Search Results

< Back Catherine Settle Associate About Catherine’s doctoral research into the citizen’s experience of epistemic practices when deliberative mini-publics are applied in Australian health policy settings focused her attention on the benefits of closing the gap between the theory and practice of deliberative democracy.

< Back Deliberations with American Indian and Alaska native communities about genomics Erika Blacksher, University of Washington / Justin Reedy, University of Oklahoma Tue 4 August 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract With the rapid growth of genetic and genomic research and medical testing in recent years, more attention is being paid to their ethical and societal implications, including citizens’ concerns about potential risks and benefits of these technologies. Indigenous peoples represent a particularly important group where such advances are concerned, due to a long history of exploitation and marginalization by the U.S. federal government and the marked disparities they experience in health services and health outcomes relative to other populations. A consortium of researchers and practitioners in the US, in close partnership with indigenous community partners, has begun to study the concerns and views of American Indian and Alaska Native peoples on genomics through a series of deliberations in three communities in Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Alaska. This presentation will describe the design and implementation of these deliberative forums, as well as the results of the deliberations from a process perspective. In addition, it discusses some of the implications of this work for scholarship and practice in deliberation, both for efforts involving indigenous peoples and for forums focused on genetics and ethical, legal, and societal implications (ELSI). About the speaker Erika Blacksher is an associate professor and director of undergraduates studies in the Department of Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Washington in Seattle. Dr. Blacksher studies the ethical and policy implications of the social determinants of health with focus on ethical questions raised by health inequalities, debates over health responsibility, and the role of participatory and deliberative forms of engagement in advancing health equity. She often works in collaborative community-academic partnerships to design and conduct deliberations that convene minority and marginalized groups to identify their health priorities and policy preferences. Justin Reedy is an associate professor in the Department of Communication and research associate in the Center for Risk & Crisis Management at the University of Oklahoma. He studies political communication and deliberation, group and organizational communication, and the perception of risk. In particular, his research focuses on how groups of people make political and civic decisions in face-to-face and online settings, as well as how people and policy makers can come together to deliberate and make better decisions on public policy issues that involve significant societal and personal risk. Previous Next

< Back CENTRE MEETS CENTRE: MARGEM AT UFMG In this seminar, Ricardo Mendonça along with other MARGEM members will present the current research of the research group MARGEM. About this event In this seminar, Ricardo Mendonça along with other MARGEM members will present the current research of the research group MARGEM. The Research Group on Democracy and Justice (MARGEM) carries out interdisciplinary investigations aimed at deepening democracy and at comprehending the social struggles that are intrinsic to it. The group is based at UFMG, Brazil, and works with topics at the intersection of democratic theories, political communication, contentious politics and theories of justice. MARGEM is strongly influenced by critical theory informed by pragmatism, employing relational perspectives to make sense of political phenomena. Current projects developed within the group address a wide range of topics including algorithms, social media, disinformation, uberization, protests, populism, visual narratives, gender, race and democratic innovations. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

< Back Stephen Elstub Associate About Stephen Elstub's research interests include the theory and practice of democracy, democratic innovation, public opinion, political communication, civil society and citizen participation, viewed through the lens deliberative democracy.

< 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.

< Back From elected to connected: Designing for recursive representation Nick Vlahos, Selen Ercan, Nardine Alnemr and John Dryzek (University of Canberra), Andrew Leigh (MP) Tue 4 May 2021 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Recent thinking on improving the deliberative qualities of elected representation can be captured under the broad heading of what Jane Mansbridge terms recursive representation, which seeks ongoing interaction between representatives and their constituents. This paper explores the possibilities of facilitating such interaction by establishing a series of deliberative townhalls where the constituents meet their elected representatives and discuss the issues of common concern. Empirically, the paper draws on a recent experiment in ‘directly representative democracy’ in Australia, which involved designing two deliberative town halls with a Federal Member of the Parliament to discuss a controversial issue (mitochondrial donation) ahead of a parliamentary debate on this issue. Drawing on the interviews with the participants of these town halls, we argue that recursive representation works well in directly representative democracy to the degree three criteria of deliberative capacity are met: authenticity, inclusion and consequentiality. The paper unpacks the meaning of each criteria from the perspective of town hall participants and discusses their relevance for the theory and practice of recursive representation. About the speakers Nick Vlahos is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. Selen Ercan is an Associate Professor of Politics at the Institute’s Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. Nardine Alnemr is a PhD candidate at the entre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. John Dryzek is Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow and Centenary Professor in the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis. Andrew Leigh is a Member of the Australian House of Representatives. Previous Next

< Back Arguing for deliberation without ultimate justification: Why we should decide to be deliberative democrats Dannica Fleuss, Helmut-Schmidt University Tue 14 August 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract A starting point of post-structuralist political theory is the assumption that all social and political norms are contingent. From this angle, Oliver Marchart (2007, 2015) challenges „foundationalist“ deliberative theory for attempting to give an ultimate justification for political norms. This seminar explores ways to respond to this challenge from the perspective of deliberative democracy: Accepting the claim that all social and political norms are contingent does not necessitate rejecting deliberative theory. Rather, contemporary deliberative theory can provide a valid theoretical perspective even though it is unable to give an ultimate justification for its own principles. Instead of providing a “foundational” justification for deliberative theory’s basic premises, I suggest that deliberative theorists should decide to accept them and discuss ways to demonstrate the value of this decision. About the speaker Dannica is a visiting research scholar at the Centre for Deliberative and Democracy and Global Governance. She completed her PhD on proceduralist democratic theory at the University of Heidelberg in 2016. Currently, she works as a Postdoctoral Researcher at Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg. In her postdoctoral project she is doing research on democratic theory and the measurement of democratic deliberation at the macro level by applying a systemic framework. Dannica's research interests include the systemic approach to deliberation, measurements of democratic performance, political cultural studies and the theoretical debate between deliberative democratic theory and poststructuralist approaches. Previous Next

< 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 Representation of future generations through international climate litigation: A new site for discursive representation Peter Lawrence, University of Tasmania / Lukas Koehler, Munich School of philosophy Tue 30 August 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract While the recent Paris Agreement represents a step forward in terms of international action on climate change, grave doubts remain in terms of whether it will deliver the dramatic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions called for by scientists. These doubts relate to both the power of vested interests but also the chronic inability of democratic governments to take into account long-term interests. Such short-term thinking could be redressed by “discursive representation” (Dryzek and Niemeyer 2008) of discourses which reflect the interests of future generations. The paper explores the potential for such discursive representation in relation to international climate litigation (including the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights). Such litigation is potentially valuable as a vehicle for pressuring governments to take stronger action on climate change. But this approach gives rise to a series of difficult questions which our paper will address. How do we decide which discourses legitimately represent the interests of future generations in a context where such cases depend on NGOs articulating what they regard as future generations’ interests? Should courts inquire into the internal processes of such NGOs as a precondition for granting them standing? Can restrictive ‘standing provisions’ which limit who can bring claims before such tribunals be overcome? Is a judicial process inherently too limiting given the undemocratic nature of international courts with judges appointed by governments which are not necessarily democratic themselves? In spite of these challenges, the paper argues that the notion of discursive representation provides a convincing way of ensuring the democratic legitimacy of such litigation on the grounds that: ii) marginalised intergenerational justice discourses can be given greater prominence in decision-making processes and ii) judges can apply and develop concepts that may help to represent future generations through international legal concepts with intergenerational content (e.g. sustainable development, the non-discrimination and equal human rights principles). The paper is linked to ongoing work by the authors in relation to a project funded by the Germany-Australia DAAD research cooperation fund. About the speaker Peter Lawrence ( Peter.Lawrence@utas.edu.au ) is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Tasmania (UTAS) Law School, the author of Justice for Future Generations, Climate Change and International Law (2014) and Faculty Advisor of the University of Tasmania Law Review. Previously Peter worked for the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, including as First Secretary to the Australian Mission to the UN in Geneva. Lukas Koehler ( lukas.koehler@hfph.de ) is Director of the Centre for Environmental Ethics and Education of the Munich School of Philosophy, Germany. He is a joint author of Human Rights as a Normative Guideline for Climate Policy, in: Bos/Duwell (eds) Human Rights and Sustainability (2016 Routledge). Both Peter and Lukas are currently working together on a Germany-Australia (DAAD) research project on ‘Representation of future generations through international climate litigation’. Previous Next

< Back Ana Tanasoca Postdoctoral Research Fellow About Ana Tanasoca's interests include global (economic) justice, epistemic democracy, immigration ethics and citizenship, and deliberative democracy and broadly in applied ethics and democratic theory.

< Back Kei Nishiyama Associate and Former PhD Student About Kei Nishiyama studies deliberative democracy with a specific focus on the role of children and young people. Kei worked at the University of Canberra and the Australian National University and will join the Doshisha University, Japan, from April 2020.

< Back When does deliberation occur, and how do you know you've found it? Simon Niemeyer, University of Canberra Tue 26 July 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract This presentation focusses on the question of how the process of deliberation takes place in mini public settings. In part it revisits the findings of Goodin and Niemeyer (2003) who found that most of the transformation takes place during the early phase of deliberation where information is acquired. The findings draw from a real-world deliberative event in Uppsala Sweden involving 60 participants considering options for addressing the issue of begging by internal EU migrants. As for Goodin and Niemeyer, transformation is measured in terms of position on underlying issues (attitudes/beliefs, values) at three stages (pre; mid, following information presentations; and post-deliberation), but in this case policy preferences were also surveyed permitting a wider range of analysis. The results are consistent with Goodin and Niemeyer, where the greatest transformation occurs during the early information phase of the event. However, another measure of transformation (intersubjective consistency) is most strongly affected during the later deliberation phase. The results raise the question in respect to what counts as deliberative transformation. They also suggest that deliberation from the individual perspective may involve a sequence whereby the initial opening of minds induces a higher level of receptiveness to information and transformation, which is followed by a subsequent process of reflection. To the extent that this model of internal deliberation is valid it potentially accounts for wildly conflicting results obtained from observing deliberation, as well as potential implications for understanding the possibility of both deliberation within and deliberation in mass settings. About the speaker Simon Niemeyer is an Australian Research Council (ARC) Future Fellow whose research covers the broad fields of deliberative democracy and environmental governance, particularly in respect to climate change. His focus is on the forces that shape public opinion and how this can be improved so that the expressed preference of the public better reflects their collective long-term interests. This has guided his research in the direction of exploring the nature of preference change during deliberative minipublics, which is now moving into a phase of understanding the possibility for deliberative preference formation in mass public settings and the institutional features that best facilitate deliberative democratic governance. Simon completed his PhD at the Australian National University and since then has been the recipient of a number of Australian Research Council Awards, including his current Future Fellowship. As well as his Future Fellowship he is the lead investigator on an ARC project concerning the possibilities for achieving mass public deliberation; a co-investigator on another ARC project on deliberative democracy and achieving just outcomes when adapting to climate change (with David Schlosberg), and a co-investigator on a Swedish Research Council project (with Julia Jennstål) concerning the nature of the deliberative person. He is currently co-located between the University of Uppsala and the University of Canberra while he develops international links for the next phase of research in assessing deliberativeness of national political settings. Previous Next

< 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

< Back Katherine Curchin Former PhD student About Katherine is an applied political philosopher with research interests in normative political philosophy, social policy and Indigenous policy in Australia. Katherine completed her PhD in Political Science under the supervision of Prof John Dryzek in 2010. Her doctoral thesis drew upon deliberative democratic theory to explore the ethics of criticising other cultures.

< 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.

Associates Albert Dzur Associate View Profile Andrew Knops Associate View Profile Carolyn Hendriks Associate and Former PhD Student View Profile Alexander Geisler Associate View Profile Baogang He Associate View Profile Catherine Clutton Associate View Profile Andre Bachtiger Associate View Profile Benjamin Lyons Associate View Profile Catherine Settle Associate View Profile Andreas Schaeffer Associate View Profile Bob Goodin Associate View Profile Dannica Fleuss Associate View Profile 1 2 3 4 5 1 ... 1 2 3 4 5 ... 5

< 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 Ferdinand Sanchez Research Assistant About Ferdinand Sanchez II is a research assistant at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. He recently completed his bachelor's degree in Sociology at the University of the Philippines Diliman in 2022.

< Back Elaine Dos Santos Research Assistant About Elaine Dos Santos worked as Research Assistant at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the Australian National University from 2010 to 2013.

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