Search Results

< Back Jonathan Pickering Faculty Affiliate About Jonathan Pickering's research focuses on democracy and justice in global environmental governance, with an emphasis on climate change and biodiversity. He is an Assistant Professor in the School of Politics, Economics and Society at the University of Canberra, where he teaches International Relations.

< 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.

< Back Franziska Maier Associate About Franziska Maier is a PhD student at the University of Stuttgart working on citizenship concepts, and preference building and change through deliberation.

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

< Back Nick Vlahos Postdoctoral Research Fellow About Nick Vlahos is working on participatory and deliberative democracy; particularly how public decision-making can mitigate inequality. He is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance.

< 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

< 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 UC Postdoctoral Fellow wins 2022 Rising Star Award from leading European political science association ​ ​ We are thrilled that our Centre's Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Dr Hans Asenbaum, has received the ECPR Rising Star Award for his achievements as an early career researcher. This award is presented annually, through the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR). ECPR, of which the University of Canberra is a member institution, is the leading European academic association with a mission to advance political science, Recipients of the award are given the opportunity to develop their networks and skills in the field of politics and international relations. “For me, the award shows that critical voices are important, are heard and are appreciated in our society – I've always tried to make a case for inclusion and for sensitivity to our identities,” Dr Asenbaum said. Read more

< Back Research report: Towards a coherent energy transition: expanding renewable energy and reducing inequalities in Australia Investigator(s): Jonathan Pickering and Pierrick Chalaye In this report, Jonathan Pickering and Pierrick Chalaye explore the synergies and tensions between the expansion of renewable energy and efforts to reduce inequalities in Australia . Read and download the report here: Energy transition report (Dec 2023)

< Back Hedda Ransan-Cooper Research Fellow About Hedda Ransan-Cooper's research interests include the human dimensions of global environmental change, the theory and practice of sustainable development and the intersections between human mobility and climate change.

< Back Bora Kanra Former PhD student About Bora was the lead investigator of the ARC Discovery Project ‘Communication Across Difference in a Democracy: Australian Muslims and the Mainstream.’ He completed his PhD at the ANU, under the supervision of John Dryzek, about deliberative democracy in divided societies, focusing particularly on the case of Turkey.

< Back Wendy Conway-Lamb PhD Candidate About Wendy is a researcher and practitioner with over fifteen years of experience working on climate change and international development. Her areas of expertise include climate change adaptation and resilience; global climate governance; international aid and development; deliberative democracy; climate justice; gender equality and inclusion. Wendy is currently completing a PhD at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, University of Canberra, exploring how those most affected by climate impacts at local levels can be more meaningfully included in global adaptation governance, with an empirical focus on Vietnam’s Mekong Delta. Wendy has worked for federal government, NGOs, think tanks, and the United Nations. Her skills encompass research and analysis; policy and technical advice; program design and evaluation; team leadership; and academic teaching, training and facilitation. She is currently on leave from her role as Climate and Development Specialist in DFAT’s Climate Integration Unit. Her career with DFAT has seen her designing and evaluating climate-related aid investments, providing technical advice on climate-related policy and programming, leading teams, and undertaking public diplomacy, both in Canberra and in the Indo-Pacific region. Geographically her focus has primarily been Southeast Asia, including over four years working on climate change and development in Vietnam. Tweets at @WendyConwayLamb Dissertation Wendy's PhD research explores how a more deliberative approach to the governance of climate change adaptation could empower those most affected by climate change, and least responsible for causing it, to be more meaningfully included in adaptation decision-making. Getting beyond ideas of participation or representation, the concept of a deliberative system allows us to describe and analyse how in practice, even in non-democratic contexts, adaptation is governed by the interaction of multiple formal and informal actors. Highlighting the inherently contested and political nature of adaptation, Wendy’s empirical research reveals a plurality of adaptation discourses invoked by an array of government and non-government actors involved in adaptation in Vietnam. In this complex discursive landscape, some understandings of adaptation take precedence over others, creating the risk of exclusion but also an opportunity for transmission of influence and deliberative inclusion. Supervisors John Dryzek (Primary Supervisor) Jonathan Pickering (Secondary Supervisor) Lisa Schipper (Supervisor) Publications and Conference Papers ‘Is deliberative adaptation possible in an authoritarian state­­?’ Environmental Politics under Authoritarian Rule: Activism, Policy, and Governance workshop, Brisbane, Dec 2022 ‘The case for democratizing global adaptation governance’, Earth Systems Governance conference, Toronto, Oct 2022 ‘Discourses of adaptation, justice and inclusiveness in Vietnam’, IAG/New Zealand Geography Conference, Sydney, July 2021 ‘If adaptation is the solution, what’s the problem? Framing climate change and development in Vietnam’s Mekong Delta’, Deliberative Democracy Summer School , February 2020, University of Canberra ‘Getting beyond the vertical hierarchy paradigm: a deliberative systems approach to adaptation governance’, IPSA World Congress of Political Science , July 2018, Brisbane ‘Inclusive multi-level adaptation governance: a deliberative systems approach’, Adaptation Futures , June 2018, Cape Town ‘Democratizing Climate Adaptation Governance: Applying a deliberative systems approach to multi-level decision-making about adaptation in Vietnam’, The Emerging Complexity of Climate Adaptation Governance in a Globalising World , May 2017, Stockholm Research Projects Global Assembly on the Climate and Ecological Crisis (2021 - present), member of research and evaluation team Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice and a Changing Earth System (2016 - 2020), Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship Project, PhD candidate Teaching International Climate Change Policy and Economics masters level course, Australian National University, 2022 Domestic Climate Change Policy and Economics masters level course, Australian National University, 2022 Affiliations Research fellow, Earth System Governance network Research affiliate, Centre for Environmental Governance, University of Canberra Scholarships and Prizes PhD Scholarship, Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice, and a Changing Earth System, Australian Research Council

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

< Back The Forum, the System, and the Polity: Three Varieties of Democratic Theory John S. Dryzek 2017 , Political Theory 45 (5): 610-36. ​ Summary Read more Previous Next

< Back DECOLONIZING DELIBERATIVE MINI-PUBLICS Deliberative mini-publics are portrayed as empowering spaces but whom are these spaces empowering? About this event Deliberative mini-publics are portrayed as empowering spaces where a group of ordinary citizens representative of the wider population can reach considered judgment and provide recommendations to public authorities. These portrayals, however, need to be interrogated. For whom are these spaces empowering? Do all citizens (or co-legislators) hold equal power to legitimize or endorse a decision or institution? Whose considered judgments and performances are considered legitimate by public authorities and process experts? Which voices and bodies are systematically rendered unheard and invisible as these processes claim to champion diversity? This paper answers these questions by drawing on various perspectives of decolonial theory. It argues that deliberative mini-publics, in their current formulation and scope, are complicit to maintaining the privileges of White western democratic theory and practice, as well as the dependencies to systems of domination, racialization and exploitation. It examines the scope and design features of mini-publics – from random selection to facilitation to presentation of expert evidence – and demonstrates how these features, despite good intentions, further entrench dominant epistemologies that maintain today’s global racial order. The paper concludes by exploring the debate on the extent to which this democratic innovation can be reformed or ‘decolonized’ and reflects on the role of scholars and practitioners of public deliberation in decolonizing democracy. Azucena Morán is a Research Associate at the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS Potsdam), PhD candidate at the University of Potsdam, and member of the ECPR Standing Group on Democratic Innovations. Her transdisciplinary work explores deliberative and participatory responses to planetary challenges and is rooted in literatures and theories of decoloniality, political oppression/liberation, and governance in areas of limited statehood. She has previously worked at Public Agenda, WZB Berlin Social Science Center, UNHCR, and the news media. Nicole Curato is a Professor of Political Sociology at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance the University of Canberra. Her work examines how democratic innovations can take root in the aftermath of tragedies, focusing on cases of disasters, armed conflict and urban crime. She has published three books and over 50 journal articles and book chapters on deliberative democracy, Philippine politics, and research methods. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

< Back Pierrick Chalaye Former PhD student About Pierrick Chalaye's work focuses on global and comparative environmental politics, cross-cultural approaches to decision-making and participatory and deliberative democratic theories and practices. H is now a research associate with the Centre.

< 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.

< Back The potential of deliberative democracy in like-minded settings Kimmo Grönlund, Åbo Akademi University Tue 14 February 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract When groups consisting of like-minded participants discuss among themselves, their views tend to become more extreme. This phenomenon is known as group polarization. Cass Sunstein (2002, 2009) calls this discussion in like-minded groups ‘enclave deliberation’. Enclave deliberation has become increasingly common, especially in online communities, where it is easy to find like-minded contexts. In the long run, the tendency to discuss in enclaves may threaten democracy, since cross-cutting deliberation with different viewpoints and interests is needed in order to find common solutions for political conflicts. Finnish population-based experiments confirm that like-minded groups tend to become more extreme when they discuss freely. However, when like-minded groups discuss under specific deliberative norms, they do not become more extreme. This finding is relevant to both deliberative theory and policy-making. If the increased polarization tendencies in western democracies can be alleviated with certain rules (especially online), a less hostile, depolarized public sphere could be achieved. About the speaker Kimmo Grönlund is Professor of Political Science and Director of Research of the Social Science Research Institute at Åbo Akademi University in Finland. He is Convenor (together with André Bächtiger) of the Standing Group on Democratic Innovations at the ECPR and Director of the Finnish National Election Study 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 Power in high-stake deliberative settings: Analytical insights from linguistics Simona Zimmermann, University of Stuttgart Tue 28 November 2017 The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract What role does power have in real-world mini-publics with real-life consequences? This question has hardly been studied. Yet, experiences from high-stake settings of deliberation that have consequences for participants’ everyday lives - for example in respect to their reputation and relations in the local polity - are highly relevant for integrating deliberative mini-publics in everyday-political life. Based on this reflection, the presented research project seeks to understand the meaning and role of power in the relational network among participants in citizen assemblies of a local small-scale participatory budget institution in Berlin’s district Treptow-Köpenick (Germany). These assemblies discuss and decide over the distribution of a fixed budget among neighbourhood projects which is a competence rarely ceded to citizens by German authorities. For analysis, assemblies are videotaped and studied ethnomethodologically based on a relational approach. The presentation will focus on the contributions linguistics can make to the analysis of power relations in deliberative settings. About the speaker Simona Zimmermann is a PhD candidate in political sciences at the University of Stuttgart (Prof. André Bächtiger). She holds a Master degree in Empirical Social and Political Analysis of the University of Stuttgart and a Diploma and Master from the Institut d’Etudes Politiques (SciencesPo) Bordeaux. Her research interests include deliberative forms of citizen participation and politics in urban planning. She aims at working inter- and transdisciplinary in order to develop solutions for societal challenges. In her PhD project Simona analyses relations of power in deliberative mini publics under a network perspective by qualitative methods of inquiry. Case study is a local participatory budget in Berlin Treptow-Köpenick (Germany). Before obtaining a scholarship from the national talent program (Friedrich-Ebert Foundation), Simona worked in an interdisciplinary research group on sustainable urban mobility (Institute of Urban Design, University of Stuttgart). Here, she occasionally teaches concepts and methods of the social sciences to students in urban planning and architecture. Previous Next