Search Results

< Back DECOLONIZING DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY Deliberative democracy advances an emancipatory project but to unfold its full potential, it needs to face colonial traces within. About this event Deliberative democracy advances an emancipatory project of inclusion, equality, and freedom. Yet these ideals have been produced in a particular economic and cultural context. Emerging out of the humanist Enlightenment tradition and inspired by linguistic and critical theories, deliberative democracy is deeply rooted in Western academia. This also means that despite its emancipatory impetus, it emerged in a context marked by colonial thinking. In this presentation, Mendonça and Asenbaum argue that if deliberative democracy is to unfold its full democratic potential, it needs to face the colonial traces it may carry within it. The presentation proposes six moves towards decolonizing deliberative democracy. In order not to remain in the a purely negative, deconstructive impetus of decolonization, we also want to sketch a positive, reconstructive way forward. Hence, the first three moves we are proposing are deconstructive and aim at deepening critical reflection while the other three moves mark a concrete starting point for a decolonial reconstruction of deliberative democracy: (1) the acknowledgement of the violence often hidden by the narrative of modernity, (2) the recognition of the epistemic asymmetries within the knowledge production of deliberative democracy, (3) the reflection on the colonial drive observable in current approaches to democratic innovations, (4) centring on social injustices cutting across democracies, (5) looking to the Global South in an actual dialogue, (6) including marginalized groups and people outside academia into the theorizing process. Ricardo Fabrino Mendonça is an Associate Professor at the Political Science Department, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil). He is the coordinator of MARGEM (Research Group on Democracy and Justice) and is the Director of International Cooperation of the Brazilian National Institute for Digital Democracy and of the Brazilian Political Science Association. He is also a CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) Researcher. Ricardo Mendonça works with democratic theory, critical theory, contentious politics, and political communication. He has recently published in Policy Studies, Constellations, Political Studies, Critical Policy Studies, Policy & Society, Democratic Theory, and several Brazilian journals. He is one of the editors of Deliberative Systems in Theory and Practice (with S. Elstub and S. Ercan, Routledge, 2018), Introdução à Teoria Democrática (with E. Cunha, Editora UFMG, 2018), Deliberação on-line no Brasil (with R. Sampaio and S. Barros, EDUFBA, 2016) and Democracia Digital: Publicidade, instituic?o?es e confronto poli?tico (with M. Pereira and F. Filgueiras, Editora UFMG, 2016). Hans Asenbaum is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. He holds a PhD from the Centre for the Study of Democracy at the University of Westminster in London and is a co-convener of the Participatory and Deliberative Democracy specialist group of the Political Studies Association (PSA). His research interests include identity and inclusion in new participatory spaces, digital politics, and theories of radical democracy. Hans’ work has been published in the American Political Science Review, Political Studies, New Media & Society, and Politics & Gender. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

< Back Spaces of hope: Theorizing hope in an imperfect yet open democratic system Antonin Lacelle-Webster, University of British Columbia Tue 27 April 2021 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Hope is a complex phenomenon. While it is a common fixture of political life, its meaning remains elusive, and many reject it as simply naïve or disconnected from “reality.” Despite its political salience, democratic theory has yet to engage with hope as a political concept. In this paper, I propose to explore its relation to democracy and democratic innovations through a focus on hope’s spatial and political features. I argue that the spaces that democracy holds open for individuals to act, think, and come together can not only mitigate the anxiety generated by the uncertainty of politics but also nurture hope. More precisely, deliberative spaces provide a setting that substantiates a collective understanding of hope distinct from its individual manifestations. As such, I ground the political problem of hope not in the nature of the hoped-for ends, but in the critical and imaginative process it requires from a collectivity. Drawing from Hannah Arendt’s faculty to make and keep promises, I contend that deliberative minipublics represent one example of a space in which such collective hopes can emerge. I use the French Citizens’ Convention on Climate to illustrate my argument and conclude by briefly discussing the subsequent challenge of sustaining this form of hope. About the speaker Antonin is a PhD candidate in political theory at the University of British Columbia. He is broadly interested in issues related to democratic theory, democratic innovations, the politics of hope and despair, and the political thought of Hannah Arendt. Previous Next

< Back James Bohman Associate About James Bohman's primary areas of research include political philosophy (deliberative and transnational democracy) and the philosophy of social science (rationality and normativity). He holds the Danforth I Chair in the Humanities and is Professor of Philosophy and Professor of International Studies.

< Back Thais Choucair Associate About Thaís Choucair is a PhD student in the Graduate Program in Communication of the Federal University of Minas Gerais (PPGCOM UFMG). Thaís works in the fields of politics and communication, quantitative and qualitative methodologies, digital activism, deliberation, deliberative system and framing.

< Back Democratizing Global Justice: Deliberating Global Goals Dryzek, J.S. and Tanasoca, A. 2021 , Cambridge University Press Summary The tensions between democracy and justice have long preoccupied political theorists. Institutions that are procedurally democratic do not necessarily make substantively just decisions. Democratizing Global Justice shows that democracy and justice can be mutually reinforcing in global governance - a domain where both are conspicuously lacking - and indeed that global justice requires global democratization. This novel reconceptualization of the problematic relationship between global democracy and global justice emphasises the role of inclusive deliberative processes. These processes can empower the agents necessary to determine what justice should mean and how it should be implemented in any given context. Key agents include citizens and the global poor; and not just the states but also international organizations and advocacy groups active in global governance. The argument is informed by and applied to the decision process leading to adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals, and climate governance inasmuch as it takes on questions of climate justice. Read more Previous Next

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

< Back Building international epistemic authority: The case of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Kari De Pryck, University of Geneva Tue 26 February 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which produces regular assessment of the state of the knowledge on climate change, is a controversial object of study. While it has become a model of expertise for some (the IPBES was established following a call for an IPCC for biodiversity), others have been more critical of its work (as illustrated in the debate that followed Climategate and the errors found in its Fourth Assessment Report). In this talk, I discuss the construction of the authority of the IPCC in situations of controversy and its institutionalisation unprecedented among the global environmental assessments. First, I draw on a historical ethnography of the governance of the IPCC to discuss the strategies that allowed the organisation to survive in the context of increased scrutiny. Second, I discuss the role of consensus in the construction of the epistemic authority of the organisation. I conclude with a reflexion on the deliberative and reflective features of the IPCC. About the speaker Kari De Pryck just obtained her PhD from the University of Geneva, Switzerland and Sciences Po Paris, France, under the supervision of Géraldine Pflieger and Bruno Latour. She has a background in International Relations and has been introduced to Science and Technology Studies during her stay at the médialab at Sciences Po Paris (2013-2015). She is currently a teaching assistant at the Global Studies Institute in Geneva where she teaches seminars in the field of international relations and controversy mapping. In her thesis (Expertise under Controversy: the case of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)), she investigated the epistemic and institutional transformation of the organisation in situations of controversy using quali-quantitative methods. She is interested in the politics of expert knowledge in international institutions and environmental science-policy interfaces more generally. Previous Next

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

< Back Connecting to Congress during Covid-19: Political representation and two-way crisis communication Michael Neblo, Ohio State University Tue 25 May 2021 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Abstract As the COVID-19 crisis rapidly escalated in the United States, Congress needed to pivot from its normal representational activities to: 1) find ways to disseminate reliable information regarding the crisis, 2) find ways to gather relevant information about the rapidly evolving needs of their constituents to inform responsive legislation, and 3) encourage compliance with public health measures. We were in the field running experiments with Deliberative Town Halls (DTHs) when the pandemic hit. So we quickly adapted the structure of the standard DTH model to facilitate the kinds of interactions called for by the crisis: whereas pre-COVID-19 DTHs focused on a single issue with a single member of Congress, the COVID-19 events often featured a bipartisan pair of members, participating alongside subject matter experts. This structure vividly communicated bi-partisan messages regarding public health compliance, sent credible signals about the information being provided to constituents of both parties, and reassured them that normal partisan jousting would not interfere with the crafting policy to manage the urgent needs of the crisis. They also allowed members to gather the information necessary to develop policies that would be responsive to needs as articulated by their constituents. They also allowed constituents to express their opinions and feelings on COVID-19 related policies, Congress’s handling of the pandemic, and the personal struggles they had faced as the effects of the pandemic unfolded. N.B. – 1) This presentation is based on joint work with Abigail Kielty and Amy Lee; 2) the analyses are preliminary and largely descriptive at this point; and 3) I will begin the presentation with a more general overview of the research strategy behind the larger connecting to Congress project. About the speaker Michael Neblo is Professor of Political Science and (by courtesy) Philosophy, Communication, and Public Affairs & Director of the Institute for Democratic Engagement and Accountability (IDEA) at The Ohio State University. Neblo's research focuses on deliberative democracy and political psychology. His most recent book, Politics with the People: Building a Directly Representative Democracy develops and tests a new model of politics connecting citizens and elected officials to improve representative government. He has twice been invited to testify before the U.S. Congress about these findings. His first book, Deliberative Democracy between Theory and Practice cuts across the deadlock between supporters of deliberative theory and their empirical critics by focusing on the core goals of the larger deliberative political system. His work has appeared or is forthcoming in a wide range of academic journals across several fields, Neblo holds a PhD in political science from the University of Chicago and a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy and Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences (MMSS) from Northwestern University. He is currently an Andrew Carnegie Fellow. Previous Next

Publications End of Year Report 2025 Centre for Deliberative Democracy 2025 , University of Canberra Read more End of Year Report 2024 Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance 2024 , University of Canberra Read more 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 Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy Selen A. Ercan, Hans Asenbaum, Nicole Curato, Ricardo F. Mendonca 2022 , Oxford University Press Read more Democratizing Global Justice: Deliberating Global Goals Dryzek, J.S. and Tanasoca, A. 2021 , Cambridge University Press Read more Deliberative Minipublics: Core Design Features Curato, N., Farrell D., Geißel, B., Grönlund, K., Mockler, P., Renwick, A., Rose, J., Setälä, M. and Suiter, J. 2021 , Bristol Policy Press 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 Political Economy of Devolution in Britain from the Postwar Era to Brexit Nick Vlahos 2020 , Palgrave Read more Assessing the poor’s deliberative agency in media-saturated societies Nicole Curato 2020 , Theory and Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-020-09421-1 Read more Mapping and Measuring Deliberation: Towards a New Deliberative Quality André Bächtiger and John Parkinson 2019 , Oxford University Press Read more 1 2 3 1 ... 1 2 3 ... 3

< Back Mohammad Abdul-Hwas Research Assistant About Mohammad is a Research Assistant who has recently completed a PhD at the Centre, focusing on refugee governance and deliberative democracy. Connecting with Syrian refugees inspired him to research deliberative democracy, with the ambition to improve the experience and agency of people caught in a refugee crisis. His thesis, “ The governance of refugees from a deliberative system perspective: The case of Syrian refugee crisis ”, applied the deliberative system approach to examine the relationship between vulnerable communities and decision-makers, with particular attention to inclusiveness, authenticity, and consequentiality. He conducted extensive fieldwork in refugee camps and urban centres in Jordan to explore the political agency of refugees and the role of deliberative processes in shaping refugee governance. Mohammad is engaged in a number of projects, including co-authoring a paper on deliberation and shura, an Arabic-Islamic tradition of consultative decision-making. Teaching Academic Tutor, Investigating and Explaining Society (11236.1), Semester 2, 2023, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, Faculty of Business, Government & Law, University of Canberra, Australia. Academic Tutor, Introduction to Public Policy (11378.1), Semester 2, 2023, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, Faculty of Business, Government & Law, University of Canberra, Australia. Academic Tutor, Accelerated Pathways Program course: Politics and Democracy (APP) (11846), Semester 2, 2023, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra, Australia. Academic Tutor, Political and Social Theory (11243.1), Semester 1, 2023, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, Faculty of Business, Government & Law, University of Canberra, Australia. Academic Marking, Introduction to International Relations (11238.1), Semester 2, 2022, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, Faculty of Business, Government & Law, University of Canberra, Australia. Conference Presentations “A Deliberative System Approach to Refugee Crisis Governance: Focus on Transmission and Accountability.” APSA Annual Conference, November 27–30, 2023, University of Sydney, Australia. “The potential and limits of deliberative democracy in the governance of refugee crisis.” NZPSA Annual Conference, November 30, 2022, The University of Waikato, New Zealand (Virtual Conference). “Governance of refugee crisis from a deliberative approach: Focus on public and empowered spaces.” APSA Annual Conference, September 27, 2022, Australian National University, Australia. “Governing the Syrian refugee crisis: A deliberative assessment.” NEXT Generation Deliberation Celebration Symposium, June 10, 2021, KU Leuven University, Belgium (Virtual Conference). “The role of deliberation in governing the Syrian refugee crisis: Insights from the field.” Deliberative Democracy Seminar Series, October 6, 2020, University of Canberra, Australia. “Governing the Syrian refugee crisis: A deliberative perspective.” APSA Conference, September 18, 2020 (Virtual Conference). “The role of deliberation in governance of the Syrian refugee crisis.” Deliberative Democracy Summer School, February 5, 2020, University of Canberra, Australia. Previous Projects Mohammad was part of a global research team on the Global Assembly on the Climate and Ecological Emergency. Among the thirty researchers from different parts of the globe, he actively participated in observing deliberative engagement processes during the plenary sessions at Global Assembly COP26. Administration Co-organizer, Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance’s Book Reception, 2022. Co-organizer, Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance’s Book Harvest, 2020.

< Back Deliberative land use planning Hoi Kong, McGill University Tue 6 May 2014 Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract Scholars have long argued that land use planning processes do not promote meaningful citizen engagement. The project that I will discuss responds to this concern by creating an innovative design institution: the digitally-mediated community-based urban design studio. The interdisciplinary design studio deploys electronic technology to facilitate deliberative democratic participation in land use planning processes, in a borough of Montreal. A current large scale development project that has the potential to significantly affect the stock of affordable housing in the borough is the studio¹s current object of study. Students in law, urban planning and architecture, under the supervision of professors, will generate computer-modelled proposals. The studio will, on a dedicated website, invite comments about these proposals from the community and the resulting comments will be incorporated in subsequent draft proposals. The final proposal that will result from this iterative process will be brought to the attention of the relevant planning authorities for their comments. Towards the end of the project¹s three-year term, the team-members will consult with borough officials, city planners and local community organizations about whether and how procedures based on the studio¹s work might be incorporated into the official land use planning consultation process. This project is being developed in collaboration with the Cornell e-Regulations Initiative, which has developed online consultations with federal agencies, and in the presentation, I will discuss what mutual lessons have been learned from the two projects¹ experiments with developing technological tools of deliberative citizen engagement. About the speaker Hoi Kong teaches and researches in the areas of Constitutional Law, Comparative Law, Administrative Law, and Municipal Law. From 2002 to 2003, he was law clerk to Justices Marie Deschamps and Claire L¹Heureux-Dubé at the Supreme Court of Canada. From 2003 to 2006, he was an Associate-in-Law at Columbia University, and from 2006 to 2009, he was an Assistant Professor of Law, cross-appointed with the School of Urban and Regional Planning, at Queen¹s University. Hoi Kong joined the Faculty of Law of McGill University in August 2009 and he is a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada. He was named a Hydro-Québec Scholar in Sustainable Development Law in 2012. Previous Next

< Back Deliberation, inc.? The professionalization of public engagement in 2020 Tue 28 April 2020 Caroline W. Lee, Lafayette College 11:00am – 12:00pm Virtual Seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract This presentation will build on findings from my multi-method ethnography, Do-It-Yourself Democracy: The Rise of the Public Engagement Industry. The public engagement field grew dramatically in the United States in the 1990s and 2000s. Well-facilitated deliberative processes are now a taken-for-granted part of decision-making in many governments, workplaces, and organizations, even if process consultants and engagement practitioners typically avoid much notice. But as public deliberation has become more popular and online tools expand its reach, the field has faced growing pains and new threats to its carefully-cultivated authenticity. I conclude by highlighting comparative research on public engagement professionalization and institutionalization globally, as well as the challenges democracy professionals face in an era of autocratic regimes and increasing inequalities. About the speaker Caroline W. Lee is Associate Professor of Sociology and Head of the Department of Anthropology & Sociology at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania. Her research explores the intersection of social movements, business, and democracy in American politics. She is the author of Do-It-Yourself Democracy: The Rise of the Public Engagement Industry and co-editor with Michael McQuarrie and Edward Walker of Democratizing Inequalities: Dilemmas of the New Public Participation . Previous Next

< Back Indigenous grassroots participation and the coevolution of deliberative systems Mei-Fang Fan, National Yang-Ming University Tue 2 October 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Research on deliberative systems with detailed discussions on indigenous democracy and the deliberative features of indigenous activism is limited. The heterogeneous and ambivalent complexity of colonial history and geographical contexts has had a considerable effect on indigenous representatives and indigenous forms of deliberation. Indigenous movement and environmental protests against the dominance of the state are traditionally regarded as nondeliberative. The systemic approach of deliberative democracy argues that activism constitute an integral part of public deliberation, which recognises the contribution of indigenous knowledge and democratic practices to policy-making and wider deliberative systems. This article considers indigenous activism and political communication as a part of the macro-deliberative system as well as a micro deliberative system in itself. Drawing on the controversy on flooding and wild creek remediation projects on Orchid Island, Taiwan, this study explored how indigenous activism facilitate space for deliberation and improve the democratising quality of deliberative systems. Tao tribesmen transcended their original boundaries to engage in communication and activate plural deliberative spaces when facing conflicting new challenges and the government’s dominant policy positions with limited discursive space. Tao activists used the virtual community as both an internal and external communication platform and engaged in transmission and visualisation of traditional knowledge system and practices. Indigenous grassroots participation facilitates knowledge coproduction and social learning and reshapes tribal political subjectivities, which reveals the coevolution of tribal deliberative systems and their interaction with the State, intertwined with deliberative systems. About the speaker Mei-Fang Fan is Professor at the Institute of Science, Technology and Society, National Yang-Ming University and research fellow at the Risk Society and Policy Research Centre, National Taiwan University. She holds a Doctoral degree in Environment and Society from Lancaster University, UK. Research interests include environmental justice and governance; deliberative democracy and public participation in decision-making on risk; participatory budgeting; local knowledge and citizen science. Her recent work on environmental justice, public deliberations on GM foods in Taiwan and nuclear waste facility siting controversy has appeared in the journals Human Ecology, Public Understanding of Science and Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. Mei-Fang sits on the editorial board of Taiwanese journal of public administration and is a member of the Taipei City participatory budgeting government-academia alliance. Previous Next

< Back Beyond sustainability as usual: Democratising sustainable development for the Anthropocene Jonathan Pickering, University of Canberra Tue 21 November 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The emergence of the Anthropocene – a new epoch in which humanity exerts a pervasive influence over the Earth system – calls for new conceptions of sustainability that are open to democratic contestation while being grounded in emerging scientific understanding of global environmental risks, including climate change and biodiversity loss. Yet discourses of sustainability are often co-opted by actors whose interests lie in upholding patterns of production and consumption that are neither environmentally nor socially sustainable. This paper (which forms part of a book project co-authored with John Dryzek on The Politics of the Anthropocene) sets out a new framework for understanding sustainability, then applies the framework to analyse the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted in 2015. Efforts to craft the SDGs involved a range of consultations whose scope was unprecedented in the UN’s history. We discuss the deliberative strengths and shortcomings of the consultation and negotiation process, and the extent to which the process and the goals themselves offer meaningful responses to global environmental risks. This paper is co-authored with John Dryzek. About the speaker Jonathan joined the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance in 2015. He is a Postdoctoral Fellow working with Professor John Dryzek on his Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship project, ‘Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice and a Changing Earth System’. He completed his PhD in philosophy at the Australian National University, based in the Centre for Moral, Social and Political Theory and graduating in 2014. His thesis explored opportunities for reaching a fair agreement between developing and developed countries in global climate change negotiations. Before joining the University of Canberra he taught climate and environmental policy at the Crawford School of Public Policy at ANU, and has been a Visiting Fellow at the Development Policy Centre at ANU since 2014. Jonathan’s research interests include the ethical and political dimensions of global climate change policy, global environmental governance, development policy and ethics, and global justice. He has a Masters' degree in development studies from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), and undergraduate degrees in arts and law from the University of Sydney. Previously he worked as a policy and program manager with the Australian Government's international development assistance program (AusAID, 2003-09). Previous Next

< Back A Q study in waiting: Three hunting discourses Lucy Parry, University of Sheffield Mon 16 March 2015 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract Here I present some tentative findings from my pilot Q study which aims to map out the current discourses that exist around the hunting of wild mammals in the UK. I first provide an overview of Q methodology, before going on to outline how I approached the study. I will then present some initial interpretation of three anti-hunting discourses and return to my original aim of the study - to understand how animals are represented in hunting discourses and to understand the role of scientific knowledge in people's evaluation of hunting - and query whether it is possible to achieve these or even desirable in the context of Q. Relevant to this is the 'Q community's' particular approach to using the method which can pose challenges to researchers. Finally, I will ask the audience to inspect my Q statements and there will be an opportunity to participate in a Q sort for those who are interested. As this research is still in the developmental stages, feedback is most welcome and as such I advance an informal, discussion style seminar. About the speaker Lucy Parry is a PhD Student from the University of Sheffield, and is here to take part in the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance’s Summer School. Lucy will be here for slightly over 2 months, and to read more about her research topic and research interests please click on this link: http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/politics/research/phd/lucy-parry Previous Next

< Back Arguing for deliberation without ultimate justification: Why we should decide to be deliberative democrats Dannica Fleuss, Helmut-Schmidt University Tue 14 August 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract A starting point of post-structuralist political theory is the assumption that all social and political norms are contingent. From this angle, Oliver Marchart (2007, 2015) challenges „foundationalist“ deliberative theory for attempting to give an ultimate justification for political norms. This seminar explores ways to respond to this challenge from the perspective of deliberative democracy: Accepting the claim that all social and political norms are contingent does not necessitate rejecting deliberative theory. Rather, contemporary deliberative theory can provide a valid theoretical perspective even though it is unable to give an ultimate justification for its own principles. Instead of providing a “foundational” justification for deliberative theory’s basic premises, I suggest that deliberative theorists should decide to accept them and discuss ways to demonstrate the value of this decision. About the speaker Dannica is a visiting research scholar at the Centre for Deliberative and Democracy and Global Governance. She completed her PhD on proceduralist democratic theory at the University of Heidelberg in 2016. Currently, she works as a Postdoctoral Researcher at Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg. In her postdoctoral project she is doing research on democratic theory and the measurement of democratic deliberation at the macro level by applying a systemic framework. Dannica's research interests include the systemic approach to deliberation, measurements of democratic performance, political cultural studies and the theoretical debate between deliberative democratic theory and poststructuralist approaches. Previous Next

Research Assistant < Back Elaine Dos Santos Research Assistant About Elaine Dos Santos worked as Research Assistant at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the Australian National University from 2010 to 2013.

Postdoctoral Research Fellow < Back Francesco Veri Postdoctoral Research Fellow About Francesco Veri is specialized in the field of configurational comparative methods with an emphasis on fuzzy logic applied to social sciences. His methodological research focuses on concept operationalization and strengthening the quality of parameters of fit in set theoretic methods.

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