Search Results

Postdoctoral Research Fellow < Back Francesco Veri Postdoctoral Research Fellow About Francesco Veri 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.

< Back Democratic proceduralism and its limits: From philosophical principles to political institutions Dannica Fleuss, Helmut Schmidt University Hamburg Tue 25 February 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In recent years Western democracies’ legitimacy has been heavily under attack. The decline in public support for democratic institutions manifests particularly in anti-elitism, the rise of populist and post-truth politics. A branch of political science- and public policy-scholars suggested to counteract such developments by strengthening the role of experts in political decision-making (e.g., Brennan 2016, chapter 8; Willke 2007; 2014). Such expertocratic proposals for reforming existing democratic institutions and political practices, however, contradict normative perspectives that consider the equal participation of all affected to be the core requirement of democratic legitimacy. Proceduralist political philosophy proposes a “genuinely democratic” understanding of democratic legitimacy: Proceduralists argue that the equal inclusion of all affected citizens must be the only criterion for legitimacy (Fleuß 2017; see Peter 2008; Estlund 2007; Christiano 2004). This philosophical stance has so far not been translated into institutional design and application-oriented proposals for political practice. To provide a comprehensive conception of proceduralist legitimacy, I aim at “bridging the gap” between proceduralist philosophy and application-oriented discussions of institutional design. I provide a brief overview of the argumentative path that starts out by abstract philosophical debates and, guided by a meta-theoretical framework, ultimately proposes concrete suggestions for institutions. Against this background, the lecture focuses on two claims that are at the heart of the book’s approach: A Critical Theory-inspired conceptualization of proceduralist legitimacy can provide a coherent and appealing normative ideal for contemporary democratic politics (and thereby avoids the major pitfalls of “classic” proceduralist approaches). Radically proceduralist institutional devices must be created, criticized and, potentially, changed by the citizens of democratic societies. To realize this ideal in political reality and to create institutional devices for this purpose, we must (a) adopt a systemic perspective on ‘institutional design’ and (b) create institutions that facilitate the reversibility of decisions and procedural regulations. References Christiano, T. (2004). The Authority of Democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 12(3), 266– 290. Estlund, D. M. (2008). Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Fleuß, D. (2017). Prozeduren, Rechte, Demokratie. Das legitimatorische Potential von Verfahren für politische Systeme. [English Title: “The Normative Legitimacy of Democracies. On the Limits of Proceduralism”]. Dissertation, Heidelberg University. Online: http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/23203/. Peter, F. (2008). Pure Epistemic Proceduralism. Episteme, 5(1), 33–55. Willke, H. (2007). Smart governance: governing the global knowledge society. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus/Chicago University Press. Willke, H. (2014). Demokratie in Zeiten der Konfusion. Berlin: Suhrkamp. About the speaker Dannica Fleuss is a postdoctoral research fellow and lecturer in political theory at Helmut Schmidt University (Hamburg) and a research associate at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. She holds an MA in philosophy and political science and a PhD in political science from Heidelberg University. From 2014 until 2017, Dannica worked as a lecturer at the departments of political science and philosophy at Heidelberg University. In 2018 and 2019, she spent research visits at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance (University of Canberra) and the Centre for the Study of Democracy (University of Westminster). Her research deals with conceptualizations of democratic legitimacy, philosophy of science and deliberative democracy. Dannica’s postdoctoral project aims at developing a measurement of nation states’ democratic quality that is firmly grounded in deliberative democratic theory. Previous Next

< Back Boosting the legitimacy of global climate governance: How can meta-deliberation help? Jonathan Pickering, University of Canberra Tue 13 September 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Many commentators have voiced concerns about the legitimacy of the multilateral climate change regime due to its limited progress in slowing greenhouse gas pollution as well as its cumbersome decision-making processes. Recent accounts of deliberative democracy argue that, in order to be legitimate, deliberative systems must cultivate a capacity for “meta-deliberation”, namely critical reflection about the nature, scope and structure of the deliberative system itself. Stevenson and Dryzek (2014) conclude that the climate regime lacks sufficient capacity for meta-deliberation. Yet, the concept of meta-deliberation requires further theoretical elaboration, and more in-depth empirical analysis is needed on the conditions under which meta-deliberation could work in practice. In this paper I outline an account of meta-deliberation and compare it with related concepts such as reflexivity and meta-governance. I argue that one important function of meta-deliberation is to deliberate about the extent to which decision-making processes are centralised or decentralised (“polycentric”). I then apply this analytical framework to a case study of meta-deliberation about one prominent aspect of the global climate regime in which decision-making arrangements are significantly fragmented: funding to assist developing countries’ efforts to address climate change. I present preliminary results of a case study of the Standing Committee on Finance, which was established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2010 to improve coherence and coordination in the delivery of climate finance. Drawing on documentary analysis and observation of a recent Forum held by the Committee in the Philippines, the case study assesses the Committee’s potential to engage in meta-deliberation about how decision-making on climate finance should be distributed across multilateral, national and sub-national institutions. 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 DECOLONIZING DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND POLITICAL CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY In this talk Bobby Banerjee provides a decolonial critique of received knowledge about deliberative democracy. About this event In this talk Bobby Banerjee provides a decolonial critique of received knowledge about deliberative democracy. Legacies of colonialism have generally been overlooked in theories of democracy. These omissions challenge several key assumptions of deliberative democracy. Banerjee argues that deliberative democracy does not travel well outside Western sites and its key assumptions begin to unravel in the ‘developing’ regions of the world. The context for a decolonial critique of deliberative democracy is the ongoing violent conflicts over resource extraction in the former colonies of Africa, Asia and Latin America. Banerjee argues that deliberative democracy cannot take into account the needs of marginalized stakeholders who are defending their lands and livelihoods. Consequently political corporate social responsibility and multi-stakeholder initiatives, which reflect deliberative processes at the market-society interface can diminish the welfare of communities impacted by extraction. Several governance challenges arise as a result of these power asymmetries and Banerjee develops a translocal governance framework from the perspective of vulnerable stakeholders that can enable a more progressive approach to societal governance of multinational corporations. Bobby Banerjee is Professor of Management and Associate Dean of Research & Enterprise at Bayes Business School, City University of London. He researches and teaches on corporate social irresponsibility, unsustainability, climate justice and decolonial resistance movements. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

< Back Overview of the law of deliberative democracy Ron Levy, Australian National University Tue 24 February 2015 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract Laws have colonised many corners of democratic practice. After several decades of the juridification of politics, the so-called ‘laws of politics’ now are often integral to (even constitutive of) the sites of political deliberation. Yet much deliberative theory neglects to address law as a set of norms whose influences on political practice are both substantial and varied. Equally, legal scholars have been slow to join the deliberative turn in research. Few scholars on either side of the disciplinary divide have sought comprehensively to bridge studies of the law of politics with deliberative theory. My current research (with co-author and co-CI Prof Graeme Orr) aims to do exactly this. In the seminar I will update Centre members on the progress of our book and ARC project entitled ‘The Law of Deliberative Democracy’. Making use of the opportunity of an audience familiar with deliberative theory, I will focus not on narrow examples from the book, but on overall arguments. A key contention is that, though the laws of politics may often frustrate the best laid plans of deliberative democrats, this outcome is not inevitable. In particular, it is not the form of common-law decision-making that determines law’s fit to deliberative democracy, but only the particular substantive legal choices that judges make. I will touch on three areas of doctrine in the law of politics (relating to political liberty, equality, and anti-corruption) where such judicial choices have either thwarted or helped to realise deliberative democratic ideals. About the speaker Dr Ron Levy researches and writes on public law and political theory, especially constitutional law, the law of politics, and deliberative democracy. He is the winner of several research awards including grants from the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Australian Research Council. Ron is currently a chief investigator on two ARC Discovery Projects: 'The Law of Deliberative Democracy: Theory and Reform' (DP130100706, 2012-2015, with Graeme Orr) bridging research on election law with deliberative democratic theory and 'Confronting the Devolution Paradox' (DP140102682, 2013-2016, with AJ Brown, Robyn Hollander, Paul Kildea, Rodney Smith, Richard Cole and John Kincaid) on federalism and political culture. Ron has also been guest co-editor of the Election Law Journal's 2013 symposium issue on 'the law of deliberative democracy' and is co-writing a monograph: The Law of Deliberative Democracy (Routledge, under contract, with Graeme Orr). Ron's other projects include studies of constitutional reform, including prospects for reform via deliberative democracy. He has been a Visitor at Yale Law School, Cambridge University and King's College London. At the ANU College of Law, he convenes Advanced Constitutional Law and Torts, and gives seminars in Commonwealth Constitutional Law. Previous Next

Research Assistant < Back Alessandra Pecci Research Assistant About Alessandra worked as Research Assistant at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the Australian National University from 2009 to 2011.

< 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 Problems with liberal proceduralism in normative democratic theory Quinlan Bowman, University of Canberra Tue 2 May 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Reflection on lived experience seems to indicate that when we reason intelligently about how to craft a “democratic” process, we recognize the need to reason about procedures, virtues, and cultural practices in conjunction. And this would seem to suggest that the role of normative democratic theory should partly be to help democracy’s participants to engage in such reasoning. Yet, a close consideration of the prominent normative democratic theories of Robert Dahl, Joshua Cohen, and Jürgen Habermas reveals that none of these theorists has explicitly depicted the role of normative democratic theory in this way. Part of the explanation for this concerns the kind of “liberal proceduralism” that characterizes their respective theories. A related concern is that in each case it is either unclear how, if at all, the author views his theory as having emerged out of empirical inquiry or how he expects it to guide further such inquiry (or both). Correspondingly, none of these authors presents the “proper” status and function of normative democratic theory in the way that I believe we should: as emerging out of reflection on lived experience with the values of treating persons as free and as equal and as guiding further inquiry into the procedures, virtues, and cultural practices that, in some particular context, are most apt to promote the realization of those values. About the speaker I joined the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance as a Postdoctoral Fellow in 2016, after completing my PhD in Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. Currently, I am working on a book project, based on my PhD dissertation, entitled “Deliberative Democracy as Reflexive Social Inquiry.” The project juxtaposes selected aspects of the literature on deliberative democracy with ideas drawn from pragmatist approaches to ethics and social inquiry. Broadly speaking, pragmatists theorize by explicitly drawing on the resources provided to us by our actual practices and by reflecting on the consequences they have for actual lives. I deploy pragmatist ideas to develop a normative theory of the democratic process, meant as a contribution to a public philosophy for citizen participation in democratic governance under conditions of significant cultural diversity. The theory is developed through what I refer to as “anthropological-interpretive inquiry” into lived experiences with “treatment as free and equal in joint or collective decision-making.” The theory is basically a deliberative one; yet, my pragmatist orientation makes me critical of certain depictions of deliberative democracy. While at the Centre, I will also be collaborating with John Dryzek on his Australian Research Council Fellowship project, Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice and a Changing Earth System. In particular, we will be collaborating on the topic of “deliberative cultures.” Cognitive science suggests that deliberation manifests a universal human competence to reason collectively. Yet, the character of deliberation varies considerably across space and time. Cross-cultural studies of political deliberation thus promise to provide new insight into the various forms that deliberative practices can take and the various circumstances in which they can flourish. A third project, jointly undertaken with Mark Bevir at the University of California, Berkeley, is entitled “Innovations in Democratic Governance.” The book project, based on a previously published book chapter by the same name, explores how direct citizen participation can feature throughout the varied stages of the public policy cascade. It discusses a range of democratic innovations for public participation. Drawing on case studies from all over the world, the project investigates how public participation can operate at multiple geographical scales – ranging from the neighborhood level all the way up to the transnational – and illustrates how participation at different levels might be linked up. The discussion explores ways that citizens might craft their own rules for participation; monitor those rules and the policies they help generate; and cooperatively implement their own local policies. It also investigates ways in which the role of experts and officials might be transformed into one of largely supporting and facilitating public participation. Previous Next

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

< Back Andreas Schaeffer Associate About Andreas Schaeffer's research interests rest at the intersection between political communication and decision-making. He has investigated the role of deliberation in parliamentary decision-making and is now focusing on strategies political parties use for communication in an age of increasing communicative abundance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

< Back Deliberation and media policy studies: Towards a deliberative policy ecology approach Preeti Raghunath, The Symbiosis Institute of Media and Communication (SIMC), Pune, India Tue 20 October 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Abstract The study of deliberative democracy has received great impetus in Political Science and associated fields of Political Philosophy and Environmental Policy Studies. My engagement with literature on deliberative democracy comes from my grounding in Critical Media Policy Studies and Habermasian thought. Drawing on theoretical literature and empirical ethnographic fieldwork conducted in four countries of South Asia, and through the use of Grounded Theory, I present the building of the Deliberative Policy Ecology (DPE) Approach to the study of media policies and policymaking in South Asia. About the speaker Preeti Raghunath is an Assistant Professor at the Symbiosis Institute of Media and Communication (SIMC), Pune, India. Her research and praxis are in the realm of critical media policy studies in South Asia. She is particularly interested in pushing the epistemological contours of the area from the Global South. She is the author of 'Community Radio Policies in South Asia: A Deliberative Policy Ecology Approach', published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2020. She serves as a Vice-Chair of the Global Media Policy Working Group of the International Association of Media and Communication Research (IAMCR). Previous Next

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 Interconnecting deliberative systems: Functions and agents of transmission Stephen Elstub, Newcastle University Tue 5 July 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In recent times, the dominant focus in debates in the field of deliberative democracy has been on deliberative systems. The principal aim of the systemic approach is to promote deliberative democracy at the mass scale by utilising a division of labour in communicative activity between a diversity of interconnected parts. Despite this, ‘interconnection’ represents a lacuna within the systemic approach to deliberative democracy. There is broad agreement that public and empowered spaces need to be connected and that some form of discursive transmission is required to achieve this, however, little detail has been provided on what functions are vital to transmission, what type of agents can fulfil these functions, and how these agents could operate together. This paper contributes to filling this gap by identifying vital systemic transmission functions: dispersion, filtration, and penetration, which are necessary to avoid systemic pathologies emerging. It then proceeds to analyse the extent the media, mini-publics, and interest groups can contribute to fulfilling these transmission functions respectively. About the speaker Stephen Elstub ( stephen.elstub@ncl.ac.uk ) is a Lecturer in British Politics at the School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University. His research interests are on deliberative democracy, citizen participation, civil society, public opinion and political communication. He is the author of Towards a Deliberative and Associational Democracy (Edinburgh University Press 2008), editor of Democracy in Theory and Practice (Routledge 2012) and co-editor of Deliberative Democracy: Issues and Cases (Edinburgh University Press 2014). He is also the associate editor of the journal Representation. Previous Next

< Back Disability and deliberative democracy: The case for an embodied deliberation Bahadir Celiktemur, University of Warwick Tue 12 May 2015 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract In its quest for normative legitimacy, deliberative democracy calls for qualified participation from citizens that would be demanding even in the most mature democracies. Its demands for rational reasoning and preference for the force of the better argument are almost impossible to meet for those who lack communicative abilities, and disqualify them from meaningful participation in deliberative sites. My research addresses the exclusion of disability from deliberative democracy and aims to close the gap between the demands of deliberative democratic theory and the reality of life with disability. My presentation today focusses on what disability teaches deliberative democrats. In this regard explore the spatiality of the deliberative site, problematize the disembodiedness of deliberation, and propose an embodied deliberation through which the voice of the disabled can be heard in deliberative sites. To explain how the embodiedness of disability changes the deliberative sites and gives space and voice to the disabled, I make use of the works of two unlikely names, Jacques Rancière and Judith Butler. About the speaker Bahadir Celiktemur is a final year PhD candidate at the University of Warwick (UK) and a visiting scholar at Griffiths University. His doctoral research, informed by his professional background in the third sector, explores how people with disabilities can be included in deliberative democracy. He also works with disabled people and their allies in Gloucestershire (UK) for a more disability-inclusive local democracy. Previous Next