top of page

Search Results

378 items found for ""

  • Deliberative democracy and federal constitutional design and building in Myanmar

    < Back Deliberative democracy and federal constitutional design and building in Myanmar Baogang He, Deakin University / Dr Michael Breen, University of Melbourne Tue 30 October 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The recent deliberative democracy literature has addressed many issues on constitutionalism. In particular, John Dryzek’s seminal work on deliberative democracy in divided society and James Fishkin’s deliberative polling on constitutional matters offer a new fresh approach and thinking. This paper aims to engage and advance the current theorizing on deliberative democracy and constitutionalism through a case study of deliberative forums on federal constitutionalism in Myanmar. Myanmar is in an important phase of its democratic transition as it tackles the form of federalism most suited to its conditions and aspirations. Since the 1947 Panglong conference, demands by the ethnic nationalities for ‘genuine federalism’, which have been a primary factor behind conflict, have remained unmet and continue to foment unrest and mistrust. The opportunity for substantive federal reform, and associated peace-building, is present and being progressed at the national level, through Union Peace Dialogues, involving elite level representatives from the military, ethnic armed groups and political parties. However, these forums suffer from problems of democratic legitimacy, significant delay, and polarisation. As one supplement to this process, and in order to demonstrate the value of a deliberative, rather than majoritarian, approach to reform, the presenters organised four deliberative forums based on the deliberative polling methodology. Two deliberations involved mostly members of political parties, ethnic armed groups and civil society organisations, while the other two involved mostly laypersons selected by civil society organisation. Designing the deliberative forums in this way helps to address competing recommendations for deliberation in constitution-making and on identity-based issues – namely those that regard such deliberation as best occurring among laypeople, who are more likely to change to their minds but have limited understanding of technical issues, and those who suggest elite-based forums. We found that in each case participants did change their minds, sometimes against expectations, but to a different degree. Technical matters, like the division of powers, were more pertinent to the elite, while issues like whether or not there should be federalism saw more substantial changes among laypeople. Further, involving political parties and ethnic armed groups established a semi-detached link to the official constitutional change process, in this case the Union Peace Dialogues (21st Century Panglong), and the potential to contribute to the establishment of a more deliberative system. About the speakers Baogang He is Alfred Deakin Professor and Chair in International Relations since 2005, at Deakin University, Australia. Graduated with a PhD in Political Science from Australian National University in 1994, Professor He has become widely known for his work in Chinese democratisation and politics, in particular the deliberative politics in China. Professor He has published 7 single-authored books and 63 international refereed journal articles. His publications are found in top journals including British Journal of Political Science, Journal of Peace Research, Political Theory, and Perspectives on Politics. In addition, he published 3 books, 15 book chapters and 63 journal papers in Chinese. Professor He has also held several honorary appointments and research fellowships at renowned universities including Stanford University, University of Cambridge, Columbia University, Leiden and Sussex University. Michael Breen is a McKenzie Postdoctoral Fellow in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Melbourne. Prior to that Michael worked at Deakin University, after completing his PhD at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Michael's research focuses on federalism in Asia, and the management of ethnic diversity. He is the author of 'The Road to Federalism in Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka: Finding the Middle Ground' (2018, Routledge) and has participated in Nepal's constitution-making process that established it as a federal democratic republic. Michael's research also explores the role of deliberative democracy and the use of deliberative polling in constitution-making and conflict management. Prior to academia, Michael was a policy maker, negotiator and project manager in various government departments in Australia and international organisations including the United Nations Development Programme. His professional background is in Indigenous rights and native title, political inclusion and environmental conservation. Previous Next

  • Practicing and Visualising Democratic Disagreements in the Classroom

    < Back Practicing and Visualising Democratic Disagreements in the Classroom Investigator(s): Kei Nishiyama Funded by the Uehiro Foundation on Ethics and Education ($7,468.92), Project Team includes Kei Nishiyama Project Description The project aims to understand the role of democratic disagreements and deliberation in democratic education. Working with school teachers (National Institute for Technology, Tokyo College) in Japan, Kei will engage in action research by introducing and practicing well-designed deliberative activities in the classroom where students talk and think about controversial ethical, moral, and political questions (e.g. abortion, ethics of human enhancement, animal rights). The project considers the following questions: (1) What is the role of deep political, moral, ethical disagreement in democratic education? (2) When students are deeply divided as a result of deliberation, what sort of activities should be designed for enabling them to engage in "democratic" disagreement (rather than merely political, moral, ethical disagreements)?(3)How can meta-consensus mitigate students' deep disagreements and how can we visualise our meta-consensus?

  • Deliberation in schools

    < Back Deliberation in schools Pierrick Chalaye, University of Canberra / Kei Nishiyama, University of Canberra / Wendy Russell, Double Arrow Consulting Tue 2 April 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In 2018, we conducted a pilot Deliberation in Schools project in two ACT public schools (Ainslie Primary School year 5 and Hawker College year 11), partially funded by the International Association for Public Participation Australasia. Working with teachers and school principals, we facilitated a series of deliberative sessions with students. Through the program, we investigated how students deliberate, understand and practice democracy, and what sorts of curriculum design are needed to cultivate democratic competencies. In this presentation, we will show some tentative findings of our pilot, with a specific focus on the role of facilitator in classroom deliberation. While the role of facilitator in deliberative mini-publics has gradually received attention from scholars and practitioners alike, little is known about how to facilitate deliberation in the classroom. In this presentation, we will show how our pilot partially responds to two key questions: "How can a facilitator ensure the epistemic and inclusive quality of deliberation in the classroom?" "How can this deliberative work address power imbalances between facilitators/teachers and students?" Previous Next

  • John Parkinson

    < Back John Parkinson Associate and Former PhD Student About John is a Professor of Social and Political Philosophy at Maastricht University and holds the post of Adjunct Professor at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance.

  • Vicky Darling

    < Back Vicky Darling Adjunct About Vicky Darling specialises in community engagement and civic participation, strategic planning and governance advice. She also has expertise in change management, workplace culture and research and policy design.

  • Empirical assessment of the impacts of deliberative democracy processes

    < Back Empirical assessment of the impacts of deliberative democracy processes A Wendy Russell Tue 9 February 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract A key standard for judging the quality of deliberative processes is impact on political decision-making. Yet impact is a multi-faceted and contested concept, in theory and practice. Macro-political impacts are often indirect and deliberative processes compete with a range of other inputs and factors for influence. The assessment of impacts is complicated by the difficulty of distinguishing measurable impacts from important impacts. As well as the impacts of particular processes, the research is interested in the ‘uptake’ of deliberative democracy generally, and how impact and uptake interact. This seminar relates to a research project, funded by the New Democracy Foundation (nDF), on the impacts of deliberative processes, particularly nDF processes. I will present a preliminary framework for assessing the impacts of deliberative processes, with a focus on macro-political impacts, which will be used in the empirical phase of the research. Input at this stage will be very gratefully accepted. About the speaker Wendy Russell is director of Double Arrow Consulting, a Canberra business specialising in deliberative engagement, and an associate of the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. She is also affiliated with the Centre for the Public Awareness of Science at ANU, and is ACT regional coordinator for the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2). She previously worked in the National Enabling Technologies Strategy – Public Awareness and Community Engagement program of the Commonwealth Department of Industry & Innovation, where she managed the Science & Technology Engagement Pathways (STEP) community engagement program. Before this, she was senior lecturer in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Wollongong, where she researched social aspects of biotechnology, transdisciplinary inquiry, and technology assessment. Previous Next

  • Ron Levy

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

  • Jean-Paul Gagnon

    < Back Jean-Paul Gagnon Faculty Affiliate About Jean-Paul Gagnon is a democratic theorist specializing in democracy's linguistic artifacts and the theory of non-human democracy. He edits the Berghahn (Oxford/New York) journal Democratic Theory and the Palgrave Macmillan book series on The Theories, Concepts, and Practices of Democracy. He is director of the nascent Foundation For the Philosophy of Democracy.

  • Policy making and democratic responsiveness: The explanatory potential of values

    < Back Policy making and democratic responsiveness: The explanatory potential of values Linda Botterill, University of Canberra Tue 14 July 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Building 24, University of Canberra / Virtual Seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract This presentation will consider policy as the output of the democratic process, the endpoint of Powell’s “chain of democratic responsiveness”. Understanding fully how citizens’ preferences are reflected in policy outcomes requires the effective integration of politics into models of the policy process. One way to do this is to consider policy and politics through a values lens. I will argue that values constitute the common thread that connects all the stages of the chain of responsiveness, with each choice from citizens’ voting to policy decisions involving the prioritisation of one value or set of values over others. Drawing on the work of Shalom Schwartz, I will consider what is meant by the term ‘values’ and then discuss how they are evident in every stage of the democratic process. I will conclude with a few observations about what this approach means for policy studies. About the speaker Linda Botterill is Professor in Australian Politics and Head of the Canberra School of Politics, Economics & Society. She is a political scientist working in the areas of Australian politics, and public policy theory. The focus of her current work is the role of values in politics and policy, and she has also published extensively on Australian rural policy and politics. Prior to commencing her academic career, Professor Botterill worked as a policy practitioner – including over a decade in the APS, as an adviser to two Ministers for Primary Industries and Energy in the Keating government, and as senior policy adviser in two industry associations. She was elected as a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia in 2015. Previous Next

  • Genevieve Johnson

    < Back Genevieve Johnson Associate About Genevieve Fuji Johnson studies and teaches democratic theory, feminist political thought, interpretive approaches to policy analysis, and a range of current public policy issues. She is a Professor of Political Science at Simon Fraser University, in Burnaby, Canada.

  • Connecting to Parliament: Creating authentic engagement between citizens and their elected representatives

    < Back Connecting to Parliament: Creating authentic engagement between citizens and their elected representatives Investigator(s): Adele Webb, Nardine Alnemr, Selen Ercan, John Dryzek, Michael Neblo, Hans Asenbaum The world is rapidly changing. Parliaments have a vital role to play in not only recognising new challenges but enabling citizens to connect with and participate in policy-making processes that will impact their lives now and into the future. In amongst the gloomy picture for democracy worldwide, where citizen disengagement is pervasive and palpable, there are glimmers of hope. Instances of parliaments and legislatures finding new ways to augment traditional institutions of representation – exploring innovations in democracy to meaningfully engage with citizens between elections. Project Description Connecting to Parliament (C2P) is one of the CDDGG’s flagship initiatives, which aims to involve more Australians in the processes of parliament, by making democracy more deliberative. The project involves a series of deliberative engagements, including online deliberative town halls, which link a representative sample of constituents with their elected official in productive town hall conversations about the issues that are subject to parliamentary debate in Australia. Through these deliberative processes, parliamentarians gain the opportunity to deepen their understanding of their constituency’s diverse voices, considerations and concerns. Participants make connections with formal decision-makers and have the opportunity for their voice to be heard outside of elections. At the same time, the project provides the opportunity to expand our knowledge about the potential benefits and uses of deliberative democracy. The project builds on the insights gained from the successful Connecting to Congress project led by Professor Michael Neblo and his team at the Institute for Democratic Engagement and Accountability, Ohio State University. Connecting to Parliament replicates this work by designing and analyzing a series of deliberative forums with citizens and elected representatives. Through administering a range of Deliberative Town Halls (in-person, hybrid, and online) C2C aims to identify the modes of deliberative engagement that produce the greatest gains in engagement and increase positive aspects of civic behavior among diverse populations of citizens. Town Hall on Mitochondrial Donation In September 2020, Connecting to Parliament held two Deliberative Town Halls with Member of Parliament Andrew Leigh. These events focused on Mitochondrial Donation, a medical procedure – illegal at the time – that was set to undergo a conscience vote in Parliament. As a “conscience vote,” a relatively rare (occurring roughly once per term) type of vote where MP’s do not have to vote along party lines, Leigh MP was free to vote entirely at his discretion. Greeted with this unique opportunity, Andrew Leigh MP partnered with the Connecting to Parliament project to engage in a deliberative democracy exercise with his electorate. In two town hall meetings, one online and one face-to-face, a series of constituents from Leigh’s electorate of Fenner were randomly selected to weigh the issues surrounding mitochondrial donation. Prior to these events, Member of Parliament Leigh agreed that his vote would be guided by the conclusions of these Deliberative Town Halls. Overwhelmingly, participants in both town halls believed that Mitochondrial Donation should be made legal in Australia. In a statement on the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform Bill in late 2021, Leigh MP said that: “the overwhelming sentiment among those who attended the forum was to support mitochondrial donation, and I will be voting in favour of this bill.” The majority of the House of Representatives, including Leigh MP, voted in favor of the Bill on December 1, 2021. The Bill passed in the Senate on March 30, 2022; mitochondrial donation became legal in Australia starting October 2, 2022. More information on the Bill may be found here at the Parliament of Australia website . Town Hall on Young People and Australian Politics In August 2021, Connecting to Parliament held a Deliberative Town Hall with Member of Parliament Alicia Payne on the issue of increasing youth participation in politics. The focus of young people was chosen as there is an increasing generational gap between those in power and the nation’s youth; today, the average age of an Australian MP is 52. As the decisions these lawmakers make will have lasting effects for decades, including young people more in the political process will give them greater agency over those who make the decisions that will affect their futures. Partner With Us Connecting to Parliament is a collaborative process that seeks to establish innovative and substantive conversations between constituents and public officials on important policy issues. By working with our team, elected officials will: Co-design the goals for deliberative town halls Participate in 60–90-minute non-partisan, unscripted, third-party facilitated conversations with constituents Learn about informed public interests while opening new channels of communication to a broadly representative sample of the local population Work with academic institutions focused on the public good, which means that our processes are designed to be cost-effective Garner qualitative and quantitative information from participants on their experiences attending townhalls as well as their opinions about specific policy issues. For more information, contact Adele Webb at

  • Should democracies permit citizens to select refugees for admission and resettlement?

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

  • Deliberating in the Anthropocene: Signs and sources of reflexive governance

    < Back Deliberating in the Anthropocene: Signs and sources of reflexive governance Jonathan Pickering, University of Canberra Tue 22 September 2015 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract Many commentators believe that the Earth has entered a new geological epoch—the Anthropocene—marked by humanity’s pervasive impact on global ecosystems. Resulting patterns of environmental degradation pose major challenges for the planet’s inhabitants as well as for political institutions worldwide. John Dryzek has recently argued that in the Anthropocene institutions need to cultivate “ecosystemic reflexivity”, which involves “listening more effectively to an active Earth system, capacity to reconsider core values such as justice in this light, and ability to seek, receive and respond to early warnings about potential ecological state shifts” (Dryzek 2014). But what would ecosystemic reflexivity look like in practice and how could it could be cultivated? In this paper (co-authored with John Dryzek) we outline a preliminary typology of signs or indicators of ecosystemic reflexivity, and of factors that may enable or constrain reflexivity. Even if institutions may become reflexive through non-deliberative means, we argue—drawing on existing literature on deliberative systems and complex adaptive systems—that deliberative innovations hold considerable potential to promote reflexivity. In order to assess the strength of this argument in practice, we outline a planned case study on reflexivity in international institutions that fund development and environmental protection in low-income countries. 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

  • Quinlan Bowman

    < Back Quinlan Bowman Postdoctoral Research Fellow About Quinlan Bowman is Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre for Liberal Arts and Social Sciences and the Public Policy and Global Affairs Programme at Nanyang Technological University (Singapore).

  • Lyn Carson

    < Back Lyn Carson Associate About Lyn Carson has taught and researched in the field of deliberative democracy, asking how the wider public can help to resolve policy challenges. She was involved in convening Australia's first Consensus Conference, the first Deliberative Polls, the first Australian Citizens' Parliament, and numerous Citizens' Juries and Community Summits.

  • Fast thinking: Implications for democratic politics

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

  • Deliberative democracy and climate change: building the foundations of an adaptive system

    < Back Deliberative democracy and climate change: building the foundations of an adaptive system Investigator(s): Simon Niemeyer Funded through Future Fellowship (FT110100871) ($629,090), Simon Niemeyer (Chief Investigator) Project Description This research seeks to develop an appropriate conception of deliberative democracy to identify those elements of democratic systems that impede the ability to identify and respond to the challenges posed by climate change and identify shortcomings in the theory of deliberative democracy and develop solutions. It does so using empirical evidence relating to the operation of deliberation in real world settings, including evidence from a sister ARC funded Discovery project on mechanisms for scaling up deliberation. As well as contributing to the theory of deliberative democracy and earth systems governance, the research will produce practical recommendations and contribute to public debate.

  • When deliberative democracy travels to China: An example of cultural exceptionalism

    < Back When deliberative democracy travels to China: An example of cultural exceptionalism Li-chia Lo, University of Melbourne Tue 7 February 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract As Edward Said elaborates in his Travelling Theory, theory is like human beings who travel from its birthplace to other foreign places. This is where the meaning of theory begins to transform, and Said’s work points to a new direction of investigating the transcultural transformation of knowledge when theory is disseminated in our globalised world. By following this line of thinking, the development of deliberative democracy in China offers an excellent example to review how the actual contexts transform the meaning and implication of deliberative democracy. Engaging with the issue of translation and its related contexts, the development of deliberative democracy in China is deeply connected with its culture, institution, and socio-political traditions. Also, the background of introducing deliberative democracy to China is also tightly bridged with the studies of democratization. The double movements between the local contexts and the universal trend of democratization form the basic theme of deliberative democracy in China. Deliberative democracy in China is therefore, struggled between universalism and exceptionalism. By making use of Giorgio Agamben’s concepts of example and exception, I will go into details about why and how the development of deliberative democracy in China is heading toward a cultural exceptionalism rather than embracing the universalism prescribed in the normative goal of deliberative democracy. About the speaker Li-chia Lo is a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Melbourne. His doctoral thesis is about deliberative democracy and participatory budgeting in China. He is particularly interested in formations of related knowledge and local experiments in Chinese cities. Previous Next

  • Beyond expression: Realising public deliberation in an era of communicative plenty

    < Back Beyond expression: Realising public deliberation in an era of communicative plenty Selen Ercan, University of Canberra Tue 1 December 2015 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract The paper develops the idea of ‘communicative plenty’ to describe the ever increasing proliferation of site of political communication (both online and offline) that emerge around controversial policy issues. We consider the implications of communicative plenty for realizing democracy understood in deliberative terms, as a reflective and non-coercive communication process. We identify various promises and pitfalls of communicative plenty, and discuss the conditions under which it might contribute not only to broadening, but also deepening of public conversations. To this end, we propose moving beyond expression and voice to focus on often ignored aspects of public communication, including reflection and listening. We argue that if accompanied by sufficient moments of reflection and listening, communicative plenty can offer a viable context for the realization of public deliberation at a systems level. We discuss the implications of this proposal for institutional design. About the speaker Dr Selen Ercan is a Research Fellow at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra. Her bio and current research projects can be viewed here . Previous Next

  • Dannica Fleuss

    < Back Dannica Fleuss Associate About Dannica Fleuss' research deals with conceptualizations of democratic legitimacy, philosophy of science and deliberative democracy. She is also a postdoctoral research fellow and lecturer in political theory at Helmut Schmidt University (Hamburg).

bottom of page