Search Results

Postdoctoral Research Fellow < Back Jensen Sass Postdoctoral Research Fellow About Jensen works at the intersection of normative political theory and the empirical study of corporations, technology, and the public sphere. He is also interested in corporate power and democratic politics, in particular the regulation of new technologies that promise to transform previously settled norms and institutions.

Selen A. Ercan, Ricardo F. Mendonca, Umut Ozguc < Back Protests and Political Engagement Investigator(s): Selen A. Ercan, Ricardo F. Mendonca, Umut Ozguc Funded, by Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil, the Project Team includes Selen A. Ercan, Ricardo F. Mendonca and Umut Ozguc Project Description One particularly important event of the beginning of the 21st century has been undoubtedly the cycle of protests crossing frontiers throughout the globe. From Iceland to Hong Kong, and including Tunisia, Egypt, Spain, Greece, the USA, Turkey and Brazil, the recent protest movements were widely noticed due to their size, their transnational dimension and organizational logic. This project aims to study these protest movements with a particular focus on the way they were organized and carried out in Turkey and Brazil in 2013. By drawing on various streams of contemporary democratic theory, the project will investigate: i) the deliberative capacity of these protests; ii) the interplay between conflict and consensus both in theory and practice ; iii) the role of social media and online engagement in the context of recent protests; iv) the symbolic disputes triggered by these protests and the discursive repertoires mobilized in protest performances; v) the type of collective and ‘connective’ action protests generate and their implications in terms of the constitution of political communities.

< 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 Chris Brookhouse Honours Student About Chris is an honours student at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. Prior to joining the centre he completed a Bachelor of Science (Psychology). His interests include neurodiverse and queer theory, disability studies and mad studies. He has worked for many years in the community sector, working as a disability, aged and palliative care worker. He also runs his own business connecting neurodivergent NDIS participants to appropriate services that meet their needs. Honours supervisors Hans Asenbaum Adele Webb

< 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 Albert Dzur Associate About Albert W. Dzur is a democratic theorist interested in citizen deliberation and power-sharing in criminal justice, education, and public administration. He is the co-editor of Democratic Theory and Mass Incarceration (Oxford, 2016).

Nicole Curato, Selen A. Ercan, John Dryzek and Simon Niemeyer < Back Monitoring Deliberative Integrity in Australia Investigator(s): Nicole Curato, Selen A. Ercan, John Dryzek and Simon Niemeyer Funded by the Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative (AU$ 202,156) Project Description This project aims to develop and apply the concept of deliberative integrity as a counterpart to more familiar ideas about electoral integrity in the evaluation of democratic processes. The project develops significant new knowledge about the ethical conduct of Australian citizen engagement processes through conceptual and methodological innovation to produce a Deliberative Integrity Monitoring Tool that will be applied to the expanding range of deliberative democratic innovations in Australia. More on this project: https://deliberativeintegrityproject.org

< 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 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

< Back Systemic representation: The democratic legitimacy of self-appointed representatives Jonathan Kuyper, Stockholm University Tue 15 July 2014 11:00am – 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract Deliberative democracy has taken a systemic turn. Underlying this research agenda is the core idea that democratic deliberation is, and should be, dispersed throughout an interconnected system. Because no single institution can perfectly uphold deliberative ideals, we should take a holistic view and seek to understand how a variety of sites operate in conjunction with one another. In this article I probe how different types of representatives fit within a deliberative system. The core argument is that representatives can act democratically in very different ways depending upon their role within a wider system. I employ this argument to evaluate the democratic legitimacy of 'self-appointed representatives’. Drawing upon Dryzek's notion of deliberative capacity, I argue that self-appointed representatives should be assessed by whether they have a role in the empowered space within a system or rather act as part of the transmission belt from the public space. About the speaker Jonathan Kuyper is a postdoctoral researcher at Stockholm University working on the Transaccess research project (headed by Professor Jonas Tallberg). He completed his PhD at the Australian National University in 2012, during which time he was a visiting student at the European University Institute and Princeton University. His work has been published or is forthcoming in Global Constitutionalism, Journal of Public Deliberation, European Journal of International Relations, Ethics and Global Politics and other outlets. Previous Next

Postdoctoral Research Fellow < Back Hannah Barrowman Postdoctoral Research Fellow About Hannah Barrowman's research interests include adaptive governance, political ecology, social-ecological systems, environmental and social change and Southeast Asian politics. Hannah also works as a researcher for the Australian Pacific Climate Partnership.

< Back Citizen agency in democratic innovation: insights from citizen-led governance innovations (CLGIS) Carolyn Hendriks & Albert Dzur Tue 17 July 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Many aspects of contemporary politics and its institutional practices frustrate citizens. But what kinds of democratic reforms do citizens wish to see, and how do they wish to achieve and sustain them? Most scholars and practitioners of democratic innovation assume that citizens would prefer to engage in politics via more deliberative and participatory forums. However, as critics have argued participatory forums can be piecemeal and tokenistic, and often disempower and co-opt citizens by serving the state and corporate interests (e.g. Lee, McQuarrie, and Walker 2015). For insights into how to make democratic reform more substantive and sustained, we examine citizen-led, action-oriented, and highly pragmatic forms of democratic innovation. We are particularly interested in the collective journeys that citizens themselves embark on to resolve — not just participate in — traditional public policy problems. In this paper we empirically examine various cases of Citizen-Led Governance Innovation (CLGI) where citizens are creating democratic pathways to their own policy and reform endeavours. We show how these citizen innovators are not waiting to be invited into government, or agitating from the sidelines. Instead they are taking proactive and pragmatic steps to address policy failures or dysfunctional institutions. In so doing, citizens self-organise and adopt simple, inclusive, and replicable procedures that foster citizen buy-in and ownership. Citizen agency in CLGIs differs from what is found in other forms of democratic innovation, and related civic practices, such as activism, community organising, and volunteer work and may help address concerns about substance and sustainability. We consider the implications of our findings for debates on democratic innovation and, more broadly, deliberative democracy. About the speakers Carolyn Hendriks is an Associate Professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University. Her work examines democratic aspects of contemporary governance, particularly with respect to participation, deliberation, inclusion and representation. She has taught and published widely on democratic innovation, public deliberation, interpretive methods, network governance and environmental politics. Her current research projects are exploring the possibilities of democratic innovation within conventional and alternative modes of political participation. Carolyn is an appointed member of newDemocracy's Research Committee and sits on the editorial board of several international journals, including the European Journal of Political Research. Albert W. Dzur is a democratic theorist with an interest in citizen participation and power-sharing in education, criminal justice, and public administration. He is the author of Democracy Inside: Participatory Innovation in Unlikely Places (Oxford, in press); Rebuilding Public Institutions Together: Professionals and Citizens in a Participatory Democracy (Cornell, 2017); Punishment, Participatory Democracy, and the Jury (Oxford, 2012); Democratic Professionalism: Citizen Participation and the Reconstruction of Professional Ethics, Identity, and Practice (Penn State, 2008);and a co-editor of Democratic Theory and Mass Incarceration (Oxford, 2016). His interviews with democratic innovators appear in Boston Review, The Good Society, Restorative Justice: an International Journal, and National Civic Review. He is a professor in the political science and philosophy departments at Bowling Green State University. 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 Meeting great expectations through democratic innovations? Studying the effect of citizen involvement on democratic legitimacy Sofie Marien, University of Amsterdam / University of Leuven Tue 14 March 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract As a result of rising expectations, democratic political systems are confronted with a citizenry that fiercely questions the democratic legitimacy of their political system. Widespread distrust in political actors and institutions and the increasing popularity of populist and anti-establishment candidates and parties are just a few of the indications of this societal challenge. Interestingly, this discontent is by no means paralleled by eroding support for democratic principles as this support is stronger than ever before. Therefore, this discontent has frequently been interpreted as a demand for democratic innovations. In particular, the involvement of citizens in political decision-making processes through deliberative processes is often proposed as a potential solution to meet citizens’ expectations and to address this democratic legitimacy deficit. In this talk I will focus on a recent study that investigates the potential of citizen involvement in political decision-making processes through a deliberative democratic instrument to foster losers’ consent with unfavourable political decisions. About the speaker Sofie Marien is an Assistant Professor at the University of Amsterdam and the University of Leuven. She has a B.S. in Political Science and a P.h.D. in Social Sciences from the University of Leuven (Belgium). She was a visiting scholar at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in the Spring of 2016 and 2017. She is president of the Belgian Political Science Association VPW. Her substantive research interests include political trust, political engagement, deliberative democracy and political communication with a regional focus on Europe. To investigate these topics, she draws on cross-national surveys, panel surveys and experimental methods. Her studies appeared in journals such as Political Research Quarterly and European Journal of Political Research. Previous Next

< Back A multi-level cluster analysis of young scholars' studies in deliberative democracy Francesco Veri, University of Canberra Tue 28 July 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Mutz, in 2008, criticized deliberative democracy for being an unfalsifiable theory. However since then, the theory has evolved into a systemic dimension, and a new generation of scholars has emerged. This presentation analyses the issue of theory falsifiability in young scholars' research through a holistic cluster analysis. First, I classified the type of researcher into a specific framework in order to provide qualitative and descriptive accounts of scholars’ methodologies. This allowed me to perform a two-step cluster analysis and identify patterns across cases associated with theory falsifiability. Finally, through coincidence analysis (CNA), I examined deliberative democracy in light of the systemic turn. As shown by the results, deliberative democracy needs a sophisticated analytical approach to individuate the site, define concepts and individuate causal relationships between such concepts. About the speaker Francesco Veri is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. He is currently working on the Australian Research Council's (ARC) project " A Meta-Study of Democratic Deliberation: Advancing Theory and Practice” led by Simon Niemeyer, Nicole Curato and John Dryzek. Previous Next

< Back Fast track or wrong track: Heuristics in deliberative systems Andreas Schäfer, Humboldt University Tue 26 February 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract This presentation focuses on the role heuristics can and should play within a deliberative system. Heuristics are routinely cast in opposition to deliberative practices. Whereas deliberation aims at the systematic and comprehensive exchange of information and arguments related to a specific, often complex problem, heuristics ignore (parts of) information in order to facilitate fast and frugal decision making. However, scholars have pointed to the advantages of heuristics for citizens and elites alike in making assessments and taking positions within an increasingly complex social environment. Some scholars even argue that heuristics can lead to better results than more complex procedures of decision-making, especially when complete information regarding the problem under consideration is unavailable, too costly, or contested. The question arises, then, of how the potential positive and negative effects of heuristics can be combined with deliberative approaches to political decision making. To empirically illustrate this dilemma, I draw on a research project that investigates communication strategies of political parties in an increasingly dynamic, complex and insecure media environment – one characterized by a plurality of communication platforms as well as a by a new hybridity of old and new media logics. About the speaker Dr. Andreas Schäfer is currently a visiting Professor for Political Sociology and Social Policy at the Department of Social Sciences at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, where he also received his PhD in 2015. His research interests rest at the intersection between political communication and decision-making. He has investigated the role of deliberation in parliamentary decision-making and is now focusing on strategies political parties use for communication in an age of increasing communicative abundance. Related publications include “Deliberation in representative institutions: an analytical framework for a systemic approach” (Australian Journal of Political Science, 2017) and “Zwischen Repräsentation und Diskurs: Zur Rolle von Deliberation im parlamentarischen Entscheidungsprozess” (Springer VS, 2017). Previous Next

< Back Conflict and complexity in a participatory process: Lessons from a wind energy dispute in King Island, Tasmania Rebecca Colvin, Australian National University Tue 20 February 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In 2012, a large-scale wind energy development was proposed for development in King Island, Tasmania. Despite adopting what was described as ‘best practice’ community engagement, the time of the proposal was marred by social conflict between people and groups in King Island. The local dispute escalated to levels where families, friendships, and business relationships were damaged. This presentation outlines findings from a research project that examined how the participatory process went wrong in King Island. This study applied perspectives from social psychology to understand why the proposal caused such significant social conflict, despite the use of a 'best practice' community engagement strategy. Five key drivers of the local conflict were identified: problematic pre-feasibility engagement; the lack of a third-party facilitator of the community consultative committee; holding a vote which polarised the community; the lack of a clear place in the engagement process for local opposition, and; the significance of local context. These findings are instructive for understanding community engagement around wind energy, an improving participatory designs for participatory processes more broadly. About the speaker Dr Bec Colvin is a researcher and knowledge exchange specialist with the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University. Bec’s research interests include how people engage with each other and the challenge of climate change, and how we can intervene in these interrelationships to achieve better outcomes for society and the environment. Before joining the ANU, Bec's research at The University of Queensland explored ways of understanding social conflict about the environment through using the social identity approach from social psychology to interrogate processes of stakeholder and community engagement. This included a focus on conflict about wind energy development and an exploration of the role of framing in shaping attitudes toward land use conflict. Present research interests include the practice and psychology of knowledge exchange and working at the science-policy interface, the human dimension of climate change, framing and communicating climate change, and the links between social psychology and decision-making processes. Previous Next

< Back Stakeholder engagement and deliberation in environmental approvals: A case study of Gladstone, Queensland Claudia Benham, Australian National University Tue 3 June 2014 11:00am – 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract Australia’s natural gas boom has prompted public concern over the industry’s potential to impact on communities and the environment. It has been suggested that public deliberation, in the context of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and approvals processes, can promote more sustainable decision making that incorporates a range of community perspectives. This is particularly important given the international commitments of Australian gas producers to principles of sustainable development. Claudia’s PhD research explores community perceptions of the quality of public deliberation during the environmental approvals process for three Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) plants in Queensland, Australia. In this presentation, she will discuss the preliminary findings of her research with residents in the Gladstone Region. These early findings suggest that opportunities for public participation through public meetings were provided during the LNG approvals processes, but there remains room for improvement in the deliberative quality of these engagements, and in linking the outcomes of public meetings to decision making processes. About the speaker Claudia is a PhD student in the Fenner School of Environment and Society and CSIRO Science into Society Group. Her PhD research examines the social and ecological impacts of natural gas developments, and seeks to identify opportunities for managing these impacts through deliberative forms of governance. Claudia has previously worked for the Australian Government in water policy and marine conservation roles, and she is particularly interested in the application of deliberative approaches to environmental problems with global effects, especially on marine and coastal environments. She has published on water resources management and NRM funding in Australia. Previous Next

Research Assistant < Back Juliana Rocha Research Assistant About Juliana Rocha first joined the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance in 2013 as a research assistant working with Simon Niemeyer on his Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Project, with John Dryzek on his ARC Laureate Fellowship Project, and with Selen Ercan on an ARC Project.

< Back End of Year Report 2024 Center for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance 2024 , University of Canberra Summary Welcome to the 2024 end-of-year report of the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. This year has been especially meaningful for us, as it marked the 10th anniversary of our Centre at the University of Canberra. This milestone provided a valuable opportunity to celebrate our collective achievements, reflect on the past decade, and envision the future of our work in deliberative democracy. Read more Previous Next