< Back Mending Democracy: Democratic Repair in Disconnected Times Carolyn M. Hendriks, Selen A. Ercan, and John Boswell 2020 , Oxford University Press Summary The fabric of democracy is threadbare in many contemporary societies. Connections that are vital to the functioning and integrity of our democratic systems are wearing thin. Citizens are increasingly disconnected — from their elected representatives, from one another in the public sphere, and from complex processes of public policy. In such disconnected times, how can we strengthen and renew our democracies? This book develops the idea of democratic mending as a way of advancing a more connective approach to democratic reform. It is informed by three rich empirical cases of connectivity in practice, as well as cutting-edge debates in deliberative democracy. The empirical cases uncover empowering and transformative modes of political engagement that are vital for democratic renewal. The diverse actors in this book are not withdrawing, resisting or seeking autonomy from conventional institutions of representative democracy but actively experimenting with ways to improve and engage with them. Through their everyday practices of democratic mending they undertake crucial systemic repair work and strengthen the integrity of our democratic fabric in ways that are yet to be fully acknowledged by scholars and practitioners of democratic reform. Read more Previous Next

Former PhD student < Back Bora Kanra Former PhD student About Bora was the lead investigator of the ARC Discovery Project ‘Communication Across Difference in a Democracy: Australian Muslims and the Mainstream.’ He completed his PhD at the ANU, under the supervision of John Dryzek, about deliberative democracy in divided societies, focusing particularly on the case of Turkey.

< Back Priya Kurian Associate About Priya Kurian's research is interdisciplinary and spans the areas of environmental politics and policy; science and technology studies; women, culture and development; and sustainable development. She is Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at the University of Waikato, New Zealand.

< Back The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy Edited by Andre Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren 2018 , Oxford University Press Summary Deliberative democracy has been the main game in contemporary political theory for two decades and has grown enormously in size and importance in political science and many other disciplines, and in political practice. The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy takes stock of deliberative democracy as a research field, as well as exploring and creating links with multiple disciplines and policy practice around the globe. It provides a concise history of deliberative ideals in political thought while also discussing their philosophical origins. It locates deliberation in a political system with different spaces, publics, and venues, including parliament and courts but also governance networks, protests, mini-publics, old and new media, and everyday talk. It documents the intersections of deliberative ideals with contemporary political theory, involving epistemology, representation, constitutionalism, justice, and multiculturalism. It explores the intersections of deliberative democracy with major research fields in the social sciences and law, including social and rational choice theory, communications, psychology, sociology, international relations, framing approaches, policy analysis, planning, democratization, and methodology. It engages with practical applications, mapping deliberation as a reform movement and as a device for conflict resolution. It documents the practice and study of deliberative democracy around the world, in Asia, Latin America, Africa, Europe, and global governance. And it provides reflections on the field by pioneering thinkers. Read more Previous Next

< Back Why am I engaged? Walden Bello, State University of New York in Binghamton Tue 26 November 2019 11:00am – 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Reflecting on his trajectory as an academic and an activist, the speaker will trace his personal evolution as an activist/academic, focusing on the key junctures in this process, and discuss the tension between theory and action, the relationship between methodology and the process of uncovering the real dynamics of power, and the often tragic Orwellian tension between being an intellectual and being a member of a political organization. About the speaker Walden Bello is a Professor of Sociology at the State University of New York in Binghamton. He is the author of more than 20 books including Deglobalization: Ideas for a New World Economy, Capitalism's Last Stand: Deglobalization in the Age of Austerity, and, most recently, Counterrevolutions: The Global Rise of the Far Right and Paper Dragons: China and the Next Crash. The International Studies Association named him the Most Outstanding Public Scholar in 2008. Previous Next

< Back John S. Dryzek Distinguished Professor Emeritus About John Dryzek is Distinguished Professor Emeritus in the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. Before moving to the University of Canberra he was Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Australian Research Council Federation Fellow at the Australian National University. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia, Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy, former Head of the Departments of Political Science at the Universities of Oregon and Melbourne and of the Social and Political Theory program at ANU, former editor of the Australian Journal of Political Science, and former ARC Laureate Fellow. He has also held the title of Centenary Professor at the University of Canberra. Working in both political theory and empirical social science, he is best known for his contributions in the areas of democratic theory and practice and environmental politics. One of the instigators of the 'deliberative turn' in democratic theory, he has published nine books in this area with Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, and Polity Press. His work in environmental politics ranges from political philosophy to studies of environmental discourses and movements to global climate governance, and he has published seven books in this area with Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, and Basil Blackwell. He has also worked on comparative studies of democratization, public policy analysis, and the history and philosophy of social science. His current research emphasizes democratic justice, reason, and resilience; governance in the Anthropocene (an emerging epoch of instability in the Earth system); and response to the crisis of democracy. Key Publications Dryzek, J.S. and Tanasoca, A. (2021) Democratizing Global Justice: Deliberating Global Goals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dryzek, J.S., Bowman, Q., Kuyper, J.W., Pickering, J., Sass, J., and Stevenson, H. (2019) Deliberative Global Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dryzek, J.S. and Pickering, J. (2019) The Politics of the Anthropocene. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Dryzek, J.S., Bächtiger, A. et al (2019) The Crisis of Democracy and the Science of Deliberation, Science 363: 1144-46. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw2694 Dryzek, J.S. (2017) The Forum, the System, and the Polity: Three Varieties of Democratic Theory, Political Theory 45 (5): 610-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591716659114 Full list of publications available in GoogleScholar . Research grants Chief Investigator, Democratic Resilience: The Public Sphere and Extremist Attacks (2021-2023). Funded by the Australian Research Council Discovery Project (AU$511,000) Chief Investigator, Monitoring Deliberative Integrity in Australia (2021-2023). Funded by the Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative. (AU$ 202,156) Chief Investigator, Global Citizen Deliberation: Analysing a Deliberative Documentary (2020-2022). Funded by the Australian Research Council Linkage Project. (AU$439,000) Chief Investigator, Discovery Project (2018-2020) A Meta-Study of Democratic Deliberation: Updating Theory and Practice Funded by the Australian Research Council Discovery Project (AU$526,411) Chief Investigator, Medical Research Future Fund (Australia), Genomic Health Futures Mission Grant (2020-2022) Genome Editing: Formulating an Australian Community Response (AU$420,000) Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship (2014-2020) Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice, and a Changing Earth System (AU$2,600,000) PhD students Pierrick Chalaye (Primary Supervisor) Emerson Sanchez (Primary Supervisor) Wendy Conway-Lamb (Primary Supervisor) Madeleine Egan (Primary Supervisor) Jane Alver (Secondary Supervisor) Nardine Alnemr (Secondary Supervisor) Supervised over 25 PhD students to completion. Administration Director, Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, 2019-2020 Prizes Ken Young Best Paper Prize, awarded by Policy and Politics (with Selen Ercan and Carolyn Hendriks), 2020. One of ten best academic books by an Australian author published in the previous decade, The Australian Higher Education Magazine, 2020, for The Politics of the Earth. Clay Morgan prize for best book in environmental political theory, Western Political Science Association (with Jonathan Pickering), 2019. 2019 Vice Chancellor’s Award for Research Excellence and Researcher of the Year, University of Canberra, 2020. Public Engagement Dryzek, J.S. (2017) Democracy Needs More Trees and Less Trump, The Conversation 8 March.

< Back Beyond residual realisms: Four paths for remaking participation with science and democracy Matthew Kearnes, University of New South Wales Tue 12 December 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In light of the contestation of the purposes and objectives of contemporary techno-political decision-making, and the emergence of a more questioning and ambivalent response to assertions of authoritative expertise, attempts to generate socially resilient political settlements across an array of policy domains have increasingly called upon the logics of ‘democratic participation’. In this context, contemporary scientific and environmental policy is increasingly characterised by institutional commitments to fostering public engagement and participation with science, together with greater transparency in the deployment of scientific expertise in decision-making. However, despite notable successes, such developments have often struggled to enhance public trust and build more socially responsive and responsible science and technology. In this paper, we argue a central reason for this is that mainstream approaches to public engagement harbour ‘residual realist’ assumptions about participation and the public. Recent studies in ‘science and technology studies’ (STS) offer an alternative way of seeing participation as co-produced, relational and emergent. In this paper, we build on these approaches by setting out a framework comprising of four interrelating paths and associated criteria for remaking public participation with science and democracy in more experimental, reflexive, anticipatory, and responsible ways. This comprises moves to: forge reflexive participatory practices that attend to their framing, emergence, uncertainties, and effects; ecologise participation through attending to the interrelations between diverse public engagements; catalyse practices of anticipatory reflection to bring about responsible democratic innovations; and reconstitute participation as constitutive of (not separate from) systems of science and democracy. We close by offering some reflections on the ways in which these approaches might be taken up in both analytically and normatively inspired work and scholarship. About the speaker Matthew Kearnes is an Australian Research Council Future Fellow and member of the of Environmental Humanities Group at the School of Humanities and Languages, University of New South Wales. Before arriving at UNSW he held post-doctoral positions at the Department of Geography at the Open University and the Centre for the Study of Environmental Change/Department of Sociology at Lancaster University. Most recently he held a Research Councils UK Fellowship at the Institute of Hazard, Risk and Resilience/Department of Geography, Durham University. Matthew's research is situated between the fields of Science and Technology Studies (STS), human geography and contemporary social theory. His current work is focused on the social and political dimensions of technological and environmental change, including ongoing work on the development of negative emission strategies and soil carbon sequestration. He has published widely on the ways in which the development of novel and emerging technologies is entangled with profound social, ethical and normative questions. Matthew serves on the editorial board Science, Technology and Society (Sage) and on the advisory panel for Science as Culture (Taylor & Francis). For more information about Matthew’s research please visit https://research.unsw.edu.au/people/dr-matthew-benjamin-kearnes and at @mbkearnes Previous Next

< Back Tamirace Fakhoury Associate About Tamirace Fakhoury's core research and publication areas are power sharing and political transitions in divided societies, and refugee and migration governance. She is is an associate professor in Political Sciences and International Affairs at the Lebanese American University.

< Back Epistemic injustice and the division of deliberative labour James Wong, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Thu 19 July 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The recent literature of deliberative democracy conceives the division of deliberative labour between experts and citizens in various ways. In this paper, we argue that (1) citizens can suffer epistemic injustice in deliberation when their knowledge claims are dismissed, ignored or deemed unintelligible by experts; and (2) the division of deliberative labour can be appropriately arranged to remedy any epistemic injustice. Discussed extensively by Miranda Fricker (2007), the problem of epistemic injustice – consisting of testimonial and hermeneutic injustices – is relevant to speeches and communications but remains largely overlooked in deliberative democracy. We consider three competing models of expertise in a deliberative system, i.e., Thomas Christiano’s (2012) specialized deliberation, Alfred Moore’s (2016) distributed deliberation, and Simone Chambers’s (2017) feedback loops. We show that the division of deliberative labour based on all these three models is, to different extents, vulnerable to the problem of epistemic injustice. We suggest that some specially-designed ‘mini-publics’ – in the form of an enhanced version of public hearings/inquiries – would be desirable institutions that alleviate epistemic injustice in a deliberative system. About the speaker James Wong is a research assistant professor in the Division of Social Science and the Division of Public Policy at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. He is also a junior fellow in the HKUST Jockey Club Institute for Advanced Study. His research revolves around deliberative democracy, environmental politics, and institutional design for democracy. He earned his PhD from the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2013. Previous Next

< Back Democratic Theorizing Hans Asenbaum, University of Canberra Tue 13 April 2021 8:00pm-9:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Over centuries, democratic theory has developed emancipatory ideals of inclusion, empowerment, and transparency. These ideals, however, have hardly been applied to the process of theorizing itself. Democratic theory is a product of the ivory tower. The Democratic Theorizing Project sets out to confront this problem. Democratic theorizing – opposed to established approaches to theorizing democracy – conceptualizes theory production as a participatory space. It applies the values of democratic innovations to theorizing. Democratic theorizing includes affected people, empowers those on the margins, and facilitates transparency. The proposed approach attempts to realize these ideals by building on three sources: grounded normative theory, which develops theory in an ongoing conversation with the data; participatory research, which invites participants as research collaborators; and new materialism, which flattens the hierarchies between researchers, participants, and data. The resulting approach of democratic theorizing draws on an ongoing theorizing project in collaboration with the Black Lives Matter movement. About the speaker Hans Asenbaum is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. His research interests include identity and inclusion in new participatory spaces, digital politics, and theories of deliberative, participatory and radical democracy. His work has been published in the American Political Science Review, New Media & Society, Communication Theory, Politics & Gender, the European Journal of Social Theory, and Political Studies. Hans is Co-convener of the Participatory and Deliberative Democracy Specialist Group of the Political Studies Association in the UK. Previous Next

< Back Democratic innovations and maxi-publics: Studying the influence of participation possibilities on public perceptions of legitimacy in Finland Maija Jaske, University of Turku Tue 6 March 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Last decades have witnessed a growing interest in different institutional arrangements that aim to engage citizens directly in the democratic decision-making processes. Citizen juries, citizens’ assemblies, participatory budgeting and citizens’ initiatives are some examples of these “democratic innovations”. Democratic theorists have recently started to emphasize the role these innovations play in the wider political system. While the potential of deliberation to transform participants is still much valued, the focus has shifted – or at least broadened – to macro-political impacts of deliberation and participation. This presentation zooms into a specific type of macro impacts by asking whether and how the availability of participation possibilities influences maxi-publics. So far, empirical research on democratic innovations has focused on their effects on participating individuals or policy outcomes. It is important, however, that we understand what effects, if any, participatory instruments have on the wider public. Research of procedural fairness suggests that hearing people in decision-making processes contributes to citizens’ evaluations of legitimacy. What all participatory instruments, however, share in common is that tens or hundreds of non-elected citizens represent other citizens – non-participants – in these venues. The emergence of ‘citizen representatives’ raises questions about the legitimacy of participatory instruments and their role in public perceptions of democratic government. Drawing on a study that is part of my Ph.D. dissertation, I distinguish procedural fairness and outcome satisfaction as the main components of perceived legitimacy, and discuss how the availability of participation possibilities could affect these evaluations. The presentation focuses on the case of Finland, and participatory innovations in local government. I analyze survey data from 9022 respondents living in 30 Finnish municipalities that each have a different ‘participatory toolbox’, consisting of instruments such as public hearings, opinion polls, advisory citizen committees, non-binding referendums and deliberative citizen juries. The study combines individual-level survey data on citizens’ attitudes with municipality-level data on municipality characteristics and the state of local democracy, and gives some preliminary empirical findings on the role of participatory instruments for public perceptions of legitimacy in democratic systems. About the speaker Maija Jäske is a Ph.D. Student in Political Science at the University of Turku. She gained her Master’s degree (Political Science) from the University of Turku in 2011, and she was a visiting scholar in the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University in 2014-2015. Her Ph.D. research – supervised by Prof. Maija Setälä – studies the contextual preconditions of participatory instruments, and their consequences for the wider public. In the dissertation, she analyzes large-n data from Finnish local government with statistical methods. She has also conducted research on citizen deliberation experiments and non-binding agenda initiatives, and her articles have appeared in journals such as International Journal of Public Administration and Swiss Journal of Political Research. Her research interests include democratic theory, participatory instruments, procedural fairness and public opinion. Previous Next

< Back Jonathan Kuyper Associate and Former PhD Student About Jonathan Kuyper is a political theorist and international relations scholar working mainly with democratic theory, with a special focus on deliberative democracy. He is interested in how democratic theory can be employed to understand changes in domestic politics brought about by globalization, as well as offers ways to respond to these changes.

< Back MAPPING DEMOCRATIC INNOVATIONS IN PARTICIPEDIA ABSTRACT This presentation proposes a new analytical approach to classifying democratic innovations based on prototypical radial categorization. The proposed categorization strategy is empirically evaluated on real-world democratic innovations drawn from Participedia, the largest crowdsourcing platform in democratic innovation. Participedia database is analyzed through multiple factor analysis (MFA) and hierarchical clustering on principal components (HCPC). The analysis highlights four clusters that are a subset of two main groups that coincide with the normative categorization of participatory and deliberative democracy. BIO Francesco Veri is a Swiss National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. Previous Next

< Back Francesco Veri Associate About Francesco Veri is a Senior Researcher at the Centre for Democracy Studies at the University of Zurich , a Postdoctoral fellow at the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Geneva and a Research Associate at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra.

Former PhD student < Back Emerson Sanchez Former PhD student About Emerson M. Sanchez researches the role of environmental knowledge in contributing to industrial disasters and exploring ways to avert such tragedies. He has also conducted research on social movements, indigenous rights, social health, and gender and development. He recently completed his PhD at the University of Canberra.

< Back Deliberation and representation in referendum processes Ronald Van Crombrugge, KU Leuven Tue 22 August 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Referendums – and other forms of popular participation such as the citizen initiative – are a controversial topic. While they promise popular control over government, in reality, they are often characterised by a lack of understanding of the issue by the broader public, which in turn opens up room for different forms of elite manipulation. For this reason, deliberative democrats in particular have often been sceptical of the deliberative potential of mass democracies, and especially instruments of direct democracy such as the referendum. However, the recent turn in deliberative democracy literature towards deliberative systems raises a number of opportunities to re-examine referendums. From a deliberative systems perspective, referendums could potentially fulfil a useful democratic role as the last legitimating step in a larger deliberative process, even though they might not be able to fulfil all the requirements of the deliberative ideal. Yet, even when we accept that referendums have a potential role to play in a deliberative system, we are still presented with the question: how can thousands, or even millions of people deliberate together during the referendum campaign? It is to this question the article seeks to provide an answer. This will require putting into question some of the conditions of the “ideal deliberative procedure”, such as full information and equal speaking time, which can hardly ever be expected during a referendum campaign. There, necessarily only the few will do the actual talking, while most citizens will merely listen. But is this normatively acceptable? Or does this mean giving up on the very core of the deliberative ideal? I will argue that an answer can be found by looking at the role representation – in its broadest sense – plays in referendum campaigns. If differences in power during the referendum campaign can be seen as subject to a broader relation of representation, they might be less problematic from a democratic point of view. In addition, I will argue that under the right circumstances, representation can fulfil the role of an “epistemic resource” which can help citizens to reach a competent decision on the issue at hand. Inversely, when these circumstances are not in place, representation might actually undermine the quality of citizens’ judgments. To make these arguments, I will look at referendum campaigns through the conceptual lens of the “representative claim” as developed by Michael Saward. This allows a shift in attention away from the traditional focus on the talker and towards the listener. Rather than attempting to attain the goals of full information and equal voice during the campaign, we should instead focus on increasing the capacity of ordinary citizens to deliberatively and competently accept or refuse the claims that are made by various elected or unelected representatives, as well as enable them to expose claims which are manifestly unfounded or manipulative. This requires giving attention to the background conditions in which the different claims are made and leads to questions of how the broader public sphere is structured and regulated. About the speaker Ronald Van Crombrugge (°Jette, 1992) graduated in 2013 as a bachelor of laws with a minor in political sciences (magna cum laude). He received his master's degree of laws in 2015 (magna cum laude), option research master. Since October 2015 he is working at KU Leuven's Institute for Constitutional Law, where he specialises in the law of politics. As part of his current research, Ronald is evaluating the law on referendums from the perspective of deliberative democratic theory. The research centers on two questions: first, whether mechanisms of direct democracy such as the referendum have a useful role to play in a deliberative democracy, and second, how the law on referendums can be adapted to better accommodate the principles of deliberative democracy. Previous Next

Former PhD student < Back John Boswell Former PhD student About John Boswell is an Associate Professor of Politics at the University of Southampton. His work looks at issues related to deliberative governance, and has included investigations around democratic deliberation and obesity. His work with the Centre includes a co-authored book with Selen Ercan and Carolyn Hendriks entitled Connected Democracy.

< Back What exactly is voting to consensual deliberation? Emmanuel Ifeanyi Ani, University of Ghana Tue 27 October 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Abstract There have been two parallel views regarding the role of voting in deliberation. The first is that deliberation before the fabrication of balloting was completely devoid of voting. The second is that voting is, not just part of deliberation, but is standard to deliberation. I argue in this article that neither of these views is correct. Implicit voting has always existed across time and space but only as a last resort in the event of a failure of natural unanimity. What is relatively modern is the establishment of what I call explicit voting, namely, balloting, outside deliberation and often without deliberation. I also distinguish between natural and artificial unanimities, and clarify that artificial unanimities are products of implicit voting. I demonstrate these clarifications with some examples of deliberation. I deploy these clarifications to rid a certain debate of confusion regarding the precise role of voting in consensual deliberation. About the speaker Emmanuel Ifeanyi Ani is a Senior Lecturer and has taught Critical Thinking for several years at the University of Ghana, Accra. He holds a BA in Philosophy from the University of Ibadan, a B. Phil in Philosophy from the Pontificia Università Urbaniana Roma (Urban Pontifical University, Rome), Italy, an MA and a PhD in Political Philosophy from Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Nigeria. He is the University of Ghana external assessor for affiliate institutions on Logic and Critical Thinking. He was the Chair of Long Essay, Library and Graduate Studies, Department of Philosophy and Classics, University of Ghana. He briefly visited the Centre for Deliberative Democracy, Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra (November-December 2017), and is one of the Associate Editors at the Journal of Deliberative Democracy. He has published in many high impact journals including Philosophical Papers, Journal of Political Philosophy, Philosophia, South African Journal of Philosophy, African Studies Quarterly, and Canadian Philosophical Review. He is a contributor to the Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, and the winner of the 2018 University of Ghana Humanities Provost Publication Award (Mid-Career Category). Previous Next

< Back End of Year Report 2025 Centre for Deliberative Democracy 2025 , University of Canberra Summary Welcome to the 2025 end-of-year report of the Centre for Deliberative Democracy. This year, the Centre advanced major research, teaching, and public engagement initiatives. The leadership of our Early Career Researchers and strong collaborations strengthened democratic practice and advanced the vision of the Faculty of Business, Government and Law and the University of Canberra. Read more Previous Next

< Back Overdoing democracy: The problem of political polarization Tue 18 August 2020 Robert Talisse, Vanderbilt University 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Democracy is such an important social good that it seems natural to think that more is always better. However, we also recognize that it’s possible to have too much of a good thing. In this talk, Robert Talisse (Vanderbilt University) draws from current findings regarding political polarization to argue that, as important a social good as democracy is, it is nonetheless possible for citizens to overdo it. Today, our everyday activities are increasingly fused with our political profiles: commercial spaces, workplaces, professions, schools, churches, sports teams, and even public parks now tend to embody a particular political valence. When politics is permitted to saturate our social environments, we impair the capacities we need in order to enact democracy well. In a slogan, when we overdo democracy in this way, we undermine it. The solution is to build venues and activities where people can engage in cooperative activities together in which their political identities are neither bolstered nor suppressed, but simply beside the point. If we want to do democracy well, we need to put politics in its right place. About the speaker Robert Talisse is a political philosopher focusing on democracy and civic ethics. He has authored over a dozen academic books and more than 100 peer-reviewed articles. In addition, Talisse hosts the podcast Why We Argue, and co-hosts the podcast New Books in Philosophy. Talisse is also a regular contributor to various public philosophy venues such as Aeon, Scientific American Mind, 3 Quarks Daily, 3AM Magazine, Skeptical Inquirer, Free Inquiry, Think, and Institute for Arts and Ideas magazine. Previous Next