This year’s winning projects for UiO:Democracy’s students awards cover a wide array of topics, from strategic arms exports to perception of Large Language Models (LLMs). After a record-breaking influx of applications, the award for 2025 goes to five recipients.
"I am extremely satisfied with the number of applicants this year,’ says Tore Rem, the director of UiO:Democracy. "We strive for excellence, and this level of competition is sound, even if we would ideally have liked to give out even more prizes, such was the quality of the project proposals." Rem adds that he was equally pleased with the great range of subjects represented, from computer science to law to political science and education, and with the fact that the students had thought carefully about how they might contribute to interdisciplinary work.
The UiO:Democracy master’s award is given each autumn to master’s students whose projects tackle issues relevant to democracy. The award is based on the quality of the proposal and project description, and its relevance to UiO:Democracy’s thematic research tracks.
Identity, trust and AI
Liu Ningzhi, master’s student at the Institute of Psychology, is using his project to explore how national identity shapes our receptiveness to persuasion from large language models (LLMs).
“I’m going to conduct an experiment on how the perceived national origin of an AI influences its persuasive power,” he says.
The use of LLMs has skyrocketed globally—not just as a source of information but also as a sparring partner for generating advice and forming opinions. Liu’s thesis, titled AI Across Borders - How National Identity Shapes Persuasion by Local and Foreign Large Language Models, addresses intriguing questions that extend beyond the psychology of LLM usage by illuminating how geopolitical issues can affect our information processing.
“My backdrop is the increased US-China competition on the global stage,” he explains. “This rivalry is not just political or economic, but also deeply cultural, creating both division and a crucial opportunity for dialogue. I want to explore how these geopolitical biases spill over into the digital sphere. If we automatically discount information from an AI just because of its perceived national origin, it creates vulnerabilities that could undermine healthy democratic discourse.”
The free speech dilemma on trial
Freedom of expression and protection against hate speech and discrimination are both central democratic values that often come into conflict. It’s a problem that has been bedevilling democracies since their inception: Where do you draw the line between freedom of expression and preventing hate speech and discrimination?
This dilemma lies at the centre of Vilde Longva Reiersen’s master’s project, titled The Border of Democracy: balancing freedom of expression and protection against hate speech. As a law student, she explores how The European Convention on Human Rights has developed a state obligation to protect individuals from hate speech and discrimination, and how these obligations are balanced against the right to freedom of expression.
“My starting point is the European Convention on Human Rights as it relates to hate speech. I’m specifically going to focus on two of its provisions that often conflict: the right to freedom of expression and the right to private life and protection against discrimination. I will examine how the court balance situations where these two fundamental, legally protected democratic rights come into conflict, and explore further ramifications for Norwegian law and society,” Reiersen says.
Guns, governments and geopolitics
“After a stay in Ghana, I wanted to study the link between security politics and democracy,” says Mieke L?hrer, a master’s student in Peace and Conflict Studies.
In her thesis, The Link Between Arms Exports and Democracy, she explores the degree to which states use arms as a political tool.
“The theory shows that politically aligned states generally transfer more arms,” she explains.
“Does it follow that democratic states also transfer more arms to each other? If so, what are their motivations? For example, democracies might use arms sales to reward a certain regime type or commitment to democratic values.”
“Therefore, I’m going to examine whether regime type changes are associated with changes in weapons suppliers. I will build on this with a case study, further delving into the causal mechanism to investigate the motivations of weapons exporters.”
Democracy: who’s in and who’s out?
Who is democracy for? Although the easy answer is “the people,” many democratic decisions invariably have consequences for those who are not included in that democracy.
Climate change serves as a stark example: decisions regarding emissions within one country will affect entire populations that had no say in those decisions. Similarly, inherently transnational issues such as globalization, migration, and international law pose challenges to the democratic principle that decisions should reflect the consent of all concerned parties.
This question of who counts as a member of a given democracy is at the core of V?rin Elisabeth Sinnes’ thesis, To What Extent Does Seyla Benhabib’s Concept of “Democratic Iterations” Succeed as a Response to the Paradox of Democratic Closure?
"Benhabib’s philosophy brilliantly points out how many exclusionary practices of liberal democracies are contradicting the core principles of those same democracies,” she explains.
“Democracy is one of those terms that are used in the public all the time, but when we start thinking about what it really means, the answer is not obvious. The understandings that are taken for granted often reflect power dynamics that are in the interest of some rather than others. This is why we need philosophy – to challenge such established truths through critical thinking. I hope my thesis can contribute help do just that."
Inclusion at the frontline of democracy
Inclusion is a core tenet of democracy. But how well do we uphold this in practice? Through her thesis, Recollections from the In-Between, Iris-Roberta Kiraly explores how migrant educators in Oslo schools experience democratic inclusion in their professional lives.
“In discourse, inclusion is often synonymous with integration,” Kiraly clarifies. “However, that’s not entirely accurate; psychosocial inclusion is often overlooked.”
She plans to conduct in-depth, narrative interviews with migrant educators—teachers, teaching assistants, and child and youth workers—across Oslo. Kiraly hopes to highlight perspectives that are frequently ignored in discussions of inclusion and democracy.
“Democracy is never complete; it must be continually enacted through recognition, participation, and the courage to listen to those at the margins. I also seek to address the underlying current that migrants are often perceived as problems to be solved rather than as resources,” she states.
Inspired by both quality and quantity
This is the third year UiO:Democracy of UiO:Democracy's master's awards. Previous winners have received the Dare to Know Prize (V?g-?-vite-prisen), presented their projects to the Crown Prince of Norway, and participated in panel discussions at UiO:Democracy events.
Director Rem highlights how the master’s award sparks enthusiasm for democracy research at a time when we urgently need to strengthen democratic knowledge. "The development and maintenance of democracy is dependent on new knowledge, as well as on new generations taking up the mantle," concludes Rem. "The number of applicants this year, and the overall quality of the project proposals, inspire us in UiO:Democracy in our ongoing work both to research and further develop democracy."