Search Results

< 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 Simone Chambers Associate About Simone Chambers has written and published on such topics as deliberative democracy, public reason, the public sphere, secularism, rhetoric, civility and the work of Jürgen Habermas and John Rawls. She is a Professor of Political Science at the University of California at Irvine.

Former PhD student < Back Louise Clery Former PhD student About Louise Clery completed her PhD in 2006 at the Australian National University. Her dissertation ‘Social movement strategy between pragmatism and praxis: environmentalists and regional forest agreements’ was supervised by John Dryzek, with Robert E. Goodin and Val Plumwood in the panel.

< Back WAIT, WHAT? DECOLONIZING DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY? “Wait, what?” is a call to take a moment and to seriously consider what we mean by decolonizing deliberative democracy. About this event Deliberative democracy – as a set of norms, practices, and procedures for collective governance -- is an extension of liberalism and liberal democracy. More to the point, deliberative democracy is fundamentally rooted in intertwined logics of possessive individualism, positivism and universal truths, and settler colonialism. If theorists and practitioners of deliberative democracy are serious about decolonizing the field, this normative inheritance must be confronted. Deliberative democracy cannot be decolonized without a sustained and thoughtful interrogation of its ontological, epistemological, and ethical roots that continue to feed it. “Wait, what?” is a call to take a moment and to seriously consider what we mean by decolonizing deliberative democracy and whether this is even possible. Taking this moment is critical in ensuring that efforts to decolonize deliberative democracy do not in fact reinforce colonialism. Genevieve Fuji Johnson is a Yonsei settler of Japanese and Irish ancestry. Although proud of her family’s history of resilience, she is reckoning with their four generations of Indigenous dispossession. It is thus with gratitude and respect that she divides her time between the traditional and unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations and those of the Tla-o-qui-aht Nation. Dr. Johnson is a professor of Political Science at Simon Fraser University. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

< Back Catherine Clutton Associate About Cathy Clutton has over thirty years’ experience of public administration within Australian Government departments. She has developed and managed programs that provided financial and management support for community organisations, developed evidence-based clinical practice and public health guidelines and policy, and provided support for health and medical research in Australia.

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

< Back John Uhr Associate About John Uhr is a Professor of Political Science in the School of Politics and International Relations at the Australian National University.

< Back Should democracies permit citizens to select refugees for admission and resettlement? Patti Tamara Lenard, University of Ottawa Tue 7 August 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl Room, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract One way that states discharge their duties to refugees is by admitting them for resettlement. Of the millions of refugees in places of refuge, only one million are specially designated by the UNHCR for resettlement in third countries. These individuals, identified by the UNCHR as either especially vulnerable, or particularly unlikely to find any alternative permanent solution, are prioritized for admission to third countries for resettlement. Of these, only a small number are actually selected by host countries for resettlement, however; last year, just over 100 000 found permanent homes in third countries. In this article, I take all of this context seriously, to consider the ethics of one particular way of selecting refugees for resettlement, that is, by giving citizens the driver’s seat in selecting refugees for admission to resettlement. I ask, in this article, whether it is morally acceptable to permit citizens of democracies to select specific refugees for resettlement, under the condition that they are willing to support – financially and emotionally – those whom they select. I argue, ultimately, that there are moral goods that derive from permitting citizens to select refugees for admission, but that they do not outweigh the importance of offering scarce resettlement spots to those who are most in need. Therefore, any democratic refugee admission scheme that permits citizens to select refugees must constrain those who can be named for admission to those who are most in need. I conclude with some proposals for how this can be achieved. About the speaker Patti Tamara Lenard is Associate Professor of Ethics in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa. She is the author of Trust, Democracy and Multicultural Challenges (Penn State, 2012). Her work has been published in a range of journals, including Political Studies, Ethics and International Affairs, Review of Politics, and Ethics and Global Politics. Her current research focuses on the moral questions raised by migration across borders in an era of terrorism, especially as it pertains to refugees and irregularly present migrants, trust and social cohesion, and democratic theory more generally. Her most recent work, focused on the moral dilemmas posed by denationalization for terror-related crimes, is newly published in the American Political Science Review (2018). Previous Next

< Back Deliberating in unequal societies: Liberal risks, performative possibilities Emily Beausoleil, Massey University Tue 31 October 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Pluralist democracies take as given that diversity is not only inevitable, but vital to a flourishing and just society. Yet communicating across difference remains one of the greatest demands democracy makes of us, particularly in conditions of inequality. How can marginalised communities speak without being oversimplified, distorted, or objectified by the presumptions and power of dominant groups? And how can what sounds like white noise not only resonate but hold dominant society to account, to challenge and transform that society to become more inclusive, more just, and more equal? This paper uses a case of legislative theatre in Vancouver, Canada to illustrate how theatrical approaches to deliberation offer distinct resources for addressing these challenges. In fact, it will argue that it is not in spite of its differences to conventional deliberative processes, but because of them that artistic performance can serve as sites of democratic engagement between marginalised and powerful groups in powerful ways. About the speaker Emily Beausoleil is a Senior Lecturer of Politics at Massey University and Associate Editor of Democratic Theory journal. As a political theorist, she explores the conditions, challenges, and creative possibilities for democratic engagement in diverse societies, with particular attention to the capacity for 'voice' and listening in conditions of inequality. Connecting affect, critical democratic, postcolonial, neuroscience, and performance scholarship, Beausoleil’s work explores how we might realise democratic ideals of receptivity and responsiveness to social difference in concrete terms. She holds a 2017-19 Marsden Fast-Start Fellowship, and has been published in Political Theory, Contemporary Political Theory, Constellations, Conflict Resolution Quarterly , and Ethics & Global Politics , as well as various books. Previous Next

< Back Ron Levy Associate About Ron Levy researches and writes on public law and political theory, especially constitutional law, the law of politics, and deliberative democracy and is a Senior Lecturer at the Australian National University.

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

< Back Cracking the whip: The deliberative costs of strict party discipline Udit Bhatia, University of Oxford Tue 26 September 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract This paper explores how strict party discipline over legislators can harm a legislative assembly’s deliberative capacity. I begin by showing different ways in which control over legislators can be exercised, and why some warrant more attention than others. Next, I discuss three ways in which such control stifles the discursive autonomy of legislators. In the third section, I outline two ways in which deliberation in the context of legislatures can be understood: the classical and distributed approach. The fourth section argues that the stifling of discursive autonomy of legislators imposes costs on deliberation in parliament, whether this is viewed in the classical or the distributed sense. In the fifth section, I outline different approaches we might adopt to party discipline in order to minimise its deliberative costs. About the speaker Udit Bhatia is a doctoral candidate and lecturer (Lady Margaret Hall) at the University of Oxford. His research interests lie at the intersections of democratic theory, political representation and social epistemology. He is currently examining the exclusion of persons from democratic citizenship on the basis of epistemic inferiority. Previous Next

< Back When the talking stops: Deliberative disagreement and non-deliberative decision mechanisms Ian O'Flynn, Newcastle University Tue 5 December 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Deliberative democracy entails a commitment to deciding political questions on their merits. In the ideal case, people engage in an exchange of reasons and arrive together at an agreed view or judgement on what is right or best. In practice, of course, an agreed view may be impossible to reach—among other things, there may not be enough time or information. Yet while deliberative democrats accept that compromise or voting may therefore be required to resolve the disagreement that deliberation leaves unresolved, the nature of that acceptance remains unclear. Is there something in the logic of deliberative democracy to commend it or does it signal something important about the limits of the model? To address this question, this paper uses the much-neglected distinction between conflicts of judgement and conflicts of preference to show why greater attention needs to be paid to the character of the decision to be made. This paper is co-authored with Maija Setälä. About the speaker Dr Ian O’Flynn is a Senior Lecturer in Political Theory at Newcastle University. His main research interest is in deliberative democracy, but he also works on topics such as compromise and political integration. He teaches modules in contemporary political theory and in the politics of deeply divided societies. He is the author of Deliberative Democracy and Divided Societies (2006) and his articles have appeared in journals such as British Journal of Political Science and Political Studies. He has held visiting positions at Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania and the Australian National University. Previous Next

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

< Back Baogang He Associate About Baogang He has become widely known for his work in Chinese democratization and politics, in particular the deliberative politics in China. He is Alfred Deakin Professor and Chair in International Relations since 2005, at Deakin University, Australia.

< Back 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 Summary Read more Previous Next

< Back DEMOCRACY, CRISIS, RESILIENCE - IN CONVERSATION WITH PROFESSOR JEFFREY ALEXANDER ABSTRACT This conversation will focus the prospects of democracy in the context of current crisis characterised by waves of populist backlash; extremist attacks; the Capitol building imperiled; ever-worsening economic inequality; the insidious erosion of privacy; the epistemic collapse of the public sphere; the rise of a new form of techno-authoritarianism, ready for export. These crises are compounded by the practical challenges of averting climate collapse and ending a pandemic skillfully adapting to our best attempts at control. At stake are not only the institutional structures of democratic governance but the cultural structures which lend meaning and collective motivation to democratic self-governance. In this conversation with one of the world’s leading sociological theorists, we explore the cultural dimensions of crisis and the sources and prospects for democratic resilience. BIO Jeffrey C. Alexander is the Lillian Chavenson Saden Professor of Sociology at Yale University and Founder and, with Philip Smith, Co-Director of the Center for Cultural Sociology. Jeffrey Alexander works in the areas of theory, culture, and democratic politics. A leading exponent of the “strong program” in cultural sociology, he has investigated the cultural codes and narratives that inform diverse areas of social life. His recent work has tackled question of crisis, radicalism, and solidarity in democratic politics in the United States and beyond. Previous Next

< Back Towards a new deliberative quality: from unitary and idealized to pluralistic and re-politicized visions of deliberative democracy André Bächtiger, University of Stuttgart Tue 19 February 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Many researchers and practitioners have understood (and understand) deliberation as a fixed and unitary construct that quasi-automatically supports and strengthens democracy. Yet, empirical research shows that the classic deliberative core can collide with democratic goods. Moreover, deliberative scholars have long focused on “ideal” institutions, such as deliberative mini-publics or institutional settings in politics that promote classic deliberative ideals. But “ideal” institutions in politics reduce deliberation to a rare event; and a focus on deliberative mini-publics means focusing on events that rarely lead to consequential outcomes in the polity and may even undermine democratic legitimacy. In our new book Mapping and Measuring Deliberation, John Parkinson and I understand deliberation as contingent, dependent on different contexts and goals. Moreover, our new approach also understands deliberation as performative and distributed. On this basis, we re-politicise deliberation. Not only is it necessary to broaden the analytical lens and study deliberative action in all kinds of sites of a democratic system, we must also adapt our deliberative ideals to the variegated contexts and goals of deliberation. Finally, we must also grapple with the ´Goldilocks´ question that there may be too much deliberation, requiring us to think of balancing moments between deliberative and democratic ideals. About the speaker André Bächtiger holds the Chair of Political Theory at the Department of Social Sciences at the University of Stuttgart. His research focuses on the challenges of mapping and measuring deliberation and political communication as well as understanding the preconditions and outcomes of high-quality deliberation in the contexts of both representative institutions and mini-publics. His research has been published by Cambridge University Press and in the British Journal of political Science, European Journal of Political Research, the Journal of Political Philosophy, the Journal of Conflict Resolution, European Political Science Review, Political Studies, and Acta Politica. He is co-editor of the forthcoming Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy (co-edited with John Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren). Previous Next

< Back Triaging and the deliberative system in Toronto Nick Vlahos, University of Canberra Tue 8 September 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube Channel Abstract This presentation discusses how the deliberative system in Toronto overlaps with political and bureaucratic processes. Scalar and spatial relations set the foundation for outlining three types of public engagement within Toronto’s deliberative system, i.e. a City of Toronto governance committee, residents’ associations, and neighbourhood planning tables. Public engagement in Toronto is discussed as a series of triaging, whereby public deliberation is geared towards problem-sorting. Where there are cross-organizational alliances and supports in place to try and get ahead of problems, they face the larger structures that favour different or rather competing logics and policies supporting private economic and planning development. Given the limited capacities, resources, mandates, and integration in overlapping political and economic processes, public engagement mechanisms that prioritize triaging can only have limited system-level impacts. About the speaker Nick Vlahos is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, University of Canberra, Australia. Previous Next

< Back Jonathan Pickering Associate Professor About