Search Results

< Back PROMOTING DEMOCRACY IN THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE Democratic debate has undergone a structural transformation due to the rise of the Internet, social media and online communities. About this event Democratic debate has undergone a structural transformation due to the rise of the Internet, social media and online communities. Scholars of political communication have sought to diagnose the threat these changes pose, but empirical evidence often makes it unclear exactly what response should be made to concerning practices. In this paper we argue that debates around the regulation of the public sphere can benefit from engaging more directly with democratic theory. Drawing on Jürgen Habermas’s “coffeehouse model,” we establish theoretical markers for desirable practice online and consider the conditions under which these ideals can be advanced. Focusing on the significance of both digital design and user behaviour, we suggest initiatives that can promote favoured democratic ideals, arguing for a more proactive as opposed to reactive response to trends online. Dr Kate Dommett is Senior Lecturer at the University of Sheffield. Her research focuses on digital campaigning, political advertising, data and democracy. Dr Dommett recently served as Special Advisor to the House of Lords Committee on Democracy and Digital Technology. She was awarded the 2020 Richard Rose Prize by the Political Studies Association for an early-career scholar who has made a distinctive contribution to British politics. Her Book, The Reimagined Party was published in 2020. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

< Back Building Democratic Resilience: Public Sphere Responses to Violent Extremism Selen A. Ercan, Jordan McSwiney, Peter Balint, and John S. Dryzek 2022 , State of NSW, Department of Premier and Cabinet ​ Summary Violent extremism threatens human life and safety. Often overlooked is how violent extremists endanger the public sphere, which is comprised of the practices, institutions and actors that sustain communication about matters of common concern. Violent extremists seek to undermine the public sphere by sowing division, distrust, and fear. How should the public sphere respond to the threats posed by the violent extremism? The report, Building Democratic Resilience offers a framework for examining and improving the public sphere responses to violent extremism. It develops the concept of ‘democratic resilience’ drawing on the theory of deliberative democracy, and empirical research on countering violent extremism (CVE) in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. It explains how ‘democratic resilience’ differs from and supplements ‘community resilience’, which is the current resilience framework used by the NSW Government. The report offers key insights for academics, public servants, policy makers and the journalists working to develop strategies for tackling violent extremism Read more Previous Next

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

< Back Thais Choucair Associate About Thaís Choucair is a PhD student in the Graduate Program in Communication of the Federal University of Minas Gerais (PPGCOM UFMG). Thaís works in the fields of politics and communication, quantitative and qualitative methodologies, digital activism, deliberation, deliberative system and framing.

< Back How can we improve deliberative reason? A meta-analysis of minipublic deliberation Simon Niemeyer and Francesco Veri (University of Canberra) Tue 24 November 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract This paper investigates influences on public reasoning on political issues within deliberative minipublics. It does so via a multi-level study of 20 minipublic cases and 480 individuals, using a Deliberative Reason Index (DRI). DRI captures how deliberating groups construct a shared understanding of an issue and integrate relevant arguments into their various positions. It is consistent with deliberative ideals, versus selective reasoning pathologies such as confirmation bias. Overall, we find that minipublic deliberation results in dramatically improved reasoning. Reasoning is best facilitated by designs that focus on establishing group deliberative norms, particularly for complex issues. By contrast, processes designed to directly impact decision-making and short cut wider public discussion fare relatively poorly. The impact of demographic variables is complex, with interaction effects operating. Overall, the results are consistent with recent developments in how we understand human reasoning, and the roles of situation and emotions. They bring into question some common claims regarding deliberative design and have wider practical implications for improving public reasoning. About the speakers Simon Niemeyer is Professor and co-founder of the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. His research ties together the themes of political behaviour, the public sphere and observations from deliberative minipublics, such as Citizens’ Juries, to develop insights into potential interventions and institutional settings that improve deliberation and governance. Francesco Veri is a Postdoctoral fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. Francesco is also a member of the Lucerne Cluster for Configurational Methods (LUCCS) which regroup scholars who make major contributions to social science methodology at the crossroads between quantitative and qualitative research. Previous Next

< Back Digging deeper: The role of emotions in anti-coal seam gas mobilization Hedda Ransan-Cooper, Sonya Duus & Selen Ercan, University of Canberra Tue 23 May 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In many countries, the expansion of coal seam gas (CSG) exploration and development has been met with grassroots resistance; the scale and depth of which has surprised even movement organizers. An often remarked feature of the movement’s success is the teaming up of farmers and environmental organizers, historically at odds with one another on other environmental issues. In this paper, we explore the role of emotions in building alliances, and mobilizing anti-CSG individuals and groups in Australia, especially the site of a proposed coal seam gas field in Narrabri, in northwest NSW. Using Margaret Wetherell’s affective-discourses approach and Charles Tilly’s concept of repertoires of contention as our conceptual springboard, we analyse interviews with various anti-CSG movement participants. The paper argues that affective practices play a significant role in explaining how the movement has sustained mobilization against CSG despite differences between movement participants. Emotions allow a new repertoire of contention that combines everyday practices associated with ‘doing’ community with confrontational direct action tactics favoured by several environmental groups. We discuss the implications of this development for the social movements literature in general and for the anti-CSG mobilization in Australia. This paper is part of a research project on 'Realising Democracy Amid Communicative Plenty: A Deliberative Systems Approach' funded by the Australian Research Council About the speakers Hedda Ransan-Cooper is a research fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance located at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra. Her research interests include the social dimension of energy change and the nexus between environmental change and human mobility. Her recent publications appeared in Global Environmental Change and Environmental Sociology. Sonya Duus is a research fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance located at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra. Sonya's research has focussed on explaning current fossil fuel dilemmas from a broad and historical perspective. She has published papers in Environmental Politics and Rural Society. Selen Ercan is a senior research fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance located at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra. She works in the area of deliberative democracy focusing particularly on the capacity of this approach in addressing irreconcilable value conflicts. Her recent publications appeared in International Political Science Review, Policy and Politics, Environmental Politics and Critical Policy Studies. Previous Next

< Back What exactly is voting to consensual deliberation? Emmanuel Ifeanyi Ani, University of Ghana Tue 27 October 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Abstract There have been two parallel views regarding the role of voting in deliberation. The first is that deliberation before the fabrication of balloting was completely devoid of voting. The second is that voting is, not just part of deliberation, but is standard to deliberation. I argue in this article that neither of these views is correct. Implicit voting has always existed across time and space but only as a last resort in the event of a failure of natural unanimity. What is relatively modern is the establishment of what I call explicit voting, namely, balloting, outside deliberation and often without deliberation. I also distinguish between natural and artificial unanimities, and clarify that artificial unanimities are products of implicit voting. I demonstrate these clarifications with some examples of deliberation. I deploy these clarifications to rid a certain debate of confusion regarding the precise role of voting in consensual deliberation. About the speaker Emmanuel Ifeanyi Ani is a Senior Lecturer and has taught Critical Thinking for several years at the University of Ghana, Accra. He holds a BA in Philosophy from the University of Ibadan, a B. Phil in Philosophy from the Pontificia Università Urbaniana Roma (Urban Pontifical University, Rome), Italy, an MA and a PhD in Political Philosophy from Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Nigeria. He is the University of Ghana external assessor for affiliate institutions on Logic and Critical Thinking. He was the Chair of Long Essay, Library and Graduate Studies, Department of Philosophy and Classics, University of Ghana. He briefly visited the Centre for Deliberative Democracy, Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra (November-December 2017), and is one of the Associate Editors at the Journal of Deliberative Democracy. He has published in many high impact journals including Philosophical Papers, Journal of Political Philosophy, Philosophia, South African Journal of Philosophy, African Studies Quarterly, and Canadian Philosophical Review. He is a contributor to the Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, and the winner of the 2018 University of Ghana Humanities Provost Publication Award (Mid-Career Category). Previous Next

< Back Deliberative democracy in the face of democratic crisis: Contributions, dilemmas and the ways forward Investigator(s): Ricardo F. Mendonça, Camilo Aggio, Viktor Chagas, Selen Ercan, Viviane Freitas, Filipe Motta, Rayza Sarmento, Francisco Tavares Funded by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development ($15,800 via University of Minas Gerais) Project Description The project seeks to specify the challenges contemporary democracies face and advance the ways deliberative perspective can help address these challenges. Selen Ercan teams up once again with our associate Ricardo F. Mendonça to investigate the context of democratic crisis from a perspective of deliberative democracy.

< Back Baogang He Associate About Baogang He has become widely known for his work in Chinese democratization and politics, in particular the deliberative politics in China. He is Alfred Deakin Professor and Chair in International Relations since 2005, at Deakin University, Australia.

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

< Back The Theory and Practice of Deliberative Democracy Investigator(s): John Dryzek and Robert Goodin Funded through Discovery Project (DP0342795) ($223,547), the Project Team includes: John Dryzek Robert Goodin Christian Hunold Carolyn Hendriks Aviezer Tucker Project Description This project examined the relationship between deliberative innovations, especially citizen forums, and the larger political contexts in which they take place. Particular kinds of institutional innovation work out quite differently in different contexts. A comparative study of consensus conferences on genetically modified foods revealed sharp differences between the roles such forums play in Denmark (where they are integrated into policy making), the United States (where they are advocacy inputs from the margins of policy making), and France (where they are managed from the top down). A broader survey of cases also revealed systematic differences between the relatively 'promethean' position that policy makers are constrained to take, and the more 'precautionary' conclusions reached by reflective publics, causing problems for the deliberative legitimation of risk-related policy via citizen forums. A close look at Germany enabled systematic comparison of the virtues and problems of forums made up of, respectively, partisan stakeholders and non-partisan lay citizens. Another broad survey of cases looked at the variety of ways in which citizen forums, or 'mini-publics', can have an impact in larger political systems. All these empirical results can help inform the development of deliberative democratic theory, as well as the practice of deliberative innovation.

< Back Decision makers with a deliberative stance? The hidden world of public deliberation between ministers and their publics Carolyn Hendriks, Australian National University Tue 7 June 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In this seminar I will discuss a work-in-progress paper that I am currently co-authoring with Associate Professor Jennifer Lees Marshment, University of Auckland. Much of the democratic burden in deliberative democracy rests on effective communication taking place between potentially affected publics and those empowered to make decisions. Yet remarkably little is known about the way contemporary decision makers receive and make collective sense of multiple forms of public input. In our paper we prise open this ‘black box’ by discussing ground breaking empirical findings on how senior political decision makers themselves understand the relationship between public input and their work. An analysis over 50 interviews with former ministers and state secretaries in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand finds that political leaders based at the federal or national level view public input as an integral component of their work. Decision makers place a high premium on personal interactions with the public, such as conversations with individual citizens, or one-one-one exchanges with affected groups. In these informal interactions, decision makers connect with everyday people, hear ‘real world’ stories and learn how issues affect people’s lives. This represents a hidden world of public deliberation taking place between decision makers and their publics that has hitherto been hidden from debates in deliberative democracy. The paper considers what these findings imply for public deliberation, particularly the place of leaders and executive government in contemporary deliberative systems. Please find here the paper. About the speaker Carolyn M. Hendriks is an Associate Professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University. Her work examines democratic aspects of contemporary governance, particularly with respect to participation, deliberation, inclusion and representation. She has taught and published widely on democratic innovation, public deliberation, network governance and environmental politics. Carolyn is an appointed member of newDemocracy's Research Committee and sits on the editorial board of several international journals, including the European Journal of Political Research. Previous Next

< Back Emerson Sanchez Former PhD student About Emerson M. Sanchez researches the role of environmental knowledge in contributing to industrial disasters and exploring ways to avert such tragedies. He has also conducted research on social movements, indigenous rights, social health, and gender and development. He recently completed his PhD at the University of Canberra.

< Back Mending Democracy: Democratic Repair in Disconnected Times Carolyn M. Hendriks, Selen A. Ercan, and John Boswell 2020 , Oxford University Press ​ Summary The fabric of democracy is threadbare in many contemporary societies. Connections that are vital to the functioning and integrity of our democratic systems are wearing thin. Citizens are increasingly disconnected — from their elected representatives, from one another in the public sphere, and from complex processes of public policy. In such disconnected times, how can we strengthen and renew our democracies? This book develops the idea of democratic mending as a way of advancing a more connective approach to democratic reform. It is informed by three rich empirical cases of connectivity in practice, as well as cutting-edge debates in deliberative democracy. The empirical cases uncover empowering and transformative modes of political engagement that are vital for democratic renewal. The diverse actors in this book are not withdrawing, resisting or seeking autonomy from conventional institutions of representative democracy but actively experimenting with ways to improve and engage with them. Through their everyday practices of democratic mending they undertake crucial systemic repair work and strengthen the integrity of our democratic fabric in ways that are yet to be fully acknowledged by scholars and practitioners of democratic reform. Read more Previous Next

< Back Bob Goodin Associate About Bob Goodin has taught Government at the University of Essex, and worked as research professor of Philosophy and Social & Political Theory at Australian National University. He is now jointly Professor of Government at the University of Essex and Distinguished Professor of Social & Political Theory and Philosophy at Australian National University.

< Back Andreas Schaeffer Associate About Andreas Schaeffer's research interests rest at the intersection between political communication and decision-making. He has investigated the role of deliberation in parliamentary decision-making and is now focusing on strategies political parties use for communication in an age of increasing communicative abundance.

< Back Dr Sonia Bussu’s visit sparks new collaborations ​ ​ This month, we were excited to host Dr Sonia Bussu from The Institute of Local Government Studies (INLOGOV), University of Birmingham as a visiting scholar between 17 September to 30 September 2023. Dr Bussu works in the areas of participatory democracy and public policy. Her research aims to bridge divides between different literatures concerned with citizen engagement, social justice, and intersectional inclusion. She studies how participatory deliberative democracy, social movements, the commons, coproduction, community activism, participatory research can all enrich one another. During her visit, Dr Bussu presented a (work in progress) paper co-authored with Katy Rubin titled ‘ Participation as Assemblage’ at a public seminar on Tuesday, 19 September 2023. This paper tests the analytical power and limitations of an assemblage frame by presenting an evaluation of a project she is leading called ‘ Mindset Revolution .’ Her presentation explored the capacity of assemblage theory in helping us study democratic innovations and participatory governance. The following day, Dr Bussu presented her work at a workshop titled ‘ Deliberative systems and deliberative assemblages: Exploring the intersection and future of research agenda ’, alongside Distinguished Professor John Dryzek , Visiting PhD Candidate Lucas Veloso and Dr Hans Asenbaum . This workshop, convened by the Centre’s PhD student Wendy Conway-Lamb , offered an opportunity to discuss and reflect on different analytical lenses used to make sense of democratic innovation, comparing deliberative systems, deliberative ecologies and democratic assemblages. Dr Bussu’s contribution explored participatory governance through an assemblage lens. A crucial aspect of Dr Bussu’s work, as captured by projects she is leading like the Mindset Revolution, is that she starts from people’s lived experiences. She opens spaces for them to build a collective voice to challenge hierarchies of power and expertise embedded in existing medical and policy discourses. Dr Bussu sees her work on assemblage as a useful frame to better understand change and contingency, as it sees democracy as in a constant state of becoming, inviting us to acknowledge distributed agency and socio-material relations that also recognise the role of non-human elements, from technology to physical spaces and material resources. Asked what she enjoyed the most about her research collaboration with the Centre, Dr Bussu explains “I am going back to the UK inspired by the constructive feedback and all the wonderful work being developed by this exciting group of well-established scholars and early career researchers pushing the boundaries of the study and practice of deliberative democracy. I feel even more energised by new collaborations on work focusing on intersectional inclusion and centering and amplifying lived experience.” We are grateful for all the engaging conversations we have had with Dr Bussu during her visit, and we look forward to furthering our collaborations with her in future.

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

< Back Julien VryDagh Associate About Julien Vrydagh researches the policy impact of mini-publics in Belgium. He conducts case studies to trace the policy influence of mini-publics, and compares Belgian mini-publics with a fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis in order to understand the conditions under which they succeed or not in exerting an influence.

< 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.