|
|
Seminar Announcements |
|
If you are interested in attending seminars, and would like to receive seminar announcements by email, please contact Alessandra Pecci and request to be added to the Deliberative Democracy email list.
Upcoming
Socio-Political Efficacy of Art: A Comparative Analysis
- Presenter: Maryam Rashidi, PhD Candidate in Visual Arts, School of Art, ANU
- When: TBA
- Where: Seminar E, H.C. Coombs Building ANU
- Abstract: ‘For this seminar, I will be presenting a work-in-progress paper as an outcome of my PhD research project on the capacity of the visual arts in facilitating intercultural dialogue. My focus is primarily on socially engaged practices which conceive of art and artistic processes as necessary means of creating social change. In this paper, I will be comparing two modes of such artistic practice, namely dialogical art and propaganda art, in terms of their participant-audiences (micro- versus macro-communities); spaces of operation (“interstitial” social spaces versus the broader “society”; “local” versus “national”); institutional support; and the orientations of artistic processes (e.g. egalitarianism and hybridity versus hierarchy and universalism). Contextualising my argument in certain examples of both modes of practice, through this comparison I will examine the efficacy of art practices that claim to facilitate interaction and dialogue for the purpose of socio-political change.’
Past
The reasons for inaction on climate change: asking the right questions
- Presenter: Alfonso Martínez Arranz, visiting PhD Student, from the Monash European and EU Centre, Monash University
- When: Friday, 30 October, 2009
- Abstract: ‘For quite a while now, the IPCC has been calling for urgent and decisive action to prevent catastrophic climate change. As of October 2009, it seems everyone finally agrees to act, yet proposals continue to fail to meet what is required. There are moral, economic and strategic incentives to act, so what is holding us back? In this presentation I try to outline the right methodology to answer that question.’
Rawls's Idea of Public Reason: A Response to Sandel's Communitarian Critique
- Presenter: Meena Krishnamurthy, PhD Candidate, Department of Philosophy, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
- When: Tuesday, 20 October 2009
- Abstract: John Rawls argues that because of reasonable disagreement about the good, public deliberation about political issues should take the form of public reason. In justifying our positions on political issues we should not appeal to reasons based on our comprehensive views of the good. We should instead appeal to public reasons, reasons that can be given in terms of the political values and ideals that we see as most reasonable. Michael Sandel criticizes John Rawls's conception of public reason. He argues that Rawls's conception of public reason diminishes ties of community, ties that are essential to Rawls's egalitarian project. In this paper I aim to defend Rawls's conception of public reason against Sandel's communitarian critique.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in the public sector: On governance and deliberation in a mixed public-private setting
- Presenter: Professor Cor van Montfort, Tilburg University, The Netherlands (Visiting Professor at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, RSSS, August-September 2009)
- When: Tuesday, 22 September 2009
- Abstract: 'I try to make the theoretical debate on public deliberation more practical by translating it to the level of the governance of public sector organizations. I explore to what extent a dialogue between the management of a public sector organization and its stakeholders (a stakeholder dialogue) can be considered as a specific form of public deliberation. I answer this question with a ‘yes but…’. After that I go into two developments in the organization of the public sector in the Netherlands and the effect of these developments on the possibilities for and the character of stakeholder dialogues'
Citizen Participation and Democracy
- Presenter: Dr Ank Michels, Visiting Scholar, Utrecht University, The Netherlands (Visiting Professor at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, RSSS, August-September 2009)
- When: Wednesday, 23 September 2009
- Abstract: Citizen participation is usually seen as a vital aspect of democracy. In modern democracies citizens participate by voting, but may be involved in political decision making in other ways as well. Many theorists claim that more direct forms of citizen participation have positive effects on the quality of democracy. Citizen involvement contributes to the inclusion of individual citizens in the policy process, it encourages civic skills and political engagement, it leads to rational decisions based on public reasoning, and it increases the legitimacy of decisions. But how true are these claims? My project is an attempt to assess the contribution of citizen involvement in decision making to democracy. I do so by examining the impact of citizen participation for four different forms of citizen participation: referendums, citizen governance / interactive policy making, deliberative forums, and deliberative polls.
Deliberation and Internet Engagement: Initial Findings from a Randomised Controlled Trial Evaluating the Impact of Facilitated Internet Forums
- Presenter: Professor Peter John, from the School of Social Sciences at the University of Manchester, UK (and Visiting Fellow in the Political Science Program at RSSS, July and August 2009)
- When: Tuesday, 18 August, 2009
- Abstract: Public authorities are increasingly using developments in information and communication technology (ICT) to engage citizens in the politics, in particular through internet discussion forums. This paper reports findings from a large-scale online randomised controlled trail of6,009 participants that aims to test the effect of online deliberation on opinions and knowledge. Participants were randomised between four treatment groups and two control groups. All four treatment groups were exposed to the same information and participants were able to post their views, although the topic order differed between the treatment groups. However, in only two of the treatment groups were participants able to read and respond to the postings of others.
Welcome | History | People | Current Projects | Past Projects | PhD Projects | Partnerships | Conferences | Seminars | Publications | Links | News | Contact
|
