Search Results

< Back John Uhr Associate About John Uhr is a Professor of Political Science in the School of Politics and International Relations at the Australian National University.

< Back Co-producing deliberative space: Reflections from city level water forum initiatives in India and Nepal Hemant R Ojha, University of Canberra Tue 17 November 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel . Abstract There is now an increasing level of endorsement of the deliberative approach to governance, bolstered by evidence of benefits in legitimacy, inclusion, social learning, and even the quality of governance outcomes. In the Global South, however, entrenched power asymmetries and political cultures that tend to ignore, if not actively suppress, the practice of deliberation in political decision making continue to challenge efforts to improve deliberation in governance. In this paper, I reflect on some recent and ongoing action research initiatives supporting urban water forums in four cities in India and Nepal. Locally engaged research team partnered with academic research groups from Europe and Australia to design and test urban water forums as an experiment to expand deliberative space on issues related to water management, access, and resilience to climate change. The forums were co-organised by local research groups and city level governments, inviting representatives of all major social groups that have an interest in or are concerned with the problems of water in the city. Over a period of five years, these experiments show that locally engaged research practice can stimulate open dialogues, self-reflections (especially among the powerful groups), system-wide collective thinking, and an appreciation of the longer-term environmental risks in city level planning and decision making. However, seeing through the lens of co-production, these gains in deliberation that emerged in the context of transnational research partnership are less likely to effect new modes of co-production in governance, without larger, deeper and system-wide processes of change and transformation. This experience suggests that small-scale innovations in deliberation can meet co-production limit but can still show directionality and confidence in larger and deeper changes in the system. About the speaker Hermant R Ojha is Adjunct Associate Professor at the Center for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance and Senior Policy Advisor at the Institute for Study and Development Worldwide (IFSD) in Sydney. Previous Next

< Back Fast track or wrong track: Heuristics in deliberative systems Andreas Schäfer, Humboldt University Tue 26 February 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract This presentation focuses on the role heuristics can and should play within a deliberative system. Heuristics are routinely cast in opposition to deliberative practices. Whereas deliberation aims at the systematic and comprehensive exchange of information and arguments related to a specific, often complex problem, heuristics ignore (parts of) information in order to facilitate fast and frugal decision making. However, scholars have pointed to the advantages of heuristics for citizens and elites alike in making assessments and taking positions within an increasingly complex social environment. Some scholars even argue that heuristics can lead to better results than more complex procedures of decision-making, especially when complete information regarding the problem under consideration is unavailable, too costly, or contested. The question arises, then, of how the potential positive and negative effects of heuristics can be combined with deliberative approaches to political decision making. To empirically illustrate this dilemma, I draw on a research project that investigates communication strategies of political parties in an increasingly dynamic, complex and insecure media environment – one characterized by a plurality of communication platforms as well as a by a new hybridity of old and new media logics. About the speaker Dr. Andreas Schäfer is currently a visiting Professor for Political Sociology and Social Policy at the Department of Social Sciences at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, where he also received his PhD in 2015. His research interests rest at the intersection between political communication and decision-making. He has investigated the role of deliberation in parliamentary decision-making and is now focusing on strategies political parties use for communication in an age of increasing communicative abundance. Related publications include “Deliberation in representative institutions: an analytical framework for a systemic approach” (Australian Journal of Political Science, 2017) and “Zwischen Repräsentation und Diskurs: Zur Rolle von Deliberation im parlamentarischen Entscheidungsprozess” (Springer VS, 2017). Previous Next

< Back Walter Baber Associate About Walter F. Baber is a professor in the Environmental Sciences and Policy Program and the Graduate Center for Public Policy and Administration at California State University, Long Beach. He is also a lead member of the Amsterdam-based Earth System Governance Project and an Affiliated Professor at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law at Lund University.

< Back Conflict and complexity in a participatory process: Lessons from a wind energy dispute in King Island, Tasmania Rebecca Colvin, Australian National University Tue 20 February 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In 2012, a large-scale wind energy development was proposed for development in King Island, Tasmania. Despite adopting what was described as ‘best practice’ community engagement, the time of the proposal was marred by social conflict between people and groups in King Island. The local dispute escalated to levels where families, friendships, and business relationships were damaged. This presentation outlines findings from a research project that examined how the participatory process went wrong in King Island. This study applied perspectives from social psychology to understand why the proposal caused such significant social conflict, despite the use of a 'best practice' community engagement strategy. Five key drivers of the local conflict were identified: problematic pre-feasibility engagement; the lack of a third-party facilitator of the community consultative committee; holding a vote which polarised the community; the lack of a clear place in the engagement process for local opposition, and; the significance of local context. These findings are instructive for understanding community engagement around wind energy, an improving participatory designs for participatory processes more broadly. About the speaker Dr Bec Colvin is a researcher and knowledge exchange specialist with the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University. Bec’s research interests include how people engage with each other and the challenge of climate change, and how we can intervene in these interrelationships to achieve better outcomes for society and the environment. Before joining the ANU, Bec's research at The University of Queensland explored ways of understanding social conflict about the environment through using the social identity approach from social psychology to interrogate processes of stakeholder and community engagement. This included a focus on conflict about wind energy development and an exploration of the role of framing in shaping attitudes toward land use conflict. Present research interests include the practice and psychology of knowledge exchange and working at the science-policy interface, the human dimension of climate change, framing and communicating climate change, and the links between social psychology and decision-making processes. Previous Next

< Back Stephen Elstub Associate About Stephen Elstub's research interests include the theory and practice of democracy, democratic innovation, public opinion, political communication, civil society and citizen participation, viewed through the lens deliberative democracy.

< Back Ron Levy Associate About Ron Levy researches and writes on public law and political theory, especially constitutional law, the law of politics, and deliberative democracy and is a Senior Lecturer at the Australian National University.

< Back Ricardo Mendonca Associate About Ricardo Mendonça studies democratic theory, contentious politics and political communication and is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science, Federal University of Minas Gerais.

< Back Arguing for deliberation without ultimate justification: Why we should decide to be deliberative democrats Dannica Fleuss, Helmut-Schmidt University Tue 14 August 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract A starting point of post-structuralist political theory is the assumption that all social and political norms are contingent. From this angle, Oliver Marchart (2007, 2015) challenges „foundationalist“ deliberative theory for attempting to give an ultimate justification for political norms. This seminar explores ways to respond to this challenge from the perspective of deliberative democracy: Accepting the claim that all social and political norms are contingent does not necessitate rejecting deliberative theory. Rather, contemporary deliberative theory can provide a valid theoretical perspective even though it is unable to give an ultimate justification for its own principles. Instead of providing a “foundational” justification for deliberative theory’s basic premises, I suggest that deliberative theorists should decide to accept them and discuss ways to demonstrate the value of this decision. About the speaker Dannica is a visiting research scholar at the Centre for Deliberative and Democracy and Global Governance. She completed her PhD on proceduralist democratic theory at the University of Heidelberg in 2016. Currently, she works as a Postdoctoral Researcher at Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg. In her postdoctoral project she is doing research on democratic theory and the measurement of democratic deliberation at the macro level by applying a systemic framework. Dannica's research interests include the systemic approach to deliberation, measurements of democratic performance, political cultural studies and the theoretical debate between deliberative democratic theory and poststructuralist approaches. Previous Next

< Back (Non)reciprocity across the system: The case of abortion in Brazil Tue 12 November 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm Speaker: Thais Choucair, Federal University of Minas Gerais Venue: The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Reciprocity is often measured in small settings, but how it works when we think of broad discussions in the public sphere? I use the distinction of direct and discursive reciprocity made by Mendonça et al 2014 to investigate the discussion about abortion in Brazil. Although both types can be found in the discussions, they do not work together. The non-interaction of both types of reciprocity brings new insights in the field of listening and polarization studies. About the speaker Thais Choucair is a PhD Student in the Communication Department at The Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil). She works as an Associated Researcher in the Media and Public Sphere Research Group (EME), coordinated by Professor Rousiley Maia. Ms Choucair is engaged in two specific research projects: (i) Deliberative System and Interconnect Media, developed in collaboration with a network of scholars from the field of Political Science, Sociology, Communication and History. In recent years, Ms. Choucair has been working to develop methodologies to approach connections in the deliberative system. In her master's thesis (2017-2018) she presents a method for identifying online pages of social actors involved in a specific issue (the case study was about the abortion case in Brazil). In this research Ms. Choucair applied a content-focused analysis, looking at both the arguments used in the discussion and a framing analysis - a work connected with what has been developed at the EME Research Group in the last decade. Ms Choucair has presented this research in the last IPSA World Congress (2018) and is currently working to publish it. (ii) Deliberative System and Social Conflicts under the coordination of Professor Rousiley Maia in collaboration with Prof. Jürg Steiner. Ms Thais Choucair is currently investigating in her PhD (2018-2022) if (and if so, how) reciprocity has been built on discussions where differences between groups are very marked. She is particularly looking at four discussions involving four different groups (black people, women, LGBT people and deaf people) in the context in which some of these groups have been heavily attacked by political forces against their rights in Brazil. Thais would be happy to engage in meetings, projects, publications, discussions and coffee conversations involving: populism, deliberative system, reciprocity, computer-mediated methodologies, struggles for recognition and social oppression. Previous Next

< Back Elisabeth Alber Associate About Elisabeth Alber has taught and widely published on federalism and democracy, institutional innovation and participatory democracy, comparative federalism and regionalism, intergovernmental relations and policy-making in federal and regional States. She is a senior researcher at the Institute for Comparative Federalism at Eurac Research.

< Back Fast thinking: Implications for democratic politics Gerry Stoker, University of Southampton Tue 20 October 2015 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract A major programme of research on cognition has been built around the idea that human beings are frequently intuitive thinkers and that human intuition is imperfect. The modern marketing of politics and the time-poor position of many citizens suggests that ‘fast’, intuitive, thinking in many contemporary democracies is ubiquitous. This article explores the consequences that such fast thinking might have for the democratic practice of contemporary politics. Using focus groups with a range of demographic profiles, fast thinking about how politics works is stimulated and followed by a more reflective and collectively deliberative form of slow thinking among the same participants. A strong trajectory emerges consistently in all groups in that in fast thinking mode participants are noticeably more negative and dismissive about the workings of politics than when in slow thinking mode. A fast thinking focus among citizens may be good enough to underwrite mainstream political exchange, but at the cost of supporting a general negativity about politics and the way it works. Yet breaking the cycle of fast thinking – as advocated by deliberation theorists – might not be straightforward because of the grip of fast thinking. The fast/slow thinking distinction, if carefully used, offers valuable new insight into political science. This paper is co-authored with Colin Hay and Matthew Barr. Please see here the paper as well. About the speaker Gerry Stoker is Professor of Politics and Governance at the University of Southampton, UK and also Centenary Professor at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra. He was previously professor at both Manchester and Strathclyde. Gerry’s main research interests are in governance, democratic politics, local and regional governance, urban politics, public participation and public service reform. He was the founding chair of the New Local Government Network that was the think-tank of the year in 2004 and his most recent book, Why Politics Matters, won the 2006 political book of the year award from the Political Studies Association of the UK. Gerry has provided advice to various parts of UK government and is also an expert advisor to the Council of Europe on local government and participation issues. More broadly he has, over the past five years, received invitations to speak at conferences on governance issues aimed at practitioners and policymakers as well as academics from the USA, Japan, China, Italy, Korea Norway, Ireland, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Denmark and Australia. In particular, he was a keynote speaker at the United Nation’s 6th Reinventing Government Global Forum, Korea in 2005. In 2004, he won the Political Studies Association Award for ‘making a difference’ in recognition of the impact of his work on governance issues. Previous Next

< Back Deliberative Global Governance John S. Dryzek, Quinlan Bowman, Jonathan Kuyper, Jonathan Pickering, Jensen Sass, and Hayley Stevenson 2019 , Cambridge University Press Summary Global institutions are afflicted by severe democratic deficits, while many of the major problems facing the world remain intractable. Against this backdrop, we develop a deliberative approach that puts effective, inclusive, and transformative communication at the heart of global governance. Multilateral negotiations, international organizations and regimes, governance networks, and scientific assessments can be rendered more deliberative and democratic. More thoroughgoing transformations could involve citizens' assemblies, nested forums, transnational mini-publics, crowdsourcing, and a global dissent channel. The deliberative role of global civil society is vital. We show how different institutional and civil society elements can be linked to good effect in a global deliberative system. The capacity of deliberative institutions to revise their own structures and processes means that deliberative global governance is not just a framework but also a reconstructive learning process. A deliberative approach can advance democratic legitimacy and yield progress on global problems such as climate change, violent conflict and poverty. Read more Previous Next

< Back Mending Democracy: Democratic Repair in Disconnected Times Carolyn M. Hendriks, Selen A. Ercan, and John Boswell 2020 , Oxford University Press Summary The fabric of democracy is threadbare in many contemporary societies. Connections that are vital to the functioning and integrity of our democratic systems are wearing thin. Citizens are increasingly disconnected — from their elected representatives, from one another in the public sphere, and from complex processes of public policy. In such disconnected times, how can we strengthen and renew our democracies? This book develops the idea of democratic mending as a way of advancing a more connective approach to democratic reform. It is informed by three rich empirical cases of connectivity in practice, as well as cutting-edge debates in deliberative democracy. The empirical cases uncover empowering and transformative modes of political engagement that are vital for democratic renewal. The diverse actors in this book are not withdrawing, resisting or seeking autonomy from conventional institutions of representative democracy but actively experimenting with ways to improve and engage with them. Through their everyday practices of democratic mending they undertake crucial systemic repair work and strengthen the integrity of our democratic fabric in ways that are yet to be fully acknowledged by scholars and practitioners of democratic reform. Read more Previous Next

Former PhD student < Back Bora Kanra Former PhD student About Bora was the lead investigator of the ARC Discovery Project ‘Communication Across Difference in a Democracy: Australian Muslims and the Mainstream.’ He completed his PhD at the ANU, under the supervision of John Dryzek, about deliberative democracy in divided societies, focusing particularly on the case of Turkey.

< Back Priya Kurian Associate About Priya Kurian's research is interdisciplinary and spans the areas of environmental politics and policy; science and technology studies; women, culture and development; and sustainable development. She is Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at the University of Waikato, New Zealand.

< Back The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy Edited by Andre Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren 2018 , Oxford University Press Summary Deliberative democracy has been the main game in contemporary political theory for two decades and has grown enormously in size and importance in political science and many other disciplines, and in political practice. The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy takes stock of deliberative democracy as a research field, as well as exploring and creating links with multiple disciplines and policy practice around the globe. It provides a concise history of deliberative ideals in political thought while also discussing their philosophical origins. It locates deliberation in a political system with different spaces, publics, and venues, including parliament and courts but also governance networks, protests, mini-publics, old and new media, and everyday talk. It documents the intersections of deliberative ideals with contemporary political theory, involving epistemology, representation, constitutionalism, justice, and multiculturalism. It explores the intersections of deliberative democracy with major research fields in the social sciences and law, including social and rational choice theory, communications, psychology, sociology, international relations, framing approaches, policy analysis, planning, democratization, and methodology. It engages with practical applications, mapping deliberation as a reform movement and as a device for conflict resolution. It documents the practice and study of deliberative democracy around the world, in Asia, Latin America, Africa, Europe, and global governance. And it provides reflections on the field by pioneering thinkers. Read more Previous Next

< Back Why am I engaged? Walden Bello, State University of New York in Binghamton Tue 26 November 2019 11:00am – 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Reflecting on his trajectory as an academic and an activist, the speaker will trace his personal evolution as an activist/academic, focusing on the key junctures in this process, and discuss the tension between theory and action, the relationship between methodology and the process of uncovering the real dynamics of power, and the often tragic Orwellian tension between being an intellectual and being a member of a political organization. About the speaker Walden Bello is a Professor of Sociology at the State University of New York in Binghamton. He is the author of more than 20 books including Deglobalization: Ideas for a New World Economy, Capitalism's Last Stand: Deglobalization in the Age of Austerity, and, most recently, Counterrevolutions: The Global Rise of the Far Right and Paper Dragons: China and the Next Crash. The International Studies Association named him the Most Outstanding Public Scholar in 2008. Previous Next

< Back John S. Dryzek Distinguished Professor Emeritus About John Dryzek is Distinguished Professor Emeritus in the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. Before moving to the University of Canberra he was Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Australian Research Council Federation Fellow at the Australian National University. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia, Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy, former Head of the Departments of Political Science at the Universities of Oregon and Melbourne and of the Social and Political Theory program at ANU, former editor of the Australian Journal of Political Science, and former ARC Laureate Fellow. He has also held the title of Centenary Professor at the University of Canberra. Working in both political theory and empirical social science, he is best known for his contributions in the areas of democratic theory and practice and environmental politics. One of the instigators of the 'deliberative turn' in democratic theory, he has published nine books in this area with Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, and Polity Press. His work in environmental politics ranges from political philosophy to studies of environmental discourses and movements to global climate governance, and he has published seven books in this area with Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, and Basil Blackwell. He has also worked on comparative studies of democratization, public policy analysis, and the history and philosophy of social science. His current research emphasizes democratic justice, reason, and resilience; governance in the Anthropocene (an emerging epoch of instability in the Earth system); and response to the crisis of democracy. Key Publications Dryzek, J.S. and Tanasoca, A. (2021) Democratizing Global Justice: Deliberating Global Goals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dryzek, J.S., Bowman, Q., Kuyper, J.W., Pickering, J., Sass, J., and Stevenson, H. (2019) Deliberative Global Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dryzek, J.S. and Pickering, J. (2019) The Politics of the Anthropocene. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Dryzek, J.S., Bächtiger, A. et al (2019) The Crisis of Democracy and the Science of Deliberation, Science 363: 1144-46. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw2694 Dryzek, J.S. (2017) The Forum, the System, and the Polity: Three Varieties of Democratic Theory, Political Theory 45 (5): 610-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591716659114 Full list of publications available in GoogleScholar . Research grants Chief Investigator, Democratic Resilience: The Public Sphere and Extremist Attacks (2021-2023). Funded by the Australian Research Council Discovery Project (AU$511,000) Chief Investigator, Monitoring Deliberative Integrity in Australia (2021-2023). Funded by the Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative. (AU$ 202,156) Chief Investigator, Global Citizen Deliberation: Analysing a Deliberative Documentary (2020-2022). Funded by the Australian Research Council Linkage Project. (AU$439,000) Chief Investigator, Discovery Project (2018-2020) A Meta-Study of Democratic Deliberation: Updating Theory and Practice Funded by the Australian Research Council Discovery Project (AU$526,411) Chief Investigator, Medical Research Future Fund (Australia), Genomic Health Futures Mission Grant (2020-2022) Genome Editing: Formulating an Australian Community Response (AU$420,000) Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship (2014-2020) Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice, and a Changing Earth System (AU$2,600,000) PhD students Pierrick Chalaye (Primary Supervisor) Emerson Sanchez (Primary Supervisor) Wendy Conway-Lamb (Primary Supervisor) Madeleine Egan (Primary Supervisor) Jane Alver (Secondary Supervisor) Nardine Alnemr (Secondary Supervisor) Supervised over 25 PhD students to completion. Administration Director, Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, 2019-2020 Prizes Ken Young Best Paper Prize, awarded by Policy and Politics (with Selen Ercan and Carolyn Hendriks), 2020. One of ten best academic books by an Australian author published in the previous decade, The Australian Higher Education Magazine, 2020, for The Politics of the Earth. Clay Morgan prize for best book in environmental political theory, Western Political Science Association (with Jonathan Pickering), 2019. 2019 Vice Chancellor’s Award for Research Excellence and Researcher of the Year, University of Canberra, 2020. Public Engagement Dryzek, J.S. (2017) Democracy Needs More Trees and Less Trump, The Conversation 8 March.

< Back Beyond residual realisms: Four paths for remaking participation with science and democracy Matthew Kearnes, University of New South Wales Tue 12 December 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In light of the contestation of the purposes and objectives of contemporary techno-political decision-making, and the emergence of a more questioning and ambivalent response to assertions of authoritative expertise, attempts to generate socially resilient political settlements across an array of policy domains have increasingly called upon the logics of ‘democratic participation’. In this context, contemporary scientific and environmental policy is increasingly characterised by institutional commitments to fostering public engagement and participation with science, together with greater transparency in the deployment of scientific expertise in decision-making. However, despite notable successes, such developments have often struggled to enhance public trust and build more socially responsive and responsible science and technology. In this paper, we argue a central reason for this is that mainstream approaches to public engagement harbour ‘residual realist’ assumptions about participation and the public. Recent studies in ‘science and technology studies’ (STS) offer an alternative way of seeing participation as co-produced, relational and emergent. In this paper, we build on these approaches by setting out a framework comprising of four interrelating paths and associated criteria for remaking public participation with science and democracy in more experimental, reflexive, anticipatory, and responsible ways. This comprises moves to: forge reflexive participatory practices that attend to their framing, emergence, uncertainties, and effects; ecologise participation through attending to the interrelations between diverse public engagements; catalyse practices of anticipatory reflection to bring about responsible democratic innovations; and reconstitute participation as constitutive of (not separate from) systems of science and democracy. We close by offering some reflections on the ways in which these approaches might be taken up in both analytically and normatively inspired work and scholarship. About the speaker Matthew Kearnes is an Australian Research Council Future Fellow and member of the of Environmental Humanities Group at the School of Humanities and Languages, University of New South Wales. Before arriving at UNSW he held post-doctoral positions at the Department of Geography at the Open University and the Centre for the Study of Environmental Change/Department of Sociology at Lancaster University. Most recently he held a Research Councils UK Fellowship at the Institute of Hazard, Risk and Resilience/Department of Geography, Durham University. Matthew's research is situated between the fields of Science and Technology Studies (STS), human geography and contemporary social theory. His current work is focused on the social and political dimensions of technological and environmental change, including ongoing work on the development of negative emission strategies and soil carbon sequestration. He has published widely on the ways in which the development of novel and emerging technologies is entangled with profound social, ethical and normative questions. Matthew serves on the editorial board Science, Technology and Society (Sage) and on the advisory panel for Science as Culture (Taylor & Francis). For more information about Matthew’s research please visit https://research.unsw.edu.au/people/dr-matthew-benjamin-kearnes and at @mbkearnes Previous Next