Search Results

Simon Niemeyer, John S. Dryzek, Nicole Curato, Andrè Bächtiger and Mark E. Warren < Back A Metastudy of Public Deliberation: Updating Theory and Practice Project Team: Simon Niemeyer, John S. Dryzek, Nicole Curato, Andrè Bächtiger and Mark E. Warren Funded through a Discovery Project (DP180103014) ($526,411), the Project Team includes: · Simon Niemeyer, Chief Investigator · John S. Dryzek, Chief Investigator · Nicole Curato, Chief Investigator · Andrè Bächtiger, Partner Investigator · Marina Lindell, Partner Investigator · Mark E. Warren, Partner Investigator · Hannah Barrowman, Postdoctoral Research Fellow · Francesco Veri, Postdoctoral Research Fellow · Nardine Alnemr, PhD student Project Description The project combines a meta-study and comparative case study to develop a leading edge understanding of political deliberation by analysing and synthesising results from available studies of deliberation. It aims to reconcile conflicting findings and provide the first comprehensive, theoretically-grounded account of defensible claims about political deliberation. The project will compile the source material and findings in a publicly-available database to facilitate standardisation and enhancement of future research in the field. It will seek to settle important questions that remain among deliberative democrats and, more practically, facilitate avenues for democratic reform in an area where the need for renewal is increasingly pressing.

Prof Ricardo F. Mendonça, A/Prof Hans Asenbaum, Prof Selen Ercan < Back The National Institute of Science and Technology in Digital Democracy Project Team: Prof Ricardo F. Mendonça, A/Prof Hans Asenbaum, Prof Selen Ercan The National Institute of Science and Technology in Digital Democracy (INCT.DD) is a Brazil-based research network dedicated to advancing research and practice in digital democracy and governance. The Centre for Deliberative Democracy is an international partner in this six-year initiative, funded from 2025 to 2030. Coordinated by Professor Wilson Gomes and Professor Ricardo F. Mendonça, who is also an Adjunct Professor at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy, the network brings together leading scholars and institutions working on digital democracy. It includes 26 Brazilian research laboratories, 23 international research centres, 20 graduate programs, 51 Brazilian researchers, and 36 international collaborators. Professors Selen Ercan and Hans Asenbaum contribute to this international collaboration through their research on deliberative democracy, democratic innovation, and the role of digital technologies in transforming democracy. INCT.DD undertakes comparative research, maps digital democracy initiatives, and develops evidence to inform the design and implementation of democratic innovations. The network also provides technical and scientific expertise to governments and public institutions, supports the development and evaluation of digital participation tools, and contributes to the design and implementation of digital democracy projects. Its work further includes developing evaluation frameworks aligned with international standards and delivering training for practitioners, public officials, and researchers working in governance and public administration. This collaboration strengthens the Centre's international research partnerships and contributes to comparative scholarship on how digital technologies are reshaping democratic participation and governance. More information about this project can be found here: https://inctdd.org/

Dr Emanuela Savini and Olive Mendoza < Back University Voice Panel for UC’s Social Cohesion Action Plan Project Team: Dr Emanuela Savini and Olive Mendoza The University of Canberra is developing a Social Cohesion Action Plan to strengthen belonging and safety across a community where experiences of identity and connection often differ and sometimes collide. Drawing on their diverse experiences and perspectives, the University Voice Panel will explore this central question: How can the University of Canberra become a place where everyone feels they belong, can express who they are, and connect safely across difference? Through deliberation on this question, panel members will identify actions that address real experiences and practical pathways toward greater connection across our diverse university community. Join the Conversation The Social Cohesion Action Plan is being built from the ground up - starting with you. We are currently at the broad consultation stage, gathering insights from across the entire UC community to inform the University Voice Panel's deliberations. Whether you have five minutes or want to commit to the full panel process, there's a way for you to contribute: Share your experience through our [Survey] – A short questionnaire exploring your experiences of belonging and connection at UC. Respond to the [Discussion Paper] – Engage with key themes and questions in depth through a written submission. Invite us to present at your meeting – We can come to your team, class, or group to facilitate a discussion and gather your collective insights. Email: Emanuela.Savini@canberra.edu.au Host a conversation with your network – Use thi s [Guide] to facilitate your own discussion with colleagues or peers, then share what emerged with us. Your contribution will directly inform the Panel's deliberation. Every perspective strengthens our understanding of what social cohesion means across different parts of university life. Be part of the University Voice Panel and directly influence recommendations! Social cohesion isn't built in isolation - it requires all of us. We're actively seeking students, academic and professional staff, and people who work across campus to join the University Voice Panel. Whether you're a first-year student, a researcher, a facilities team member, or a student services coordinator, you have a role to play in shaping what social cohesion means and looks like at UC. Panel members will meet several times between 18 March and 29 April to deliberate on the recommendations that will directly inform the Social Cohesion Action Plan . Student participants will receive a $200 voucher in recognition of their time and contribution. We need your voice at the table. Apply to join the panel. [Expression of Interest - Join the Panel] Survey and panel registration close 4 March What is the University Voice Panel? The University Voice Panel brings together 35-40 students, academic and professional staff, and partner organisations to develop the actions that will inform the University's Social Cohesion Action Plan. Panel members will meet several times between 18 March and 29 April to deliberate on the conditions that strengthen belonging and connection across our campus community. Following a deliberative engagement process, the University Voice Panel will give the University community space to explore these issues with care and depth. It brings people together to share experiences, weigh up trade-offs and consider the conditions that support cohesion across all parts of university life. The actions developed through the University Voice Panel will help inform a Social Cohesion Action Plan that reflects the needs, priorities and aspirations of the people who live, study and work at the University. You can find out more about this deliberative process in the [University Voice Panel Guide] . Want More Information? Reach out to Dr. Emanuela Savini, Practice Lead, Centre for Deliberative Democracy at Emanuela.Savini@canberra.edu.au if you have any questions or would like to be kept updated about this project. Interested in Deliberative Engagement? Deliberative engagement is a participatory approach that brings people together to thoughtfully explore complex questions, learn from diverse perspectives, and collectively develop solutions. Rather than simply gathering individual opinions, it creates conditions for meaningful dialogue where participants can grapple with nuance, consider trade-offs, and build shared understanding across difference. You can find out more about this form of engagement in our [Guidebook] and explore our [Masterclasses] to deepen your understanding of deliberative practice. Acknowledgement We extend o ur deep gratitude to MosaicLab for supporting this project through their charitable giving. Their partnership has enabled us to design a deliberative process worthy of the complex questions at the heart of social cohesion.

Richard Rowland, Selen Ercan, David Killoren, and Lucy J Parry < Back Moral Disagreements: Philosophical and Practical Implications Project Team: Richard Rowland, Selen Ercan, David Killoren, and Lucy J Parry Funded by the Australian Catholic University, Project Team includes: Richard Rowland Selen Ercan David Killoren Lucy J Parry Project Description Widespread disagreement about moral issues is a salient feature of moral thought and discourse in contemporary pluralistic societies. This project explores the metaphysical, epistemological, and practical implications of moral disagreement and whether deep and fundamental moral disagreements can be overcome. The project involves the world’s first deliberative poll on a fundamental moral issue. In deliberative polls a large number – at least 200 – people with different views on political and policy issues come together to deliberate about a particular policy issue (such as, for instance, whether we should focus on responses to crime other than imprisonment). Participants are given information about the issue in question that has been rigorously vetted to ensure its neutrality. They deliberate with one another in small and larger groups about the issue in question for 1-2 days. Before the deliberation participants are anonymously polled about the issue that they will subsequently deliberate about. They are then anonymously polled again after the deliberation. Over 70 deliberative polls have been conducted on different policy issues in 24 different countries. And significantly more convergence in the relevant views of participants has been found after the two days of deliberation than before the two days of deliberation. Although over 70 deliberative polls have been conducted there has yet to be one on fundamental moral issues; all the polls thus far have concerned issues of policy and the probable consequences of various policies rather than the moral desirability, or rightness or wrongness of particular outcomes. In collaboration with members of Stanford University’s Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Canberra University’s Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance this project will conduct the first deliberative polls on fundamental moral issues. These polls will shed light on whether deliberation can help to overcome deep moral disagreement.

Nicole Curato < Back Strongmen of Asia: Democratic bosses and how to understand them Project Team: Nicole Curato Funded by the Norwegian Research Council (AU$1.8M via University of Oslo). Project Description This research project investigates a set of strongmen – including presently ruling, fledgling, or former strongmen – in order to compare and understand a political style increasingly dominant in South and Southeast Asia and which we preliminarily call ‘bossism’. These strongmen are explored through fieldwork, online ethnography and media analysis of original language sources. This project is funded by the Norwegian Research Council and administered by the University of Oslo. Nicole Curato is examining the case of the Philippines. Preliminary findings of her research are documented in Strongmen , Inc , published in Australian Foreign Affairs .

John S. Dryzek, Hayley Stevenson, Beibei Tang < Back Deliberative Global Governance Project Team: John S. Dryzek, Hayley Stevenson, Beibei Tang Funded through Federation Fellowship (FF0883522) ($1,638,730), the Project Team includes: · John S. Dryzek, Chief Investigator · Hayley Stevenson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow · Beibei Tang, Postdoctoral Research Fellow Project Description The project investigates democratisation of the international system, with special reference to climate change issues; as well as the democratisation of authoritarian systems, with special reference to China. Research results find application in the worldwide movement to put deliberative democracy into practice, be it in global politics, in newly democratic societies, or in the institutions of established democracies. The Federation Fellowship has three sub-projects: (1) Deliberative Democratization in China. In China, traditional democratization paths involving constitutionalism and party competition are obstructed or problematic. China has however allowed substantial deliberative innovation at the local level, in part to help cope with the social and environmental dislocation attending rapid economic growth. The broader intent is to develop a generalizable approach to democratization, emphasizing deliberative capacity. (2) The Deliberative Global Governance of Climate Change. In taking deliberative democracy to the global level, no topic is more important than climate change. The idea is to map the key components of the global deliberative system for the governance of climate change, and assess how effectively they are working in deliberative terms. To the extent this proves to be a deliberative system in disrepair, we need to develop ideas for realistic reform of the system. The international system currently suffers from a severe democratic deficit, but any strengthening of democracy at international and global levels will almost certainly look very different from familiar models found in liberal democratic states. (3) A Deliberative Global Citizens’ Assembly. Building on the successful Australian Citizens’ Parliament held in 2009, the idea is to explore the prospects for a global assembly composed of more or less randomly selected participants. This can be contrasted with existing proposals for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, which rely upon problematic combinations of state-nominated participants and a tortuous path to global elections.

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

Centre for Deliberative Democracy < Back Democracy Reimagined: Advancing Democratic Resilience and Renewal Project Team: Centre for Deliberative Democracy Democracy Reimagined: Advancing Democratic Resilience and Renewal 17 - 19 November 2025 | University of Canberra The Democracy Reimagined: Advancing Democratic Resilience and Renewal Conference is hosted by the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Australia and New Zealand at the University of Canberra, in collaboration with the Australian National University and the Australian Resilient Democracy Research and Data Network. As democracies across the globe contend with significant threats, including deepening polarisation, rising extremism, and the proliferation of mis- and disinformation, the urgency of strengthening democratic resilience has never been greater. This conference brings together an international community of scholars and practitioners to deepen and expand the conversation around democratic resilience. Through engaging theoretical, empirical, and practice-oriented perspectives, we aim to address critical challenges such as declining trust in democratic institutions, the resurgence of far-right and anti-democratic actors, polarisation, violent extremism, and the role of political institutions, democratic innovations, civil society, and grassroots movements in creating a more resilient democracy. We look forward to robust discussion on the assessment and implementation of democratic renewal across diverse contexts. The conference provides an opportunity to share practical strategies, forge new connections, and collectively contribute to renewed democratic scholarship and practice. Please see the attached program for further details: Democracy Reimagined Conference Program .pdf Download PDF • 9.73MB Any queries should be directed to Dr Emily Foley ( emily.foley@canberra.edu.au ). Conference Report A full summary of the conference proceedings, panel discussions, and key conclusions is available in the report below. Democracy Reimagined Conference Report .pdf Download PDF • 14.11MB

Julia Jennstål and Simon Niemeyer < Back The Deliberative Citizen: Who deliberates, when, why and how? Project Team: Julia Jennstål and Simon Niemeyer Funded by the Swedish Research Council ( $1,000.000) , the Project Team includes: Julia Jennstål, Chief Investigator Simon Niemeyer, Chief Investigator Project Description The aim of this project is to systematically address foundational questions regarding the possibilities for improving deliberation in civil society by developing an understanding of the citizen and the factors — psychological, situational, personal, structural, etc. — that lead them to engage in political deliberation. Project Outputs Niemeyer, S. J. ((Forthcoming. Conditional Acceptance)). Deliberation and Ecological Democracy: From Citizen to Global System. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning (Special Issue on Ecological Democracy). Niemeyer, S. J. (Forthcoming, Sched 2019). Knowledge and the deliberative stance in democratic systems: Harnessing scepticism of the self in governing global environmental change In J. Glückler, G. Herrigel, & M. Handke (Eds.), Knowledge for Governance (Vol. Knowledge and Space). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Jennstål, J. (2019). "Deliberation and Integrative Complexity: Assessing the Development of Deliberative Norms in Minipublics." Swiss Political Science Review 25(1): 64–83. Niemeyer, S. J., & Jennstål, J. (2018). Scaling Up Deliberative Effects: Applying Lessons of Mini-Publics. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, M. E. Warren, & J. J. Mansbridge (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy (pp. 329–347). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jennstål, J. (2018). "Deliberative Participation and Personality: The Effect of Traits, Situations and Motivation." European Political Science Review 10(3): 417-440. Niemeyer, S. J. (2017). Rebuilding Trust in Political Discourse: What deliberative democracy can tell us about how to deal with a changing world . Labor Club: ACT Labor Party. Niemeyer, S. J., & Jennstål, J. (2017). Knowledge and Socratic humility in deliberative systems: Harnessing scepticism of the self in governing global change . Paper presented at the 15th Interdisciplinary Symposium on Knowledge and Space: Knowledge for Governance, Studio Villa Bosch, Heidelberg. Niemeyer, S. J., & Jennstål, J. (2016). The Deliberative Democratic Inclusion of Future Generations. In A. Gosseries & I. González Ricoy (Eds.), Institutions for Future Generations . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jennstål, J. (2016). Deliberative Participation and Personality: The Effect of Traits, Situations and Motivation (1/2016). Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance Working Paper Series, University of Canberra Niemeyer, S. J., Curato, N., & Bächtiger, A. (2016). Assessing the deliberative capacity of democratic polities and the factors that contribute to it . Paper presented at the ECPR Joimt Sessions, Pisa.

Nicole Curato < Back Global Assembly on the Climate and Ecological Crisis Project Team: Nicole Curato We are the institutional lead for research and evaluation of the world’s first global assembly on the climate and ecological crisis. Mohammad Abdul-Hwas, Wendy Conway-Lamb and Nicole Curato are part of this pioneering research team.  2021 Report

John Dryzek < Back Medical Research Future Fund Project Team: 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

John Dryzek, Selen Ercan and Lucy J. Parry < Back Participedia Project Team: 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.

Prof Selen Ercan, A/Prof Hans Asenbaum, Dr Bernard Brown, Prof Rousiley Maia, Dr Julia Ester de Paula, Thales Antonelli, Dr Friedel Marquardt, Harshith Ghana < Back Deliberation Game – Australia Edition Project Team: Prof Selen Ercan, A/Prof Hans Asenbaum, Dr Bernard Brown, Prof Rousiley Maia, Dr Julia Ester de Paula, Thales Antonelli, Dr Friedel Marquardt, Harshith Ghana This project explores how deliberative capacity can be developed through interactive and game-based learning. Grounded in the theory and practice of deliberative democracy, the project builds on Compartilha , an educational initiative developed by the Democracy and Public Sphere Research Group at the Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Brazil, led by Professor Rousiley Maia. The project aims to generate innovative knowledge about how people can learn and practise the principles and behaviours of deliberation, including listening, reflection, respectful disagreement. Through structured and interactive gameplay, participants engage with social and political disagreements in ways that encourage constructive dialogue across differences. The field experiment involves short rounds of gameplay and facilitated discussions on topical public issues. The project examines how game-based approaches can support deliberative learning and help participants navigate disagreement and social conflict more effectively. The Australian edition of the project is developed through a partnership between the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and the Media and Public Sphere Research Group at UFMG. The Australian edition of the project is led by Professor Selen Ercan and Associate Professor Hans Asenbaum, in collaboration with Dr Bernard Brown from the Faculty of Education. The Australian field experiments are scheduled to take place in May 2026 in Canberra and Brisbane as part of a research visit by UFMG researchers, Dr Julia Ester de Paula and Thales Antonelli.

Selen A. Ercan, Jordan McSwiney, Lucy Parry, Nicole Curato, Hans Asenbaum, Adele Webb, Emanuela Savini and Justin McCaul < Back Deliberative Democracy Toolkit (NSW) Project Team: Selen A. Ercan, Jordan McSwiney, Lucy Parry, Nicole Curato, Hans Asenbaum, Adele Webb, Emanuela Savini and Justin McCaul Grounded in research and developed in partnership with public servants, the Guidebook outlines six key features of effective deliberative engagement. It brings together research insights, practical methods, and real-life cases to help anyone plan and run effective engagement processes. Download a copy of the Guidebook here: https://researchprofiles.canberra.edu.au/en/publications/guidebook-for-deliberative-engagement-key-features-and-practical- For inquires please contact delibdem@canberra.edu.au

Mirca Madianou, Nicole Curato, Jonathan Corpus Ong and Jayeel Cornelio < Back Technologies of Humanitarianism: An Ethnographic Assessment of Communication Environments in Disaster Recovery and Humanitarian Intervention Project Team: Mirca Madianou, Nicole Curato, Jonathan Corpus Ong and Jayeel Cornelio Funded by the Economic and Social Research Council Urgency Grant (UK).

John S. Dryzek, Selen Ercan, Paul Fawcett, Carolyn Hendriks and Michael Jensen < Back Realising Democracy Amid Communicative Plenty: A Deliberative Systems Approach Project Team: John S. Dryzek, Selen Ercan, Paul Fawcett, Carolyn Hendriks and Michael Jensen Funded through a Discovery Project (DP150103615) ($369,700), the Project Team includes: · John S. Dryzek, Chief Investigator · Selen A. Ercan, Chief Investigator · Paul Fawcett, Chief Investigator · Carolyn Hendriks, Chief Investigator · Michael Jensen, Chief Investigator · Hedda Ransan-Cooper, Postdoctoral Research Fellow · Sonya Duus, Research Associate Project Description The ever-increasing volume of political communication (especially online) challenges democracy and effective policy making. This project examines whether, how, why, and to what effect discourse flows within and between different deliberative sites in the new politics of communicative plenty. We apply the idea of deliberative democracy, which puts meaningful communication between citizens and policy makers at the heart of effective governance. It develops a deliberative analysis of controversy surrounding coal seam gas in Australia, using qualitative and ‘big data techniques to collect information.

Selen A. Ercan, Jensen Sass, John Dryzek and Peter Balint < Back Democratic Resilience: The Public Sphere and Extremist Attacks Project Team: 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.

John Parkinson (Chief Investigator) and Núria Franco-Guillén (Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Griffith University) < Back Sparking a National Conversation Project Team: John Parkinson (Chief Investigator) and Núria Franco-Guillén (Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Griffith University) Funded through a Discovery Project (DP160102598) ($224,000) the Project Team includes John Parkinson (Chief Investigator) and Núria Franco-Guillén (Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Griffith University) Project Description This project aims to understand why some promises of a ‘national conversation’ on a policy issue seem to be mere hyperbole, while others seem more authentic. It will compare cases in Australia and Scotland, using an evaluative framework based on both deliberative systems theory and the aims and understandings of key actors in each case, to identify why some real-world efforts work better than others. The result will be new, practical guidance for policy makers that goes well beyond the traditional public engagement literature. Project Webpage Project Outputs Bächtiger, Andrè and Parkinson, John (2019) Mapping and Measuring Deliberation: Towards a New Deliberative Quality . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Franco-Guillén, Núria and Parkinson, John (2018). On Measuring Mass Deliberative Quality : Preliminary Results of a Novel, Electronic Comparative Project. Paper presented at the European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions, University of Nicosia. April 10-14.

Adele Webb, Nardine Alnemr, Selen Ercan, John Dryzek, Michael Neblo, Hans Asenbaum < Back Connecting to Parliament: Creating authentic engagement between citizens and their elected representatives Project Team: Adele Webb, Nardine Alnemr, Selen Ercan, John Dryzek, Michael Neblo, Hans Asenbaum The world is rapidly changing. Parliaments have a vital role to play in not only recognising new challenges but enabling citizens to connect with and participate in policy-making processes that will impact their lives now and into the future. In amongst the gloomy picture for democracy worldwide, where citizen disengagement is pervasive and palpable, there are glimmers of hope. Instances of parliaments and legislatures finding new ways to augment traditional institutions of representation – exploring innovations in democracy to meaningfully engage with citizens between elections. Project Description Connecting to Parliament (C2P) is one of the CDDGG’s flagship initiatives, which aims to involve more Australians in the processes of parliament, by making democracy more deliberative. The project involves a series of deliberative engagements, including online deliberative town halls, which link a representative sample of constituents with their elected official in productive town hall conversations about the issues that are subject to parliamentary debate in Australia. Through these deliberative processes, parliamentarians gain the opportunity to deepen their understanding of their constituency’s diverse voices, considerations and concerns. Participants make connections with formal decision-makers and have the opportunity for their voice to be heard outside of elections. At the same time, the project provides the opportunity to expand our knowledge about the potential benefits and uses of deliberative democracy. The project builds on the insights gained from the successful Connecting to Congress project led by Professor Michael Neblo and his team at the Institute for Democratic Engagement and Accountability, Ohio State University. Connecting to Parliament replicates this work by designing and analyzing a series of deliberative forums with citizens and elected representatives. Through administering a range of Deliberative Town Halls (in-person, hybrid, and online) C2C aims to identify the modes of deliberative engagement that produce the greatest gains in engagement and increase positive aspects of civic behavior among diverse populations of citizens. Town Hall on Mitochondrial Donation In September 2020, Connecting to Parliament held two Deliberative Town Halls with Member of Parliament Andrew Leigh. These events focused on Mitochondrial Donation, a medical procedure – illegal at the time – that was set to undergo a conscience vote in Parliament. As a “conscience vote,” a relatively rare (occurring roughly once per term) type of vote where MP’s do not have to vote along party lines, Leigh MP was free to vote entirely at his discretion. Greeted with this unique opportunity, Andrew Leigh MP partnered with the Connecting to Parliament project to engage in a deliberative democracy exercise with his electorate. In two town hall meetings, one online and one face-to-face, a series of constituents from Leigh’s electorate of Fenner were randomly selected to weigh the issues surrounding mitochondrial donation. Prior to these events, Member of Parliament Leigh agreed that his vote would be guided by the conclusions of these Deliberative Town Halls. Overwhelmingly, participants in both town halls believed that Mitochondrial Donation should be made legal in Australia. In a statement on the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform Bill in late 2021, Leigh MP said that: “the overwhelming sentiment among those who attended the forum was to support mitochondrial donation, and I will be voting in favour of this bill.” The majority of the House of Representatives, including Leigh MP, voted in favor of the Bill on December 1, 2021. The Bill passed in the Senate on March 30, 2022; mitochondrial donation became legal in Australia starting October 2, 2022. More information on the Bill may be found here at the Parliament of Australia website . Town Hall on Young People and Australian Politics In August 2021, Connecting to Parliament held a Deliberative Town Hall with Member of Parliament Alicia Payne on the issue of increasing youth participation in politics. The focus of young people was chosen as there is an increasing generational gap between those in power and the nation’s youth; today, the average age of an Australian MP is 52. As the decisions these lawmakers make will have lasting effects for decades, including young people more in the political process will give them greater agency over those who make the decisions that will affect their futures. Partner With Us Connecting to Parliament is a collaborative process that seeks to establish innovative and substantive conversations between constituents and public officials on important policy issues. By working with our team, elected officials will: Co-design the goals for deliberative town halls Participate in 60–90-minute non-partisan, unscripted, third-party facilitated conversations with constituents Learn about informed public interests while opening new channels of communication to a broadly representative sample of the local population Work with academic institutions focused on the public good, which means that our processes are designed to be cost-effective Garner qualitative and quantitative information from participants on their experiences attending townhalls as well as their opinions about specific policy issues. For more information, contact Adele Webb at connecting2parliament@canberra.edu.au

Jordan McSwiney < Back The far-right challenge to democracy Project Team: Jordan McSwiney Project description This project examines the varied manifestations of the far right across political parties, social movements, and online platforms in contemporary democracies. It explores the ways far-right groups organise, mobilise, and spread their supremacist ideas. The project aims to generate insights into the challenges the far-right poses to democracy in Australia and abroad, including violent extremism, the undermining of democratic institutions and processes like elections, and the perpetuation (and normalisation) of racism and white supremacy. Project outputs McSwiney, J. (Forthcoming). Far-right political parties in Australia: Disorganisation and electoral failure . Routledge. McSwiney, J., & Sengul, K. (2023). Humour, ridicule, and the far right: Mainstreaming exclusion through online animation . Television and New Media . E-pub ahead of print. Jasser, G., McSwiney, J., Pertwee, E., & Zannettou, S. (2023). ‘ Welcome to #GabFam’: Far-right virtual community on Gab . New Media & Society , 25 (7), 1728–1745. Maher, H., Gunaydin, E., & McSwiney, J. (2022). Western civilizationism and white supremacy: The Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation . Patterns of Prejudice , 55 (4), 309-330. McSwiney, J. (2022). Organising Australian Far-Right Parties: Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and Fraser Anning’s Conservative National Party . Australian Journal of Political Science , 80 (1), 37-52. Public engagement (select list) Why it’s so hard to stop neo-Nazi public hate parade . The Age . 2023, November 12. Jenna Price: How do we stop misinformation spreading online? The Canberra Times . 2022, December 16. Far-right groups targeting young people, inquiry finds . The Age . 2022, August 30. Right-wing parties line up for make-or-break Victorian state election . The New Daily . 2022, 22 June. Dr Jordan McSwiney on One Nation & Western Civilisation . Yeah Nah Pasaran! 2022, 9 June.