Search Results
391 results found with an empty search
- Creating And Analysing A Citizens' Parliament: Exploring The Public's Deliberative Capacity
John Dryzek, Lyn Carson, Simon Niemeyer, Janette Hartz-Karp, Ian Marsh, Luca Belgiorno-Nettis, Luisa Batalha, Nicole Curato < Back Creating And Analysing A Citizens' Parliament: Exploring The Public's Deliberative Capacity Investigator(s): John Dryzek, Lyn Carson, Simon Niemeyer, Janette Hartz-Karp, Ian Marsh, Luca Belgiorno-Nettis, Luisa Batalha, Nicole Curato Funded through Linkage Project (LP0882714) ($291,575), the Project Team includes: John Dryzek, Chief Investigator Lyn Carson, Chief Investigator Simon Niemeyer, Chief Investigator Janette Hartz-Karp, Chief Investigator Ian Marsh, Chief Investigator Luca Belgiorno-Nettis, Partner Investigator Luisa Batalha, Postdoctoral Research Fellow Nicole Curato, Postdoctoral Research Fellow Project Webpage http://www.citizensparliament.org.au/ Project Description The pioneering Australian Citizens’ Parliament was held in February 2009 in Old Parliament House, Canberra. The participants were 150 ordinary Australians, selected by stratified random sampling, one from each federal electoral district. They deliberated the question ‘How can Australia’s political system be strengthened to serve us better?’ The project generated a mountain of quantitative and qualitative data which is now being analysed. You can find out more by viewing the informational video of the process.
- Participedia
John Dryzek, Selen Ercan and Lucy J. Parry < Back Participedia Investigator(s): John Dryzek, Selen Ercan and Lucy J. Parry Funded through the Social Science and Humanities Research Council, the Project Team includes: John Dryzek Selen Ercan Lucy J. Parry. Project Description In recent years, there has been a rapid development of participatory and democratic innovations around the world, with new channels of citizen engagement in politics often falling outside the realm of electoral representation and legislature. Participedia is an online, user-generated collaborative project documenting this growing compendium of participatory politics. It aims to map innovative processes as they develop in almost every country, and provide researchers and practitioners with accessible information, tools and good practice. The Australian contingent of this project builds on the existing Australian catalogue and will provide robust, systematic and practical information on the variety of democratic innovations from all over Australia. The project aims to 1) comprehensively catalogue current and past participatory Australian political processes and 2) explore emergent themes and lessons from Australian cases 3) develop a future research agenda for learning across cases to provide systematic and practical advice for researchers and practitioners worldwide. These objectives feed into Participedia’s primary aims of mapping democratic innovations, explaining and assessing their contribution to democracy and most importantly, transferring this knowledge back into practice.
- Fast track or wrong track: Heuristics in deliberative systems
< 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
- Humanitarian Technologies: An Ethnographic Assessment of Communication Environments in Disaster Recovery and Humanitarian Intervention
Nicole Curato < Back Humanitarian Technologies: An Ethnographic Assessment of Communication Environments in Disaster Recovery and Humanitarian Intervention Investigator(s): Nicole Curato Project Description The Humanitarian Technologies project examined the assumptions behind technology present in humanitarian policies. Based on extensive ethnographic fieldwork in Tacloban, Philippines in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan, Nicole Curato, together with her co-investigators found that technology can facilitate voice only as far as other factors, such as social capital and strong civil society are present. This project is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (UK) and administered via Goldsmiths University. See: https://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/research/humanitarian-technologies-project/
- Democratic Resilience: The Public Sphere and Extremist Attacks
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.
- Judging technical claims in democratic deliberation: A rhetorical analysis of two Citizens' Initiative Review panels in Oregon
< Back Judging technical claims in democratic deliberation: A rhetorical analysis of two Citizens' Initiative Review panels in Oregon John Rountree, University of Houston-Downtown Tue 5 May 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Average citizens face difficulty evaluating competing expert claims in the public sphere, and the complexity of policy issues threatens citizens’ autonomy in democratic governance. This study examines how participants in a rigorous deliberative setting judge technical claims. It analyzes audio and transcripts from two intensive mini-public deliberations in the Citizens’ Initiative Review in Oregon. It shows how lay participants in these meetings rhetorically co-construct a standard of verifiability to evaluate expert claims. The study then reflects on what this emergent standard of judgment reveals about the potentials and pitfalls of lay deliberation concerning technical policy issues. About the speaker John Rountree ( rountreej@uhd.edu ) is an Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Houston-Downtown. He studies democratic deliberation, particularly as it brings together citizens and public officials in the public sphere. His dissertation looks at congressional town hall meetings and the opportunities for deliberative participation in national political life. John received his Ph.D. in Communication from Pennsylvania State University in 2019. Previous Next
- Rhetorics of expertise and local knowledge in citizens' juries on wind farm development
< 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
- Filipe Motta
< Back Filipe Motta Associate About Filipe Motta is Brazilian journalist and researcher. His research looks at the constraints to public debate about mining activities in Minas Gerais State, Brazil, with a broad deliberative systems perspective, examining ways in which the dichotomy between conflict and deliberative democracy can be overcome in the context of an environmental conflict.
- Lyn Carson
< Back Lyn Carson Associate About Lyn Carson has taught and researched in the field of deliberative democracy, asking how the wider public can help to resolve policy challenges. She was involved in convening Australia's first Consensus Conference, the first Deliberative Polls, the first Australian Citizens' Parliament, and numerous Citizens' Juries and Community Summits.
- Amy McGregor-Dainton
< Back Amy McGregor-Dainton PhD Candidate About Amy McGregor-Dainton is a Ph.D Candidate at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. Amy has worked as a journalist in regional Victoria, a public servant at councils in Australia and the UK, and a policy adviser for the Labor Party in the Australian Capital Territory. It was through these roles that Amy became interested in why citizens are dissatisfied and distrustful of government and how they communicate those feelings of disaffection. Dissertation With growing evidence of democratic backsliding around the world, including in countries with long-established democratic traditions and institutions, Amy’s research is focused on how low levels of political disaffection and communication of political disaffection in the public sphere might be a risk to democracy in Australia. Amy’s Ph.D research is focused on the implicit expectations citizens have of government in Australia and how those expectations are used to evaluate government performance. Further, this project seeks to understand how communication among citizens, as well as from citizens to government actors, about unmet expectations might be influencing narratives about the quality of democracy in Australia. This project involves interviewing politicians and public servants across three levels of government (local, state and federal) in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland, as well as a large sample of citizens and a range of contributors to the public debate about government. Data from these interviews will then be analysed thematically. PhD Supervisors Adele Webb Jordan McSwiney Professional memberships Amy is a member of the Australian Political Studies Association and the Australia Aotearoa New Zealand Communication Association.
- Great Barrier Reef Futures Citizens’ Jury
Claudia Benham, Simon Niemeyer and Hannah Barrowman < Back Great Barrier Reef Futures Citizens’ Jury Investigator(s): Claudia Benham, Simon Niemeyer and Hannah Barrowman Funded through James Cook University, the Project Team includes: Claudia Benham Simon Niemeyer Hannah Barrowman Project Description Simon Niemeyer and Hannah Barrowman are collaborating with Claudia Benham (James Cook University) in a project trialling deliberative engagement on the future of the Great Barrier Reef. The three-day Citizens’ Jury examines issues of reef management and regional economic development in the context of climate change.
- Distinguished Professor John Dryzek has been elected to The British Academy
Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back Distinguished Professor John Dryzek has been elected to The British Academy 23 July 2023 Congratulations to our own Distinguished Professor John Dryzek, who has been elected to the British Academy, an honour given to scholars who have attained distinction in the social sciences and humanities. John has considerable international standing as a scholar in the areas of political science, democratic theory and practice at all levels from the local to the global, political philosophy, environmental politics and climate governance. John is already a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia. Election to the British Academy underlines John’s influence and impact beyond Australia.
- Multilingual parties and the ethics of partisanship
< Back Multilingual parties and the ethics of partisanship Matteo Bonotti, Monash University Tue 20 November 2018 The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract This paper argues that multilingual political parties, i.e. parties that exist and operate across linguistic boundaries by using different languages, are normatively superior to those that use a lingua franca at realizing some of the key goals of partisanship. These involve promoting the common good; educating party members and citizens in general; fostering an attitude to toleration and compromise; and offering a linkage between citizens and government. The paper has important implications for debates on the role of linguistic diversity in democratic theory and practice, and on the challenges of multilingualism in polities such as the European Union. About the speaker Matteo Bonotti is a Lecturer in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Monash University, having previous taught at Cardiff University, Queen’s University Belfast, and the University of Edinburgh. His work has appeared or is forthcoming in such journals as the American Political Science Review, The Journal of Politics, the Journal of Applied Philosophy, the European Journal of Political Theory, Philosophy & Social Criticism, the Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, the Journal of Social Philosophy, the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, and Res Publica. His monograph Partisanship and Political Liberalism in Diverse Societies was published by Oxford University Press in 2017. Matteo's research interests are diverse but unified by a common underlying theme: ethical pluralism and cultural diversity in contemporary societies, and the question of how the state should respond to them. Matteo is currently writing a monograph (with Anne Barnhill, Johns Hopkins University) on healthy eating policy and liberal political philosophy, which is under contract with Oxford University Press. His general research interests also include linguistic justice, free speech, religion and political theory, and the normative dimensions of partisanship. Previous Next
- Juliana Rocha
Research Assistant < Back Juliana Rocha Research Assistant About Juliana Rocha first joined the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance in 2013 as a research assistant working with Simon Niemeyer on his Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Project, with John Dryzek on his ARC Laureate Fellowship Project, and with Selen Ercan on an ARC Project.
- Medical Research Future Fund
John Dryzek < Back Medical Research Future Fund Investigator(s): John Dryzek Funded through Genomic Health Futures Mission Grant (2020-2022) Genome Editing: Formulating an Australian Community Response (AU$420,000), Project Team includes: John Dryzek Project Description
- The Forum, the System, and the Polity: Three Varieties of Democratic Theory
< Back The Forum, the System, and the Polity: Three Varieties of Democratic Theory John S. Dryzek 2017 , Political Theory 45 (5): 610-36. Summary Read more Previous Next
- Building Democratic Resilience - Report Launch
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)
- Stakeholder engagement and deliberation in environmental approvals: A case study of Gladstone, Queensland
< Back Stakeholder engagement and deliberation in environmental approvals: A case study of Gladstone, Queensland Claudia Benham, Australian National University Tue 3 June 2014 11:00am – 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract Australia’s natural gas boom has prompted public concern over the industry’s potential to impact on communities and the environment. It has been suggested that public deliberation, in the context of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and approvals processes, can promote more sustainable decision making that incorporates a range of community perspectives. This is particularly important given the international commitments of Australian gas producers to principles of sustainable development. Claudia’s PhD research explores community perceptions of the quality of public deliberation during the environmental approvals process for three Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) plants in Queensland, Australia. In this presentation, she will discuss the preliminary findings of her research with residents in the Gladstone Region. These early findings suggest that opportunities for public participation through public meetings were provided during the LNG approvals processes, but there remains room for improvement in the deliberative quality of these engagements, and in linking the outcomes of public meetings to decision making processes. About the speaker Claudia is a PhD student in the Fenner School of Environment and Society and CSIRO Science into Society Group. Her PhD research examines the social and ecological impacts of natural gas developments, and seeks to identify opportunities for managing these impacts through deliberative forms of governance. Claudia has previously worked for the Australian Government in water policy and marine conservation roles, and she is particularly interested in the application of deliberative approaches to environmental problems with global effects, especially on marine and coastal environments. She has published on water resources management and NRM funding in Australia. Previous Next
- Call for Papers: Deliberative Democracy Summer School 2024
Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back Call for Papers: Deliberative Democracy Summer School 2024 18 Apr 2023 APPLY HERE! Please submit the completed form to our research assistant, Hans Asenbaum at hans.asenbaum@canberra.edu.au by 30 June 2023. For questions, please contact the summer school convenor, Hans Asenbaum at hans.asenbaum@canberra.edu.au .
- End of Year Report 2025
< Back End of Year Report 2025 Centre for Deliberative Democracy 2025 , University of Canberra Summary Welcome to the 2025 end-of-year report of the Centre for Deliberative Democracy. This year, the Centre advanced major research, teaching, and public engagement initiatives. The leadership of our Early Career Researchers and strong collaborations strengthened democratic practice and advanced the vision of the Faculty of Business, Government and Law and the University of Canberra. Read more Previous Next















