Search Results

< Back Temple Uwalaka Postdoctoral Research Fellow About Dr Temple Uwalaka is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis. Temple is also a Lecturer in Communication at the Faculty of Arts and Design, University of Canberra. His research interests include digital activism, digital journalism, political marketing, and the use of online and mobile media to influence political change. His work has been published in the Journalism Studies, Communication and the Public, Media International Australia, Communication Research and Practice, Journal of Communication Inquiry, Journal of Political Marketing, African Journalism Studies among others. He has taught diploma, undergraduate and postgraduate level units in many areas of communication including Marketing Communication, Strategic Communication, Journalism, and Public Relations. Key Publications Uwalaka, T. (2024). Social media as solidarity vehicle during the 2020# EndSARS Protests in Nigeria. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 59(2), 338-353. Uwalaka, T., Amadi, A. F., Nwala, B., & Wokoro, P. (2023). Online harassment of journalists in Nigeria: audience motivations and solutions. Media International Australia, 1329878X231206840. Uwalaka, T., & Amadi, F. (2023). Beyond “online notice-me”: Analysing online harassment experiences of journalists in Nigeria. Journalism Studies, 24(15), 1937-1956. Uwalaka, T. (2023). ‘Abba Kyari did not die of Coronavirus’: Social media and fake news during a global pandemic in Nigeria. Media International Australia, 188(1), 18-33. Uwalaka, T. (2023). Nigerian Military Strategic Use of Social Media During Online Firestorms: An Appraisal of the NDA Terrorist Attack. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 01968599231151727. Uwalaka, T., & Nwala, B. (2023). Examining the role of social media and mobile social networking applications in socio-political contestations in Nigeria. Communication and the Public , 20570473231168474. Uwalaka, T. (2023). Evaluating Military Use of Social Media for Political Branding during Online Firestorms: An Analysis of the Afghan Troops Withdrawal. Journal of Political Marketing, 1-17. My Google Scholar address link . Teaching Convener, Global Strategic Communication Planning, 2020-present Convener, Strategic and Crisis Communication 2020-present Convener, Media Analysis and Planning

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

< Back Women's participation in the Bougainville peace process and post-conflict political order: Understanding post-conflict gender norm shift on the level of local government Anjte Busch, RWTH Aachen University Tue 26 June 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Conflicts and the following time of resolution may be simultaneously empowering and disempowering for women. The recent history of Bougainville (Autonomous Region of Bougainville, Papua New Guinea) is such a case, providing an opportunity to examine the participation of women in the Bougainville peace process and its post-conflict political order. I explore in my PhD-project women’s role in local government to see if a societal shift of gender relations and identities can be found in Bougainville’s local institutions, or if the changes occurred are different expressions of gender relations which remain equally rooted in previous gender roles. About the speaker Antje [Anita] Busch, M.A. studied Political Science and English Studies in Germany, the USA and Spain, and holds a Bachelor and Master degree from the RWTH Aachen University (Germany). Since 2014 she works as a researcher and lecturer for the Chair of International Relations at RWTH Aachen University Department for Political Science. Her PhD-project is about women’s participation in the Bougainville peace process and post-conflict political order. For that she plans to conduct semi-structure interview with women’s representatives on the local government level in north and central Bougainville from April until June 2018. She is the Junior Speaker for the Development Politics and Theory Section of the German’s Association of Political Scientist and Speaker of the Researcher’s Colloquium at her department. Previous Next

< Back Policy making and democratic responsiveness: The explanatory potential of values Linda Botterill, University of Canberra Tue 14 July 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Building 24, University of Canberra / Virtual Seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract This presentation will consider policy as the output of the democratic process, the endpoint of Powell’s “chain of democratic responsiveness”. Understanding fully how citizens’ preferences are reflected in policy outcomes requires the effective integration of politics into models of the policy process. One way to do this is to consider policy and politics through a values lens. I will argue that values constitute the common thread that connects all the stages of the chain of responsiveness, with each choice from citizens’ voting to policy decisions involving the prioritisation of one value or set of values over others. Drawing on the work of Shalom Schwartz, I will consider what is meant by the term ‘values’ and then discuss how they are evident in every stage of the democratic process. I will conclude with a few observations about what this approach means for policy studies. About the speaker Linda Botterill is Professor in Australian Politics and Head of the Canberra School of Politics, Economics & Society. She is a political scientist working in the areas of Australian politics, and public policy theory. The focus of her current work is the role of values in politics and policy, and she has also published extensively on Australian rural policy and politics. Prior to commencing her academic career, Professor Botterill worked as a policy practitioner – including over a decade in the APS, as an adviser to two Ministers for Primary Industries and Energy in the Keating government, and as senior policy adviser in two industry associations. She was elected as a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia in 2015. Previous Next

< Back Deliberation-as-ritual Ana Tanasoca and Jensen Sass, University of Canberra Tue 15 November 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In this paper we argue that individuals and groups often engage in deliberation as a form of ritual—what we call “deliberation-as-ritual”—which has its own benefits that have been so far overlooked. We first isolate a set of defining features distinguishing rituals from other collective practices (section I). We go on to define deliberation-as-ritual and provide several examples that illustrate the ritualistic aspect of deliberation in various political institutional settings (section II). Next we elaborate on the value and function of deliberation-as-ritual comparing it with other rituals that are ubiquitous in political life (section III). In doing so we situate our argument within the wider scholarship of deliberative democracy, by identifying both points of convergence and divergence with our approach. Then we lay down the conceptual benefits of our approach and argue in favour of precisification (section IV). Finally, we discuss and rebuke a range of potential objections to our argument (section V). About the speakers Ana Tanasoca joined the Centre in 2015 as a postdoctoral research fellow working with Professor Dryzek on his Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship project ‘Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice and a Changing Earth System.’ Jensen Sass is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Centre. His work at the Centre examines the way social norms and cultural meanings shape the character of deliberation within different contexts. Previous Next

John S. Dryzek, Simon Niemeyer, Selen A. Ercan < Back Micropolitics of Deliberation Investigator(s): John S. Dryzek, Simon Niemeyer, Selen A. Ercan Funded through Discovery Project (DP0558573) ($365,000), the Project Team includes: John Dryzek, Chief Investigator Simon Niemeyer, Chief Investigator Selen A. Ercan, Research Assistant Project Description This project explores the nature of democratic deliberation with a view to improving theories of democracy and prospects for institutionalising the benefits ascribed to deliberative democracy. It aims to systematically address fundamental questions about what it means to deliberate using empirical investigation of actual deliberative process. The methods employed have been trialled with promising results and accepted as being consistent with normative deliberative theory. These involve both formal hypothesis testing and qualitative exploration of results to reveal insights about the process of deliberation. The findings will be used to re-examine theory and formulate recommendations for the instutionalisation of deliberative democracy in both Australian and international contexts.

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

< Back The Forum, the System, and the Polity: Three Varieties of Democratic Theory John S. Dryzek 2017 , Political Theory 45 (5): 610-36. Summary Read more Previous Next

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

< Back Democratic transformations in earth system governance Jonathan Pickering, University of Canberra Tue 22 October 2019 The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Confidence in the ability of democracies to safeguard environmental sustainability has been shaken by failures to address climate change and biodiversity loss, along with a rise in anti-environmental populism across a range of countries. There is substantial (albeit contested) evidence that democracies perform better on environmental issues than non-democratic countries. And a resurgence in environmental activism, particularly among young people, offers renewed hope that democratic practices can coexist with progress towards sustainability. Nevertheless, major questions remain: are democracies capable of governing the rapid, wide-ranging economic and social transformations needed to address mounting risks to the Earth’s life-support systems? And what policy options are available to achieve sustainability transformations in ways that are democratically legitimate? This talk, based on a co-authored article in progress, aims to synthesise existing knowledge on the democratic implications of transformations towards sustainability and to chart new directions for research in this area. By linking ideas of sustainability transformations and democratic transformations together, we show how each can illuminate the other. About the speaker Jonathan Pickering is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. His research focuses on democracy, reflexivity and justice in global environmental governance, and he is currently working on an Australian Research Council Laureate project on ‘Deliberative Worlds’ led by Professor John Dryzek. His research has been published in a range of journals including Climate Policy , Environmental Politics and Global Environmental Politics . He has co-authored with John Dryzek a book on The Politics of the Anthropocene (Oxford University Press, 2019) and with several colleagues a Cambridge Element on Deliberative Global Governance (2019). Previous Next

< Back Deliberation in schools Pierrick Chalaye, University of Canberra / Kei Nishiyama, University of Canberra / Wendy Russell, Double Arrow Consulting Tue 2 April 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In 2018, we conducted a pilot Deliberation in Schools project in two ACT public schools (Ainslie Primary School year 5 and Hawker College year 11), partially funded by the International Association for Public Participation Australasia. Working with teachers and school principals, we facilitated a series of deliberative sessions with students. Through the program, we investigated how students deliberate, understand and practice democracy, and what sorts of curriculum design are needed to cultivate democratic competencies. In this presentation, we will show some tentative findings of our pilot, with a specific focus on the role of facilitator in classroom deliberation. While the role of facilitator in deliberative mini-publics has gradually received attention from scholars and practitioners alike, little is known about how to facilitate deliberation in the classroom. In this presentation, we will show how our pilot partially responds to two key questions: "How can a facilitator ensure the epistemic and inclusive quality of deliberation in the classroom?" "How can this deliberative work address power imbalances between facilitators/teachers and students?" Previous Next

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

< Back Belgium: The rise of institutionalized mini-publics Julien Vrydagh, Vrije Universiteit Brussel and UCLouvain Tue 28 January 2020 11:00am-12pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In less than a year, Belgium has witnessed a large and sudden rise of institutionalized mini-publics. After the Ostbelgien model, the Regional Parliament of Brussels has institutionalized Citizens’ deliberative commissions, while multiple municipalities of Brussels are launching neighbourhood councils and a political party got elected based on a single promise to organize citizens’ assemblies. Belgium seems to become a leading laboratory of deliberative democracy and citizen participation. This ‘revolution’ is nonetheless surprising, for Belgium was known to be a copy-book example of neo-corporatism, whereby citizens tended to be excluded from political decision-making. How can we explain this increase? Is it a revolution or an incremental change? What do these new institutionalized mini-publics entail? What are their promises and pitfalls? This informative seminar will try to answer these questions by discussing dimension of this rise. First, I present its genesis and background. Examining Belgian mini-publics from 2001 until 2018, it provides both a descriptive analysis of what preceded and a narrative accounting for this expansion. Second, it explains in detail the design and competencies of four specific institutionalized mini-publics : a brief remainder of the Ostbelgien model; the Brussels’ Deliberative Commission (composed by elected representatives and randomly selected citizens); the atypical Citizens’ Assemblies organized by the political party Agora the neighbourhood mini-publics (sometimes combined with participatory budgets), which are mushrooming in Brussels’ municipalities. About the speaker Julien Vrydagh is a PhD student and a teaching assistant at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel and the UCLouvain. His PhD thesis investigates the conditions under which mini-publics influence public policy in Belgium. His other research interests include the link between the mini- and maxi-public, the integration of mini-publics in collaborative governance, and youth parliaments. Julien Vrydagh also provides the City of Brussels with advices on its randomly selected neighbourhood councils. Previous Next

Faculty Affiliate < Back Jonathan Pickering Faculty Affiliate About Jonathan Pickering's research focuses on democracy and justice in global environmental governance, with an emphasis on climate change and biodiversity. He is an Assistant Professor in the School of Politics, Economics and Society at the University of Canberra, where he teaches International Relations.

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back Dr Sonia Bussu’s visit sparks new collaborations 29 Sept 2023 This month, we were excited to host Dr Sonia Bussu from The Institute of Local Government Studies (INLOGOV), University of Birmingham as a visiting scholar between 17 September to 30 September 2023. Dr Bussu works in the areas of participatory democracy and public policy. Her research aims to bridge divides between different literatures concerned with citizen engagement, social justice, and intersectional inclusion. She studies how participatory deliberative democracy, social movements, the commons, coproduction, community activism, participatory research can all enrich one another. During her visit, Dr Bussu presented a (work in progress) paper co-authored with Katy Rubin titled ‘ Participation as Assemblage’ at a public seminar on Tuesday, 19 September 2023. This paper tests the analytical power and limitations of an assemblage frame by presenting an evaluation of a project she is leading called ‘ Mindset Revolution .’ Her presentation explored the capacity of assemblage theory in helping us study democratic innovations and participatory governance. The following day, Dr Bussu presented her work at a workshop titled ‘ Deliberative systems and deliberative assemblages: Exploring the intersection and future of research agenda ’, alongside Distinguished Professor John Dryzek , Visiting PhD Candidate Lucas Veloso and Dr Hans Asenbaum . This workshop, convened by the Centre’s PhD student Wendy Conway-Lamb , offered an opportunity to discuss and reflect on different analytical lenses used to make sense of democratic innovation, comparing deliberative systems, deliberative ecologies and democratic assemblages. Dr Bussu’s contribution explored participatory governance through an assemblage lens. A crucial aspect of Dr Bussu’s work, as captured by projects she is leading like the Mindset Revolution, is that she starts from people’s lived experiences. She opens spaces for them to build a collective voice to challenge hierarchies of power and expertise embedded in existing medical and policy discourses. Dr Bussu sees her work on assemblage as a useful frame to better understand change and contingency, as it sees democracy as in a constant state of becoming, inviting us to acknowledge distributed agency and socio-material relations that also recognise the role of non-human elements, from technology to physical spaces and material resources. Asked what she enjoyed the most about her research collaboration with the Centre, Dr Bussu explains “I am going back to the UK inspired by the constructive feedback and all the wonderful work being developed by this exciting group of well-established scholars and early career researchers pushing the boundaries of the study and practice of deliberative democracy. I feel even more energised by new collaborations on work focusing on intersectional inclusion and centering and amplifying lived experience.” We are grateful for all the engaging conversations we have had with Dr Bussu during her visit, and we look forward to furthering our collaborations with her in future.

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

< Back Spaces of hope: Theorizing hope in an imperfect yet open democratic system Antonin Lacelle-Webster, University of British Columbia Tue 27 April 2021 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Hope is a complex phenomenon. While it is a common fixture of political life, its meaning remains elusive, and many reject it as simply naïve or disconnected from “reality.” Despite its political salience, democratic theory has yet to engage with hope as a political concept. In this paper, I propose to explore its relation to democracy and democratic innovations through a focus on hope’s spatial and political features. I argue that the spaces that democracy holds open for individuals to act, think, and come together can not only mitigate the anxiety generated by the uncertainty of politics but also nurture hope. More precisely, deliberative spaces provide a setting that substantiates a collective understanding of hope distinct from its individual manifestations. As such, I ground the political problem of hope not in the nature of the hoped-for ends, but in the critical and imaginative process it requires from a collectivity. Drawing from Hannah Arendt’s faculty to make and keep promises, I contend that deliberative minipublics represent one example of a space in which such collective hopes can emerge. I use the French Citizens’ Convention on Climate to illustrate my argument and conclude by briefly discussing the subsequent challenge of sustaining this form of hope. About the speaker Antonin is a PhD candidate in political theory at the University of British Columbia. He is broadly interested in issues related to democratic theory, democratic innovations, the politics of hope and despair, and the political thought of Hannah Arendt. Previous Next

< Back The Crisis of Democracy and the Science of Deliberation Dryzek, J.S., Bächtiger, A. et al 2019 , Science 363: 1144-46. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw2694 Summary Read more Previous Next

< Back Tetsuki Tamura Associate About Tetsuki Tamura's work covers deliberative democracy, the welfare state and basic income, feminism, Marxist state theories, and the relationship between normative political theory and empirical analysis. His current research interests include deliberation in the intimate sphere, conditions and motivations of deliberation, and rethinking the relationship between deliberation and liberal democracy.

< Back Reasoning together: Understanding and measuring the deliberativeness of a situation Simon Niemeyer and Francesco Veri, University of Canberra Tue 4 June 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Deliberative democracy concerns the collective process of reasoning undistorted by the exercise of power, but can this be captured empirically? Where most emphasis in the field has been on understanding good deliberative procedure, the focus here is on understanding a reasoned ‘outcome’ in a deliberative sense — beyond the problematic measure of preference change as a proxy for deliberativeness. The presentation considers what it means conceptually for individuals to “reason together” in the absence of pathologies or political manipulation and how this might be revealed in observed positions. A middle-level theory is proposed that models intersubjective reasoning in terms of how underlying issue considerations collectively map onto courses for action (preferences). The nature of the relationship indicates the deliberativeness of a situation. To the extent that a group ‘reasons together’ it is possible to observe a shared rationale, even if there is little actual agreement on preferences. This property is empirically tractable, using intersubjective consistency (IC) which can be applied to both small groups and population surveys to assess consistency of agreement on considerations versus agreement on preferences. The approach is illustrated using fourteen deliberative case studies, as well as wider application comparing climate sceptics to non-sceptics. The mechanics of the methodology, as well as implications for deliberative theory at both micro and deliberative systems levels are discussed. About the speakers Simon Niemeyer is an Associate Professor and co-founder of the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. His research ties together the themes of political behaviour, the public sphere and observations from deliberative minipublics, such as Citizens’ Juries, to develop insights into potential interventions and institutional settings that improve deliberation and governance. Francesco Veri is a Research Associate at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. He is currently working on the Australian Research Council's (ARC) project " A Meta-Study of Democratic Deliberation: Advancing Theory and Practice” led by Simon Niemeyer, Nicole Curato and John Dryzek. Francesco is specialized in the field of configurational comparative methods with an emphasis on fuzzy logic applied to social sciences. His methodological research focuses on concept operationalization and strengthening the quality of parameters of fit in set theoretic methods. Francesco is also member of the Lucerne Cluster for Configurational Methods (LUCCS) which regroup scholars who make major contributions to social science methodology at the crossroads between quantitative and qualitative research. Previous Next