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

Bora Kanra, John Dryzek, Selen A. Ercan, Alessandra Pecci < Back Communication Across Difference In A Democracy: Australian Muslims And The Mainstream Project Team: Bora Kanra, John Dryzek, Selen A. Ercan, Alessandra Pecci Funded through a Discovery Project ($269,000), the Project Team includes: Bora Kanra, Chief Investigator John Dryzek, Chief Investigator Selen A. Ercan, Research Assistant Alessandra Pecci, Research Assistant Project Description Australian Muslims have been at the centre of media attention particularly since September the 11th. Even though they comprise no more than 1,5 per cent of the total population, the debate on the compatibility of Islamic and Western values has been very prominent. To date, this debate has focused little attention on the attitudes of Australian Muslims and how they perceive themselves in relation to Western values. This gap, often filled by negative stereotypes, has a wide range of implications in the area of contemporary governance and public policy. This research project studies the relationship between Islamic communities in Australia and the wider society in the context of ideas about cultural difference and democracy. The degree to which Australian Muslims develop a sense of belonging and social responsibility towards mainstream society is directly linked to the level of their inclusion as well as participation in Australia's multicultural scheme. This project aims to contribute to the possibilities to foster a more productive social and political relationship between Australian Muslims and the mainstream. The empirical substance consists of interviews with both Muslims and non-Muslims, with a view to mapping and analysing discourses about difference and democracy in Australia. The knowledge generated can then be deployed to identify exactly how communication across difference can be promoted in this kind of case. The research is informed by a theoretical perspective that highlights the role of social learning in deliberation in a diverse and democratic society. The project studies both ordinary citizens and opinion leaders in Islamic and non-Islamic communities. Project Outputs Kanra, Bora. (2016) Islam, democracy and dialogue in Turkey: deliberating in divided societies . Routledge. Dryzek, J. S., & Kanra, B. (2014). Muslims and the Mainstream in Australia: Polarisation or Engagement? Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 40(8), 1236-1253. Dryzek, J. S., & Kanra, B. (2014). Australian Muslims’ orientations to secular society: Empirical exploration of theoretical classifications. Journal of Sociology , 50(2), 182-198. Kanra, B. (2012). Binary deliberation: The role of social learning in divided societies. Journal of Public Deliberation , 8(1), Kanra, B. and Ercan, S.A. (2012) Negotiating difference in a Muslim society: A longitudinal study of Islamic and secular discourses in the Turkish public sphere. Digest of Middle East Studies , 21(1): 69-88.

Simon Niemeyer, John S. Dryzek, Nicole Curato, Andrè Bächtiger, Marina Lindell, Mark E. Warren, Hannah Barrowman, Francesco Veri, Nardine Alnemr < Back A Metastudy of Democratic Deliberation: Updating Theory and Practice Project Team: Simon Niemeyer, John S. Dryzek, Nicole Curato, Andrè Bächtiger, Marina Lindell, Mark E. Warren, Hannah Barrowman, Francesco Veri, Nardine Alnemr Funded through a Discovery Project (DP180103014) ($526,411), the Project Team includes: Simon Niemeyer, Chief Investigator John S. Dryzek, Chief Investigator Nicole Curato, Chief Investigator Andrè Bächtiger, Partner Investigator Marina Lindell, Partner Investigator Mark E. Warren, Partner Investigator Hannah Barrowman, Postdoctoral Research Fellow Francesco Veri, Postdoctoral Research Fellow Nardine Alnemr, PhD student Project Description The project combines a meta-study and comparative case study to develop a leading edge understanding of political deliberation by analysing and synthesising results from available studies of deliberation. It aims to reconcile conflicting findings and provide the first comprehensive, theoretically-grounded account of defensible claims about political deliberation. The project will compile the source material and findings in a publicly-available database to facilitate standardisation and enhancement of future research in the field. It will seek to settle important questions that remain among deliberative democrats and, more practically, facilitate avenues for democratic reform in an area where the need for renewal is increasingly pressing.

Pierrick Chalaye and Kei Nishiyama, together with the Centre’s Associate Wendy Russel < Back Deliberation in Schools Project Team: Pierrick Chalaye and Kei Nishiyama, together with the Centre’s Associate Wendy Russel Funded by The International Association for Public Participation, the Project Team includes: Kei Nishiyama Wendy Russell Pierrick Chalaye Project Description This project is a pilot program to introduce deliberation into public schools. Currently, students learn civic communication skills through debating. This may provide skills for the adversarial, win-at-all-cost, antagonistic style of current political debate, but we think our democracy will be strengthened by bringing a different set of skills to young people. The Deliberation in Schools program will build the capacity of school children to listen, reason, think, communicate and collaborate, so that they have the resources to engage productively as citizens in our democracy, both now and in the future. Classroom deliberation enables students to get a clearer understanding of issues in their society and everyday lives, find their own vocabulary to explain the issue at stake, and thereby cultivate their motivation for further engagement in and beyond school. The pilot begins with programs in two public schools in the ACT (a primary school and a secondary college). Each program involves a series of about 5 teaching sessions (approx. 2 hours each) over one term, focusing on topics selected from the Australian Curriculum and skills relating to the General Capabilities. The team will work with teachers to co-design the teaching sessions to fit with the curriculum and the learning needs of the class. It is anticipated that the deliberative approach being piloted will be used by teachers, but will also be delivered in schools by external practitioners/facilitators working with teachers. Based on our experiences and findings from the pilot, we will develop professional development (PD) resources aimed at teachers and engagement practitioners, which will provide guidance and resources to conduct similar programs in other schools and other settings. The first phase pilot and development of the PD resource is supported by the Australasian branch of the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2), through their Pitch for Practice program. A second phase of the pilot is planned that will extend the program to additional schools (including a high school), build on insights and outcomes of the first phase, and develop a collaborative research project. We are particularly interested in exploring student agency, the role of teachers, and how the program can help to empower students from marginalised groups. As well as providing skills consistent with curriculum requirements and building student agency and civic engagement, the Deliberation in Schools program will build the capacity of schools to govern and make decisions in a genuinely student-centred, inclusive way. It will also stimulate schools and school students to engage in political debates and decision-making, as students become motivated to write letters to politicians, make submissions, launch initiatives, and participate in community engagement activities. Beyond advocacy, this will help to build deep and enduring commitment and capacity for public participation and public deliberation. Project Outputs Russell, Wendy., Nishiyama, Kei., & Chalaye, Pierrick. (2019a) Deliberation in Ainslie School . Project Report submitted to International Association for Public Participation Australasia. Russell, Wendy., Nishiyama, Kei., & Chalaye, Pierrick. (2019b) Deliberation in Hawker College . Project Report submitted to International Association for Public Participation Australasia. Public Engagement Nishiyama, Kei., Russell, Wendy., Chalaye, Pierrick. (2019). What is the Deliberation in School pilot? What we learn? DeliberateACT (14 Feb). Nishiyama, Kei. (2018). Democratic education in multicultural societies. At Waseda University Department of Education Lifelong Education Course (15 Oct).

Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back Multiculturalism and Belonging in Australian Democracy Project Team: Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance Call for Participants: Deliberative Workshop 4 July 2025 | Canberra Are you aged 18–30, living in the ACT, and either you or your parents were born overseas? We’d love to hear from you! We're inviting expressions of interest for our Multiculturalism and Belonging deliberative workshop this July at the Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House . This workshop is a unique opportunity for young people to: Share their lived experiences of multiculturalism in Australia Reflect on what it means to belong — in society and in our democracy Contribute to research by the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and University of Canberra If you know someone who fits the criteria, please share this opportunity with them! Participants will receive $250 for their time and contributions. Registration: https://bit.ly/4k6He6O For questions, contact the Project Lead, Dr Adele Webb at Adele.Webb@canberra.edu.au EOIs close 6 June This research forms part of our Centre’s flagship project, Connecting to Parliament, which explores how to strengthen the relationship between citizens and democratic institutions. It is also one of our signature contributions to the Participedia project.

Nicole Curato, Selen A. Ercan, John Dryzek and Simon Niemeyer < Back Monitoring Deliberative Integrity in Australia Project Team: Nicole Curato, Selen A. Ercan, John Dryzek and Simon Niemeyer Funded by the Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative (AU$ 202,156) Project Description This project aims to develop and apply the concept of deliberative integrity as a counterpart to more familiar ideas about electoral integrity in the evaluation of democratic processes. The project develops significant new knowledge about the ethical conduct of Australian citizen engagement processes through conceptual and methodological innovation to produce a Deliberative Integrity Monitoring Tool that will be applied to the expanding range of deliberative democratic innovations in Australia. More on this project: https://deliberativeintegrityproject.org

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

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

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

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

Ricardo F. Mendonça, Camilo Aggio, Viktor Chagas, Selen Ercan, Viviane Freitas, Filipe Motta, Rayza Sarmento, Francisco Tavares < Back Deliberative democracy in the face of democratic crisis: Contributions, dilemmas and the ways forward Project Team: Ricardo F. Mendonça, Camilo Aggio, Viktor Chagas, Selen Ercan, Viviane Freitas, Filipe Motta, Rayza Sarmento, Francisco Tavares Funded by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development ($15,800 via University of Minas Gerais) Project Description The project seeks to specify the challenges contemporary democracies face and advance the ways deliberative perspective can help address these challenges. Selen Ercan teams up once again with our associate Ricardo F. Mendonça to investigate the context of democratic crisis from a perspective of deliberative democracy.

Nicole Curato, Jayeel Cornelio and Filomin Candaliza-Gutierrez < Back Who will Bury the Dead? Community Responses in Duterte’s Bloody War on Drugs Project Team: Nicole Curato, Jayeel Cornelio and Filomin Candaliza-Gutierrez Funded by ANU-DFAT Philippines Project Small Research Grant ($14,000), the Project Team includes: Nicole Curato, Chief Investigator Jayeel S. Cornelio, Co-Investigator Filomin Candaliza-Gutierrez, Co-Investigator Bianca Ysabell Franco, Research Associate Erron Media, Research Associate Project Description This project aims to conduct an exploratory study that examines community responses to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s bloody war on drugs. It is envisioned to be the first phase of a longer-term collaborative project which chronicles the social and political legacies of the drug war on the community level. While international media and human rights groups have called attention to the alarming body counts in the first six months of Duterte’s administration, it is equally important to take a systematic look at the communities that have directly borne the costs of war. The team aims to conduct preliminary data gathering to map formal and informal networks that are created, disrupted or negotiated because of the war, as well as the possibilities and obstructions for grassroots participation to formulate inclusive and humane approaches in solving the problem of illegal drugs. The approach is ethnographic and action-oriented. A team of sociologists will closely observe two communities in Manila that have witnessed a spate of killings and identify spaces for reform. This project aims to generate preliminary insight into how the war has forged or broken social networks within communities, and how it affects formal and informal structures of governance. These insights are crucial to better understand not only the costs of the drug war, but also identify emerging spaces for critical citizenship and collective problem-solving. Academic Publications Cornelio, Jayeel and Medina, Erron (Forthcoming) ‘Christianity and Duterte’s War on Drugs in the Philippines,’ Journal of Politics , Religion, and Ideology. Curato, N. and Ong, J.C. (2018) ‘Who laughs at a rape joke? Crass politics and ethical responsiveness in Rodrigo Duterte’s Philippines,’ in Ethical Responsiveness and the Politics of Difference , T. Dreher and A. Mondal (eds.) New York: Palgrave. Curato, Nicole (2017) The Duterte Reader: Critical Essays in Rodrigo Duterte’s Early Presidency . Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Speaking Engagements Medina, Erron (2019) ‘Christianity and Duterte’s War on Drugs in the Philippines.’ Contemporary Identities in Southeast Asia: A public forum on youth, violence, and transnationalism, Ateneo de Manila University. February 15. Franco, Bianca Ysabelle (2019) ‘Women in the Shadows of Duterte’s Drug War.’ Philippine Sociological Society Socio Caravan, Central Mindanao University. January 18. Franco, Bianca Ysabelle (2019) ‘Women in the Shadows of Duterte’s Drug War.’ Philippine Sociological Society Socio Caravan, Bukidnon State University. January 17. Franco, Bianca Ysabelle (2018) ‘Women in the Shadows of Duterte’s Drug War.’ Philippine Sociological Society (PSS) Conference, Siquijor State College. October 5-6. Cornelio, Jayeel and Erron Medina (2018) ‘Christianity and Duterte’s War on Drugs in the Philippines.’ Third International Conference of the Ateneo Center for Asian Studies. August 24. Cornelio, Jayeel (2018) ‘Philippines under Duterte.’ Invited speaker, Sydney Southeast Asia Centre, University of Sydney. May 18. Cornelio, Jayeel (2018) ‘Christianity and Duterte's War on Drugs in the Philippines.’ Invited lecture, Southeast Asia Research Centre, City University of Hong Kong. April 24. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘Who laughs at a rape joke? Crass politics and ethical responsiveness in Rodrigo Duterte’s Philippines.’ Southeast Asia’s democratic recession: Understanding causes and consequences, Griffith Asia, Griffith University. December 11-12. Gutierrez, Filomin Candaliza (2018) ‘Penal Populism in the Philippines: The Rise of Violence in Duterte’s War on Drugs.’ Invited lecture, Kyoto Sangyo University, Kyoto, Japan. November 8. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘How do populists govern? Lessons from Rodrigo Duterte’s Philippines.’ Yale MacMillan Centre, Yale University. October 16. Gutierrez, Filomin Candaliza. (2017) ‘The Rise of Penal Populism and Violence under the Duterte Regime: Research as Response.’ International Sociological Association PhD Laboratory, the University of Adam Mickiewicz, Poznan, Poland. September 21. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘From Demagogues to Deplorables? Populist publics in Rodrigo Duterte’s Philippines.’ Invited speaker, Philippine Studies-Berlin, Humboldt University. June 26. Blogs and Op-eds Franco, Bianca Ysabelle (2018) ‘Women against women in Duterte’s drug war’ in BroadAgenda . December 11. Cornelio, Jayeel and Medina, Erron. ‘Duterte’s enduring popularity is not just a political choice—it is also religious’ in New Mandala . September 3. Franco, Bianca Ysabelle (2018) ‘Women in the shadows of Duterte’s drug war’ in Rappler.com . June 30. Cornelio, Jayeel (2018) ‘The New Normal’ in Rappler.com . January 23. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘The deeper dynamics of Duterte’s drug war’ in EastAsiaForum.org . September 8. Gutierrez, Filomin Candaliza (2017) ‘Duterte and Penal Populism: The Hypermasculinity of Crime Control in the Philippines’ in Discover Society.org . August 2. Cornelio, Jayeel (2017) ‘Collateral Damage’ in Rappler.com . August 22. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘Women in Duterte’s War on Drugs.’ BroadAgenda . March 1. Media Interviews Curato, Nicole (2019) Interview with David Astle. ABC Radio Melbourne and Victoria. January 31. Curato, Nicole (2018) Duterte’s Despotism. Podcast with Aufhebunga Bunga . November 7. Curato, Nicole (2018) #BabaeAko : Is President Duterte's behaviour sexist, or "taken out of context" in The Stream , Al Jazeera. June 6. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘Criticism of Rodrigo Duterte’s “war on drugs” grows after the death of a teenage boy.’ Interview at Radio National . August 23. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘Duterte refuses to step back from controversial war on drugs.’ Interview at ABC The World . July 24. Curato, Nicole. (2017) ‘Die moisten Toten lebten in Armut.’ Featured interview in Republik.ch . February 27. Curato, Nicole (2017) Interview with BBC’s Up All Night with Rod Sharpe . January 2.

Centre for Deliberative Democracy < Back Deliberative Engagement in Action Masterclass Series Project Team: Centre for Deliberative Democracy We design interactive masterclasses for public servants, engagement practitioners, and researchers seeking to deepen their skills in designing and delivering high-quality deliberative processes. Each session blends practical exercises, peer learning, and expert guidance to equip you with the tools, strategies, and confidence to make deliberation more inclusive, representative, and impactful.  Masterclass topics We've designed a suite of masterclasses on core topics in deliberative engagement, but we also work with organisations to create tailored sessions that address specific challenges or learning goals. Whether you choose one of our existing masterclasses or collaborate with us to design something bespoke, each session is adapted to suit your context and needs. Our core masterclass topics include: From invitation to inclusion: building representative deliberative spaces Representation lies at the heart of effective deliberation, but achieving it requires more than just assembling a group of people. This masterclass explores how representation can be meaningfully achieved in deliberative processes, from recruiting diverse participants to ensuring the voices of those not in the room are still heard. We’ll examine different strategies for inclusion, practical ways to incorporate varied perspectives, and approaches for integrating expert opinion without overshadowing community voices. Through case examples and collaborative exercises, participants will leave with a toolkit of methods to create deliberative spaces that are truly representative and inclusive.    By the end of this masterclass, participants will be able to:  Explore and apply diverse strategies for achieving meaningful, inclusive, and balanced representation in deliberative processes.   Apply strategies to ensure the voices of people not directly participating are meaningfully incorporated into deliberations.  Design recruitment and selection approaches that support diversity and inclusivity.  Integrate expert knowledge in ways that inform, without dominating, community perspectives.  Recognise and address barriers that limit participation from underrepresented groups.  Select and adapt methods to support inclusive discussion and equitable participation during deliberations.  Methods in focus: Crafting the Right deliberative process Different goals, contexts, and communities call for different deliberative methods, but how do you choose the right one? This interactive masterclass begins with an introduction to a “library” of deliberative engagement methods, exploring their purposes, strengths, and trade-offs. Participants will then take part in short, immersive deliberations to experience selected methods in action. In the second half of the day, participants will work in teams to design a deliberative process for a chosen scenario, selecting and adapting methods to suit the purpose and context. Expert facilitators will provide feedback on designs, offering practical insights and strategies participants can take back to their own work.    By the end of this masterclass, participants will be able to:  Compare a range of deliberative engagement methods and understand their respective purposes, strengths, and limitations.  Select appropriate methods to match different policy goals, contexts, and communities.  Experience and reflect on the dynamics of different deliberative formats through hands-on participation.  Adapt and combine methods to address practical considerations such as timeframes, resources, and participant needs.  Design a deliberative process that aligns with clear objectives and desired outcomes.  Critically assess a process design to ensure inclusivity, clarity, and effectiveness.  Registration Our 2026 masterclass series is coming soon, with sessions planned across multiple states. Want to be the first to know when registration opens? Email delibdem@canberra.edu.au to join our mailing list. What's Included Certificate of participation from the Centre for Deliberative Democracy, University of Canberra.  A take-home handbook with resources, links, and recommended readings.  An overview of a range of deliberative methods, provided in a handy reference PDF.  Interactive learning through small-group activities, scenario-based exercises, and opportunities to design and test processes.  Pre-reading to set the scene, plus optional articles and resources for ongoing learning after the session.  Catering, coffee, and a collaborative learning environment.    Who should attend These masterclasses are designed for:  Public servants and policy officers involved in community engagement or strategic planning.  Engagement practitioners working in government, non-profits, or consultancy.  Community leaders and advocates interested in strengthening participatory decision-making.  Researchers and students focused on democratic innovation or public policy.  Anyone looking to deepen their skills in designing and delivering inclusive, representative, and effective deliberative processes.    No prior experience with deliberative engagement is required, just an interest in creating meaningful spaces for public participation.  PAST MASTERCLASSES Deliberative Democracy in Action Masterclasses 14-16 May 2025 Effective community engagement starts with the right tools and approaches—and deliberation offers both. The Deliberative Democracy in Action Masterclasses offer a hands-on introduction to the principles and tools of deliberative engagement—an evidence-based approach that leads to more inclusive, constructive, and legitimate outcomes. Whether you're designing consultations, facilitating conversations, or shaping policy, these masterclasses will equip you with practical strategies to engage communities in ways that build trust and deliver impact. Through these sessions, you'll learn how to: Improve the quality of public engagement by creating spaces where participants feel heard, respected, and empowered to contribute. Broaden the reach of public engagement by designing inclusive processes that engage people from all walks of life—not just the usual voices. Balance diverse perspectives by exploring the trade-offs between competing values and interests. Bridge divisions and disagreements through meaningful dialogue and active listening. Drawing from real-world examples in Australia and around the world, the sessions explore fresh, practical approaches to deliberative engagement. Hosted by the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance — a world leader in the study of public participation — this series brings together expert thinkers and practitioners who are helping to reshape democracy for the better. You’ll also have the chance to connect with some of Australia’s leading experts in deliberative engagement and become part of our growing network of practitioners working to make public engagement more meaningful and effective. Participants will also receive a certificate from the Centre of Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. Full program here: Masterclass Programme .pdf Download PDF • 1.06MB

André Bächtiger, Nicole Curato, John Dryzek, Selen A. Ercan, Eda Keremoglu-Waibler, Simon Niemeyer and Kei Nishiyama < Back Understanding and Evaluating Deliberative Systems Project Team: André Bächtiger, Nicole Curato, John Dryzek, Selen A. Ercan, Eda Keremoglu-Waibler, Simon Niemeyer and Kei Nishiyama Funded by DAAD/German Academic Exchange Service and Universities Australia, the Project Team includes: André Bächtiger Nicole Curato John Dryzek Selen A. Ercan Eda Keremoglu-Waibler Simon Niemeyer Kei Nishiyama In recent years, deliberative democratic theory turned away from a focus on deliberation within small-scale forums, towards a focus on systems embracing multiple sites of deliberation and decision-making. The shift towards a systems approach enabled scholars to move beyond the limitations of focusing on mini-publics and other democratic innovations and instead think about the various ways in which deliberative activity is dispersed in various spaces of political action. The deliberative systems approach opens up a new way of thinking about deliberation, but also raises questions with respect to its practical application and empirical investigation. This project builds upon the existing joint projects of the project partners in this field and seeks to refine the methodological tools to empirically examine and compare the 'deliberative systems' in different political systems and across different policy areas. This project aims to: 1) develop a conceptual framework for assessing the deliberative democratic quality of contemporary political systems; 2) develop a mixed method for the analysis of deliberative systems (by combining the insights gained from qualitative and quantitative methods of analysing deliberation); 3) offer empirical application of these methods in the context of individual research projects of the project partners.

John Dryzek and Robert Goodin < Back The Theory and Practice of Deliberative Democracy Project Team: John Dryzek and Robert Goodin Funded through Discovery Project (DP0342795) ($223,547), the Project Team includes: John Dryzek Robert Goodin Christian Hunold Carolyn Hendriks Aviezer Tucker Project Description This project examined the relationship between deliberative innovations, especially citizen forums, and the larger political contexts in which they take place. Particular kinds of institutional innovation work out quite differently in different contexts. A comparative study of consensus conferences on genetically modified foods revealed sharp differences between the roles such forums play in Denmark (where they are integrated into policy making), the United States (where they are advocacy inputs from the margins of policy making), and France (where they are managed from the top down). A broader survey of cases also revealed systematic differences between the relatively 'promethean' position that policy makers are constrained to take, and the more 'precautionary' conclusions reached by reflective publics, causing problems for the deliberative legitimation of risk-related policy via citizen forums. A close look at Germany enabled systematic comparison of the virtues and problems of forums made up of, respectively, partisan stakeholders and non-partisan lay citizens. Another broad survey of cases looked at the variety of ways in which citizen forums, or 'mini-publics', can have an impact in larger political systems. All these empirical results can help inform the development of deliberative democratic theory, as well as the practice of deliberative innovation.

Simon Niemeyer, Will Steffen, Brendan Mackey, Janette Lindesay and Kersty Hobson < Back Social Adaptation to Climate Change in the Australian Public Sphere: A comparison of individual and group deliberative responses to scenarios of future climate change Project Team: Simon Niemeyer, Will Steffen, Brendan Mackey, Janette Lindesay and Kersty Hobson Funded by Discovery Project (DP0879092) ($378,500), the Project Team includes: Simon Niemeyer, Chief Investigator Will Steffen, Chief Investigator Brendan Mackey, Chief Investigator Janette Lindesay, Chief Investigator Kersty Hobson, Chief Investigator Project Description This project develops an understanding of Australia’s response to climate change and ways to improve adaptation from a governance perspective. An interdisciplinary team will construct and use original climate change scenarios to assess public responses through interviews, survey methods, contrasting individual responses with results of deliberative forums and follow up interviews. Significant developments in methods and concepts and understanding of adaptation will have an international audience.It will produce a series of regionally specific scenarios, statement of likely responses and role of institutional design and policy in improving adaptation.

Jonathan Pickering and Pierrick Chalaye < Back Research report: Towards a coherent energy transition: expanding renewable energy and reducing inequalities in Australia Project Team: Jonathan Pickering and Pierrick Chalaye In this report, Jonathan Pickering and Pierrick Chalaye explore the synergies and tensions between the expansion of renewable energy and efforts to reduce inequalities in Australia . Read and download the report here: Energy transition report (Dec 2023)

Claudia Benham, Simon Niemeyer and Hannah Barrowman < Back Great Barrier Reef Futures Citizens’ Jury Project Team: Claudia Benham, Simon Niemeyer and Hannah Barrowman Funded through James Cook University, the Project Team includes: Claudia Benham Simon Niemeyer Hannah Barrowman Project Description Simon Niemeyer and Hannah Barrowman are collaborating with Claudia Benham (James Cook University) in a project trialling deliberative engagement on the future of the Great Barrier Reef. The three-day Citizens’ Jury examines issues of reef management and regional economic development in the context of climate change.

Kei Nishiyama < Back Practicing and Visualising Democratic Disagreements in the Classroom Project Team: Kei Nishiyama Funded by the Uehiro Foundation on Ethics and Education ($7,468.92), Project Team includes Kei Nishiyama Project Description The project aims to understand the role of democratic disagreements and deliberation in democratic education. Working with school teachers (National Institute for Technology, Tokyo College) in Japan, Kei will engage in action research by introducing and practicing well-designed deliberative activities in the classroom where students talk and think about controversial ethical, moral, and political questions (e.g. abortion, ethics of human enhancement, animal rights). The project considers the following questions: (1) What is the role of deep political, moral, ethical disagreement in democratic education? (2) When students are deeply divided as a result of deliberation, what sort of activities should be designed for enabling them to engage in "democratic" disagreement (rather than merely political, moral, ethical disagreements)?(3)How can meta-consensus mitigate students' deep disagreements and how can we visualise our meta-consensus?

Simon Niemeyer, Hemant Ojha < Back Governing Climate Resilient Futures: gender, justice and conflict resolution in resource management Project Team: Simon Niemeyer, Hemant Ojha Funded through the Swedish Research Council (VR), “Sustainability and Resilience grant, Governing Climate Resilient Futures: gender, justice and conflict resolution in resource management (JUSTCLIME)” has now entered the last year of its operation. It is a partnership initiative among Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and other partners based on Norway, Kenya, Nepal and Nicaragua. It has produced two papers with Hemant Ojha as either lead or contributing author in 2022: Khatri, D. B., A. J. Nightingale, H. Ojha, G. Maskey and P. N. Lama ‘Tsumpa’ (2022). "Multi-scale politics in climate change: the mismatch of authority and capability in federalizing Nepal." Climate Policy: 1-13. Ojha, H., A. J. Nightingale, N. Gonda, B. O. Muok, S. Eriksen, D. Khatri and D. Paudel (2022). "Transforming environmental governance: critical action intellectuals and their praxis in the field." Sustainability Science 17(2): 621-635.