Search Results

David Schlosberg and Simon Niemeyer < Back Rethinking Climate Justice In An Age Of Adaptation: Capabilities, Local Variation, And Public Deliberation Investigator(s): David Schlosberg and Simon Niemeyer Funding through Discovery Project (DP120104797) ($250,000), the Project Team includes David Schlosberg (Chief Investigator) and Simon Niemeyer (Chief Investigator) Project Description This project aims to produce recommendations, designed by citizens and stakeholders, for climate adaptation policies in three regions of Australia. These recommendations will be based on a definition of climate justice that incorporates basic needs and resources to be protected, as identified by impacted communities.

< 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 The norm-diffusing potential of minipublic Lala Muradova, University of Leuven Tue 4 February 2020 12:10pm - 1:10pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Deliberative minipublics are argued to be good for circulating ideas to the wider public sphere. Yet, so far, such accounts have not looked at the potential for mini publics to contribute to democratic systems by diffusing deliberative norms to a wider society. In this paper I build on the norm diffusion theory and diffusion of innovations scholarship, and argue that deliberative minipublics can enhance broader public deliberation, by acting as a conduit for the transmission of crucial deliberative norms to the public at large. In this task, I liken the role of minipublics to that of international organizations (IO) which have been central in diffusing the norms related, inter alia, to human rights, gender equality, war ethics, across and within states. Next, I suggest mechanisms by which minipublics can exercise influence on norm formation in the public. I conclude by suggesting new avenues for future theoretical and empirical research on the norm-diffusing function of minipublics. About the speaker Lala Muradova is a PhD Candidate at the Democratic Innovations & Legitimacy Group, University of Leuven. Her primary research interests lie at the intersection of political psychology and deliberative democracy. In her PhD project, she uses experimental research designs combined with observation of real-world deliberative practices, to study the cognitive and affective processes underlying political reasoning in deliberative and non-deliberative settings. Prof. Sofie Marien is the advisor of this PhD project. In 2019, she was awarded the Best Paper of the Democratic Innovations Section at the 2019 General Conference of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR). Previous Next

< Back Backstage orchestration: The problem of the corporation in the public sphere Jensen Sass, University of Canberra Tue 6 August 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The legal and organizational reality of corporations is hard to reconcile with democratic rule. Corporations exercise vast influence on society and yet their internal administration and external politics rarely heed democratic principles. Although the problem of the corporation is widely recognized, democratic theorists have seldom considered its manifestations across different institutional settings. This paper begins to address this omission; it sets out the idea of ‘backstage orchestration’, a normatively problematic set of tactics deployed by corporations in the public sphere. In backstage orchestration, corporations act as principals, directing a multitude of non-state agents to shape public opinion and thus regulatory and legislative decisions. In contrast to frontstage orchestration, where a relatively transparent and accountable governmental entity coordinates non-state actors to achieve a public purpose, a backstage orchestrator prosecutes a manipulative agenda in secret. Given the professionalization and proliferation of such campaigns, backstage orchestration represents an acute risk to the proper functioning of the public sphere; its resolution is to be found in the fullerapplication of democratic principles to the public sphere itself. About the speaker Jensen Sass completed his PhD at Yale University in 2016 and is currently a postdoctoral fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. He works at the intersection of political sociology and normative political theory with a particular focus on public deliberation, democratic institutions, and the organisational analysis of corporate power. Previous Next

< Back Turnout decline in Western Europe: Apathy or alienation? Viktor Valgardsson, University of Southampton Tue 19 March 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Academic literature on democratic developments in recent decades routinely cites turnout decline as a primary indicator of more fundamental changes to democracy, but this posited relationship is rarely tested. Conversely, studies of turnout decline have thus far failed to incorporate a major divide in this literature: that between theories of political apathy and political alienation. The former type of theories argue that citizens have become less interested in politics generally, while the latter argue that citizens are still interested but do not identify with their formal political systems. In this study, I test these fundamentally different expectations about the nature of turnout decline by using an extensive new dataset, consisting of combined national election studies from 121 elections in eleven Western European countries in the period 1956-2017. The results indicate that political apathy has in fact been declining in the region, while political alienation has been rising substantially. Reported turnout has been declining significantly in four of these countries and while alienation can only account for a small part of that decline, the negative effect of apathy on turnout has become much stronger over time; those citizens who are apathetic today are less likely to vote than before. About the speaker Viktor Valgardsson is a PhD candidate in Politics at the University of Southampton. His PhD focuses on drivers of turnout decline in Western Europe and his broader research agenda is on changing political attitudes and behaviours in established democracies and the implications of this for democratic theory and reform. Previous Next

< Back Ricardo Mendonca Associate About Ricardo Mendonça studies democratic theory, contentious politics and political communication and is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science, Federal University of Minas Gerais.

Nicole Curato < Back Strongmen of Asia: Democratic bosses and how to understand them Investigator(s): Nicole Curato Funded by the Norwegian Research Council (AU$1.8M via University of Oslo). Project Description This research project investigates a set of strongmen – including presently ruling, fledgling, or former strongmen – in order to compare and understand a political style increasingly dominant in South and Southeast Asia and which we preliminarily call ‘bossism’. These strongmen are explored through fieldwork, online ethnography and media analysis of original language sources. This project is funded by the Norwegian Research Council and administered by the University of Oslo. Nicole Curato is examining the case of the Philippines. Preliminary findings of her research are documented in Strongmen , Inc , published in Australian Foreign Affairs .

< 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.