Search Results

< Back Beyond expression: Realising public deliberation in an era of communicative plenty Selen Ercan, University of Canberra Tue 1 December 2015 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract The paper develops the idea of ‘communicative plenty’ to describe the ever increasing proliferation of site of political communication (both online and offline) that emerge around controversial policy issues. We consider the implications of communicative plenty for realizing democracy understood in deliberative terms, as a reflective and non-coercive communication process. We identify various promises and pitfalls of communicative plenty, and discuss the conditions under which it might contribute not only to broadening, but also deepening of public conversations. To this end, we propose moving beyond expression and voice to focus on often ignored aspects of public communication, including reflection and listening. We argue that if accompanied by sufficient moments of reflection and listening, communicative plenty can offer a viable context for the realization of public deliberation at a systems level. We discuss the implications of this proposal for institutional design. About the speaker Dr Selen Ercan is a Research Fellow at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra. Her bio and current research projects can be viewed here . Previous Next

< Back SCIENCE FACTIONALISM: HOW GROUP IDENTITY LANGUAGE AFFECTS PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT WITH CONTROVERSIAL SCIENCE ON A POPULAR Q&A DIGITAL PLATFORM IN CHINA ABSTRACT Misinformation and outgroup bias language are two pathologies challenging informed citizenship. This paper examines how identity language is used in misinformation and debunking messages about controversial science on a Chinese popular Q&A platform, and their impact on how the public engage with science. We collected an eight-year time series dataset of public discussion (N=40,101) on one of the most controversial science issues in China (GMO) from a popular digital Q&A platform, Zhihu. We found that both misinformation and debunking messages use a substantial amount of group identity languages about a controversial science issue, which we term as the phenomenon of science factionalism – discussion about science is divided by factions that are formed upon science attitudes. We found that posts that use science factionalism receive more digital votes and comments, even among the science-savvy community in China. Science factionalism has consequences on the quality of public discourse, increasing the use of negative language. We discussed the implications of how science factionalism interacts with the digital attention economy to affect public engagement with science misinformation. BIO Kaiping Chen is an Assistant Professor in Computational Communication at University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Life Sciences Communication. She is also a faculty affiliate of the Robert & Jean Holtz Center for Science and Technology Studies, the Center for East Asian Studies, and the African Studies Program. Chen’s research employs data science and machine learning methods as well as interviews to examine how digital media and technologies affect politicians' accountability to public well-being and how deliberative designs can improve the quality of public discourse on controversial and emerging technologies and mitigate the spread of misinformation and misperception. Chen received Ph.D. in Communication from Stanford University, MPA from Columbia University, and bachelor’s degree in political science and economics from Fudan University. Chen’s work has been supported by the US National Science Foundation. Her work was published or accepted in flagship journals across disciplines, including American Political Science Review, Journal of Communication, New Media & Society, Public Opinion Quarterly, Public Understanding of Science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), and among other peer-reviewed journals. Previous Next

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back Digital Media and the Public Sphere Seminars this May 1 May 2023 This May, Eminent scholars Professor Axel Bruns and Professor John Dryzek will be featured in three seminars: Axel Bruns | The Filter in Our (?) Heads: Digital Media and Polarisation 2 May John Dryzek | Deliberative Democracy for Diabolical Times 9 May Both scholars - Panel Discussion | Future-Proofing the Public Sphere 16 May Seminars take place from 11:00am to 12:30pm 1. The Filter in Our (?) Heads: Digital Media and Polarisation – Professor Axel Bruns Climate change, Brexit, Trump, COVID, Ukraine: there is hardly a major topic in contemporary public debate online that does not attract heated discussion, entrenched partisanship, widespread misinformation, and conspiracy theorists. Rational, evidence-based contributions often fail to cut through while affective polarisation is prevalent and difficult to overcome. Professor Bruns argues that the simplistic view of these developments is that digital and social media has disrupted the traditional ‘public sphere’, enveloped us all in ‘echo chambers’ and ‘filter bubbles’ that contain our narrow ideologies, ushering in the post-truth age. But he points out that these explanations have been debunked as not acknowledging the full complexity of the present moment in public communication. Professor Axel Bruns is an ARC Laureate Fellow (2021-2026) and Professor at the Digital Media Research Centre at QUT. Chaired by Dr Katarina Esau Building 24 at the University of Canberra (in the research centres' meeting room) Zoom link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/7220752429 2. Deliberative Democracy for Diabolical Times – Professor John Dryzek Most people forget that, in spite of the advance of democracy in the 1990s and 2000s, most states and empires throughout history have been inhospitable to democracy. What’s new about our bad times for democracy is that they have seen new forms of public and political communication in what Professor Dryzek refers to as a diabolical soundscape . However, given the chance, citizens and ‘publics’ can avoid manipulation and polarization, reach well-reasoned positions, and join public conversations in deliberative systems that also involve the media, leaders, and activists. Deliberative democracy is a communication-centric approach and offers a chance to rethink democracy. What’s more, this can begin with the deliberative practices that all societies already possess. Professor John Dryzek was an ARC Laureate Fellow (2014-2020) and Professor at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. Chaired by Dr Adele Webb Building 24 at the University of Canberra (in the research centres' meeting room) Zoom link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/7220752429 3. Future-Proofing the Public Sphere - Professor Axel Bruns and Professor John Dryzek The two previous seminars will culminate in an panel event on Tuesday 16 May in room 23B05 at the University of Canberra (and on Zoom). The two scholars, who hold vastly different perspectives on the challenges the public sphere faces in the age of digital communications , will then discuss their unique perspectives, and address questions from the audience. Chaired by Professor Selen A. Ercan Building 23, Room B05 at the University of Canberra (above Retro Cafe) Zoom link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/7220752429

< Back Defending education: A democratic role for courts in education policy Alexandra Oprea, Australian National University Tue 16 June 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract What should be the role of courts when it comes to defending education rights in democratic communities? Drawing on decades of education litigation in the US concerning integration, school finance, and special education, this paper provides a democratic theory of court involvement in education policy. Courts have a key democratic role in defending minority rights, particularly under non-ideal circumstances where political power is unequally distributed. However, overreliance on courts in education policy can have important democratic costs. This paper discusses four such costs worth considering from a democratic perspective: (1) policy effectiveness costs, (2) standardization costs, (3) democratic education costs; and (4) special interest costs. In constructing a democratic theory of courts, the paper therefore argues for legal strategies that minimize the relevant costs while protecting minority rights. Such an approach favors bottom-up approaches that focus on specific harms to individuals and groups without aiming directly at controlling the legislative agenda. About the speaker Alexandra Oprea is a lecturer in the School of Politics and International Relations at The Australian National University (ANU). Her research interests include education policy, collective decision-making, institutional design, and the history of political thought. Her work has appeared in a number of journals and edited volumes, including Review of Politics, Polity, Philosophical Perspectives, and Politics, Philosophy & Economics. Previous Next

< Back Expressive deliberation Jensen Sass, University of Canberra Tue 4 July 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Political theorists routinely distinguish between deliberative and non-deliberative political practices, but they have seldom examined the basis of this distinction - it is largely taken as self-evident, i.e., there are deliberative practices (which approximate the deliberative ideal) and that there are non-deliberative practices, including voting but also "everyday deeds", "direct action", and the repertoires of social movements. In this paper I suggest that there is a meaningful distinction to be drawn between deliberative and non-deliberative practices, but that it should be drawn differently. Many of the practices usually considered non-deliberative are in fact deliberative but in an expressive sense. Expressive deliberation relays normative and epistemic claims in an indirect and sometimes oblique fashion. About the speaker Jensen Sass is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. His work at the Centre examines the way social norms and cultural meanings shape the character of deliberation within different contexts. In addition to his work on deliberation, Jensen is undertaking a long-term project on the history of the Monsanto Company and its role in the development of agricultural biotechnology. Previous Next

< Back Maija Setala Associate About Maija Setälä specializes in democratic theory, especially theories of deliberative democracy, democratic innovations, e.g. citizens’ initiatives and deliberative mini-publics, and political trust. She is a Professor in Political Science at the University of Turku.

Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back Multiculturalism and Belonging in Australian Democracy Investigator(s): Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance Call for Participants: Deliberative Workshop 4 July 2025 | Canberra Are you aged 18–30, living in the ACT, and either you or your parents were born overseas? We’d love to hear from you! We're inviting expressions of interest for our Multiculturalism and Belonging deliberative workshop this July at the Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House . This workshop is a unique opportunity for young people to: Share their lived experiences of multiculturalism in Australia Reflect on what it means to belong — in society and in our democracy Contribute to research by the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and University of Canberra If you know someone who fits the criteria, please share this opportunity with them! Participants will receive $250 for their time and contributions. Registration: https://bit.ly/4k6He6O For questions, contact the Project Lead, Dr Adele Webb at Adele.Webb@canberra.edu.au EOIs close 6 June This research forms part of our Centre’s flagship project, Connecting to Parliament, which explores how to strengthen the relationship between citizens and democratic institutions. It is also one of our signature contributions to the Participedia project.

< 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 .