Search Results

< 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 The constraints on public debate about mining in Minas Gerais, Brazil Filipe Motta, Federal University of Minas Gerais Tue 26 May 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract This research aims to understand the constraints on public debate on mining in Minas Gerais State, Brazil, working with a deliberative systems approach. It discusses how a deliberative system about mining has not been structured, although many environmental conflicts about the activity had arisen in that state in the last two decades. The work examines four structural constraints looking at the way mining debates have been handled in Minas Gerais during the expansion of mining activity, between 2005-2018. They are i) the institutional constraints in arenas for participation and in the Public Prosecutor's Office activities; ii) the economic constraints in the media and political campaigns fundings; iii) the constrains in the way civil society is structured and; iv) the constrains in the timeframe of the debate. After a presentation of these four points, the seminar will focus on how the timeframe debate is conducted and how it interferes in the deliberative system's understanding. It will observe the durational, subjective, cyclical, and rhythmic dimensions of time. About the speaker Filipe Motta is a PhD candidate in Political Science at Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Brazil. He has an interest in discussions about deliberative democracy, environmental issues, and political activism. He is currently a visiting PhD student at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance and one of the book review editors of The Journal of Deliberative Democracy (formerly Journal of Public Deliberation). Previous Next

Julia Jennstål and Simon Niemeyer < Back The Deliberative Citizen: Who deliberates, when, why and how? Investigator(s): Julia Jennstål and Simon Niemeyer Funded by the Swedish Research Council ( $1,000.000) , the Project Team includes: Julia Jennstål, Chief Investigator Simon Niemeyer, Chief Investigator Project Description The aim of this project is to systematically address foundational questions regarding the possibilities for improving deliberation in civil society by developing an understanding of the citizen and the factors — psychological, situational, personal, structural, etc. — that lead them to engage in political deliberation. Project Outputs Niemeyer, S. J. ((Forthcoming. Conditional Acceptance)). Deliberation and Ecological Democracy: From Citizen to Global System. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning (Special Issue on Ecological Democracy). Niemeyer, S. J. (Forthcoming, Sched 2019). Knowledge and the deliberative stance in democratic systems: Harnessing scepticism of the self in governing global environmental change In J. Glückler, G. Herrigel, & M. Handke (Eds.), Knowledge for Governance (Vol. Knowledge and Space). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Jennstål, J. (2019). "Deliberation and Integrative Complexity: Assessing the Development of Deliberative Norms in Minipublics." Swiss Political Science Review 25(1): 64–83. Niemeyer, S. J., & Jennstål, J. (2018). Scaling Up Deliberative Effects: Applying Lessons of Mini-Publics. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, M. E. Warren, & J. J. Mansbridge (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy (pp. 329–347). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jennstål, J. (2018). "Deliberative Participation and Personality: The Effect of Traits, Situations and Motivation." European Political Science Review 10(3): 417-440. Niemeyer, S. J. (2017). Rebuilding Trust in Political Discourse: What deliberative democracy can tell us about how to deal with a changing world . Labor Club: ACT Labor Party. Niemeyer, S. J., & Jennstål, J. (2017). Knowledge and Socratic humility in deliberative systems: Harnessing scepticism of the self in governing global change . Paper presented at the 15th Interdisciplinary Symposium on Knowledge and Space: Knowledge for Governance, Studio Villa Bosch, Heidelberg. Niemeyer, S. J., & Jennstål, J. (2016). The Deliberative Democratic Inclusion of Future Generations. In A. Gosseries & I. González Ricoy (Eds.), Institutions for Future Generations . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jennstål, J. (2016). Deliberative Participation and Personality: The Effect of Traits, Situations and Motivation (1/2016). Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance Working Paper Series, University of Canberra Niemeyer, S. J., Curato, N., & Bächtiger, A. (2016). Assessing the deliberative capacity of democratic polities and the factors that contribute to it . Paper presented at the ECPR Joimt Sessions, Pisa.

Simon Niemeyer, Will Steffen, Brendan Mackey, Janette Lindesay and Kersty Hobson < Back Social Adaptation to Climate Change in the Australian Public Sphere: A comparison of individual and group deliberative responses to scenarios of future climate change Investigator(s): Simon Niemeyer, Will Steffen, Brendan Mackey, Janette Lindesay and Kersty Hobson Funded by Discovery Project (DP0879092) ($378,500), the Project Team includes: Simon Niemeyer, Chief Investigator Will Steffen, Chief Investigator Brendan Mackey, Chief Investigator Janette Lindesay, Chief Investigator Kersty Hobson, Chief Investigator Project Description This project develops an understanding of Australia’s response to climate change and ways to improve adaptation from a governance perspective. An interdisciplinary team will construct and use original climate change scenarios to assess public responses through interviews, survey methods, contrasting individual responses with results of deliberative forums and follow up interviews. Significant developments in methods and concepts and understanding of adaptation will have an international audience.It will produce a series of regionally specific scenarios, statement of likely responses and role of institutional design and policy in improving adaptation.

Faculty Affiliates Jonathan Pickering Faculty Affiliate View Profile Jean-Paul Gagnon Faculty Affiliate View Profile

Former Staff Ana Tanasoca Postdoctoral Research Fellow View Profile Nicole Curato Professor View Profile Nitya Reddy Research Intern View Profile Hannah Barrowman Postdoctoral Research Fellow View Profile Sonya Duus Research Fellow View Profile Juliana Rocha Research Assistant View Profile Atosha Birongo Research Intern View Profile Alessandra Pecci Research Assistant View Profile Elaine Dos Santos Research Assistant View Profile Quinlan Bowman Postdoctoral Research Fellow View Profile Hedda Ransan-Cooper Research Fellow View Profile Jensen Sass Postdoctoral Research Fellow View Profile 1 2 1 ... 1 2 ... 2

< Back When deliberative democracy travels to China: An example of cultural exceptionalism Li-chia Lo, University of Melbourne Tue 7 February 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract As Edward Said elaborates in his Travelling Theory, theory is like human beings who travel from its birthplace to other foreign places. This is where the meaning of theory begins to transform, and Said’s work points to a new direction of investigating the transcultural transformation of knowledge when theory is disseminated in our globalised world. By following this line of thinking, the development of deliberative democracy in China offers an excellent example to review how the actual contexts transform the meaning and implication of deliberative democracy. Engaging with the issue of translation and its related contexts, the development of deliberative democracy in China is deeply connected with its culture, institution, and socio-political traditions. Also, the background of introducing deliberative democracy to China is also tightly bridged with the studies of democratization. The double movements between the local contexts and the universal trend of democratization form the basic theme of deliberative democracy in China. Deliberative democracy in China is therefore, struggled between universalism and exceptionalism. By making use of Giorgio Agamben’s concepts of example and exception, I will go into details about why and how the development of deliberative democracy in China is heading toward a cultural exceptionalism rather than embracing the universalism prescribed in the normative goal of deliberative democracy. About the speaker Li-chia Lo is a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Melbourne. His doctoral thesis is about deliberative democracy and participatory budgeting in China. He is particularly interested in formations of related knowledge and local experiments in Chinese cities. Previous Next

< Back DECOLONIZING DELIBERATIVE MINI-PUBLICS Deliberative mini-publics are portrayed as empowering spaces but whom are these spaces empowering? About this event Deliberative mini-publics are portrayed as empowering spaces where a group of ordinary citizens representative of the wider population can reach considered judgment and provide recommendations to public authorities. These portrayals, however, need to be interrogated. For whom are these spaces empowering? Do all citizens (or co-legislators) hold equal power to legitimize or endorse a decision or institution? Whose considered judgments and performances are considered legitimate by public authorities and process experts? Which voices and bodies are systematically rendered unheard and invisible as these processes claim to champion diversity? This paper answers these questions by drawing on various perspectives of decolonial theory. It argues that deliberative mini-publics, in their current formulation and scope, are complicit to maintaining the privileges of White western democratic theory and practice, as well as the dependencies to systems of domination, racialization and exploitation. It examines the scope and design features of mini-publics – from random selection to facilitation to presentation of expert evidence – and demonstrates how these features, despite good intentions, further entrench dominant epistemologies that maintain today’s global racial order. The paper concludes by exploring the debate on the extent to which this democratic innovation can be reformed or ‘decolonized’ and reflects on the role of scholars and practitioners of public deliberation in decolonizing democracy. Azucena Morán is a Research Associate at the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS Potsdam), PhD candidate at the University of Potsdam, and member of the ECPR Standing Group on Democratic Innovations. Her transdisciplinary work explores deliberative and participatory responses to planetary challenges and is rooted in literatures and theories of decoloniality, political oppression/liberation, and governance in areas of limited statehood. She has previously worked at Public Agenda, WZB Berlin Social Science Center, UNHCR, and the news media. Nicole Curato is a Professor of Political Sociology at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance the University of Canberra. Her work examines how democratic innovations can take root in the aftermath of tragedies, focusing on cases of disasters, armed conflict and urban crime. She has published three books and over 50 journal articles and book chapters on deliberative democracy, Philippine politics, and research methods. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

< Back Systemic representation: The democratic legitimacy of self-appointed representatives Jonathan Kuyper, Stockholm University Tue 15 July 2014 11:00am – 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract Deliberative democracy has taken a systemic turn. Underlying this research agenda is the core idea that democratic deliberation is, and should be, dispersed throughout an interconnected system. Because no single institution can perfectly uphold deliberative ideals, we should take a holistic view and seek to understand how a variety of sites operate in conjunction with one another. In this article I probe how different types of representatives fit within a deliberative system. The core argument is that representatives can act democratically in very different ways depending upon their role within a wider system. I employ this argument to evaluate the democratic legitimacy of 'self-appointed representatives’. Drawing upon Dryzek's notion of deliberative capacity, I argue that self-appointed representatives should be assessed by whether they have a role in the empowered space within a system or rather act as part of the transmission belt from the public space. About the speaker Jonathan Kuyper is a postdoctoral researcher at Stockholm University working on the Transaccess research project (headed by Professor Jonas Tallberg). He completed his PhD at the Australian National University in 2012, during which time he was a visiting student at the European University Institute and Princeton University. His work has been published or is forthcoming in Global Constitutionalism, Journal of Public Deliberation, European Journal of International Relations, Ethics and Global Politics and other outlets. Previous Next

Simon Niemeyer, Hemant Ojha < Back Governing Climate Resilient Futures: gender, justice and conflict resolution in resource management Investigator(s): Simon Niemeyer, Hemant Ojha Funded through the Swedish Research Council (VR), “Sustainability and Resilience grant, Governing Climate Resilient Futures: gender, justice and conflict resolution in resource management (JUSTCLIME)” has now entered the last year of its operation. It is a partnership initiative among Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and other partners based on Norway, Kenya, Nepal and Nicaragua. It has produced two papers with Hemant Ojha as either lead or contributing author in 2022: Khatri, D. B., A. J. Nightingale, H. Ojha, G. Maskey and P. N. Lama ‘Tsumpa’ (2022). "Multi-scale politics in climate change: the mismatch of authority and capability in federalizing Nepal." Climate Policy: 1-13. Ojha, H., A. J. Nightingale, N. Gonda, B. O. Muok, S. Eriksen, D. Khatri and D. Paudel (2022). "Transforming environmental governance: critical action intellectuals and their praxis in the field." Sustainability Science 17(2): 621-635.

< Back Ron Brent Adjunct Professor About Ron Brent is a retired public servant who previously worked as Deputy Commonwealth Ombudsman, Commonwealth Ombudsman, was the first Australian Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, and the initial Chair of the Australian Research Integrity Committee.

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

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back New Report Unpacks Risks to the Integrity of Deliberative Mini-Publics 17 Feb 2025 On 11 February 2025, close to 100 academics, practitioners, and policymakers joined the launch of Deliberative Integrity: Risks and Responses in Mini-Public Governance , authored by Dr Lucy J. Parry and Professor Nicole Curato (University of Canberra). The report highlights risks facing deliberative mini-publics (DMPs) and offers strategies to safeguard their integrity. Moderated by Professor Oliver Escobar (University of Edinburgh), the launch featured insights from the authors and expert discussants, including Tessa Dunlop (European Commission), Damien du Preez (Stellenbosch University), and Marjan H. Ehsassi (Federation for Innovation in Democracy – North America). The Report is based on three years of academic research, featuring interviews with over sixty members of the deliberative democracy’s community of practice from around the world. The project was funded by the Australian Research Council’s Special Research Initiative. Five Integrity Risks The report identifies five major risks that challenge the integrity of DMPs including economic pressures, control and constraint of commissioning authorities, the orthodoxy of design where "process is prioritized over people," poor governance structures, and ambiguous integration and impact to the wider political system. Responses to these risks, according to research respondents, are already taking place within the design and implementation of DMPs, within community of practice, and within the broader political systems, although more can be done to mitigate them. “Many people are acutely aware of and anticipate risks to deliberative integrity and try to address them, and that there is already a proactive and collaborative community of practice," said Lucy Parry, one of the report’s authors. “Our aim here has been to help provide a foundation upon which further collaborations can be built,” she added. A Call for Action The authors stress the importance of “honest and reflexive conversations” to uphold deliberative integrity and cautioned that failure to address these risks could reduce DMPs to “another form of citizen engagement instrumentalised for political or commercial gain”. With a growing appetite for institutionalizing participatory governance, the report urges policymakers, academics, and practitioners to adopt stronger safeguards and rethink DMPs' role within the political system. For more details, the full report is available via the University of Canberra . Access the presentation slides and event transcript, here (1) presentation slides and (2) transcript .

< Back Lala Muradova Associate About Lala Muradova uses experimental research designs combined with observation of real-world deliberative practices to study the cognitive and affective processes underlying democratic deliberation and to understand how individuals participate in deliberative processes. In 2019, Lala received the European Consortium for Political Research’s Best Paper Prize in the Democratic Innovations stream.

< Back PROSPECTS OF DELIBERATIVE POWER-SHARING IN AUSTRALIAN CITY COUNCILS? A NEW GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK FOR CO-CREATION Despite the increase of empirical studies on institutionalised public deliberation in OECD countries, where Australia is one of the leading countries, institutionalised local co-creation task committees remain unexplored beyond Northern Europe (OECD 2020). The concept of power-sharing in the context of deliberation and co-creation is also relatively understudied. For this research project, I examine the prospects of deliberative power-sharing in city councils in Australia. I explore the concept of deliberative power-sharing by adapting and applying the Danish local co-creation task committee model, the Gentofte Model, to the democratic, political and institutional context of city councils in Australia (Sørensen & Torfing 2019). The Gentofte Model has been identified as a suitable power-sharing framework between democratically elected councillors and citizens to increase public trust, political legitimacy and bipartisanship because citizens impact public policy directly through distributed political decision-making power (De Jong, Neulen and Jansma 2019). My research project will use action research as the methodology. Specifically, a participatory action research approach will be used to co-develop and implement an institutionalised local co-creation task committee in an Australian city council. My lived-experience with deliberative power-sharing in co-creation from a Danish city council will be a part of the participatory action research process of developing new knowledge and transformative change with Australian mayors, councillors, local government CEOs and citizens (Bartels et al. 2020). The outcomes of my research project aim to contribute to the field of deliberative and participatory governance because the Danish local co-creation task committee model offers a new and deliberative approach to power-sharing between councillors and citizens which has not been explored beyond the North European countries. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Previous Next

< Back New water for water dispute resolution: Tribal water disputes in Arizona and refugee host communities in Lebanon and Jordan Rhett Larson, Arizona State University Tue 10 July 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Water scarcity often leads to water disputes. New water supplies—such as bulk water imports, desalination, cloud seeding, or increased stream flows from improved forest management—can mitigate water scarcity and thus help avoid, resolve, or mitigate water disputes. However, new water supplies can also aggravate water disputes if not developed in concert with legal reforms. This Article evaluates the role of new water in two cases of water disputes in arid regions and proposes legal reforms to promote new water a means of water dispute resolution. The first case is the adjudication of water rights in the Gila River basin in Arizona, including the long-standing water dispute between the Hope Tribe and the Navajo Nation. The second case involved disputes over water resources in refugee host communities in Lebanon and Jordan. In each case, development of new water faces legal obstacles and environmental concerns that must be overcome if those augmented supplies are to help address ongoing water disputes. About the speaker Rhett Larson is a Morrison Fellow in Water Law and associate professor in the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law. He is also a faculty fellow in the Center for Law and Global Affairs, and the Center for Law, Science, and Innovation. He is a senior research fellow with the Kyl Center for Water Policy at ASU's Morrison Institute for Public Policy. Professor Larson’s research and teaching interests are in property law, administrative law, and environmental and natural resource law, in particular, domestic and international water law and policy. Professor Larson’s research focuses on the impact of technological innovation on water rights regimes, in particularly transboundary waters, and on the sustainability implications of a human right to water. He works on dispute resolution and improved processes in water rights adjudications in Arizona and the Colorado River Basin with the Kyl Center for Water Policy. Professor Larson was a visiting professor and Fulbright Scholar at the Pontifical Catholic University of Ecuador, and works in the Middle East on water security issues. Professor Larson also practiced environmental and natural resource law with law firms in Arizona, focusing on water rights, water quality, and real estate transactions. Previous Next

< Back How to get away with murder? The everyday politics of justification in illiberal times Nicole Curato, University of Canberra Tue 16 October 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract This presentation enquires into the everyday politics of justification that legitimize President Rodrigo Duterte’s bloody war on drugs in the Philippines. Since the President took office in 2016, over 22,000 unsolved killings were documented that may be related to the antidrug campaign. Despite these figures, the drug war, as well as President Duterte continue to enjoy broad support from the public based on the latest polling data. What accounts for this phenomenon? Using in-depth interviews with families left behind by victims of summary executions, community leaders, public officials, and inmates jailed because of drug-related charges, this presentation unpacks the everyday logics of justification that provide discursive power to a controversial policy. It argues that denialism, complicity and deservingness are three logics that structure the ways in which reasons are articulated, negotiated, ignored, and silenced in the public sphere. The presentation concludes by reflecting on the politics of reason-giving during what is described to be illiberal times in one of Asia’s oldest democracies. It also re-examines the virtues of deliberative democracy in dark times. This seminar is co-presented by the Australian National University’s Philippines Project. Previous Next

John S. Dryzek, Selen Ercan, Paul Fawcett, Carolyn Hendriks and Michael Jensen < Back Realising Democracy Amid Communicative Plenty: A Deliberative Systems Approach Investigator(s): John S. Dryzek, Selen Ercan, Paul Fawcett, Carolyn Hendriks and Michael Jensen Funded through a Discovery Project (DP150103615) ($369,700), the Project Team includes: · John S. Dryzek, Chief Investigator · Selen A. Ercan, Chief Investigator · Paul Fawcett, Chief Investigator · Carolyn Hendriks, Chief Investigator · Michael Jensen, Chief Investigator · Hedda Ransan-Cooper, Postdoctoral Research Fellow · Sonya Duus, Research Associate Project Description The ever-increasing volume of political communication (especially online) challenges democracy and effective policy making. This project examines whether, how, why, and to what effect discourse flows within and between different deliberative sites in the new politics of communicative plenty. We apply the idea of deliberative democracy, which puts meaningful communication between citizens and policy makers at the heart of effective governance. It develops a deliberative analysis of controversy surrounding coal seam gas in Australia, using qualitative and ‘big data techniques to collect information.

Working Paper Series The Centre for Deliberative Democracy working paper series makes preliminary findings of research on deliberative democracy publicly available in advance of publication in journals and books. The series aims to present new research that makes original, high-quality contributions to the theory and practice of deliberative democracy informed by recent literature in the field. The working paper series is edited by Simon Niemeyer. Contributions to the series are welcomed from staff members, associates and visitors of the Centre. To propose a paper for inclusion in the series, please contact: Simon Niemeyer Professor simon.niemeyer@canberra.edu.au 2024/1 Hans Asenbaum, Nicole Curato, Bonny Ibhawoh, Genevieve Fuji Johnson, Justin McCaul and Ricardo F. Mendonça "Can Deliberative Democracy be Decolonized? A Debate" 2023/2 Lucy Parry "Integrity Challenges in Deliberative Mini-Publics" 2023/1 Mathias Poulsen "Playful Democratic Assemblages" 2022/2 Marie-Isabel Theuwis & Rosa Kindt "Through the Looking Glass" 2022/1 Nick Vlahos "Democratic Restructuring and the Triaging Functions of an Urban Deliberative System". 2021/4 Simon Niemeyer, Francesco Veri, John S. Dryzek and Andre Bachtiger "How Deliberation Happens: Enabling and Activating Deliberative Reasoning". (Published in APSR) 2021/3 John Rountree and Nicole Curato "Citizens' Assemblies and the Public Sphere". 2021/2 Antonin Lacelle Webster "The Political Problem of Hope and its Deliberative Manifestation". 2021/1 Pierrick Chalaye "The Discursive Sources of Environmental Progress and its Limits: Biodiversity Politics in France". 2020/3 Kei Nishiyama, Wendy Russell and Pierrick Chalaye "The Interplay of Facilitative Technique and Design to Increase Inclusiveness." 2020/2 Parry, Lucy J. and Ercan, Selen A. "Using Participedia to study the impacts of mini-publics.” 2019/6 Christoph Niessen and Min Reuchamps "Designing a permanent deliberative citizens' assembly." 2019/5 David M. Farrell, Nicole Curato, John S. Dryzek, Brigitte Geißel, Kimmo Grönlund, Sofie Marien, Simon Niemeyer, Jean-Benoit Pilet, Alan Renwick, Jonathan Rose, Maija Setälä, and Jane Suiter. "Deliberative Mini-Publics: Core Design Features." 2019/4 Niemeyer, Simon. "Intersubjective Reasoning in Political Deliberation: A Theory and Method for Assessing Deliberative Transformation at Small and Large Scale." 2019/3 Pickering, Jonathan. "Deliberative Ecologies: Engaging Complexity Theory to Understand How Deliberative Systems Emerge and Change." 2019/2 Alver, Jane. "Developing a Regional Voice Through a Feminist Forum: The Case of the Pacific Feminist Forum." 2019/1 Curato, Nicole. "From Authoritarian Enclave to Deliberative Space: Governance Logics in Post-Disaster Reconstruction." (Published in Disasters) 2017/3 Asenbaum, Hans. "Revisiting E-Topia: Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Findings on Online Anonymity." 2017/2 Bhatia, Udit. "Cracking the Whip: The Deliberative Costs of Strict Party Discipline." (Published in CRISPP) 2017/1 Nishiyama, Kei. "Enabling Children's Deliberation Schools as a Mediating Space in Deliberative Systems." (Published in Journal of Youth Studies) 2016/2 Dryzek, John S. and Pickering, Jonathan. "Deliberation as a Catalyst for Reflexive Environmental Governance." (Published in Ecological Economics) 2016/1 Jennstål, Julia. "Deliberative Participation and Personality: The Effect of Traits, Situations and Motivation." 2015/1 Pickering, Jonathan. "Top-down proposals for sharing the global climate policy effort fairly: lost in translation in a bottom-up world?" (Published in Routledge) 2014/2 Curato, Nicole and Ong, Jonathan. "Inclusion as Deliberative Agency: The Selective Representation of Poor Women in Reproductive Health Debates." 2014/1 Jennstål, Julia and Simon Niemeyer. "The Deliberative Citizen: The Role of Personality and Context in Deliberative Behaviour." Load More Older Working Paper Series 2014/4 Smith, William. "Disrupting Deliberation: The Impact of Political Protest on Deliberative Systems.", University of Canberra, Canberra. Access > 2014/3 Parry, Lucy. "Q Study in Waiting.", University of Canberra, Canberra. (Published in British Politics) Access > 2013/1 Niemeyer, Simon, Andrea Felicetti & Olga Di Ruggero. "Provisional Report - Analysis of the Citizens’ Initiative Review.", The Australian National University, Canberra. Access > 2012/2 Batalha, Luisa, Simon Niemeyer, Nicole Curato, John Dryzek & John Gastil. "Group dynamics and deliberative processes: Cognitive and Affective aspects.", The Australian National University, Canberra. Access > 2012/1 Niemeyer, Simon. "Building the Foundations of Deliberative Democracy: The Deliberative Person.", The Australian National University, Canberra. Access > 2011/5 Stevenson, Hayley. "Democratising the Governance of Climate Technologies.", The Australian National University, Canberra. Access > 2011/4 Niemeyer, Simon, Kersty Hobson, Jacqui Russell, Imagen Ord-Evans, John Boswell & Elaine dos Santos. "Participant Recommendations and Report: Climate Change and the Public Sphere Project.", The Australian National University, Canberra. Access > 2011/3 Goodin, Robert. "Democratising International Law.", The Australian National University, Canberra. Access > 2011/2 Stephenson, Hayley and John Dryzek. "Democratising climate governance through discursive engagement.", The Australian National University, Canberra. Access > 2011/1 Stevenson, Hayley. "Representing "The Peoples"?.", The Australian National University, Canberra. Access > Load More

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