Search Results

Our Grant and Prizes Australian Research Council Grants National Grants International Grants Deliberative Democracy in the Public Sphere: Achieving Deliberative Outcomes in Mass Publics Investigator(s): Simon Niemeyer, John Dryzek, Robert Goodin, Andrè Bächtiger, Maija Setålå, Julia Jennstål, Nicole Curato Funded by: Discovery Project (DP120103976) ($340,357) Deliberative Global Governance Investigator(s): John S. Dryzek, Hayley Stevenson, Beibei Tang Funded by: Federation Fellowship (FF0883522) ($1,638,730) Communication Across Difference In A Democracy: Australian Muslims And The Mainstream Investigator(s): Bora Kanra, John Dryzek, Selen A. Ercan, Alessandra Pecci Funded by: Discovery Project ($269,000) Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice And A Changing Earth System Investigator(s): John Dryzek, Jonathan Pickering, Jensen Sass, Ana Tanasoca Funded by: Laureate Fellowship (FL140100154) ($2,616,265) Building Back Better: Participatory Governance In A Post-Haiyan World Investigator(s): Nicole Curato and April Porteria Funded by: Discovery Early Career Research Award (DE150101866) ($324,557) Monitoring Deliberative Integrity in Australia Investigator(s): Nicole Curato, Selen A. Ercan, John Dryzek and Simon Niemeyer Funded by: Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative Global Citizen Deliberation: Analysing a Deliberative Documentary Investigator(s): John S. Dryzek, Simon Niemeyer, Nicole Curato Funded by: Democratic Resilience: The Public Sphere and Extremist Attacks Investigator(s): Selen A. Ercan, Jensen Sass, John Dryzek and Peter Balint Funded by: Funded by Australian Research Council’s (ARC) 2021 Discovery Project Scheme Genome Editing: Formulating an Australian Community Response Investigator(s): John S. Dryzek Funded by: The Theory and Practice of Deliberative Democracy Investigator(s): John Dryzek and Robert Goodin Funded by: Discovery Project (DP0342795) ($223,547) Social Adaptation to Climate Change in the Australian Public Sphere: A comparison of individual and group deliberative responses to scenarios of future climate change Investigator(s): Simon Niemeyer, Will Steffen, Brendan Mackey, Janette Lindesay and Kersty Hobson Funded by: Deliberative democracy and climate change: building the foundations of an adaptive system Investigator(s): Simon Niemeyer Funded by: Future Fellowship (FT110100871) ($629,090) 1 2 1 ... 1 2 ... 2 Deliberative Democracy Toolkit (NSW) Investigator(s): Prof. Selen A Ercan, Prof. Nicole Curato, Dr Hans Asenbaum, Dr Jordan McSwiney, and Dr Lucy Parry Funded by: Premier’s Department, New South Wales Government Building Democratic Resilience: Public Sphere Responses to Extremism Investigator(s): Selen A. Ercan, Jordan McSwiney, John S. Dryzek, and Peter Balint Funded by: NSW Government, Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Program 2022 Medical Research Future Fund Investigator(s): John Dryzek Funded by: Genomic Health Futures Mission Grant (2020-2022) Genome Editing: Formulating an Australian Community Response Moral Disagreements: Philosophical and Practical Implications Investigator(s): Richard Rowland, Selen Ercan, David Killoren, and Lucy J Parry Funded by: Australian Catholic University Who will Bury the Dead? Community Responses in Duterte’s Bloody War on Drugs Investigator(s): Nicole Curato, Jayeel Cornelio and Filomin Candaliza-Gutierrez Funded by: ANU-DFAT Philippines Project Small Research Grant Deliberation in Schools Investigator(s): Pierrick Chalaye and Kei Nishiyama, together with the Centre’s Associate Wendy Russel Funded by: The International Association for Public Participation 1 1 ... 1 ... 1 Research report: Towards a coherent energy transition: expanding renewable energy and reducing inequalities in Australia Investigator(s): Jonathan Pickering and Pierrick Chalaye Funded by: Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development (Formas) Strongmen of Asia: Democratic bosses and how to understand them Investigator(s): Nicole Curato Funded by: The Norwegian Research Council (AU$1.8M via University of Oslo). Humanitarian Technologies: An Ethnographic Assessment of Communication Environments in Disaster Recovery and Humanitarian Intervention Investigator(s): Nicole Curato Funded by: Practicing and Visualising Democratic Disagreements in the Classroom Investigator(s): Kei Nishiyama Funded by: The Uehiro Foundation on Ethics and Education Technologies of Humanitarianism: An Ethnographic Assessment of Communication Environments in Disaster Recovery and Humanitarian Intervention Investigator(s): Mirca Madianou, Nicole Curato, Jonathan Corpus Ong and Jayeel Cornelio Funded by: The Economic and Social Research Council Urgency Grant (UK). The Deliberative Citizen: Who deliberates, when, why and how? Investigator(s): Julia Jennstål and Simon Niemeyer Funded by: Understanding and Evaluating Deliberative Systems Investigator(s): André Bächtiger, Nicole Curato, John Dryzek, Selen A. Ercan, Eda Keremoglu-Waibler, Simon Niemeyer and Kei Nishiyama Funded by: DAAD/German Academic Exchange Service and Universities Australia Beyond Demagogues and Deplorables: Transforming populist rhetoric for participatory futures Investigator(s): Nicole Curato Funded by: Toyota Foundation Research Grant Program 2017 ($20,270) 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: Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development 1 1 ... 1 ... 1

Industry Partners We work with government, international organisations, NGOs, and the creative industry to translate deliberative theory into practice. Democracy R&D Our Centre is proud to be part of Democracy R&D–a global consortium of advocates, scholars, and practitioners of deliberative democracy. Our Centre is represented by Nick Vlahos, Nardine Alnemrand and Nicole Curato in their activities. Connecting to Parliament A collaboration between Centre for Deliberative democracy and Global Governance and the Institute for Democratic Engagement and Accountability.

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 Parkinson Former PhD student View Profile 1 2 1 ... 1 2 ... 2

< Back Melissa Lovell Associate and Former PhD Student About Melissa Lovell is a writer, researcher and political scientist. She has a particular interest in the way that politicians and other political players frame policy problems and possibilities. Her research chiefly focuses on Australian Aboriginal Affairs governance and she is currently employed as a Research Officer at the National Centre for Indigenous Studies (NCIS), Australian National University.

< Back Andre Bachtiger Associate About André Bächtiger's research focuses on deliberation and political communication, and understanding the preconditions and outcomes of high-quality deliberation in the contexts of representative institutions and mini-publics. He is Professor of Political Theory and Empirical Democracy Research at the University of Stuttgart.

< Back Unveiling the mandate Jensen Sass, University of Canberra Tue 3 April 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Elections are justified in light of two competing ends. On the accountability view, elections function retrospectively by enabling voters to 'kick the bastards out'. On the mandate view, elections operate prospectively by enabling voters to register their support for a suite of policies. The dual character of elections presents democrats with a dilemma. As currently designed, electoral processes do not reveal the intentions of the electorate. In consequence, they do not reveal whether voters intended to remove a government, or program a new one. A government elected on a wave of protest can claim a strong mandate and pursue legislation that enjoys little popular support. Voters cannot hold such a government accountable until the next election and, even if they remove the incumbents, this perverse cycle can play out again. Elections can only foster accountability in light of a mandate, and these presuppose the existence of (and knowledge about) stable and well-structured voter intentions. This dilemma is basic to all electoral processes but has received little serious attention from normative political theorists or scholars of institutional design. In this paper we propose a minimal reform of electoral processes to overcome this problem, one that would clarify voter intentions. This would allow us to specify the scope of a government's mandate, as well as enabling elections to function more efficiently as accountability mechanisms. The overarching aim of the paper is to better align our existing political institutions with normative democratic theories and hence defend representative democracy against its recent detractors. About the speaker Jensen Sass is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. His work at the Centre examines the way social norms and cultural meanings shape the character of deliberation within different contexts. In addition to his work on deliberation, Jensen is undertaking a long-term project on the history of the Monsanto Company and its role in the development of agricultural biotechnology. Previous Next

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

Innovating Global Governance We are advocating for meaningful global citizen deliberation on urgent and emerging global issues – from climate change to genome editing. Research Leads John S. Dryzek Distinguished Professor Projects and grants Medical Research Future Fund Investigator(s): John Dryzek Read More Deliberative Global Governance Investigator(s): John S. Dryzek, Hayley Stevenson, Beibei Tang Read More Humanitarian Technologies: An Ethnographic Assessment of Communication Environments in Disaster Recovery and Humanitarian Intervention Investigator(s): Nicole Curato Read More A Metastudy of Public Deliberation: Updating Theory and Practice Investigator(s): Simon Niemeyer, John S. Dryzek, Nicole Curato, Andrè Bächtiger and Mark E. Warren Read More Global Assembly on the Climate and Ecological Crisis Investigator(s): Nicole Curato Read More Micropolitics of Deliberation Investigator(s): John S. Dryzek, Simon Niemeyer, Selen A. Ercan Read More Moral Disagreements: Philosophical and Practical Implications Investigator(s): Richard Rowland, Selen Ercan, David Killoren, and Lucy J Parry Read More Sparking a National Conversation Investigator(s): John Parkinson (Chief Investigator) and Núria Franco-Guillén (Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Griffith University) Read More Participedia Investigator(s): John Dryzek, Selen Ercan and Lucy J. Parry Read More Monitoring Deliberative Integrity in Australia Investigator(s): Nicole Curato, Selen A. Ercan, John Dryzek and Simon Niemeyer Read More Technologies of Humanitarianism: An Ethnographic Assessment of Communication Environments in Disaster Recovery and Humanitarian Intervention Investigator(s): Mirca Madianou, Nicole Curato, Jonathan Corpus Ong and Jayeel Cornelio Read More Key publications Democratizing Global Justice: Deliberating Global Goals Dryzek, J.S. and Tanasoca, A. 2021 , Cambridge University Press Read more The Political Economy of Devolution in Britain from the Postwar Era to Brexit Nick Vlahos 2020 , Palgrave Read more The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy Edited by Andre Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren 2018 , Oxford University Press Read more Impact Story

< Back Hate speech, criminal incitement, and freedom of expression Jeffrey Howard, University College London Tue 9 August 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract One of the most powerful arguments against hate speech is that it is dangerous: it risks inspiring listeners to engage in violence and discrimination against the people the speech smears. Even so, many believe that hate speech should not be banned, since doing so would violate the right to freedom of expression. On this view, banning hate speech disrespect listeners’ autonomy, treating them like children who cannot be trusted to make up their own minds. It compromises democratic deliberation by restricting the marketplace of ideas. And it impinges upon the free development and exercise of citizens’ rational capacities. In this talk I will argue against this popular view, contending that bans on hate speech do not affront our commitment to freedom of speech. My argument begins with an observation: virtually no one thinks that direct incitement to criminal wrongdoing, such as exhorting someone to commit a murder, is protected by the right to freedom of speech. But why not? I argue that this asymmetric treatment of direct criminal incitement, on the one hand, and dangerous hate speech, on the other hand, cannot be sustained. I review a variety of differences between the two forms of dangerous expression, arguing that they are morally insignificant. Once we appreciate the moral concerns that rightly move us to ban criminal incitement—without believing that we violate free speech in doing so—we will see that dangerous hate speech may permissibly be banned, too. About the speaker Jeff Howard is Lecturer in Political Theory and Normative Methods in the School of Public Policy at University College London. Previous Next

New Books on Democracy Play Video Play Video 33:42 Book Drop Series S4E1: Deliberative Democracy for Diabolical Times Play Video Play Video 30:16 Book Launch: Complementary Democracy: The Art of Deliberative Listening, Matt Qvortrup Play Video Play Video 12:31 Book Drop Series S3E3: Deliberative Global Governance Play Video Play Video 06:36 Book Drop Series S3E1: The Legitimacy of Citizen-led Deliberative Democracy Play Video Play Video 13:20 Book Drop Series S3E1: Anthropocene Encounters Play Video Play Video 11:27 Book Drop Series S2E5: Meaning and Action: Play Video Play Video 08:19 Book Drop S1E4: Ethics of Multiple Citizenship Play Video Play Video 10:00 Book Drop S1E6: Global Environmental Politics: Problems, Policy and Practice Play Video Play Video 12:10 Book Drop S1E5: Deliberative Systems in Theory and Practice Play Video Play Video 16:31 Book Drop S1E3: The Politics of the Anthropocene Play Video Play Video 15:41 Book Drop S1E2: Mapping and Measuring Deliberation Play Video Play Video 13:05 Book Drop S1E1: Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy

Building Democratic Resilience We investigate the role of public deliberation in highly polarised and post-crisis contexts, working closely with governments, organisations, and communities to build democratic resilience. Research Leads Jordan McSwiney Postdoctoral Research Fellow Selen A. Ercan Professor and Centre Director Projects and grants Building Democratic Resilience: Public Sphere Responses to Extremism Investigator(s): Selen A. Ercan, Jordan McSwiney, John S. Dryzek, and Peter Balint Read More Building Back Better: Participatory Governance In A Post-Haiyan World Investigator(s): Nicole Curato and April Porteria Read More Strongmen of Asia: Democratic bosses and how to understand them Investigator(s): Nicole Curato Read More Communication Across Difference In A Democracy: Australian Muslims And The Mainstream Investigator(s): Bora Kanra, John Dryzek, Selen A. Ercan, Alessandra Pecci Read More Democratic Resilience: The Public Sphere and Extremist Attacks Investigator(s): Selen A. Ercan, Jensen Sass, John Dryzek and Peter Balint Read More 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 Read More Who will Bury the Dead? Community Responses in Duterte’s Bloody War on Drugs Investigator(s): Nicole Curato, Jayeel Cornelio and Filomin Candaliza-Gutierrez Read More The far-right challenge to democracy Investigator(s): Jordan McSwiney Read More Protests and Political Engagement Investigator(s): Selen A. Ercan, Ricardo F. Mendonca, Umut Ozguc Read More Beyond Demagogues and Deplorables: Transforming populist rhetoric for participatory futures Investigator(s): Nicole Curato Read More Key publications Building Democratic Resilience: Public Sphere Responses to Violent Extremism Selen A. Ercan, Jordan McSwiney, Peter Balint, and John S. Dryzek 2022 , State of NSW, Department of Premier and Cabinet Read more Mending Democracy: Democratic Repair in Disconnected Times Carolyn M. Hendriks, Selen A. Ercan, and John Boswell 2020 , Oxford University Press Read more The Crisis of Democracy and the Science of Deliberation Dryzek, J.S., Bächtiger, A. et al 2019 , Science 363: 1144-46. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw2694 Read more Democracy in a Time of Misery: From Spectacular Tragedies to Deliberative Action Nicole Curato 2019 , Oxford University Press Read more Impact Story Our research on democratic resilience informs policy and practice in New South Wales In 2022, the Centre was commissioned to undertake research for the New South Wales Government. The research report was completed in September 2022 and the launch was hosted by Australian National University’s Herbert and Valmae Freilich Project for the Study of Bigotry. Panel speakers included Pia van de Zandt (Director, Connected Communities, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet), Dr Emily Corner (Senior Lecturer of Criminology, Centre for Social Research and Methods, ANU), and Dr Jordan McSwiney (Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance). Emphasising the value of our report, Pia van de Zandt said, "You and your team brought valuable comparative insights, were very collaborative and cognisant of the report’s audience. Most importantly, your research made some valuable and practical findings, for NSW to consider as it further develops its response to violent extremism. The report will help us to improve our efforts to protect our democracy and enhance the resilience of communities to shocks and threats." Read more

< Back MINI-PUBLICS AND THE LEGITIMACY DILEMMA: BALANCING THE TENSION BETWEEN DELIBERATION AND PARTICIPATION IN DELIBERATIVE THEORY ABSTRACT This paper explores the so-called legitimacy dilemmas as it arises in deliberative theory. The dilemma is that the higher the number of people participating in deliberation, the lower the quality of deliberation is likely to be, but the outcome might be more legitimate. The more restricted deliberation is, the higher its quality, but the outcome might lack legitimacy. Mini-publics have been proposed as one way out of this dilemma, however, there have been recent criticisms that mini-publics are not an adequate solution because they are not suitably representative of ordinary citizens; nor are they accountable to them. Drawing on analogous debates in the procedural justice literature on the difference between descriptive legitimacy and normative legitimacy, and the ways they converge, I offer an alternative way out of the legitimacy dilemma. I suggest that the perception by ordinary voters that mini-publics are legitimate is both a necessary and sufficient condition for normative legitimacy. BIO Sarah Sorial is a Professor of Law at the Macquarie Law School. Her research specialisation is primarily at the intersection of political philosophy and law. She is particularly interested in how philosophical concepts can be utilised to address various and persistent legal dilemmas, including dilemmas about the limits of speech, the importance of democratic deliberation, and the place of rights in liberal democracies. She has published widely on topics to do with free speech, deliberation, responsibility and punishment, in a range of journals including Law and Philosophy, Journal of Applied Philosophy, Criminal Law and Philosophy, Journal of Social Philosophy, Metaphilosophy, Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. Previous Next

< Back Genevieve Johnson Associate About Genevieve Fuji Johnson studies and teaches democratic theory, feminist political thought, interpretive approaches to policy analysis, and a range of current public policy issues. She is a Professor of Political Science at Simon Fraser University, in Burnaby, Canada.

< Back Fast thinking: Implications for democratic politics Gerry Stoker, University of Southampton Tue 20 October 2015 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract A major programme of research on cognition has been built around the idea that human beings are frequently intuitive thinkers and that human intuition is imperfect. The modern marketing of politics and the time-poor position of many citizens suggests that ‘fast’, intuitive, thinking in many contemporary democracies is ubiquitous. This article explores the consequences that such fast thinking might have for the democratic practice of contemporary politics. Using focus groups with a range of demographic profiles, fast thinking about how politics works is stimulated and followed by a more reflective and collectively deliberative form of slow thinking among the same participants. A strong trajectory emerges consistently in all groups in that in fast thinking mode participants are noticeably more negative and dismissive about the workings of politics than when in slow thinking mode. A fast thinking focus among citizens may be good enough to underwrite mainstream political exchange, but at the cost of supporting a general negativity about politics and the way it works. Yet breaking the cycle of fast thinking – as advocated by deliberation theorists – might not be straightforward because of the grip of fast thinking. The fast/slow thinking distinction, if carefully used, offers valuable new insight into political science. This paper is co-authored with Colin Hay and Matthew Barr. Please see here the paper as well. About the speaker Gerry Stoker is Professor of Politics and Governance at the University of Southampton, UK and also Centenary Professor at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra. He was previously professor at both Manchester and Strathclyde. Gerry’s main research interests are in governance, democratic politics, local and regional governance, urban politics, public participation and public service reform. He was the founding chair of the New Local Government Network that was the think-tank of the year in 2004 and his most recent book, Why Politics Matters, won the 2006 political book of the year award from the Political Studies Association of the UK. Gerry has provided advice to various parts of UK government and is also an expert advisor to the Council of Europe on local government and participation issues. More broadly he has, over the past five years, received invitations to speak at conferences on governance issues aimed at practitioners and policymakers as well as academics from the USA, Japan, China, Italy, Korea Norway, Ireland, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Denmark and Australia. In particular, he was a keynote speaker at the United Nation’s 6th Reinventing Government Global Forum, Korea in 2005. In 2004, he won the Political Studies Association Award for ‘making a difference’ in recognition of the impact of his work on governance issues. Previous Next

< Back Li-Chia Lo Associate About Li-Chia Lo has adopted the interpretivist approach to investigate the cross-cultural transformation of political ideas and he is curious about how introducing new ideas can trigger political participation and promote political communication. His broader areas of interest include critical theory, democratic theory, China studies, and Taiwan studies.

< 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 People haven't had enough of experts: Technocratic attitudes among citizens in nine European countries Daniele Caramani, University of Zurich Tue 9 June 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Abstract Democratic theory postulates that technocracy and populism mount a twofold challenge to representative democracy and parties, while also standing at odds with each other in the vision of representation they advocate. Can these relationships be observed empirically at the level of citizen preferences and what does this mean for alternative forms of representation? The talk presents results from an investigation of technocratic attitudes among citizens in nine EU member states. Attitudes follow three dimensions – Expertise, Elitism, Anti-politics Using latent class analysis, empirical data allows to identify groups of citizens that follow a technocratic, populist and party-democratic profiles. Results show that technocratic attitudes are pervasive and can be meaningfully distinguished from populist attitudes, though important overlaps remain. The analysis also points to differences in demographics and political attitudes among citizen profiles that are relevant to political behaviour. This highlights the role that citizens’ increasing demands for expertise play in driving preferences for alternative types of governance in an increasing complex and inter-connected global society. About the speaker Daniele Caramani has joined the University of Zurich in 2014. He grew up in Milan and Paris and studied political science at the University of Geneva where he has also worked as teaching assistant. He holds a Ph.D. from the European University Institute, Florence, where he subsequently has been Vincent Wright Fellow (Robert Schuman Centre). He has been an assistant professor at the University of Florence, has spent four years at the University of Mannheim (MZES) as a researcher, and has been senior lecturer/reader at the University of Birmingham. From 2006 to 2014 he has been a professor at the University of St. Gallen. In 2019 and 2020 he is visiting Fellow at the Australian National University, Canberra. In the past, he has held fellowships at the EUI, Florence, at Nuffield College, Oxford, and at the Rokkan Centre in Bergen. He is the author of Elections in Western Europe since 1815: Electoral Results by Constituencies (Palgrave 2000, with CD-ROM), The Nationalization of Politics (Cambridge University Press 2004) for which he has been awarded UNESCO's "Stein Rokkan Prize for Comparative Research in the Social Sciences", and The Europeanization of Politics (Cambridge University Press 2015). He has authored Introduction to the Comparative Method with Boolean Algebra (Sage, "Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences" 2009), which has been translated into Chinese and Farsi, and edits the textbook Comparative Politics (Oxford University Press 2017, fourth edition, translated into Italian and Croatian). He regularly publishes articles in scientific journals. Daniele Caramani is Co-Director of the Constituency-Level Elections Archive which has received the APSA "Dataset Award" in 2012. He is Director of the Doctoral Programme "Democracy Studies". His research and teaching profile is broadly comparative. It has a strong historical dimension with time series reaching back to the first phases of democratic transition, state building, and industrialization up to the present day. Empirical research is based on comparative and quantitative-statistical methods, and has produced documented datasets and archives which are available to the academic community. It includes work on elections and representation, electoral systems and electoral behaviour, parties and party systems, democratization, state formation and nation-building, methodology, European integration, globalization, regionalism and nationalism, and political geography. His main contribution has been in the field of the theory of the nationalization and Europeanization of politics. Currently, he works on extending that research with a third monograph on the "globalization" of politics. Further projects include work on technocracy, populism, left-right in global perspective and global voting rights. Previous Next

< Back Alexander Geisler Associate About Alexander Geisler's research interests are in the fields of deliberative democracy, political behaviour, the theory and practice of democratic innovations, and social cognition.

< 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 DIGITAL PLATFORMS AND ISSUE POLARISATION: CITIZENS' DEBATES ON ABORTION, RACIAL QUOTAS AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN BRAZIL FROM 2021-2019 The relationship between digital platforms and political polarisation has gained priority attention from scholars in the last two decades. About this event Digital platforms have become the main mediators of public debate: it is where citizens, social movements, activists, journalists, experts and political representatives discuss topics of common interest. The relationship between digital platforms and political polarisation has gained priority attention from scholars in the last two decades, but the empirical evidence is complex and ambiguous: while some research shows, for example, how specific characteristics of digital platforms lead to fragmentation of the public, other research shows that the use of platforms actually helps people to have contact and dialogue with diverse opinions. This is an important topic in Brazil today because in the last decade we began (returned?) to face a specific type of polarisation: one in which divergent groups face an absence of common ground and they see each other as deep-seated enemies. Two events mark this process: the huge protests of June 2013 (where protesters were located in different parts of the political spectrum), and the election of Jair Bolsonaro in 2018 (where we saw the prominence of conservative groups, which were away from the public scene since the Military Dictatorship). Bolsonaro explicitly opposes dialogue between different positions, saying, for example, that "minorities must bow to the majority". In this presentation, I show how abortion, racial quotas and homosexual marriage were discussed by citizens on Facebook from 2012 to 2019. These are typically controversial topics, and they play a leading role in disputes between progressives and conservatives in Brazilian political conflicts over the last decade. Tariq Choucair is a PhD candidate in the Communication Graduation Program at the Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil). Tariq studies reciprocity and polarisation in online debates on controversial issues. He has been a member of the Media and Public Sphere Research Group for 9 years, working with the group on research projects such as “Deliberative System and Social Conflicts” and “The potential of deliberation in divided societies”. Tariq's work is published in Political Studies, Political Research Exchange and E-COMPOS. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next