Search Results

< Back Filipe Motta Associate About Filipe Motta is Brazilian journalist and researcher. His research looks at the constraints to public debate about mining activities in Minas Gerais State, Brazil, with a broad deliberative systems perspective, examining ways in which the dichotomy between conflict and deliberative democracy can be overcome in the context of an environmental conflict.

< Back How do voters want to be represented? An investigation in how parties can strengthen democracy Annika Werner, Australian National University Tue 13 August 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The diagnosis that large parts of democratic publics are disenchanted with political parties is wide spread. Also, that this is a problem for democracy is undeniable, given the crucial role parties play in the representative system. However, what parties can do about this is still much less clear. How should parties make representative democracy work to give it more legitimacy? Dominant democracy models assume that voters want parties to fulfil the promises of their election campaigns and that this is especially true for the party a voter supports. The congruence between voters’ policy preferences, party programs, and party behavior is argued to ensure policy responsiveness and the meaningfulness of elections. Whether voters agree with these assumptions, however, remains largely unclear. Thus, we actually have little robust knowledge about the yardstick against which political elites are judged. This article is one of the first empirical studies to investigate voter preferences regarding party behavior. It pits three ideal-type party representative styles against each other: promise-keeping, focus on public opinion, and seeking the common good. Furthermore, it tests whether voters prefer their party – over other parties – to keep their promises. Using innovative conjoint survey experiments in a most-different design – comparing Austria and Australia – this study finds that, generally, voters care least about parties keeping their promises and their preferences are unaffected by their party support. These results challenge common theoretical assumptions about the party behavior that might make democracy seem legitimate in the eyes of the people. About the speaker Dr Annika Werner is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University. Her research focuses on party behaviour, representation and public attitudes in the democracies of Europe and Oceania and has been published in journals such as the Journal of European Public Policy, Democratization, Party Politics, International Political Science Review, Representation, and Australian Journal of Political Science. Her book “International Populism: The Radical Right in the European Parliament”, co-authored with Duncan McDonnell, is forthcoming with Hurst/Oxford University Press. Annika is Steering Group member of the Manifesto Project (MARPOR, former CMP) and Co-Editor of the Australian Journal of Political Science. Previous Next

John S. Dryzek, Simon Niemeyer, Nicole Curato < Back Global Citizen Deliberation: Analysing a Deliberative Documentary Investigator(s): John S. Dryzek, Simon Niemeyer, Nicole Curato Funded by Australian Research Council Linkage Project (AU$439,000), the Project Team includes: John S. Dryzek Simon Niemeyer Nicole Curato Global Citizen Deliberation: Analysing a Deliberative Documentary. The project aims to enact and film the world’s first truly global citizens’ deliberation, a global citizens’ assembly (GCA) on genome editing, and proceed to analyse the impact of the ‘deliberative documentary’ film on public understanding of complex, fast-evolving science and technology. It will investigate the cross-cultural capacity of citizens to deliberate complex value-laden issues, and so ascertain prospects for an informed global public response to challenges posed by genome editing. Research will test the effects of the deliberative documentary on viewers, examining benefits of communicating complex issues via the work of the GCA. Other benefits include improving public trust in governance and advancing the Australian film industry.

Hemant Ojha < Back Enhancing livelihoods from improved forest management in Nepal (EnLiFT 2) Investigator(s): Hemant Ojha The project “Enhancing livelihoods from improved forest management in Nepal (EnLiFT 2)”, is a forestry research project with funding assistance from the Government of Australia through the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). The project builds on the success and lessons of the 5-year project FST/2011/076, Enhancing livelihoods and food security from agro forestry and community forestry in Nepal, also known as the EnLiFT project. EnLiFT 2 runs from 2018-2023 aiming to enhance forest management practices in community forests and private land to improve livelihoods, social equity and reasearch paper help environmental impact in Nepal. It is implemented in Kavre and Lamjung Districts in Nepal. Project website: https://enliftnepal.org Project Linkedin Page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/enliftnepal/posts/

< Back Deliberation and representation in referendum processes Ronald Van Crombrugge, KU Leuven Tue 22 August 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Referendums – and other forms of popular participation such as the citizen initiative – are a controversial topic. While they promise popular control over government, in reality, they are often characterised by a lack of understanding of the issue by the broader public, which in turn opens up room for different forms of elite manipulation. For this reason, deliberative democrats in particular have often been sceptical of the deliberative potential of mass democracies, and especially instruments of direct democracy such as the referendum. However, the recent turn in deliberative democracy literature towards deliberative systems raises a number of opportunities to re-examine referendums. From a deliberative systems perspective, referendums could potentially fulfil a useful democratic role as the last legitimating step in a larger deliberative process, even though they might not be able to fulfil all the requirements of the deliberative ideal. Yet, even when we accept that referendums have a potential role to play in a deliberative system, we are still presented with the question: how can thousands, or even millions of people deliberate together during the referendum campaign? It is to this question the article seeks to provide an answer. This will require putting into question some of the conditions of the “ideal deliberative procedure”, such as full information and equal speaking time, which can hardly ever be expected during a referendum campaign. There, necessarily only the few will do the actual talking, while most citizens will merely listen. But is this normatively acceptable? Or does this mean giving up on the very core of the deliberative ideal? I will argue that an answer can be found by looking at the role representation – in its broadest sense – plays in referendum campaigns. If differences in power during the referendum campaign can be seen as subject to a broader relation of representation, they might be less problematic from a democratic point of view. In addition, I will argue that under the right circumstances, representation can fulfil the role of an “epistemic resource” which can help citizens to reach a competent decision on the issue at hand. Inversely, when these circumstances are not in place, representation might actually undermine the quality of citizens’ judgments. To make these arguments, I will look at referendum campaigns through the conceptual lens of the “representative claim” as developed by Michael Saward. This allows a shift in attention away from the traditional focus on the talker and towards the listener. Rather than attempting to attain the goals of full information and equal voice during the campaign, we should instead focus on increasing the capacity of ordinary citizens to deliberatively and competently accept or refuse the claims that are made by various elected or unelected representatives, as well as enable them to expose claims which are manifestly unfounded or manipulative. This requires giving attention to the background conditions in which the different claims are made and leads to questions of how the broader public sphere is structured and regulated. About the speaker Ronald Van Crombrugge (°Jette, 1992) graduated in 2013 as a bachelor of laws with a minor in political sciences (magna cum laude). He received his master's degree of laws in 2015 (magna cum laude), option research master. Since October 2015 he is working at KU Leuven's Institute for Constitutional Law, where he specialises in the law of politics. As part of his current research, Ronald is evaluating the law on referendums from the perspective of deliberative democratic theory. The research centers on two questions: first, whether mechanisms of direct democracy such as the referendum have a useful role to play in a deliberative democracy, and second, how the law on referendums can be adapted to better accommodate the principles of deliberative democracy. Previous Next

< Back Overcoming fundamental moral disagreement Richard Rowland, Australian Catholic University Tue 20 June 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Fundamental moral disagreements are moral disagreements that do not derive from disagreements about empirical or non-moral facts. For instance, some hold that torture is always in every instance morally wrong even if the consequences of torturing are better than the consequences of not torturing; others hold that sometimes, when the expected consequences of torturing are good enough (and the expected consequences of not-torturing are bad enough), it can be morally permissible to torture. This disagreement about the morality of torture is a fundamental moral disagreement. Firstly, I will briefly explain how if fundamental moral disagreement persisted in idealized conditions this would have both first-order ethical implications and implications for the nature of morality. Secondly, I will explain how all the research in the literature that purports to give us reasons to believe that there would or would not be fundamental moral disagreement in idealized conditions in fact gives us no reason to believe anything about fundamental moral disagreement in idealized conditions. Thirdly, I will sketch how a deliberative poll and Q-study that I will be conducting with Selen Ercan, David Killoren, and Lucy Parry may shed light on the extant of fundamental moral disagreement that would persist in idealized conditions and whether fundamental moral disagreements differ from other moral and political disagreements. About the speaker Richard Rowland is a permanent research fellow in moral philosophy at the Australian Catholic University. He works on ethics and metaethics, specifically on the nature of normativity and value, and on moral disagreement. He has published work in journals including Ethics, Noûs, Philosophical Studies, and Philosophical Quarterly. Previous Next

< Back Conflict and complexity in a participatory process: Lessons from a wind energy dispute in King Island, Tasmania Rebecca Colvin, Australian National University Tue 20 February 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In 2012, a large-scale wind energy development was proposed for development in King Island, Tasmania. Despite adopting what was described as ‘best practice’ community engagement, the time of the proposal was marred by social conflict between people and groups in King Island. The local dispute escalated to levels where families, friendships, and business relationships were damaged. This presentation outlines findings from a research project that examined how the participatory process went wrong in King Island. This study applied perspectives from social psychology to understand why the proposal caused such significant social conflict, despite the use of a 'best practice' community engagement strategy. Five key drivers of the local conflict were identified: problematic pre-feasibility engagement; the lack of a third-party facilitator of the community consultative committee; holding a vote which polarised the community; the lack of a clear place in the engagement process for local opposition, and; the significance of local context. These findings are instructive for understanding community engagement around wind energy, an improving participatory designs for participatory processes more broadly. About the speaker Dr Bec Colvin is a researcher and knowledge exchange specialist with the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University. Bec’s research interests include how people engage with each other and the challenge of climate change, and how we can intervene in these interrelationships to achieve better outcomes for society and the environment. Before joining the ANU, Bec's research at The University of Queensland explored ways of understanding social conflict about the environment through using the social identity approach from social psychology to interrogate processes of stakeholder and community engagement. This included a focus on conflict about wind energy development and an exploration of the role of framing in shaping attitudes toward land use conflict. Present research interests include the practice and psychology of knowledge exchange and working at the science-policy interface, the human dimension of climate change, framing and communicating climate change, and the links between social psychology and decision-making processes. Previous Next

< Back John S. Dryzek Distinguished Professor About John Dryzek is Distinguished Professor in the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. Before moving to the University of Canberra he was Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Australian Research Council Federation Fellow at the Australian National University. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia, Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy, former Head of the Departments of Political Science at the Universities of Oregon and Melbourne and of the Social and Political Theory program at ANU, former editor of the Australian Journal of Political Science, and former ARC Laureate Fellow. He has also held the title of Centenary Professor at the University of Canberra. Working in both political theory and empirical social science, he is best known for his contributions in the areas of democratic theory and practice and environmental politics. One of the instigators of the 'deliberative turn' in democratic theory, he has published nine books in this area with Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, and Polity Press. His work in environmental politics ranges from political philosophy to studies of environmental discourses and movements to global climate governance, and he has published seven books in this area with Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, and Basil Blackwell. He has also worked on comparative studies of democratization, public policy analysis, and the history and philosophy of social science. His current research emphasizes democratic justice, reason, and resilience; governance in the Anthropocene (an emerging epoch of instability in the Earth system); and response to the crisis of democracy. Key Publications Dryzek, J.S. and Tanasoca, A. (2021) Democratizing Global Justice: Deliberating Global Goals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dryzek, J.S., Bowman, Q., Kuyper, J.W., Pickering, J., Sass, J., and Stevenson, H. (2019) Deliberative Global Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dryzek, J.S. and Pickering, J. (2019) The Politics of the Anthropocene. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Dryzek, J.S., Bächtiger, A. et al (2019) The Crisis of Democracy and the Science of Deliberation, Science 363: 1144-46. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw2694 Dryzek, J.S. (2017) The Forum, the System, and the Polity: Three Varieties of Democratic Theory, Political Theory 45 (5): 610-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591716659114 Full list of publications available in GoogleScholar . Research grants Chief Investigator, Democratic Resilience: The Public Sphere and Extremist Attacks (2021-2023). Funded by the Australian Research Council Discovery Project (AU$511,000) Chief Investigator, Monitoring Deliberative Integrity in Australia (2021-2023). Funded by the Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative. (AU$ 202,156) Chief Investigator, Global Citizen Deliberation: Analysing a Deliberative Documentary (2020-2022). Funded by the Australian Research Council Linkage Project. (AU$439,000) Chief Investigator, Discovery Project (2018-2020) A Meta-Study of Democratic Deliberation: Updating Theory and Practice Funded by the Australian Research Council Discovery Project (AU$526,411) Chief Investigator, Medical Research Future Fund (Australia), Genomic Health Futures Mission Grant (2020-2022) Genome Editing: Formulating an Australian Community Response (AU$420,000) Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship (2014-2020) Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice, and a Changing Earth System (AU$2,600,000) PhD students Pierrick Chalaye (Primary Supervisor) Emerson Sanchez (Primary Supervisor) Wendy Conway-Lamb (Primary Supervisor) Madeleine Egan (Primary Supervisor) Jane Alver (Secondary Supervisor) Nardine Alnemr (Secondary Supervisor) Supervised over 25 PhD students to completion. Administration Director, Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, 2019-2020 Prizes Ken Young Best Paper Prize, awarded by Policy and Politics (with Selen Ercan and Carolyn Hendriks), 2020. One of ten best academic books by an Australian author published in the previous decade, The Australian Higher Education Magazine, 2020, for The Politics of the Earth. Clay Morgan prize for best book in environmental political theory, Western Political Science Association (with Jonathan Pickering), 2019. 2019 Vice Chancellor’s Award for Research Excellence and Researcher of the Year, University of Canberra, 2020. Public Engagement Dryzek, J.S. (2017) Democracy Needs More Trees and Less Trump, The Conversation 8 March.

< Back Janette Hartz-Karp Associate About Janette Hartz-Karp, professor, Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute Western Australia (WA) is a renowned practitioner, teacher and researcher in deliberative democracy. Janette was the co-designer and co-facilitator of Australia’s first Citizens’ Parliament in Canberra.

< Back Inclusion and the meta-conversation: Structural topic modelling the Scottish Independence Referendum John Parkinson, Maastricht University Tue 2 July 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract I will presenting full results of my big data analysis of the Scottish indyref debate from 2012 to 2014, and show (a) that, in terms of topics being discussed, the real divide was not between Yes and No, but between elite and everyday conversations; (b) that economic issues were especially divided; and (c) that the single biggest topic was the meta-conversation, with citizens holding each other to deliberative norms in public. About the speaker John Parkinson is Adjunct Professor of Politics. He works on the relationships between formal policy making and a wide variety of practices in the public sphere, crossing boundaries between normative political theory, public policy, political sociology, and cultural studies. He is a leading proponent of the ‘deliberative systems’ approach, as well as the symbolic, discursive, performative aspects of policy and democratic politics. His books include Deliberating in the Real World (Oxford, 2006), Deliberative Systems (Cambridge, 2012), Democracy and Public Space (Oxford, 2012), and, with Centre Associate André Bächtiger, Mapping and Measuring Deliberation, forthcoming with Oxford in 2018. His current research project with Núria Franco-Guillén is the ARC-funded ‘Sparking a National Conversation’, which is developing new electronic social science tools to map and track claims over time and space in two cases: the Scottish independence debate of 2012-14, and the campaign to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Australian constitution, 2015-17. Previous Next

Former PhD student < Back John Boswell Former PhD student About John Boswell is an Associate Professor of Politics at the University of Southampton. His work looks at issues related to deliberative governance, and has included investigations around democratic deliberation and obesity. His work with the Centre includes a co-authored book with Selen Ercan and Carolyn Hendriks entitled Connected Democracy.

< Back Creative publics: Deliberation in Canada and the story of MASS LBP Peter MacLeod, Principal, MASS LBP Wed 9 May 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Since its founding in 2007, MASS LBP has led some of Canada's most original and ambitious efforts to engage citizens in tackling tough policy choices. From privacy legislation to community planning to health policy, MASS has conducted more than 35 major reference panels, citizens’ assemblies and commissions involving more than 1500 Canadians, and reaching more than 300,000 households. Today, MASS is an internationally recognised leader in the design and delivery of deliberative processes for government. About the speaker Peter MacLeod is the founder and principal of MASS LBP, and one of Canada's leading experts in public engagement and deliberative democracy. He is a former researcher at Britain's Demos think tank, and a long-time friend to Denmark's Kaospilots, a school for business design and social innovation. He writes and speaks frequently about the citizen's experience of the state, the importance of public imagination, and the future of responsible government. He currently serves on the board of Tides Canada, a national environmental charity, and chairs Toronto's Wellesley Institute, a leading think tank dedicated to improving health equity and the social determinants of health. He also lectures in the politics and governance department at Ryerson University. Previous Next

< Back Neighbourly compensations: Lawyers, parliamentary submissions and coal seam gas Tue 4 February 2020 David Turton, Australian National University 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Landholder compensation is a critical part of Australia’s coal seam gas sector. One way to explore this is to scrutinise parliamentary submissions prepared by lawyers for government inquiries into coal seam gas-related legislation. Drawing on the lawyer-focussed work of Deborah Martin and colleagues (2010) and the notion of a ‘rural lawscape’ from Lisa Pruitt (2014), this presentation delves into a Queensland parliamentary committee’s inquiry into the then Mineral, Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. During this inquiry, arguments about the geographical scope of ‘compensatable effects’ for landholders impacted by coal seam gas development were raised by lawyers representing a variety of stakeholders. Their submissions gave voice to notions of distributive justice and the ability of landholders to seek compensation for coal seam gas activities. This presentation highlights the value of examining lawyer perspectives on legislation prior to its enactment, showcasing their role as public policy actors and creators of socio-spatial relations. In arguing about compensation and at what scale it should apply, lawyers attempted to shape the spatial limits of distributive justice. About the speaker Dr David Turton is an Honorary Lecturer with the Fenner School of Environment and Society at the Australian National University. Prior to commencing his PhD in 2013, David worked for the Commonwealth Department of Veterans’ Affairs, in procurement, research and front-line service delivery roles. Building on his PhD, David’s research is focused on various aspects of Australia’s coal seam gas debate, including the involvement of lawyers and planners in CSG discussions. With undergraduate degrees in History and Law, David has also published on environmental history, public administration and socio-legal research topics. Previous Next

< Back Boosting the legitimacy of global climate governance: How can meta-deliberation help? Jonathan Pickering, University of Canberra Tue 13 September 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Many commentators have voiced concerns about the legitimacy of the multilateral climate change regime due to its limited progress in slowing greenhouse gas pollution as well as its cumbersome decision-making processes. Recent accounts of deliberative democracy argue that, in order to be legitimate, deliberative systems must cultivate a capacity for “meta-deliberation”, namely critical reflection about the nature, scope and structure of the deliberative system itself. Stevenson and Dryzek (2014) conclude that the climate regime lacks sufficient capacity for meta-deliberation. Yet, the concept of meta-deliberation requires further theoretical elaboration, and more in-depth empirical analysis is needed on the conditions under which meta-deliberation could work in practice. In this paper I outline an account of meta-deliberation and compare it with related concepts such as reflexivity and meta-governance. I argue that one important function of meta-deliberation is to deliberate about the extent to which decision-making processes are centralised or decentralised (“polycentric”). I then apply this analytical framework to a case study of meta-deliberation about one prominent aspect of the global climate regime in which decision-making arrangements are significantly fragmented: funding to assist developing countries’ efforts to address climate change. I present preliminary results of a case study of the Standing Committee on Finance, which was established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2010 to improve coherence and coordination in the delivery of climate finance. Drawing on documentary analysis and observation of a recent Forum held by the Committee in the Philippines, the case study assesses the Committee’s potential to engage in meta-deliberation about how decision-making on climate finance should be distributed across multilateral, national and sub-national institutions. About the speaker Jonathan joined the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance in 2015. He is a Postdoctoral Fellow working with Professor John Dryzek on his Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship project, ‘Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice and a Changing Earth System’. He completed his PhD in philosophy at the Australian National University, based in the Centre for Moral, Social and Political Theory and graduating in 2014. His thesis explored opportunities for reaching a fair agreement between developing and developed countries in global climate change negotiations. Before joining the University of Canberra he taught climate and environmental policy at the Crawford School of Public Policy at ANU, and has been a Visiting Fellow at the Development Policy Centre at ANU since 2014. Jonathan’s research interests include the ethical and political dimensions of global climate change policy, global environmental governance, development policy and ethics, and global justice. He has a Masters' degree in development studies from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), and undergraduate degrees in arts and law from the University of Sydney. Previously he worked as a policy and program manager with the Australian Government's international development assistance program (AusAID, 2003-09). Previous Next

< Back Institutionalising deliberative mini-publics in public decision-making Claudia Chwalisz, OECD Tue 3 December 2019 11:00am-12pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract A forthcoming OECD study of over to 700 deliberative mini-publics raises new questions about their institutionalisation and the future of democracy. While there has been a proliferation of deliberative processes initiated by public authorities for decision-making over the past few decades, these have tended to remain ad hoc and dependent on political will. The remit of most deliberative processes has also been project-specific and there are few examples where citizens are able to set the agenda or define the problem. Their impact on improving citizens’ sense of agency and efficacy and increasing levels of trust, has thus remain limited. Recently, there has been some experimentation underway that aims to overcome some of these challenges, focused on embedding deliberative processes into public decision-making procedures. This seminar will explore two questions around this theme: why institutionalise, and what are the different forms of institutionalisation that are already happening, and that we could envisage? Previous Next

< Back (Non)reciprocity across the system: The case of abortion in Brazil Tue 12 November 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm Speaker: Thais Choucair, Federal University of Minas Gerais Venue: The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Reciprocity is often measured in small settings, but how it works when we think of broad discussions in the public sphere? I use the distinction of direct and discursive reciprocity made by Mendonça et al 2014 to investigate the discussion about abortion in Brazil. Although both types can be found in the discussions, they do not work together. The non-interaction of both types of reciprocity brings new insights in the field of listening and polarization studies. About the speaker Thais Choucair is a PhD Student in the Communication Department at The Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil). She works as an Associated Researcher in the Media and Public Sphere Research Group (EME), coordinated by Professor Rousiley Maia. Ms Choucair is engaged in two specific research projects: (i) Deliberative System and Interconnect Media, developed in collaboration with a network of scholars from the field of Political Science, Sociology, Communication and History. In recent years, Ms. Choucair has been working to develop methodologies to approach connections in the deliberative system. In her master's thesis (2017-2018) she presents a method for identifying online pages of social actors involved in a specific issue (the case study was about the abortion case in Brazil). In this research Ms. Choucair applied a content-focused analysis, looking at both the arguments used in the discussion and a framing analysis - a work connected with what has been developed at the EME Research Group in the last decade. Ms Choucair has presented this research in the last IPSA World Congress (2018) and is currently working to publish it. (ii) Deliberative System and Social Conflicts under the coordination of Professor Rousiley Maia in collaboration with Prof. Jürg Steiner. Ms Thais Choucair is currently investigating in her PhD (2018-2022) if (and if so, how) reciprocity has been built on discussions where differences between groups are very marked. She is particularly looking at four discussions involving four different groups (black people, women, LGBT people and deaf people) in the context in which some of these groups have been heavily attacked by political forces against their rights in Brazil. Thais would be happy to engage in meetings, projects, publications, discussions and coffee conversations involving: populism, deliberative system, reciprocity, computer-mediated methodologies, struggles for recognition and social oppression. Previous Next

< Back CENTRE MEETS CENTRE: MARGEM AT UFMG In this seminar, Ricardo Mendonça along with other MARGEM members will present the current research of the research group MARGEM. About this event In this seminar, Ricardo Mendonça along with other MARGEM members will present the current research of the research group MARGEM. The Research Group on Democracy and Justice (MARGEM) carries out interdisciplinary investigations aimed at deepening democracy and at comprehending the social struggles that are intrinsic to it. The group is based at UFMG, Brazil, and works with topics at the intersection of democratic theories, political communication, contentious politics and theories of justice. MARGEM is strongly influenced by critical theory informed by pragmatism, employing relational perspectives to make sense of political phenomena. Current projects developed within the group address a wide range of topics including algorithms, social media, disinformation, uberization, protests, populism, visual narratives, gender, race and democratic innovations. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

PhD Completions Andrea Felicetti Former PhD Student View Profile Penelope Marshall Former PhD student View Profile Kei Nishiyama Former PhD student View Profile Alex Lo Former PhD Student View Profile Pierrick Chalaye Former PhD student View Profile Katherine Curchin Former PhD student View Profile Michael Rollens Former PhD student View Profile Louise Clery Former PhD student View Profile Jonathan Kuyper Former PhD student View Profile Nardine Alnemr Former PhD student View Profile Melissa Lovell Former PhD student View Profile John Boswell Former PhD student View Profile 1 2 1 ... 1 2 ... 2

< Back The Politics of the Anthropocene John S. Dryzek, Jonathan Pickering 2019 , Oxford University Press Winner of the 2019 Clay Morgan Award Committee for Best Book in Environmental Political Theory Summary The Politics of the Anthropocene is a sophisticated yet accessible treatment of how human institutions, practices, and principles need to be re-thought in response to the challenges of the Anthropocene, the emerging epoch of human-induced instability in the Earth system and its life-support capacities. However, the world remains stuck with practices and modes of thinking that were developed in the Holocene – the epoch of around 12,000 years of unusual stability in the Earth system, toward the end of which modern institutions such as states and capitalist markets arose. These institutions persist despite their potentially catastrophic failure to respond to the challenges of the Anthropocene, foremost among them a rapidly changing climate and accelerating biodiversity loss. Read more Previous Next

< Back Deliberations with American Indian and Alaska native communities about genomics Erika Blacksher, University of Washington / Justin Reedy, University of Oklahoma Tue 4 August 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract With the rapid growth of genetic and genomic research and medical testing in recent years, more attention is being paid to their ethical and societal implications, including citizens’ concerns about potential risks and benefits of these technologies. Indigenous peoples represent a particularly important group where such advances are concerned, due to a long history of exploitation and marginalization by the U.S. federal government and the marked disparities they experience in health services and health outcomes relative to other populations. A consortium of researchers and practitioners in the US, in close partnership with indigenous community partners, has begun to study the concerns and views of American Indian and Alaska Native peoples on genomics through a series of deliberations in three communities in Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Alaska. This presentation will describe the design and implementation of these deliberative forums, as well as the results of the deliberations from a process perspective. In addition, it discusses some of the implications of this work for scholarship and practice in deliberation, both for efforts involving indigenous peoples and for forums focused on genetics and ethical, legal, and societal implications (ELSI). About the speaker Erika Blacksher is an associate professor and director of undergraduates studies in the Department of Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Washington in Seattle. Dr. Blacksher studies the ethical and policy implications of the social determinants of health with focus on ethical questions raised by health inequalities, debates over health responsibility, and the role of participatory and deliberative forms of engagement in advancing health equity. She often works in collaborative community-academic partnerships to design and conduct deliberations that convene minority and marginalized groups to identify their health priorities and policy preferences. Justin Reedy is an associate professor in the Department of Communication and research associate in the Center for Risk & Crisis Management at the University of Oklahoma. He studies political communication and deliberation, group and organizational communication, and the perception of risk. In particular, his research focuses on how groups of people make political and civic decisions in face-to-face and online settings, as well as how people and policy makers can come together to deliberate and make better decisions on public policy issues that involve significant societal and personal risk. Previous Next