Sparking a National Conversation

这个项目旨在了解为什么一些关于政策问题的“全国对话”的承诺似乎只是夸张，而另一些似乎更真实。使用基于最新民主理论的评估框架，以及每个案例中关键行为者的目标和理解，该项目计划比较声称引发全国对话的三个案例：2007-14年苏格兰全国对话; 2009年美国围绕《平价医疗法案》的辩论;以及澳大利亚正在进行的土著宪法承认问题。该项目旨在确定为什么一些现实世界的努力比其他人更好，并吸取经验教训，在澳大利亚复制最佳做法。项目成果可就如何让公民更好地参与当今重大问题向决策者提供咨询意见。

This project aims to understand why some promises of a ‘national conversation’ on a policy issue seem to be mere hyperbole, while others seem more authentic. Using an evaluative framework based on the latest democratic theory, and the aims and understandings of key actors in each case, the project plans to compare three cases that claimed to spark a national conversation: the Scottish National Conversation 2007–14; debates around the Affordable Care Act in the United States, 2009; and the ongoing issue of Indigenous constitutional recognition in Australia. The project aims to identify why some real-world efforts work better than others, and draw lessons for replicating best practice in Australia. Project outcomes may provide advice to policy-makers on how to engage citizens better in the major issues of the day.