top of page

Search Results

378 items found for ""

  • Adjunct Professors | delibdem

    Adjunct Professors Vicky Darling Adjunct View Profile Ron Brent Adjunct View Profile Peter Bridgewater Adjunct View Profile Hendrik Wagenaar Adjunct Professor View Profile

  • Conflict and complexity in a participatory process: Lessons from a wind energy dispute in King Island, Tasmania

    < 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

  • Tamirace Fakhoury

    < Back Tamirace Fakhoury Associate About Tamirace Fakhoury's core research and publication areas are power sharing and political transitions in divided societies, and refugee and migration governance. She is is an associate professor in Political Sciences and International Affairs at the Lebanese American University.

  • Building international epistemic authority: The case of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

    < Back Building international epistemic authority: The case of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Kari De Pryck, University of Geneva Tue 26 February 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which produces regular assessment of the state of the knowledge on climate change, is a controversial object of study. While it has become a model of expertise for some (the IPBES was established following a call for an IPCC for biodiversity), others have been more critical of its work (as illustrated in the debate that followed Climategate and the errors found in its Fourth Assessment Report). In this talk, I discuss the construction of the authority of the IPCC in situations of controversy and its institutionalisation unprecedented among the global environmental assessments. First, I draw on a historical ethnography of the governance of the IPCC to discuss the strategies that allowed the organisation to survive in the context of increased scrutiny. Second, I discuss the role of consensus in the construction of the epistemic authority of the organisation. I conclude with a reflexion on the deliberative and reflective features of the IPCC. About the speaker Kari De Pryck just obtained her PhD from the University of Geneva, Switzerland and Sciences Po Paris, France, under the supervision of Géraldine Pflieger and Bruno Latour. She has a background in International Relations and has been introduced to Science and Technology Studies during her stay at the médialab at Sciences Po Paris (2013-2015). She is currently a teaching assistant at the Global Studies Institute in Geneva where she teaches seminars in the field of international relations and controversy mapping. In her thesis (Expertise under Controversy: the case of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)), she investigated the epistemic and institutional transformation of the organisation in situations of controversy using quali-quantitative methods. She is interested in the politics of expert knowledge in international institutions and environmental science-policy interfaces more generally. Previous Next

  • The migrant voice in public policy deliberations: The health story in Australia and Canada

    < Back The migrant voice in public policy deliberations: The health story in Australia and Canada Catherine Clutton, Australian National University Tue 7 April 2015 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract If there is a criticism of deliberative democracy it is that those who are included in deliberations frequently represent the well-educated, articulate, generally male, dominant majority who can engage in rational debate. This effectively excludes citizens who are less articulate, who may prefer different styles of interaction, or who are otherwise subject to discrimination such as women and visible minorities. Many immigrants fit the profile of those who are generally excluded. My research project takes the policy maker’s perspective and focuses on the engagement of immigrants in the development of health-related public policy, comparing Australia and Canada at both the national and State/Territory/Provincial levels. Noting that both Australia and Canada have explicit national policies in favour of multiculturalism and citizen engagement, it is pertinent to review how public officials engage with citizens from increasingly culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. In this context critical multiculturalism provides an opportunity to examine the institutional structures in place that may exclude immigrants from participating in government deliberations. Equally, the norms of deliberative democracy provide a framework to enable the inclusion of immigrant voices. Together, the facilitating features of these frameworks should enable the inclusion of immigrant voices. Within these frameworks I ask whether and how paying greater attention to cultural competence can enhance public policy deliberations and thus policy outcomes. Today’s presentation will be illustrated with findings from my fieldwork to show how governments are addressing the objective of inclusion expressed in these frameworks. About the speaker Cathy Clutton is a PhD Candidate at the ANU Medical School, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment. Cathy has over thirty years’ experience of public administration with the Australian Government (1978-2012), almost all of which was in the federal health portfolio. The majority of this time was spent with the National Health and Medical Research Council. Her responsibilities have included developing and managing programs that provided support for community organisations, developing evidence-based clinical practice and public health guidelines and policy, and providing support for health and medical research in Australia, including the ethical conduct of research. A recurring theme in her work has been citizen engagement. Previous Next

  • Call for Workshop Papers: Future-proofing the public sphere, QUT Mar 2024

    < Back Call for Workshop Papers: Future-proofing the public sphere, QUT Mar 2024 ​ ​ Important update: Application deadline extended to 3 November! Join us for a research workshop at QUT in 21-22 March 2024, exploring the future of the public sphere, in Australia and beyond. Designed for Australian-based ECRs and HDRs, the workshop is co-hosted by the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance (University of Canberra) and the Digital Media Research Centre (QUT) and funded by the Australian Political Studies Association (APSA). Abstract and short CV to be submitted by 27 October. For enquiries, please contact: Adele Webb ( ) Katharina Esau ( )

  • Bora Kanra

    < 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.

  • 2023 APSA Lifetime Achievement Award

    < Back 2023 APSA Lifetime Achievement Award ​ ​ 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.

  • Jonathan Pickering

    < Back Jonathan Pickering Associate Professor About

  • Future Proofing the Public Sphere | delibdem

    PROGRAMME HIGHLIGHTS PAPERS For decades, scholars and commentators have lamented the fragilities of the space(s) where citizens can engage, coordinate, and shape political meaning – a crucial foundation for a stable democracy. Yet what does a concept, dating back to Habermas’s ‘bourgeois public sphere’ of the eighteenth century, mean in contemporary vernacular? Given the transformations in communication networks brought about by technological change, have we come to terms with the new criteria for a ‘public voice’? Do normative ideals about a thriving political public sphere need updating? Do analytic concepts (framing, gatekeeping, agenda setting) still work or do they need to be reconsidered or completely refurbished? And what can be offered by citizen-led processes of democratic renewal? This APSA-funded workshop is co-hosted by two Research Centres conducting theoretical and empirical research on the public sphere(s) – the University of Canberra’s Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, and QUT’s Digital Media Research Centre. Bringing together postgraduate students and early career researchers with leading scholars in the field, the workshop addresses challenges and threats facing the contemporary public sphere(s) in Australia and beyond. It aims to activate a dynamic interdisciplinary network of scholars working in to explore ways in which the public sphere(s) might be ‘future-proofed’ to integrate and harness the affordances of digital technologies while still facilitating normatively desirable outcomes for vibrant democracies. The workshop format is designed to offer participants the opportunity to receive detailed feedback from leading experts on works in progress, with the aim of assisting participants to convert their draft papers into a publication. We are delighted to welcome scholars working on the broad concept of the public sphere from a variety of methodological perspectives and offering theoretical and empirical insights. Adele Webb (UC) & Katharina Esau (QUT) Workshop Co-Convenors Programme ProgAnchor Programme highlights Prog highlights Paper presenters have 8 minutes to present a synopsis of their papers. Please make sure that you stick to this timing. PowerPoint slides are welcome, but not required, and we recommend no more than 5 slides. Designed as an alternative to conference-style paper presentations, presentation of paper synopses should be structured around answering three broad questions: What is the core argument of the paper? What data is being used to support the argument? What are the implications of the research for the field? More in-depth discussion and feedback of each paper is available through the mentoring sessions. Each participant has been assigned two mentors who will read and prepare comments on the paper before the workshop. Over the course of the workshop there is time allocated for these one-on-one-discussions of the papers, which could include feedback on the substantive content, as well as tips on how to get the paper ready for publication, and which journals to consider for submission. We understand the papers are works-in-progress, so feedback will be friendly, encouraging, and constructive. The panel discussions are organised under specific themes and will start with short opening remarks by each of the panel speakers, followed by an open and collective discussion with all workshop participants. The processing and reflection session on day 2 is designed to break participants into small groups, in which participants are encouraged to collectively reflect on mentor feedback, share personal reflections on workshop discussions, and together write down three words/phrases that speak to future research agenda(s). There will be a chance to discuss these with the larger group in the final session. Venue: All activities will take place at the Kelvin Grove campus of QUT in Brisbane (Level 5, E-Block, located at the back of the Library). Registration: If possible, please arrive between 9:30-9:45am on 21 March. ​ Papers Papers Brooke Ann Coco The Superset Paradigm: Data DAOs and the Democratization of Digital Publics. Download Claire Fitzpatrick #ShoutYourAbortion and being heard: The affordances of hashtags for Counterpublics in uncertain and antagonistic digital atmospheres. Download Francesco Vittonetto Transnational populist publics in Europe and the United States. Download Friedel Marquardt Sharing First Nations stories online: the narrative-engaging capabilities of social media for marginalised groups. Download Nguyen Khac Giang The Power and Limits of Digitalized Authoritarian Deliberation: Insights from Vietnam. Download Kate O'Connor Farfan Democratic trajectories and the assessment of polarisation in the public sphere. Download Kate Scott Deradicalising Misogyny: Countering Red Pill Violence and Extremism in the Manosphere. Download Laura Davy & Molly Saunders The future of inclusive democratic participation: conditions for radical listening within the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Download Lynrose Genon Digital Peacebuilding: Examining young women leaders' use of social media to build peace in the Philippines. Download Molly Murphy Non-dialoic counterspeech and democratic participation. Download Patrick Chang Future proofing the public sphere: How social movement organisations (SMOs) could establish and maintain more inclusive engagement in Australian climate action. Download Tyler Wilson Deliberative Virtue and Social Media: Nurturing deliberation through a novel conceptualisation of social media as state-sponsored independent media. Download Zim Nwokora The Adaptive Capacity of Democracies: Theory and Institutional Mechanisms. Download

  • The people's duty

    < Back The people's duty Shmulik Nili, Australian National University Tue 1 August 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract What is the moral way to respond to the domestic and international aspects of pervasive corruption, when disrupting such corruption might pose serious threats to political and economic stability? What is the moral way to respond to other abuses of public office – and other abuses of public coffers - in the face of such threats? How, more generally, should we deal with disturbing social, economic, and political practices given fears about destabilizing effects of reform? This book offers new answers to such political problems, by constructing two new normative frameworks associated with the people, as the collective agent in whose name modern political power is exercised. I contend, first, that there is distinctive normative value to thinking about the people in a liberal democracy as an agent with integrity that can be threatened, paralleling the integrity of an individual person. Specifically, I argue in favor of seeing the core project of a liberal legal system – realizing equal rights - as an identity-grounding project of the sovereign people, and thus as essential to the people’s integrity. Second, I pursue an analogous move with regard to the people’s property. I present a philosophical account of public property revolving around the proprietary claims that are intertwined in the sovereign people’s moral power to create property rights through the legal system. After developing these integrity and property frameworks, I elaborate their distinctive implications for a range of concrete policy problems around the world. I argue that ideas regarding the people’s integrity and property illuminate corruption scandals that threaten to topple the entire political class (as is currently the case in Brazil). These ideas also cast the practices of executive immunity and presidential pardons as violations of the law’s egalitarian commitments (thus challenging, for instance, the French and American constitutions). Examining Israel’s unstable politics, I further show how attention to the people’s integrity and property can advance our thinking about deeply divided societies. Finally, delving into policy problems surrounding odious debt, I demonstrate how ideas concerning the people’s integrity and property can guide our thinking about the international aspects of entrenched corruption. About the speaker I am a post-doctoral research fellow at the Australian National University's Research School of the Social Sciences (School of Philosophy). Starting in September 2017, I will be an assistant professor of political science at Northwestern University. I received my PhD in political science from Yale University (2016). My main research focuses on the moral assessment of global politics. This focus is informed by social science, by the history of political thought, and by a methodological emphasis on the practical task of political philosophy. My secondary research interests include meeting points between analytical and continental philosophy, as well as conflict and identity in my native Israel. Previous Next

  • New books in Democracy | delibdem

    New Books on Democracy Play Video Play Video 07:33 Book Drop S2E3: Mapping and Measuring Deliberation Part II Play Video Play Video 15:41 Book Drop S1E2: Mapping and Measuring Deliberation Play Video Play Video 13:05 Book Drop S1E1: Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy Play Video Play Video 08:15 Book Drop Series S2E4: Between Representation and Discourse Play Video Play Video 08:02 Book Drop Series S2E6: Cambridge Handbook of Deliberative Constitutionalism Play Video Play Video 10:00 Book Drop S1E6: Global Environmental Politics: Problems, Policy and Practice Play Video Play Video 11:27 Book Drop Series S2E5: Meaning and Action: Play Video Play Video 09:49 Book Drop S2E2: Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy Part II Play Video Play Video 12:10 Book Drop S1E5: Deliberative Systems in Theory and Practice Play Video Play Video 07:56 Book Drop S2E1: Power in Deliberative Democracy Play Video Play Video 08:19 Book Drop S1E4: Ethics of Multiple Citizenship Play Video Play Video 16:31 Book Drop S1E3: The Politics of the Anthropocene Play Video Play Video 13:20 Book Drop Series S3E1: Anthropocene Encounters Play Video Play Video 12:31 Book Drop Series S3E3: Deliberative Global Governance

  • Building Democratic Resilience: Public Sphere Responses to Extremism

    < Back Building Democratic Resilience: Public Sphere Responses to Extremism Investigator(s): Selen A. Ercan, Jordan McSwiney, John S. Dryzek, and Peter Balint Project Description How should the public sphere institutions and actors respond to the threats posed by the violent extremism? Drawing on the theory and practice of deliberative democracy, this project seeks to develop a framework for assessing and improving the public sphere responses to violent extremism in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. It seeks to explain how ‘democratic resilience’ differs from and supplements ‘community resilience’, which is the current resilience framework used by the NSW Government. The project will provide practical recommendations for public servants, policy makers and the journalists working to develop strategies for tackling violent extremism. While the primary focus of the project is NSW Government CVE practice, the project takes a broader approach and engages with both national and international practice in tackling violent extremism. The project is funded by the NSW Government, Premier and Cabinet, Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Program 2022. Project Outputs Ercan, S. A., McSwiney, J., Balint, P., and Dryzek, J. S. (2022). Building Democratic Resilience: Public Sphere Responses to Violent Extremism . Technical Report for Department of Premier and Cabinet, NSW, Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Program. Public Engagement Ercan, S.A, McSwiney, J., and Balint, P. (2022) Learning Democratic Resilience. Preliminary Findings and Recommendations , NSW Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Connected Communities, 23 March (virtual). Ercan, S.A. (2022) Deliberative Democracy: Theory and Practice, NSW Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Connected Communities, 19 May (virtual). Ercan, S.A., McSwiney, J., Balint, P., and Dryzek, J. (2022) Learning Democratic Resilience , NSW Government Stakeholders, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Connected Communities, 8 June (virtual). Balint, P., McSwiney, J. and Ercan, S.A. (2022) Learning Democratic Resilience , Resilient Democracy for Resilient Communities, Charles Sturt University, Sydney, 23 August. Ercan, S.A., McSwiney, J., Balint, P. (2022) Contemporary Threats to the Public Sphere , Panel at the Australian Political Studies Association General Conference, Australian National University, Canberra, 26-28 September. McSwiney, J., Ercan, S.A. and Balint, P. (2022) Report Launch and Panel Discussion: Building Democratic Resilience , Freilich Project for the Study of Bigotry , Australian National University, Canberra, 13 October. Recording available here . McSwiney, J. (2022) Future Flux , Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Canberra, 17 October. McSwiney, J. (2022) Democratic Resilience: Public Sphere Responses to Violent Extremism , Threat Briefing Webinar #14, Charles Sturt University, 27 October (virtual). McSwiney, J., Ercan, S.A, Balint, P., and Dryzek, J. (2022) Building Democratic Resilience: How the Public Sphere Responses to Violent Extremism . AVERT Research Symposium , Deakin University, Melbourne, 21-22 November. Ercan, S.A. and McSwiney, J. (2023) Building Democratic Resilience, Connected Communities—Strengthening Social Cohesion and Democratic Resilience , NSW Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Sydney, 16 March (virtual).

  • Democratic Theorizing

    < Back Democratic Theorizing Hans Asenbaum, University of Canberra Tue 13 April 2021 8:00pm-9:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Over centuries, democratic theory has developed emancipatory ideals of inclusion, empowerment, and transparency. These ideals, however, have hardly been applied to the process of theorizing itself. Democratic theory is a product of the ivory tower. The Democratic Theorizing Project sets out to confront this problem. Democratic theorizing – opposed to established approaches to theorizing democracy – conceptualizes theory production as a participatory space. It applies the values of democratic innovations to theorizing. Democratic theorizing includes affected people, empowers those on the margins, and facilitates transparency. The proposed approach attempts to realize these ideals by building on three sources: grounded normative theory, which develops theory in an ongoing conversation with the data; participatory research, which invites participants as research collaborators; and new materialism, which flattens the hierarchies between researchers, participants, and data. The resulting approach of democratic theorizing draws on an ongoing theorizing project in collaboration with the Black Lives Matter movement. About the speaker Hans Asenbaum is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. His research interests include identity and inclusion in new participatory spaces, digital politics, and theories of deliberative, participatory and radical democracy. His work has been published in the American Political Science Review, New Media & Society, Communication Theory, Politics & Gender, the European Journal of Social Theory, and Political Studies. Hans is Co-convener of the Participatory and Deliberative Democracy Specialist Group of the Political Studies Association in the UK. Previous Next

  • Democratic proceduralism and its limits: From philosophical principles to political institutions

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

  • Industry Partners | delibdem

    Industry Partners We work with government, international organisations, NGOs, and the creative industry to translate deliberative theory into practice. Democracy R&D Our Centre is proud to be part of Democracy R&D–a global consortium of advocates, scholars, and practitioners of deliberative democracy. Our Centre is represented by Nick Vlahos, Nardine Alnemrand and Nicole Curato in their activities. Connecting to Parliament A collaboration between Centre for Deliberative democracy and Global Governance and the Institute for Democratic Engagement and Accountability.

  • Past Seminars | delibdem

    Past Seminars The Centre holds weekly seminars on important topics in deliberative democracy with leading scholars from Australia and around the world. Tue 7 June 2022 DECOLONIZING DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY Ricardo Mendonca and Hans Asenbaum / 9.00am-10.00am Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 31 May 2022 DECOLONIZING DELIBERATIVE MINI-PUBLICS Azucena Mora and Nicole Curato / 6.00pm - 7.00pm Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 24 May 2022 CENTRE MEETS CENTRE: PARTICIPEDIA AND CDDGG WITH BONNY IBHAWOH Bonny Ibhawoh / 11.00am-12.00pm Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 17 May 2022 WAIT, WHAT? DECOLONIZING DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY? Genevieve Fuji Johnson / 11.00am-12.00pm Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 10 May 2022 NATIVE TITLE AS A DELIBERATIVE SPACE FOR INDIGENOUS SELF-DETERMINATION Justin McCaul / 11.00am-12.00pm Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 3 May 2022 HOW DO SETTLER-COLONIAL INEQUALITIES SHAPE POLITICAL BEHAVIOUR AND COMMUNICATION IN ANGLO-DEMOCRACIES? Edana Beauvais / 9.00am-10.00am Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 26 April 2022 DECOLONIZING DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND POLITICAL CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Professor Bobby Banerjee / 8.00pm-11.00pm Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 22 March 2022 DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND DIGITAL PLATFORMS:JOHN GASTIL IN CONVERSATION WITH NARDINE ALNEMR John Gastil and Nardine Alnemr / 11.00am-12.00pm Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 15 March 2022 CENTRE MEETS CENTRE: MARGEM AT UFMG Ricardo Mendonca and team / 11.00am-12.00pm Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 1 March 2022 DIGITAL PLATFORMS AND ISSUE POLARISATION: CITIZENS' DEBATES ON ABORTION, RACIAL QUOTAS AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN BRAZIL FROM 2021-2019 Tariq Choucair / 11.00am-12.00pm Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More 1 2 3 ... 16 1 ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 16

  • Beyond sustainability as usual: Democratising sustainable development for the Anthropocene

    < 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

  • Australian participatory and deliberative practitioners - what we're learning

    < Back Australian participatory and deliberative practitioners - what we're learning Helen Christensen, University of Technology Sydney Tue 10 November 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel . Abstract This presentation will present findings from a mixed-method study which investigates Australian participatory and deliberative practitioners. These practitioners, who design, deliver and evaluate democratic processes on behalf of public institutions, are uniquely placed – serving both their publics and the organisations that employ or contract them simultaneously. This research explores the tensions they experience in this role and also provides information about who they are – their backgrounds and experience and the approach they take to the work. The research shows that the practitioner cohort is broad and getting broader – a phenomenon which likely has implications for the quality of democratic practice. About the speaker Helen Christensen is an engagement practitioner, trainer and researcher. She is an Industry Fellow at the Institute for Public Policy and Governance at the University of Technology where she recently completed a PhD exploring the practice and professionalisation of community engagement in Australian local government. Helen is the Principal of The Public Engagement Practice, a consultancy focused on building the capabilities of public organisations to design and deliver engagement themselves and she is also an IAP2 trainer. Previous Next

  • Why am I engaged?

    < Back Why am I engaged? Walden Bello, State University of New York in Binghamton Tue 26 November 2019 11:00am – 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Reflecting on his trajectory as an academic and an activist, the speaker will trace his personal evolution as an activist/academic, focusing on the key junctures in this process, and discuss the tension between theory and action, the relationship between methodology and the process of uncovering the real dynamics of power, and the often tragic Orwellian tension between being an intellectual and being a member of a political organization. About the speaker Walden Bello is a Professor of Sociology at the State University of New York in Binghamton. He is the author of more than 20 books including Deglobalization: Ideas for a New World Economy, Capitalism's Last Stand: Deglobalization in the Age of Austerity, and, most recently, Counterrevolutions: The Global Rise of the Far Right and Paper Dragons: China and the Next Crash. The International Studies Association named him the Most Outstanding Public Scholar in 2008. Previous Next

bottom of page