000s, most states and empires throughout history have been inhospitable to democracy. What’s new about our bad times for democracy is that they have seen new forms of public and political communication in what Professor Dryzek refers to as a diabolical soundscape . However, given the chance, citizens and ‘publics’ can avoid manipulation and polarization, reach well-reasoned positions, and join public conversations in deliberative systems that also involve the media, leaders, and activists. Deliberative democracy is a communication-centric approach and offers a chance to rethink democracy. What’s more, this can begin with the deliberative practices that all societies already possess. Professor John Dryzek was an ARC Laureate Fellow (2014-2020) and Professor at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. Chaired by Dr Adele Webb Building 24 at the University of Canberra (in the research centres' meeting room) Zoom link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/7220752429 3. Future-Proofing the Public Sphere - Professor Axel Bruns and Professor John Dryzek The two previous seminars will culminate in an panel event on Tuesday 16 May in room 23B05 at the University of Canberra (and on Zoom). The two scholars, who hold vastly different perspectives on the challenges the public sphere faces in the age of digital communications , will then discuss their unique perspectives, and address questions from the audience. Chaired by Professor Selen A. Ercan Building 23, Room B05 at the University of Canberra (above Retro Cafe) Zoom link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/7220752429

PhD Completions Andrea Felicetti Former PhD Student View Profile Penelope Marshall Former PhD student View Profile Kei Nishiyama Former PhD student View Profile Alex Lo Former PhD Student View Profile Pierrick Chalaye Former PhD student View Profile Katherine Curchin Former PhD student View Profile Michael Rollens Former PhD student View Profile Louise Clery Former PhD student View Profile Jonathan Kuyper Former PhD student View Profile Nardine Alnemr Former PhD student View Profile Melissa Lovell Former PhD student View Profile John Boswell Former PhD student View Profile 1 2 1 ... 1 2 ... 2

< Back The norm-diffusing potential of minipublic Lala Muradova, University of Leuven Tue 4 February 2020 12:10pm - 1:10pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Deliberative minipublics are argued to be good for circulating ideas to the wider public sphere. Yet, so far, such accounts have not looked at the potential for mini publics to contribute to democratic systems by diffusing deliberative norms to a wider society. In this paper I build on the norm diffusion theory and diffusion of innovations scholarship, and argue that deliberative minipublics can enhance broader public deliberation, by acting as a conduit for the transmission of crucial deliberative norms to the public at large. In this task, I liken the role of minipublics to that of international organizations (IO) which have been central in diffusing the norms related, inter alia, to human rights, gender equality, war ethics, across and within states. Next, I suggest mechanisms by which minipublics can exercise influence on norm formation in the public. I conclude by suggesting new avenues for future theoretical and empirical research on the norm-diffusing function of minipublics. About the speaker Lala Muradova is a PhD Candidate at the Democratic Innovations & Legitimacy Group, University of Leuven. Her primary research interests lie at the intersection of political psychology and deliberative democracy. In her PhD project, she uses experimental research designs combined with observation of real-world deliberative practices, to study the cognitive and affective processes underlying political reasoning in deliberative and non-deliberative settings. Prof. Sofie Marien is the advisor of this PhD project. In 2019, she was awarded the Best Paper of the Democratic Innovations Section at the 2019 General Conference of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR). Previous Next

< Back Olivia Mendoza PhD Candidate About Olivia Mendoza is a migrant Filipina PhD candidate at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance in Canberra, Australia, on unceded Ngunnawal land. She studies emotions and deliberation from a critical feminist and decolonial lens. Before moving to Australia, she was an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the Department of History and Philosophy, University of the Philippines Baguio. I taught courses on Development Ethics, Moral Philosophy, and Ancient and Medieval Philosophy among others. For her work, she was awarded the One UP Faculty Grant in Philosophy for Outstanding Teaching and Public Service, the UP International Publication Award, and Mateo Tupaz Grant. She is an active member of Women Doing Philosophy (WDP), a global feminist organization that aims to create and claim spaces that promote the scholarly, professional, and personal flourishing of Filipina philosophers. Dissertation Olivia's PhD thesis imagines a structure-oriented account of emancipatory democratic politics that stresses the importance of emotions and their role in relations of domination. It engages with the emotions and inequality literature in feminist and deliberative democratic theory and practice. PhD Supervisors Hans Asenbaum (primary supervisor) Adele Webb (secondary supervisor) John Dryzek (secondary supervisor) Scholarship and Prizes Deliberative Democracy PhD Scholarship (2023-2027), Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, University of Canberra. One UP Faculty Grant Award in Philosophy (Ethics) for Outstanding Teaching and Public Service in the University of the Philippines Baguio, College of Social Sciences, University of the Philippines Baguio (2022-2024). Mateo Tupaz Grant (2019-2022), University of the Philippines Baguio. Research Project: Reviewing Emotion Theories in light of Filipino Emotions. Key Publications Olivia S. Mendoza. 2024. “Emotions and Filipino Resilience” In Llanera, Tracy (ed). Resilience: The Brown Babe’s Burden. Routledge Book Series on the Post- CoViD World: Academics, Politics and Society. Liz Jackson, Nuraan Davids, Winston C. Thompson, Jessica Lussier, Nicholas C. Burbules, Kal Alston, Stephen Chatelier, Krissah Marga B. Taganas, Olivia S. Mendoza, Jason Lin Cong, Addyson Frattura & Anonymous and P. Taylor Webb. 2022. "Feeling like a philosopher of education: A collective response to Jackson’s ‘The smiling philosopher’." Educational Philosophy and Theory , DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2022.2063719. Conference Presentations Olivia S. Mendoza, “Emotional and Hermeneutic Labour: Feminist Philosophy Meets Deliberative Democracy." 11th Swiss Summer School in Democracy Studies and 7th Deliberative Democracy Summer School. University of Zurich, Switzerland. 2025. Olivia S. Mendoza. “Emotional Labour: A Feminist Agenda for Deliberative Democracy." Reimagining Democratic Politics in the Contemporary Symposium. Centre for Democratic Futures, University of Southampton, UK. 2025. Teaching Development Ethics (SDS 271, Master’s Course in Social and Development Studies), 2022 History of the Social Sciences (Soc Sci 100), 2021-2022 Ethics (Philo 171, for Philosophy Students), 2019-2022 Ethics and Moral Reasoning (Ethics 1, General Education Course), 2019-2022 Ancient Philosophy (Philosophy110) and Medieval Philosophy (Philosophy 111), 2014-2022. Public Service Member, Women Doing Philosophy. 2020-present.

< Back Frank Fischer Associate About Frank Fischer is professor of politics and global affairs at Rutgers University (USA), teaching public policy and planning. He is also a Senior Faculty Fellow at the University of Kassel (Germany) where he teaches global public policy, U.S. foreign policy, and comparative and global environmental politics.

Former PhD student < Back Jane Alver Former PhD student About Jane Alver's work investigates the ways feminist civil society actors in the Pacific region respond to the shrinking opportunities for inclusion, and the type of alliances they build to consolidate and amplify their voice in the region.

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

< Back Multilingual parties and the ethics of partisanship Matteo Bonotti, Monash University Tue 20 November 2018 The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract This paper argues that multilingual political parties, i.e. parties that exist and operate across linguistic boundaries by using different languages, are normatively superior to those that use a lingua franca at realizing some of the key goals of partisanship. These involve promoting the common good; educating party members and citizens in general; fostering an attitude to toleration and compromise; and offering a linkage between citizens and government. The paper has important implications for debates on the role of linguistic diversity in democratic theory and practice, and on the challenges of multilingualism in polities such as the European Union. About the speaker Matteo Bonotti is a Lecturer in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Monash University, having previous taught at Cardiff University, Queen’s University Belfast, and the University of Edinburgh. His work has appeared or is forthcoming in such journals as the American Political Science Review, The Journal of Politics, the Journal of Applied Philosophy, the European Journal of Political Theory, Philosophy & Social Criticism, the Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, the Journal of Social Philosophy, the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, and Res Publica. His monograph Partisanship and Political Liberalism in Diverse Societies was published by Oxford University Press in 2017. Matteo's research interests are diverse but unified by a common underlying theme: ethical pluralism and cultural diversity in contemporary societies, and the question of how the state should respond to them. Matteo is currently writing a monograph (with Anne Barnhill, Johns Hopkins University) on healthy eating policy and liberal political philosophy, which is under contract with Oxford University Press. His general research interests also include linguistic justice, free speech, religion and political theory, and the normative dimensions of partisanship. Previous Next

< Back Wendy Russell Associate About Wendy Russell works the development of deliberative engagement methods for national policy. She is also a strong advocate of technology assessment (TA) and is working to build TA capacity for Australia.

< Back Pragmatism, deliberative democracy and deliberative cultures John Min, College of Southern Nevada Tue 19 July 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract This presentation explores the possibility of developing deliberative cultures in East Asian societies. John Dewey’s pragmatist philosophy will be considered as a third way between the ‘enlightenment deliberative culture’ and the ‘post-modernist deliberative culture.’ Whereas the former privileges universality and rationality in politics, the latter eschews those values in favor of particularity and sentimentality. A pragmatic conception of deliberative culture, inspired by Dewey’s philosophy, provides a critical, yet fluid model for transforming East Asian democracies from within. Its critical aspects arise out of the use of intelligent inquiry into problematic situations; but it is fluid enough to account for meliorating present conditions. A pragmatic conception of deliberative culture regards fallibilism (acknowledging that we can be mistaken), experimentalism (experimenting with institutions and practices), and contestation (being critical of the way we criticize) as necessary constituents of a robust deliberative culture. The loci of their development and flourishing are in individuals, families, and communities. Habits of mind and character are the conditions of their development and flourishing. Examples from China and Singapore will be considered to illustrate the key concepts and ideas undergirding a pragmatic conception of deliberative cultures. This presentation contributes to an emerging literature in deliberative democracy in thinking through deliberative cultures in East Asian societies. About the speaker John B. Min ( john.min@csn.edu ) is a Philosophy Instructor at the College of Southern Nevada. He specializes in social-political philosophy and democratic theory. He received his Ph.D. in philosophy at, where he wrote his dissertation, “An Epistemological Defense of Deliberative Democracy,” under the direction of Dr. James Bohman. His papers have been published by Contemporary Pragmatism and in a Routledge edited volume, Thinking about the Enlightenment . Previous Next

< Back Franziska Maier Associate About Franziska Maier is a PhD student at the University of Stuttgart working on citizenship concepts, and preference building and change through deliberation.

< Back Amy McGregor-Dainton PhD Candidate About Amy McGregor-Dainton is a Ph.D Candidate at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. Amy has worked as a journalist in regional Victoria, a public servant at councils in Australia and the UK, and a policy adviser for the Labor Party in the Australian Capital Territory. It was through these roles that Amy became interested in why citizens are dissatisfied and distrustful of government and how they communicate those feelings of disaffection. Dissertation With growing evidence of democratic backsliding around the world, including in countries with long-established democratic traditions and institutions, Amy’s research is focused on how low levels of political disaffection and communication of political disaffection in the public sphere might be a risk to democracy in Australia. Amy’s Ph.D research is focused on the implicit expectations citizens have of government in Australia and how those expectations are used to evaluate government performance. Further, this project seeks to understand how communication among citizens, as well as from citizens to government actors, about unmet expectations might be influencing narratives about the quality of democracy in Australia. This project involves interviewing politicians and public servants across three levels of government (local, state and federal) in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland, as well as a large sample of citizens and a range of contributors to the public debate about government. Data from these interviews will then be analysed thematically. PhD Supervisors Adele Webb Jordan McSwiney Professional memberships Amy is a member of the Australian Political Studies Association and the Australia Aotearoa New Zealand Communication Association.

< Back Deliberations with American Indian and Alaska native communities about genomics Erika Blacksher, University of Washington / Justin Reedy, University of Oklahoma Tue 4 August 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract With the rapid growth of genetic and genomic research and medical testing in recent years, more attention is being paid to their ethical and societal implications, including citizens’ concerns about potential risks and benefits of these technologies. Indigenous peoples represent a particularly important group where such advances are concerned, due to a long history of exploitation and marginalization by the U.S. federal government and the marked disparities they experience in health services and health outcomes relative to other populations. A consortium of researchers and practitioners in the US, in close partnership with indigenous community partners, has begun to study the concerns and views of American Indian and Alaska Native peoples on genomics through a series of deliberations in three communities in Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Alaska. This presentation will describe the design and implementation of these deliberative forums, as well as the results of the deliberations from a process perspective. In addition, it discusses some of the implications of this work for scholarship and practice in deliberation, both for efforts involving indigenous peoples and for forums focused on genetics and ethical, legal, and societal implications (ELSI). About the speaker Erika Blacksher is an associate professor and director of undergraduates studies in the Department of Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Washington in Seattle. Dr. Blacksher studies the ethical and policy implications of the social determinants of health with focus on ethical questions raised by health inequalities, debates over health responsibility, and the role of participatory and deliberative forms of engagement in advancing health equity. She often works in collaborative community-academic partnerships to design and conduct deliberations that convene minority and marginalized groups to identify their health priorities and policy preferences. Justin Reedy is an associate professor in the Department of Communication and research associate in the Center for Risk & Crisis Management at the University of Oklahoma. He studies political communication and deliberation, group and organizational communication, and the perception of risk. In particular, his research focuses on how groups of people make political and civic decisions in face-to-face and online settings, as well as how people and policy makers can come together to deliberate and make better decisions on public policy issues that involve significant societal and personal risk. Previous Next

< Back Madeleine Egan PhD Candidate About Madeleine is a PhD candidate at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. Her research focusses on informal participation in constitution-making. Prior to beginning graduate studies, Madeleine worked in community engagement for local government and non-profit organisations, as well as in communications, community organising and campaigns for environmental and social justice. Dissertation Madeleine’s PhD research explores mass democracy in deliberative constitution-making. Recent constituent processes in Chile (2019 - ) and Iceland ( 2008 - ) reflect an international trend towards more participatory constitution-making. For deliberative democratic theory, these cases raise long-standing questions about the relationship between discursive law-making and mass democracy—realistically, how can all subjects be authors of the law? Madeleine’s research combines normative theory with empirical research, to investigate how deliberation in the public sphere shapes constitution-making in practice. Conference Presentations Social movements as catalysts for deliberative constitution-making, Political Studies Association (PSA) Annual Conference. March 29, 2020. Virtual Conference. Constitution-making and the role of informal participation in the public sphere, Australian Political Studies Association (APSA) Annual Conference. November 30, 2023. Sydney. PhD supervisors John Dryzek (Primary Supervisor) Selen Ercan (Secondary Supervisor) Ron Levy (Advisor) Teaching Tutor, Political and Social Theory. 2020. Tutor, Co-Design and Deliberative Engagement. 2024. Administration Co-Editor, Working Paper Series, Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance Scholarships and Prizes Deliberative Democracy Scholarship, University of Canberra, 2020 Percival Serle Prize, University of Melbourne, 2017 Dwight Final Examination Prize, University of Melbourne, 2017

< Back How can we improve deliberative reason? A meta-analysis of minipublic deliberation Simon Niemeyer and Francesco Veri (University of Canberra) Tue 24 November 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract This paper investigates influences on public reasoning on political issues within deliberative minipublics. It does so via a multi-level study of 20 minipublic cases and 480 individuals, using a Deliberative Reason Index (DRI). DRI captures how deliberating groups construct a shared understanding of an issue and integrate relevant arguments into their various positions. It is consistent with deliberative ideals, versus selective reasoning pathologies such as confirmation bias. Overall, we find that minipublic deliberation results in dramatically improved reasoning. Reasoning is best facilitated by designs that focus on establishing group deliberative norms, particularly for complex issues. By contrast, processes designed to directly impact decision-making and short cut wider public discussion fare relatively poorly. The impact of demographic variables is complex, with interaction effects operating. Overall, the results are consistent with recent developments in how we understand human reasoning, and the roles of situation and emotions. They bring into question some common claims regarding deliberative design and have wider practical implications for improving public reasoning. About the speakers Simon Niemeyer is Professor and co-founder of the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. His research ties together the themes of political behaviour, the public sphere and observations from deliberative minipublics, such as Citizens’ Juries, to develop insights into potential interventions and institutional settings that improve deliberation and governance. Francesco Veri is a Postdoctoral fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. Francesco is also a member of the Lucerne Cluster for Configurational Methods (LUCCS) which regroup scholars who make major contributions to social science methodology at the crossroads between quantitative and qualitative research. Previous Next