states are implementing the C3 Civics Framework

Posted on March 17, 2015 by Peter

[Cross-posted from the CIRCLE site] In 2013, the National Council for the Social Studies published the C3 Framework for the Social Studies. The C3 is not a prescriptive set of standards, but a guide for states as they revise their own standards and other regulations, frameworks, and laws that govern social studies. It is intended to make the social studies more coherent, more challenging, and better aligned with what citizens need to learn and do.

One of the most innovative features of the C3 is its culminating “dimension”: Taking Informed Action. I chaired the civics writing team of the C3, and the Framework was influenced by CIRCLE’s accumulated research on k-12 civics, going back to 2001. The civics standards are consistent with the recommendations of the Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools and its founding document, the Civic Mission of Schools report (organized by CIRCLE and Carnegie Corporation of New York in 2003). The “Taking Informed Action” dimension was also informed by the National Action Civics Collaborative, of which CIRCLE was a co-founder.

States and some large districts are now using the C3. Some refer to their process as “adoption,” but it always involves a great deal of customization to their circumstances and interests. For example:

Arkansas recently revised its social studies curriculum frameworks, which will be implemented in August 2015. The revision committee used the C3 Framework, among other sources, and the revised documents are all aligned to the C3 Framework.
Connecticut’s Board of Education adopted new social studies frameworks in February 2015, based on the C3.
The District of Columbia has revised its Scope and Sequence for K-12 social studies to incorporate indicators from the C3 Framework, has provided professional development aligned with the C3, is developing assessments that incorporate C3 outcomes, and has adjusted its Building Literacy in Social Studies (BLISS) program to explicitly incorporate elements of the C3 Framework.
Hawaii’s Department of Education is formally considering adopting the C3.
Illinois State Superintendent Christopher Koch began a process of updating the state’s history and social science standards in 2014 and asked for the social sciences to be guided by the C3. As Tom Chorneaureports, ”A big part of the revision in Illinois will focus on civics learning, as the standards task force organized by the superintendent will be led by the Illinois Civic Mission Coalition.”
In Kentucky, a writing team has been drafting Social Studies Standards for the Next Generation. They are drawing on the the C3 Framework, the Global Competence Matrix, and 21^st Century Skills for Teaching and Learning, among other documents. They hope to present the results to the Kentucky Board of Education in April for consideration of implementation next school year.
Maryland has begun writing a new Maryland Social Studies Framework for pre-k-12 based on the C3 Framework. Maryland is also using C3 in professional development.
New York State’s Board of Regents has adopted a new K-12 Social Studies Framework that draws explicitly on C3. New York also provides a C3 Toolkit helpful for people implementing at any level, from their classroom to a state.
North Carolina will not begin its regular revision of social studies standards until 2015-2016, but the state is using the C3 as a curriculum framework and has conducted professional development to help teachers use it.

As we have previously written, adoption of the C3 Framework is a positive step toward improving civic education in our schools. The lessons learned from its implementation and, eventually, its impact on students will inform criticalongoing debates about how to best educate informed and engaged youth.

The post states are implementing the C3 Civics Framework appeared first on Peter Levine.

Learning from SUNY Racial Justice Deliberations

Posted on March 17, 2015 by Roshan Bliss

Our partners with the National Issues Forums Institute recently shared an interesting piece from SUNY Professor Scott Corely on his experiences hosting NIFI-style deliberations about racial and ethnic justice on campus. He shares rich insights and lessons that many of us could learn from, so we encourage you to read his piece below or to find the original NIFI post here.

A Report about Racial and Ethnic Justice Deliberations at SUNY Broome Community College

Overview and Explanation

In 2013, I began thinking about how civic engagement efforts can be eloquently, deliberately, and effectively combined with efforts aimed at promoting racial justice. Eventually I decided to update and modify NIFI’s Racial and Ethnic Tensions: What Should We Do? (published in 2000) so as to update the statistical information, include current events stories, and re-frame the guide away from “reducing tensions” to “promoting justice.” The revised deliberation guide utilized concepts drawn broadly from social justice, peace studies, and racial justice literature and specifically from the pedagogy of Intergroup Dialogue.

The frames are as follows:

Approach 1: Address racial and ethnic injustice and inequality on institutional and structural levels
Approach 2: Reduce racial and ethnic injustice by extensively encouraging education / training programs
Approach 3: Address racial and ethnic problems on an individual level

The fruits of my labor resulted in a 26 page deliberation guide (that still contains a good amount of text from the original version), a moderator’s guide, and a placemat. I’ve ran this deliberation on a very experimental basis involving only a handful of people twice for about an hour in the spring semester of 2014. More in-depth deliberations then took place the next academic year starting in the fall, 2014 in my Social Problems class, at an adjunct training conference, and for 25 VISTA and Americorps volunteers for 2-1/2 hours who participated in the discussion for anti-racism training purposes.

On February 17th, I ran this deliberation at SUNY Broome again with 24 attendees, half of whom were students and the other half BCC faculty and staff, for 3 hours. On February 18th, I ran this deliberation at Binghamton University, which is one of the state university’s flagship institutions, with approximately 40 students for 1-1/2 hours.

Initial Observations

My initial, and most important, observation is that the modified framework is effective. The 3 approaches “flow” into one another eloquently as they are relatively distinctive, but interconnected ways to address racial and ethnic injustice. I was pleased to notice how participants were able to discuss the approaches in and of themselves, but not without somehow referring to issues and concepts connected to the other 2 approaches. With good moderation, deliberation participants can clearly understand the major ideas associated with race, racism, and racial justice, but in relationship to advantages, drawbacks, tensions, and tradeoffs connected to various courses of action. Overall, I observed rich and informative conversations.

To increase the chances of executing this deliberation successfully, it seems vital that, similar to other deliberations, the run-time be at least 2 hours and audience (participant) composition should be as diverse as possible in every measure. I also believe that while discussion moderators need not be “experts” in social justice, cultural competency, or the like, moderation skills would no doubt be enhanced with a certain level of familiarity with major concepts and terminology associated with racial justice work. And in order to increase the chances that potential discussion participants can draw on the same information, have a base-line understanding of the topic, and are able to use the same language effectively, the modified discussion guide also needs to be shortened.

Future Efforts

Currently, there are plans to run this deliberation in SUNY BCC’s residence halls and at Binghamton University within the next few weeks. I will also have the opportunity to have SUNY BCC students deliberate about this topic using the modified Racial Justice guide in a criminal justice class, a public policy class, and during a student club general meeting. In the spirit of expanding the use of this deliberation beyond Broome County, I have hopes that New York Campus Compact and/or the State University of New York Diversity and Inclusion Taskforce may help provide incentives, encouragement, and infrastructure for other SUNY campuses to run this forum.

It may also be noteworthy to point out that I will begin developing another discussion guide on minority communities and law enforcement. With another colleague, I am organizing a panel discussion and open forum on March 5th which I will use to begin acquiring initial data to develop the framework. The panelists include a member of City Council, a police chief, a member of the NACCP, and an ACLU branch director.

The link contains more information and news coverage of the racial justice deliberation at SUNY BCC on February 17th: www.wicz.com/news2005/viewarticle.asp?a=37040.

The following link contains a brief newspaper article used for advertising purposes for the deliberation at SUNY BCC: www.pressconnects.com/story/news/2015/02/17/racial-issue-event-broome/23549099.

You can find the original version of this piece on the NIFI website at www.nifi.org/en/groups/scott-corley-report-about-racial-and-ethnic-justice-deliberations-suny-broome-community.

Outliers

Posted on March 16, 2015 by Sarah Shugars

“Big data” is all the rage.

As if all the knowledge of the universe is somehow encoded there, just waiting to be mapped like the genome.

Don’t get me wrong, big data is very exciting. Our social science models are more accurate, our marketing more creepy. Big data is helping us understand the world just a little bit better. And that is fantastic.

But perhaps there’s something more valuable to be gleaned from all this big data.
As Brooke Foucault Welles, Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at Northeastern, argues, “honoring the experiences of extreme statistical minorities represents one of Big Data’s most exciting scientific possibilities.”

At last we have datasets large enough to capture the “outlier” experience, large enough to truly explore and understand the “outlier” experience.

Why is this important?

As Welles describes:

When women and minorities are excluded as subjects of basic social science research, there is a tenancy to identify majoring experiences as “normal,” and discuss minority experiences in terms of how they deviate from those norms. In doing so, women, minorities, and the statistically underrepresented are problematically written into the margins of social science, discussed only in terms of their differences, or else excluded altogether.

There has been much coverage of how medical trials are largely unrepresentative of women – with one study finding less than one-quarter of all patients enrolled in 46 examined clinical trials were women.

This gender bias has been shown to be detrimental, with Anaesthetist Anita Holdcroft arguing in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, that the “evidence basis of medicine may be fundamentally flawed because there is an ongoing failure of research tools to include sex differences in study design and analysis.”

We should insist on parity in medical research and we should settle for nothing else when it comes to the social sciences.

People who deviate from the so-called norm – whether women, people of color, or just those that experience the world differently – these people aren’t outliers. They aren’t anomalies to be polished away from immaculate datasets.

They are the rare pearls you can only find by looking.

And “big data” provides an emerging venue for finding them.

how Millennials get news

Posted on March 16, 2015 by Peter

Here are some tidbits from How Millennials Get News: Inside the habits of America’s first digital generation, released today by the American Press Institute and the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. The sample was 1,046 adults between the ages of 18 and 34.

85% “Say keeping up with the news is at least somewhat important to them.”
Their three most common online activities are email, checking the weather or travel information, and “keeping up with what’s going on in the world,” which 68% do at least daily.
More than half (57%) say they followed the news to be informed citizens. Tied at 53% are two other reasons: finding the news entertaining and liking to talk to other people about the news. These recreational/social motivations must be considered when trying to expand the audience for news.
Of the news topics that they follow, national politics comes 9th (with 43% following it) and “city, town and neighborhood” comes 11th. At the top of the list are news about pop culture (66%), hobbies (61%) and traffic and weather (51%).
Most turn to professional news sources for serious topics, from national politics and local news to crime and health. For religion and faith and social issues, they go to social media.
40% have a paid news subscription, and nearly 30% have a print newspaper subscription (if you combine people who subscribe themselves with those who benefit from someone else’s subscription).
About 36% have delved deeply recently into a hard news topic, such as national politics. When they do that, overwhelmingly they search the web for information. Only 7% go to Facebook and 4% to Wikipedia.
70% say that they see opinions that both confirm and challenge their own views on social media. I don’t think we can tell whether they are seeing truly diverse views or only views that diverge in some respects from their own.
Those who are less active seekers of news are more likely to encounter diverse views. It may be that people who are most engaged with the news also tend to be ideological and go to trusted sources, in contrast to people who just “bump into the news” through social contacts. The latter, then, are more likely to see views that challenge their own. (This finding is consistent with the inverse relationship between diversity and engagement that we also see in the work of Diana Mutz, David Campbell, and Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg and me.)

The post how Millennials get news appeared first on Peter Levine.

3 Tips on Preparing for Dialogue from PCP

Posted on March 16, 2015 by Roshan Bliss

We encourage you to check out one of the most recent pieces from the Public Conversations Project, an NCDD organizational member, on key things to keep in mind about the importance of being preparation before dialogue. You can read the piece from PCP’s blog below or find the original here.

Preparation: Three Lessons from George Mitchell in Northern Ireland

George Mitchell didn’t enter Northern Ireland as a peacemaker. In February of 1995, President Clinton appointed him to a trade mission, meant to last until the end of the year. Rather than dedicating himself solely to policy, he spent his time building relationships, learning about the context in Northern Ireland, and earning the trust of all with whom he worked.

Before the end of his appointment, authorities from Britain and Northern Ireland accepted Mitchell as one of three chairmen on an international commission on the disarmament of paramilitary organizations. Of the work the three chairmen would do over the next two and a half years, they would spend a comparatively small amount of time, only seven months, in substantive negotiations.

What distinguishes Mitchell’s work? A model of preparation applicable in all levels of dialogue.

Over the course of months, Mitchell and his team created a series of documents based on their preparatory conversations that would guide the peace process. Similar to the framework of our flagship workshop, Power of Dialogue, these included ground rules, guidelines for conduct, an agenda for the opening plenary session, and terms of reference for the proceedings. Through this preparation, the parties voluntarily appointed Mitchell as chairman of the plenary sessions, and began to trust that he would act as a confidential and impartial facilitator of the ten parties involved – the British and Irish governments and eight Northern Ireland political parties.

In his account of the proceedings, Mitchell recognized, “Ultimately my ability to be effective would depend more upon my gaining the participants’ trust and confidence than on the formal description of my authority.” In spite of reoccurring violence, threats, attacks on his credibility, and leaks to the press, George Mitchell’s peace process plugged along, in no small part because of the framework and foundation he created with thorough preparation. The preparation did not minimize the divergences among the parties, nor did it attempt to begin building a solution. But preparation for any conversation – from a roommate conflict to a political conflict – can be invaluable.

As you begin to prepare for your dialogue, here are three things you can learn from George Mitchell:

1. Listen.

In his account of the process, Mitchell said, “For the two years of negotiations, I listened and listened, and then I listened some more.” Begin to understand what the people involved in your dialogue want to talk about. Ultimately, this is their dialogue and you are there to serve their purposes.

Feedback and information from party leaders directly informed everything from ground rules to the chairman and the agenda. Mitchell spoke at length with the British government as well as the representatives of North Ireland’s groups before beginning the dialogue to understand the full complexity of the conflict. (Granted the ramifications of this agreement would have an effect on British constitutional law, the Irish Constitution, and governance of Northern Ireland… but the principles are the same if the only effect is on house rules in a college dorm.)

2. Take the opportunity to ask the right questions.

At Public Conversations, we focus our preparation on questions that will equip the participants to participate in the dialogue as much as possible, such as: What would allow you to feel safe in these discussions? What would inhibit you from participating in these discussions? What are you afraid of? What do you hope to achieve if all goes well? Who are you responsible for and what do they think?

From the responses you gather, these conversations can help inform your structure of the meeting and the rules that guide it.

3. Don’t forget to build relationships.

As a facilitator, you are responsible for holding the participants of a dialogue to their rules and their process. To do so, they must trust you to lead them in an impartial and constructive way. Each participant must trust your confidentiality and your dedication to their purposes.

As the negotiations in Northern Ireland picked up speed, Mitchell writes, “The only people who observed the rule [of confidentiality] were the independent chairmen. I believe that was one reason why the three of us gained the respect of the participants.” And as others began to breach the rule, they looked to Mitchell for guidance.

Preparation has been at the core of Public Conversations work for over 25 years, and we’ve realized many of the same benefits Mitchell did in Northern Ireland. Whether on the international stage or at the office, we all feel the temptation to get to the “actual work” as quickly as possible. But preparation should be prioritized, as it can lay the foundation for a constructive dialogue. So as you strive to use dialogue to encourage connection across painful divides, we hope you consider using these tools to set a foundation for a more effective conversation.

You can find the original version of this Public Conversations Project blog piece by visiting www.publicconversations.org/blog/preparation-three-lessons-george-mitchell-northern-ireland.

The Changing World of Work: What Should We Ask of Higher Education? (NIFI Issue Guide)

Posted on March 16, 2015 by Keiva Hummel

This 11-page Issue Guide from the National Issues Forums Institute, The Changing World of Work: What Should We Ask of Higher Education?, was published January 2015 to help inform participants in deliberation about the current state and future of higher education.

From the guide…

There is a pervasive anxiety in America about the future of higher education. Spiraling costs combined with seismic changes in the American workplace raise questions about whether a bachelor’s degree is still worth the cost. In a recent cover story, Newsweek magazine asked: “Is College a Lousy Investment?” For a growing number of Americans, the answer appears to be yes.

Today’s students accumulate an average of almost $30,000 in debt by the time they graduate. They will go into a job market that looks especially bleak for young people. Many college graduates are unemployed or working minimum-wage jobs. Still more are working in jobs that don’t require a college credential.

Some of the troubles facing new graduates can be attributed to the post-recession economy. But there are larger forces at work that are transforming the nature of employment in America—forces that colleges and universities have been slow to recognize, much less respond to.

The Issue Guide presents three options for deliberation:

Option One: “Prepare Students for the Job Market”
Colleges and universities should tailor their programs to the real needs of employers and direct more of their educational resources toward vocational and pre-professional training.

Option Two: “Educate for Leadership and Change”
Academic institutions should focus on preparing students to become effective citizen leaders—the men and women who will go on to create the jobs of the future, effect change, and build a better society.

Option Three: “Build Strong Communities”
Colleges and universities should harness their power to create jobs, generate business opportunities, provide essential skills, and drive development in their communities and in the region.

More about the NIFI Issue Guides
NIFI’s Issue Guides introduce participants to several choices or approaches to consider. Rather than conforming to any single public proposal, each choice reflects widely held concerns and principles. Panels of experts review manuscripts to make sure the choices are presented accurately and fairly. By intention, Issue Guides do not identify individuals or organizations with partisan labels, such as Democratic, Republican, conservative, or liberal. The goal is to present ideas in a fresh way that encourages readers to judge them on their merit.

Issue Guides are generally available in print or PDF download for a small fee ($2 to $4). All NIFI Issue Guides and associated tools can be accessed at www.nifi.org/en/issue-guides

Follow on Twitter: @NIForums.

Resource Link: www.nifi.org/en/issue-guide/changing-world-work

Network Science

Posted on March 13, 2015 by Sarah Shugars

I am thrilled to share that I’ve been accepted into Northeastern’s Network Science Ph.D. program, and I will begin there full-time this fall.

As the website describes, this “is a new interdisciplinary program that provides the tools and concepts for understanding the structure and dynamics of networks across diverse domains, such as human behavior, socio-technical infrastructures, or biological agents.”

Networks can be seen and understood in a range of different settings. There’s the network of your Facebook friends, and the network of roads that weave through your town. Networks can be used to understand the spread of disease, the narrative of a story, the development of professional knowledge, or the process of a person’s moral reasoning.

I plan to apply Network Science specifically to political science questions. I’m interested in understanding how individuals interact through a network lens; how institutions interact; how individuals in institutions interact; how local, regional, national, and global levels interact –

I could go on.

I’ve been interested in these questions for a long time. I suppose one of the reasons I’ve pursued an interdisciplinary background – my Bachelor’s is in physics and Japanese, my Master’s in marketing – is because no single field seemed to answer all these questions. Or fully seek to address them.

Most disciplines seem to focus on just one way of looking at the world.

As an undergraduate, my Sociology 101 professor said that sociology is like trying to understand the world by looking down on a bustling street. A psychologist watches individuals, a sociologist watches the crowd.

I’m not sure whether others would agree with that assessment, but it always seemed an excellent argument for why psychologists and sociologists ought not to be siloed.

Both perspectives are crucial.

To me, network science is a step back from that level. It’s about seeking understanding both on an individual and collective level. Seeing how things fit together, how they are connected or not connected. Zooming in to a micro level and zooming out to a macro level.

One could easily argue that this approach is still too limiting. In her recent book, Forms, Caroline Levine uses the techniques of literary analysis to argue that the world can be understood through the colliding of different forms, namely: whole, rhythm, hierarchy, and network. So perhaps “networks” are but one of many forms which can help us understand the world.

But I, at least for the time being, think of all those forms in network terms and I’m eager to explore their colliding.

When you slam particles together, surprising things emerge. And when networks collide the result is no less surprising.

So this is a real thing that is happening. And I’m thrilled and humbled to have the opportunity to explore these questions.

And over the next five years, you all can come along for the ride.

How Can Deliberation in Citizens’ Juries Improve?

Posted on March 13, 2015 by Roshan Bliss

We wanted to share another great thought piece from Max Hardy of Max Hardy Consulting, an NCDD organizational member – this time on the ways Citizens’ Juries can be improved. Max’s reflections are based in the Australian context, but plenty of them can apply to these deliberative bodies elsewhere. We encourage you to read his piece below or find the original on his blog by clicking here.

Reflections on the growing trend of using Citizens’ Juries in Australia (and how we might make them even more effective)

It seems that is becoming more common for governments at all levels to entertain random selection of citizens to enable an informed judgment on controversial or complex planning matters (one form being the Citizens’ Jury). As an advocate for, and facilitator of, such processes this is exciting and most welcome. There is a growing weariness with more conventional processes that are dominated by well organised stakeholder groups and ‘hyper-engaged’ individuals; processes which largely fail to engage the so-called silent majority. The NewDemocracy Foundation has been pivotal in promoting and arguing for alternatives and is getting serious traction.

Several years ago I met an academic David Kahane, from University of Alberta, Canada at a conference in Sydney, where we discussed the merits of these emerging deliberative processes, and we thought that a paper could be written describing the rationale for the differing approaches and their advantages and disadvantages. We were soon joined by Jade Herriman, of the Institute of Sustainable Futures in Sydney, Australia, and Kristjana Loptson, also from the University of Alberta. And after several months of research, and another few months of writing, we published our paper, titled Stakeholder and Citizen Roles in Public Deliberation, in the Journal of Public Deliberation.

Since co-authoring this paper I have been involved in several more deliberative processes (for ease I will just refer to them from here on as Citizens’ Juries, though other forms exist such as the Citizens’ Assembly and Citizens’ Initiative Review) and I have been reflecting on the paper we published once again, and felt the need to document some ideas to address some of their perceived or actual limitations. So here goes.

Limitation 1 – Breadth of participation
Citizens’ Juries are recruited through random selection are really effective for allowing a group to deeply dive into a complex issue/topic. Sadly the rest of the community is, at best, observers of the process. The journey the jury experiences is difficult to replicate, so the findings they ultimately reach may not be seen as legitimate by the broader community.

Ideas to improve
A longer engagement process can be used to help inform the deliberative process – for instance, through the use of online engagement. This process could also help to identify other experts who could provide a balanced range of evidence to the jury.

Another idea is to provide the same questions being put to the jury for citizens to arrange their own meetings (BBQs and dinner parties), or to discuss in other established forums or community group meetings (this was an approach used with great success for The Queensland Plan). Responses can be logged online and fed into the citizens’ jury deliberative process.

Live streaming could also be used to invite viewers to frame questions or provide comments in real time. A theme team could cluster the questions and comments and provide them at a particular time to the jury to consider.

Limitation 2 – Stakeholders/experts feeling marginalised
Whilst the jury has an amazing learning experience, stakeholders and experts who give evidence generally provide their evidence, and then leave. Jurors and facilitators often feel that it would have been helpful for stakeholders to hear each other’s evidence, and have the opportunity to learn from each other.

Ideas to improve
Arrange panel sessions where witnesses with different perspectives can share information, and have a conversation with each other, with the jury present to observe. In addition, the jury could access expert witnesses via video conference as they approach their final deliberations with remaining questions. Although by itself this would not assist witnesses/stakeholders to go on the learning journey, it would at least give some clues as to the journey the jury has been on.

A second idea is to include stakeholders/experts/witnesses as a resource group for jurors during their final deliberations.

Yet another idea, and this will be somewhat controversial, is that stakeholders could be included on the jury, but make up no more than one third of the total jurors. (I have been involved in arrangements such as these whereby one third are randomly selected, one third are self selected from those who typically get involved, and one third are invited in to strengthen diversity – e.g., you may not recruit anyone from an indigenous group, or a young person, from the first two cohorts). The principle here is about gaining a reasonable diversity, not about perfection, and the benefit this may have is that groups with very different views may become more understanding of each other’s interests and aspirations.

Limitation 3 – Limited role in framing the ‘charge ‘, or questions to be answered
In most cases the commissioning body, process experts, or a steering committee (or any combination of the above) design the key aspects of the deliberative process. Decisions are made concerning the ‘charge’ or questions being put the jury, the duration of the process, the desired composition of the jury, and the witnesses to be called. For some individuals and groups, this is a reason to be skeptical about the deliberative process and any outcomes from such processes. In particular, if stakeholders do not believe the right question is being put, then the outcome of the process, the jury’s ‘verdict,’ can be irrelevant. When the ‘deliberative design formula’ is seen to be managed tightly by ‘others,’ it can give fuel for mistrust.

When stakeholders have some influence over the process, in my experience, they are generally more accepting or even actively supportive of the outcomes.

Ideas to improve
Consistent with the Twyfords Collaborative Pathway, engaging a cross section of stakeholders in framing the dilemma or charge to be put to the jury can be very useful. It helps to generate questions that are seen as being the important ones to address, and invariably it helps to lay out the extent of the dilemma being faced.

Conclusion and suggested principles
So that is just a few ways that deliberative processes might be strengthened. From my perspective, it is important that we continue to conduct experiments in democracy and to learn from those experiments. The important thing, from my perspective, is not that we apply a proven design, but that we continue to invest in the co-design of the process so that there is a confidence in that process and the outcomes. It is also an opportunity for groups with different values and interests to understand and respect each other more, so that the process itself contributes to a more cohesive community.

It is also important that whatever design we use follows a set of core principles. This would be my list:

The ultimate decision-makers are genuine in wanting the help of citizens and stakeholders/experts to resolve an important issue/ dilemma/ question/ puzzle.
The decision-makers enter the process with the intent of using that advice, to take it very seriously, and to respond publicly if they do not follow the advice given (i.e., the verdict).
Reasonable efforts are made to advise the broader community about the rationale of the process, and there is an attempt to gauge their views, concerns, and aspirations prior to the deliberative process.
The participants of the deliberative process (let’s say, the jurors) have access to a balanced range of information and are not steered toward a particular desired outcome of the commissioning body or the facilitators.
Jurors should be recruited through an independent social research company and independently facilitated.
The jurors have the ability to scrutinize those giving evidence.
The jurors are given reasonable periods of time to process information and then to deliberative over that information.
Jurors must feel confident that they are all actively participating and are not being overwhelmed by powerful personalities.
The commissioning body and stakeholders must be confident that the questions to be posed to the jury are appropriate.
The deliberative process itself should be transparent and recorded.
The deliberative process is designed in such a way that it strengthens a ‘community of interest’ rather than fragmenting it further.

There are probably others, and I’m sure these could be developed further. If you have had experience in deliberative processes that rely on random selection I’d be very keen to hear your thoughts, and your feedback on mine.

You can find the original version of Max’s piece on his blog by visiting www.maxhardy.com.au/reflections-on-the-growing-trend-of-using-citizens-juries-in-australia-and-how-we-might-make-them-even-more-effective.

community organizing between Athens and Jerusalem

Posted on March 12, 2015 by Peter

Mark Readhead weaves the more philosophical arguments of my book We are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For into his recent Polity article entitled “Reasoning between Athens and Jerusalem.” I won’t do justice to Readhead’s complex and subtle position here, but a quick précis would go something like this: Habermas advocates “post-secular public reasoning,” in which both religious believers and non-theists (liberals, scientific naturalists, Kantians, Marxists) open themselves up to real mutual learning. “Secular and religious citizens must meet in their public use of reason at eye level. For a democratic process the contributions of one side are no less important than those of the other side.” But Habermas develops this ideal in ways that actually require the religious to “translate” their views into secular terms while not troubling the secular very much. Furthermore, the philosophical dialogues that Habermas envisions can’t build real solidarity among people who disagree about foundational matters. In accounts of faith-based community organizing by Jeffrey Stout and others, Readhead finds more genuine and promising examples of dialogue that is connected to work and relationships:

Contra Habermas, the actors whom Stout describes promote not an impersonal democratic process, but very personal democratic experiences fuelled by passion. Organizers plan intimate “one-on-one conversations, neighborhood walks, and house meetings,” as well as broader assemblies of diverse constituencies. All of these activities illustrate an under-resourced and under-appreciated genre of politics that Levine has called open-ended politics. Open-ended politics have no predetermined goals. Instead, citizens decide what to do as they work together.

The post community organizing between Athens and Jerusalem appeared first on Peter Levine.

Fierce Assaults on the “Attentional Commons”

Posted on March 12, 2015 by David Bollier

People in tech circles often talk about the “attention economy” with knowing nonchalance. Instead of things being scarce, they note, the real shortage these days is people’s attention. Hence the ferocious drive to capture people’s attention.

This analysis is true as far as it goes. What it fails to address is that the “attention economy” is not really an “economy.” It is a predatory invasion of our consciousness. Sellers are using every possible technique to colonize our minds and emotions at the most elemental levels in a relentless attempt to prod us to buy, buy, buy.

Author Matthew B. Crawford made an eloquent case for the “attentional commons” in an opinion piece, "The Cost of Paying Attention," in Sunday’s New York Times (March 8). “What if we saw attention in the same way that we saw air or water, as a valuable resource that we hold in common?" he asks. "Perhaps, if we could envision an ‘attentional commons,’ then we could figure out how to protect it.”

Crawford recounts a series of all-to-familiar intrusions upon our attention: ads on the little screen used to swipe credit cards at the grocery store…. ads for lipstick on the trays at airport security screening lines…. “endlessly recurring message from the Lincoln Financial Group” along the moving handrail on an airport escalator….the ubiquitous chatter of CNN and TV ads in the airport lounge.

“The fields of vision that haven’t been claimed for commerce are getting fewer and narrower,” Crawford writes. He concedes that you can put on headphones or play with your smartphone – but the point is that neither of these strategies prevent a shared social space from being destroyed. Without such spaces, we are deprived of the opportunity to develop certain types of attitudes and relationships. Our inner imagination and ability to reflect atrophy. Such subtle, inner virtues that pale in the face of cold, hard cash!

Civic Studies

An intellectual community of researchers and practitioners dedicated to building the emerging field of civic studies

Monthly Archives: March 2015