Guidelines: 1. Focus on Clarity and Conciseness: o Use concise, precise language

Guidelines:
1. Focus on Clarity and Conciseness:
o Use concise, precise language.
o Avoid unnecessary repetition but ensure important concepts (e.g., deliberative democracy, inclusivity, ASEAN Communication Master Plan II) are reinforced appropriately.
2. Adhere to Academic Standards:
o Maintain a formal academic tone.
o Use APA, MLA, or the specific citation style required by the target journal.
o Ensure all in-text citations align with the references section.
3. Ensure Alignment with Research Questions (RQs):
o Regularly check that each section addresses the RQs.
o Highlight how the findings relate to the overarching themes: citizen inclusion, communication tools, and governance legitimacy.
4. Emphasize Key Concepts:
o Frame the narrative around core concepts such as deliberative democracy, trust-building, policy learning, and the “ASEAN Way.”
o Link these concepts explicitly to the ASEAN Communication Master Plan II and potential post-2025 developments.
Section-by-Section Instructions:
1. Abstract
• Write an engaging 200–300-word abstract summarizing the research purpose, methods, key findings, and implications.
• Highlight:
o The significance of the ASEAN Communication Master Plan II as the framework.
o The potential of deliberative mechanisms to enhance inclusivity, trust, and governance legitimacy.
o The comparative analysis of EU practices and their selective adaptation to ASEAN.
2. Introduction
• Aim for 800–1,000 words.
• Start Strong:
o Introduce ASEAN’s governance structure and the importance of the ASEAN Communication Master Plan II.
o Contextualize the rising importance of citizen voices beyond CSOs and businesses.
• Explain Relevance:
o Explain why deliberative democracy is needed now, especially as ASEAN approaches key milestones (APA’s 25th anniversary, ASEAN Master Plan II’s conclusion, ASEAN’s 60th anniversary).
• Outline Scope:
o Briefly introduce the research questions and the focus on EU policy learning.
3. Literature Review
• Aim for 1,500–2,000 words.
• Conceptual Clarity:
o Define dialogue vs. deliberation and explain how deliberative democracy strengthens trust and governance.
o Introduce theoretical frameworks (e.g., Habermas’ communicative action, Freire’s participatory communication, trust and legitimacy models).
• Synthesize Evidence:
o Compare ASEAN’s existing platforms (APA, APF, ASEAN-BAC) and structural challenges (politicization, exclusion, lack of follow-up).
o Integrate insights from the EU on citizen assemblies, participatory platforms, and communication tools.
• Identify Gaps:
o Highlight the need for inclusive mechanisms that engage marginalized groups.
o Emphasize gaps in ASEAN’s Track 2 diplomacy and the potential role of digital tools.
4. Methodology
• Aim for 800–1,000 words.
• Explain the Approach:
o Describe the comparative analysis of EU mechanisms and their applicability to ASEAN.
o Outline the case studies (APA, APF, ASEAN Youth Forum) and how they were analyzed to assess their potential for deliberative democracy.
• Tabletop Research:
o Clearly explain the reliance on secondary sources, including peer-reviewed articles, ASEAN reports, and advocacy group publications.
o Justify why this approach is appropriate given the scope of the study.
• Policy Learning:
o Highlight how policy learning informs the adaptation of EU practices to ASEAN’s context.
5. Results
• Aim for 1,000–1,200 words.
• Organize by RQs:
o RQ1: Summarize key lessons from the EU and their relevance to ASEAN.
o RQ2: Highlight the role of tools like multilingual juries, virtual focus groups, and sentiment surveys in enhancing inclusivity.
o RQ3: Discuss how citizen-led deliberation can improve governance legitimacy and policy outcomes.
• Emphasize Opportunities:
o Focus on ASEAN’s rising educational levels, digital connectivity, and upcoming milestones as enablers of deliberative mechanisms.
6. Discussion
• Aim for 1,200–1,500 words.
• Reflect on Findings:
o Analyze how the EU’s practices align with ASEAN’s governance model and principles.
o Discuss how ASEAN’s consensus-driven and non-interference framework affects the adoption of deliberative practices.
• Address Challenges:
o Critically evaluate structural barriers, such as linguistic diversity and resource disparities among member states.
• Recommendations:
o Propose actionable steps for the ASEAN Secretariat, such as piloting deliberative mechanisms and leveraging partnerships with CSOs and businesses.
o Emphasize the significance of aligning new practices with the ASEAN Communication Master Plan II.
7. Conclusion
• Aim for 400–600 words.
• Summarize Key Insights:
o Reiterate the potential of deliberative democracy to address transboundary challenges and enhance inclusivity.
o Highlight the importance of aligning deliberative practices with ASEAN’s principles and cultural diversity.
• Forward-Looking:
o Emphasize the importance of using findings to shape post-2025 communication frameworks.
8. Limitations and Future Directions
• Aim for 300–500 words.
• Acknowledge Limitations:
o Discuss the reliance on secondary sources and the focus on the EU as the primary comparative model.
o Address the theoretical nature of the proposed mechanisms and the need for pilot studies.
• Suggest Future Research:
o Propose studies focusing on implementation challenges in low-resource ASEAN countries.
o Highlight the need to explore other regional governance frameworks (e.g., African Union, Mercosur) for additional insights.
Additional Notes:
1. Formatting and Style:
o Use clear headings and subheadings to structure the manuscriipt.
2. Critical Analysis:
o Where appropriate, critique the EU’s practices and highlight why selective adaptation is necessary for ASEAN.
3. References:
o Ensure all in-text citations are accurate and appear in the reference list.
4. Diagrams and Tables:
o Consider creating summary tables or diagrams to illustrate key concepts, such as:
 A comparison of EU and ASEAN practices.
 A framework for integrating deliberative democracy into ASEAN.
5. Final Review:
o Proofread thoroughly for coherence, conciseness, and academic rigor.
o Ensure the manuscriipt is free of redundancies and clearly aligned with the research questions.