Monthly Archives: November 2014

six varieties of politics

Posted on by
Reply

If “politics” means all interactions on public or common matters, here are six varieties of it. They overlap, yet no category is coterminous with any of the others:

1. Adversarial politics: The parties hold incompatible interests or goals, but some resolution must be reached. We can divide this category into three subtypes:

1a. Negotiation: the parties reach a satisfactory conclusion that partly meets each one’s interests.

1b. Authoritative decisions, which may be made by a ruler or ruling body, by an outside mediator, or by the group as a whole using an authoritative process, such as majority rule.

1c. Doing without agreement by protecting individual liberty and letting the aggregate outcome be a function of private decisions.

2. Unitary politics: The parties either have or are able to create a genuine consensus of interests. As Jane Mansbridge argues in Beyond Adversary Democracy, this can happen if their interests happen to coincide from the beginning, if they persuade one another to agree (see variety 3, below), or if they all take the interest of the group as paramount.

3. Deliberative politics: The parties exchange reasons and attempt to persuade others to change their authentic goals and interests. Deliberative politics differs from Negotiation (1a) in that deliberators hope to make interests coincide rather than treat them as fixed and try to maximize everyone’s satisfaction. It differs from Unitary politics (2) because it may not generate anything close to a consensus and may, indeed, be rather contentious.

4. Co-creative politics (“public work” in Harry Boyte’s phrase): The parties create or build something together, whether the object is open-source software, a physical playground, or the norms and traditions of a community. Public work differs from Deliberative politics (3) because it may not be very discursive; and if the participants do talk, they may not need to address conflicting interests and values. They may share goals and only discuss means and techniques.

5. Relational politics: interactions among people who make decisions or take collective actions knowing something about one another’s ideas, preferences, and interests. Each participant has at least the potential to influence and be influenced by each of the others; thus relational politics is interactive. It need not be face-to-face if available technologies (letters in 1776, the Internet today) allow sufficient interaction at a distance. Nor does relational politics depend on or produce unity; people can have close political interactions with their opponents and critics. The defining feature of relational politics is mutual knowledge and influence.

6. Impersonal politics: yields decisions and actions without the participants having to know one another. Examples of impersonal politics include populations that vote by secret ballot, consumers who determine prices by the aggregate of their purchasing decisions, and rulers who issue laws, orders, or edicts that apply to unknown individuals. Each of these is an act of leverage in the Archimedean sense. As actors in impersonal politics, we can move distant objects, even if our impact is minuscule or outweighed by others’.

My own view is that we need all of these varieties. Relational politics, in particular, is by no means ideal or sufficient. The phrase “office politics” has a negative ring because so many interactions in a workplace where colleagues know one another are manipulative, unfair, exclusive, or just tedious. The extreme case is torture, which is as relational an interaction as we can conceive. David Luban observes:

The torturer inflicts pain one-on-one, deliberately, up close and personal, in order to break the spirit of the victim–in other words, to tyrannize and dominate the victim. The relationship between them becomes a perverse parody of friendship and intimacy: intimacy transformed into its inverse image, where the torturer focuses on the victim’s body with the intensity of a lover, except that every bit of that focus is bent to causing pain and tyrannizing the victim’s spirit. (David Luban,“Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb,” Virginia Law Review, vol. 91 (Oct. 2005), p. 1430)

Office politics and (much more so) torture are marked by inequality, yet even under conditions of rough equality, relational politics can be inefficient or unproductive.

Yet I would argue that relational politics fills an important need in a society dominated by impersonal and adversarial institutions. It is best when it is also deliberative (3) and co-creative (4). That combination deserves active support. Further, since powerful institutions have no incentives to promote such politics and may have reasons to subvert, coopt, or repress it, someone must fight on behalf of productive relational politics. That requires some use of adversarial and impersonal tools (votes, lawsuits, mass communications) in the defense of relational interactions. How to accomplish that seems to me one of the hardest problems for anyone concerned about civic renewal.

The post six varieties of politics appeared first on Peter Levine.

Rain

Posted on by
Reply

Silent, at first,
Mists in the morning sky.

The world wakes,
Dewy-eyed.
Fresh and cold and clean.

The sun hides
From the colorless in-between.

A deep exhale,
Roaring now through the empty streets.

Empty? Not empty -
A river -
A splash, a shout,
A blur of broken images.

A dull rumble,
The prolonged sigh.

Joy and grief,
Death and birth,
Intertwined.
The tumultuous darkness.

The sun wins once more -
clean carnage left behind:

A million little diamonds
Shining neath the sky.

Flowers bloom.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Join a Live Video Chat on #TextTalkAct Tomorrow

Posted on by
Reply

Join organizers of the award-winning #TextTalkAct in a live video chat hosted by @DocForeman tomorrow (Tuesday, November 18th) at 6:30 pm Eastern / 3:30 pm Pacific. Hear what happened during our national Text Talk Act contest on October 6. We’ll connect you with:

  • Winning youth organizers;
  • Ideas texted in by participants across the country;
  • Resources for taking action.

To participate, simply click on this link on Tuesday, Nov 18 at 6:30 p.m. Eastern Time. You’ll be connected to the live streaming video on YouTube that begins at that time, and you’ll be able to comment via Twitter or YouTube using the #TextTalkAct hashtag.

Dr. April Foreman is a Licensed Psychologist and innovator in using social media platforms like Twitter to connect with thought leaders in healthcare across the world. Currently, she works for the Southeast Louisiana Healthcare System, serving Veterans as a Suicide Prevention Coordinator in Baton Rouge.

Text Talk Act is a series of innovative experiments in texting-enabled dialogue. As part of our role in the National Dialogue on Mental Health project Creating Community Solutions, NCDD and our partners have been experimenting with how the fun and convenience of text messaging can be leveraged to scale up face-to-face dialogue — especially among young people.

In April, we featured Matt Leighninger and Michael Smith from the Text Talk Act core team on an NCDD Confab Call.  Audio from the call and an archive of the collaborative doc we created during the call for Q&A and networking can be accessed at www.ncdd.org/14741.

PCP Offers Tips on Better Dialogue about Gender

Posted on by
Reply

We encourage you to read the piece below on ways we can all improve our capacity to have real dialogues about issues of gender from our friends at the Public Conversation Project. We also encourage you to consider attending PCP’s Power of Dialogue training this December on which NCDD members receive a discount. You can learn more below or by finding their original blog post here.

Public Conversations ProjectTalking About Gender and the Power of Dialogue

Gender issues have been making some serious waves these past few months. A woman from Columbia University joined college students around the country to make sexual assault on college campuses front-page news by carrying the mattress she was assaulted on around campus. Twitter conversations surrounding #yesallwomen and #notallmen, with over a million tweets, started a nationwide discussion in the aftermath of the horrific shooting in Santa Barbara. Most recently, these conversations have culminated in a video calling out the reality of catcalling.

The video, “10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman,” has since garnered over 34 million views and sparked a national conversation with implications for race, violence against women, affirmative consent, and even gun issues.

Clearly, these subjects have hit a nerve across the United States and are starting discussions at every level of our communities. Some (like this Daily Show segment with Jessica Williams) have been incredibly well received, but many have also been full of fear and hatred. So it doesn’t just matter that these conversations happen – it matters how they happen. Just like every discussion where people feel forced to defend their identity or debate a belief or value system, these are the types of conversations that can go downhill quickly.

So let’s start thinking about what we can do to build a better conversation around gender.

Ask the Right Questions

First, we can learn how to ask questions that promote curiosity and connection between people. So far, I have seen people speak, almost exclusively, at one another, instead of with one another. Rather than seeking to understand the experience of another person these conversations have centered on one gender trying to convince another gender of the validity of his or her experience and personhood. A recent CNN segment exemplifies this lack of curiosity. Here are two things that were actually said in this eight-minute segment:

Steve to Amanda: “I’m more of an expert than you, and I’ll tell you why: because I’m a guy and I know how we think…You would not care if all these guys were hot…they would be bolstering your self-esteem…There is nothing more that a women likes to hear than how pretty she is.”

Amanda to Steve: “You, as a man – what your problem is – is that you really should just be embracing and welcoming to the fact that women are saying, ‘hey, we don’t like this,’ not arguing why we shouldn’t. If we say we don’t like it, and we are demonstrating that, then you …should be saying, ‘then let’s discuss how you can feel more comfortable.’”

So often, we try to inform other people what they should think or believe, rather than asking them why they think as they do. We don’t seek to understand or fully appreciate another person as complex, beyond ideas of gender

Work on Listening

Second, we can become better listeners. At Public Conversations, we call this “listening with resilience,” and after just two months working here, I love that phrase. It means going beyond jumping to your next defense or rebuttal to some horrific thing another person just said. Listening with resilience asks us to not just ask the right questions to expand the conversation beyond “yes all women” and “not all men,” but then to actually listen to what the other person tells us – even if it’s difficult to hear.

Finding a Common Humanity

We have spent twenty-five years developing a process to help people have such conversations in a way that they feel heard and understood, while at the same time seeking to hear and understand more about other people. When it comes to issues like gender – which can touch the core of our identities – we should use conversations as an opportunity to better understand this conflict and polarization. Dialogue doesn’t have to be about convincing someone or finding common ground – sometimes, it is enough to simply look for common humanity. And wouldn’t that be a great place to start?

If you want to delve further into these three tools to create better conversations, we welcome you to join us next month for a three day training where you’ll learn about our approach and have an opportunity to practice using it. Join us for The Power of Dialogue and register here: http://publicconversations.org/workshops/power-dialogue.

You can find the original version of this Public Conversations Project blog post at http://blog.publicconversations.org/talking-about-gender-and-the-power-of-dialogue/#.VGWRj_nF8lo

The Gift of Not Giving

Posted on by
Reply

One thing most people don’t need is more stuff.

While there are, of course, many members of our society in desperate need of basic items, but those of us fortunate to have a middle class lifestyle generally have more than we need already.

I’ll save a diatribe on luxury goods for another day – stuff, you see, is a category all of its own.

It’s not a new pair of shoes or the latest gadget. It’s those miscellaneous items you don’t know what to do with but which you can’t bring yourself to throw out because they’re still in good condition or you hope they might be useful someday.

I have a whole box of miscellaneous wires.

I have a plastic lizard I’ve had since I was 10.

I have old protest signs, tchotchkes from miscellaneous events and many, many things that I’m not quite sure where they even came from.

There might be things I need, but I don’t need more stuff.

And yet…

I’ll be out and about town and I’ll see something that makes me think of someone. Wouldn’t they enjoy that? I think. Wouldn’t that be a nice gift? And then I get distracted. In a bout of temporary insanity, I mysteriously transform into the consumer capitalism wants me to be, and all I can think about is how I should really spend money on this random, ultimately worthless item that isn’t worth the tree needed for its packaging.

So I try to have an intervention with myself. Is it really something the person needs? Perhaps they would be glad to receive a gift, but in a year, would they find it in a dusty corner and find themselves straining to remember where it came from?

Nobody needs that.

But rather than just walk away, my new strategy is this: I tell people what I don’t get them.

I’ll see something amazing that my niece would love – a person-sized dinosaur, perhaps – and I’ll text my sister. I didn’t just buy this for you!

Sometimes I’ll take a picture.

And ultimately, this accomplishes everything it needs to – the person knows you were thinking about them, you mutually enjoyed the item’s existence, and then you moved on. No space or money wasted. It’s very environmental.

I like giving practical gifts, sure, but stuff?

Who needs it.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

top 8 takeaways about young voters and the 2014 election

Posted on by
Reply

In lieu of a post of my own, here are CIRCLE’s eight summary points about youth voting in 2014:

Each election year, the headlines about youth voters tend to be the same. The relatively low turnout rate is usually lamented, and sometimes there is some analysis of whether one party (usually the Democrats) benefited from youth support. But it is important to see complexities and derive subtler lessons. Here are our eight takeaways from the 2014 election, each of which suggests only the beginning of a story about young people and politics.

#8. Youth turnout in 2014 election was around 21.5%.

Our estimate of youth turnout in 2014 (based on the Exit Polls and the number of votes counted two days after the election) is 21.5% of youth. In other words, about one in five young adults who were eligible to vote did vote.

#7. Turnout of youth in 2014 was pretty standard, and comparable to previous midterms.

Voter turnout among all age groups is lower in midterm elections when compared to presidential election years. The drop has been consistently more pronounced among young people, so that midterm elections are best compared to previous midterm elections. By that standard, 2014 was highly typical, right near the average for the last 20 years. Note that some analysts are estimating that 2014 was the worst turnout year for the population as whole since 1940.

#6. Midterm exit polls don’t define a generation.

It is unwise to draw generation-wide conclusions based on 21.5% of youth. For example, as indicated in the graph below, while young people with a bachelor’s degree or higher make up 20% of the overall young citizen population, they made up 40% of voters in 2014. It is likely that the non-voters held somewhat different opinions of issues and candidates from the voters.

#5. Neither party has a lock on 18-to-24 year olds.

There has been some discussion of a possible shift to the right among the latest cohort of Millennials. The oldest Millennials were first-time voters during the 2004 election, so their formative experience was the George W. Bush Administration. People turning 18 in 2014 are fully ten years younger and have come of age under Barack Obama. It would stand to reason that their views would be different.

Small differences do emerge by age among the young voters who participated this year, but the differences indicate both more liberal and more conservative attitudes with slightly more of the latter. Comparing youth who voted in 2010 and 2014, there is no clear sign of a shift.

In the past few election cycles, people have been more likely to vote Democratic the younger they are. In 2010, there was a substantial gap in preferences for House candidates between voters under 30 and those 30 or older. In 2014, the gap seemed to fall around age 45. Compared to 2010, voters under 30 were one percentage point less likely to vote Democratic this year, but voters between 30 and 44 were four points more likely to vote Democratic. It could be the case that some of the youthful Democratic voters of 2004 and 2008 are still voting Democratic as they enter their 30s. There was no difference at all in partisan preference between the 18-24s and the 18-29s.

In some respects, the youngest cohort might be seen as somewhat more liberal than older Millennials, and considerably more so than voters 30 and older.

  • On abortion, the 18-24 and the 18-29s held similar views (59% and 60% favoring legal abortion), while to a lesser degree the older age groups were for legal abortion.
  • Asked whether they believed that immigrants should have a path to citizenship, the strongest support came from 18-24s (71%) followed by 18-29s (68%), compared to 57% of all voters.
  • On the general question of whether government should do more to solve problems, there was a steep age gradient. Fifty-three percent of 18-24s but only 35% of 60+ voters agreed. The 18-24s were slightly more favorable than the 18-29s.

Yet members of this younger cohort were less likely to report being enthusiastic or satisfied with the president and his administration than the overall youth voting bloc (42% vs 45%) and were more likely to cast their vote as a sign of opposition to the president (26% vs. 22%). Offered a choice between Hillary Clinton and an unnamed Republican presidential candidate in 2016, young people who voted in 2014 were more likely to answer “It depends” than other age groups. However, compared to 18-29s, 18-24s were also more likely to indicate that they would vote for the Republican candidate in 2016 (36% vs. 31%) and they were slightly more likely indicate a preference for a candidate like Rick Perry than Rand Paul in 2016 than the overall youth voting cohort.

#4. More differences emerge among youth by race and ethnicity.

While 54% of youth (18-29) nationally voted for Democratic House candidates, significant differences consistently emerge by race and ethnicity. In both 2010 and 2014, Black and Latino youth were considerably more likely to choose Democratic House candidates than White youth were. In 2014, White youth gave a majority to the Republicans in House races (54% to 43%).

Slightly more than a majority of young men and women of color who voted considered themselves to be Democrats. After Democrats, young Latinos who voted were next-most likely to identify as Independent/other, and 22% of Latinas who voted identified with the GOP.

#3. Gender also matters.

While White youth looked more conservative than people of color in 2014, White women approved of Congress and President Obama at a higher rate than White men. At the same time, White women were slightly more likely to see the Republican Party favorably than White men were (54% vs.49%), but largely split their vote between parties (50% for Republicans in House races, 47% for Democrats), while young white men overwhelmingly supported House Republican candidates (58% vs. 39%). Young White men were more likely to identify as Independents (40%) followed closely by GOP (36%), while young White women’s top choice was the GOP (41%), and 30% identified themselves as Independents.

Forty-six percent of young voters in 2014 felt that Secretary Clinton would make a good president, compared to 49% who did not. Thirty-two percent said they would vote for her in 2016, 31% for “the Republican candidate”, and 35% said “it depends.” Thirty-seven percent of White men who voted in 2014 said that Secretary Clinton would make a good president, compared to 48% of White women. (Unfortunately, sample sizes were too small to estimate responses to this question for people of color by gender.)

#2. Youth propensity for being independent poses a conundrum for political parties and democracy

While party identification among youth who voted in the 2010 or 2014 election has not changed dramatically, a larger issue for parties is how to draw in youth who are not already affiliated. Even among voters in 2014, 33% identified as Independents or “something else” (as compared to 37% who were Democrats and 31% who were Republicans). Young voters were split in their opinion of the Democratic Party and slightly more were unfavorable to the Republican Party. Gallup polling suggests that close to half of 18-29 year olds identify as Independent. The Pew Research political typology released earlier this year shows a considerable proportion of youth part of the independent, “Young Outsiders” group.

Since party affiliation is related to voter turnout, the lack of identification among youth poses problems for parties as well as future democratic participation.

#1. Missing Mobilization?

We know from previous research that outreach and mobilization of youth does have an impact on turnout. Yet, in 2014, young people were the age group least likely to be contacted, according to Pew Research data from October. The reason that youth turnout was comparable to previous midterm years may be that there was no more outreach this year. In 2010, 11.3 million youth were registered to vote but did not cast a ballot, and many of those were not contacted. To raise the level of youth electoral participation, we can give more attention to drastic gaps among youth.

The post top 8 takeaways about young voters and the 2014 election appeared first on Peter Levine.

Public Agenda Partners with WNYC Public Radio

Posted on by
Reply

PublicAgenda-logoWe are very excited to share that our friends at Public Agenda, an NCDD member organization, recently announced that they have formed a new partnership with WNYC, the premier public radio broadcaster in New York. The partnership is the inaugural project for PA´s new Deborah Wadsworth Fund, and will be aimed at really understanding what issues New Yorkers are thinking about:

Through focus groups and a major survey, Public Agenda and WNYC will illuminate the concerns, priorities and aspirations of local residents when it comes to the public policy issues our region faces. The research will place a special emphasis on those issues that residents most want to have a voice in and where they feel their personal input and involvement is most needed.

Findings from the research will be released in the second half of 2015 in a public report, and will inform programming on The Brian Lehrer Show and other WNYC programs. As such, we view the research not as a set of conclusions, but rather a means to spark conversations that can help the public work together with civic leaders and public officials on solutions to our most pressing challenges.

There has long been a powerful potential for collaborations between D&D organizations like PA and public media – especially public radio – and we are so pleased to see this partnership taking shape. The focus groups and survey research will only be the beginning:

The research will help Public Agenda and WNYC pull out the topics that matter most to residents, set a frame for discussion of those topics based on what residents have to say about them, and host public dialogue on them.

“This collaboration will elevate the priorities of the public in our area and promote dialogue about what they care about, rather than let partisan politics or interest groups set the agenda,” said [Public Agenda President Will] Friedman about the partnership… The results of the research will guide subsequent on-the-ground work in the New York region.

We congratulate Public Agenda and WNYC on starting this important work, and we are looking forward to hearing more about it as it moves forward and starts to produce results!

You can learn more from the original announcement about the project on Public Agenda´s blog by visiting www.publicagenda.org/blogs/new-wnyc-partnership-will-engage-new-yorkers-on-their-top-concerns.

Ripple Effect Mapping: A “Radiant” Way to Capture Program Impacts

Posted on by
Reply

A group of leaders in college extension programs created a participatory group process designed to document the results of Extension educational efforts within complex, real-life settings. The method, known as Ripple Effect Mapping, uses elements of Appreciative Inquiry, mind mapping, and qualitative data analysis to engage program participants and other community stakeholders to reflect upon and visually map the intended and unintended changes produced by Extension programming. The result is not only a powerful technique to document impacts, but a way to engage and re-energize program participants.

Ripple Effect Mapping can be used to help unearth and document the divergent outcomes that result from dialogue and deliberation programs.

This article in the Journal of Extension was published in October 2012 (Volume 50, Number 5). Authors include Debra Hansen Kollock of Stevens County Extension, Lynette Flage of North Dakota State University Extension, Scott Chazdon of University of Minnesota Extension, Nathan Paine of the University of Minnesota, and Lorie Higgins of the University of Idaho.

Introduction

Evaluating the changes in groups, organizations, or communities resulting from Extension programming is difficult and challenging (Smith & Straughn, 1983), yet demonstrating impacts is critical for continued investment (Rennekamp & Arnold, 2009).

Ripple Effect Mapping (REM), is a promising method for conducting impact evaluation that engages program and community stakeholders to retrospectively and visually map the “performance story” (Mayne, 1999; Baker, Calvert, Emery, Enfield, & Williams, 2011) resulting from a program or complex collaboration. REM employs elements of Appreciative Inquiry, mind mapping, and qualitative data analysis.

REM was used to conduct an impact analysis of the Horizons program, an 18-month community-based program delivered to strengthen leadership to reduce poverty. The method (Kollock, 2011) was piloted in Washington, Idaho, and North Dakota Horizons communities to illustrate outcomes of the program over time. While there were minor process variations in each state, the REM technique in all three states utilized maps to illustrate to community members what was accomplished as well as furthered their enthusiasm for taking action on issues.

Background

Historically, the standard approach for impact evaluation has been experimental research. Yet critics of experimental approaches emphasize that these designs are often politically unfeasible and yield very little useful information on a program’s implementation or its context (Patton, 2002).

REM, an example of qualitative methodology based on open-ended group interviewing, provides “respectful attention to context” (Greene, 1994: 538) and better addresses the concerns of program stakeholders. The participatory group aspect of this method engages participants and others to produce high-quality evaluation data and increases the likelihood of future collective action.

REM is a form of mind mapping, a diagramming process that represents connections hierarchically (Eppler, 2006:203). A fundamental concept behind REM is radiant thinking (Buzan, 2003), which refers to the brain’s associative thought processes that derive from a central point and form links between integrated concepts (Wheeler & Szymanski, 2005; Bernstein, 2000). This makes REM an ideal tool for brainstorming, memorizing, and organizing.

Description of the Method

The steps involved in Ripple Effect Mapping are:

  1. Identifying the intervention: REM is best conducted for in-depth program interventions or collaborations that are expected to produce broad or deep changes in a group, organization, or community.
  2. Scheduling the event and inviting participants: The REM process includes both direct program participants and non-participant stakeholders. This latter group offers a unique perspective and a form of external validation to verify the “performance stories” of program participants. Ultimately, a group of eight to 15 participants is ideal.
  3. Appreciative Inquiry Interviews: At the beginning of the REM event, participants are paired up and instructed to interview each other about particular ways the program affected their lives or particular achievements or successes they have experienced as a result of the program (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2007).
  4. Mapping: The core of the session involves group mapping, using Mind Mapping software (Donaldson, 2010) or papers and tape on a wall, to brainstorm and hierarchically map the effects or “ripples” of the intervention. This process engages the entire group and provides opportunities for participants to make connections among program effects. The process is co-led by a facilitator and a “mapper” and is typically completed in one to two hours.
  5. Cleaning, Coding, and Analysis: After the session, the evaluator may need to reorganize the mind map and collect additional detail by interviewing other participants. The data produced in the mapping process can be downloaded into a spreadsheet program and coded in a variety of ways. For example, the “ripples” can be coded as short-term knowledge, skill, or attitude changes; medium-term behavior changes; and long-term changes in conditions. Furthermore, these changes in conditions can be coded using the Community Capitals Framework (Emery & Flora, 2006; Rasmussen, Armstrong, & Chazdon, 2011).

Benefits and Limitations

REM is:

  • Simple and cheap. Mind mapping software is available for free or at low cost. It is efficient to gather participants together for one face-to-face meeting rather than to conduct individual interviews.
  • Able to capture impacts of complex work. The technique successfully documents both intended and unintended effects of Extension work. For example, Extension programming often succeeds at building social capital (trust and connections among people). This method allows participants to describe the connections they’ve built as well as what these connections led to.
  • An effective communication tool. The visual nature of ripple maps makes them very useful as a tool to share program effects with stakeholders such as funders or local officials.
  • Motivating. As REM engages participants and stakeholders, it also creates positive energy for further collective action.

The limitations of REM are the risk of bias in participant selection and in data collection. The assembled participants may not have complete information about all the outcomes of a program and may not provide examples of negative consequences. One way to overcome these limitations is to conduct supplementary interviews with additional stakeholders after the session has been completed and to probe for negative consequences during the session.

Example with Map

Figure 1 shows a portion of one community’s Ripple Effect Map from the Horizons program. This section of a map features examples of first, second, and third order “ripples” from the program. The map illustrates the Fort Yates Horizons program, which conducted a study circles conversation that then led to community garden development. The community garden project spurred the town to a Native Garden partnership with the Tribe, which ultimately led to significant grants to support cultural understanding and assist those with limited resources.

Figure 1.
A Segment of a Ripple Effect Map

RippleEffectMap-mindmapimage

Conclusion

REM is a useful tool for impact analysis of Extension programming and may be particularly well suited for complex interventions or collaborations. Compared with other methods, it is straightforward, cost effective, and, most important, has the potential to generate further movement towards group, organizational, or community goals. We invite program staff and evaluators in other states to try this method out and engage with us in dialogue about the many uses, benefits, and limitations of this approach.

References

Baker, B., Calvert, M., Emery, M., Enfield, R., & Williams, B. (2011). Mapping the impact of youth on community development: What are we learning? [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from: http://ncrcrd.msu.edu/uploads/files/133/Mapping%20Impact%20of%20Youth%20on%20Com%20Dev%2012-3-10.pdf

Bernstein, D. A., Clarke-Stewart, A., Penner, L.A., Roy, E. J., & Wickens, C. D. (2000). Psychology (5th ed.) Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company.

Buzan, T. (2003). The mind map book. London: BBC Books.

Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2007). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in change. Pp. 73-88 in P. Holman & T. Devane (eds.), The Change Handbook, 2nd edition. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Donaldson J. (2010). Getting acquainted with free software. Journal of Extension [On-line], 48(3) Article 3TOT7. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2010june/tt7.php

Emery, M., & Flora, C. B. (2006). Spiraling-up: Mapping community transformation with community capitals framework. Community Development: Journal of the Community Development Society 37(1), 19-35.

Eppler, M. J. (2006). A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing. Information Visualization 5:202-210.

Greene, J. C. (1994). Qualitative program evaluation: Practice and promise. Pp. 530-544 in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S., eds. Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kollock, D. A. (2011). Ripple effects mapping for evaluation. Washington State University curriculum. Pullman, WA.

Mayne, J. (1999). Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: Using performance measures sensibly. Retrieved from: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/99dp1_e.pdf

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. London: Sage Publications.

Rasmussen, C., Armstrong, J., & Chazdon, S. (2011). Bridging Brown County: Captivating social capital as a means to community change. Journal of Leadership Education 10(1):63-82.

Rennekamp, R., & Arnold, M. (2009). What progress, program evaluation? Reflections on a quarter-century of Extension evaluation practice. Journal of Extension [On-line], 47(3) Article 3COM1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2009june/comm1.php

Smith, M. F., & Straughn, A. A. (1983). Impact evaluation: A challenge for Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 21(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1983september/83-5-a9.pdf

Wheeler, R., & Szymanski, M. (2005). What is forestry: A multi-State, Web-based forestry education program. Journal of Extension [On-line], 43(4) Article 4IAW3. Available from: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005august/iw3.php

Resource Link: http://www.joe.org/joe/2012october/tt6.php

What is the Primary Goal of Higher Education?

Posted on by
Reply

What is the core purpose of higher education? To educate, perhaps, but education to what end?

Tisch College Dean Alan D. Solomont answered that question today in a new op-ed reflecting on the White House Summit on Civic Learning and National Service which, as I mentioned, my office recently hosted.

As his op-ed describes:

While the [1947 Truman Commission on Higher Education for Democracy] stated that educating for democracy “should come first … among the principal goals for higher education,” today, society asks colleges and universities to prepare individuals for jobs in a cost-effective and accessible way. That is an important mission in a global economy, but there is a striking gap between 1947 rhetoric and today’s more narrow focus on education for individual economic success.

To modern sensibilities perhaps the idea of “education for democracy” sounds quaint, or perhaps simply idealistic. We’re living in a rough-and-tumble global economy. We face a skills gap. A wage gap. We are desperately trying to adjust to rapidly shifting industries and we are painfully aware that at any moment jobs might go overseas.

Education for democracy might be nice, but workforce development means survival.

There is a reasonableness to that argument, yet it feel oddly hollow and uncompelling.

Nearly half of all young people have no college experience, and, unless we want to consider making higher education free and accessible to all, than it is simply unconscionable to maintain a system that serves to improve economic prosperity for select participants.

Education for democracy – which everyone should have access to from Kindergarten right on up – has a different vision.

This approach imagines a society where everyone has the awareness to see and understand society’s problems, and everyone has the agency to do something about it. A society where people of differing views can hold civil conversations, pushing each other to be better and working to co-create solutions.

Education for democracy isn’t about improving the life of one student, or improving the lives of select students. It is about enriching all our lives, it is about actively, fundamentally, and collectively improving our communities.

The idea is neither quaint, nor idealistic. Indeed – education for democracy is about survival.

If we every hope to be the Just, Free, and Equal society we aspire to be, we must educate our young people not only to espouse these views, but to demonstrate them.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail