Search Results

New Books on Democracy Play Video Play Video 33:42 Book Drop Series S4E1: Deliberative Democracy for Diabolical Times Play Video Play Video 30:16 Book Launch: Complementary Democracy: The Art of Deliberative Listening, Matt Qvortrup Play Video Play Video 12:31 Book Drop Series S3E3: Deliberative Global Governance Play Video Play Video 06:36 Book Drop Series S3E1: The Legitimacy of Citizen-led Deliberative Democracy Play Video Play Video 13:20 Book Drop Series S3E1: Anthropocene Encounters Play Video Play Video 11:27 Book Drop Series S2E5: Meaning and Action: Play Video Play Video 08:19 Book Drop S1E4: Ethics of Multiple Citizenship Play Video Play Video 10:00 Book Drop S1E6: Global Environmental Politics: Problems, Policy and Practice Play Video Play Video 12:10 Book Drop S1E5: Deliberative Systems in Theory and Practice Play Video Play Video 16:31 Book Drop S1E3: The Politics of the Anthropocene Play Video Play Video 15:41 Book Drop S1E2: Mapping and Measuring Deliberation Play Video Play Video 13:05 Book Drop S1E1: Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy

< Back James Bohman Associate About James Bohman's primary areas of research include political philosophy (deliberative and transnational democracy) and the philosophy of social science (rationality and normativity). He holds the Danforth I Chair in the Humanities and is Professor of Philosophy and Professor of International Studies.

< Back Beyond sustainability as usual: Democratising sustainable development for the Anthropocene Jonathan Pickering, University of Canberra Tue 21 November 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The emergence of the Anthropocene – a new epoch in which humanity exerts a pervasive influence over the Earth system – calls for new conceptions of sustainability that are open to democratic contestation while being grounded in emerging scientific understanding of global environmental risks, including climate change and biodiversity loss. Yet discourses of sustainability are often co-opted by actors whose interests lie in upholding patterns of production and consumption that are neither environmentally nor socially sustainable. This paper (which forms part of a book project co-authored with John Dryzek on The Politics of the Anthropocene) sets out a new framework for understanding sustainability, then applies the framework to analyse the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted in 2015. Efforts to craft the SDGs involved a range of consultations whose scope was unprecedented in the UN’s history. We discuss the deliberative strengths and shortcomings of the consultation and negotiation process, and the extent to which the process and the goals themselves offer meaningful responses to global environmental risks. This paper is co-authored with John Dryzek. About the speaker Jonathan joined the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance in 2015. He is a Postdoctoral Fellow working with Professor John Dryzek on his Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship project, ‘Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice and a Changing Earth System’. He completed his PhD in philosophy at the Australian National University, based in the Centre for Moral, Social and Political Theory and graduating in 2014. His thesis explored opportunities for reaching a fair agreement between developing and developed countries in global climate change negotiations. Before joining the University of Canberra he taught climate and environmental policy at the Crawford School of Public Policy at ANU, and has been a Visiting Fellow at the Development Policy Centre at ANU since 2014. Jonathan’s research interests include the ethical and political dimensions of global climate change policy, global environmental governance, development policy and ethics, and global justice. He has a Masters' degree in development studies from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), and undergraduate degrees in arts and law from the University of Sydney. Previously he worked as a policy and program manager with the Australian Government's international development assistance program (AusAID, 2003-09). Previous Next

< Back Amy McGregor-Dainton PhD Candidate About Amy McGregor-Dainton is a Ph.D Candidate at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. Amy has worked as a journalist in regional Victoria, a public servant at councils in Australia and the UK, and a policy adviser for the Labor Party in the Australian Capital Territory. It was through these roles that Amy became interested in why citizens are dissatisfied and distrustful of government and how they communicate those feelings of disaffection. Dissertation With growing evidence of democratic backsliding around the world, including in countries with long-established democratic traditions and institutions, Amy’s research is focused on how low levels of political disaffection and communication of political disaffection in the public sphere might be a risk to democracy in Australia. Amy’s Ph.D research is focused on the implicit expectations citizens have of government in Australia and how those expectations are used to evaluate government performance. Further, this project seeks to understand how communication among citizens, as well as from citizens to government actors, about unmet expectations might be influencing narratives about the quality of democracy in Australia. This project involves interviewing politicians and public servants across three levels of government (local, state and federal) in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland, as well as a large sample of citizens and a range of contributors to the public debate about government. Data from these interviews will then be analysed thematically. PhD Supervisors Adele Webb Jordan McSwiney Professional memberships Amy is a member of the Australian Political Studies Association and the Australia Aotearoa New Zealand Communication Association.

< Back Wendy Conway-Lamb PhD Candidate About Wendy is a researcher and practitioner with over fifteen years of experience working on climate change and international development. Her areas of expertise include climate change adaptation and resilience; global climate governance; international aid and development; deliberative democracy; climate justice; gender equality and inclusion. Wendy is currently completing a PhD at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, University of Canberra, exploring how those most affected by climate impacts at local levels can be more meaningfully included in global adaptation governance, with an empirical focus on Vietnam’s Mekong Delta. Wendy has worked for federal government, NGOs, think tanks, and the United Nations. Her skills encompass research and analysis; policy and technical advice; program design and evaluation; team leadership; and academic teaching, training and facilitation. She is currently on leave from her role as Climate and Development Specialist in DFAT’s Climate Integration Unit. Her career with DFAT has seen her designing and evaluating climate-related aid investments, providing technical advice on climate-related policy and programming, leading teams, and undertaking public diplomacy, both in Canberra and in the Indo-Pacific region. Geographically her focus has primarily been Southeast Asia, including over four years working on climate change and development in Vietnam. Connect on LinkedIn Tweets at @WendyConwayLamb Dissertation Wendy's PhD research explores how a more deliberative approach to the governance of climate change adaptation could empower those most affected by climate change, and least responsible for causing it, to be more meaningfully included in adaptation decision-making. Getting beyond ideas of participation or representation, the concept of a deliberative system allows us to describe and analyse how in practice, even in non-democratic contexts, adaptation is governed by the interaction of multiple formal and informal actors. Highlighting the inherently contested and political nature of adaptation, Wendy’s empirical research reveals a plurality of adaptation discourses invoked by an array of government and non-government actors involved in adaptation in Vietnam. In this complex discursive landscape, some understandings of adaptation take precedence over others, creating the risk of exclusion but also an opportunity for transmission of influence and deliberative inclusion. Supervisors John Dryzek (Primary Supervisor) Jonathan Pickering (Secondary Supervisor) Lisa Schipper (Supervisor) Publications Conway-Lamb, W. (2024). Pluralizing climate change adaptation: mapping discourses in Vietnam. Climate and Development , 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2024.2361797 De Pryck, K; Chalaye, P; Conway-Lamb, W; Elstub, S; Sanchez, E; Sari, N (forthcoming) ‘The 2021 Global Climate Assembly: A new global deliberative space?’ in Escobar & Elstub (eds.) Climate Assemblies: New Civic Institutions for a Climate-Changed World , De Gruyter Curato, Chalaye, Conway-Lamb, De Pryck, Elstub, Morán, Oppold, Romero, Ross, Sanchez, Sari, Stasiak, Tilikete, Veloso, von Schneidemesser, and Werner (2023), Global Assembly on the Climate and Ecological Crisis: Evaluation Report, University of Canberra https://researchsystem.canberra.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/82182314/Global_Assembly_Evaluation_Report.pdf Conway-Lamb, Wendy (2021), Climate Change , a non-fiction book for disadvantaged school children in the Asia-Pacific region, published by Library for All Digital Library for the World, libraryforall.org Conference Papers Conway-Lamb, Wendy (2024) ‘What does adaptation justice mean to people affected by climate impacts?’ Human Geographies of Climate Change Adaptation conference , Bergen, May 2024 Conway-Lamb, Wendy & Pickering, Jonathan (2022) ‘The case for democratizing global adaptation governance’, Earth System Governance conference , Toronto, Oct 2022 Conway-Lamb, Wendy (2018), ‘Beyond the vertical hierarchy paradigm: a deliberative systems approach to adaptation governance’, IPSA World Congress of Political Science , Brisbane, July 2018 Conway-Lamb, Wendy (2018), ‘Inclusive multi-level adaptation governance: a deliberative systems approach’, Adaptation Futures , Cape Town, June 2018 Research Projects Global Assembly on the Climate and Ecological Crisis (2021 - present), member of research and evaluation team Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice and a Changing Earth System (2016 - 2020), Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship Project, PhD candidate Teaching International Climate Change Policy and Economics masters level course, Australian National University, 2022 Domestic Climate Change Policy and Economics masters level course, Australian National University, 2022 Affiliations Research fellow, Earth System Governance network Research affiliate, Centre for Environmental Governance, University of Canberra Scholarships and Prizes PhD Scholarship, Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice, and a Changing Earth System, Australian Research Council https://www.linkedin.com/in/wendy-conway-lamb-5a573351/

< 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 CENTRE MEETS CENTRE: PARTICIPEDIA AND CDDGG WITH BONNY IBHAWOH Participedia is a global network working on public participation and democratic innovations. About this event Participedia is a global network of researchers, educators, practitioners, and policymakers working on public participation and democratic innovations. The network communicates knowledge of democratic innovations to defend, expand and deepen civic inclusion and democratic governance. It comprises 63 researchers from 22 universities and 21 organizations across 16 countries. Participedia.net has documented over 3,000 cases, methods and organizations on public participation and democratic innovation in 137 countries. Bonny Ibhawoh (M.A. Ibadan; Ph.D Dalhousie) teaches Global Human Rights History and African History in the Department of History and the Centre for Peace Studies. He also teaches in the McMaster Arts & Science Program and the Institute on Globalization and the Human Condition. He is the Director of the McMaster Centre for Human Rights and Restorative Justice. He is the Project Director of Participedia and the Confronting Atrocity Project. He has taught in universities in Africa, Europe and North America. Previously, he was professor at Brock University, Canada; professor in the Department of Political Science at University of North Carolina at Asheville; Human Rights Fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs, New York; Research Fellow at the Danish Institute for Human Rights, Copenhagen and Associate Member of the Centre for African Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. He was Visiting Professor of Human Rights at The Bernard and Audre Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice, University of Texas at Austin. He has also taught at Ambrose Alli University, Covenant University, and the University of Lagos. Dr Ibhawoh currently chairs the United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development. His research interests are global human rights, peace/conflict studies, legal and imperial history. His articles on these themes have appeared in historical and interdisciplinary journals – Human Rights Quarterly, Journal of Human Rights Practice, The Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, the Journal of Global History, and Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology (Journal of the American Psychological Association). He is the author of Human Rights in Africa (Cambridge University Press, 2018); Imperial Justice (Oxford University Press, 2013) and Imperialism and Human Rights (SUNY Press, 2007) [named Choice Outstanding Academic Title]. Dr. Ibhawoh is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, a recipient of the McMaster Student Union Teaching Award and the Nelson Mandela Distinguished Africanist Award. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

< Back Sara Drury Associate About Sara Drury’s research and practice focus on the intersections of rhetoric and deliberative democracy, with particular attention to argumentation and political judgment. She is Associate Professor and Chair of Rhetoric at Wabash College and serves as Director of Wabash Democracy and Public Discourse.

< Back John Parkinson Adjunct Professor About John Parkinson is Professor of Social and Political Philosophy at Maastricht University. He is one of the originators of the deliberative systems approach. His current work is on communicative norms and practices in the digital public sphere.

< 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 Eda Keremoglu-Waibler Associate About Eda Keremoglu-Waibler's PhD research looks at the role of inclusionary and deliberative institutions in nondemocratic regimes, examining their impact on policy, the provision of public goods and regime stability. She lectures on authoritarian regimes as well as (political) cultural studies and public opinion research in Stuttgart.

< Back Luisa Batalha Associate About Luisa Batalha's work examines themes related to social identity and deliberative democracy, in addition to research on multiculturalism and prejudice, and the psychology of climate change. Luisa works at the Department of Psychology at the ANU and has conducted quantitative analysis on the Australian Citizens' Parliament.

< Back Cultivating a deliberative stance Simon Niemeyer, University of Canberra Tue 7 March 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract There has been much focus in deliberative democracy on procedures that may be more or less deliberative, which may also bear some relationship to the deliberativeness of an outcome or decision. More recently the idea of dispositional state has gained attention, initially through the idea of ‘deliberative stance’ proposed by Owen and Smith. The idea of a deliberative stance potentially fills important gaps in the theory of deliberation, where differences in stance confound the relationship between procedure and outcome. If it can be said that an individual as adopted a more deliberative stance during a deliberative encounter, then we might expect difference in outcome compared to another who has not, even though all other procedural observations may be the same — although it is also likely that stance and procedure are also related. The role of inducing a deliberative stance was tested as part of a mini public field experiment in 2016 in Sweden on the issue of begging by internal EU migrants. Two groups participated in a three-day process, one of which undertook pre-deliberative group exercises aimed at inducing deliberative norms, or a ‘deliberative stance’. The second group did not undertake any group exercises, but instead began the process with a briefing about the ideals of deliberation. Both groups then participated in the same process. The differences in outcome between the two groups were analysed in terms of conventional preference transformation, as well as the intersubjective relationship between values, beliefs — or ‘reasons’ — and policy choices (intersubjective consistency). The implications of the results for deliberative theory and practice are discussed. This paper is co-authored with Julia Jennstål, Uppsala University About the speaker Simon Niemeyer is an Australian Research Council (ARC) Future Fellow whose research covers the broad fields of deliberative democracy and environmental governance, particularly in respect to climate change. His focus is on the forces that shape public opinion and how this can be improved so that the expressed preference of the public better reflects their collective long-term interests. This has guided his research in the direction of exploring the nature of preference change during deliberative minipublics, which is now moving into a phase of understanding the possibility for deliberative preference formation in mass public settings and the institutional features that best facilitate deliberative democratic governance. Previous Next

< Back The consensus project and three levels of deliberation Emmanuel Ani, University of Ghana Tue 5 December 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The basic argument is that the consensus debate has not been very meaningful until now because deliberation as well as issues for deliberation have not been categorized into different levels to expose the varying challenges of reaching common agreement and the kinds of deliberative approaches entailed in each category. The research attempts this categorization. The objective is to further clarify the debate and outline a few implications for further research regarding the viability of making consensus a stopping rule for deliberation. About the speaker Emmanuel Ifeanyi Ani is currently a Senior lecturer at the University of Ghana, Legon. He obtained a National Diploma (ND) and a Higher National Diploma (HND) in Mass Communication with Distinction from the Institute of Journalism, Management and Continuing Education, Enugu State University of Science and Technology (ESUT) Consult, a BA in Philosophy from the University of Ibadan, a B. Phil in Philosophy from the Pontificia Università Urbaniana Roma (Urban Pontifical University, Rome), Italy, an MA and a PhD in Philosophy from Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Nigeria. Awarded best graduating student at graduate and post-graduate levels, he is a member of the Nigerian Philosophical Association. He was editor of Fact Magazine and is co-founder of Teleads Career Services. Previous Next

< 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 Learning to value nature? International organizations and the promotion of ecosystem services Hayley Stevenson, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella Tue 11 December 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The idea of valuing nature has become a core element of contemporary sustainable development and green economy agendas. This has been enabled by the widespread acceptance of the ‘ecosystems services’ concept, which tries to capture the value of the environment for human wellbeing. As the ecosystem services concept is embedded in development planning and economic policy-making, it is important to understand the opportunities it creates for environmental conservation and social development, and its inherent tensions and limitations. This requires a degree of reflexivity in policy-making to ensure that policies are informed by the historical lessons of ecosystem services experiments, the diverse knowledge of contemporary stakeholders, and self-critical awareness of uncertainty and multiple ontological perspectives. An international research team led by Hayley Stevenson and James Meadowcroft is studying the emergence and political uptake of this concept at international and national levels. In this presentation Hayley will share some initial findings about how nature valuation has been integrated into the work of international environmental and development agencies, and the patterns of reflexivity we observe. These findings also cast doubt on the political future of the ecosystem services concept. About the speaker Hayley Stevenson is Associate Professor in International Relations at the Universidad Torcuato Di Tella (Argentina), and Reader in Politics at the University of Sheffield (UK). She is the author of Institutionalizing Unsustainability, Democratizing Global Climate Governance (with John S. Dryzek), and Global Environmental Politics: Problems, Policy, and Practice. She is currently leading an international project with James Meadowcroft, “Ecosystem Services: Valuing Nature for Sustainable Development and a Green Economy”. Previous Next

< Back Deliberative democracy and federal constitutional design and building in Myanmar Baogang He, Deakin University / Dr Michael Breen, University of Melbourne Tue 30 October 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The recent deliberative democracy literature has addressed many issues on constitutionalism. In particular, John Dryzek’s seminal work on deliberative democracy in divided society and James Fishkin’s deliberative polling on constitutional matters offer a new fresh approach and thinking. This paper aims to engage and advance the current theorizing on deliberative democracy and constitutionalism through a case study of deliberative forums on federal constitutionalism in Myanmar. Myanmar is in an important phase of its democratic transition as it tackles the form of federalism most suited to its conditions and aspirations. Since the 1947 Panglong conference, demands by the ethnic nationalities for ‘genuine federalism’, which have been a primary factor behind conflict, have remained unmet and continue to foment unrest and mistrust. The opportunity for substantive federal reform, and associated peace-building, is present and being progressed at the national level, through Union Peace Dialogues, involving elite level representatives from the military, ethnic armed groups and political parties. However, these forums suffer from problems of democratic legitimacy, significant delay, and polarisation. As one supplement to this process, and in order to demonstrate the value of a deliberative, rather than majoritarian, approach to reform, the presenters organised four deliberative forums based on the deliberative polling methodology. Two deliberations involved mostly members of political parties, ethnic armed groups and civil society organisations, while the other two involved mostly laypersons selected by civil society organisation. Designing the deliberative forums in this way helps to address competing recommendations for deliberation in constitution-making and on identity-based issues – namely those that regard such deliberation as best occurring among laypeople, who are more likely to change to their minds but have limited understanding of technical issues, and those who suggest elite-based forums. We found that in each case participants did change their minds, sometimes against expectations, but to a different degree. Technical matters, like the division of powers, were more pertinent to the elite, while issues like whether or not there should be federalism saw more substantial changes among laypeople. Further, involving political parties and ethnic armed groups established a semi-detached link to the official constitutional change process, in this case the Union Peace Dialogues (21st Century Panglong), and the potential to contribute to the establishment of a more deliberative system. About the speakers Baogang He is Alfred Deakin Professor and Chair in International Relations since 2005, at Deakin University, Australia. Graduated with a PhD in Political Science from Australian National University in 1994, Professor He has become widely known for his work in Chinese democratisation and politics, in particular the deliberative politics in China. Professor He has published 7 single-authored books and 63 international refereed journal articles. His publications are found in top journals including British Journal of Political Science, Journal of Peace Research, Political Theory, and Perspectives on Politics. In addition, he published 3 books, 15 book chapters and 63 journal papers in Chinese. Professor He has also held several honorary appointments and research fellowships at renowned universities including Stanford University, University of Cambridge, Columbia University, Leiden and Sussex University. Michael Breen is a McKenzie Postdoctoral Fellow in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Melbourne. Prior to that Michael worked at Deakin University, after completing his PhD at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Michael's research focuses on federalism in Asia, and the management of ethnic diversity. He is the author of 'The Road to Federalism in Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka: Finding the Middle Ground' (2018, Routledge) and has participated in Nepal's constitution-making process that established it as a federal democratic republic. Michael's research also explores the role of deliberative democracy and the use of deliberative polling in constitution-making and conflict management. Prior to academia, Michael was a policy maker, negotiator and project manager in various government departments in Australia and international organisations including the United Nations Development Programme. His professional background is in Indigenous rights and native title, political inclusion and environmental conservation. Previous Next

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

Industry Partners We work with government, international organisations, NGOs, and the creative industry to translate deliberative theory into practice. Democracy R&D Our Centre is proud to be part of Democracy R&D–a global consortium of advocates, scholars, and practitioners of deliberative democracy. Our Centre is represented by Nick Vlahos, Nardine Alnemrand and Nicole Curato in their activities. Connecting to Parliament A collaboration between Centre for Deliberative democracy and Global Governance and the Institute for Democratic Engagement and Accountability.

< Back Andre Bachtiger Associate About André Bächtiger's research focuses on deliberation and political communication, and understanding the preconditions and outcomes of high-quality deliberation in the contexts of representative institutions and mini-publics. He is Professor of Political Theory and Empirical Democracy Research at the University of Stuttgart.