Open Budgets in Africa: Tokenistic?

Matt Andrews recently posted an interesting analysis in his blog. Measuring the difference in transparency between budget formulation and budget execution, Matt finds that “Most countries have a gap between the scores they get in transparency of budget preparation and transparency of budget execution. Indeed, 63% of the countries have more transparency in budget formulation than in budget execution.” And he concludes that “countries with higher OBI scores tend to have relatively bigger gaps than the others—so that I am led to believe that countries generally focus on improving transparency in formulation to get better scores (with efforts to make execution getting less attention).” He has also written a second post about it and the IBP folks have replied to him here.

***

Also read

Open Government and Democracy 

The Uncertain Relationship Between Open Data and Accountability


Group Decision Tip: Credit the Group

In principle, members of high-functioning groups are focused on the success of the group as a whole rather than on who should get credit or blame within the group. Harry Truman said, “It is amazing what you can do if you do not care who gets the credit.” Similarly, groups get more done when unconcerned with assigning blame.

Group Decision Tips IconRather than spend energy accounting for past individual credit or blame, it is better to invest lessons from the past into future good group decisions. When I believe in my group I know that, over the long run, what is good for the group will be good for me—probably better for me than I could ever have achieved on my own.

Practical Tip: Give your ideas and efforts to the group without conditions, without lingering ownership. Welcome contributions from others without jealousy, without resentment. Show public appreciation for others in your group. Own your share of things gone wrong and credit the group for things gone right.

A mark of a high-functioning team is that each member wants to make other members look good.

what we must do for civics: my remarks at the National Conference on Citizenship

(Washington, DC) I’d like to talk briefly about what we have to do to improve civic education in America.

First, I need to say something very quick about the goal. What should students learn?

I agree with people who say that kids should study the founding documents of the American republic, their origins and great principles. Citizens will not protect these ideas unless they understand them. And the founding documents are worthy of understanding and exploration.

But understanding perennial principles is not enough. Students must also deliberate with fellow citizens about current controversies. That is a skill human beings have to learn. It does not come automatically, and it is certainly not being modeled by our media or the national government. Students must learn from experience how to talk with others who may disagree about controversial issues.

And deliberation is not enough. Talking without ever acting is pretty empty. You can say most anything without learning from the results or affecting the world. At least sometimes, students should be part of groups that talk about what they should do, then actually do what they have talked about doing, and then reflect on the experience, holding themselves accountable for the results.

By the way, I am not necessarily talking about service-learning projects as the opportunities for students to plan projects and then act as citizens. Students can act in many other ways as well—for example, when they manage school clubs and groups, produce collaborative reports and presentations, or even play roles in fictional simulations.

Like deliberation, collaboration is something we must learn from experience, with guidance from teachers and other adults. It does not come naturally.

I have mentioned three things to learn: the fundamental principles and structure of the republic, actual deliberation, and collaboration. The three go together beautifully. The constitutional principles underlie the deliberation and work. The work informs the discussion. The discussion guides the work.

Many social studies teachers know how to bring all three together—certainly not every day, but over the course of a semester or a school year. We conducted a national survey of civics teachers this summer and found most of them committed to just this kind of education.

But a lot of things stand in the way.

Most state standards are just long lists of facts to cover. A teacher we surveyed recently said:

“Students do not ‘debate’—they argue and have no support for their opinions. Should that be a priority? Well, of course, but I don’t have time to teach it. I am bound by a set of state guidelines as to what I am to teach even though there is no high stake testing for government classes.”

Also, most states don’t test in civics, and those that do ask exclusively multiple-choice questions that have nothing to do with deliberation or collaboration. Our research finds that whether a state has a test makes no difference to what students know, perhaps because the existing tests are not much good.

Opportunities for civic learning are deeply unequal, most widely available to students in wealthy communities who are on course to college.

Teachers get very little education or support for interactive civic education. Nationally, most recall never having received relevant professional development once they are in the classroom. Only 10 states require instructors who teach civics or government classes to have certification in civics or government.

Last week, the National Council for the Social Studies released a new framework for state social studies standards called the C3 Framework: College, Career, and Citizenship. Maryland and Kentucky are already using it to revise their state standards, and I am confident other states will join them. For full disclosure, I was deeply involved in writing the C3, so I am biased. But I can vouch for that fact that all the themes I have mentioned today are included: foundational principles, deliberation, action.

Implementing the C3 Framework would be a good step. But civic education completely depends on quality. Standards mean little without supportive materials, teacher education, and assessments. A test for students or a teacher certification requirement can be valuable if it is well designed, aligned with the curriculum, and if the people who face the assessment have opportunities to learn what they need to know. If not, the assessment can hurt. To implement a test or requirement well, over time, takes support from organizations outside of higher education: the legal community, higher education, the media, parents.

On Oct. 9, CIRCLE will release the report of the Commission on Youth Voting and Civic Knowledge, which is entitled All Together Now: Innovation and Collaboration for Youth Engagement. It is based on truly exhaustive research, including surveys or interviews with more than 6,000 youth, students, and stakeholders. Note the title, which calls for collaboration. The report will recommend state coalitions for civics that can be in the business for the long term, not only demanding a new law or policy, but staying around to make sure the implementation is good.

We know that many other institutions influence kids’ civic development: parents and families, the news media, social media, campaigns and elections, city governments. Schools matter, but they cannot by themselves get the job done. Civic education is a responsibility of society as a whole, and a diverse coalition or task force can call on many different sectors as opportunities arise.

We have been involved with several such efforts. The one that has had the most legislative impact is The Florida Joint Center for Citizenship, based at the University of Central Florida and the University of Florida. The Joint Center grew from a 2006 bipartisan effort, launched by Congressman Lou Frey and Senator Bob Graham, to improve civic education in Florida. Since then, with the help of many other organizations and people, the state’s social studies standards and benchmarks have been revised and strengthened and the Justice Sandra Day O’Connor Civics Education Act has added civics to Florida’s list of tested subjects. In addition to Sen. Graham, the Joint Center’s director, Doug Dobson, is here today.

Another model is The Illinois Civic Mission Coalition, which includes educators, administrators, students, universities, funders, elected officials, policymakers, and representatives from the private and non-profit sectors. They wrote a document called the Civic Blueprint for Illinois High Schools. They have enlisted partner schools that are committed to the cause, and they also advocate at the state level and draw on all their members for ongoing action and support.

In California, Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson have created a high-powered task force on civics. And of course, at the national level, the Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools, brilliantly directed by the unstoppable Ted McConnell, is the coalition for civics.

These efforts vary, but they all recognize the same truths. We are not doing enough to engage our young people in civic life. There are no simple solutions. A test, a mandatory course, an easier voting system—none of those reforms will make much difference just by itself. Engaging our young people will require the dedicated efforts of many people, in many contexts, over time.

None of that should surprise us. These are the same truths we teach—or ought to teach—our young people about politics in general. They are going to face serious public problems all their lives: the problems that we inherited or created and are leaving to them. No serious problem will yield unless people work together to define and address it—each contributing his or her own assets and ideas. Working together on public causes is not just a chore or burden but is also a satisfying aspect of the good life.

These are the lessons we should be sharing with our young people, and they apply to us as well.

The post what we must do for civics: my remarks at the National Conference on Citizenship appeared first on Peter Levine.

For Tomorrow’s World, Should Engineers Study a Little Art History?

Reprinted from The Huffington Post - September 19, 2013

Recently, there's been a flurry of reports detailing which college majors offer the best starting salaries and which offer the worst. The top ten are all various forms of STEM degrees--science, technology, engineering, and math. Newly-minted petroleum engineers can expect to start out at about $100,000 per year. At the other end of the spectrum are students with degrees in social work, elementary education, and child and family studies. Their starting salaries are just over $30,000.

In many respects, these numbers bear out what business and government experts have been telling us for years. The future of the U.S. economy lies in STEM, and we need more young people entering these fields. Impressive starting salaries are just the economy's signal that it wants and needs more STEM talent.

But does that mean that colleges and universities should make STEM education their top priority and de-emphasize less "relevant" subjects? Should today's college students sidestep courses in art history and music and invest all their time and money in STEM courses instead?

Not according to the students, professors, parents, retirees, and others who have been deliberating the future of higher education in citizen meetings convened by the National Issues Forums (NIF). Full disclosure, as journalists say, I sit on NIF's board. It's a network of schools, libraries, community colleges, book clubs, and other local groups that host forums each year where people can talk about alternative ways to address major issues. Last year, participants discussed the national debt. This year, it's higher education. Already, the NIF network has organized well over 100 forums on higher education in venues ranging from college campuses to senior living centers.

It's not that most people coming to the NIF forums don't care about science and technology. Participants repeatedly point out its importance to the economy and its tantalizing potential for helping humanity address all manner of challenges. The country's need for innovators is a continual theme. Yet, most participants also seem to see a danger in students being too narrowly educated. And most see a genuine value in giving students at least some time and space to explore a range of subjects and ideas.

Here's how someone attending a Kansas forum put it: "Innovation is the strength of the United States in science and technology. That means a broadly educated and experienced person. . . . They need to be very good at their technology or science, but [they need more than that] or we're going to be another China. They're very good at technology. They're not very good at innovation. That's why they send their students here."

In fact, advocates trying to get more Americans interested in STEM by showcasing China's (and India's) prowess in graduating engineers may be off-message. The subject of China comes up repeatedly in the NIF forums, often as a cautionary tale about what happens when students focus too much on single field. Ironically, the Chinese are showing a growing interest in the liberal arts themselves. Xiong Qingnian, who directs a research institute on higher education at Fudan University in Shanghai, described the goal: "We want our students to have more varied views on society. That is why Fudan wants to focus on the liberal arts."

For many in the NIF forums, lack of creativity and vision is only one hazard to being too narrowly educated. Many see the U.S. economy as an employment shape shifter, so according to this view, focusing too much on 2013 job skills could be a mistake. In Iowa, one participant commented that "whatever [students are] studying right now is probably not going to be true in five years, two years, maybe. You don't know, maybe next year. You can't learn this box and then use that forever, because that's not the way the world is now." Students in the forums often struggle with the tension between choosing courses that might help them get a job on graduation versus choosing the kind of education that would give them the adaptability and flexibility to remain employable and prosper over the years.

What's most interesting about the forums so far is the high regard most participants have for an education that encourages students to wrestle with new ideas, sample new fields, and meet people from outside their own experiences. For many, this is the very essence of what it means to become an educated person. "Granted," said one woman said, "I'm biased towards the liberal arts, but if you have a higher education background, period, you've had opportunity to be exposed to different cultures, different lifestyles, different religions, different belief systems, and you have a heart that is not -- a heart and a mind that are both opened, and I think that's what education does for you."

In the forums, participants have a chance to weigh three different options concerning the missions for higher education: 1) focusing on science and technology education to help the economy; 2) offering students a rich, broad education that emphasizes integrity and working together; and 3) expanding opportunity by helping more students attend college and graduate. As might be expected, most participants see important values in all three missions.

What many question, however, is the trend of talking about college mainly as career training--whether it's in STEM or something else. Better job training is essential, many say, for high school graduates who want to enter the work force immediately or aren't interested in a more traditional college education. Offering a wider range of post-secondary options was a clear winner in most of the deliberations.

But it is also clear from these forums that the ability to go to college and get a broad and rich education that expands a student's vision and understanding of the world is still important for many Americans. Maybe it's more important than ever.

forthcoming in 2013: Civic Studies (the book)


This is a video of me (having a bad hair day) and some good friends making the case for the civic mission of higher education.

It is also an advertisement for the Civic Series, a set of short books on themes related to active citizenship and higher education. I am co-editing the volume entitled Civic Studies with Karol Soltan. It should be available by the end of 2013. The Table of Contents follows:

I. Overview

1. Peter Levine, “The Case for Civic Studies”
2. Karol Soltan, “The Emerging Field of a New Civics”
3. (multiple authors) “Framing Statement on Civic Studies”

II. The art and science of association: the Indiana Workshop

4. Filippo Sabetti, “Artisans of the Common Life: Building a Public Science of Citizens”
5. Paul Aligica, “Citizenship, Political Competence, and Civic Studies: the Ostromian Perspective”

III. Deliberative participation

6. Tina Nabatchi and Greg Munno, “Deliberative Civic Engagement: Connecting Public Voices to Public Governance”
7. Ghazala Mansuri and Vijayendra Rao, “The Challenge of Promoting Civic Participation in Poor Countries”

IV. Public work

8. Harry C. Boyte and Blase Scarnati, “The Civic Politics of Public Work”

V. Research engaged with citizens

9. Sanford Schram, “Citizen-Centered Research for Civic Studies: Bottom-Up, Problem-Driven, Mixed methods, Interdisciplinary”
10. Philip Nyden, “Public Sociology, Civic Education, and Engaged Research”

The post forthcoming in 2013: Civic Studies (the book) appeared first on Peter Levine.

The New “Slow Communities” Engagement Firm

We are pleased to be able to announce the launch of Slow Communities – a new engagement consulting service offering help to those who know that they need to “go slow to go fast.” Slow Communities was recently founded by Bill Roper, who served for 14 years with one of our partners, the Orton Family Foundation - first as Director of Programs, then as its longest-serving President and CEO. Bill, along with affiliate Barbara Ganley, is now offering his wealth of experience and knowledge as an engagement professional to foundations, non-profits, and municipalities as they work to build and sustain their communities.

Slow Communities will enlist the expertise of these experienced professionals in creative community engagement, planning and convening approaches, effective evaluation strategies and successful governance. In terms of the Slow Communities approach, their website has this to say:

We at Slow Communities have found that the knowledge you need is often right there in your organization, town or professional community, buried or overlooked. We help you to uncover that local expertise and experience by helping you to design open, creative avenues of participation and inclusion. Because perceptions develop quickly and are hard to dispel, careful planning right from the start will not only save you headaches and money later on, but will unleash incredible energy and opportunities for lasting success.

If you believe that great process is essential to great outcomes; if you believe in the wisdom of the crowds; if you want to build your town or organization’s capacity to steer change, then Slow Communities is the partner for you. Let us bring our innovative, effective and even (gasp) fun techniques and thinking to your town, foundation or non-profit.

We encourage you to explore the full list of services that Slow Communities will offer here, or check out their website at www.slowcommunities.org. You can also keep up to date on Slow Communities news by following their blog. We look forward to seeing how this exciting new service adds to our field, and wish Bill and Barbara the best of luck in their new endeavor!

An opportunity like no other – the Great March for Climate Action

This message and call to action was submitted by Tom Atlee of the Co-Intelligence Institute via our Submit-to-Blog Form. Do you have field news you want to share with the rest of us? Just click here to submit your news post for the NCDD Blog!


Summary: In March 2014, the giant 8-month cross-country Great March for Climate Action will be launched. I believe it has truly profound potential for personal and social change, and is worthy of our support and participation. Dialogue and deliberation practitioners, in particular, can make a significant difference.

Dear friends,

If all goes as planned, almost six months from now – in March 2014 – one thousand people will depart Santa Monica, California, on a cross-country Great March for Climate Action. It will take them eight months – walking about 15 miles a day – to reach Washington, D.C. They will speak in hundreds of communities and venues along the way and be joined by locals for days or weeks. Once they arrive in D.C., they will swarm-lobby their representatives. Equally importantly, the lives of every participant will be profoundly changed and their roles in the world will evolve in ways they (and we) can barely imagine before this adventure begins. Above all, I believe they will co-create new, far more effective forms of social change.

I want to see that happen. I want this march to succeed in boosting climate activism to an entirely new level. I want it to produce hundreds of more savvy activists and hot collaborations. And I want you to consider joining it, to think about it seriously, as I find myself doing. It is worthy of the participation and/or support of every one of us.

Why do I feel so strongly about this?

The first reason is that climate change is, as the organizers note, not an issue, but a crisis – a Very Big Crisis, with many side effects and repercussions. Along with peak oil and other resource limitations – and the wars, corruption, and social and economic disruption those limits could generate – the climate crisis may be the defining fact of life for people living through the coming decades. The time for addressing all this was yesterday, and now it is today. The longer we wait, the messier it will get. The earlier we take creative action on it, the more profound and positive the transformational impact of our efforts can be. And, as my friend John Abbe (who became Marcher #22) said, “The time to act is now before it is more too late than it already is.”

The second reason I feel strongly is that 27 years ago I spent 9 of the most intense and transformational months of my life on the 400-person LA-DC Great Peace March. As I describe in the Prologue to The Tao of Democracy, that experience gave rise to the vision of possibility that became my life’s work on co-intelligence, wise democracy, and our collective capacity to effectively self-organize our communities and societies. This leads me to believe that the potential impact of such a mobile activist community will be at least as big from the exciting things that happen in and among the marchers, themselves, as from the marchers’ engagements with the places they pass through.

Mobile Activism

Early during my life on the Great Peace March, I wrote an article entitled “Mobile Peace Activism”. I explored the interesting ways that peace marches, bike-a-thons, cruises, and caravans get attention and build community. I’ll share here some of what I wrote 27 years ago exploring the question of why someone would go to all the trouble to organize or join a complicated cross country march instead of engaging in traditional action right at home?

“Novelty plays a role in this. Travelling out-of-towners bring new life and flavor with them — the spirit of other places and a sense of connection to those other places. Stationary people seem fascinated with why mobile people are doing what they are doing….

“It is easy to get into ideological, psychological, spiritual, emotional, organizational or tactical ruts when you are always confronting a desk or a book [or a screen!] or the same faces at every meeting. There’s something about moving to another place each day or week that rubs off on your whole way of thinking and feeling. Perhaps a certain responsiveness or fluidity can develop, making it easier to break out of fixed conditions, to think in new ways…

“Many of us long for a way to transform ourselves while we transform society, to enjoy life while we are saving it from destruction. Mobile activism tends to have transformative and recreational effects on the participants while at the same time achieving external objectives.

“Most mobile activities demand a high level of cooperative living just to keep moving down the road. This stimulates the formation of tightly-knit mobile communities with strong feelings of being ‘family.’ This is both a backdrop to activism and an actively-created part of it, a laboratory for building effective, loving, non-violent lifestyles. And mobile activists, in their trips from town to town, can weave together a greater sense of community among the local activists with whom they work.”

Perhaps most significantly, when hundreds of climate activists walk down the road together every day and live in tents beside each other every night, they talk. Among the things they will talk about are climate change, activism, strategies, deeper causes, long term nuanced consequences, how their grandchildren will live, and what really needs to be done about all that. Their diverse perspectives and information will churn together in a thousand combinations and novel configurations. The march will be a hothouse of new ways of thinking, feeling, and taking action. We could even say that it will be “the other greenhouse effect” – a hundredfold concentration and enrichment of the energy, thinking, and conversations we already engage in together for a few hours or days at a time.

Carrying on such intensified interaction for eight months cannot help but generate breakthrough initiatives and collaborations, transformed lives and lifestyles, new directions for the whole climate movement and every other movement. That’s what happened to me on the Great Peace March. My life changed totally and my work on co-intelligence was born. As I noted in my “Mobile Peace Activism” article, some of the most profound effects of mobile activism are “the effects that all those activists create once they leave the mobile activity and return home or involve themselves in other forms of activism.”

During the last decade I have often wondered if and when there would be a resurgence of mobile activism — of people taking the road instead of taking to the streets. I see it happening now, with this climate action march being perhaps the most ambitious initiative among many others.

Disturbances Transformed by Dialogue

Ironically, the most important thing that happened on the 1986 Great Peace March was that it fell apart two weeks after it began. The founding organization, ProPeace, went bankrupt and told us all to go home. 800 of us did. 400 of us didn’t. Instead of going home the remaining 400 of us talked… and the March was reborn in the middle of the Mojave Desert as a self-organized mobile community that generated its own collective intelligence and collaborative functioning woven out of complex voluntary leaderful activity with nobody in charge. It was held together by purposeful determination and rudimentary but dedicated conversational processes, most especially “talking circles” (which I prefer to call “listening circles”).

Many of my readers and subscribers are practitioners of leading edge processes like Sacred Circles, Open Space, World Cafe, Appreciative Inquiry, Future Search, Dynamic Facilitation, and dozens more. The Great March for Climate Action may not fall apart like the Great Peace March, but it will surely be filled with powerful, smart, assertive, value-driven people – exactly the kind of people who can make or break a giant collaborative enterprise, who can get in each other’s way or together generate highly functional activities, breakthrough insights, and innovative projects that change the world. This polarization of good and bad possibilities will become even more intense in the potent greenhouse of living and walking together day after day after day.

Perhaps the most significant factor in whether the best or worst occurs on this march is how much opportunity the marchers have for high quality conversations designed to support the emergence of breakthroughs, healing, effectiveness, and joy. That’s why I hope that dozens of practitioners who read this essay will join this march. Together they can convene and facilitate conversations that will vastly improve the march’s capacity to govern itself effectively, resolve its internal conflicts wisely, vibrantly engage the communities through which the march passes, and ensure the march positively affects the issue that may well impact more people and more issues – from water to democracy, from justice to war – more profoundly than anything else in this century.

That’s why I invite you – I urge you – to seriously consider what role you could play in support – or as part – of this remarkable effort. Depending on how we each engage with this opportunity, it could make all the difference in the world.  Find out more about how to get involved at www.climatemarch.org.

Blessings on the Journey we are all on together.

Coheartedly,
Tom

public speaking engagements this fall

Please join me if you can:

  • Sept. 20, DC: National Conference on Citizenship, panel on “Civic Education and the Civic Mission of Schools” (Also webcast.)
  • Sept. 25, Morven Park in Northern VA, “Distinguished Voices in Civics
  • Oct. 2, Elon University, Greensboro, NC Oct. 2: public lecture on We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For.
  • Oct. 10, MIT Center for Civic Media, Civic Media Lunch, “The Promise of Civic Renewal”
  • Oct. 9, DC, National Press Club newsmakers’ forum
  • Oct 11-12, Austin, TX, American Board of Trial Advocates’ Open Forum for Civic Education for Our Youth
  • October 21, Gutman Library, Harvard University, Distinguished [sic] Author’s Talk about We are the Ones. … With confirmed panelist Jane Mansbridge (and others to be named).
  • Nov. 9, Austin TX, Texas Conference on Civic Life
  • Nov 22, St. Louis, MO, National Council for the Social Studies

The post public speaking engagements this fall appeared first on Peter Levine.

Kettering’s David Holwerth on the Question “What is a Citizen?”

Kettering-Signs-borderOur partners at the Kettering Foundation recently posted about a write-up on their own David Holwerk’s talk at Rhodes University in South Africa on how journalists talk about citizens.  His remarks focused on the question, “What is a citizen?“, and how the answer is related to the role of the press in a democracy.

In the U.S. Constitution, the role of the press is given explicit protections, ostensibly because a free press that can cover whatever it wants is an integral part of a well-functioning democracy. Indeed, journalism is sometimes conceived of a service provided for citizens to be able to participate in an informed way in their governments.  But in a time like ours when news is often hard to discern from entertainment — with celebrities, Twitter commentary, and the results of award ceremonies often getting as much air time air time as local political issues, if not more — what do the big stories in our press say about what journalists are thinking about what is is to be a citizen?

Holwerk delved into the question’s implications for journalists:

Holwerk said that it seems to be a universal article of faith among journalists that they serve the needs of citizens in democracy. But journalists seem much less certain about what citizens actually do, which raises doubts about the ability of journalists to serve citizens’ needs effectively. “Why do people need things?” asked Holwerk. When you need something, he said, it implies that you want to do something. “If need implies action, then what is it that citizens do? They vote. We give them the information they need to vote. Why? Are citizens only voters?”

These are the questions Holwerk has been grappling with for the past four years. At the Kettering Foundation many political scientists and theorists have some ideas about what citizens do. So Holwerk started to think, “You ought to be able to figure out what citizens do by looking at what journalists do.” But when you look at newspapers, watch television or listen to the radio, it’s difficult to find citizens there doing anything, he said.

Journalists and editors need to develop a broader, denser, more robust understanding of what it is that citizens do, he said, but the conversation seems completely theoretical in the context of American journalism.

His reflections were made all the more powerful because  Holwerk was in South Africa, a country still relatively early on in its life as a democracy, where questions of citizenship are more regularly discussed in newspapers and the press.  But when it came to actually answering the question, “what is a citizen?”, Holwerk offered an insightful answer that pointed to the fact that other people in one’s community

Holwerk’s definition of “citizen” is actually a definition of “citizens” – casting the word as one necessarily addressed to implying a plurality of people.

What is a citizen?

Holwerk said an obstacle to journalists everywhere is not having a clear definition of the word. The legal definition of citizen is someone who is entitled to full rights, including voting rights, in their native state, he said, but this is both too broad and too narrow for the purpose of journalism. Another definition is anyone with the ability to act, he said, but if merely having the ability to act makes you a citizen and you choose not to act, there is no need for journalists to act, and nothing to cover.

Holwerk’s definition of citizens is two people working together to solve a shared public problem. For journalists, if two people work together to solve a private problem, it’s not news, but if they find a solution that benefits the public, that is news.

This definition of citizen is, for me, one of the best I’ve ever heard.  It gets to the heart of why we value things like dialogue and deliberation: at bottom, we know that we are in something together with other people around us, and we need to relate to and interact with them to make it work.  And when we engage in collaboration with others around us for our common good, that is getting to the essence of what it is to be a citizen.

How do you answer the question “what is a citizen?”  How does Holwerk’s definition strike you?  And what does it mean for the journalists of our nation?  Share your reflections with us in the comments section or in the NCDD Facebook group.

You can find the full coverage of Holwerk’s talk on the Rhodes University website here:  www.ru.ac.za/jms/jmsnews/name,93835,en.html.  

Take advantage of your 25% NCDD discount with the Future Search Network!

This post was submitted by Jennifer Neumer of the Future Search Network via our Submit-to-Blog Form. Do you have field news you want to share with the rest of us? Just click here to submit your news post for the NCDD Blog!


Please join us this December 9 – 11, 2013 for the Future Search Training Workshop with Sandra Janoff. Save 25% off with your NCDD discount! We offer non-profit discounts as well!

Managing a Future Search – A Learning Workshop (MFS) is for facilitators, leaders, students and managers who want to learn how applying Future Search principles enables a community, company or organization to transform its capability for action. Participants will acquire the tools needed to organize and manage Future Search conferences with integrity in any sector or culture.

Future Search Workshop participants will learn:

  • How to manage a meeting in which the target of change is a whole system’s capability for action now and in the future.
  • Key issues in matching conference task and stakeholders.
  • A theory and practice of facilitating large, diverse groups.
  • How to keep critical choices in the hands of participants.
  • How freeing yourself from diagnosing and fixing enables diverse groups to come together faster.
  • Basic principles and techniques that can be used to design many other meetings.

Register here or find out more here.

Managing a Future Search – A Learning Workshop (MFS) is for facilitators, leaders, students and managers who want to learn how applying Future Search principles enables a community, company or organization to transform its capability for action. Participants will acquire the tools needed to organize and manage Future Search conferences with integrity in any sector or culture.

Date: December 9 – 11, 2013

Fee: $1690.  (SAVE 25% when you mention this special NCDD offer! Ask about all nonprofit, student and group discounts as well!)

Location: At the Crowne Plaza Philadelphia West in Philadelphia, PA, USA.

For more info, you can contact Jennifer at 215-951-0328, 800-951-6333, or email her at fsn@futuresearch.net.

Want to get a better sense of what a Future Search looks like?  Click here too see just one example of Future Search being used around the world at a Youth Future Search in Ireland.

Future Search Network co-sponsored, and Sandra Janoff facilitated, a G8 Youth Summit in Northern Ireland in May, 2013. It was held in Enniskillen, County Fermanagh in the same location and one month prior to the G8 Summit where President Obama and the other 7 world leaders met. 110 young people from across the country created a shared agenda. The youth voice, with their dreams for the future, was brought into the G8 Summit the following month. Their report was translated into each of the 7 languages.

Registration: www.futuresearch.net/frms/workshop/signup1.cfm

More info:  www.futuresearch.net/method/workshops/descriptions-50748.cfm