Search Results

< 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

John Dryzek, Jonathan Pickering, Jensen Sass, Ana Tanasoca < Back Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice And A Changing Earth System Investigator(s): John Dryzek, Jonathan Pickering, Jensen Sass, Ana Tanasoca 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 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 .

< Back DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND DIGITAL PLATFORMS:JOHN GASTIL IN CONVERSATION WITH NARDINE ALNEMR This is the final seminar in our Media, Digital Communication, and Deliberative Democracy series. About this event Digital platforms provide new potentials and challenges to deliberative democracy. In his recent works, Professor John Gastil argues that we need to advance the potential of online deliberation by seeking commitment from political actors and increasing their responsiveness to citizens. Join us in this conversation to explore questions about using digital platforms in deliberative democracy, changes in deliberative thinking about the potential of online deliberation, and some of the persistent challenges such as inclusion. John Gastil (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison) is a Distinguished Professor in the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences and Political Science at the Pennsylvania State University, where he is senior scholar at the McCourtney Institute for Democracy. Gastil’s research focuses on the theory and practice of deliberative democracy. The National Science Foundation has supported his research on the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review, the Australian Citizens’ Parliament, and American juries. His most recent books are Hope for Democracy (Oxford, 2020) with Katherine R. Knobloch, Legislature by Lot (Verso, 2019) with Erik Olin Wright, and two novels published in 2020, including the near-future sci-fi Gray Matters about the interplay of Alzheimer's, American politics, and artificial intelligence. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

Former PhD student < Back Kei Nishiyama Former PhD student About Kei Nishiyama studies deliberative democracy with a specific focus on the role of children and young people. Kei worked at the University of Canberra and the Australian National University and will join the Doshisha University, Japan, from April 2020.

< Back Carolyn Hendriks Associate and Former PhD Student About Carolyn Hendriks' work examines democratic aspects of contemporary governance, particularly with respect to participation, deliberation, inclusion and representation. She has taught and published widely on democratic innovation, public deliberation, policy evaluation, network governance and environmental politics and is an Associate Professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University.

< Back Hans Asenbaum Senior Research Fellow About Dr Hans Asenbaum is a Senior Research fellow Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy. His research interests include identity and inclusion in new participatory spaces, digital politics, and theories of deliberative, participatory and radical democracy. His work has been published in the American Political Science Review , New Media & Society , Communication Theory, Politics & Gender , the European Journal of Social Theory , and Political Studies. Hans is Co-convener of the Participatory and Deliberative Democracy Specialist Group of the Political Studies Association in the UK. After defending his thesis at the University of Westminster, he held a position as Research Fellow at the Institute of Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam, Germany. He has been invited for research visits and public lectures in Germany, Brazil, and Australia and received several grants and scholarships. Key Publications Asenbaum, H. (2023). The Politics of Becoming: Anonymity and Democracy in the Digital Age . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Asenbaum, H., Chenault, R., Harris, C., Hassan, A., Hierro, C., Houldsworth, S., … II, T. J. W. (2023). A Democratic Theory of Life: Living Democracy with Black Lives Matter. Theoria , 70 (176), 1–33. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3167/th.2023.7017601 Asenbaum, H. (2022). Doing Democratic Theory Democratically. International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 21 , 1–12. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221105072 Ercan, S., Asenbaum, H., Curato, N., & Mendonça, R. F. (Eds.). (2022). Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mendonça, R. F., Ercan, S. A., & Asenbaum, H. (2020). More than Words: A Multidimensional Approach to Deliberative Democracy. Political Studies , 0 (0), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321720950561 Asenbaum, H. (2018). Anonymity and Democracy: Absence as Presence in the Public Sphere. American Political Science Review , 112 (3), 459–472. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000163 Full list of publications available in GoogleSchola r .

< Back Power in high-stake deliberative settings: Analytical insights from linguistics Simona Zimmermann, University of Stuttgart Tue 28 November 2017 The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract What role does power have in real-world mini-publics with real-life consequences? This question has hardly been studied. Yet, experiences from high-stake settings of deliberation that have consequences for participants’ everyday lives - for example in respect to their reputation and relations in the local polity - are highly relevant for integrating deliberative mini-publics in everyday-political life. Based on this reflection, the presented research project seeks to understand the meaning and role of power in the relational network among participants in citizen assemblies of a local small-scale participatory budget institution in Berlin’s district Treptow-Köpenick (Germany). These assemblies discuss and decide over the distribution of a fixed budget among neighbourhood projects which is a competence rarely ceded to citizens by German authorities. For analysis, assemblies are videotaped and studied ethnomethodologically based on a relational approach. The presentation will focus on the contributions linguistics can make to the analysis of power relations in deliberative settings. About the speaker Simona Zimmermann is a PhD candidate in political sciences at the University of Stuttgart (Prof. André Bächtiger). She holds a Master degree in Empirical Social and Political Analysis of the University of Stuttgart and a Diploma and Master from the Institut d’Etudes Politiques (SciencesPo) Bordeaux. Her research interests include deliberative forms of citizen participation and politics in urban planning. She aims at working inter- and transdisciplinary in order to develop solutions for societal challenges. In her PhD project Simona analyses relations of power in deliberative mini publics under a network perspective by qualitative methods of inquiry. Case study is a local participatory budget in Berlin Treptow-Köpenick (Germany). Before obtaining a scholarship from the national talent program (Friedrich-Ebert Foundation), Simona worked in an interdisciplinary research group on sustainable urban mobility (Institute of Urban Design, University of Stuttgart). Here, she occasionally teaches concepts and methods of the social sciences to students in urban planning and architecture. Previous Next

< Back The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy Edited by Andre Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren 2018 , Oxford University Press Summary Deliberative democracy has been the main game in contemporary political theory for two decades and has grown enormously in size and importance in political science and many other disciplines, and in political practice. The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy takes stock of deliberative democracy as a research field, as well as exploring and creating links with multiple disciplines and policy practice around the globe. It provides a concise history of deliberative ideals in political thought while also discussing their philosophical origins. It locates deliberation in a political system with different spaces, publics, and venues, including parliament and courts but also governance networks, protests, mini-publics, old and new media, and everyday talk. It documents the intersections of deliberative ideals with contemporary political theory, involving epistemology, representation, constitutionalism, justice, and multiculturalism. It explores the intersections of deliberative democracy with major research fields in the social sciences and law, including social and rational choice theory, communications, psychology, sociology, international relations, framing approaches, policy analysis, planning, democratization, and methodology. It engages with practical applications, mapping deliberation as a reform movement and as a device for conflict resolution. It documents the practice and study of deliberative democracy around the world, in Asia, Latin America, Africa, Europe, and global governance. And it provides reflections on the field by pioneering thinkers. Read more Previous Next

< Back Anne Nygaard Jedzini PhD Candidate About Anne Nygaard Jedzini is a PhD researcher on power-sharing at Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at University of Canberra. She is the recipient of the Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative 2021 PhD Scholarship. Anne is the former Vice Mayor and Councillor of the City of Aarhus in Denmark where she held public office from 2014-2018. The City of Aarhus is her Danish hometown and where she is originally from. Anne is currently elected as the Australian Political Studies Association Postgraduate Caucus representative and is a member of the Australian Political Studies Association's Executive Committee. She is also currently appointed as the HDR member on the External Review Panel for the Faculty for Business, Government & Law at University of Canberra. For her PhD, Anne examines how power is shared, exercised and experienced, and to what extent power-sharing has deliberative dimensions in deliberative and participatory processes (democratic innovations) in Australian local governments. More specifically, her PhD examines the democratic, political and institutional conditions for power-sharing through deliberation between councillors and community members in a comparative case study of three Australian local government councils. She is set to complete her PhD by June, 2024. Anne has extensive experience from Danish politics. As Vice Mayor, she served as political member of five committees. Two of these committees were deliberative co-creation task committees with both councillors and relevant members of the public. During her time in public office, Anne focused on how members of the community could have more direct impact on public policymaking. She also focused on how to create the best possible conditions for startups, entrepreneurs and small business owners. Throughout her time in Danish politics, Anne ran multiple political bipartisan campaigns. These campaigns sought to bring different perspectives, lived-experiences and worldviews together over issues such as lack of democratic participation, enablement of young people's voices and gender inequality in local government politics. Much of her research interests stem from her lived-experience with power, democratic innovations and policymaking in Denmark. Anne's research interests include power and power-sharing in institutions/organisations, democratic innovations, deliberative/participatory democracy, political leadership, Australian politics and qualitative research methods. PhD supervisors Nicole Curato (Primary Supervisor) Selen Ercan (Secondary Supervisor) Academic Experience 01.07.2023-present. Job Title: Academic Tutor in Power and Policymaking . Organisation: Griffith School of Government and International Relations, Griffith University, Australia. Responsibility: Academic tutor and marker for a total of thirty undergraduate students in the unit, Power and Policymaking , throughout trimester 2. 01.08.2021-present. Job Title: Academic Tutor in Political Leadership . Organisation: Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra, Australia. Responsibility : Academic tutor and marker for a total of forty undergraduate students in the unit, Political Leadership , throughout semester 2. 01.02.2022-01.12.2022. Job Title: Academic Tutor in Introductions to Politics and Government . Organisation: Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra, Australia. Responsibility: Academic tutor and marker for a total of forty undergraduate students in the unit, Introductions to Politics and Government , throughout semester 1 and 2. 01.08.2021-01.12.2022. Job Title: Academic Tutor in Investigating and Explaining Society . Organisation: Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, University of Canberra, Australia. Responsibility : Academic tutor and marker for a total of sixty undergraduate students in the unit, Investigating and Explaining Society , throughout semester 2. 01.03.2021-01.07.2021. Job Title: Event Manager on Australian Citizens’ Jury on Genome Editing . Organisation: Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, University of Canberra, Australia. Responsibility: Event manage the research project Australian Citizens’ Jury on Genome Editing which was also a three-day event held at the Museum of Australian Democracy from June 17-20, 2021. 01.08.2020-31.12.2020. Job Title: Senior Research Assistant on “Network Analysis of Emissions of Transport and Gas Users in the ACT.” Organisation: Griffith University, Australia. Responsibility: Identify key transport emission stakeholders in the ACT to determine their carbon footprint. Professional Experience 01.02.2019-01.08.2020. Job Title: Sales and Business Development Director. Organisation: Suncil International ApS, Australia. Responsibility: Develop market strategy across Australia through strategic business development. 01.04.2018-01.02.2019. Job Title: Business Developer. Organisation: Suncil International ApS, Denmark. Responsibility: Stakeholder management of customers and business partners in EU and MENA region. Public Office 01.01.2014-01.01.2018. Job Title: Vice Mayor and Councillor: Political member of The Committee of Volunteering and Co-creation Political member of The Committee of Co-Citizenship Political member of The Committee of Finance Political member of The Committee of Children and Young People Political member of The Committee of Gender Equality and Diversity Organisation: Aarhus Municipality, Denmark. Responsibility: Preside over the political governance of the City of Aarhus through evidence-based policy decisions. Non-Peer Reviewed Publications Jedzini, Anne Nygaard. 2023. Politicians must share deliberative power to increase legitimacy. Type of Publication: Blog article published March 16, 2023 in the European Consortium’s Political Science Research blog, The Loop. Journal Articles under Peer Review Jedzini, Anne Nygaard. 2021. How do city council politicians facilitate co-creation? Evidence from Australia and Denmark. Type of Publication: Empirical journal article submitted November 15, 2021 in the Australian Journal of Political Science. Author Statement: I undertook an interpretivist empirical study of in-depth interviews with sixteen Danish and Australian city council politicians. I specifically explored what motivates city council politicians to practice and participate in co-creation processes, what societal stakeholders are included in co-creation processes and what the similarities and differences of co-creation processes are in Danish and Australian local governments in urban and regional areas. I recruited the research participants through my own political networks, transcribed the audio files of the interviews, wrote the interviews up in an analytical table, and did a thematic analysis of the research data against my main and sub-research questions. Academic Conferences 20.06.2022-22.06.2022. Title: Jedzini, Anne Nygaard. 2021. How do city council politicians understand and facilitate co-creation? An explorative study of Australian and Danish local governments. Organisation: Deliberative Democracy and Public Opinion Summer School, Turku, Finland. Details: Deliberative democracy conference with participation of deliberative democracy scholars from across the world. 09.06.2022-11.06.2022. Title: Jedzini, Anne Nygaard. 2021. How do city council politicians understand and facilitate co-creation? An explorative study of Australian and Danish local governments. Organisation: The Transatlantic Dialogue 16, Roskilde, Denmark. Details: Public administration conference with participation of American and European public administration scholars. 16.02.2022-17.02.2022. Title: Jedzini, Anne Nygaard. 2021. How do city council politicians understand and facilitate co-creation? Evidence from Australia and Denmark. Organisation: Australian Political Studies Association, Brisbane, Australia. Details: POP (Political Organisations & Participation) 2022 Workshop for emerging political science scholars in Australia. Presentations 21.02.2023. Title: Jedzini, Anne Nygaard. 2023. Democratic Innovations: From Aarhus to ACT. Organisation: City Renewable Authority, ACT Government and International Association for Public Participation Australasia, Canberra, Australia. Details: ‘Engaging in our city’ IAP2 Local Network breakfast event with participation of three speakers and sixty engagement practitioners from the public, private and civic sector in the ACT. Scholarships and Prizes 09.11.2021. Prize: Citations for Outstanding Contributions to Student Learning for the Investigating and Explaining Society unit team. Organisation: University of Canberra Teaching Excellence Awards and Citations, University of Canberra. 23.02.2021. Scholarship: Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative 2021 PhD Scholarship. Organisation: Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, University of Canberra. Academic Administration 01.04.2023-present. Title: Research Student Member. Organisation: External Review Panel for the University of Canberra Faculty for Business, Government & Law, Australia. 01.12.2022-present. Title: Postgraduate Caucus Representative. Organisation: Australian Political Studies Association Executive Committee, Australian Political Studies Association, Australia. 01.03.2022-31.01.2023. Title: Higher Degree by Research Representative. Organisation: Graduate Research Committee, University of Canberra, Australia. 01.09.2020-31.12.2020. Title: Student Advisory Board Member. Organisation: The School of Humanities and Social Sciences, La Trobe University, Australia. 01.01.2020-31.12.2020. Title: Master Student Board Member. Organisation: The Academic Board, La Trobe University, Australia. Political Advisory 26.07.2022-28.07.2022. Title: Political intern for Dr. Helen Haines MP Independent Member for Indi. Organisation: House of Representatives, Parliament of Australia, Australia. 01.08.2021-01.06.2022. Title: Deliberative Democracy Expert. Organisation: Kim for Canberra Party, Australia. 01.08.2016-01.12.2016. Title: Campaign Organiser. Organisation: The Danish Social Liberal Party’s U.S. Election Volunteer Team, Denmark. 01.01.2015-01.12.2016. Title: Political Advocate. Organisation: Danes for Hillary, Denmark. Research Interests Deliberative/participatory democracy Democratic/political institutions Democratic innovations Public administration Public governance Political leadership Australian politics Qualitative research methods

< Back EROSION OF DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATIC RESILIENCE ABSTRACT Research on erosion of democracy has blossomed during the last decade. Much less scholarly attention has been devoted to the issue of democratic resilience. But how can we understand democratic resilience? How can we conceptualize it? What role do institutions, actors and structural factors play? I sketch three potential reactions of resilient democratic regimes to erosion of democracy: to withstand without changes, to adapt through internal changes, and to recover without losing the democratic character of its regime and its core institutions, organizations and procedures.. BIO Wolfgang Merkel is Prof. of Political Science at the Berlin Social Science Center (WZB) and Senior Scholar of the Democracy Institute at Central European University in Budapest. He is i.a. a member of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Science and a Prof. em. At Humboldt University of Berlin. Previous Next

< Back Benjamin Lyons Associate About Ben Lyons' research focuses on the intersections of politics, science, and communication technology. He has published work examining the roles that group affiliations and media use play in distorting policy debates. He is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Utah.

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 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

Simon Niemeyer, John S. Dryzek, Nicole Curato, Andrè Bächtiger, Marina Lindell, Mark E. Warren, Hannah Barrowman, Francesco Veri, Nardine Alnemr < Back A Metastudy of Democratic Deliberation: Updating Theory and Practice Investigator(s): Simon Niemeyer, John S. Dryzek, Nicole Curato, Andrè Bächtiger, Marina Lindell, Mark E. Warren, Hannah Barrowman, Francesco Veri, Nardine Alnemr 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.

< 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

< Back End of Year Report 2024 Center for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance 2024 , University of Canberra Summary Welcome to the 2024 end-of-year report of the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. This year has been especially meaningful for us, as it marked the 10th anniversary of our Centre at the University of Canberra. This milestone provided a valuable opportunity to celebrate our collective achievements, reflect on the past decade, and envision the future of our work in deliberative democracy. Read more 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

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back 2024 Deliberative Democracy Summer School 22 Mar 2024 On 7-9 February, the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance (CDDGG) hosted the 2024 Deliberative Democracy Summer School at the Ann Harding Conference Centre, University of Canberra. Over the course of three days, more than 50 leading academics and talented PhD students from around the world delved into deliberative democracy’s most pressing issues, including global challenges on the climate emergency, pandemics and populism. The event provided a unique opportunity to discuss emerging themes, empirical findings and methodological innovations in deliberative democracy research, on a wide range of topics such as deliberative systems, mini-publics, social movements, transnational deliberation, non-human deliberation to feminist and decolonial deliberation. What metaphor best captures the state and future of Deliberative Democracy? Insights by participants and speakers. Visualised by Arran McKenna. "My experience during the Summer School was fantastic, both intellectually and personally. I was able to develop ideas and thoughts regarding my PhD research project. I also met so many wonderful new people and friends whom I'll be taking with me into the future," PhD student participant Maria Fernanda Diaz Vidal (University of Edinburgh) said. The event was generously supported by the Office of the Deputy Vice Chancellor for Research and Innovation and the Faculty of Business, Government and Law. Watch the summer school video here . Photo by David Beach

< Back Democratic proceduralism and its limits: From philosophical principles to political institutions Dannica Fleuss, Helmut Schmidt University Hamburg Tue 25 February 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In recent years Western democracies’ legitimacy has been heavily under attack. The decline in public support for democratic institutions manifests particularly in anti-elitism, the rise of populist and post-truth politics. A branch of political science- and public policy-scholars suggested to counteract such developments by strengthening the role of experts in political decision-making (e.g., Brennan 2016, chapter 8; Willke 2007; 2014). Such expertocratic proposals for reforming existing democratic institutions and political practices, however, contradict normative perspectives that consider the equal participation of all affected to be the core requirement of democratic legitimacy. Proceduralist political philosophy proposes a “genuinely democratic” understanding of democratic legitimacy: Proceduralists argue that the equal inclusion of all affected citizens must be the only criterion for legitimacy (Fleuß 2017; see Peter 2008; Estlund 2007; Christiano 2004). This philosophical stance has so far not been translated into institutional design and application-oriented proposals for political practice. To provide a comprehensive conception of proceduralist legitimacy, I aim at “bridging the gap” between proceduralist philosophy and application-oriented discussions of institutional design. I provide a brief overview of the argumentative path that starts out by abstract philosophical debates and, guided by a meta-theoretical framework, ultimately proposes concrete suggestions for institutions. Against this background, the lecture focuses on two claims that are at the heart of the book’s approach: A Critical Theory-inspired conceptualization of proceduralist legitimacy can provide a coherent and appealing normative ideal for contemporary democratic politics (and thereby avoids the major pitfalls of “classic” proceduralist approaches). Radically proceduralist institutional devices must be created, criticized and, potentially, changed by the citizens of democratic societies. To realize this ideal in political reality and to create institutional devices for this purpose, we must (a) adopt a systemic perspective on ‘institutional design’ and (b) create institutions that facilitate the reversibility of decisions and procedural regulations. References Christiano, T. (2004). The Authority of Democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 12(3), 266– 290. Estlund, D. M. (2008). Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Fleuß, D. (2017). Prozeduren, Rechte, Demokratie. Das legitimatorische Potential von Verfahren für politische Systeme. [English Title: “The Normative Legitimacy of Democracies. On the Limits of Proceduralism”]. Dissertation, Heidelberg University. Online: http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/23203/. Peter, F. (2008). Pure Epistemic Proceduralism. Episteme, 5(1), 33–55. Willke, H. (2007). Smart governance: governing the global knowledge society. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus/Chicago University Press. Willke, H. (2014). Demokratie in Zeiten der Konfusion. Berlin: Suhrkamp. About the speaker Dannica Fleuss is a postdoctoral research fellow and lecturer in political theory at Helmut Schmidt University (Hamburg) and a research associate at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. She holds an MA in philosophy and political science and a PhD in political science from Heidelberg University. From 2014 until 2017, Dannica worked as a lecturer at the departments of political science and philosophy at Heidelberg University. In 2018 and 2019, she spent research visits at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance (University of Canberra) and the Centre for the Study of Democracy (University of Westminster). Her research deals with conceptualizations of democratic legitimacy, philosophy of science and deliberative democracy. Dannica’s postdoctoral project aims at developing a measurement of nation states’ democratic quality that is firmly grounded in deliberative democratic theory. 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