< Back Epistemic injustice and the division of deliberative labour James Wong, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Thu 19 July 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The recent literature of deliberative democracy conceives the division of deliberative labour between experts and citizens in various ways. In this paper, we argue that (1) citizens can suffer epistemic injustice in deliberation when their knowledge claims are dismissed, ignored or deemed unintelligible by experts; and (2) the division of deliberative labour can be appropriately arranged to remedy any epistemic injustice. Discussed extensively by Miranda Fricker (2007), the problem of epistemic injustice – consisting of testimonial and hermeneutic injustices – is relevant to speeches and communications but remains largely overlooked in deliberative democracy. We consider three competing models of expertise in a deliberative system, i.e., Thomas Christiano’s (2012) specialized deliberation, Alfred Moore’s (2016) distributed deliberation, and Simone Chambers’s (2017) feedback loops. We show that the division of deliberative labour based on all these three models is, to different extents, vulnerable to the problem of epistemic injustice. We suggest that some specially-designed ‘mini-publics’ – in the form of an enhanced version of public hearings/inquiries – would be desirable institutions that alleviate epistemic injustice in a deliberative system. About the speaker James Wong is a research assistant professor in the Division of Social Science and the Division of Public Policy at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. He is also a junior fellow in the HKUST Jockey Club Institute for Advanced Study. His research revolves around deliberative democracy, environmental politics, and institutional design for democracy. He earned his PhD from the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2013. Previous Next

< Back Democratic Theorizing Hans Asenbaum, University of Canberra Tue 13 April 2021 8:00pm-9:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Over centuries, democratic theory has developed emancipatory ideals of inclusion, empowerment, and transparency. These ideals, however, have hardly been applied to the process of theorizing itself. Democratic theory is a product of the ivory tower. The Democratic Theorizing Project sets out to confront this problem. Democratic theorizing – opposed to established approaches to theorizing democracy – conceptualizes theory production as a participatory space. It applies the values of democratic innovations to theorizing. Democratic theorizing includes affected people, empowers those on the margins, and facilitates transparency. The proposed approach attempts to realize these ideals by building on three sources: grounded normative theory, which develops theory in an ongoing conversation with the data; participatory research, which invites participants as research collaborators; and new materialism, which flattens the hierarchies between researchers, participants, and data. The resulting approach of democratic theorizing draws on an ongoing theorizing project in collaboration with the Black Lives Matter movement. About the speaker Hans Asenbaum is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. His research interests include identity and inclusion in new participatory spaces, digital politics, and theories of deliberative, participatory and radical democracy. His work has been published in the American Political Science Review, New Media & Society, Communication Theory, Politics & Gender, the European Journal of Social Theory, and Political Studies. Hans is Co-convener of the Participatory and Deliberative Democracy Specialist Group of the Political Studies Association in the UK. Previous Next

< Back Democratic innovations and maxi-publics: Studying the influence of participation possibilities on public perceptions of legitimacy in Finland Maija Jaske, University of Turku Tue 6 March 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Last decades have witnessed a growing interest in different institutional arrangements that aim to engage citizens directly in the democratic decision-making processes. Citizen juries, citizens’ assemblies, participatory budgeting and citizens’ initiatives are some examples of these “democratic innovations”. Democratic theorists have recently started to emphasize the role these innovations play in the wider political system. While the potential of deliberation to transform participants is still much valued, the focus has shifted – or at least broadened – to macro-political impacts of deliberation and participation. This presentation zooms into a specific type of macro impacts by asking whether and how the availability of participation possibilities influences maxi-publics. So far, empirical research on democratic innovations has focused on their effects on participating individuals or policy outcomes. It is important, however, that we understand what effects, if any, participatory instruments have on the wider public. Research of procedural fairness suggests that hearing people in decision-making processes contributes to citizens’ evaluations of legitimacy. What all participatory instruments, however, share in common is that tens or hundreds of non-elected citizens represent other citizens – non-participants – in these venues. The emergence of ‘citizen representatives’ raises questions about the legitimacy of participatory instruments and their role in public perceptions of democratic government. Drawing on a study that is part of my Ph.D. dissertation, I distinguish procedural fairness and outcome satisfaction as the main components of perceived legitimacy, and discuss how the availability of participation possibilities could affect these evaluations. The presentation focuses on the case of Finland, and participatory innovations in local government. I analyze survey data from 9022 respondents living in 30 Finnish municipalities that each have a different ‘participatory toolbox’, consisting of instruments such as public hearings, opinion polls, advisory citizen committees, non-binding referendums and deliberative citizen juries. The study combines individual-level survey data on citizens’ attitudes with municipality-level data on municipality characteristics and the state of local democracy, and gives some preliminary empirical findings on the role of participatory instruments for public perceptions of legitimacy in democratic systems. About the speaker Maija Jäske is a Ph.D. Student in Political Science at the University of Turku. She gained her Master’s degree (Political Science) from the University of Turku in 2011, and she was a visiting scholar in the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University in 2014-2015. Her Ph.D. research – supervised by Prof. Maija Setälä – studies the contextual preconditions of participatory instruments, and their consequences for the wider public. In the dissertation, she analyzes large-n data from Finnish local government with statistical methods. She has also conducted research on citizen deliberation experiments and non-binding agenda initiatives, and her articles have appeared in journals such as International Journal of Public Administration and Swiss Journal of Political Research. Her research interests include democratic theory, participatory instruments, procedural fairness and public opinion. Previous Next

< Back Jonathan Kuyper Associate and Former PhD Student About Jonathan Kuyper is a political theorist and international relations scholar working mainly with democratic theory, with a special focus on deliberative democracy. He is interested in how democratic theory can be employed to understand changes in domestic politics brought about by globalization, as well as offers ways to respond to these changes.

< Back MAPPING DEMOCRATIC INNOVATIONS IN PARTICIPEDIA ABSTRACT This presentation proposes a new analytical approach to classifying democratic innovations based on prototypical radial categorization. The proposed categorization strategy is empirically evaluated on real-world democratic innovations drawn from Participedia, the largest crowdsourcing platform in democratic innovation. Participedia database is analyzed through multiple factor analysis (MFA) and hierarchical clustering on principal components (HCPC). The analysis highlights four clusters that are a subset of two main groups that coincide with the normative categorization of participatory and deliberative democracy. BIO Francesco Veri is a Swiss National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. Previous Next

< Back Francesco Veri Associate About Francesco Veri is a Senior Researcher at the Centre for Democracy Studies at the University of Zurich , a Postdoctoral fellow at the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Geneva and a Research Associate at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra.

Former PhD student < Back Emerson Sanchez Former PhD student About Emerson M. Sanchez researches the role of environmental knowledge in contributing to industrial disasters and exploring ways to avert such tragedies. He has also conducted research on social movements, indigenous rights, social health, and gender and development. He recently completed his PhD at the University of Canberra.

< Back Deliberation and representation in referendum processes Ronald Van Crombrugge, KU Leuven Tue 22 August 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Referendums – and other forms of popular participation such as the citizen initiative – are a controversial topic. While they promise popular control over government, in reality, they are often characterised by a lack of understanding of the issue by the broader public, which in turn opens up room for different forms of elite manipulation. For this reason, deliberative democrats in particular have often been sceptical of the deliberative potential of mass democracies, and especially instruments of direct democracy such as the referendum. However, the recent turn in deliberative democracy literature towards deliberative systems raises a number of opportunities to re-examine referendums. From a deliberative systems perspective, referendums could potentially fulfil a useful democratic role as the last legitimating step in a larger deliberative process, even though they might not be able to fulfil all the requirements of the deliberative ideal. Yet, even when we accept that referendums have a potential role to play in a deliberative system, we are still presented with the question: how can thousands, or even millions of people deliberate together during the referendum campaign? It is to this question the article seeks to provide an answer. This will require putting into question some of the conditions of the “ideal deliberative procedure”, such as full information and equal speaking time, which can hardly ever be expected during a referendum campaign. There, necessarily only the few will do the actual talking, while most citizens will merely listen. But is this normatively acceptable? Or does this mean giving up on the very core of the deliberative ideal? I will argue that an answer can be found by looking at the role representation – in its broadest sense – plays in referendum campaigns. If differences in power during the referendum campaign can be seen as subject to a broader relation of representation, they might be less problematic from a democratic point of view. In addition, I will argue that under the right circumstances, representation can fulfil the role of an “epistemic resource” which can help citizens to reach a competent decision on the issue at hand. Inversely, when these circumstances are not in place, representation might actually undermine the quality of citizens’ judgments. To make these arguments, I will look at referendum campaigns through the conceptual lens of the “representative claim” as developed by Michael Saward. This allows a shift in attention away from the traditional focus on the talker and towards the listener. Rather than attempting to attain the goals of full information and equal voice during the campaign, we should instead focus on increasing the capacity of ordinary citizens to deliberatively and competently accept or refuse the claims that are made by various elected or unelected representatives, as well as enable them to expose claims which are manifestly unfounded or manipulative. This requires giving attention to the background conditions in which the different claims are made and leads to questions of how the broader public sphere is structured and regulated. About the speaker Ronald Van Crombrugge (°Jette, 1992) graduated in 2013 as a bachelor of laws with a minor in political sciences (magna cum laude). He received his master's degree of laws in 2015 (magna cum laude), option research master. Since October 2015 he is working at KU Leuven's Institute for Constitutional Law, where he specialises in the law of politics. As part of his current research, Ronald is evaluating the law on referendums from the perspective of deliberative democratic theory. The research centers on two questions: first, whether mechanisms of direct democracy such as the referendum have a useful role to play in a deliberative democracy, and second, how the law on referendums can be adapted to better accommodate the principles of deliberative democracy. Previous Next

Former PhD student < Back John Boswell Former PhD student About John Boswell is an Associate Professor of Politics at the University of Southampton. His work looks at issues related to deliberative governance, and has included investigations around democratic deliberation and obesity. His work with the Centre includes a co-authored book with Selen Ercan and Carolyn Hendriks entitled Connected Democracy.

< Back What exactly is voting to consensual deliberation? Emmanuel Ifeanyi Ani, University of Ghana Tue 27 October 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Abstract There have been two parallel views regarding the role of voting in deliberation. The first is that deliberation before the fabrication of balloting was completely devoid of voting. The second is that voting is, not just part of deliberation, but is standard to deliberation. I argue in this article that neither of these views is correct. Implicit voting has always existed across time and space but only as a last resort in the event of a failure of natural unanimity. What is relatively modern is the establishment of what I call explicit voting, namely, balloting, outside deliberation and often without deliberation. I also distinguish between natural and artificial unanimities, and clarify that artificial unanimities are products of implicit voting. I demonstrate these clarifications with some examples of deliberation. I deploy these clarifications to rid a certain debate of confusion regarding the precise role of voting in consensual deliberation. About the speaker Emmanuel Ifeanyi Ani is a Senior Lecturer and has taught Critical Thinking for several years at the University of Ghana, Accra. He holds 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 Political Philosophy from Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Nigeria. He is the University of Ghana external assessor for affiliate institutions on Logic and Critical Thinking. He was the Chair of Long Essay, Library and Graduate Studies, Department of Philosophy and Classics, University of Ghana. He briefly visited the Centre for Deliberative Democracy, Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra (November-December 2017), and is one of the Associate Editors at the Journal of Deliberative Democracy. He has published in many high impact journals including Philosophical Papers, Journal of Political Philosophy, Philosophia, South African Journal of Philosophy, African Studies Quarterly, and Canadian Philosophical Review. He is a contributor to the Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, and the winner of the 2018 University of Ghana Humanities Provost Publication Award (Mid-Career Category). Previous Next

< Back End of Year Report 2025 Centre for Deliberative Democracy 2025 , University of Canberra Summary Welcome to the 2025 end-of-year report of the Centre for Deliberative Democracy. This year, the Centre advanced major research, teaching, and public engagement initiatives. The leadership of our Early Career Researchers and strong collaborations strengthened democratic practice and advanced the vision of the Faculty of Business, Government and Law and the University of Canberra. Read more Previous Next

< Back Overdoing democracy: The problem of political polarization Tue 18 August 2020 Robert Talisse, Vanderbilt University 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Democracy is such an important social good that it seems natural to think that more is always better. However, we also recognize that it’s possible to have too much of a good thing. In this talk, Robert Talisse (Vanderbilt University) draws from current findings regarding political polarization to argue that, as important a social good as democracy is, it is nonetheless possible for citizens to overdo it. Today, our everyday activities are increasingly fused with our political profiles: commercial spaces, workplaces, professions, schools, churches, sports teams, and even public parks now tend to embody a particular political valence. When politics is permitted to saturate our social environments, we impair the capacities we need in order to enact democracy well. In a slogan, when we overdo democracy in this way, we undermine it. The solution is to build venues and activities where people can engage in cooperative activities together in which their political identities are neither bolstered nor suppressed, but simply beside the point. If we want to do democracy well, we need to put politics in its right place. About the speaker Robert Talisse is a political philosopher focusing on democracy and civic ethics. He has authored over a dozen academic books and more than 100 peer-reviewed articles. In addition, Talisse hosts the podcast Why We Argue, and co-hosts the podcast New Books in Philosophy. Talisse is also a regular contributor to various public philosophy venues such as Aeon, Scientific American Mind, 3 Quarks Daily, 3AM Magazine, Skeptical Inquirer, Free Inquiry, Think, and Institute for Arts and Ideas magazine. Previous Next

< Back The Politics of the Anthropocene John S. Dryzek, Jonathan Pickering 2019 , Oxford University Press Winner of the 2019 Clay Morgan Award Committee for Best Book in Environmental Political Theory Summary The Politics of the Anthropocene is a sophisticated yet accessible treatment of how human institutions, practices, and principles need to be re-thought in response to the challenges of the Anthropocene, the emerging epoch of human-induced instability in the Earth system and its life-support capacities. However, the world remains stuck with practices and modes of thinking that were developed in the Holocene – the epoch of around 12,000 years of unusual stability in the Earth system, toward the end of which modern institutions such as states and capitalist markets arose. These institutions persist despite their potentially catastrophic failure to respond to the challenges of the Anthropocene, foremost among them a rapidly changing climate and accelerating biodiversity loss. Read more Previous Next

< Back PROSPECTS OF DELIBERATIVE POWER-SHARING IN AUSTRALIAN CITY COUNCILS? A NEW GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK FOR CO-CREATION Despite the increase of empirical studies on institutionalised public deliberation in OECD countries, where Australia is one of the leading countries, institutionalised local co-creation task committees remain unexplored beyond Northern Europe (OECD 2020). The concept of power-sharing in the context of deliberation and co-creation is also relatively understudied. For this research project, I examine the prospects of deliberative power-sharing in city councils in Australia. I explore the concept of deliberative power-sharing by adapting and applying the Danish local co-creation task committee model, the Gentofte Model, to the democratic, political and institutional context of city councils in Australia (Sørensen & Torfing 2019). The Gentofte Model has been identified as a suitable power-sharing framework between democratically elected councillors and citizens to increase public trust, political legitimacy and bipartisanship because citizens impact public policy directly through distributed political decision-making power (De Jong, Neulen and Jansma 2019). My research project will use action research as the methodology. Specifically, a participatory action research approach will be used to co-develop and implement an institutionalised local co-creation task committee in an Australian city council. My lived-experience with deliberative power-sharing in co-creation from a Danish city council will be a part of the participatory action research process of developing new knowledge and transformative change with Australian mayors, councillors, local government CEOs and citizens (Bartels et al. 2020). The outcomes of my research project aim to contribute to the field of deliberative and participatory governance because the Danish local co-creation task committee model offers a new and deliberative approach to power-sharing between councillors and citizens which has not been explored beyond the North European countries. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Previous Next

< Back COMPROMISED DEMOCRACY: CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE AGE OF FINANCE CAPITALISM Hendrik Wagenaar, King's College London Tue 12 March 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Civic enterprises (CEs) contain many innovative features that promise more effective public services, a more equitable society and a richer, more participatory form of democracy. Yet, despite these proven benefits, CEs rarely scale up or are consolidated within larger government structures. I explain this forced localism by arguing that in their organizational and financial set-up CEs and similar citizen initiatives are incompatible with the requirements of finance capitalism. Over the last forty years finance capitalism has imposed an all-encompassing governance and governmentality upon societies worldwide. Finance governance consists of a loosely coupled ensemble of formal laws, state institutions, private banks, giant transnational corporations, hybrid entities such as central banks, rating agencies, transnational organizations and informal professional associations, bound together by the goal of maximising profitability and liquidity and minimising inflation and system risk. This system operates to a large extent informally, away from the public eye, and outside structures of democratic control and accountability, often under the pretext of emergency measures. Finance governmentality consists of a pervasive ideology and ethos of entrepreneurship and market conformity that has permeated all aspects of public and private life, and even lodged itself inside the self-image and aspirations of ordinary citizens. Thus, a feasible citizen-centred alternative to finance capitalism has to present a blueprint of political-economic organization that is as integrated, comprehensive and internally coherent as finance capitalism. My argument is that the Commons constitute such an alternative. I will discuss the nature of commons and show how commons and commoning can potentially create a viable alternative form of political-economic organization at local, regional and national/global levels. About the speaker Hendrik Wagenaar was professor at the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at the University of Sheffield. He is currently senior advisor to the Policy Institute at King’s College London and adjunct professor at the University of Canberra. He publishes in the areas of participatory democracy, interpretive policy analysis, deliberative policy analysis, prostitution policy and practice theory. He is author of Meaning in Action: Interpretation and Dialogue in Policy Analysis (M.E. Sharpe, 2011), and editor of the seminal Deliberative Policy Analysis (Cambridge, 2003, with M. Hajer) In the area of prostitution research he published Designing Prostitution Policy: Intention and Reality in Regulating the Sex Trade (with Helga Amesberger and Sietske Altink, Policy Press, 2017) and Assessing Prostitution Policies in Europe (with S. Jahnsen, Routledge, 2017). Previous Next

< Back Exploring injustice and the common good in local-scale biosafety deliberations in Costa Rica Sergio Guillen, Australian National University Tue 5 August 2014 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract I present the rationale and methodology for a study of two elements involved in local-level public deliberation about genetically modified crops in Costa Rica. The first of these elements concerns injustice frames, an aspect of issue framing that entails a sense of outrage towards particular institutions or individuals on whom significant blame is laid for the grievances that spark collective action (Gamson, 1992; Johnston & Noakes, 2005). The second element relates to common-good orientation, which constitutes a central normative ideal of deliberative democracy, through which participants search for “a point of commonality to serve as the foundation for legitimate norms” (Chambers, 1996, p. 103). Both of these aspects continue to fuel important debates in the theoretical and empirical study of deliberative democracy. With regard to injustice frames, these are regarded, from a social movement perspective, as essential for driving collective action, which in turn nurtures discursive contestation in the public sphere, something highly valued by critical deliberative democrats (Dryzek, 2000; Rostboll, 2008). However, from a perspective of ideal deliberation, frames are related to aspects of symbolic manipulation that can distort the public will (Niemeyer, 2011) and hinder the type of reciprocal and reflexive exchange desirable in deliberation, by inducing a dismissal or committed opposition to the perspectives of others (Calvert & Warren, forthcoming). As for common good orientation, there has been a strong debate regarding its implications for the role and admissibility of self-interest in deliberation (Mansbridge, et al., 2010; Steiner, 2012). Moreover, a tension exists between both elements, since a greater prevalence of injustice frames can generate greater reluctance to explore a shared understanding of the public good with those blamed for the injustice. I argue that an interpretative approach can help understand how a widespread grassroots movement opposing the cultivation of genetically modified crops in Costa Rica has incorporated injustice frames into its approach to claim spaces in local environmental governance, and how the use of these frames has affected the orientation towards generalizable interests in public deliberations in community organizing settings and in municipal hearings. I present the strengths and limitations of the approach and connect it to a broader research project to explore the effects on deliberative quality of grassroots environmental collective action in Costa Rica. About the speaker Sergio Guillen is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University, and a visiting Ph.D. student at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. Between 2008 and 2013 he worked as Senior Specialist in Social Dialogue at the Foundation for Peace and Democracy (FUNPADEM) and as trans-boundary water governance consultant for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in Costa Rica and Central America. He holds a B.Eng. in Mechanical Engineering from Carleton University (Canada), a Graduate Certificate in Natural Resources and Organization Management from the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor (United States), and an M.A. in Environmental Security and Peace from the UN-affiliated University for Peace (Costa Rica) 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 Dakila Yee PhD Student About Dakila Kim Yee is currently a PhD student at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, Faculty of Business Government and Law at the University of Canberra, Australia. He has a decade of teaching and research experience in the academic setting in the Philippines and has managed research projects in the Philippines funded by national and international funding agencies. His previous research explored various themes such as the urban political ecology of disaster reconstruction in the Philippines after typhoon Haiyan, critical environmental conservation studies and state-civil society relationship on environmental issues in the Philippines. His research has been published in the following journals: Philippine Studies: Historical and Ethnographic Viewpoints, Journal of Sociology, Critical Asian Studies and Peace Review . Beyond his academic experience, Dakila has been engaged in the practice of participatory and deliberative democracy. He has served as facilitator for different extension programs with local communities and non-government organizations and has recently been a part of two citizen assemblies conducted in the Philippines. Dissertation My tentative title for the dissertation is entitled “Discourse of Sustainability Transitions under Populist Regime” Looking at the case of sustainability transitions in the Philippines under the populist regime of Rodrigo Duterte, I look at discourse regarding sustainability transitions initiatives undertaken across several key sectors – climate change, transportation and energy. I also look at how such discourses is transmitted across the public sphere and how different societal actors negotiate and contest this discourse. PhD Supervisors Jonathan Pickering (Primary Supervisor) John Dryzek (Secondary Supervisor) Adele Webb (Secondary Supervisor)

< Back Mediating the national conversation: Journalism and the Child Abuse Royal Commission 2013-17 Tue 12 May 2020 Kerry McCallum, University of Canberra 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Royal Commissions represent an opportunity for national-level reflection, truth-seeking and public discussion. While at times politically motivated, they often become a touchstone of national debate, a mediated ‘critical conversation’. Media and journalism play a central role in this process, but to date there has been little academic research on the role of media in commissions of inquiry. This presentation introduces the Breaking Silences project that is investigating the role of media, journalism and social media activism in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (2013-17). I will explore the interplay between the Child Abuse Royal Commission’s media-related practices, news media reporting, and survivor groups digital media use in pursuing justice and redress for the victims of child sexual abuse through the inquiry process. Drawing on a critical listening framework I ask: whose voices were heard in the Royal Commission process, which institutions got the most attention, and whose voices were overshadowed in the mediation of the inquiry? About the speaker Kerry McCallum is Professor of Communication and Media Studies, and Director of the News & Media Research Centre at the University of Canberra. Her research in Political Communication focuses on the relationships between a changing media and Australian social policy. Kerry has been the recipient of four Australian Research Council grants and is currently lead CI on the Breaking Silences: Media and the Child Abuse Royal Commission (DP190101282) project. She is author (with L. Waller) of The Dynamics of News and Indigenous Policy in Australia, Intellect, 2017). Previous Next

< Back The Ethics of Multiple Citizenship Ana Tanasoca 2018 , Cambridge University Press Summary Citizenship is no longer an exclusive relationship. Many people today are citizens of multiple countries, whether by birth, naturalization, or even through monetary means, with schemes fast-tracking citizenship applications from foreigners making large investments in the state. Moral problems surround each of those ways of acquiring a second citizenship, while retaining one's original citizenship. Multiple citizenship can also have morally problematic consequences for the coherence of collective decisions, for the constitution of the demos, and for global inequality. The phenomenon of multiple citizenship and its ramifications remains understudied, despite its magnitude and political importance. In this innovative book, Ana Tanasoca explores these issues and shows how they could be avoided by unbundling the rights that currently come with citizenship and allocating them separately. It will appeal to scholars and students of normative political theory, citizenship, global justice, and migration in political science, law, and sociology. Read more Previous Next