Search Results

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back Democratic Transformations: A conversation on systemic change 12 Jan 2024 6 February 2024 Juliet Room, Verity Lane Market, Sydney Building, 50 Northbourne Avenue, Canberra ACT Reception: 5:30 pm Panel discussion: 6:00 – 7:15 pm Democracies’ responses to environmental crises, health emergencies, and racial violence have been unsatisfactory, to say the least. Hyper-partisan politics have taken over our representative democracies, rendering our democratic institutions vulnerable to political deadlocks and cheap political point-scoring. While there are many reasons to lose trust in our democracy, there are also many reasons to fight for it. You are invited to join a conversation on how we can transform Australia’s democracy and chart pathways for systemic change. Our discussion will kick off with three international speakers who will share lessons from democratic innovations that have taken off all over the world and demonstrate how randomly selected citizen bodies, decolonising and anti-racist action, and listening to nature and nonhumans can transform democracies today. This will be followed by an open discussion, where audiences can propose their own ideas for democratic transformation. Speakers Hans Asenbaum is the author of The Politics of Becoming: Anonymity and Democracy in the Digital Age. He is senior research fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy & Global Governance at the University of Canberra. Yves Sintomer is the author of The Government of Chance Sortition and Democracy from Athens to the Present. He is a Professor of Political Science at the Institut Universitaire de France. Melissa Williams is the founding director of the University of Toronto’s Centre for Ethics. She is the author and editor of numerous books, including Voice, Trust, and Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Failings of Liberal Representation. This event launches the new blog series on Democratic Transformations led by the Centre for Deliberative Democracy & Global Governance and the European Consortium for Political Research. Read the blog here . Registration is a must — secure your spot now through this link .

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back Olivia Mendoza has received the prestigious Deliberative Democracy PhD Scholarship 1 Sept 2023 This semester we are excited to welcome a new PhD student, Olivia Mendoza, to the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. Olivia is the recipient of the prestigious Deliberative Democracy PhD Scholarship offered to students aiming to specialise in one of the core research areas of the Centre. Olivia's PhD project advances the Centre's research focus on theory and methods of deliberative democracy . It lies at the intersection of feminist philosophy and democratic theory focusing particularly on the role of emotions in public deliberation. Olivia's research is on ethics, feminist, and socio-political philosophy, with focus on emotions and social justice. She will investigate the role of emotions in the context of online political discussions in the Philippines. More specifically, she unpacks how emotions such as hate, resentment, or anger shape the dynamics of political participation and deliberation leading to exclusions, marginalization, illegitimate decision-making, or harms in the affective level. Prior to joining the Centre, Olivia was an Assistant Professor of Philosophy in the University of the Philippines Baguio (UP), where she taught courses on ethics and the history of philosophy and the social sciences. Her most recent work, "Emotions and Filipino Resilience," is forthcoming in Routledge, and is part of a collection of works of Filipino philosophers. She was also recently awarded the 'One UP Faculty Grant Award' in Philosophy (Ethics) for Outstanding Teaching and Public Service in UP. Asked what she is most looking forward to about her PhD, Olivia said that she is keen to learn more from other scholars in the Centre and how they masterfully blend theory and practice and produce impactful works on deliberative democracy. She finds the Centre's collegial atmosphere very conducive to intellectual work: "My supervisory panel is composed of very fine scholars who are experts in their fields and who are generous in their mentorship." Olivia’s PhD project is supervised by Dr Hans Asenbaum , Dr Adele Webb and Professor John Dryzek .

< Back Elite stalemate in a deeply divided polity: Could a citizens' assembly make legitimate decisions instead? James Pow, Queen's University Belfast Tue 14 November 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract As a deeply divided polity, it comes as no surprise that plenty of political issues in Northern Ireland provoke intense disagreement. However, in a consociational system of government political parties from opposing ethno-national blocs are required to share political power and reach compromise. What happens when power-sharing at the elite-level does not work? What happens if destabilising gridlock threatens the legitimacy of an already fragile political system? This study examines a range of conventional elite-led and citizen-led responses to such a political crisis. Specifically, it compares conventional crisis resolution mechanisms, such as an immediate election, against a more radical alternative: the establishment of a citizens’ assembly of randomly selected citizens. In a survey experiment, we present respondents with a personally unfavourable policy decision on the sensitive subject of Irish language policy, manipulating the venue of the decision. We are interested in the direct effect of decision venue on decision acceptance, as well as the potential moderating effects of ethno-national ideology. These results will be of direct relevance to institutional design in deeply divided societies, specifically on the question of whether or not citizen-led initiatives could be used to strengthen the legitimacy of fragile political systems. About the speaker Jamie is a PhD student based in the Mitchell Institute for Global Peace, Security and Justice at Queen’s University Belfast. Under the supervision of Professors John Garry and Rhiannon Turner, Jamie’s interdisciplinary research experimentally examines how a citizens’ assembly could potentially strengthen the quality of democracy in post-conflict Northern Ireland. Drawing on literature from both political science and political psychology, Jamie’s central research question addresses the extent to which, and the conditions under which, people would recognise a citizens’ assembly as a procedurally legitimate decision-making body. Prior to pursuing doctoral study at Queen’s, Jamie completed a Masters degree in Political Science at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Previous Next

< Back Australian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, University of Wollongong Stacy Carter, Annette Braunack-Mayer, Chris Degeling (University of Wollongong) Tue 3 March 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The Australian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values (ACHEEV) is a new venture of the University of Wollongong. ACHEEV’s work includes public engagement, values-based health social science, and deliberative health research: our mission includes bringing deliberative approaches and methods into public health and health services. Our presentations and the discussion will focus on what it means to bring deliberation into health structures, cultures, governance and practices. Australian health professionals, researchers and organisations often recognise the value of consumer involvement or community consultation practices. However deliberation, and engaging with publics, are less familiar. Deliberation is arguably not an easy fit with health systems, which tend towards highly structured, technocratic, top-down decision making, dependence on and respect for (especially medical) professional autonomy, and a strong commitment to certain epistemic values operationalised as ‘evidenced based’ healthcare, medicine and public health. These characteristics can appear to leave little room for authentic and actionable deliberative engagement with relevant publics and their diverse values. We will present several examples of ACHEEV’s deliberative projects to illustrate how we are approaching this challenge. The first set of projects has been designed to inform and nuance a large national research program on overdiagnosis. The second has been informed by an apparently increasing expectation from government that publicly-generated health system data should be shared with private industry for research and development. The third was commissioned to shape the construction of pandemic disease responses in Australia. Each of these examples offers a different set of relationships, a different kind of charge, a somewhat different methodological approach, and a different potential outcome. In discussion we will welcome an opportunity to consider the use of deliberative methods not to refashion democracy in a global or macro sense, but to (modestly) attempt to distribute governance in a domain that matters deeply to many publics, and which is usually left almost entirely to health technocrats, researchers and experts. About the speakers Stacy Carter is the Founding Director of ACHEEV with a background in public health, applied ethics and social science. She is a chief investigator on NHMRC and ARC-funded projects and collaborations including Wiser Healthcare, The Algorithm Will See You Now, and Integrated Futures for the use of Motorised Mobility Devices. She works especially on contentious or contested health issues including overdiagnosis and overtreatment, screening, vaccine refusal, and artificial intelligence in healthcare. Twitter: @stacymcarter. Annette Braunack-Mayer is Head of the School of Health and Society at the University of Wollongong. Her background is in bioethics and public health and she undertakes research, often using deliberative methods, in health services research and public health ethics and policy. Her current funded projects include community views on big data in health and tertiary education, and health and social services for older Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Chris Degeling is Senior Fellow at the Australian Centre for Engagement, Evidence and Values. As a social scientist with a background in veterinary medicine – and expertise in qualitative and deliberative methodologies – Chris’ research focuses on the intersection of public health ethics, public health policy and emerging issues at the human-animal-ecosystem interface. Recent NHMRC and Commonwealth and State government funded projects focus on bringing citizens and service users into deliberation on policy questions surrounding the technological enhancement of communicable disease surveillance systems, pandemic vaccination strategies and the pursuit of TB elimination in Australia. Previous Next

< Back When anger turns hip-hop: The deliberative capacity of teenagers' festive protests in Japan Kei Nishiyama, University of Canberra Tue 6 February 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract As one of several new forms of nonviolent activism, “festive” protests, or “protestival,” have received considerable attention from scholars and activists alike. By employing fun-centric and performance-based actions (e.g. singing hip-hop, writing songs, dancing, drawing street arts, or marching in a parade with colourful and humorous costumes), festive protestors form and sustain their movements, challenge dominant discourses, and drive social change in a unique manner. Importantly, festive protests can provide politically marginalized people, in this case teenagers, with a variety of opportunities to become involved in social change as they utilize teenager-friendly means of action. In this presentation, I will examine the democratic capacity of teenagers’ festive protests. In particular, I will seek to answer the question, what are the democratic purposes, contributions and meanings of teenagers’ festive protests? I will evaluate the democratic contribution of teenagers’ festive protests using the deliberative systems framework. This framework helps us to consider how the teenagers’ various communicative actions in social movements contribute to induce authentic, inclusive, and consequential deliberation across society thereby evaluating the democratic contribution of teenagers’ festive protests. This presentation will focus on the case of teenagers’ festive protests in Japan in the 2010s. I will contrast the case of the 2010s with protests in the 1960s. Both sets of protests are recognised as historically significant periods of teenagers’ protesting in Japan, motivated by the same issue (anti-war). However, the two sets of protests utilised radically different means (violent and festive), thereby leading to different consequences. The preliminary analysis of (a) repertoires of contention, (b) the type and content of speech actions, and (c) the political and social responses shall reveal the communicative and inclusive functions that teenagers’ festive protests potentially have in deliberative systems. About the speaker Kei Nishiyama is a Ph.D. student at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy & Global Governance.. His Ph.D. resarch - under the supervision of Prof John Dryzek and Dr Selen Ercan - investigates the way in which children can act as agents (rather than merely future citizens) of deliberative democracy. By employing the deliberative system appraoch as a theoretical framewrok, Kei considers pathways in which children's various deliberative actions (including deliberation in public space, participating in activist groups, deliberating in schools, deliberating with families or friends) can be incorporated in a wider deliberative system. Previosuly Kei studied philosophy of education at Rikkyo University (Japan) and gained a Bachelor (Arts in Education) and a Master Degree (Pedagogy). Kei is also a dialogue practitoner (6 years experience) of one deliberative practice in schools and society, called "philosophy for children." Kei is currently a part-time lecturer at the Department of Behavioral Science of Motivation, Correspondence College, Tokyo Future University, Japan. He lectures on politics of schooling, namely multiculturalism and identity problems in the context of school education. Previous Next

< Back Australian participatory and deliberative practitioners - what we're learning Helen Christensen, University of Technology Sydney Tue 10 November 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel . Abstract This presentation will present findings from a mixed-method study which investigates Australian participatory and deliberative practitioners. These practitioners, who design, deliver and evaluate democratic processes on behalf of public institutions, are uniquely placed – serving both their publics and the organisations that employ or contract them simultaneously. This research explores the tensions they experience in this role and also provides information about who they are – their backgrounds and experience and the approach they take to the work. The research shows that the practitioner cohort is broad and getting broader – a phenomenon which likely has implications for the quality of democratic practice. About the speaker Helen Christensen is an engagement practitioner, trainer and researcher. She is an Industry Fellow at the Institute for Public Policy and Governance at the University of Technology where she recently completed a PhD exploring the practice and professionalisation of community engagement in Australian local government. Helen is the Principal of The Public Engagement Practice, a consultancy focused on building the capabilities of public organisations to design and deliver engagement themselves and she is also an IAP2 trainer. Previous Next

< 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 DELIBERATION IN TRANSITIONS: A PRACTITIONER'S REFLECTIONS FROM NEPAL AND AFGHANISTAN George Varughese, Niti Foundation Tue 5 March 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In the last two decades Nepal and Afghanistan have undergone significant governance transitions, drafting and implementing ambitious new constitutions in the wake of civil conflict. In this talk, George Varughese will reflect on 25 years of personal involvement as a development practitioner in these countries, with an emphasis on recent Nepal experiences. While in both contexts, deliberative spaces were created to facilitate transitions in governance regimes, the subsequent constitutional and legal/regulatory scaffolding for state restructuring reflect minimal deliberation and public engagement. The formal and informal elite interests that captured these spaces continue to constrain the countries’ constitutional and democratic development in order to maintain impunity and extract rent. In this light, the talk will highlight challenges in supporting the publicness of policy making in Nepal, focusing on the need for the practical choices in transforming the country’s political and legal institutions, which is necessary for durable deliberative discourse to inhere in public life. About the speaker George Varughese is Senior Advisor for Niti Foundation and convenes its Strategic Advisory Group that makes broadly available analysis, guidance, and recommendations for implementing federalism in Nepal. George has 24 years of experience in international development and academia, with expertise in thought leadership/facilitation in governance with a political economy & conflict specialization and skills in strategic analysis & advice, fundraising, program design & delivery, and policy development & navigation. Most recently, George represented The Asia Foundation in Nepal (2009-2018) and Afghanistan (2005-2009), managing programs on transitional political processes and constitutional development; capacity-building initiatives in the center of government; subnational governance; conflict-transformation and peace building; women’s advancement & security; and public education and discourse on democratic political processes and rule of law. He has also provided technical assistance in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Timor Leste. George is interested and involved in the institutional design of partnerships between local communities, private sector, and government officials, particularly on post-conflict development management, peacebuilding, local governance, and civic engagement. Most recently, George delivered the 2017 Howard Baker Distinguished Lecture in International Security and Development at the University of Tennessee and published “Development aid architecture and the conditions for peacebuilding and human rights in conflict-affected areas: Does the framework fit the purpose?” in Journal of Human Rights Practice (Special Issue on Human Rights and Peacebuilding, 2017, pp. 1-12). He was 2015-16 Excellence Chair and Professor in Global and Area Studies at the University of Wyoming, 2010 Senior Visiting Fellow of The Australian National University's Asia-Pacific College of Diplomacy, and 2008 Senior International Fellow of the City University of New York's Graduate Center for Philanthropy and Civil Society. He holds a Joint Ph.D. in Political Science & Public Administration from Indiana University, Bloomington. Previous Next

< Back Lucy J. Parry Senior Research Associate About Lucy J. Parry is a Research Associate at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. She is currently the project manager of Monitoring Deliberative Integrity in Australia and a collaborator on the Australian citizens’ jury on genome editing . Prior to her current role she was a Research Associate with Participedia and has documented hundreds of cases and methods of democratic innovation around the world on their crowd-sourced, open access database. Her research interests include deliberative systems, deliberative mini-publics and democratic innovations, and animal ethics. Uniting these areas is a commitment to bring deliberative theory and practice together, along with her methodological expertise in Q Methodology. She has authored a number of publications and presented her research at international conferences in Australia, Austria and the U.K. Her current research explores the impacts and integrity of deliberative mini-publics. Key Publications Jean-Paul Gagnon, Paul Emiljanowicz, Lucy J. Parry, Bomikazi Zeka, Nick Vlahos, Angela Tan-Kantor, Alex Prior, Adrian Bua, and John Hawkins (2022) TaxTrack’: Introducing a Democratic Innovation for Taxation. Australasian Parliamentary Review. Parry, L.J., Asenbaum, H. & Ercan, S.E. (2021). Democracy in flux: a systemic view on the impact of COVID-19. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 15(2): 197-205. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-09-2020-0269 Parry, L.J. & Ercan, S.A. (2020). Using Participedia to study the impacts of mini-publics. Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance Working Paper 2020/02 . Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. Parry, L.J., Alver, J. & Thompson, N. (2019). Democratic Innovation in Australasia. In Elstub, S. & Escobar, O. (2019). Handbook of Democratic Innovation and Governance. Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786433862 Parry, L.J. (2019). Discourses on foxhunting in the public sphere: a Q methodological study. British Politics. 14, 290-310. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-018-0089-5 Parry, L.J. (2017). Don’t put all your speech-acts in one basket: situating animal activism in the deliberative system. Environmental Values, 26(4), 437-455. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327117X14976900137340 Full list of publications available in GoogleScholar . Teaching Tutor, Language Center, Webster Vienna Private University. 2017-2021. Tutor, Public Policy and Administration, Faculty of Business, Government and Law, University of Canberra. 2017. Graduate Teaching Assistant, History of Western Political Thought, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield. 2014-2016. Administration Co-editor of the Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 2023-present. Editor of the Deliberative Democracy Digest, 2023-present. Co-editor, BroadAgenda, 50/50 by 2030 Foundation, 2017. Public Engagement Parry, L.J., Asenbaum, H., and Ercan, S. A. (2021) Recipes for democratic participation during the pandemic: from anti-lockdown protest to a participatory system. Agora . 15 March. Parry, L.J. (2017) #MeToo and Me: the transformative power in numbers, BroadAgenda , 20 October. Curato, N. and Parry, L.J. (2017) Deliberative Democracy must rise to the threat of populist rhetoric. The Conversation . 7 June.

< Back HOW DO SETTLER-COLONIAL INEQUALITIES SHAPE POLITICAL BEHAVIOUR AND COMMUNICATION IN ANGLO-DEMOCRACIES? About this event Social structure becomes internalized as cognitive dispositions that shape social action (Bourdieu 2000). In settler-colonial societies, how do White settlers’ cognitive dispositions—specifically, White settlers’ racial attitudes—shape political behaviour and communication? Can we design interventions so that political discourse (talking through disagreement) improves White settlers’ outgroup attitudes? In this talk, Professor Edana Beauvais gives an overview of her research on the political consequences of White settlers’ racial attitudes. She also discusses the results of an experiment that varied communication style (rational-legal speech versus personal storytelling) to see if personal storytelling could improve White settlers’ attitudes toward Indigenous peoples. Edana Beauvais is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Simon Fraser University. She is the Chair of the Participedia Democracy and Digital Communication Cluster and the President of the American Political Science Association’s Democratic Innovations Group. Before joining SFU, she held a Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship at Duke University, a Visiting Democracy Fellowship at the Ash Center, Harvard University, and a SSHRC Postdoctoral Fellowship at the Centre for the Study of Democratic Citizenship, McGill University. She is interested in the way inequalities shape communication and action, producing unequal political influence between different social group members. Seminar series convenors: Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal. Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

< Back CENTRE MEETS CENTRE: MARGEM AT UFMG In this seminar, Ricardo Mendonça along with other MARGEM members will present the current research of the research group MARGEM. About this event In this seminar, Ricardo Mendonça along with other MARGEM members will present the current research of the research group MARGEM. The Research Group on Democracy and Justice (MARGEM) carries out interdisciplinary investigations aimed at deepening democracy and at comprehending the social struggles that are intrinsic to it. The group is based at UFMG, Brazil, and works with topics at the intersection of democratic theories, political communication, contentious politics and theories of justice. MARGEM is strongly influenced by critical theory informed by pragmatism, employing relational perspectives to make sense of political phenomena. Current projects developed within the group address a wide range of topics including algorithms, social media, disinformation, uberization, protests, populism, visual narratives, gender, race and democratic innovations. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

< Back UPCOMING: FACILITATION OF DELIBERATION IN THE CLASSROOM: THE INTERPLAY OF TECHNIQUE AND DESIGN TO MAKE SPACE FOR DEMOCRACY ABSTRACT Widespread global interest and adoption of deliberative democracy approaches to reinvigorate citizenship and policy making in an era of democratic crisis/decline has been mirrored by increasing interest in deliberation in schools, both as an approach to pedagogy and student empowerment, and as a training ground for deliberative citizenship. In school deliberation, as in other settings, a key and sometimes neglected element of high-quality deliberation is facilitation. Facilitation can help to establish and maintain deliberative norms, assist participants to deliberate productively and enable collective goals. By participating in facilitated deliberation, students can develop awareness, skills and voice that empower them to engage with democracy, in the school and beyond. This article draws on our experience as scholar/practitioners running a Deliberation in Schools program in Australia to explore challenges and strategies for deliberative facilitation. The challenges we discuss are power, inequality, diversity of expression and knowledge, and disagreement and these are discussed in the general context of inclusiveness. We highlight two facets of deliberative facilitation – technique and design – which are important for dealing with these challenges and increasing inclusion in school deliberation and in democratic deliberation more generally. BIO Wendy Russel, Kei Nishiyama, and Pierrick Chalaye share an interest in deliberative education and have a range of expertise in this area: Wendy as a deliberation practitioner in schools, Kei as a deliberation practitioner and facilitator, and Pierrick as a former high school teacher. They worked together on the Deliberation in Schools project in the Australian Capital Territory, on which this seminar is based. Wendy is a research fellow in the School of Engineering, Australian National University, an associate of the Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, ANU and an associate of the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, University of Canberra. She is an engagement practitioner and Director of Double Arrow Consulting, a business specialising in deliberative engagement. Wendy identifies as a transdisciplinary pracademic and lacks respect for boundaries. Kei is an assistant professor of policy studies at Doshisha University, Japan. Kei has a PhD from the University of Canberra, Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. Kei studies children, education and democracy from a deliberative point of view. Pierrick is a research fellow in the School of Engineering, Australian National University. He has a PhD in comparative environmental politics/policy from the University of Canberra, Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. His research interests are energy and environmental politics/policy, deliberative democratic theory and qualitative research methods. 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 Cultivating a deliberative stance Simon Niemeyer, University of Canberra Tue 7 March 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract There has been much focus in deliberative democracy on procedures that may be more or less deliberative, which may also bear some relationship to the deliberativeness of an outcome or decision. More recently the idea of dispositional state has gained attention, initially through the idea of ‘deliberative stance’ proposed by Owen and Smith. The idea of a deliberative stance potentially fills important gaps in the theory of deliberation, where differences in stance confound the relationship between procedure and outcome. If it can be said that an individual as adopted a more deliberative stance during a deliberative encounter, then we might expect difference in outcome compared to another who has not, even though all other procedural observations may be the same — although it is also likely that stance and procedure are also related. The role of inducing a deliberative stance was tested as part of a mini public field experiment in 2016 in Sweden on the issue of begging by internal EU migrants. Two groups participated in a three-day process, one of which undertook pre-deliberative group exercises aimed at inducing deliberative norms, or a ‘deliberative stance’. The second group did not undertake any group exercises, but instead began the process with a briefing about the ideals of deliberation. Both groups then participated in the same process. The differences in outcome between the two groups were analysed in terms of conventional preference transformation, as well as the intersubjective relationship between values, beliefs — or ‘reasons’ — and policy choices (intersubjective consistency). The implications of the results for deliberative theory and practice are discussed. This paper is co-authored with Julia Jennstål, Uppsala University About the speaker Simon Niemeyer is an Australian Research Council (ARC) Future Fellow whose research covers the broad fields of deliberative democracy and environmental governance, particularly in respect to climate change. His focus is on the forces that shape public opinion and how this can be improved so that the expressed preference of the public better reflects their collective long-term interests. This has guided his research in the direction of exploring the nature of preference change during deliberative minipublics, which is now moving into a phase of understanding the possibility for deliberative preference formation in mass public settings and the institutional features that best facilitate deliberative democratic governance. Previous Next

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back UC Postdoctoral Fellow wins 2022 Rising Star Award from leading European political science association 6 Feb 2023 We are thrilled that our Centre's Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Dr Hans Asenbaum, has received the ECPR Rising Star Award for his achievements as an early career researcher. This award is presented annually, through the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR). ECPR, of which the University of Canberra is a member institution, is the leading European academic association with a mission to advance political science, Recipients of the award are given the opportunity to develop their networks and skills in the field of politics and international relations. “For me, the award shows that critical voices are important, are heard and are appreciated in our society – I've always tried to make a case for inclusion and for sensitivity to our identities,” Dr Asenbaum said. Read more

< Back Diasporas involved: How Jewish diaspora is involved in constitutional deliberations in Israel Shay Keinan, Australian National University Tue 2 June 2015 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract Diaspora studies has emerged as a distinct academic field in recent years, focusing on the relationship between dispersed ethnic populations and their countries of origin (“kin-states”). Democratic states face increasing challenges when interacting with these often large and influential groups: How and to what extent can a democracy accommodate the interests of non-citizens who nevertheless maintain a strong connection to the nation kin-state? In this paper I suggest that deliberative democratic theory can be useful in addressing such issues of diaspora involvement. Deliberative processes can enable people in the diaspora to affect the shaping of laws in their kin-states in ways other than voting. One way this can be done is by allowing diaspora representatives to participate in deliberations that take place in Constitutional Courts regarding constitutional matters that are of special relevance to diaspora populations. For concrete examples, I refer to illustrative cases from the Israeli Supreme Court, in which diaspora groups have been involved in deliberations regarding constitutional questions with direct impacts on the Jewish diaspora, their relationship with the state of Israel and the rights of Israel’s minorities. About the speaker Shay Keinan is a PhD candidate at the ANU College of Law, he holds an LLB degree (magna cum laude) from Tel Aviv University and an LLM degree from the University of Hamburg, Bologna University and the University of Manchester. 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 Designing permanent deliberative democracy: The Ostbelgien Modell in Belgium Min Reuchamps, Catholic University of Louvain Tue 18 June 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Around the world, deliberative democracy is on the rise and is being implemented in real politics. In Belgium, the G1000, a citizen-led experiment, set deliberative democracy on the political agenda. In this wake, all parliaments of the country have initiated deliberative mini-publics. More recently the Ostbelgien modell was fostered; that is the Parliament of the German-speaking community has enacted a permanent system of deliberative democracy that will start in September 2019: a randomly selected body of 24 citizens will work next to the existing elected parliament made of 25 MPs. These democratic innovations set the pace for a renewal of democratic dynamics in practice. About the speaker Min Reuchamps is Professor of Political Science at the Université catholique de Louvain. He graduated from the Université de Liège and from Boston University. His teaching and research interests are federalism and multi-level governance, democracy and its different dimensions, relations between language(s) and politics and in particular the role of metaphors, as well as participatory and deliberative methods. He has published a dozen books on these topics and his works have appeared in several international journals. He recently co-authored a book on the G1000 experiment ( https://www.crcpress.com/The-Legitimacy-of-Citizen-led-Deliberative-Democracy-The-G1000-in-Belgium/Caluwaerts-Reuchamps/p/book/9781138281943 ) and his forthcoming book is an edited volume on the variation of political metaphors. Previous Next

Former PhD student < Back Melissa Lovell Former PhD student About Melissa Lovell is a writer, researcher and political scientist. She has a particular interest in the way that politicians and other political players frame policy problems and possibilities. Her research chiefly focuses on Australian Aboriginal Affairs governance and she is currently employed as a Research Officer at the National Centre for Indigenous Studies (NCIS), Australian National University.

< Back The place and role of the intimate sphere in deliberative systems Tetsuki Tamura, Nagoya University Tue 15 March 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract This presentation reconsiders the place and the role of the intimate sphere in deliberative systems. While recently developing deliberative systems approach focuses on the connection between different sites and practices of deliberative and non-deliberative democracies and begins to pay attention to various sites of deliberation, the intimate sphere has not got enough attention except both the original suggestion of ‘everyday talk’ by Jane Mansbridge (1999) and her other essays and the most recent formulation of a deliberative system by John S. Dryzek and Hayley Stevenson (2014). However, this presentation contends that their understandings of the intimate sphere are still insufficient especially in the light of another aim of the deliberative systems approach; deliberative democracy beyond liberal democracy. Both Mansbridge and Dryzek/Stevenson do not fully overcome the liberal democratic conception of the public-private dichotomy and they are still shackled by the ‘methodological governmentalism’. This presentation argues that introducing the concept of ‘nested deliberative systems’ makes it possible for us to see not only state but also the intimate sphere as a deliberative system and to overcome the public-private distinction entirely. About the speaker Tetsuki Tamura is professor of political science at the Graduate School of Law, Nagoya University, Japan. He is a former visiting scholar and a current associate at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy & Global Governance. His research interests include contemporary democratic theory including deliberative democracy, the welfare state and basic income, feminism and politics, and the relationship between normative theory and empirical analysis. For more information, visit the following website: http://researchmap.jp/tetsuki.tamura/?lang=english . Previous Next