Search Results

< 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

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

PhD Completions Andrea Felicetti Former PhD Student View Profile Penelope Marshall Former PhD student View Profile Kei Nishiyama Former PhD student View Profile Alex Lo Former PhD Student View Profile Pierrick Chalaye Former PhD student View Profile Katherine Curchin Former PhD student View Profile Michael Rollens Former PhD student View Profile Louise Clery Former PhD student View Profile Jonathan Kuyper Former PhD student View Profile Nardine Alnemr Former PhD student View Profile Melissa Lovell Former PhD student View Profile John Boswell Former PhD student View Profile 1 2 1 ... 1 2 ... 2

< Back The Politics of the Anthropocene John S. Dryzek, Jonathan Pickering 2019 , Oxford University Press Winner of the 2019 Clay Morgan Award Committee for Best Book in Environmental Political Theory Summary The Politics of the Anthropocene is a sophisticated yet accessible treatment of how human institutions, practices, and principles need to be re-thought in response to the challenges of the Anthropocene, the emerging epoch of human-induced instability in the Earth system and its life-support capacities. However, the world remains stuck with practices and modes of thinking that were developed in the Holocene – the epoch of around 12,000 years of unusual stability in the Earth system, toward the end of which modern institutions such as states and capitalist markets arose. These institutions persist despite their potentially catastrophic failure to respond to the challenges of the Anthropocene, foremost among them a rapidly changing climate and accelerating biodiversity loss. Read more Previous Next

< Back Deliberations with American Indian and Alaska native communities about genomics Erika Blacksher, University of Washington / Justin Reedy, University of Oklahoma Tue 4 August 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract With the rapid growth of genetic and genomic research and medical testing in recent years, more attention is being paid to their ethical and societal implications, including citizens’ concerns about potential risks and benefits of these technologies. Indigenous peoples represent a particularly important group where such advances are concerned, due to a long history of exploitation and marginalization by the U.S. federal government and the marked disparities they experience in health services and health outcomes relative to other populations. A consortium of researchers and practitioners in the US, in close partnership with indigenous community partners, has begun to study the concerns and views of American Indian and Alaska Native peoples on genomics through a series of deliberations in three communities in Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Alaska. This presentation will describe the design and implementation of these deliberative forums, as well as the results of the deliberations from a process perspective. In addition, it discusses some of the implications of this work for scholarship and practice in deliberation, both for efforts involving indigenous peoples and for forums focused on genetics and ethical, legal, and societal implications (ELSI). About the speaker Erika Blacksher is an associate professor and director of undergraduates studies in the Department of Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Washington in Seattle. Dr. Blacksher studies the ethical and policy implications of the social determinants of health with focus on ethical questions raised by health inequalities, debates over health responsibility, and the role of participatory and deliberative forms of engagement in advancing health equity. She often works in collaborative community-academic partnerships to design and conduct deliberations that convene minority and marginalized groups to identify their health priorities and policy preferences. Justin Reedy is an associate professor in the Department of Communication and research associate in the Center for Risk & Crisis Management at the University of Oklahoma. He studies political communication and deliberation, group and organizational communication, and the perception of risk. In particular, his research focuses on how groups of people make political and civic decisions in face-to-face and online settings, as well as how people and policy makers can come together to deliberate and make better decisions on public policy issues that involve significant societal and personal risk. Previous Next

< Back Situation normal: Populism from antiquity to the age of trump Paul Kenny, Australian National University Tue 12 February 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Although populism has become a subject of intense interest since Donald Trump’s election victory in late 2016, populism itself – the charismatic mobilization of the masses in pursuit of power – is nothing new. Contrary to the oft-stated view that populism is a novel perversion of democracy, this project shows that it has in fact been democracy’s constant shadow. The liberal democratic era of the latter twentieth century – to which contemporary populism is typically compared – was the historical exception. Populists thrive both where modern bureaucratic parties have yet to exist and where they have begun to decay. Populism has been historically most successful in competitive patrimonial political systems, the kinds that prevailed in most democratic experiences outside of the twentieth century West, from Ancient Greece and Rome to the “third wave” democracies of Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Only where patrimonialism is combined with authoritarian centralism has it proven relatively stable. In the West, in contrast, populism has only resurfaced as the modern bureaucratic political party has gone into decline. As organizations with deep roots in communities, unions, and churches, bureaucratic parties provided a stable link between people and the government. Populists in the West are thriving today because the exceptional socioeconomic foundations on which those parties were built have decomposed. Trump’s election signals a return to normal; a normal of weak, personalistic parties; a normal ruled by democratic volatility. About the speaker Paul Kenny is a Fellow and Head of the Department of Political and Social Change at the Australian National University. He joined the ANU in 2013, having completed his PhD in political science at Yale University. His research focuses on some of the major challenges to contemporary democracy, including populism, identity politics, and corruption. His first book, Populism and Patronage: Why Populists Win Elections in India, Asia, and Beyond (Oxford University Press, 2017) demonstrates a causal link between the disruption of political patronage networks and the electoral success of populist candidates. The book received the American Political Science Association's 2018 Robert A. Dahl Award for research of the highest quality on the subject of democracy. His second book, Populism in Southeast Asia (Cambridge University Press, 2019), examines the political economy of populism in the region. His research on populism, ethnic politics, and corruption has been published in The Journal of Politics, the British Journal of Political Science, and Political Research Quarterly among other outlets. He is currently working on a new book on populism across democratic history. Previous Next

Selen A. Ercan, Jensen Sass, John Dryzek and Peter Balint < Back Democratic Resilience: The Public Sphere and Extremist Attacks Investigator(s): Selen A. Ercan, Jensen Sass, John Dryzek and Peter Balint Funded through a Discovery Project ( DP210102436 ) (AU$511,000), the Project Team includes: Selen A. Ercan Jordan McSwiney Peter Balint John S. Dryzek Partner Investigators: Jensen Sass Andrea Felicetti Emily Beausoleil Ian O’Flynn Project Description The project aims to explain responses to extremist attacks intended to sow division, and why some democracies prove fragile, succumbing to polarisation or exclusion of key groups, while others prove resilient by sustaining integrative, tolerant discourse. The project develops new knowledge through an innovative synthesis of cultural sociology and deliberative democracy to analyse nine cases of responses in the public realm to attacks. Expected outcomes include a new account of the democratic public sphere, and identification of how meaningful, civil communication whose health is vital to democracy, especially in a multicultural society, can be maintained. Benefits include identification of measures to counter extremist political disruption.

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back Building Democratic Resilience - Report Launch 13 Oct 2022 On 13 October, we launched the report Building Democratic Resilience - Public Sphere Responses to Violent Extremism, commissioned by the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet. The launch took place at the ANU, hosted by the F reilich Project for the Study of Bigotry . Panelists included Dr Jordan McSwiney, Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance (CDDGG) at the University of Canberra, Dr Emily Corner, Senior Lecturer of Criminology at the Centre for Social Research and Methods at the Australian National University, and Pia van de Zandt, Director of the Connected Communities team in Department of Premier and Cabinet, NSW. Pictured: Selen A. Ercan (CDDGG), Peter Balint (UNSW), Pia van de Zandt (NSW Government) and Jordan McSwiney (CDDGG)

Past Seminars The Centre holds weekly seminars on important topics in deliberative democracy with leading scholars from Australia and around the world. Tue 7 June 2022 DECOLONIZING DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY Ricardo Mendonca and Hans Asenbaum / 9.00am-10.00am Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 31 May 2022 DECOLONIZING DELIBERATIVE MINI-PUBLICS Azucena Mora and Nicole Curato / 6.00pm - 7.00pm Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 24 May 2022 CENTRE MEETS CENTRE: PARTICIPEDIA AND CDDGG WITH BONNY IBHAWOH Bonny Ibhawoh / 11.00am-12.00pm Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 17 May 2022 WAIT, WHAT? DECOLONIZING DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY? Genevieve Fuji Johnson / 11.00am-12.00pm Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 10 May 2022 NATIVE TITLE AS A DELIBERATIVE SPACE FOR INDIGENOUS SELF-DETERMINATION Justin McCaul / 11.00am-12.00pm Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 3 May 2022 HOW DO SETTLER-COLONIAL INEQUALITIES SHAPE POLITICAL BEHAVIOUR AND COMMUNICATION IN ANGLO-DEMOCRACIES? Edana Beauvais / 9.00am-10.00am Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 26 April 2022 DECOLONIZING DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND POLITICAL CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Professor Bobby Banerjee / 8.00pm-11.00pm Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 22 March 2022 DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND DIGITAL PLATFORMS:JOHN GASTIL IN CONVERSATION WITH NARDINE ALNEMR John Gastil and Nardine Alnemr / 11.00am-12.00pm Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 15 March 2022 CENTRE MEETS CENTRE: MARGEM AT UFMG Ricardo Mendonca and team / 11.00am-12.00pm Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 1 March 2022 DIGITAL PLATFORMS AND ISSUE POLARISATION: CITIZENS' DEBATES ON ABORTION, RACIAL QUOTAS AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN BRAZIL FROM 2021-2019 Tariq Choucair / 11.00am-12.00pm Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More 1 2 3 ... 16 1 ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 16

< Back Democracy inside: Participatory innovation in unlikely places Albert W. Dzur, Bowling Green State University Tue 1 July 2014 11:00am – 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract This talk will present a brief overview of research on democratic professionals across the United States who have created power-sharing arrangements in organizations, institutions, and workplaces that are typically hierarchical and non-participatory. Democratic professionals emphasize talk and deliberation but, crucially, they also foster physical proximity between formerly separated individuals, encourage co-ownership of problems previously seen as beyond lay people’s ability or realm of responsibility, and seek out opportunities for collaborative work. Unconventional activists, they are not promoting change via formal political institutions; instead, they are renovating and reconstructing their domains practice-by-practice and are making new kinds of education, justice, and government as a result. Drawing on a friendly critique of major trends in contemporary democratic theory, this talk will focus on the implications of this research for thinking about democratic change, citizen agency, and institutions as fields of action. About the Speaker Albert W. Dzur is Professor of Political Science and Philosophy at Bowling Green State University. He is the author of 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 articles on democratic theory and citizen participation in journals such as Constellations, Criminal Law and Philosophy, Law and Society Review, Political Theory, and Punishment and Society. Working with the Kettering Foundation on his current book project, Democracy Inside: Participatory Innovation in Unlikely Places, he has interviewed democratic innovators in education, criminal justice, and city government about how they open their institutions to deliberation and participation and sustain such norms and practices amid counter-democratic pressures. Project interviews regularly appear in his “Trench Democracy” series for the Boston Review and “Conversations on Participatory Democracy” for the Good Society journal. 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 Walter Baber Associate About Walter F. Baber is a professor in the Environmental Sciences and Policy Program and the Graduate Center for Public Policy and Administration at California State University, Long Beach. He is also a lead member of the Amsterdam-based Earth System Governance Project and an Affiliated Professor at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law at Lund University.

Ricardo F. Mendonça, Camilo Aggio, Viktor Chagas, Selen Ercan, Viviane Freitas, Filipe Motta, Rayza Sarmento, Francisco Tavares < Back Deliberative democracy in the face of democratic crisis: Contributions, dilemmas and the ways forward Investigator(s): Ricardo F. Mendonça, Camilo Aggio, Viktor Chagas, Selen Ercan, Viviane Freitas, Filipe Motta, Rayza Sarmento, Francisco Tavares Funded by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development ($15,800 via University of Minas Gerais) Project Description The project seeks to specify the challenges contemporary democracies face and advance the ways deliberative perspective can help address these challenges. Selen Ercan teams up once again with our associate Ricardo F. Mendonça to investigate the context of democratic crisis from a perspective of deliberative democracy.

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

< Back DECOLONIZING DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND POLITICAL CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY In this talk Bobby Banerjee provides a decolonial critique of received knowledge about deliberative democracy. About this event In this talk Bobby Banerjee provides a decolonial critique of received knowledge about deliberative democracy. Legacies of colonialism have generally been overlooked in theories of democracy. These omissions challenge several key assumptions of deliberative democracy. Banerjee argues that deliberative democracy does not travel well outside Western sites and its key assumptions begin to unravel in the ‘developing’ regions of the world. The context for a decolonial critique of deliberative democracy is the ongoing violent conflicts over resource extraction in the former colonies of Africa, Asia and Latin America. Banerjee argues that deliberative democracy cannot take into account the needs of marginalized stakeholders who are defending their lands and livelihoods. Consequently political corporate social responsibility and multi-stakeholder initiatives, which reflect deliberative processes at the market-society interface can diminish the welfare of communities impacted by extraction. Several governance challenges arise as a result of these power asymmetries and Banerjee develops a translocal governance framework from the perspective of vulnerable stakeholders that can enable a more progressive approach to societal governance of multinational corporations. Bobby Banerjee is Professor of Management and Associate Dean of Research & Enterprise at Bayes Business School, City University of London. He researches and teaches on corporate social irresponsibility, unsustainability, climate justice and decolonial resistance movements. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

< Back Ian O'Flynn Associate About Ian O'Flynn's main research interest is in exploring the implications of deliberative democracy for questions of social and political integration in multicultural and multinational societies. is Senior Lecturer in Political Theory in the School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University, UK.

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

< Back Rhetorics of expertise and local knowledge in citizens' juries on wind farm development Sara Drury, Wabash College Tue 7 May 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Today’s global political environment increasingly faces issues that spark tensions between expertise and local knowledge. Socio-scientific issues draw attention towards this tension, as they require negotiation across and through multiple modes of evidence. Democratic innovations, such as deliberative citizens’ juries, been proposed as a means of managing these tensions and as a way of creating representative, fairer decision making. But there are questions around participatory processes, the utilization of expertise, and deliberative quality. The 2013-2014 “Citizens’ juries on wind farm development in Scotland” offers an opportunity to examine how different types of evidence impact deliberative quality in participatory public deliberation. Using transcripts from the citizens’ juries on wind farm development, this paper analyzes arguments from expertise and arguments from experiences. Through a critical-interpretative research methodology utilizing theories of argumentation, we demonstrate how arguments relating to scientific evidence prominently functioned as de facto reasoning whereas arguments with economic evidence more prominently interacted with local knowledge, experiences, and engagement. The findings offer implications for deliberative design to improve and promote deliberative quality. About the speaker Sara A. Mehltretter Drury, Ph.D., is Associate Professor and Chair of Rhetoric at Wabash College, a liberal arts college in Indiana, U.S.A. She also serves as Director of Wabash Democracy and Public Discourse, an interdisciplinary initiative that partners with communities to hold dialogue and deliberation events. Drury’s research focuses on the intersections of rhetoric and deliberative democracy, with particular attention to argumentation and political judgment. From 2017-2018, she was a Visiting Research Fellow at the University of Edinburgh’s Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities. Previous Next

< Back PROMOTING DEMOCRACY IN THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE Democratic debate has undergone a structural transformation due to the rise of the Internet, social media and online communities. About this event Democratic debate has undergone a structural transformation due to the rise of the Internet, social media and online communities. Scholars of political communication have sought to diagnose the threat these changes pose, but empirical evidence often makes it unclear exactly what response should be made to concerning practices. In this paper we argue that debates around the regulation of the public sphere can benefit from engaging more directly with democratic theory. Drawing on Jürgen Habermas’s “coffeehouse model,” we establish theoretical markers for desirable practice online and consider the conditions under which these ideals can be advanced. Focusing on the significance of both digital design and user behaviour, we suggest initiatives that can promote favoured democratic ideals, arguing for a more proactive as opposed to reactive response to trends online. Dr Kate Dommett is Senior Lecturer at the University of Sheffield. Her research focuses on digital campaigning, political advertising, data and democracy. Dr Dommett recently served as Special Advisor to the House of Lords Committee on Democracy and Digital Technology. She was awarded the 2020 Richard Rose Prize by the Political Studies Association for an early-career scholar who has made a distinctive contribution to British politics. Her Book, The Reimagined Party was published in 2020. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

< Back Molly Scudder Associate About Molly Scudder specializes in democratic theory, especially practices of citizenship and the conditions of meaningfully democratic deliberation in contexts of deep difference. She is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Purdue University.