The Australia Institute of Management opened their new training facility in Canberra's City West Precinct. This part of the city is rapidly developing with the ANU Exchange, providing accommodation and entertainment for Australian National University students. As has happened around other major universities, hi-tech companies and commercial training providers are moving in to be close to the skills and clients the ANU attracts.
AIM's new training center has the "airport executive lounge" look now popular for education facilities (featured in many presentations at the 2011 Learning Commons Development and Design Forum). This has a muted color scheme, with polished stone, light colored wood.
AIM have inside the front door a reception counter, a library (with real books, as well as eBooks) and a kitchen counter. Opposite the reception desk is a large space which can be divided into two training rooms, by using movable walls.
One corridor has small four to eight seat tutorial rooms (with LCD panels for presentations). The rooms have large glass sliding doors on both sides, so that when not in use the space can be opened out. There is a glass wall to a courtyard beyond, which can be used for functions. As a result, it is possible to use the whole space for large functions, or divide it up for separate classes.
The layout looks well thought out. While the materials look high quality, they are also hard wearing. Unlike some university learning centers, there are no gimmicky circular learning pods, or cones of silence. Everything is rectangular to be easily divided, to make maximum use of space. An example of detail in design are that some of the bookshelves for the library are on wheels, allowing the library space to be opened up for functions.
Those considering what a learning center at a university, government department or corporation could look like, should drop in to see the new AIM Canberra offices.
Showing posts with label Democratizing Climate Governance 2010. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democratizing Climate Governance 2010. Show all posts
Thursday, December 08, 2011
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Put the Australian Climate Change Citizens Assembly On-line
On Friday the Australian Prime Minister announced a Citizens Assembly on Climate Change ("Moving forward together on Climate Change") . About 150 people will be selected from the census and electoral rolls to spend a year examining what to do about climate change.
It would be easy to see this as a cynical political trick to put off unpopular decisions until after an election. However, as the the conference "Democratizing Climate Governance Conference" I attended last week at the Australian National University in Canberra detailed, simply stating there is a problem does not necessarily produce the required action. This week the Democrats decided they did not have sufficient votes in the US Senate to introduce a cap-and-trade carbon reduction scheme. Providing more facts on climate science is unlikely to change the situation. As well as taking the advice of climate scientists on global warming, we also need advice from economists, social and political scientists on how to act on that advice. The Prime Minister's proposal may be one way to do that.
There are limitations to the prime minister's proposal: The ALP government has to be re-elected next month for the scheme to be implemented and it does not have the support of the opposition, nor the Greens Party (which is likely to hold the balance of power).
There is no provision for such an assembly in the Australian Constitution. This body will have now formal power, apart from the limited advisory role provided for in specific legislation introduced to create it.
The assembly will be limited to considering the government's market-based approach to carbon emissions, which has already been rejected by Parliament. The assembly will not be permitted to consider alternatives, such as a tax on carbon, or energy saving incentives. An example of such alternatives would be a 5% reduction in emissions through better use of ICT (including use of the National Broadband Network), as I teach in Green ICT.
There is no mention in the proposal of the use of technology for making the assembly more efficient, representative or open to the wider community. It seems likely the assembly will use a similar process to the cumbersome processes used by the Australian Parliament and used for the 2020 Summit held by the former Rudd government. With these the representatives travel to one location (usually Canberra) for a few days of verbal, face-to-face discussions and then leave again. Only one person can talk at a time and less than 200 can be accommodated in one forum. Due to the limited communications only one proposal can be considered at a time.
One option would be to provide Internet based technology to enhance the operation of the assembly. There could still be face to face meetings, but between and during these, online forums could be provided. Many more citizens could then follow and take part in the discussion online. Many more proposals could be considered simultaneously. Rather than having most of the time taken up with set peace speeches, presentations could be pre-recorded and Podcast.
Some of these techniques were used with the "Public Sphere" Internet assisted process. We have learnt a lot about how to run such blended events since I helped run the first Public Sphere at the Australian National University in 2009.
My colleagues at the ANU Engineering 'Hubs and Spokes' Project have been working on technology for teaching in a "blended" mode: this combines podcasts and discussions online, with face to face discussions, which can also be enhanced by using technology such as "clickers" (wireless hand held devices to quickly get audience input). This technology could be applied to a citizens consultation process.
It would be easy to see this as a cynical political trick to put off unpopular decisions until after an election. However, as the the conference "Democratizing Climate Governance Conference" I attended last week at the Australian National University in Canberra detailed, simply stating there is a problem does not necessarily produce the required action. This week the Democrats decided they did not have sufficient votes in the US Senate to introduce a cap-and-trade carbon reduction scheme. Providing more facts on climate science is unlikely to change the situation. As well as taking the advice of climate scientists on global warming, we also need advice from economists, social and political scientists on how to act on that advice. The Prime Minister's proposal may be one way to do that.
There are limitations to the prime minister's proposal: The ALP government has to be re-elected next month for the scheme to be implemented and it does not have the support of the opposition, nor the Greens Party (which is likely to hold the balance of power).
There is no provision for such an assembly in the Australian Constitution. This body will have now formal power, apart from the limited advisory role provided for in specific legislation introduced to create it.
The assembly will be limited to considering the government's market-based approach to carbon emissions, which has already been rejected by Parliament. The assembly will not be permitted to consider alternatives, such as a tax on carbon, or energy saving incentives. An example of such alternatives would be a 5% reduction in emissions through better use of ICT (including use of the National Broadband Network), as I teach in Green ICT.
There is no mention in the proposal of the use of technology for making the assembly more efficient, representative or open to the wider community. It seems likely the assembly will use a similar process to the cumbersome processes used by the Australian Parliament and used for the 2020 Summit held by the former Rudd government. With these the representatives travel to one location (usually Canberra) for a few days of verbal, face-to-face discussions and then leave again. Only one person can talk at a time and less than 200 can be accommodated in one forum. Due to the limited communications only one proposal can be considered at a time.
One option would be to provide Internet based technology to enhance the operation of the assembly. There could still be face to face meetings, but between and during these, online forums could be provided. Many more citizens could then follow and take part in the discussion online. Many more proposals could be considered simultaneously. Rather than having most of the time taken up with set peace speeches, presentations could be pre-recorded and Podcast.
Some of these techniques were used with the "Public Sphere" Internet assisted process. We have learnt a lot about how to run such blended events since I helped run the first Public Sphere at the Australian National University in 2009.
My colleagues at the ANU Engineering 'Hubs and Spokes' Project have been working on technology for teaching in a "blended" mode: this combines podcasts and discussions online, with face to face discussions, which can also be enhanced by using technology such as "clickers" (wireless hand held devices to quickly get audience input). This technology could be applied to a citizens consultation process.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Consult Citizens Online on Climate Change
Last week I attended the conference "Democratizing Climate Governance Conference" at the Australian National University in Canberra. This was timely as apparently the Prime Minister is about to propose a national community consultation process on climate change. My suggestion would be to use the "Public Sphere" Internet assisted consultation process which Senator Lundy developed for this. This would reduce the cost and complexity of organising deliberations and allow for wider input by people via the Internet, to supplement face-to-face deliberations. We have learnt a lot about how to run such blended events since I helped run the first Public Sphere at the ANU in 2009.
My colleagues at the ANU Engineering 'Hubs and Spokes' Project have been working on technology for teaching in a "blended" mode: this combines podcasts and discussions online, with face to face discussions, which can also be enhanced by using technology such as "clickers" (wireless hand held devices to quickly get audience input). This technology could be applied to a citizens consultation process.
ps: The papers for the "Democratizing Climate Governance Conference" have now been released:
My colleagues at the ANU Engineering 'Hubs and Spokes' Project have been working on technology for teaching in a "blended" mode: this combines podcasts and discussions online, with face to face discussions, which can also be enhanced by using technology such as "clickers" (wireless hand held devices to quickly get audience input). This technology could be applied to a citizens consultation process.
ps: The papers for the "Democratizing Climate Governance Conference" have now been released:
- ACUTO, Michele Green politics and social justice through the global city
- BABON, Andrea Power, politics and participation in Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) in Indonesia
- BACKSTRAND, Karin, The Democratic Legitimacy of Global Climate Governance after Copenhagen
- BAER, Hans The Australian climate movement: a disparate response to climate change and mainstream climate politics in a not so ‘lucky country’
- BUMMEL, Andreas, Duncan Kerr, & Fernando Iglesias, Democratizing Global Climate Policy through a UN Parliamentary Assembly
- CHRISTOFF, Peter Alexander, Climate Science as Political Challenge
- DRYZEK, John & Hayley Stevenson The Deliberative Global Governance of Climate Change
- FISHER, Kath, Marnie Kikken, & Michelle Croker From doubt to empowerment: how deliberative processes can counter the impact of misinformation campaigns about climate change
- GERO, Anna, Kerstie Méheux, & D. Dominey-Howes Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in the Pacific: The challenge of integration
- GOODMAN, James Disorderly deliberation?: generative dynamics of global climate justice
- GROSS, Catherine Decision-makers seeking global justice in a changing climate must first understand the importance of perceived injustice in decision-making processes
- HAYES, Adrian C. The Governance of National Climate Change Adaptation Strategies: An Indonesian Case Study
- HEALY, Stephen Deliberating Climate Change: A matter of ‘Preferences’ or preferred ‘Forms of Life’?
- HODGKINSON, David, Tess Burton, Lucy Young, and Heather Anderson ‘Turning to Prayer’: A Convention for Climate Change Displaced Persons
- HUAN, Qingzhi China's participation in the global climate governance: Reflections from a perspective of deliberative democracy
- KENT, Jennifer When States won’t act: local-global linkages and climate change governance
- LYNCH, Amanda & Ronald D. Brunner Democracy and Climate Change
- McGEE, Jeffrey, Exclusive Minilateralism: An Emerging Discourse within International Climate Change Governance?
- PHELAN, Liam, Ann Henderson-Sellers, & Ros Taplin Discursive dominance of the Earth system: Climate change and contestation
- PITTOCK, Jamie A pale reflection of political reality: integration of global climate, wetland and biodiversity agreements
- RIEDY, Chris, & Jade Herriman Challenges for global deliberative democracy processes: insights from World Wide Views on global warming in Australia
- ROXBURGH, Timothy An impenetrable core? - The position of environmental concerns in relation to the imperatives of the Chinese state
- SLAUGHTER, Steven Promising the World? The G20, Public Accountability and Global Environmental Governance
- ZHU, Xufeng Deliberative Climate Regime: Super-Ministerial Mechanisms for Energy Security and Emission Reduction in China
Friday, July 16, 2010
Global Climate Governance
Greetings from the closing panel session of the conference "Democratizing Climate Governance" at the Australian National University in Canberra. The panel has Sheila Jasanoff, Ronnie Lipschutz, Karin Bäckstrand and Clive Hamilton. The panelists did not reach any concensus on the issues, which is not surprising and made for an ineresting discussion.
This deepest and most useful insight I took from the discussion was that just presenting the facts on climate change and particularly presenting it as a catastrophe is not useful, even when true. Clive Hamilton used the example of Churchill's warnings about German re-armament during the 1930s. He was using this to argue that where there is a real disaster looming it should not be shirked. But I took the opposite lessons from this: While Churchill did clearly warn, few heeded the warnings and perhaps his actions were counterproductive.
ps: Less seriously, I wanted to ask: "So you want to invoke the Churchill's spirit and fight rising sea levels on the beaches?" ;-)
This deepest and most useful insight I took from the discussion was that just presenting the facts on climate change and particularly presenting it as a catastrophe is not useful, even when true. Clive Hamilton used the example of Churchill's warnings about German re-armament during the 1930s. He was using this to argue that where there is a real disaster looming it should not be shirked. But I took the opposite lessons from this: While Churchill did clearly warn, few heeded the warnings and perhaps his actions were counterproductive.
ps: Less seriously, I wanted to ask: "So you want to invoke the Churchill's spirit and fight rising sea levels on the beaches?" ;-)
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Deliberative Democracy for Local Government
In "From doubt to empowerment: how deliberative processes can counter the impact of misinformation campaigns about climate change, Kath Fisher (SCU), Marnie Kikken (NSW Climate Consensus Project), today at the "Democratizing Climate Governance" conference talked about deliberative democracy at the local level. I was much more comfortable with this work with the previous much more esoteric work at the conference here at the ANU. In this case the topic was Alpine Shire's use of deliberative democracy at the local level to discuss global issues.
However, I have similar criticisms of this approach as for the multi-national discussions: there remained the emphasis of a face-to-face process with all of the costs and limitations involved. Also those involved seem to make the process harder to accept by using loaded terms like "democracy" and "jury". The processes used by software developers on-line show that complete consensus is not required, nor is traditional democracy. Useful results can be achieved by accepting that everyone will not agree and allowing them to work on their chosen options. It seems to me that those running open source projects have useful insights on how to run large scale online processes, which may be more sophisticated that the views of the theorists.
However, I have similar criticisms of this approach as for the multi-national discussions: there remained the emphasis of a face-to-face process with all of the costs and limitations involved. Also those involved seem to make the process harder to accept by using loaded terms like "democracy" and "jury". The processes used by software developers on-line show that complete consensus is not required, nor is traditional democracy. Useful results can be achieved by accepting that everyone will not agree and allowing them to work on their chosen options. It seems to me that those running open source projects have useful insights on how to run large scale online processes, which may be more sophisticated that the views of the theorists.
Deliberative Democracy On Climate Change
In "Challenges for global deliberative democracy processes: insights from World Wide Views on global warming in Australia" at the "Democratizing Climate Governance" conference (Australian National University, Canberra), Chris Riedy and Jade Herriman (Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology) talked today. He described the
World Wide Views on Global Warming sponsored by the The Danish Board of Technology as part of the COP15 meetings in Copenhagen. This was an ambitious exercise to involve more people in the processes, partly online and partly in person in Copenhagen.
Some of the issues raised, included how to take into account local differences in the way discussions are held. One simple example are different languages uses around the world. Another is that in some cultures men and women do not normally attend the same forums. Another is that some nations do not have "democracy". It would seem to me that there are some simple technical solutions to these. An online forum can provide automated language translation and that the gender of the participants need be made obvious. The word "democracy" need not be used, as many of these processes happen by consensus, rather than majority voting.
World Wide Views on Global Warming sponsored by the The Danish Board of Technology as part of the COP15 meetings in Copenhagen. This was an ambitious exercise to involve more people in the processes, partly online and partly in person in Copenhagen.
Some of the issues raised, included how to take into account local differences in the way discussions are held. One simple example are different languages uses around the world. Another is that in some cultures men and women do not normally attend the same forums. Another is that some nations do not have "democracy". It would seem to me that there are some simple technical solutions to these. An online forum can provide automated language translation and that the gender of the participants need be made obvious. The word "democracy" need not be used, as many of these processes happen by consensus, rather than majority voting.
Improving climate change negotiation
In "Worlds Apart: Multilateralism, Democracy and the Challenge of Climate Change", today at the "Democratizing Climate Governance" conference (Australian National University, Canberra), Professor Robyn Eckersley discussed if any progress could be made on climate change with a large number of countries involved. She suggested some procedural reforms which would improve the justice of the process. Also discussed was the benefits of a formal treaty versus a political agreement. She proposed a "mini-lateral council" to prepare proposals, including both large polluting nations as well as those from developing nations who will be effected.
However, she seem to assume that negotiations must be held in a physical forum, thus limiting how many, and who, could be involved. In my view the idea the problem of climate change was to be solved by thousands of people flying to Copenhagen seems bizarre. Despite the high environmental cost of the meeting, only a small number of people were able to take part. Even that relatively small number of people could not be accommodated by the processes used and the result was chaos.
It is now feasible to conduct decision making online. This can involve many more people and can be done at a far lower cost than sending people to meetings. This could change the power balance and so may be opposed by a few entrenched individuals, organisations and governments. However, there is no reason not to try.
Blended systems can be used. As an example, the documents at a face to face meeting and discussions can be make public live online. Delegates to a physical meeting can also be taking part in online forums and relaying those views to the meeting. Those online can put their views directly to the meeting.
Robyn Eckersley's presentation was interesting, but largely irrelevant, as it did not address today's realities of communication. The presentation was made to a room of only about 100 people. The ANU lecture theatre it was given in is equipped with a broadband Internet connection and lecture recording facilities. It requires pushing a couple of buttons to podcast proceedings. However, this was not done. What was said and the text was not made available to more than the small number of people present. As a result what was said is largely irrelevant.
The idea that decisions are made by people face to face is now largely obsolete. It is feasible and cost effective to make decisions on-line. There are techniques to allow people to get to know each other and develop the needed trust. Perhaps universities, such as ANU, could help by teaching these techniques to those involved in such negotiations.
However, she seem to assume that negotiations must be held in a physical forum, thus limiting how many, and who, could be involved. In my view the idea the problem of climate change was to be solved by thousands of people flying to Copenhagen seems bizarre. Despite the high environmental cost of the meeting, only a small number of people were able to take part. Even that relatively small number of people could not be accommodated by the processes used and the result was chaos.
It is now feasible to conduct decision making online. This can involve many more people and can be done at a far lower cost than sending people to meetings. This could change the power balance and so may be opposed by a few entrenched individuals, organisations and governments. However, there is no reason not to try.
Blended systems can be used. As an example, the documents at a face to face meeting and discussions can be make public live online. Delegates to a physical meeting can also be taking part in online forums and relaying those views to the meeting. Those online can put their views directly to the meeting.
Robyn Eckersley's presentation was interesting, but largely irrelevant, as it did not address today's realities of communication. The presentation was made to a room of only about 100 people. The ANU lecture theatre it was given in is equipped with a broadband Internet connection and lecture recording facilities. It requires pushing a couple of buttons to podcast proceedings. However, this was not done. What was said and the text was not made available to more than the small number of people present. As a result what was said is largely irrelevant.
The idea that decisions are made by people face to face is now largely obsolete. It is feasible and cost effective to make decisions on-line. There are techniques to allow people to get to know each other and develop the needed trust. Perhaps universities, such as ANU, could help by teaching these techniques to those involved in such negotiations.
Why Should We Believe the Panel on Climate Change?
Greetings from the conference "Democratizing Climate Governance" at the Australian National University in Canberra. The opening talk was by Professor Sheila Jasanoff (Harvard) on "Knowing Climate Change: The Challenges and Opportunities of a Global Civic Epistemology". This was a wide ranging and very scholarly talk, which has some interesting practical implications. It came out in question time when a frustrated climate scientists asked essentially: "Why don't people believe us?" and the Professor's response was "Why should they?" . She was making the point that there is a substantial body of social science and educational research which shows that presenting supposedly pure scientific truth is not convincing.
In my Green ICT course we spend only part of the time on climate science and technology to deal with it. Most of the time is on how to communicate this in a corporate context. Earlier in the week I talked at Moodle Moot AU 2010. The point we were all in agreement on was that there was little
education value in simply using the technology to present facts to
students: we had to get them to discuss the issues. Australia now leads
the world in this technology and teaching technique, having developed the Moodle open source software. I wonder if it could be applied more widely to public discussions.
The conference program and abstracts are available. This event is timely as it appears the Australian Government is about to make an announcement on climate change measures.
In my Green ICT course we spend only part of the time on climate science and technology to deal with it. Most of the time is on how to communicate this in a corporate context. Earlier in the week I talked at Moodle Moot AU 2010. The point we were all in agreement on was that there was little
education value in simply using the technology to present facts to
students: we had to get them to discuss the issues. Australia now leads
the world in this technology and teaching technique, having developed the Moodle open source software. I wonder if it could be applied more widely to public discussions.
The conference program and abstracts are available. This event is timely as it appears the Australian Government is about to make an announcement on climate change measures.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Democratizing Climate Governance
The conference "Democratizing Climate Governance" is being held at the Australian National University Centre for Deliberative Democracy & Global Governance, with the ANU Climate Change Institute in Canberra, 15-16 July 2010. Registrations have now officially closed, but I was able to get a late registration. The conferecne program and abstracts are available. This event is timely as it appears the Australian Government is about to make an announcement on climate change measures.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)