Search Results

< Back The Political Economy of Devolution in Britain from the Postwar Era to Brexit Nick Vlahos 2020 , Palgrave Summary Bringing together ten leading researchers in the field of deliberative democracy, this important book examines the features of a Deliberative Mini-Public (DMP) and considers how DMPs link into democratic systems. It examines the core design features of DMPs and their role in the broader policy process and takes stock of the characteristics that distinguish them from other forms of citizen participation. In doing so, the book offers valuable insights into the contributions that DMPs can make not only to the policy process, but also to the broader agenda of revitalising democracy in contemporary times. Read more Previous Next

Former PhD student < Back Jonathan Kuyper Former PhD student About Jonathan Kuyper is a political theorist and international relations scholar working mainly with democratic theory, with a special focus on deliberative democracy. He is interested in how democratic theory can be employed to understand changes in domestic politics brought about by globalization, as well as offers ways to respond to these changes.

< Back Descriptive representation revisited Anne Phillips, London School of Economics Tue 13 February 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract It is now part of the shared assumptions of liberal democracy that representation involves some component of what has come to be known (though it’s not a term I much like) as ‘descriptive’ representation. Politicians, political commentators, and citizens now routinely comment on the gender and ethnic composition of elected assemblies, and take it as self-evident progress when an election generates a higher proportion of women representatives or a more ethnically diverse legislature. The normative arguments are by no means settled, as is evidenced by the slow progress towards anything approaching parity, but my focus in this seminar is more specifically on the challenge posed by the recent rise in populism. Populism derives its power from a sense of not being represented by a political elite perceived as in some way not ‘of the people’: as metropolitan, intellectual, establishment, etc. To that extent, it seems to express a feeling of marginality and under-representation of the kind that fuelled claims for descriptive representation, though with an emphasis more on class than gender or racial exclusion. But in invoking ‘the people’, populist movements also typically reject preoccupations with anti-racism, LGBTQ rights, multiculturalism, gender equality , all of which are represented as elite preoccupations, at odds with the concerns of ‘working’ or ‘ordinary’ or ‘real’ people. The turn towards populism then seems simultaneously to confirm the importance of descriptive representation and to reject much of its founding principles. The point of the seminar is to think about this. About the speaker Anne Phillips is the Graham Wallas Professor of Political Science in the Government Department at the London School of Economics. Her work engages with issues of democracy and representation; equality and difference; feminism and multiculturalism; and the dangers in regarding the body as property. Her publications include The Politics of Presence (1995), Which Equalities Matter? (1999), Multiculturalism without Culture (2007), Our Bodies, Whose Property? (2013), and The Politics of the Human (2015). She also co-edited, with John Dryzek and Bonnie Honig, the 2006 Oxford Handbook of Political Theory. She was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 2003, and a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in 2012, and in 2016 received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the PSA. Previous Next

Research Assistant < Back Juliana Rocha Research Assistant About Juliana Rocha first joined the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance in 2013 as a research assistant working with Simon Niemeyer on his Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Project, with John Dryzek on his ARC Laureate Fellowship Project, and with Selen Ercan on an ARC Project.

< Back Mara Hernandez Associate About Mara Hernandez pioneered the design and facilitation of multi-stakeholder dialogue and consensus-based coalition building in Mexico, on issues of public policy such as environmental management, human rights and public security.

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back The CDDGG 10-Year Anniversary Seminar Series 31 Jan 2024 In 2024 the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, at the University of Canberra, turns 10 years old. In celebration, we are organising a seminar series that is open to all, addressing 10 of the most pressing questions facing deliberate democracy today. Each month we will host a one-hour hybrid seminar featuring two short talks by world-leading scholars and practitioners, followed by a moderated discussion. Events will be filmed and posted on our YouTube channel for wider dissemination. Please keep checking our upcoming events page for the details and registration of each month’s seminar.

< Back Deliberation and media policy studies: Towards a deliberative policy ecology approach Preeti Raghunath, The Symbiosis Institute of Media and Communication (SIMC), Pune, India Tue 20 October 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Abstract The study of deliberative democracy has received great impetus in Political Science and associated fields of Political Philosophy and Environmental Policy Studies. My engagement with literature on deliberative democracy comes from my grounding in Critical Media Policy Studies and Habermasian thought. Drawing on theoretical literature and empirical ethnographic fieldwork conducted in four countries of South Asia, and through the use of Grounded Theory, I present the building of the Deliberative Policy Ecology (DPE) Approach to the study of media policies and policymaking in South Asia. About the speaker Preeti Raghunath is an Assistant Professor at the Symbiosis Institute of Media and Communication (SIMC), Pune, India. Her research and praxis are in the realm of critical media policy studies in South Asia. She is particularly interested in pushing the epistemological contours of the area from the Global South. She is the author of 'Community Radio Policies in South Asia: A Deliberative Policy Ecology Approach', published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2020. She serves as a Vice-Chair of the Global Media Policy Working Group of the International Association of Media and Communication Research (IAMCR). Previous Next

< Back When does deliberation occur, and how do you know you've found it? Simon Niemeyer, University of Canberra Tue 26 July 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract This presentation focusses on the question of how the process of deliberation takes place in mini public settings. In part it revisits the findings of Goodin and Niemeyer (2003) who found that most of the transformation takes place during the early phase of deliberation where information is acquired. The findings draw from a real-world deliberative event in Uppsala Sweden involving 60 participants considering options for addressing the issue of begging by internal EU migrants. As for Goodin and Niemeyer, transformation is measured in terms of position on underlying issues (attitudes/beliefs, values) at three stages (pre; mid, following information presentations; and post-deliberation), but in this case policy preferences were also surveyed permitting a wider range of analysis. The results are consistent with Goodin and Niemeyer, where the greatest transformation occurs during the early information phase of the event. However, another measure of transformation (intersubjective consistency) is most strongly affected during the later deliberation phase. The results raise the question in respect to what counts as deliberative transformation. They also suggest that deliberation from the individual perspective may involve a sequence whereby the initial opening of minds induces a higher level of receptiveness to information and transformation, which is followed by a subsequent process of reflection. To the extent that this model of internal deliberation is valid it potentially accounts for wildly conflicting results obtained from observing deliberation, as well as potential implications for understanding the possibility of both deliberation within and deliberation in mass settings. About the speaker Simon Niemeyer is an Australian Research Council (ARC) Future Fellow whose research covers the broad fields of deliberative democracy and environmental governance, particularly in respect to climate change. His focus is on the forces that shape public opinion and how this can be improved so that the expressed preference of the public better reflects their collective long-term interests. This has guided his research in the direction of exploring the nature of preference change during deliberative minipublics, which is now moving into a phase of understanding the possibility for deliberative preference formation in mass public settings and the institutional features that best facilitate deliberative democratic governance. Simon completed his PhD at the Australian National University and since then has been the recipient of a number of Australian Research Council Awards, including his current Future Fellowship. As well as his Future Fellowship he is the lead investigator on an ARC project concerning the possibilities for achieving mass public deliberation; a co-investigator on another ARC project on deliberative democracy and achieving just outcomes when adapting to climate change (with David Schlosberg), and a co-investigator on a Swedish Research Council project (with Julia Jennstål) concerning the nature of the deliberative person. He is currently co-located between the University of Uppsala and the University of Canberra while he develops international links for the next phase of research in assessing deliberativeness of national political settings. Previous Next

< Back Overview of the law of deliberative democracy Ron Levy, Australian National University Tue 24 February 2015 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract Laws have colonised many corners of democratic practice. After several decades of the juridification of politics, the so-called ‘laws of politics’ now are often integral to (even constitutive of) the sites of political deliberation. Yet much deliberative theory neglects to address law as a set of norms whose influences on political practice are both substantial and varied. Equally, legal scholars have been slow to join the deliberative turn in research. Few scholars on either side of the disciplinary divide have sought comprehensively to bridge studies of the law of politics with deliberative theory. My current research (with co-author and co-CI Prof Graeme Orr) aims to do exactly this. In the seminar I will update Centre members on the progress of our book and ARC project entitled ‘The Law of Deliberative Democracy’. Making use of the opportunity of an audience familiar with deliberative theory, I will focus not on narrow examples from the book, but on overall arguments. A key contention is that, though the laws of politics may often frustrate the best laid plans of deliberative democrats, this outcome is not inevitable. In particular, it is not the form of common-law decision-making that determines law’s fit to deliberative democracy, but only the particular substantive legal choices that judges make. I will touch on three areas of doctrine in the law of politics (relating to political liberty, equality, and anti-corruption) where such judicial choices have either thwarted or helped to realise deliberative democratic ideals. About the speaker Dr Ron Levy researches and writes on public law and political theory, especially constitutional law, the law of politics, and deliberative democracy. He is the winner of several research awards including grants from the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Australian Research Council. Ron is currently a chief investigator on two ARC Discovery Projects: 'The Law of Deliberative Democracy: Theory and Reform' (DP130100706, 2012-2015, with Graeme Orr) bridging research on election law with deliberative democratic theory and 'Confronting the Devolution Paradox' (DP140102682, 2013-2016, with AJ Brown, Robyn Hollander, Paul Kildea, Rodney Smith, Richard Cole and John Kincaid) on federalism and political culture. Ron has also been guest co-editor of the Election Law Journal's 2013 symposium issue on 'the law of deliberative democracy' and is co-writing a monograph: The Law of Deliberative Democracy (Routledge, under contract, with Graeme Orr). Ron's other projects include studies of constitutional reform, including prospects for reform via deliberative democracy. He has been a Visitor at Yale Law School, Cambridge University and King's College London. At the ANU College of Law, he convenes Advanced Constitutional Law and Torts, and gives seminars in Commonwealth Constitutional Law. Previous Next

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back Call for Papers: Deliberative Democracy Summer School 2024 18 Apr 2023 APPLY HERE! Please submit the completed form to our research assistant, Hans Asenbaum at hans.asenbaum@canberra.edu.au by 30 June 2023. For questions, please contact the summer school convenor, Hans Asenbaum at hans.asenbaum@canberra.edu.au .

< Back Power in Deliberative Democracy: Norms, Forums, Systems Nicole Curato, Marit Hammond and John B. Min 2019 , Palgrave Summary Deliberative democracy is an embattled political project. It is accused of political naiveté for it only talks about power without taking power. Others, meanwhile, take issue with deliberative democracy’s dominance in the field of democratic theory and practice. An industry of consultants, facilitators, and experts of deliberative forums has grown over the past decades, suggesting that the field has benefited from a broken political system. This book is inspired by these accusations. It argues that deliberative democracy’s tense relationship with power is not a pathology but constitutive of deliberative practice. Deliberative democracy gains relevance when it navigates complex relations of power in modern societies, learns from its mistakes, remains epistemically humble but not politically meek. These arguments are situated in three facets of deliberative democracy—norms, forums, and systems—and concludes by applying these ideas to three of the most pressing issues in contemporary times—post-truth politics, populism, and illiberalism. Read more Previous Next

< Back George Vasilev Associate About George Vasilev's research explores the application of deliberative democracy in the fields of conflict resolution, multiculturalism and transnational activism. He also does work on Balkan politics and Europeanisation. He is author of the book Solidarity across Divides: Promoting the Moral Point of View (Edinburgh University Press, 2015).

Nicole Curato, Jayeel Cornelio and Filomin Candaliza-Gutierrez < Back Who will Bury the Dead? Community Responses in Duterte’s Bloody War on Drugs Investigator(s): Nicole Curato, Jayeel Cornelio and Filomin Candaliza-Gutierrez Funded by ANU-DFAT Philippines Project Small Research Grant ($14,000), the Project Team includes: Nicole Curato, Chief Investigator Jayeel S. Cornelio, Co-Investigator Filomin Candaliza-Gutierrez, Co-Investigator Bianca Ysabell Franco, Research Associate Erron Media, Research Associate Project Description This project aims to conduct an exploratory study that examines community responses to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s bloody war on drugs. It is envisioned to be the first phase of a longer-term collaborative project which chronicles the social and political legacies of the drug war on the community level. While international media and human rights groups have called attention to the alarming body counts in the first six months of Duterte’s administration, it is equally important to take a systematic look at the communities that have directly borne the costs of war. The team aims to conduct preliminary data gathering to map formal and informal networks that are created, disrupted or negotiated because of the war, as well as the possibilities and obstructions for grassroots participation to formulate inclusive and humane approaches in solving the problem of illegal drugs. The approach is ethnographic and action-oriented. A team of sociologists will closely observe two communities in Manila that have witnessed a spate of killings and identify spaces for reform. This project aims to generate preliminary insight into how the war has forged or broken social networks within communities, and how it affects formal and informal structures of governance. These insights are crucial to better understand not only the costs of the drug war, but also identify emerging spaces for critical citizenship and collective problem-solving. Academic Publications Cornelio, Jayeel and Medina, Erron (Forthcoming) ‘Christianity and Duterte’s War on Drugs in the Philippines,’ Journal of Politics , Religion, and Ideology. Curato, N. and Ong, J.C. (2018) ‘Who laughs at a rape joke? Crass politics and ethical responsiveness in Rodrigo Duterte’s Philippines,’ in Ethical Responsiveness and the Politics of Difference , T. Dreher and A. Mondal (eds.) New York: Palgrave. Curato, Nicole (2017) The Duterte Reader: Critical Essays in Rodrigo Duterte’s Early Presidency . Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Speaking Engagements Medina, Erron (2019) ‘Christianity and Duterte’s War on Drugs in the Philippines.’ Contemporary Identities in Southeast Asia: A public forum on youth, violence, and transnationalism, Ateneo de Manila University. February 15. Franco, Bianca Ysabelle (2019) ‘Women in the Shadows of Duterte’s Drug War.’ Philippine Sociological Society Socio Caravan, Central Mindanao University. January 18. Franco, Bianca Ysabelle (2019) ‘Women in the Shadows of Duterte’s Drug War.’ Philippine Sociological Society Socio Caravan, Bukidnon State University. January 17. Franco, Bianca Ysabelle (2018) ‘Women in the Shadows of Duterte’s Drug War.’ Philippine Sociological Society (PSS) Conference, Siquijor State College. October 5-6. Cornelio, Jayeel and Erron Medina (2018) ‘Christianity and Duterte’s War on Drugs in the Philippines.’ Third International Conference of the Ateneo Center for Asian Studies. August 24. Cornelio, Jayeel (2018) ‘Philippines under Duterte.’ Invited speaker, Sydney Southeast Asia Centre, University of Sydney. May 18. Cornelio, Jayeel (2018) ‘Christianity and Duterte's War on Drugs in the Philippines.’ Invited lecture, Southeast Asia Research Centre, City University of Hong Kong. April 24. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘Who laughs at a rape joke? Crass politics and ethical responsiveness in Rodrigo Duterte’s Philippines.’ Southeast Asia’s democratic recession: Understanding causes and consequences, Griffith Asia, Griffith University. December 11-12. Gutierrez, Filomin Candaliza (2018) ‘Penal Populism in the Philippines: The Rise of Violence in Duterte’s War on Drugs.’ Invited lecture, Kyoto Sangyo University, Kyoto, Japan. November 8. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘How do populists govern? Lessons from Rodrigo Duterte’s Philippines.’ Yale MacMillan Centre, Yale University. October 16. Gutierrez, Filomin Candaliza. (2017) ‘The Rise of Penal Populism and Violence under the Duterte Regime: Research as Response.’ International Sociological Association PhD Laboratory, the University of Adam Mickiewicz, Poznan, Poland. September 21. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘From Demagogues to Deplorables? Populist publics in Rodrigo Duterte’s Philippines.’ Invited speaker, Philippine Studies-Berlin, Humboldt University. June 26. Blogs and Op-eds Franco, Bianca Ysabelle (2018) ‘Women against women in Duterte’s drug war’ in BroadAgenda . December 11. Cornelio, Jayeel and Medina, Erron. ‘Duterte’s enduring popularity is not just a political choice—it is also religious’ in New Mandala . September 3. Franco, Bianca Ysabelle (2018) ‘Women in the shadows of Duterte’s drug war’ in Rappler.com . June 30. Cornelio, Jayeel (2018) ‘The New Normal’ in Rappler.com . January 23. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘The deeper dynamics of Duterte’s drug war’ in EastAsiaForum.org . September 8. Gutierrez, Filomin Candaliza (2017) ‘Duterte and Penal Populism: The Hypermasculinity of Crime Control in the Philippines’ in Discover Society.org . August 2. Cornelio, Jayeel (2017) ‘Collateral Damage’ in Rappler.com . August 22. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘Women in Duterte’s War on Drugs.’ BroadAgenda . March 1. Media Interviews Curato, Nicole (2019) Interview with David Astle. ABC Radio Melbourne and Victoria. January 31. Curato, Nicole (2018) Duterte’s Despotism. Podcast with Aufhebunga Bunga . November 7. Curato, Nicole (2018) #BabaeAko : Is President Duterte's behaviour sexist, or "taken out of context" in The Stream , Al Jazeera. June 6. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘Criticism of Rodrigo Duterte’s “war on drugs” grows after the death of a teenage boy.’ Interview at Radio National . August 23. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘Duterte refuses to step back from controversial war on drugs.’ Interview at ABC The World . July 24. Curato, Nicole. (2017) ‘Die moisten Toten lebten in Armut.’ Featured interview in Republik.ch . February 27. Curato, Nicole (2017) Interview with BBC’s Up All Night with Rod Sharpe . January 2.

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back 2023 APSA Lifetime Achievement Award 8 Dec 2023 Distinguished Professor John Dryzek has received the Lifetime Achievement Award of the Australian Political Studies Association (APSA) during the award ceremony held at the University of Sydney on 29 November 2023. This award is given in recognition of John’s exceptional achievements and contributions to political studies, as well as his outstanding service to APSA and the political science community more broadly.

< Back Co-producing deliberative space: Reflections from city level water forum initiatives in India and Nepal Hemant R Ojha, University of Canberra Tue 17 November 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel . Abstract There is now an increasing level of endorsement of the deliberative approach to governance, bolstered by evidence of benefits in legitimacy, inclusion, social learning, and even the quality of governance outcomes. In the Global South, however, entrenched power asymmetries and political cultures that tend to ignore, if not actively suppress, the practice of deliberation in political decision making continue to challenge efforts to improve deliberation in governance. In this paper, I reflect on some recent and ongoing action research initiatives supporting urban water forums in four cities in India and Nepal. Locally engaged research team partnered with academic research groups from Europe and Australia to design and test urban water forums as an experiment to expand deliberative space on issues related to water management, access, and resilience to climate change. The forums were co-organised by local research groups and city level governments, inviting representatives of all major social groups that have an interest in or are concerned with the problems of water in the city. Over a period of five years, these experiments show that locally engaged research practice can stimulate open dialogues, self-reflections (especially among the powerful groups), system-wide collective thinking, and an appreciation of the longer-term environmental risks in city level planning and decision making. However, seeing through the lens of co-production, these gains in deliberation that emerged in the context of transnational research partnership are less likely to effect new modes of co-production in governance, without larger, deeper and system-wide processes of change and transformation. This experience suggests that small-scale innovations in deliberation can meet co-production limit but can still show directionality and confidence in larger and deeper changes in the system. About the speaker Hermant R Ojha is Adjunct Associate Professor at the Center for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance and Senior Policy Advisor at the Institute for Study and Development Worldwide (IFSD) in Sydney. Previous Next

< Back Kei Nishiyama Associate and 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 Disability and deliberative democracy: The case for an embodied deliberation Bahadir Celiktemur, University of Warwick Tue 12 May 2015 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract In its quest for normative legitimacy, deliberative democracy calls for qualified participation from citizens that would be demanding even in the most mature democracies. Its demands for rational reasoning and preference for the force of the better argument are almost impossible to meet for those who lack communicative abilities, and disqualify them from meaningful participation in deliberative sites. My research addresses the exclusion of disability from deliberative democracy and aims to close the gap between the demands of deliberative democratic theory and the reality of life with disability. My presentation today focusses on what disability teaches deliberative democrats. In this regard explore the spatiality of the deliberative site, problematize the disembodiedness of deliberation, and propose an embodied deliberation through which the voice of the disabled can be heard in deliberative sites. To explain how the embodiedness of disability changes the deliberative sites and gives space and voice to the disabled, I make use of the works of two unlikely names, Jacques Rancière and Judith Butler. About the speaker Bahadir Celiktemur is a final year PhD candidate at the University of Warwick (UK) and a visiting scholar at Griffiths University. His doctoral research, informed by his professional background in the third sector, explores how people with disabilities can be included in deliberative democracy. He also works with disabled people and their allies in Gloucestershire (UK) for a more disability-inclusive local democracy. Previous Next

< Back Judging technical claims in democratic deliberation: A rhetorical analysis of two Citizens' Initiative Review panels in Oregon John Rountree, University of Houston-Downtown Tue 5 May 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Average citizens face difficulty evaluating competing expert claims in the public sphere, and the complexity of policy issues threatens citizens’ autonomy in democratic governance. This study examines how participants in a rigorous deliberative setting judge technical claims. It analyzes audio and transcripts from two intensive mini-public deliberations in the Citizens’ Initiative Review in Oregon. It shows how lay participants in these meetings rhetorically co-construct a standard of verifiability to evaluate expert claims. The study then reflects on what this emergent standard of judgment reveals about the potentials and pitfalls of lay deliberation concerning technical policy issues. About the speaker John Rountree ( rountreej@uhd.edu ) is an Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Houston-Downtown. He studies democratic deliberation, particularly as it brings together citizens and public officials in the public sphere. His dissertation looks at congressional town hall meetings and the opportunities for deliberative participation in national political life. John received his Ph.D. in Communication from Pennsylvania State University in 2019. Previous Next

< Back MEASURING EPISTEMIC DELIBERATION ON POLARIZED ISSUES: THE CASE OF ABORTION PROVISION IN IRELAND David Farrell, University College Dublin Tue 5 March 2019 12:00pm – 1:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract This paper compares the debate quality in the plenary sessions of the Irish citizens’ assembly and an Irish parliamentary committee to assess the epistemic effects of public deliberation on a particularly contentious subject – abortion. The unusual occurrence of a similar process of detailed discussion on the same topic in different institutions at around the same time allows us to make real comparisons between the deliberative capacities of these fora. We suggest that the epistemic effect of deliberation on abortion should facilitate nuanced multi-layered discussion that is both ‘deeper’ in being based on multi-faceted arguments and ‘wider’, in terms of a more accommodative view. We anticipate that these effects should be more pronounced in the more deliberative, less polarised, environment of a citizens’ assembly rather than in the parliamentary committee. The analysis deploys the psychological concept of ‘cognitive complexity’. Examining these epistemic standards allow us to judge whether a given deliberative process produces better or worse outcomes from an epistemic rather than purely procedural point of view. We find that experts tend to talk in more cognitively complex ways and that the members of the citizens’ assembly also demonstrate a deeper cognitively complex grasp of the subject matter. In contrast, advocates and parliamentarians tend towards shallower and more narrow patterns. About the speaker Professor Farrell was appointed to the Chair of Politics at University College Dublin in 2009, having returned to Ireland after two decades working at the University of Manchester (where he was Head of Social Sciences). He is currently Head of Politics and International Relations at UCD. In 2013 he was elected a Member of the Royal Irish Academy. He has held visiting positions at the Australian National University, Harvard, Mannheim, and the University of California Irvine. A specialist in the study of representation, elections and parties, he has published 19 books and more than 100 articles and book chapters. His most recent books include: Political Parties and Democratic Linkage (Oxford University Press, 2011; paperback 2013), which was awarded the GESIS Klingemann Prize for the Best Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) Scholarship, A Conservative Revolution? Electoral Change in Twenty-First Century Ireland (Oxford University Press, 2017), The Post-Crisis Irish Voter: Voting Behaviour in the Irish 2016 General Election (Manchester University Press, 2018), and The Oxford Handbook of Irish Politics (Oxford University Press, forthcoming). His current work is focused on constitutional deliberation, and in that capacity he was the research director of the Irish Constitutional Convention (2012-14) and the research leader of the Irish Citizens’ Assembly (2016-18). In November 2018 he retired as (founding) co-editor of Party Politics. He is a member of the executive committee of the European Consortium for Political Research. Previous Next

Former PhD student < Back Jane Alver Former PhD student About Jane Alver's work investigates the ways feminist civil society actors in the Pacific region respond to the shrinking opportunities for inclusion, and the type of alliances they build to consolidate and amplify their voice in the region.