Search Results

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

< Back Thais Choucair Associate About Thaís Choucair is a PhD student in the Graduate Program in Communication of the Federal University of Minas Gerais (PPGCOM UFMG). Thaís works in the fields of politics and communication, quantitative and qualitative methodologies, digital activism, deliberation, deliberative system and framing.

< Back Simone Chambers Associate About Simone Chambers has written and published on such topics as deliberative democracy, public reason, the public sphere, secularism, rhetoric, civility and the work of Jürgen Habermas and John Rawls. She is a Professor of Political Science at the University of California at Irvine.

< Back Lyn Carson Associate About Lyn Carson has taught and researched in the field of deliberative democracy, asking how the wider public can help to resolve policy challenges. She was involved in convening Australia's first Consensus Conference, the first Deliberative Polls, the first Australian Citizens' Parliament, and numerous Citizens' Juries and Community Summits.

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

< Back Unveiling the mandate Jensen Sass, University of Canberra Tue 3 April 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Elections are justified in light of two competing ends. On the accountability view, elections function retrospectively by enabling voters to 'kick the bastards out'. On the mandate view, elections operate prospectively by enabling voters to register their support for a suite of policies. The dual character of elections presents democrats with a dilemma. As currently designed, electoral processes do not reveal the intentions of the electorate. In consequence, they do not reveal whether voters intended to remove a government, or program a new one. A government elected on a wave of protest can claim a strong mandate and pursue legislation that enjoys little popular support. Voters cannot hold such a government accountable until the next election and, even if they remove the incumbents, this perverse cycle can play out again. Elections can only foster accountability in light of a mandate, and these presuppose the existence of (and knowledge about) stable and well-structured voter intentions. This dilemma is basic to all electoral processes but has received little serious attention from normative political theorists or scholars of institutional design. In this paper we propose a minimal reform of electoral processes to overcome this problem, one that would clarify voter intentions. This would allow us to specify the scope of a government's mandate, as well as enabling elections to function more efficiently as accountability mechanisms. The overarching aim of the paper is to better align our existing political institutions with normative democratic theories and hence defend representative democracy against its recent detractors. About the speaker Jensen Sass is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. His work at the Centre examines the way social norms and cultural meanings shape the character of deliberation within different contexts. In addition to his work on deliberation, Jensen is undertaking a long-term project on the history of the Monsanto Company and its role in the development of agricultural biotechnology. Previous Next

< Back Judging technical claims in democratic deliberation: A rhetorical analysis of two Citizens' Initiative Review panels in Oregon John Rountree, University of Houston-Downtown Tue 5 May 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Average citizens face difficulty evaluating competing expert claims in the public sphere, and the complexity of policy issues threatens citizens’ autonomy in democratic governance. This study examines how participants in a rigorous deliberative setting judge technical claims. It analyzes audio and transcripts from two intensive mini-public deliberations in the Citizens’ Initiative Review in Oregon. It shows how lay participants in these meetings rhetorically co-construct a standard of verifiability to evaluate expert claims. The study then reflects on what this emergent standard of judgment reveals about the potentials and pitfalls of lay deliberation concerning technical policy issues. About the speaker John Rountree ( rountreej@uhd.edu ) is an Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Houston-Downtown. He studies democratic deliberation, particularly as it brings together citizens and public officials in the public sphere. His dissertation looks at congressional town hall meetings and the opportunities for deliberative participation in national political life. John received his Ph.D. in Communication from Pennsylvania State University in 2019. Previous Next

< Back Indigenous grassroots participation and the coevolution of deliberative systems Mei-Fang Fan, National Yang-Ming University Tue 2 October 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Research on deliberative systems with detailed discussions on indigenous democracy and the deliberative features of indigenous activism is limited. The heterogeneous and ambivalent complexity of colonial history and geographical contexts has had a considerable effect on indigenous representatives and indigenous forms of deliberation. Indigenous movement and environmental protests against the dominance of the state are traditionally regarded as nondeliberative. The systemic approach of deliberative democracy argues that activism constitute an integral part of public deliberation, which recognises the contribution of indigenous knowledge and democratic practices to policy-making and wider deliberative systems. This article considers indigenous activism and political communication as a part of the macro-deliberative system as well as a micro deliberative system in itself. Drawing on the controversy on flooding and wild creek remediation projects on Orchid Island, Taiwan, this study explored how indigenous activism facilitate space for deliberation and improve the democratising quality of deliberative systems. Tao tribesmen transcended their original boundaries to engage in communication and activate plural deliberative spaces when facing conflicting new challenges and the government’s dominant policy positions with limited discursive space. Tao activists used the virtual community as both an internal and external communication platform and engaged in transmission and visualisation of traditional knowledge system and practices. Indigenous grassroots participation facilitates knowledge coproduction and social learning and reshapes tribal political subjectivities, which reveals the coevolution of tribal deliberative systems and their interaction with the State, intertwined with deliberative systems. About the speaker Mei-Fang Fan is Professor at the Institute of Science, Technology and Society, National Yang-Ming University and research fellow at the Risk Society and Policy Research Centre, National Taiwan University. She holds a Doctoral degree in Environment and Society from Lancaster University, UK. Research interests include environmental justice and governance; deliberative democracy and public participation in decision-making on risk; participatory budgeting; local knowledge and citizen science. Her recent work on environmental justice, public deliberations on GM foods in Taiwan and nuclear waste facility siting controversy has appeared in the journals Human Ecology, Public Understanding of Science and Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. Mei-Fang sits on the editorial board of Taiwanese journal of public administration and is a member of the Taipei City participatory budgeting government-academia alliance. Previous Next

< Back Democracy: Friendship in the company of strangers? Quinlan Bowman, University of Canberra Tue 4 July 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In this presentation I discuss two potentially constructive functions that the concept and practice of friendship can play in (cross-cultural) dialogues about democracy. First, I describe how appeals to friendship might help to generate greater agreement among democrats regarding the attractiveness of specifically deliberative forms of decision-making. Second, I describe how appeals to friendship might help to move those who do not begin as democrats toward a recognition of the attractiveness of democratic decision-making – indeed, as above, toward a recognition of the attractiveness of specifically deliberative forms of such decision-making. In both cases, the appeal to friendship functions as a species of immanent critique. About the speaker Dr Quinlan Bowman joined the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance as a Postdoctoral Fellow in 2016, after completing my PhD in Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. Previous Next

< Back Digging deeper: The role of emotions in anti-coal seam gas mobilization Hedda Ransan-Cooper, Sonya Duus & Selen Ercan, University of Canberra Tue 23 May 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In many countries, the expansion of coal seam gas (CSG) exploration and development has been met with grassroots resistance; the scale and depth of which has surprised even movement organizers. An often remarked feature of the movement’s success is the teaming up of farmers and environmental organizers, historically at odds with one another on other environmental issues. In this paper, we explore the role of emotions in building alliances, and mobilizing anti-CSG individuals and groups in Australia, especially the site of a proposed coal seam gas field in Narrabri, in northwest NSW. Using Margaret Wetherell’s affective-discourses approach and Charles Tilly’s concept of repertoires of contention as our conceptual springboard, we analyse interviews with various anti-CSG movement participants. The paper argues that affective practices play a significant role in explaining how the movement has sustained mobilization against CSG despite differences between movement participants. Emotions allow a new repertoire of contention that combines everyday practices associated with ‘doing’ community with confrontational direct action tactics favoured by several environmental groups. We discuss the implications of this development for the social movements literature in general and for the anti-CSG mobilization in Australia. This paper is part of a research project on 'Realising Democracy Amid Communicative Plenty: A Deliberative Systems Approach' funded by the Australian Research Council About the speakers Hedda Ransan-Cooper is a research fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance located at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra. Her research interests include the social dimension of energy change and the nexus between environmental change and human mobility. Her recent publications appeared in Global Environmental Change and Environmental Sociology. Sonya Duus is a research fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance located at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra. Sonya's research has focussed on explaning current fossil fuel dilemmas from a broad and historical perspective. She has published papers in Environmental Politics and Rural Society. Selen Ercan is a senior research fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance located at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra. She works in the area of deliberative democracy focusing particularly on the capacity of this approach in addressing irreconcilable value conflicts. Her recent publications appeared in International Political Science Review, Policy and Politics, Environmental Politics and Critical Policy Studies. Previous Next

< Back Katherine Curchin Associate and Former PhD Student About Katherine is an applied political philosopher with research interests in normative political philosophy, social policy and Indigenous policy in Australia. Katherine completed her PhD in Political Science under the supervision of Prof John Dryzek in 2010. Her doctoral thesis drew upon deliberative democratic theory to explore the ethics of criticising other cultures.

< Back Representation of future generations through international climate litigation: A new site for discursive representation Peter Lawrence, University of Tasmania / Lukas Koehler, Munich School of philosophy Tue 30 August 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract While the recent Paris Agreement represents a step forward in terms of international action on climate change, grave doubts remain in terms of whether it will deliver the dramatic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions called for by scientists. These doubts relate to both the power of vested interests but also the chronic inability of democratic governments to take into account long-term interests. Such short-term thinking could be redressed by “discursive representation” (Dryzek and Niemeyer 2008) of discourses which reflect the interests of future generations. The paper explores the potential for such discursive representation in relation to international climate litigation (including the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights). Such litigation is potentially valuable as a vehicle for pressuring governments to take stronger action on climate change. But this approach gives rise to a series of difficult questions which our paper will address. How do we decide which discourses legitimately represent the interests of future generations in a context where such cases depend on NGOs articulating what they regard as future generations’ interests? Should courts inquire into the internal processes of such NGOs as a precondition for granting them standing? Can restrictive ‘standing provisions’ which limit who can bring claims before such tribunals be overcome? Is a judicial process inherently too limiting given the undemocratic nature of international courts with judges appointed by governments which are not necessarily democratic themselves? In spite of these challenges, the paper argues that the notion of discursive representation provides a convincing way of ensuring the democratic legitimacy of such litigation on the grounds that: ii) marginalised intergenerational justice discourses can be given greater prominence in decision-making processes and ii) judges can apply and develop concepts that may help to represent future generations through international legal concepts with intergenerational content (e.g. sustainable development, the non-discrimination and equal human rights principles). The paper is linked to ongoing work by the authors in relation to a project funded by the Germany-Australia DAAD research cooperation fund. About the speaker Peter Lawrence ( Peter.Lawrence@utas.edu.au ) is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Tasmania (UTAS) Law School, the author of Justice for Future Generations, Climate Change and International Law (2014) and Faculty Advisor of the University of Tasmania Law Review. Previously Peter worked for the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, including as First Secretary to the Australian Mission to the UN in Geneva. Lukas Koehler ( lukas.koehler@hfph.de ) is Director of the Centre for Environmental Ethics and Education of the Munich School of Philosophy, Germany. He is a joint author of Human Rights as a Normative Guideline for Climate Policy, in: Bos/Duwell (eds) Human Rights and Sustainability (2016 Routledge). Both Peter and Lukas are currently working together on a Germany-Australia (DAAD) research project on ‘Representation of future generations through international climate litigation’. Previous Next

< Back Marina Lindell Associate About Marina Lindell's research has focused on citizen deliberation, opinion formation, minorities, political participation, democratic innovations, inter-temporal choices and long-term decision-making, and the role of personality in deliberation. She is a Research Fellow at the Social Science Research Institute at Åbo Akademi University.

< Back EXPLORING THE BARRIERS AND ENABLERS OF INTERCULTURAL ENGAGEMENT IN AUSTRALIA: THE CASE OF INDIAN DIASPORA IN CANBERRA Australian multiculturalism, while a successful project and policy framework since the 1970s, does not emphasise intercultural engagement in its practice and thus fails to promote interaction at a micro, community level. Advancing intercultural engagement is a key for the future of multiculturalism in Australia. Only by making multiculturalism more interactive, Australia can respond to the emerging ‘super-diversity’ in this country. This research will seek to understand the enablers and barriers of intercultural engagement through an in-depth study of the Indian diaspora in Canberra as a case study. While Indian diaspora is only one ethnic community among many others, it is a suitable case for exploring the questions this research seeks to respond to. The project will offer new insights on how different actors perceive and practice intercultural engagement focusing on three different yet interconnected levels of analysis within the public domain- the public, civic actors, and government agencies. It will involve interviews with key actors, focus groups with the members of Indian diaspora and document analysis of policy documents with respect to multiculturalism and intercultural engagement. The project is funded by the industry partnership between University of Canberra/Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance and Canberra Multicultural Services (CMS). Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Previous Next

< Back John Boswell Associate and 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 Stakeholder engagement and deliberation in environmental approvals: A case study of Gladstone, Queensland Claudia Benham, Australian National University Tue 3 June 2014 11:00am – 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract Australia’s natural gas boom has prompted public concern over the industry’s potential to impact on communities and the environment. It has been suggested that public deliberation, in the context of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and approvals processes, can promote more sustainable decision making that incorporates a range of community perspectives. This is particularly important given the international commitments of Australian gas producers to principles of sustainable development. Claudia’s PhD research explores community perceptions of the quality of public deliberation during the environmental approvals process for three Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) plants in Queensland, Australia. In this presentation, she will discuss the preliminary findings of her research with residents in the Gladstone Region. These early findings suggest that opportunities for public participation through public meetings were provided during the LNG approvals processes, but there remains room for improvement in the deliberative quality of these engagements, and in linking the outcomes of public meetings to decision making processes. About the speaker Claudia is a PhD student in the Fenner School of Environment and Society and CSIRO Science into Society Group. Her PhD research examines the social and ecological impacts of natural gas developments, and seeks to identify opportunities for managing these impacts through deliberative forms of governance. Claudia has previously worked for the Australian Government in water policy and marine conservation roles, and she is particularly interested in the application of deliberative approaches to environmental problems with global effects, especially on marine and coastal environments. She has published on water resources management and NRM funding in Australia. Previous Next

< Back Mohammad Abdul-Hwas Research Assistant About Mohammad is a Research Assistant who has recently completed a PhD at the Centre, focusing on refugee governance and deliberative democracy. Connecting with Syrian refugees inspired him to research deliberative democracy, with the ambition to improve the experience and agency of people caught in a refugee crisis. His thesis, “ The governance of refugees from a deliberative system perspective: The case of Syrian refugee crisis ”, applied the deliberative system approach to examine the relationship between vulnerable communities and decision-makers, with particular attention to inclusiveness, authenticity, and consequentiality. He conducted extensive fieldwork in refugee camps and urban centres in Jordan to explore the political agency of refugees and the role of deliberative processes in shaping refugee governance. Mohammad is engaged in a number of projects, including co-authoring a paper on deliberation and shura, an Arabic-Islamic tradition of consultative decision-making. Teaching Academic Tutor, Investigating and Explaining Society (11236.1), Semester 2, 2023, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, Faculty of Business, Government & Law, University of Canberra, Australia. Academic Tutor, Introduction to Public Policy (11378.1), Semester 2, 2023, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, Faculty of Business, Government & Law, University of Canberra, Australia. Academic Tutor, Accelerated Pathways Program course: Politics and Democracy (APP) (11846), Semester 2, 2023, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra, Australia. Academic Tutor, Political and Social Theory (11243.1), Semester 1, 2023, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, Faculty of Business, Government & Law, University of Canberra, Australia. Academic Marking, Introduction to International Relations (11238.1), Semester 2, 2022, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, Faculty of Business, Government & Law, University of Canberra, Australia. Conference Presentations “A Deliberative System Approach to Refugee Crisis Governance: Focus on Transmission and Accountability.” APSA Annual Conference, November 27–30, 2023, University of Sydney, Australia. “The potential and limits of deliberative democracy in the governance of refugee crisis.” NZPSA Annual Conference, November 30, 2022, The University of Waikato, New Zealand (Virtual Conference). “Governance of refugee crisis from a deliberative approach: Focus on public and empowered spaces.” APSA Annual Conference, September 27, 2022, Australian National University, Australia. “Governing the Syrian refugee crisis: A deliberative assessment.” NEXT Generation Deliberation Celebration Symposium, June 10, 2021, KU Leuven University, Belgium (Virtual Conference). “The role of deliberation in governing the Syrian refugee crisis: Insights from the field.” Deliberative Democracy Seminar Series, October 6, 2020, University of Canberra, Australia. “Governing the Syrian refugee crisis: A deliberative perspective.” APSA Conference, September 18, 2020 (Virtual Conference). “The role of deliberation in governance of the Syrian refugee crisis.” Deliberative Democracy Summer School, February 5, 2020, University of Canberra, Australia. Previous Projects Mohammad was part of a global research team on the Global Assembly on the Climate and Ecological Emergency. Among the thirty researchers from different parts of the globe, he actively participated in observing deliberative engagement processes during the plenary sessions at Global Assembly COP26. Administration Co-organizer, Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance’s Book Reception, 2022. Co-organizer, Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance’s Book Harvest, 2020.

Former PhD student < Back Nardine Alnemr Former PhD student About Nardine Alnemr researches algorithms in deliberative democracy. Her research interest also includes internet governance and digital rights. She currently works with Professor Nicole Curato on citizen deliberation in the Global South.

< Back Andrew Knops Associate About Andrew Knops' interests lie broadly in political sociology, especially the theory and practice of democracy, although he also teaches research methods. He is a lecturer in Sociology at the University of Birmingham.

< Back Should democracies permit citizens to select refugees for admission and resettlement? Patti Tamara Lenard, University of Ottawa Tue 7 August 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl Room, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract One way that states discharge their duties to refugees is by admitting them for resettlement. Of the millions of refugees in places of refuge, only one million are specially designated by the UNHCR for resettlement in third countries. These individuals, identified by the UNCHR as either especially vulnerable, or particularly unlikely to find any alternative permanent solution, are prioritized for admission to third countries for resettlement. Of these, only a small number are actually selected by host countries for resettlement, however; last year, just over 100 000 found permanent homes in third countries. In this article, I take all of this context seriously, to consider the ethics of one particular way of selecting refugees for resettlement, that is, by giving citizens the driver’s seat in selecting refugees for admission to resettlement. I ask, in this article, whether it is morally acceptable to permit citizens of democracies to select specific refugees for resettlement, under the condition that they are willing to support – financially and emotionally – those whom they select. I argue, ultimately, that there are moral goods that derive from permitting citizens to select refugees for admission, but that they do not outweigh the importance of offering scarce resettlement spots to those who are most in need. Therefore, any democratic refugee admission scheme that permits citizens to select refugees must constrain those who can be named for admission to those who are most in need. I conclude with some proposals for how this can be achieved. About the speaker Patti Tamara Lenard is Associate Professor of Ethics in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa. She is the author of Trust, Democracy and Multicultural Challenges (Penn State, 2012). Her work has been published in a range of journals, including Political Studies, Ethics and International Affairs, Review of Politics, and Ethics and Global Politics. Her current research focuses on the moral questions raised by migration across borders in an era of terrorism, especially as it pertains to refugees and irregularly present migrants, trust and social cohesion, and democratic theory more generally. Her most recent work, focused on the moral dilemmas posed by denationalization for terror-related crimes, is newly published in the American Political Science Review (2018). Previous Next