Search Results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

< Back Deliberative Minipublics: Core Design Features Curato, N., Farrell D., Geißel, B., Grönlund, K., Mockler, P., Renwick, A., Rose, J., Setälä, M. and Suiter, J. 2021 , Bristol Policy Press Summary Bringing together ten leading researchers in the field of deliberative democracy, this important book examines the features of a Deliberative Mini-Public (DMP) and considers how DMPs link into democratic systems. It examines the core design features of DMPs and their role in the broader policy process and takes stock of the characteristics that distinguish them from other forms of citizen participation. In doing so, the book offers valuable insights into the contributions that DMPs can make not only to the policy process, but also to the broader agenda of revitalising democracy in contemporary times. Read more Previous Next

< Back The institutionalization of deliberative democracy in European multi-level states: A comparative analysis of the experience of South Tyrol Elisabeth Alber, Institute for Comparative Federalism at Eurac Research in South Tyrol Tue 9 October 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The institutionalization of deliberative democracy is progressively experimented as a means to ameliorate decision-making processes at various levels of government, in Europe and worldwide. To what extent the recourse to ordinary citizens as co-creators properly meets the requirements of normative deliberative theory or, in the end, simply serves as an instrumental purpose, heavily depends on the context in which so-called democratic innovations take place. Empirical research shows that the increasing lack of trust in traditional channels of representative decision-making and the structural limits of direct democracy translate in what has been defined with the metaphor of the dam effect: the water tries to flow in alternative ways, and additional channels in decision-making processes have to be used so as not to waste too much water. Scholars of political and legal science, at different pace and with different foci, are increasingly paying attention to the proliferation of practices of deliberative democracy and looking for the development of sound criteria on how to define, classify and explain this phenomenon. Common to all attempts is the fact that practices of deliberative democracy go beyond the majoritarian rule of interest aggregation by voting and, in order to improve the quality of democracy itself, they propose tools that are centered on public reasoning among individuals (and groups). The institutionalization of such tools is increasingly discussed in academia, and among practitioners: both call – even though for different reasons – for an ever more articulated attention to the procedural design of deliberative processes and its impacts on both the organization of a deliberative process itself and the role of persons/groups, not only in the preparation and implementation phase of a deliberative process itself, but also when it comes to evaluating it (a phase which mostly is neglected). Moreover, when it comes to deliberative democracy in ethnically plural (divided) societies, the institutionalization of a deliberative democracy process faces additional challenges. Even though from a normative basis it can be argued that negotiations between groups (typical for consociational democracy arrangements) should be replaced by deliberation aiming at rendering any divided society more sustainable in the long run, in practice, the institutionalization of deliberative democracy does highlight (and eventually also increase) tensions, rather than reducing them. Therefore, particular attention has to be paid on the procedural aspects of processes of deliberative democracy. In this presentation, I firstly outline general principles of institutionalized deliberative democracy at subnational level in European federal and regional States. I present some examples and highlight how deliberative democracy processes came into being. Secondly, I briefly present an excursus on the geographical Alpine region and introduce South Tyrol and Trentino, two autonomous provinces that together form one out of five autonomous regions in Italy. Their autonomy arrangements developed over seven decades. While Trentino is predominantly Italian-speaking, South Tyrol is home to three language groups (German-, Italian- and Ladin-speakers, with German-speakers being the majority). The broad spectrum of complex regulations enshrined in South Tyrol’s autonomy statute (1972) establishes a model of consociational democracy that is characterized by cultural autonomy of the groups, a system of veto rights to defend each group’s vital interests, language parity between the groups, and ethnic proportionality ranging from the field of public employment to education and finances. Thirdly, my presentation aims at comparatively analyzing the two large-scaled deliberative processes that were undertaken from 2016-2018 in South Tyrol and Trentino. Ordinary citizens, organized civil society, stakeholders and politicians were asked to elaborate proposals for the amendment of the autonomous statute of the region Trentino-South Tyrol (which contains a few provisions applying to the regional level and two large distinct parts containing provisions applying to Trentino and South Tyrol). Both in its scope (revision of the basic law) and method (inclusiveness in territorial, intergenerational and socio-linguistic terms) the deliberative processes in Trentino and in South Tyrol are certainly a novum to the respective autonomous province, and in Italy as well as Europe. Especially in South Tyrol, the institutionalization of such a process challenged core principles of its autonomy. Using data from both processes, I examine key aspects of the institutionalization of each process by both referring to principles of normative deliberative theory and emerging literature on constitutional deliberative democracy/participatory constitution-making (a classification valid also for the two processes in Trentino and South Tyrol, because their basic law is of constitutional rank). About the speaker Elisabeth Alber is Senior Researcher, Leader of the Research Hub “Institutional Innovation and Participatory Democracy” and Academic Lead of the Eurac Federal Scholar in Residence Program at the Institute for Comparative Federalism at Eurac Research in South Tyrol, Italy (www.eurac.edu/sfere). She holds a PhD in Comparative Politics from the University of Innsbruck (Austria) and a degree in International Sciences and Diplomacy (Focus on Comparative Public Law) from the University of Turin (Italy). Her research interests are deliberative democracy and participatory constitution-making, comparative federalism and regionalism, decentralization and democratization processes (South-East Asia, especially Myanmar), ethno-linguistic minorities, territorial and personal autonomies. Her working languages are English, German and Italian. Elisabeth can be contacted at elisabeth.alber@eurac.edu and by phone at +39 0471 055 211 (office) or +39 339 32 98 604 (mobile). Her most recent publications in English are: (co-editor with F. Palermo) Federalism As Decision-Making: Changes in Structures, Procedures and Policies, Brill Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2015; (single authored peer-reviewed article) „South Tyrol’s Negotiated Autonomy“, in: Treatises and Documents - Journal for Ethnic Studies, 78, 2017, 41-58; (co-authored peer-reviewed article), “Autonomy Convention and Consulta: Deliberative Democracy in Subnational Minority Contexts“, in: ECMI et al. (eds.), European Yearbook of Minority Issues, Volume 16, Brill Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2018, 194-225. Previous Next

< Back Joachim Blatter Associate About Joachim Blatter has published extensively on cross-border institution building in Europe and North America, on environmental politics and on transformations of governance, citizenship and democracy. He is Professor of Political Science at the University of Lucerne (Switzerland).

< 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.