Search Results

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

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

< Back Reasoning together: Understanding and measuring the deliberativeness of a situation Simon Niemeyer and Francesco Veri, University of Canberra Tue 4 June 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Deliberative democracy concerns the collective process of reasoning undistorted by the exercise of power, but can this be captured empirically? Where most emphasis in the field has been on understanding good deliberative procedure, the focus here is on understanding a reasoned ‘outcome’ in a deliberative sense — beyond the problematic measure of preference change as a proxy for deliberativeness. The presentation considers what it means conceptually for individuals to “reason together” in the absence of pathologies or political manipulation and how this might be revealed in observed positions. A middle-level theory is proposed that models intersubjective reasoning in terms of how underlying issue considerations collectively map onto courses for action (preferences). The nature of the relationship indicates the deliberativeness of a situation. To the extent that a group ‘reasons together’ it is possible to observe a shared rationale, even if there is little actual agreement on preferences. This property is empirically tractable, using intersubjective consistency (IC) which can be applied to both small groups and population surveys to assess consistency of agreement on considerations versus agreement on preferences. The approach is illustrated using fourteen deliberative case studies, as well as wider application comparing climate sceptics to non-sceptics. The mechanics of the methodology, as well as implications for deliberative theory at both micro and deliberative systems levels are discussed. About the speakers Simon Niemeyer is an Associate Professor and co-founder of the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. His research ties together the themes of political behaviour, the public sphere and observations from deliberative minipublics, such as Citizens’ Juries, to develop insights into potential interventions and institutional settings that improve deliberation and governance. Francesco Veri is a Research Associate 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. Francesco is specialized in the field of configurational comparative methods with an emphasis on fuzzy logic applied to social sciences. His methodological research focuses on concept operationalization and strengthening the quality of parameters of fit in set theoretic methods. Francesco is also member of the Lucerne Cluster for Configurational Methods (LUCCS) which regroup scholars who make major contributions to social science methodology at the crossroads between quantitative and qualitative research. Previous Next

< Back Australian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, University of Wollongong Stacy Carter, Annette Braunack-Mayer, Chris Degeling (University of Wollongong) Tue 3 March 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The Australian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values (ACHEEV) is a new venture of the University of Wollongong. ACHEEV’s work includes public engagement, values-based health social science, and deliberative health research: our mission includes bringing deliberative approaches and methods into public health and health services. Our presentations and the discussion will focus on what it means to bring deliberation into health structures, cultures, governance and practices. Australian health professionals, researchers and organisations often recognise the value of consumer involvement or community consultation practices. However deliberation, and engaging with publics, are less familiar. Deliberation is arguably not an easy fit with health systems, which tend towards highly structured, technocratic, top-down decision making, dependence on and respect for (especially medical) professional autonomy, and a strong commitment to certain epistemic values operationalised as ‘evidenced based’ healthcare, medicine and public health. These characteristics can appear to leave little room for authentic and actionable deliberative engagement with relevant publics and their diverse values. We will present several examples of ACHEEV’s deliberative projects to illustrate how we are approaching this challenge. The first set of projects has been designed to inform and nuance a large national research program on overdiagnosis. The second has been informed by an apparently increasing expectation from government that publicly-generated health system data should be shared with private industry for research and development. The third was commissioned to shape the construction of pandemic disease responses in Australia. Each of these examples offers a different set of relationships, a different kind of charge, a somewhat different methodological approach, and a different potential outcome. In discussion we will welcome an opportunity to consider the use of deliberative methods not to refashion democracy in a global or macro sense, but to (modestly) attempt to distribute governance in a domain that matters deeply to many publics, and which is usually left almost entirely to health technocrats, researchers and experts. About the speakers Stacy Carter is the Founding Director of ACHEEV with a background in public health, applied ethics and social science. She is a chief investigator on NHMRC and ARC-funded projects and collaborations including Wiser Healthcare, The Algorithm Will See You Now, and Integrated Futures for the use of Motorised Mobility Devices. She works especially on contentious or contested health issues including overdiagnosis and overtreatment, screening, vaccine refusal, and artificial intelligence in healthcare. Twitter: @stacymcarter. Annette Braunack-Mayer is Head of the School of Health and Society at the University of Wollongong. Her background is in bioethics and public health and she undertakes research, often using deliberative methods, in health services research and public health ethics and policy. Her current funded projects include community views on big data in health and tertiary education, and health and social services for older Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Chris Degeling is Senior Fellow at the Australian Centre for Engagement, Evidence and Values. As a social scientist with a background in veterinary medicine – and expertise in qualitative and deliberative methodologies – Chris’ research focuses on the intersection of public health ethics, public health policy and emerging issues at the human-animal-ecosystem interface. Recent NHMRC and Commonwealth and State government funded projects focus on bringing citizens and service users into deliberation on policy questions surrounding the technological enhancement of communicable disease surveillance systems, pandemic vaccination strategies and the pursuit of TB elimination in Australia. Previous Next

< Back 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 Exploring injustice and the common good in local-scale biosafety deliberations in Costa Rica Sergio Guillen, Australian National University Tue 5 August 2014 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract I present the rationale and methodology for a study of two elements involved in local-level public deliberation about genetically modified crops in Costa Rica. The first of these elements concerns injustice frames, an aspect of issue framing that entails a sense of outrage towards particular institutions or individuals on whom significant blame is laid for the grievances that spark collective action (Gamson, 1992; Johnston & Noakes, 2005). The second element relates to common-good orientation, which constitutes a central normative ideal of deliberative democracy, through which participants search for “a point of commonality to serve as the foundation for legitimate norms” (Chambers, 1996, p. 103). Both of these aspects continue to fuel important debates in the theoretical and empirical study of deliberative democracy. With regard to injustice frames, these are regarded, from a social movement perspective, as essential for driving collective action, which in turn nurtures discursive contestation in the public sphere, something highly valued by critical deliberative democrats (Dryzek, 2000; Rostboll, 2008). However, from a perspective of ideal deliberation, frames are related to aspects of symbolic manipulation that can distort the public will (Niemeyer, 2011) and hinder the type of reciprocal and reflexive exchange desirable in deliberation, by inducing a dismissal or committed opposition to the perspectives of others (Calvert & Warren, forthcoming). As for common good orientation, there has been a strong debate regarding its implications for the role and admissibility of self-interest in deliberation (Mansbridge, et al., 2010; Steiner, 2012). Moreover, a tension exists between both elements, since a greater prevalence of injustice frames can generate greater reluctance to explore a shared understanding of the public good with those blamed for the injustice. I argue that an interpretative approach can help understand how a widespread grassroots movement opposing the cultivation of genetically modified crops in Costa Rica has incorporated injustice frames into its approach to claim spaces in local environmental governance, and how the use of these frames has affected the orientation towards generalizable interests in public deliberations in community organizing settings and in municipal hearings. I present the strengths and limitations of the approach and connect it to a broader research project to explore the effects on deliberative quality of grassroots environmental collective action in Costa Rica. About the speaker Sergio Guillen is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University, and a visiting Ph.D. student at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. Between 2008 and 2013 he worked as Senior Specialist in Social Dialogue at the Foundation for Peace and Democracy (FUNPADEM) and as trans-boundary water governance consultant for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in Costa Rica and Central America. He holds a B.Eng. in Mechanical Engineering from Carleton University (Canada), a Graduate Certificate in Natural Resources and Organization Management from the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor (United States), and an M.A. in Environmental Security and Peace from the UN-affiliated University for Peace (Costa Rica) Previous Next

< Back Inclusion and state capacity in authoritarian regimes Eda Keremoglu-Waibler, University of Stuttgart Tue 4 October 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Authoritarian regimes have gained renewed scholarly attention in recent years. This is due not only to the persisting number of such regimes, but also to the variation in authoritarian performance. While some authoritarian regimes provide high standards of living for their citizens, others fail to deliver basic public goods. Performance, however, is considered to be a crucial factor conducive to regime persistence. Previous research predominantly assesses formal institutions and broad regime types to account for the variation in performance. However, the role of more fine-grained institutions for citizens’ welfare has been largely neglected. This presentation aims to address this gap by arguing that institutions enforcing both the inclusion of societal interests and state capacity are conducive to policy performance. While the inclusion of public interests is advanced by consultative decision-making, its impact on performance is contingent on favourable conditions for policy enforcement. In order to evaluate this proposition, I present preliminary results of a cross-sectional analysis which investigates the joint impact of consultation and bureaucratic strength on infant mortality rates as a key measure of social performance. The findings are supportive of the assumption: The interaction of consultation and bureaucratic strength is systematically linked to higher performance. When state capacity is high, consultative decision-making does matter for the welfare of citizens. About the speaker Ms Eda Keremoglu-Waibler is an associate at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. She holds a MA in Political Science and is a PhD candidate under the supervision of Prof André Bächtiger at the Institute of Social Sciences at the University of Stuttgart. Her PhD research examines the role of inclusionary and deliberative institutions in nondemocratic regimes. Taking a quantitative approach, she particularly focuses on their impact on policy, the provision of public goods and regime stability. In Stuttgart, she lectures on authoritarian regimes as well as (political) cultural studies and public opinion research. Previous Next

Research Intern < Back Nitya Reddy Research Intern About Nitya Reddy examined international best practices in countering violent extremism to inform recommendations for government agencies and civil society organizations involved in countering violent extremism in Australia. She joined the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance in 2022 as a research intern. Nitya is studying a Bachelor’s Degree in Politics and International Relations.

Nicole Curato < Back Beyond Demagogues and Deplorables: Transforming populist rhetoric for participatory futures Investigator(s): Nicole Curato Funded through Toyota Foundation Research Grant Program 2017 ($20,270), the Project Team includes: Nicole Curato, Chief Investigator Bianca Ysabelle Franco, Research Associate Septrin John Calamba, Research Associate Project Description There are many reasons to think of populism as the opposite of reasonable discussion. Populism appeals to base instincts, sacrificing intellectual rigour in favour of quick solutions. Its polarising speech style creates information silos which inflames prejudices instead of promoting understanding. This project challenges the dichotomy between populism and reasonable discussion. It investigates how the rhetoric of populism can be transformed to meaningful political conversations. The vision is to find practical ways in which societies can be hospitable to inclusive, reflective, and other-regarding discussions amidst deep divisions. Attention is focused on the case of the Philippines under the regime of President Rodrigo Duterte, but the lessons can be applied to various contexts where populist rhetoric has gained traction. The strategy is simple. A series of deliberative forums will be convened where citizens can reflect on the character of political talk in the Philippines and propose possibilities for enhancing political discussions today. Findings from this citizen-driven forum will be used to forge conversations with government, media, and other stakeholders. Overall, the project aims to make an evidence-based contribution to the future of participatory communication in populist times.

< Back WAIT, WHAT? DECOLONIZING DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY? “Wait, what?” is a call to take a moment and to seriously consider what we mean by decolonizing deliberative democracy. About this event Deliberative democracy – as a set of norms, practices, and procedures for collective governance -- is an extension of liberalism and liberal democracy. More to the point, deliberative democracy is fundamentally rooted in intertwined logics of possessive individualism, positivism and universal truths, and settler colonialism. If theorists and practitioners of deliberative democracy are serious about decolonizing the field, this normative inheritance must be confronted. Deliberative democracy cannot be decolonized without a sustained and thoughtful interrogation of its ontological, epistemological, and ethical roots that continue to feed it. “Wait, what?” is a call to take a moment and to seriously consider what we mean by decolonizing deliberative democracy and whether this is even possible. Taking this moment is critical in ensuring that efforts to decolonize deliberative democracy do not in fact reinforce colonialism. Genevieve Fuji Johnson is a Yonsei settler of Japanese and Irish ancestry. Although proud of her family’s history of resilience, she is reckoning with their four generations of Indigenous dispossession. It is thus with gratitude and respect that she divides her time between the traditional and unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations and those of the Tla-o-qui-aht Nation. Dr. Johnson is a professor of Political Science at Simon Fraser University. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . 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 Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy Selen A. Ercan, Hans Asenbaum, Nicole Curato, Ricardo F. Mendonca 2022 , Oxford University Press Summary Offers comprehensive coverage of 31 research methods written by a global and diverse line-up of scholars in the field. Covers a selection of both established social science methods and novel methodologies specifically developed to investigate deliberative democracy in practice. Read more Previous Next

< Back Duterte Reader: Critical Essays on Rodrigo Duterte’s Early Presidency. Nicole Curato 2017 , Ithaca: Cornell University Press/Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. Summary Read more Previous Next

< Back Selen A. Ercan Professor and Centre Director About Selen Ercan is a Professor and Director at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. Her work sits at the intersection of normative theory and empirical political research and examines a wide range of topics including the politics of inclusion and exclusion in multicultural societies, the prospects for public deliberation in the face of value conflicts, and the potential of new forms of political participation and protest movements in reviving democracy. Selen’s recent book, Mending Democracy. Democratic Repair in Disconnected Times (2020, Oxford University Press, with Hendriks and Boswell) examines how everyday citizens, community groups, and public administrators respond to the crisis of democracy, and help mend it. Selen has published over 40 articles and book chapters on deliberative democracy, social movements, multiculturalism, and research methods in Social Sciences. Her publications have appeared in various journals including: International Political Science Review, Policy and Politics, Australian Journal of Political Science, Environmental Politics, Social Movement Studies, and Critical Policy Studies. Two of her articles won the best paper prize of the journal, Policy and Politics in 2017 and 2019. Selen holds a BA in Political Science and Public Administration (METU, Turkey), a MA in Political Science and Sociology (University of Heidelberg, Germany), and a PhD in Political Science (Australian National University, Australia). She has held research positions at the University of Mannheim (MZES), Australian National University; as well as visiting research and teaching positions in the Political Science programs of the Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil), Nagoya University (Japan) and Stuttgart University (Germany). Currently, Selen is serving as the co-chair the Participatory Governance Cluster of the global research project Participedia ; the co-convener of the European Consortium for Political Research’s Standing Group, Theoretical Perspectives to Policy Analysis ; and the associate editor of the interdisciplinary journal, Democratic Theory . Key Publications Ercan, S.A., Asenbaum, H., Curato, N. and Mendonça, R.F. (eds.) (2022) Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy (in press) Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hendriks, C., Ercan, S.A. and Boswell, J. (2020) Mending Democracy: Democratic Repair in Disconnected Times. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ercan, S.A, Hendriks, C.M, Dryzek J.S. (2019) Public deliberation in an era of communicative plenty . Policy and Politics , 47(1):19-36. Ercan, S.A. (2017) From polarisation to pluralisation: A deliberative democratic approach to illiberal cultures . International Political Science Review , 38(1):114-27. Ercan, S.A., Hendriks, C. and Boswell, J. (2017) Studying public deliberation after the systemic turn: The crucial role for interpretive research . Policy and Politics 45(2): 195-212. Full list of publications available in GoogleScholar Research grants Chief Investigator, Democratic Resilience. The Public Sphere and Extremist Attacks (2021-2024). Funded by Australian Research Council Discovery Project ($511,000) Chief Investigator, Monitoring Deliberative Integrity in Australia (2021-2024). Funded by the Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative. ($202,156) Partner Investigator, Connecting to Parliament Project (2020-Present). Funded by the Ohio State University Institute for Democratic Engagement and Accountability and the University of Canberra. Partner Investigator, Deliberative Democracy on the Face of Democratic Crisis: Contributions, Dilemmas and Ways Forward (2020-2022). Funded by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development Research Grant ($15,000) Chief Investigator, Realising Democracy Amid Communicative Plenty: A Deliberative Systems Approach (2015-2018). Funded by the Australian Research Council Discovery Project ($369,700) Chief Investigator, Understanding and Evaluating Deliberative Systems (2015-2017). Funded by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and Universities Australia ($24,000) PhD students Jane Alver (Primary Supervisor) Sahana Sehgal (Primary Supervisor) Madeleine Egan (Secondary Supervisor) Anne Nygaard Jedzini (Secondary Supervisor) Dianne Phillips (Secondary Supervisor) Flavia Hanlen (Secondary Supervisor) Friedel Marquardt (Advisor) Jane Phuong (Advisor) Kei Nishiyama (Secondary Supervisor, completed) Samuel Antero (Secondary Supervisor, completed) Thaneshwar Bhusal (Advisor, completed) Catherine Clutton (Secondary Supervisor, completed) Emma Vines (Secondary Supervisor, completed) Cletius Puteho (Primary Supervisor, completed) Teaching Co-convener and Lecturer, Investing and Explaining Society (2020-present) Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra (undergraduate level) Convener and Lecturer, Management Dissertation Unit (2019) Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra (postgraduate level) Convener, Graduate Research Forum (2015-2018) Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra (postgraduate level) Convener and Lecturer, Theory and Practice of Deliberative Democracy (2015) Graduate School of Law, Nagoya University (undergraduate level) Convener and Lecturer, Comparative European Politics (2015) Graduate School of Law, Nagoya University (undergraduate level) Convener and Lecturer, Interpretive Political Research (2014) Department of Political Science, University of Minas Gerais (postgraduate level) Administration (select list) Member of Human Research Ethics Committee, University of Canberra, 2017-Present Member of Equity and Inclusion Working Group, Faculty of Business, Government and Law, University of Canberra, 2021. Member of Research Board Committee, Faculty of Business, Government and Law, University of Canberra, 2018-2020. Member of Management Committee, Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra, 2012-2016. Member of Graduate Research Committee, University of Canberra, 2012-2015. Higher Degree by Research (HDR) Convener, Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra, 2012-2015. Prizes Teaching Excellence Award (team), University of Canberra (2021) Dean’s Research Excellence Award (individual), Faculty of Business, Government and Law, University of Canberra (2020) Ken Young Best Paper Award, awarded by Policy and Politics for the article ‘Public deliberation in an era of communicative plenty’, with Hendriks and Dryzek (2020) Dean’s Research Excellence Award (team), Faculty of Business, Government and Law, University of Canberra, with Curato, Dryzek, Niemeyer and Pickering (2019) Ken Young Best Paper Award awarded by Policy and Politics for the article ‘Studying public deliberation after the systemic turn. The crucial role for interpretive research’, with Hendriks and Boswell (2018) Public Engagement (select list) Parry, L., Asenbaum, H., Ercan, S.A. (2021) Recipes for democratic participation during the pandemic: From anti-lockdown protest to a participatory system. Agora . 15 March. Afsahi, A., Beausoleil, E., Dean R., Gagnon, J-P., Ercan, S.A. (2020) Five lessons for democracy from COVID-19 pandemic: An international evaluation of democracy in crisis. Public Seminar . 29 October. Ercan, S.A. (2019) Reviving democracy: From crisis to innovation. Institute of Development Studies . 18 July. Ransan-Cooper, H., Ercan, S.A., Duus, S. (2018) Getting to the heart of coal seam gas protests- it’s not just the technical risks. The Conversation . 4 December. Ercan, S.A. (2017) Sisters in yarn: The rise and rise of small p politics. BroadAgenda . 16 August. Ercan, S.A. (2014) Dangerous silence: Debating ‘honour killings’ Open Democracy . 1 July.

< Back DELIBERATIVE PEACE REFERENDUMS ABSTRACT Peace referendums, which seek to manage conflict between warring groups, are increasingly common. Yet they remain erratic forces—liable as often to aggravate as to resolve tensions. Ron Levy will speak about his recent book Deliberative Peace Referendums (OUP 2021). Levy and his co-authors Ian O'Flynn and Hoi Kong argue that, despite their risks, referendums can play useful roles amid armed conflict. Drawing on a distinctive combination of the fields of deliberative democracy, constitutional theory and conflict studies, and relying on comparative examples (eg, from Algeria, Colombia, New Caledonia, Northern Ireland, Papua New Guinea, and South Africa), the book shows how peace referendums can fulfil their promise as genuine tools of conflict management. For more on the book see here BIO Associate Professor Dr Ron Levy researches and writes on public law and political theory, especially constitutional law, the law of politics, and deliberative democracy. He is the winner of several research awards including grants from the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Australian Research Council. Levy's books include Deliberative Peace Referendums (Oxford University Press, 2021, with Ian O'Flynn and Hoi Kong); The Law of Deliberative Democracy (Routledge, 2016, with Graeme Orr) and The Cambridge Handbook of Deliberative Constitutionalism (Cambridge University Press, 2018, with Hoi Kong, Graeme Orr and Jeff King eds). His projects include studies of constitutional reform, including prospects for reform via deliberative democracy and referendums in conflict societies. Levy is the General Editor of the Federal Law Review and also leads the International Advisory Panel on Referendums, an international group that provides advice to governments and civil society groups on designing more deliberative referendums. Previous Next

< Back Institutionalising deliberative mini-publics in public decision-making Claudia Chwalisz, OECD Tue 3 December 2019 11:00am-12pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract A forthcoming OECD study of over to 700 deliberative mini-publics raises new questions about their institutionalisation and the future of democracy. While there has been a proliferation of deliberative processes initiated by public authorities for decision-making over the past few decades, these have tended to remain ad hoc and dependent on political will. The remit of most deliberative processes has also been project-specific and there are few examples where citizens are able to set the agenda or define the problem. Their impact on improving citizens’ sense of agency and efficacy and increasing levels of trust, has thus remain limited. Recently, there has been some experimentation underway that aims to overcome some of these challenges, focused on embedding deliberative processes into public decision-making procedures. This seminar will explore two questions around this theme: why institutionalise, and what are the different forms of institutionalisation that are already happening, and that we could envisage? 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.

< Back What prevents or promotes listening? A relational content analysis of reciprocity in online political discussions Katharina Esau, University of Dusseldorf Tue 11 September 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In recent years, governments have created non-conventional opportunities for participation in order to respond to a perceived crisis of democracy. Frequently, online tools are used to include large numbers of participants in deliberation processes. From the perspective of deliberative theories, analyzing, evaluating, and developing these participatory procedures requires the application of normative standards. While conceptualizations of deliberation vary in detail, most authors agree that deliberation is a demanding type of communication characterized by equality, rationality, reciprocity, and respect. Regarding structural equality or equality in terms of access, anyone affected should have the chance to participate regardless gender, ethnic, or social background. In the past, participation procedures repeatedly have fallen short in creating structural equality. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that once citizens find their way to a discursive space and speak, they at least then experience discursive equality in the form of listening. Against this normative background, “being listened to” can be considered one crucial outcome of successful deliberative procedures. However, most studies are focusing on discursive equality in terms of voice. In contrast to this, this presentation focuses on the distribution of listening in online political discussions and on factors that prevent or promote listening. About the speaker Katharina Esau is a PhD candidate in Communication Studies at the University of Düsseldorf and part of the NRW Graduate School for Online Participation and the Düsseldorf Institute for Internet and Democracy. Her research interests include digital democracy, online deliberation, online public sphere, and public opinion formation. Her PhD project deals with online deliberation processes created by state actors on the local and regional level of government. Combining relational content analysis and sequence analysis, she investigates the interrelations between argumentation, narration, expression of emotion, and humour and how these fundamental forms of communication foster or impede reciprocity, reflexivity and empathy in online discussions. The PhD project is supervised by Prof. Christiane Eilders. In Düsseldorf, Katharina lectures on democratic theory, public sphere theory, deliberation research, and deliberative design. Previous Next

< Back Representing the disadvantaged? Conceptions of representation in a citizens' jury in Switzerland Alexander Geisler, University of Geneva Tue 18 February 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Crackenback, NSW Abstract While referendums and initiatives are part and parcel of Swiss direct democracy, democratic innovations based on random selection remain underexplored. One such example are Citizens’ Juries assessing popular votes and informing fellow voters via a summary statement, as in the Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR). Fishkin (2018, 2013) has suggested that citizens bring mostly their own interests to the table in larger types of such deliberative gatherings. Challenging this finding, evidence collected from a Swiss pilot CIR in the municipality of Sion involving twenty randomly selected voters’ points to more complex perceptions of whom panelists perceive to represent. The participants reported that they had also represented disadvantaged groups inside and outside their political jurisdiction when discussing an upcoming popular initiative on affordable housing. This suggests that conceptions of representation on part of the panelists in a minipublic and particularly in the CIR may be more complex than previously assumed. Crucially, panelists taking stances of other groups may affect existing shortcomings of inclusion and representation occurring in minipublics of small size. About the speaker Since November 2018, Alexander worked as a PhD candidate at the University of Geneva in the project “A non-populist theory of direct democracy”, funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation under supervision of Professor Nenad Stojanovic. The project involves conducting two CIR-like mini-public pilots in Switzerland. He earned his Master of Arts in Empirical Political and Social Research (2018) at the University of Stuttgart. After graduation, he worked at the Institute of Social Sciences at the University of Stuttgart as a research and teaching assistant. During this period, he was involved in two projects: creating a database to track participatory processes in the municipalities of South-West Germany and managing an online network of universities that engage in research on civic participation. His research interests are in the fields of deliberative democracy, political behaviour, the theory and practice of democratic innovations, and social cognition. Previous Next

< Back PROSPECTS OF DELIBERATIVE POWER-SHARING IN AUSTRALIAN CITY COUNCILS? A NEW GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK FOR CO-CREATION Despite the increase of empirical studies on institutionalised public deliberation in OECD countries, where Australia is one of the leading countries, institutionalised local co-creation task committees remain unexplored beyond Northern Europe (OECD 2020). The concept of power-sharing in the context of deliberation and co-creation is also relatively understudied. For this research project, I examine the prospects of deliberative power-sharing in city councils in Australia. I explore the concept of deliberative power-sharing by adapting and applying the Danish local co-creation task committee model, the Gentofte Model, to the democratic, political and institutional context of city councils in Australia (Sørensen & Torfing 2019). The Gentofte Model has been identified as a suitable power-sharing framework between democratically elected councillors and citizens to increase public trust, political legitimacy and bipartisanship because citizens impact public policy directly through distributed political decision-making power (De Jong, Neulen and Jansma 2019). My research project will use action research as the methodology. Specifically, a participatory action research approach will be used to co-develop and implement an institutionalised local co-creation task committee in an Australian city council. My lived-experience with deliberative power-sharing in co-creation from a Danish city council will be a part of the participatory action research process of developing new knowledge and transformative change with Australian mayors, councillors, local government CEOs and citizens (Bartels et al. 2020). The outcomes of my research project aim to contribute to the field of deliberative and participatory governance because the Danish local co-creation task committee model offers a new and deliberative approach to power-sharing between councillors and citizens which has not been explored beyond the North European countries. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Previous Next