< Back Problems with liberal proceduralism in normative democratic theory Quinlan Bowman, University of Canberra Tue 2 May 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Reflection on lived experience seems to indicate that when we reason intelligently about how to craft a “democratic” process, we recognize the need to reason about procedures, virtues, and cultural practices in conjunction. And this would seem to suggest that the role of normative democratic theory should partly be to help democracy’s participants to engage in such reasoning. Yet, a close consideration of the prominent normative democratic theories of Robert Dahl, Joshua Cohen, and Jürgen Habermas reveals that none of these theorists has explicitly depicted the role of normative democratic theory in this way. Part of the explanation for this concerns the kind of “liberal proceduralism” that characterizes their respective theories. A related concern is that in each case it is either unclear how, if at all, the author views his theory as having emerged out of empirical inquiry or how he expects it to guide further such inquiry (or both). Correspondingly, none of these authors presents the “proper” status and function of normative democratic theory in the way that I believe we should: as emerging out of reflection on lived experience with the values of treating persons as free and as equal and as guiding further inquiry into the procedures, virtues, and cultural practices that, in some particular context, are most apt to promote the realization of those values. About the speaker I 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. Currently, I am working on a book project, based on my PhD dissertation, entitled “Deliberative Democracy as Reflexive Social Inquiry.” The project juxtaposes selected aspects of the literature on deliberative democracy with ideas drawn from pragmatist approaches to ethics and social inquiry. Broadly speaking, pragmatists theorize by explicitly drawing on the resources provided to us by our actual practices and by reflecting on the consequences they have for actual lives. I deploy pragmatist ideas to develop a normative theory of the democratic process, meant as a contribution to a public philosophy for citizen participation in democratic governance under conditions of significant cultural diversity. The theory is developed through what I refer to as “anthropological-interpretive inquiry” into lived experiences with “treatment as free and equal in joint or collective decision-making.” The theory is basically a deliberative one; yet, my pragmatist orientation makes me critical of certain depictions of deliberative democracy. While at the Centre, I will also be collaborating with John Dryzek on his Australian Research Council Fellowship project, Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice and a Changing Earth System. In particular, we will be collaborating on the topic of “deliberative cultures.” Cognitive science suggests that deliberation manifests a universal human competence to reason collectively. Yet, the character of deliberation varies considerably across space and time. Cross-cultural studies of political deliberation thus promise to provide new insight into the various forms that deliberative practices can take and the various circumstances in which they can flourish. A third project, jointly undertaken with Mark Bevir at the University of California, Berkeley, is entitled “Innovations in Democratic Governance.” The book project, based on a previously published book chapter by the same name, explores how direct citizen participation can feature throughout the varied stages of the public policy cascade. It discusses a range of democratic innovations for public participation. Drawing on case studies from all over the world, the project investigates how public participation can operate at multiple geographical scales – ranging from the neighborhood level all the way up to the transnational – and illustrates how participation at different levels might be linked up. The discussion explores ways that citizens might craft their own rules for participation; monitor those rules and the policies they help generate; and cooperatively implement their own local policies. It also investigates ways in which the role of experts and officials might be transformed into one of largely supporting and facilitating public participation. Previous Next

< Back Democracy in a Time of Misery: From Spectacular Tragedies to Deliberative Action Nicole Curato 2019 , Oxford University Press Winner of the Virginia Miralao Best Book Prize from the Philippine Social Science Council Summary Democracy in a Time of Misery: From Spectacular Tragedy to Deliberative Action investigates how democratic politics can unfold in creative and unexpected of ways even at the most trying of times. Drawing on three years of fieldwork in disaster-affected communities in Tacloban City, Philippines, this book presents ethnographic portraits of how typhoon survivors actively perform their suffering to secure political gains. These ethnographic descriptions come together in a theoretical project that makes a case for a multimodal view of deliberative action. It underscores the embodied, visual, performative and subtle ways in which affective political claims are constructed and received. It concludes by arguing that while emotions play a role in amplifying marginalized political claims, it also creates hierarchies of misery that renders some forms of suffering more deserving of compassion than others. Read more Previous Next

< Back Andreas Schaeffer Associate About Andreas Schaeffer's 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.

< Back DELIBERATIVE PEACE REFERENDUMS ABSTRACT Peace referendums, which seek to manage conflict between warring groups, are increasingly common. Yet they remain erratic forces—liable as often to aggravate as to resolve tensions. Ron Levy will speak about his recent book Deliberative Peace Referendums (OUP 2021). Levy and his co-authors Ian O'Flynn and Hoi Kong argue that, despite their risks, referendums can play useful roles amid armed conflict. Drawing on a distinctive combination of the fields of deliberative democracy, constitutional theory and conflict studies, and relying on comparative examples (eg, from Algeria, Colombia, New Caledonia, Northern Ireland, Papua New Guinea, and South Africa), the book shows how peace referendums can fulfil their promise as genuine tools of conflict management. For more on the book see here BIO Associate Professor Dr Ron Levy researches and writes on public law and political theory, especially constitutional law, the law of politics, and deliberative democracy. He is the winner of several research awards including grants from the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Australian Research Council. Levy's books include Deliberative Peace Referendums (Oxford University Press, 2021, with Ian O'Flynn and Hoi Kong); The Law of Deliberative Democracy (Routledge, 2016, with Graeme Orr) and The Cambridge Handbook of Deliberative Constitutionalism (Cambridge University Press, 2018, with Hoi Kong, Graeme Orr and Jeff King eds). His projects include studies of constitutional reform, including prospects for reform via deliberative democracy and referendums in conflict societies. Levy is the General Editor of the Federal Law Review and also leads the International Advisory Panel on Referendums, an international group that provides advice to governments and civil society groups on designing more deliberative referendums. Previous Next

< Back People haven't had enough of experts: Technocratic attitudes among citizens in nine European countries Daniele Caramani, University of Zurich Tue 9 June 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Abstract Democratic theory postulates that technocracy and populism mount a twofold challenge to representative democracy and parties, while also standing at odds with each other in the vision of representation they advocate. Can these relationships be observed empirically at the level of citizen preferences and what does this mean for alternative forms of representation? The talk presents results from an investigation of technocratic attitudes among citizens in nine EU member states. Attitudes follow three dimensions – Expertise, Elitism, Anti-politics Using latent class analysis, empirical data allows to identify groups of citizens that follow a technocratic, populist and party-democratic profiles. Results show that technocratic attitudes are pervasive and can be meaningfully distinguished from populist attitudes, though important overlaps remain. The analysis also points to differences in demographics and political attitudes among citizen profiles that are relevant to political behaviour. This highlights the role that citizens’ increasing demands for expertise play in driving preferences for alternative types of governance in an increasing complex and inter-connected global society. About the speaker Daniele Caramani has joined the University of Zurich in 2014. He grew up in Milan and Paris and studied political science at the University of Geneva where he has also worked as teaching assistant. He holds a Ph.D. from the European University Institute, Florence, where he subsequently has been Vincent Wright Fellow (Robert Schuman Centre). He has been an assistant professor at the University of Florence, has spent four years at the University of Mannheim (MZES) as a researcher, and has been senior lecturer/reader at the University of Birmingham. From 2006 to 2014 he has been a professor at the University of St. Gallen. In 2019 and 2020 he is visiting Fellow at the Australian National University, Canberra. In the past, he has held fellowships at the EUI, Florence, at Nuffield College, Oxford, and at the Rokkan Centre in Bergen. He is the author of Elections in Western Europe since 1815: Electoral Results by Constituencies (Palgrave 2000, with CD-ROM), The Nationalization of Politics (Cambridge University Press 2004) for which he has been awarded UNESCO's "Stein Rokkan Prize for Comparative Research in the Social Sciences", and The Europeanization of Politics (Cambridge University Press 2015). He has authored Introduction to the Comparative Method with Boolean Algebra (Sage, "Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences" 2009), which has been translated into Chinese and Farsi, and edits the textbook Comparative Politics (Oxford University Press 2017, fourth edition, translated into Italian and Croatian). He regularly publishes articles in scientific journals. Daniele Caramani is Co-Director of the Constituency-Level Elections Archive which has received the APSA "Dataset Award" in 2012. He is Director of the Doctoral Programme "Democracy Studies". His research and teaching profile is broadly comparative. It has a strong historical dimension with time series reaching back to the first phases of democratic transition, state building, and industrialization up to the present day. Empirical research is based on comparative and quantitative-statistical methods, and has produced documented datasets and archives which are available to the academic community. It includes work on elections and representation, electoral systems and electoral behaviour, parties and party systems, democratization, state formation and nation-building, methodology, European integration, globalization, regionalism and nationalism, and political geography. His main contribution has been in the field of the theory of the nationalization and Europeanization of politics. Currently, he works on extending that research with a third monograph on the "globalization" of politics. Further projects include work on technocracy, populism, left-right in global perspective and global voting rights. Previous Next

< Back Ian O'Flynn Associate About Ian O'Flynn's main research interest is in exploring the implications of deliberative democracy for questions of social and political integration in multicultural and multinational societies. is Senior Lecturer in Political Theory in the School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University, UK.

< Back Deliberation in an age of (un)civil resistance William Smith, The Chinese University of Hong Kong Tue 15 September 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Richard Spencer, an influential ‘Alt-Right’ provocateur, was punched in the face while giving an interview on the day of Donald Trump’s inauguration as United States president. The assailant was affiliated with ‘Antifa’, an activist network committed to combatting the rise of far-right movements through confrontational and often violent means. Antifa are emblematic of a wave of movements whose tactics and conduct cannot be subsumed under the traditional category of nonviolent civil disobedience. There has, concurrently, been a surge of interest among political philosophers on the idea of ‘uncivil disobedience’, with a range of theorists converging on the view that there is often no compelling rationale for limiting dissent to the nonviolent repertoire associated with civil disobedience. This paper takes these political and theoretical developments as a catalyst for reconsidering deliberative democratic approaches to activism and protest. It argues that the tendency to frame protest through the catch-all category of ‘non-deliberative’ behavior elides the important distinction between civil and uncivil disobedience, treating as analogous forms of conduct that are quite different in terms of their potential consequences and their ethical complexion. The paper focuses in particular on the difficult case of violence, exploring the normative scope for deliberative theorists to treat it as a potentially legitimate mode of uncivil resistance. About the speaker William Smith is Associate Professor in Government and Public Administration at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He works in the field of contemporary political theory, with a particular focus on civil disobedience, deliberative democracy and international political thought. He is author of Civil Disobedience and Deliberative Democracy (Routledge 2013) and has published in a wide range of international journals, including Ethics & International Affairs, The Journal of Political Philosophy, and Political Studies. Previous Next

< Back Li-Chia Lo Associate About Li-Chia Lo has adopted the interpretivist approach to investigate the cross-cultural transformation of political ideas and he is curious about how introducing new ideas can trigger political participation and promote political communication. His broader areas of interest include critical theory, democratic theory, China studies, and Taiwan studies.

< Back UPCOMING: DOES FOOD DEMOCRACY MATTER? LINKING THE DELIBERATIVE QUALITY OF SOY AND COFFEE VALUE CHAINS TO ECOLOGICAL 'FOODPRINTS' The global food system is facing a multiple sustainability crisis. Agri-food value chains are among the main drivers of humanity’s overstepping the planetary boundaries related to climate change, loss of biodiversity (genes, species, and habitats) deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution, and nutrient imbalances. At the same time, key food producers like small- and medium-scale farmers are being driven from their land as a result of expanding extractivist resource use and highly asymmetric market access. Among the root causes of the global food system’s sustainability crisis are the multidimensional and increasingly asymmetric power relations – defined as the uneven capacity to influence goals, processes, and outcomes of governance – between the actors involved. Peasant communities, family farmers, rural workers, women, small-scale traders, artisanal food processors, and resource-poor consumers remain widely excluded from the decision-making processes through which agri-food value chains are governed. Deliberation – citizens’ political conversation and collective decision-making – has been described as a “partial antidote” to unequal power relations and as an important lever for rendering decision-making less power-driven. Democracy research argues that deliberation brings to the fore public goods and society’s ecological interests. However, empirical knowledge supporting these claims in the context of food and agriculture is scarce. This research aims at understanding whether and how deliberation affects ecological outcomes (“foodprints”) of soy and coffee value chains and power asymmetries among their key actors. Specific aims are to (1) determine the deliberative quality of selected agri-food value chains; (2) understand the implications of varying degrees of deliberation for power relations among key actors; (3) assess the selected agri-food value chains’ ecological foodprints; and (4) determine how deliberative quality relates to power asymmetries and ecological foodprints. We take a mixed-methods approach in four interlinked research streams: (1) Deliberative quality, comprising analysis of soy and coffee value chains and their key actors, institutional analysis, and discourse analysis to determine deliberative spaces and deliberative quality, and (2) Power asymmetries, focusing on whether and how the deliberative quality of agri-food value chains affects power asymmetries from key actors’ perspective – with semi-structured interviews, participant observation, focus groups, and document review applied in both streams; (3) Ecological foodprints, comprising life cycle inventories to measure the selected value chains’ resource use intensity, land use, deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste/nutrient management, using semi-structured interviews, participant observation, as well as document and database review; and (4) Integration, applying process tracing to infer causal relationships between deliberative quality, power asymmetries, and ecological foodprints. BIO Dr. Johanna Jacobi is an Assistant Professor for Agroecological Transitions at ETH Zürich. She studied Geography, Biology and Social Anthropology. Her master thesis investigated wastewater-irrigated agrobiodiversity in peri-urban agriculture in Hyderabad, India. For her PhD studies at the University of Bern, she conducted research on the resilience of cocoa farms in Bolivia to climate change. In a post-doctoral project at UC Berkeley, she focused on agroforestry in Bolivia, where she then lived and worked in a transdisciplinary action- research project for several years. Her research focuses on agroecology as a transformative science, a practice and a social movement, and on power relations in food systems with approaches and methods from political ecology. Johanna Jacobi is also a member of the Latin American Scientific Society of Agroecology (SOCLA). Previous Next

Former PhD student < Back Carolyn Hendriks Former PhD student About Carolyn Hendriks' work examines democratic aspects of contemporary governance, particularly with respect to participation, deliberation, inclusion and representation. She has taught and published widely on democratic innovation, public deliberation, policy evaluation, network governance and environmental politics and is an Associate Professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University.

Postdoctoral Research Fellow < Back Beibei Tang Postdoctoral Research Fellow About Trained as a sociologist, Beibei Tan's research focuses on social and political change in reform-era China. She has participated in three interdisciplinary research projects in the fields of sociology, political science and human geography.

< Back From code to discourse: Social media and linkage mechanisms in the deliberative system Ben Lyons, University of Pennsylvania Tue 11 October 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Some researchers have critiqued the evaluation of online deliberation by Habermasian standards, instead employing expanded definitions. Implicitly, this approach is informed by a systemic view of deliberation: Not every discussion space needs to meet every criterion, but the spaces must be connected. However, these studies do not examine how forums might connect. And although deliberative theorists have begun highlighting the importance of such connections, they have been criticized for lacking specificity (Parkinson, 2016). To address these gaps, this presentation will focus on the core concept of linkage, with emphasis on mediated links. The potential for social media to serve as a ‘macro’ link between spheres is explored before concentrating on observable connections within and among deliberative exchanges on these platforms. I present an overview of digital media objects’ differing means of connection – from technical to discursive – and their capacities for deliberative virtues. About the speaker Ben Lyons is the Martin Fishbein Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center, where he works in the Science of Science Communication division. He researches political communication and public opinion, especially at their intersections with science, health, and the environment. His work has been published in outlets such as Mass Communication & Society, Environmental Communication, and Journal of Political Marketing. Previous Next

< Back Hate speech, criminal incitement, and freedom of expression Jeffrey Howard, University College London Tue 9 August 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract One of the most powerful arguments against hate speech is that it is dangerous: it risks inspiring listeners to engage in violence and discrimination against the people the speech smears. Even so, many believe that hate speech should not be banned, since doing so would violate the right to freedom of expression. On this view, banning hate speech disrespect listeners’ autonomy, treating them like children who cannot be trusted to make up their own minds. It compromises democratic deliberation by restricting the marketplace of ideas. And it impinges upon the free development and exercise of citizens’ rational capacities. In this talk I will argue against this popular view, contending that bans on hate speech do not affront our commitment to freedom of speech. My argument begins with an observation: virtually no one thinks that direct incitement to criminal wrongdoing, such as exhorting someone to commit a murder, is protected by the right to freedom of speech. But why not? I argue that this asymmetric treatment of direct criminal incitement, on the one hand, and dangerous hate speech, on the other hand, cannot be sustained. I review a variety of differences between the two forms of dangerous expression, arguing that they are morally insignificant. Once we appreciate the moral concerns that rightly move us to ban criminal incitement—without believing that we violate free speech in doing so—we will see that dangerous hate speech may permissibly be banned, too. About the speaker Jeff Howard is Lecturer in Political Theory and Normative Methods in the School of Public Policy at University College London. Previous Next

Postdoctoral Research Fellow < Back Hannah Barrowman Postdoctoral Research Fellow About Hannah Barrowman's research interests include adaptive governance, political ecology, social-ecological systems, environmental and social change and Southeast Asian politics. Hannah also works as a researcher for the Australian Pacific Climate Partnership.

< Back Mapping and Measuring Deliberation: Towards a New Deliberative Quality André Bächtiger and John Parkinson 2019 , Oxford University Press Summary Deliberative democracy has challenged two widely-accepted nostrums about democratic politics: that people lack the capacities for effective self-government; and that democratic procedures are arbitrary and do not reflect popular will; indeed, that the idea of popular will is itself illusory. On the contrary, deliberative democrats have shown that people are capable of being sophisticated, creative problem solvers, given the right opportunities in the right kinds of democratic institutions. But deliberative empirical research has its own problems. In this book two leading deliberative scholars review decades of that research and reveal three important issues. First, the concept 'deliberation' has been inflated so much as to lose empirical bite; second, deliberation has been equated with entire processes of which it is just one feature; and third, such processes are confused with democracy in a deliberative mode more generally. In other words, studies frequently apply micro-level tools and concepts to make macro- and meso-level judgements, and vice versa. Instead, Bächtiger and Parkinson argue that deliberation must be understood as contingent, performative and distributed. They argue that deliberation needs to be disentangled from other communicative modes; that appropriate tools need to be deployed at the right level of analysis; and that scholars need to be clear about whether they are making additive judgements or summative ones. They then apply that understanding to set out a new agenda and new empirical tools for deliberative empirical scholarship at the micro, meso, and macro levels. Read more Previous Next

Community Partners We ground our work on democracy by engaging with community partners in Canberra and around Australia. Canberra Alliance for Participatory Democracy (Def community) We are collaborating with the Canberra Alliance for Participatory Democracy to explore ways to deepen democratic participation in the ACT. We regularly host brainstorming meetings and learning sessions with our international visitors to facilitate exchange of ideas

< Back Disrupting deliberation: The relationship between protest and deliberative systems William Smith, Chinese University of Hong Kong Tue 24 March 2015 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract The influential defence of a deliberative systems approach offered by Mansbridge et al claims that disruptive protest can be an important corrective to systemic malfunctions. Their discussion culminates in a call for further research into the pros and cons of disruptive protest for deliberative systems. This presentation offers some preliminary responses to this call for further research. The core theme is that analysis of the relationship between protest and deliberative systems should depart from an assumption that informs the view of Mansbridge et al. This assumption is that protest is generally a non-deliberative form of conduct that should be evaluated in terms of its impact on a malfunctioning system. The presentation gestures toward a more nuanced position, which is guided by two central ideas. The first is that disruptive protest can be categorized as deliberative, partially-deliberative, or non-deliberative, depending on its aims and conduct. The second is that disruptive protest can have different deliberative impacts depending upon whether the relevant context is (a) the absence of a deliberative system, (b) the presence of a malfunctioning system, or (c) the emergence of a fully functioning system. The resulting conceptual framework is illustrated through briefly considering the relationship between innovative forms of digital disruption and deliberative systems About the speaker William Smith is assistant professor in the Department of Government and Public Administration at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. His research is in the field of contemporary political theory, with a particular focus on issues related to deliberative democracy, civil disobedience and international political thought. He is author of Civil Disobedience and Deliberative Democracy (London: Routledge, 2013) and has published in a wide range of international journals, including The Journal of Political Philosophy, Political Studies, and Politics and Society. Previous Next

< Back Bridging the democratic divide? The European Citizens' Initiative, demoi and inclusion in the EU Lucy Hatton, University of Warwick Tue 12 May 2015 12:00 – 1:00 pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract The European Citizens’ Initiative has been put forward by the EU as part of the answer to its ongoing crisis of democratic legitimacy, but it is yet to be determined to what extent the ECI is able to live up to these expectations. Critical to an answer to this question will be achieving a certain level of inclusivity, which is closely linked to the question of the demos. By applying recent developments from the democratic theory literature, specifically those related to demoi and representation, this article addresses the extent to which the ECI has the potential to impact on the inclusivity of EU policy making. In responding to three questions of inclusivity (who is included, is any individual or group excluded, and are included individuals granted an equal voice?) with regard to the ECI rules and practical functioning, and by drawing on the case of the Right2Water campaign, it is possible to see that there is reason for both optimism and doubt. Importantly, the ECI may have consequences for inclusivity unanticipated by the EU institutions, not least as a means by which CSO representatives can bring multiple demoi into existence, and as a channel through which these demoi can act in pursuit of their interests? About the speaker Lucy Hatton is a final year PhD student at the University of Warwick, UK, and a visiting scholar at Griffith University, Brisbane. Her doctoral thesis asks what impact the European Citizens' Initiative can have on the democratic legitimacy of the EU and draws on questions of citizenship, epistemic democracy, participation and democratic innovation. Previous Next

< Back The Political Economy of Devolution in Britain from the Postwar Era to Brexit Nick Vlahos 2020 , Palgrave Summary Bringing together ten leading researchers in the field of deliberative democracy, this important book examines the features of a Deliberative Mini-Public (DMP) and considers how DMPs link into democratic systems. It examines the core design features of DMPs and their role in the broader policy process and takes stock of the characteristics that distinguish them from other forms of citizen participation. In doing so, the book offers valuable insights into the contributions that DMPs can make not only to the policy process, but also to the broader agenda of revitalising democracy in contemporary times. Read more Previous Next

< Back DIGITAL PLATFORMS AND ISSUE POLARISATION: CITIZENS' DEBATES ON ABORTION, RACIAL QUOTAS AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN BRAZIL FROM 2021-2019 The relationship between digital platforms and political polarisation has gained priority attention from scholars in the last two decades. About this event Digital platforms have become the main mediators of public debate: it is where citizens, social movements, activists, journalists, experts and political representatives discuss topics of common interest. The relationship between digital platforms and political polarisation has gained priority attention from scholars in the last two decades, but the empirical evidence is complex and ambiguous: while some research shows, for example, how specific characteristics of digital platforms lead to fragmentation of the public, other research shows that the use of platforms actually helps people to have contact and dialogue with diverse opinions. This is an important topic in Brazil today because in the last decade we began (returned?) to face a specific type of polarisation: one in which divergent groups face an absence of common ground and they see each other as deep-seated enemies. Two events mark this process: the huge protests of June 2013 (where protesters were located in different parts of the political spectrum), and the election of Jair Bolsonaro in 2018 (where we saw the prominence of conservative groups, which were away from the public scene since the Military Dictatorship). Bolsonaro explicitly opposes dialogue between different positions, saying, for example, that "minorities must bow to the majority". In this presentation, I show how abortion, racial quotas and homosexual marriage were discussed by citizens on Facebook from 2012 to 2019. These are typically controversial topics, and they play a leading role in disputes between progressives and conservatives in Brazilian political conflicts over the last decade. Tariq Choucair is a PhD candidate in the Communication Graduation Program at the Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil). Tariq studies reciprocity and polarisation in online debates on controversial issues. He has been a member of the Media and Public Sphere Research Group for 9 years, working with the group on research projects such as “Deliberative System and Social Conflicts” and “The potential of deliberation in divided societies”. Tariq's work is published in Political Studies, Political Research Exchange and E-COMPOS. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next