Search Results

< Back HOW DO SETTLER-COLONIAL INEQUALITIES SHAPE POLITICAL BEHAVIOUR AND COMMUNICATION IN ANGLO-DEMOCRACIES? About this event Social structure becomes internalized as cognitive dispositions that shape social action (Bourdieu 2000). In settler-colonial societies, how do White settlers’ cognitive dispositions—specifically, White settlers’ racial attitudes—shape political behaviour and communication? Can we design interventions so that political discourse (talking through disagreement) improves White settlers’ outgroup attitudes? In this talk, Professor Edana Beauvais gives an overview of her research on the political consequences of White settlers’ racial attitudes. She also discusses the results of an experiment that varied communication style (rational-legal speech versus personal storytelling) to see if personal storytelling could improve White settlers’ attitudes toward Indigenous peoples. Edana Beauvais is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Simon Fraser University. She is the Chair of the Participedia Democracy and Digital Communication Cluster and the President of the American Political Science Association’s Democratic Innovations Group. Before joining SFU, she held a Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship at Duke University, a Visiting Democracy Fellowship at the Ash Center, Harvard University, and a SSHRC Postdoctoral Fellowship at the Centre for the Study of Democratic Citizenship, McGill University. She is interested in the way inequalities shape communication and action, producing unequal political influence between different social group members. Seminar series convenors: Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal. Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

< Back The Political Economy of Devolution in Britain from the Postwar Era to Brexit Nick Vlahos 2020 , Palgrave ​ Summary Bringing together ten leading researchers in the field of deliberative democracy, this important book examines the features of a Deliberative Mini-Public (DMP) and considers how DMPs link into democratic systems. It examines the core design features of DMPs and their role in the broader policy process and takes stock of the characteristics that distinguish them from other forms of citizen participation. In doing so, the book offers valuable insights into the contributions that DMPs can make not only to the policy process, but also to the broader agenda of revitalising democracy in contemporary times. Read more Previous Next

< 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

< Back What prevents or promotes listening? A relational content analysis of reciprocity in online political discussions Katharina Esau, University of Dusseldorf Tue 11 September 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In recent years, governments have created non-conventional opportunities for participation in order to respond to a perceived crisis of democracy. Frequently, online tools are used to include large numbers of participants in deliberation processes. From the perspective of deliberative theories, analyzing, evaluating, and developing these participatory procedures requires the application of normative standards. While conceptualizations of deliberation vary in detail, most authors agree that deliberation is a demanding type of communication characterized by equality, rationality, reciprocity, and respect. Regarding structural equality or equality in terms of access, anyone affected should have the chance to participate regardless gender, ethnic, or social background. In the past, participation procedures repeatedly have fallen short in creating structural equality. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that once citizens find their way to a discursive space and speak, they at least then experience discursive equality in the form of listening. Against this normative background, “being listened to” can be considered one crucial outcome of successful deliberative procedures. However, most studies are focusing on discursive equality in terms of voice. In contrast to this, this presentation focuses on the distribution of listening in online political discussions and on factors that prevent or promote listening. About the speaker Katharina Esau is a PhD candidate in Communication Studies at the University of Düsseldorf and part of the NRW Graduate School for Online Participation and the Düsseldorf Institute for Internet and Democracy. Her research interests include digital democracy, online deliberation, online public sphere, and public opinion formation. Her PhD project deals with online deliberation processes created by state actors on the local and regional level of government. Combining relational content analysis and sequence analysis, she investigates the interrelations between argumentation, narration, expression of emotion, and humour and how these fundamental forms of communication foster or impede reciprocity, reflexivity and empathy in online discussions. The PhD project is supervised by Prof. Christiane Eilders. In Düsseldorf, Katharina lectures on democratic theory, public sphere theory, deliberation research, and deliberative design. Previous Next

< Back Michael Rollens Former PhD student About Michael completed his dissertation entitled ‘Theory of Analytic Journalism’ in 2014 at the Australian National University. He was supervised by David West with the assistance of John Dryzek and Simon Niemeyer.

< Back Spaces of hope: Theorizing hope in an imperfect yet open democratic system Antonin Lacelle-Webster, University of British Columbia Tue 27 April 2021 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Hope is a complex phenomenon. While it is a common fixture of political life, its meaning remains elusive, and many reject it as simply naïve or disconnected from “reality.” Despite its political salience, democratic theory has yet to engage with hope as a political concept. In this paper, I propose to explore its relation to democracy and democratic innovations through a focus on hope’s spatial and political features. I argue that the spaces that democracy holds open for individuals to act, think, and come together can not only mitigate the anxiety generated by the uncertainty of politics but also nurture hope. More precisely, deliberative spaces provide a setting that substantiates a collective understanding of hope distinct from its individual manifestations. As such, I ground the political problem of hope not in the nature of the hoped-for ends, but in the critical and imaginative process it requires from a collectivity. Drawing from Hannah Arendt’s faculty to make and keep promises, I contend that deliberative minipublics represent one example of a space in which such collective hopes can emerge. I use the French Citizens’ Convention on Climate to illustrate my argument and conclude by briefly discussing the subsequent challenge of sustaining this form of hope. About the speaker Antonin is a PhD candidate in political theory at the University of British Columbia. He is broadly interested in issues related to democratic theory, democratic innovations, the politics of hope and despair, and the political thought of Hannah Arendt. Previous Next

< Back Introducing non-human democracy Jean-Paul Gagnon, University of Canberra Tue 6 December 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract An examination of more than 1200 descriptions of democracy makes one thing abundantly clear—democracy is a human affair. Yet, there is a disturbance in this declaration and it comes from biology. For there is an immense body of scientific literature on how non-humans make decisions to solve collective action problems. And the language used in these studies is strikingly familiar: it is the language of democracy. If we use concepts that are inherent to the logic of democracy to make sense of non-human group behavior, does that not mean non-humans are practicing democracy too? Despite the popularity in other disciplines of inter-species thinking, it is ignored in democracy research. Why is that? Why can we not conceive of democracy as anything other than uniquely human? In answering these questions, this paper introduces non-human democracy and argues that its theory has three functions: non-humans (1) can inspire us to rethink aspects of democracy, (2) instruct us in specific practices of it, and (3) help us draw new analogies to better understand it. About the speaker Jean-Paul Gagnon is assistant professor of politics at the University of Canberra. His books include Evolutionary Basic Democracy (2013), Democratic Theorists in Conversation (2014), and Young People, Citizenship, and Political Participation: Combating Civic Deficit? (2017, with Mark Chou, Catherine Hartung, and Lesley J Pruitt). Previous Next

< Back Molly Scudder Associate About Molly Scudder specializes in democratic theory, especially practices of citizenship and the conditions of meaningfully democratic deliberation in contexts of deep difference. She is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Purdue University.

< Back How to get away with murder? The everyday politics of justification in illiberal times Nicole Curato, University of Canberra Tue 16 October 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract This presentation enquires into the everyday politics of justification that legitimize President Rodrigo Duterte’s bloody war on drugs in the Philippines. Since the President took office in 2016, over 22,000 unsolved killings were documented that may be related to the antidrug campaign. Despite these figures, the drug war, as well as President Duterte continue to enjoy broad support from the public based on the latest polling data. What accounts for this phenomenon? Using in-depth interviews with families left behind by victims of summary executions, community leaders, public officials, and inmates jailed because of drug-related charges, this presentation unpacks the everyday logics of justification that provide discursive power to a controversial policy. It argues that denialism, complicity and deservingness are three logics that structure the ways in which reasons are articulated, negotiated, ignored, and silenced in the public sphere. The presentation concludes by reflecting on the politics of reason-giving during what is described to be illiberal times in one of Asia’s oldest democracies. It also re-examines the virtues of deliberative democracy in dark times. This seminar is co-presented by the Australian National University’s Philippines Project. Previous Next

< Back Jonathan Pickering Associate Professor About

< Back Co-producing deliberative space: Reflections from city level water forum initiatives in India and Nepal Hemant R Ojha, University of Canberra Tue 17 November 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel . Abstract There is now an increasing level of endorsement of the deliberative approach to governance, bolstered by evidence of benefits in legitimacy, inclusion, social learning, and even the quality of governance outcomes. In the Global South, however, entrenched power asymmetries and political cultures that tend to ignore, if not actively suppress, the practice of deliberation in political decision making continue to challenge efforts to improve deliberation in governance. In this paper, I reflect on some recent and ongoing action research initiatives supporting urban water forums in four cities in India and Nepal. Locally engaged research team partnered with academic research groups from Europe and Australia to design and test urban water forums as an experiment to expand deliberative space on issues related to water management, access, and resilience to climate change. The forums were co-organised by local research groups and city level governments, inviting representatives of all major social groups that have an interest in or are concerned with the problems of water in the city. Over a period of five years, these experiments show that locally engaged research practice can stimulate open dialogues, self-reflections (especially among the powerful groups), system-wide collective thinking, and an appreciation of the longer-term environmental risks in city level planning and decision making. However, seeing through the lens of co-production, these gains in deliberation that emerged in the context of transnational research partnership are less likely to effect new modes of co-production in governance, without larger, deeper and system-wide processes of change and transformation. This experience suggests that small-scale innovations in deliberation can meet co-production limit but can still show directionality and confidence in larger and deeper changes in the system. About the speaker Hermant R Ojha is Adjunct Associate Professor at the Center for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance and Senior Policy Advisor at the Institute for Study and Development Worldwide (IFSD) in Sydney. Previous Next

< Back The Ethics of Multiple Citizenship Ana Tanasoca 2018 , Cambridge University Press ​ Summary Citizenship is no longer an exclusive relationship. Many people today are citizens of multiple countries, whether by birth, naturalization, or even through monetary means, with schemes fast-tracking citizenship applications from foreigners making large investments in the state. Moral problems surround each of those ways of acquiring a second citizenship, while retaining one's original citizenship. Multiple citizenship can also have morally problematic consequences for the coherence of collective decisions, for the constitution of the demos, and for global inequality. The phenomenon of multiple citizenship and its ramifications remains understudied, despite its magnitude and political importance. In this innovative book, Ana Tanasoca explores these issues and shows how they could be avoided by unbundling the rights that currently come with citizenship and allocating them separately. It will appeal to scholars and students of normative political theory, citizenship, global justice, and migration in political science, law, and sociology. Read more Previous Next

< Back Simon Niemeyer Professor About Simon Niemeyer is co-founder of the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. Simon’s research covers the broad field of deliberative democracy, with a focus on the use of empirical research to inform its theoretical foundations and understand how they translate into practical democratic innovations. So far, Simon has contributed to the development of several pathbreaking concepts in the field, such as metaconsensus and discursive representation (both with John Dryzek) as well as developing innovative methods for the analysis of deliberation. His more recent work has involved conceptualising, measuring, and analysing deliberative reasoning. This work, which ties together previous work on measuring deliberative transformation and theorising of deliberative metaconsensus, has implications for minipublic design, as well broader implications for the understanding the ethics of epistemology, the nature and role of deliberative capacity, distributed reasoning in deliberative systems and mechanisms for supporting deliberative reasoning. Much of his work has focussed on deliberative democracy and environmental issues, including climate change, but also covers a broad range of topics including technological development, medical ethics, energy futures, immigration, and parliamentary reform. Niemeyer completed his PhD at the Australian National University in 2002, which followed undergraduate studies in ecology, economics, and environmental policy (Griffith University). Since graduating, he has acted as chief investigator on 18 research projects, including nine Australian Research Council Awards and an ARC Future Fellowship. As well as ANU and University of Canberra, he has held research positions at the Uppsala University, University of Birmingham, Cambridge University and CSIRO. He has also held visiting positions and numerous universities including University of Oxford (Nuffield College), Åbo Akademi, University of British Columbia, University of Bern and University of Northern Arizona. Key Publications Niemeyer, S. J. and F. Veri (Forthcoming). Deliberative Reasoning Index. Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy . S. A. Ercan, H. Asenbaum, N. Curato and R.F. Mendonca. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Niemeyer, S. J. and J. Jennstål (2018). From Minipublics to Deliberative Democracy: Scaling Up Deliberativeness and Subverting Political Manipulation. Handbook of Deliberative Democracy . A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, M. E. Warren and J. J. Mansbridge. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Niemeyer, S. J. (2011). The Emancipatory Effect of Deliberation: Empirical Lessons from Mini-Publics . Politics & Society 39(1): 103–140. Dryzek, J. S. and S. J. Niemeyer (2008). Discursive Representation . American Political Science Review 102(4): 481–494 Dryzek, J. S., & Niemeyer, S. J. (2006). Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals . American Journal of Political Science , 50(3): 634–649. Full list of publications available in GoogleScholar . Research Grants Co-investigator (with PerOla Öberg). “Expert government agencies’ contribution to public deliberation: balancing the need for expertise with political equality”, Riksbanken (Sweden), SEK5,700,000 , 2021-2023 Chief Investigator (with Nicole Curato, Selen Ercan, John Dryzek and Nick Vlahos). Monitoring Deliberative Integrity in Australia. Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative. AU$202,156. 2021-2023 Chief Investigator (with John Dryzek, Dianne Nicol, Nicole Curato, Antoine Vergner). “Global Citizen Deliberation: Analysing a Deliberative Documentary for a Citizens Assembly on Genome Editing”. ARC Linkage, $450,000, 2020-2023. Chief Investigator (with Dianne Nicol, Nicole Curato, John Dryzek). “Genome editing: formulating an Australian community response”. Australian Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, Medical Research Future Fund —Genomics Health Futures Mission, $432,015. 2020-2022. Lead Investigator (with CIs Nicole Curato, John Dryzek, Andre Bachtiger. “A Metastudy of micropolitical deliberation”, ARC Discovery Project, $526,411. 2018-2020. Co-investigator (with Jane Suiter and David Farrel). Analysis of the Irish Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality,€45,000, 2020. Co-investigator (with Andre Bächtiger and S. Marien German Research Council. What citizens want from deliberative forms of participation: mapping legitimacy perceptions with an online survey and a preference experiment. (The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, €150,000. 2020-2022. Lead Investigator (with Julia Jennstål), “The Deliberative Person: How, When and Where to Citizens Deliberate” Swedish Research Council Research Grant, SEK 5,800,000 [Approx AU $1million] 2014-2017. Lead Investigator, ARC Future Fellowship “Deliberative Democracy and Climate Change: Building the Foundations of an Adaptive System”. ARC, AU$629,090. 2013-2016. Lead Investigator (with John Dryzek, David Schlosberg, Kersty Hobson, Robert Goodin, Andre Bachtiger, Maija Setala).ARC Discovery Grant DP120103976 ,“Deliberative Democracy in the Public Sphere: Achieving Deliberative Outcomes in mass publics”. AU$320,357. 2012-2014. Chief Investigator (with David Schlosberg). “ Rethinking Climate Justice in an Age of Adaptation: Capabilities, Loca Variation, and Public Deliberation”. ARC Discovery Grant DP120104797, AU$250,000. 2012-2014. Lead Investigator (with Will Steffen and Kersty Hobson). “Social Adaptation to Climate Change in the Australian Public Sphere: A Comparison of Individual and Group Deliberative Responses to Scenarios of Future Climate Change” ARC Discovery Grant DP0879092AU$378,500, 2008-2010. Chief Investigator (with John Dryzek, Lyn Carson (USyd), Janette HartzKarp (Murdoch), Ian Marsh (USyd) and Luca Belgiorno-Nettis (newDemocracy), “Creating an Analysing a Citizens’ Parliament: Exploring the Public’s Deliberative Capacity”). ARC Linkage Grant LP0882714, AU$709,575, 2008-2010. Chief Investigator (with John Dryzek), “The Micropolitics of Deliberation”. ARC Discovery Grant DP0558573, AU$365,000. 2005-2007. Lead Investigator (with Anna Littleboy), “Societal uptake of alternative energy futures”, CSIRO Energy Flagship Programme AU$400,000. 2004-2005. Chief Investigator (with Judith Petts, Kersty Hobson, Glenn McGregor). “Predicting thresholds of social behavioural responses to rapid climate change”. Economic and Social Research Council (UK). Environment and New Behaviour Opportunities Programme, £32,748. 2003-2004. Lead Investigator (with Mick Common and Russell Blamey). “Citizens’ Juries and Environmental Valuation” AU$150,000, Land and Water Australia. Social and Institutional Research Program. 1999-2002. Recipient. Land and Water Scholar. Industry Scholarship award for Doctoral Studies at the School of Social Sciences, Australian National University. AU$75,000. 1999-2002. PhD Students Nardine Almer (Primary Supervisor) Nicole Moore (Secondary Supervisor) Tatjana Zhdanova (Secondary Supervisor) Andrea Felicetti (Secondary Supervisor) Michael Rollens (Secondary Supervisor) Alex Lo (Secondary Supervisor) Administration Director, Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, 2021-2022 Member, Excellence in Research committee, University of Canberra, 2021-2022. Associate Dean (Research), Faculty of Business, Government and Law, 2018-2020. Member, University Research Committee, University of Canberra, 2019-2020 Coordinator, ARC Research Proposals, Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, 2017-2018 Member, College of Arts and Social Sciences eResearch Committee, 2011-2012. Member, College of Arts and Social Sciences IT Strategy Committee, 2009-2010 Steering Group member, ANU Climate Initiative, 2007–2009 President, ANU Postgraduate and Research Student Association, 1999 Member of University Council, The Australian National University, 1999 Steering Committee Member, ECPR Standing Group, Democratic Innovations, 2011- 2015 Public Engagement Curato, Nicole, and Simon J. Niemeyer. (2020). Why we need a global citizens’ assembly on gene editing . The Conversation . Niemeyer, S. and Hausseger, V (2018). There are always going to be problems in trying something new. But try we should . Canberra Times/Sydney Morning Herald . Canberra. Niemeyer, S. J. (2017). Transforming ACT democracy one citizens' jury at a time. The Canberra Times . Niemeyer, Simon J. (2017). Deliberative democracy and citizens juries. Canberra Conversations , 4 May. Niemeyer, S. J. (2010). A novel idea on climate change: ask the people . The Conversation . Niemeyer, S. J. (2010). Helping unlikely sceptics see that climate change is real . The Age .

< Back Democracy inside: Participatory innovation in unlikely places Albert W. Dzur, Bowling Green State University Tue 1 July 2014 11:00am – 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract This talk will present a brief overview of research on democratic professionals across the United States who have created power-sharing arrangements in organizations, institutions, and workplaces that are typically hierarchical and non-participatory. Democratic professionals emphasize talk and deliberation but, crucially, they also foster physical proximity between formerly separated individuals, encourage co-ownership of problems previously seen as beyond lay people’s ability or realm of responsibility, and seek out opportunities for collaborative work. Unconventional activists, they are not promoting change via formal political institutions; instead, they are renovating and reconstructing their domains practice-by-practice and are making new kinds of education, justice, and government as a result. Drawing on a friendly critique of major trends in contemporary democratic theory, this talk will focus on the implications of this research for thinking about democratic change, citizen agency, and institutions as fields of action. About the Speaker Albert W. Dzur is Professor of Political Science and Philosophy at Bowling Green State University. He is the author of Punishment, Participatory Democracy, and the Jury (Oxford, 2012), Democratic Professionalism: Citizen Participation and the Reconstruction of Professional Ethics, Identity, and Practice (Penn State, 2008), and articles on democratic theory and citizen participation in journals such as Constellations, Criminal Law and Philosophy, Law and Society Review, Political Theory, and Punishment and Society. Working with the Kettering Foundation on his current book project, Democracy Inside: Participatory Innovation in Unlikely Places, he has interviewed democratic innovators in education, criminal justice, and city government about how they open their institutions to deliberation and participation and sustain such norms and practices amid counter-democratic pressures. Project interviews regularly appear in his “Trench Democracy” series for the Boston Review and “Conversations on Participatory Democracy” for the Good Society journal. Previous Next

< Back George Varughese Associate About George Varughese has expertise in international development and academia, thought leadership and facilitation in governance, specialising in political economy & conflict. His is known for his skills in strategic analysis & advice, fundraising, program design & delivery, and policy development & navigation.

< Back Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice And A Changing Earth System Investigator(s): John Dryzek, Jonathan Pickering, Jensen Sass, Ana Tanasoca Funded through Laureate Fellowship (FL140100154) ($2,616,265), the Project Team includes: John Dryzek, Chief Investigator Jonathan Pickering, Postdoctoral Research Fellow Jensen Sass, Postdoctoral Research Fellow Ana Tanasoca, Postdoctoral Research Fellow Project Description This research extends deliberative democracy to three key areas: global justice, environmental governance in the Anthropocene (where human activities influence the trajectory of the Earth system) and cultural variety. It develops deliberative analysis of global anti-poverty policy, of how environmental governance is configured, and how democracy can be advanced across different cultures and internationally. The knowledge generated will inform worldwide efforts to put deliberative democracy into practice, as well as promotion of global justice, effective environmental governance, and democratisation. The Laureate Fellowship has three sub-projects: (1) Deliberating in the Anthropocene . The Anthropocene is the emerging environmental epoch in which human activity is a major driver of a less stable and more chaotic Earth system, which can be contrasted with the unusual climatic stability of the past 10,000 years of the Holocene (in which human civilization arose). The implications are profound, because dominant institutions such as states and markets developed under unusually benign Holocene conditions. They are not fit for the Anthropocene. To date the response of social scientists has been limited, producing at most calls for strengthened global governance. This project explores a deliberative approach to the Anthropocene embodying ecological reflexivity and recognizing the active influence of the earth system itself. The project is both theoretical and empirical, with applications to issues such as the global governance of climate change, and biological diversity. (2) Deliberative Global Justice . This project develops an encounter between deliberative democracy and global justice, the two most prominent programs in political theory in the past decade and more, both now wrestling with problems that intersect in interesting ways as they encounter a recalcitrant global order. The two topics have become estranged in political theory, where democracy is treated as a matter of procedure, and justice a matter of substantive outcomes that cannot be guaranteed by any procedure. At the same time there is a widely-shared feeling among theorists that the two really do belong together. Amartya Sen argues that global justice requires democracy because in any real setting, multiple conceptions of justice can apply, and public reason will be needed to sort them out. Deliberative democracy can speak to this need. More importantly, without something like deliberative democracy, the standing of the agents necessary to put justice into practice is problematic, and the conditions of their interaction impoverished. This project combines political theory and an application to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development embodying the Sustainable Development Goals. (3) Deliberative Cultures . Deliberative democracy is often viewed as being most at home in the constitutional settings of Western liberal democracies, and when applied elsewhere (to the global political system or non-Western societies) this association often forms a baseline against which other practices are measured. Yet if deliberative democracy is to apply to global contexts – such as that defining global justice and the Anthropocene (see other projects) – it is going to involve people from many cultures, with different presuppositions about appropriate political communication. While deliberation manifests a universal human competence to reason collectively (and as such is more universal than, for example, voting), its character varies considerably across time and place. A fuller understanding of political deliberation requires studying diverse social and political contexts. Such studies promise new insight into the various forms deliberative practice can take and the conditions under which it can flourish. The research begins this line of inquiry by establishing an innovative encounter between an intersubjective account of culture and deliberative theory. This encounter will proceed initially through examination of studies in cultural sociology and anthropology that speak to deliberative concerns, before moving to empirical research. All this can be deployed in response to critics who allege a Eurocentric bias in deliberative democracy. Project Outputs (selected) John S. Dryzek and Jonathan Pickering, The Politics of the Anthropocene . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. André Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren, eds, The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ana Tansoca, The Ethics of Multiple Citizenship . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. Jensen Sass, “The Cryptonormative Swamp”, American Sociologist 49 (2018): 448-55. John S. Dryzek, “The Forum, the System, and the Polity: Three Varieties of Democratic Theory”, Political Theory 2017 . John S. Dryzek and Jonathan Pickering, “Deliberation as a Catalyst for Reflexive Environmental Governance”, Ecological Economics 131 (2017): 353-60. John S. Dryzek, “Can there be a Human Right to an Essentially Contested Concept? The Case of Democracy”, Journal of Politics 78 (2) (2016): 357-67. John S. Dryzek, “Institutions for the Anthropocene: Governance in a Changing Earth System”, British Journal of Political Science 46 (4) (2016): 937-56. John S. Dryzek, “Democratic Agents of Justice”, Journal of Political Philosophy 23 (4) (2015): 361-84. Jonathan Pickering, Frank Jotzo, and Peter J. Wood, “Splitting the Difference: Can the Global Climate Financing Effort be Shared Fairly if International Coordination Remains Limited?” Global Environmental Politics , forthcoming. Jonathan Pickering, “What Drives National Support for Multilateral Climate Finance? International and Domestic Influences on Australia’s Shifting Stance”, International Environmental Agreements 17 (1) 2017: 107-125. Ana Tanasoca, “Citizenship for Sale?: Neomedieval not just Neoliberal”, European Journal of Sociology 57 (1): 169-95. Jensen Sass, “Deliberative Ideals Across Diverse Cultures”, in Andre Bachtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren, eds, The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mark Bevir and Quinlan Bowman, “Qualitative Assessment of Deliberation”, in Andre Bachtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren, eds, The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy . Oxford: OUP. Public Engagement Podcast: Real Democracy Now! Bonus episodes on Deliberation, Culture, Context. Listen here . Public event: Reshaping Planetary Politics: Governance and Activism in the Anthropocene. Watch here .

< Back Social Adaptation to Climate Change in the Australian Public Sphere: A comparison of individual and group deliberative responses to scenarios of future climate change Investigator(s): Simon Niemeyer, Will Steffen, Brendan Mackey, Janette Lindesay and Kersty Hobson Funded by Discovery Project (DP0879092) ($378,500), the Project Team includes: Simon Niemeyer, Chief Investigator Will Steffen, Chief Investigator Brendan Mackey, Chief Investigator Janette Lindesay, Chief Investigator Kersty Hobson, Chief Investigator Project Description This project develops an understanding of Australia’s response to climate change and ways to improve adaptation from a governance perspective. An interdisciplinary team will construct and use original climate change scenarios to assess public responses through interviews, survey methods, contrasting individual responses with results of deliberative forums and follow up interviews. Significant developments in methods and concepts and understanding of adaptation will have an international audience.It will produce a series of regionally specific scenarios, statement of likely responses and role of institutional design and policy in improving adaptation.

< Back Jensen Sass Postdoctoral Research Fellow About Jensen works at the intersection of normative political theory and the empirical study of corporations, technology, and the public sphere. He is also interested in corporate power and democratic politics, in particular the regulation of new technologies that promise to transform previously settled norms and institutions.

< 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.

< Back Hendrik Wagenaar Adjunct Professor About Hendrik Wagenaar is internationally renowned for his research on participatory democracy and local governance, practice theory and interpretive policy analysis, including projects on urban governance, prostitution policy, social welfare, policy implementation and the (unintended) consequences of public policy making.