Search Results

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back Democracy Play Workshop with Mathias Poulsen 21 Oct 2022

Community Partners We ground our work on democracy by engaging with community partners in Canberra and around Australia. Canberra Alliance for Participatory Democracy (Def community) We are collaborating with the Canberra Alliance for Participatory Democracy to explore ways to deepen democratic participation in the ACT. We regularly host brainstorming meetings and learning sessions with our international visitors to facilitate exchange of ideas

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

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back [Event Invitation] Book Launch: Democracy versus Diablo in the USA and Australia 14 June 2024 You are invited to a participatory book launch for André Bächtiger and John S. Dryzek, Deliberative Democracy for Diabolical Times: Confronting Populism, Extremism, Denial, and Authoritarianism. You will hear from one of the book’s authors (John Dryzek) as well as special guests Professor John Gastil from Pennsylvania State University and Associate Professor Caroline Fischer of the News and Media Research Centre at the University of Canberra. You will get an opportunity to discuss their points and deliberate your own ideas about the challenges facing democracy in Australia and the USA, and how best to confront them. There will also be a chance to meet and talk more informally. This book launch will be moderated by Keith Greaves from MosaicLab. About the speakers John Dryzek is Distinguished Professor and former Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow in the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. John Gastil is Distinguished Professor in the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences, Department of Political Science, and School of Public Policy at the Pennsylvania State University. Caroline Fisher is Associate Professor of Communication in the News and Media Research Centre at the University of Canberra and co-author of the annual Digital News Report: Australia. Keith Greaves is the co-founder of MosaicLab, a team of facilitators and engagement practitioners specialising in high influence and deliberative engagement.

< Back (Non)reciprocity across the system: The case of abortion in Brazil Tue 12 November 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm Speaker: Thais Choucair, Federal University of Minas Gerais Venue: The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Reciprocity is often measured in small settings, but how it works when we think of broad discussions in the public sphere? I use the distinction of direct and discursive reciprocity made by Mendonça et al 2014 to investigate the discussion about abortion in Brazil. Although both types can be found in the discussions, they do not work together. The non-interaction of both types of reciprocity brings new insights in the field of listening and polarization studies. About the speaker Thais Choucair is a PhD Student in the Communication Department at The Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil). She works as an Associated Researcher in the Media and Public Sphere Research Group (EME), coordinated by Professor Rousiley Maia. Ms Choucair is engaged in two specific research projects: (i) Deliberative System and Interconnect Media, developed in collaboration with a network of scholars from the field of Political Science, Sociology, Communication and History. In recent years, Ms. Choucair has been working to develop methodologies to approach connections in the deliberative system. In her master's thesis (2017-2018) she presents a method for identifying online pages of social actors involved in a specific issue (the case study was about the abortion case in Brazil). In this research Ms. Choucair applied a content-focused analysis, looking at both the arguments used in the discussion and a framing analysis - a work connected with what has been developed at the EME Research Group in the last decade. Ms Choucair has presented this research in the last IPSA World Congress (2018) and is currently working to publish it. (ii) Deliberative System and Social Conflicts under the coordination of Professor Rousiley Maia in collaboration with Prof. Jürg Steiner. Ms Thais Choucair is currently investigating in her PhD (2018-2022) if (and if so, how) reciprocity has been built on discussions where differences between groups are very marked. She is particularly looking at four discussions involving four different groups (black people, women, LGBT people and deaf people) in the context in which some of these groups have been heavily attacked by political forces against their rights in Brazil. Thais would be happy to engage in meetings, projects, publications, discussions and coffee conversations involving: populism, deliberative system, reciprocity, computer-mediated methodologies, struggles for recognition and social oppression. Previous Next

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back The CDDGG 10-Year Anniversary Seminar Series 31 Jan 2024 In 2024 the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, at the University of Canberra, turns 10 years old. In celebration, we are organising a seminar series that is open to all, addressing 10 of the most pressing questions facing deliberate democracy today. Each month we will host a one-hour hybrid seminar featuring two short talks by world-leading scholars and practitioners, followed by a moderated discussion. Events will be filmed and posted on our YouTube channel for wider dissemination. Please keep checking our upcoming events page for the details and registration of each month’s seminar.

John S. Dryzek, Simon Niemeyer, Nicole Curato < Back Global Citizen Deliberation: Analysing a Deliberative Documentary Investigator(s): John S. Dryzek, Simon Niemeyer, Nicole Curato Funded by Australian Research Council Linkage Project (AU$439,000), the Project Team includes: John S. Dryzek Simon Niemeyer Nicole Curato Global Citizen Deliberation: Analysing a Deliberative Documentary. The project aims to enact and film the world’s first truly global citizens’ deliberation, a global citizens’ assembly (GCA) on genome editing, and proceed to analyse the impact of the ‘deliberative documentary’ film on public understanding of complex, fast-evolving science and technology. It will investigate the cross-cultural capacity of citizens to deliberate complex value-laden issues, and so ascertain prospects for an informed global public response to challenges posed by genome editing. Research will test the effects of the deliberative documentary on viewers, examining benefits of communicating complex issues via the work of the GCA. Other benefits include improving public trust in governance and advancing the Australian film industry.

< Back Deliberative andragogy: The role of education in deliberative democracy Timothy J. Shaffer, Kansas State University Tue 21 July 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract As we think about public discussion shaping political decisions, the role of education plays a part in shaping how people come to think about complex issues and the place of deliberative democratic engagement in public forums, mini-publics, and the like. Today, there is a growing literature exploring deliberative pedagogy—teaching and learning for democratic engagement in formal and non-formal settings such as universities, schools, and community-based settings. While the language does not necessarily denote these distinctions, there is a philosophical difference between pedagogy and andragogy—the education of children and the education of adults—as it influences and shapes the way in which we think about education in democratic practice in multiple settings. This talk will make an argument for why we should think about deliberative andragogy as an impactful way to think about the role of education and why we should consider how this conceptual approach to civic learning offers an important perspective on expertise and lay knowledge in deliberative democracy. About the speaker As an interdisciplinary scholar and practitioner of deliberative democracy, civic education, and group communication, Dr. Timothy J. Shaffer focuses on the advancement of democratic practices by focusing on the role of civic professionals in institutional settings such as higher education, local government, and non-governmental organizations in relationship with diverse communities. Dr. Shaffer is the editor of Deliberative Pedagogy: Teaching and Learning for Democratic Engagement (Michigan State University Press, 2017), Jumping into Civic Life: Stories of Public Work from Extension Professionals (Kettering Foundation Press, 2018), Agri-Culture and Future of Farming: An Interactivity Foundation Discussion Guidebook (Interactivity Foundation, 2018), A Crisis of Civility? Political Discourse and Its Discontents (Routledge, 2019), and Creating Space for Democracy: A Primer on Dialogue and Deliberation in Higher Education (Stylus, 2019). He has published dozens of articles and book chapters in academic publications; presents and engages diverse public audiences through radio, TV, and print; and offers workshops and training to professionals in universities, non-profit organizations, government agencies, and with legislative bodies. Dr. Shaffer currently serves an associate professor in the Department of Communication Studies and as director of the Institute for Civic Discourse and Democracy at Kansas State University. He is also principal research specialist with the National Institute for Civil Discourse at the University of Arizona. Connected to these efforts, Shaffer serves as the associate editor of the Journal of Deliberative Democracy and as a country expert on deliberative democracy in the United States with the Varieties of Democracy project based at the University of Gothenburg. His research centers on the advancement of democratic practices through deliberative politics and civic engagement in higher education and other institutional and community settings. He received his B.A. in Theology and Philosophy from St. Bonaventure University, Master’s in Theology and Master’s in Public Administration from the University of Dayton, and his Ph.D. in Education (Adult and Extension Education, City and Regional Planning, and Community-Based Natural Resource Management) from Cornell 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

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back 2024 Deliberative Democracy Summer School 22 Mar 2024 On 7-9 February, the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance (CDDGG) hosted the 2024 Deliberative Democracy Summer School at the Ann Harding Conference Centre, University of Canberra. Over the course of three days, more than 50 leading academics and talented PhD students from around the world delved into deliberative democracy’s most pressing issues, including global challenges on the climate emergency, pandemics and populism. The event provided a unique opportunity to discuss emerging themes, empirical findings and methodological innovations in deliberative democracy research, on a wide range of topics such as deliberative systems, mini-publics, social movements, transnational deliberation, non-human deliberation to feminist and decolonial deliberation. What metaphor best captures the state and future of Deliberative Democracy? Insights by participants and speakers. Visualised by Arran McKenna. "My experience during the Summer School was fantastic, both intellectually and personally. I was able to develop ideas and thoughts regarding my PhD research project. I also met so many wonderful new people and friends whom I'll be taking with me into the future," PhD student participant Maria Fernanda Diaz Vidal (University of Edinburgh) said. The event was generously supported by the Office of the Deputy Vice Chancellor for Research and Innovation and the Faculty of Business, Government and Law. Watch the summer school video here . Photo by David Beach

< 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

< Back Janette Hartz-Karp Associate About Janette Hartz-Karp, professor, Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute Western Australia (WA) is a renowned practitioner, teacher and researcher in deliberative democracy. Janette was the co-designer and co-facilitator of Australia’s first Citizens’ Parliament in Canberra.

< Back Democratic proceduralism and its limits: From philosophical principles to political institutions Dannica Fleuss, Helmut Schmidt University Hamburg Tue 25 February 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In recent years Western democracies’ legitimacy has been heavily under attack. The decline in public support for democratic institutions manifests particularly in anti-elitism, the rise of populist and post-truth politics. A branch of political science- and public policy-scholars suggested to counteract such developments by strengthening the role of experts in political decision-making (e.g., Brennan 2016, chapter 8; Willke 2007; 2014). Such expertocratic proposals for reforming existing democratic institutions and political practices, however, contradict normative perspectives that consider the equal participation of all affected to be the core requirement of democratic legitimacy. Proceduralist political philosophy proposes a “genuinely democratic” understanding of democratic legitimacy: Proceduralists argue that the equal inclusion of all affected citizens must be the only criterion for legitimacy (Fleuß 2017; see Peter 2008; Estlund 2007; Christiano 2004). This philosophical stance has so far not been translated into institutional design and application-oriented proposals for political practice. To provide a comprehensive conception of proceduralist legitimacy, I aim at “bridging the gap” between proceduralist philosophy and application-oriented discussions of institutional design. I provide a brief overview of the argumentative path that starts out by abstract philosophical debates and, guided by a meta-theoretical framework, ultimately proposes concrete suggestions for institutions. Against this background, the lecture focuses on two claims that are at the heart of the book’s approach: A Critical Theory-inspired conceptualization of proceduralist legitimacy can provide a coherent and appealing normative ideal for contemporary democratic politics (and thereby avoids the major pitfalls of “classic” proceduralist approaches). Radically proceduralist institutional devices must be created, criticized and, potentially, changed by the citizens of democratic societies. To realize this ideal in political reality and to create institutional devices for this purpose, we must (a) adopt a systemic perspective on ‘institutional design’ and (b) create institutions that facilitate the reversibility of decisions and procedural regulations. References Christiano, T. (2004). The Authority of Democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 12(3), 266– 290. Estlund, D. M. (2008). Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Fleuß, D. (2017). Prozeduren, Rechte, Demokratie. Das legitimatorische Potential von Verfahren für politische Systeme. [English Title: “The Normative Legitimacy of Democracies. On the Limits of Proceduralism”]. Dissertation, Heidelberg University. Online: http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/23203/. Peter, F. (2008). Pure Epistemic Proceduralism. Episteme, 5(1), 33–55. Willke, H. (2007). Smart governance: governing the global knowledge society. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus/Chicago University Press. Willke, H. (2014). Demokratie in Zeiten der Konfusion. Berlin: Suhrkamp. About the speaker Dannica Fleuss is a postdoctoral research fellow and lecturer in political theory at Helmut Schmidt University (Hamburg) and a research associate at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. She holds an MA in philosophy and political science and a PhD in political science from Heidelberg University. From 2014 until 2017, Dannica worked as a lecturer at the departments of political science and philosophy at Heidelberg University. In 2018 and 2019, she spent research visits at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance (University of Canberra) and the Centre for the Study of Democracy (University of Westminster). Her research deals with conceptualizations of democratic legitimacy, philosophy of science and deliberative democracy. Dannica’s postdoctoral project aims at developing a measurement of nation states’ democratic quality that is firmly grounded in deliberative democratic theory. Previous Next

John Dryzek, Jonathan Pickering, Jensen Sass, Ana Tanasoca < Back Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice And A Changing Earth System Investigator(s): John Dryzek, Jonathan Pickering, Jensen Sass, Ana Tanasoca Funded through Laureate Fellowship (FL140100154) ($2,616,265), the Project Team includes: John Dryzek, Chief Investigator Jonathan Pickering, Postdoctoral Research Fellow Jensen Sass, Postdoctoral Research Fellow Ana Tanasoca, Postdoctoral Research Fellow Project Description This research extends deliberative democracy to three key areas: global justice, environmental governance in the Anthropocene (where human activities influence the trajectory of the Earth system) and cultural variety. It develops deliberative analysis of global anti-poverty policy, of how environmental governance is configured, and how democracy can be advanced across different cultures and internationally. The knowledge generated will inform worldwide efforts to put deliberative democracy into practice, as well as promotion of global justice, effective environmental governance, and democratisation. The Laureate Fellowship has three sub-projects: (1) Deliberating in the Anthropocene . The Anthropocene is the emerging environmental epoch in which human activity is a major driver of a less stable and more chaotic Earth system, which can be contrasted with the unusual climatic stability of the past 10,000 years of the Holocene (in which human civilization arose). The implications are profound, because dominant institutions such as states and markets developed under unusually benign Holocene conditions. They are not fit for the Anthropocene. To date the response of social scientists has been limited, producing at most calls for strengthened global governance. This project explores a deliberative approach to the Anthropocene embodying ecological reflexivity and recognizing the active influence of the earth system itself. The project is both theoretical and empirical, with applications to issues such as the global governance of climate change, and biological diversity. (2) Deliberative Global Justice . This project develops an encounter between deliberative democracy and global justice, the two most prominent programs in political theory in the past decade and more, both now wrestling with problems that intersect in interesting ways as they encounter a recalcitrant global order. The two topics have become estranged in political theory, where democracy is treated as a matter of procedure, and justice a matter of substantive outcomes that cannot be guaranteed by any procedure. At the same time there is a widely-shared feeling among theorists that the two really do belong together. Amartya Sen argues that global justice requires democracy because in any real setting, multiple conceptions of justice can apply, and public reason will be needed to sort them out. Deliberative democracy can speak to this need. More importantly, without something like deliberative democracy, the standing of the agents necessary to put justice into practice is problematic, and the conditions of their interaction impoverished. This project combines political theory and an application to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development embodying the Sustainable Development Goals. (3) Deliberative Cultures . Deliberative democracy is often viewed as being most at home in the constitutional settings of Western liberal democracies, and when applied elsewhere (to the global political system or non-Western societies) this association often forms a baseline against which other practices are measured. Yet if deliberative democracy is to apply to global contexts – such as that defining global justice and the Anthropocene (see other projects) – it is going to involve people from many cultures, with different presuppositions about appropriate political communication. While deliberation manifests a universal human competence to reason collectively (and as such is more universal than, for example, voting), its character varies considerably across time and place. A fuller understanding of political deliberation requires studying diverse social and political contexts. Such studies promise new insight into the various forms deliberative practice can take and the conditions under which it can flourish. The research begins this line of inquiry by establishing an innovative encounter between an intersubjective account of culture and deliberative theory. This encounter will proceed initially through examination of studies in cultural sociology and anthropology that speak to deliberative concerns, before moving to empirical research. All this can be deployed in response to critics who allege a Eurocentric bias in deliberative democracy. Project Outputs (selected) John S. Dryzek and Jonathan Pickering, The Politics of the Anthropocene . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. André Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren, eds, The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ana Tansoca, The Ethics of Multiple Citizenship . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. Jensen Sass, “The Cryptonormative Swamp”, American Sociologist 49 (2018): 448-55. John S. Dryzek, “The Forum, the System, and the Polity: Three Varieties of Democratic Theory”, Political Theory 2017 . John S. Dryzek and Jonathan Pickering, “Deliberation as a Catalyst for Reflexive Environmental Governance”, Ecological Economics 131 (2017): 353-60. John S. Dryzek, “Can there be a Human Right to an Essentially Contested Concept? The Case of Democracy”, Journal of Politics 78 (2) (2016): 357-67. John S. Dryzek, “Institutions for the Anthropocene: Governance in a Changing Earth System”, British Journal of Political Science 46 (4) (2016): 937-56. John S. Dryzek, “Democratic Agents of Justice”, Journal of Political Philosophy 23 (4) (2015): 361-84. Jonathan Pickering, Frank Jotzo, and Peter J. Wood, “Splitting the Difference: Can the Global Climate Financing Effort be Shared Fairly if International Coordination Remains Limited?” Global Environmental Politics , forthcoming. Jonathan Pickering, “What Drives National Support for Multilateral Climate Finance? International and Domestic Influences on Australia’s Shifting Stance”, International Environmental Agreements 17 (1) 2017: 107-125. Ana Tanasoca, “Citizenship for Sale?: Neomedieval not just Neoliberal”, European Journal of Sociology 57 (1): 169-95. Jensen Sass, “Deliberative Ideals Across Diverse Cultures”, in Andre Bachtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren, eds, The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mark Bevir and Quinlan Bowman, “Qualitative Assessment of Deliberation”, in Andre Bachtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren, eds, The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy . Oxford: OUP. Public Engagement Podcast: Real Democracy Now! Bonus episodes on Deliberation, Culture, Context. Listen here . Public event: Reshaping Planetary Politics: Governance and Activism in the Anthropocene. Watch here .

The Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance (CDDGG) is the world-leading centre for scholarly and applied research in deliberative governance. Our fields of expertise are diverse, but we advance a common research agenda that examines how deliberation – inclusive, reasonable, and reflective communication – can empower people to shape political decisions that affect their lives. Research Repository of Centre for Deliberative Democracy Research Deepening citizen engagement We are developing innovative ways of connecting the voices of ordinary citizens to political decision-making through participatory and deliberative approaches to citizen engagement. View more Building democratic resilience We investigate the role of public deliberation in highly polarised and post-crisis contexts, working closely with governments, organisations, and communities to build democratic resilience. View more Advancing theory and methods We provide intellectual leadership in advancing theoretical debates and methodological innovations in deliberative democracy. View more Innovating global governance We are advocating for meaningful global citizen deliberation on urgent and emerging global issues – from climate change to genome editing. View more Democratising environmental governance We are rethinking how human institutions, practices, and principles can develop a productive relationship with the Earth system. View more Our Research Our Working Paper Series Makes preliminary findings of research on deliberative democracy publicly available in advance of publication in journals and books. View More Our researchers Our Digital Content Digital Content We have a growing offering of videos and podcasts to celebrate the work of our colleagues around the world in areas that speak to our Centre’s research. New books on Democracy Our New Books on Democracy series features interviews with leading scholars about their published works. Read More The CDDGG 10th Anniversary Series In celebration of the Centre's 10th anniversary at the University of Canberra, we are organising a seminar series that is open to all, addressing 10 of the most pressing questions facing deliberate democracy today. Read More Seminar Series The Centre holds weekly seminars on important topics with leading scholars from Australia and around the world. Read More Our Archives Archives Seminars Projects Publications News Contact Us Centre for Deliberative Democracy Ann Harding Conference Centre (Building 24) University Drive South, University of Canberra, ACT 2617, Australia Email Address: delibdem@canberra.edu.au

< Back Deliberation in an age of (un)civil resistance William Smith, The Chinese University of Hong Kong Tue 15 September 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Richard Spencer, an influential ‘Alt-Right’ provocateur, was punched in the face while giving an interview on the day of Donald Trump’s inauguration as United States president. The assailant was affiliated with ‘Antifa’, an activist network committed to combatting the rise of far-right movements through confrontational and often violent means. Antifa are emblematic of a wave of movements whose tactics and conduct cannot be subsumed under the traditional category of nonviolent civil disobedience. There has, concurrently, been a surge of interest among political philosophers on the idea of ‘uncivil disobedience’, with a range of theorists converging on the view that there is often no compelling rationale for limiting dissent to the nonviolent repertoire associated with civil disobedience. This paper takes these political and theoretical developments as a catalyst for reconsidering deliberative democratic approaches to activism and protest. It argues that the tendency to frame protest through the catch-all category of ‘non-deliberative’ behavior elides the important distinction between civil and uncivil disobedience, treating as analogous forms of conduct that are quite different in terms of their potential consequences and their ethical complexion. The paper focuses in particular on the difficult case of violence, exploring the normative scope for deliberative theorists to treat it as a potentially legitimate mode of uncivil resistance. About the speaker William Smith is Associate Professor in Government and Public Administration at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He works in the field of contemporary political theory, with a particular focus on civil disobedience, deliberative democracy and international political thought. He is author of Civil Disobedience and Deliberative Democracy (Routledge 2013) and has published in a wide range of international journals, including Ethics & International Affairs, The Journal of Political Philosophy, and Political Studies. Previous Next

Current Staff Mohammad Abdul-Hwas Research Assistant View Profile Wendy Conway-Lamb PhD Candidate View Profile Emily Foley Postdoctoral Research Fellow View Profile Amy McGregor-Dainton PhD Candidate View Profile Lucy J. Parry Senior Research Associate View Profile Sahana Sehgal PhD Candidate View Profile Dakila Yee PhD Student View Profile Hali Aprimadya Visiting Fellow View Profile John S. Dryzek Distinguished Professor View Profile Harshith Ghanta Research Assistant View Profile Jordan McSwiney Postdoctoral Research Fellow View Profile Jonathan Pickering Associate Professor View Profile Temple Uwalaka Postdoctoral Research Fellow View Profile Hans Asenbaum Senior Research Fellow View Profile Madeleine Egan PhD Candidate View Profile Anne Nygaard Jedzini PhD Candidate View Profile Olivia Mendoza PhD Candidate View Profile Ferdinand Sanchez Research Assistant View Profile Adele Webb Research Fellow View Profile Elise Clark Honours Student View Profile Selen A. Ercan Professor and Centre Director View Profile Friedel Marquardt Research Assistant View Profile Simon Niemeyer Professor View Profile Emanuela Savini Practice Lead & Lecturer View Profile Micaela Wolf Honours Student View Profile

John S. Dryzek, Simon Niemeyer, Selen A. Ercan < Back Micropolitics of Deliberation Investigator(s): John S. Dryzek, Simon Niemeyer, Selen A. Ercan Funded through Discovery Project (DP0558573) ($365,000), the Project Team includes: John Dryzek, Chief Investigator Simon Niemeyer, Chief Investigator Selen A. Ercan, Research Assistant Project Description This project explores the nature of democratic deliberation with a view to improving theories of democracy and prospects for institutionalising the benefits ascribed to deliberative democracy. It aims to systematically address fundamental questions about what it means to deliberate using empirical investigation of actual deliberative process. The methods employed have been trialled with promising results and accepted as being consistent with normative deliberative theory. These involve both formal hypothesis testing and qualitative exploration of results to reveal insights about the process of deliberation. The findings will be used to re-examine theory and formulate recommendations for the instutionalisation of deliberative democracy in both Australian and international contexts.

Seminar Series Join us in a conversation between leading researchers and practitioners working to strengthen democracy in Australia and beyond.  Each session will feature a conversation and exchange between academic insights and practical experience, exploring innovative ideas, strategies, and solutions for addressing the challenges facing democracies today. The series aims to showcase the latest research insights and inspire practical approaches to strengthening democracy. Hosted by the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, this monthly hybrid seminar series is designed for both professionals and academics working in the fields of democracy and citizen engagement. Participants will gain a deeper understanding of how research can enhance democratic practice and vice versa, while exploring current challenges that could benefit from further academic inquiry. All seminars will be recorded and made available on Centre’s YouTube Channel. To receive seminar updates, please join our mailing list by emailing us at delibdem@canberra.edu.au Our upcoming session: Next in the series Missed a session? Below, you can watch our recorded seminars, including those hosted and co-hosted by the Centre since April 2020. To access past seminars, please visit our archives . If you have any questions about the seminar series, please contact our Seminar Coordinator, Ferdinand Sanchez II at ferdinand.sanchez@canberra.edu.au . Recorded Seminars Play Video Play Video Enhancing democracy through creative practices Play Video Play Video Democratic Innovation or Expensive Boondoggle? The value of mini-publics in theory and practice Play Video Play Video Transforming Public Input into Policy Impact Play Video Play Video Expanding the demos: how do non-humans have political agency? Play Video Play Video Dear ChatGPT, what is Democracy? Play Video Play Video In democratic practice, does research matter? Play Video Play Video Tackling mis- and disinformation in democracy: A research-practice exchange Play Video Play Video How deliberative is Australian democracy? Play Video Play Video What can deliberative democracy learn from social movements? Play Video Play Video How can we build a global deliberative democracy? Play Video Play Video How can deliberative democracy challenge macho populism? Play Video Play Video How should deliberative democracy respond to extremism? Play Video Play Video Are everyday citizens competent deliberators? Play Video Play Video Does deliberative democracy stand a chance in neoliberal times? Play Video Play Video Are mini-publics enough to promote deliberative democracy? Load More Participedia Seminars PAST SEMINARS Past Seminars

< Back Sahana Sehgal PhD Candidate About Sahana is a PhD candidate at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. Her research focuses on multiculturalism and cultural diversity. She is interested in investigating the lack of intercultural engagement amongst migrant communities in Australia. Before moving to Australia, Sahana completed her Bachelor of Mass Media (Journalism) from the University of Mumbai. Sahana worked in the social impact and community services sector in India. As a Teach for India Fellow (2013- 2015) and briefly as a Program Coordinator for the iTeach Fellowship (2015-2016), Sahana worked towards improving achievement outcomes for public school students and teaching graduates. Following which, she worked as a Milaap Fellow (2016), exploring microfinance and skill development in rural Tamil Nadu, India. Sahana moved to Australia to complete her Master of International Relations (2017- 2018) from the Australian National University (ANU). Sahana briefly worked as a Sessional Academic for the Indian Security and Foreign Policy course, taught at the ANU. She is employed at the Canberra Multicultural Service (FM 91.1) and works in collaboration with ethnic language broadcasters and coordinators; actively seeking, developing and maintaining partnerships with external stakeholders; and managing grants, and community engagement initiatives and media projects. Dissertation Sahana's PhD dissertation is provisionally entitled ‘ Barriers and Enablers of Intercultural Engagement in Australia: The Case of Indian Diaspora in Canberra’. It seeks to improve the policy and practice of multiculturalism in Australia by identifying pathways to deepen intercultural engagement amongst migrant communities. Australian multiculturalism, while a successful project and policy framework since the 1970s, does not emphasise intercultural engagement in its practice and thus fails to promote interaction at a micro, community level. Advancing intercultural engagement is a key for the future of multiculturalism in Australia. Only by making multiculturalism more interactive, Australia can respond to the emerging ‘super-diversity’ in this country. This research seeks to understand the enablers and barriers of intercultural engagement through an in-depth study of the Indian diaspora in Canberra as a case study. While the Indian diaspora is only one ethnic community among many others, it is a suitable case for exploring the questions this research seeks to respond to. The project will offer new insights on how different actors perceive and practice intercultural engagement focusing on three different yet interconnected levels of analysis within the public domain- the public, civic actors, and government agencies. It will involve interviews with key actors, focus groups with the members of the Indian diaspora and document analysis of policy documents with respect to multiculturalism and intercultural engagement. Conference Presentations ‘Negotiating Multiculturalism: The Linear and the Lateral.’ 3rd Advancing Community Cohesion Conference, 12 February 2020. Western Sydney University, Australia ‘Negotiating Multiculturalism: The Linear and the Lateral.’ Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia (FECCA) Conference, October 2019. PhD supervisors Selen Ercan (Primary supervisor) Caroline Ng Tseung Wong Tak Wan (Secondary supervisor) Kim Rubenstein (Advisor) Administration Co-convener, Seminar Series of the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, 2022-present Scholarships and Prizes University of Canberra and Canberra Multicultural Service Co-Funded Stipend Scholarship, 2021-2025.