<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Civic Studies &#187; All Resources</title>
	<atom:link href="http://civicstudies.org/category/all-resources/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://civicstudies.org</link>
	<description>An intellectual community of researchers and practitioners dedicated to building the emerging field of civic studies</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2026 15:57:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.41</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Guide: How to Approach Digital-First Community Engagement</title>
		<link>https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12411/</link>
		<comments>https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12411/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2020 23:15:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sandy Heierbacher]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books & Booklets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Manuals & Guides]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online & hi-tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online D&D]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public engagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tech for Engagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tools & Handouts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncdd.org/rc/?p=12411</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Shifting your thinking towards delivering a digital-first community engagement program requires an understanding of the obstacles you will face, the online tools and methodologies you will use and engagement techniques that will incite continuous engagement with your community. This guide from Bang the Table walks you through the common challenges, opportunities and pitfalls you may face while providing practical strategies and advice to help you build a successful digital-first engagement practice for your organization. About Bang the Table Bang the Table was founded because, no [&#8230;] <a href="https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12411/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://civicstudies.org/2020/03/27/guide-how-to-approach-digital-first-community-engagement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Meeting Facilitation Tips</title>
		<link>https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12312/</link>
		<comments>https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12312/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2019 22:38:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[NCDD Community]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[facilitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public engagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tools & Handouts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncdd.org/rc/?p=12312</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The following meeting facilitation tips were submitted by John Godec of The Participation Company. As public sector consultants, The Participation Company helps government agencies manage public issues to accomplish agency objectives. Their private sector business clients are able to maintain or improve their relationships with the public and gain support for their projects. Facilitating meetings can be both an art and a science when the issues being discussed are comparably complex. Getting the right people involved in the discussion from the start can go a [&#8230;] <a href="https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12312/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://civicstudies.org/2019/03/27/meeting-facilitation-tips/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Organising stakeholder workshops in research and innovation – between theory and practice</title>
		<link>https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12304/</link>
		<comments>https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12304/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2018 13:00:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Keiva Hummel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[great for public managers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journal of Public Deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journals & Newsletters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public engagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reports & Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[research]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncdd.org/rc/?p=12304</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 26-page article,&#160;Organising stakeholder workshops in research and innovation &#8211; between theory and practice&#160;(2017), was written by Morten V. Nielsen, Nina Bryndum, and Bj&#248;rn Bedsted, and&#160;published in the&#160;Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 13: Iss. 2. From the abstract, &#8220;This article addresses the theory and practice of creating responsiveness among actors through deliberative dialogue processes with stakeholders from diverse institutional settings&#8230;The article concludes that while theoretical perspectives can provide general guidance, practical experience is essential when dealing with the trade-offs that are an intrinsic part of [&#8230;] <a href="https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12304/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://civicstudies.org/2018/05/18/organising-stakeholder-workshops-in-research-and-innovation-between-theory-and-practice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>“Nothing about politics”: The political scope in rural participatory governance, a case-study in the Basque Country, Spain.</title>
		<link>https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12297/</link>
		<comments>https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12297/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2018 13:00:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Keiva Hummel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civic engagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journal of Public Deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journals & Newsletters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public engagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reports & Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[research]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncdd.org/rc/?p=12297</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 29-page article,&#160;&#8220;Nothing about politics&#8221;: The political scope in rural participatory governance, a case-study in the Basque Country, Spain.&#160;(2017), was written by Patricia Garc&#237;a-Esp&#237;n, and&#160;published in the&#160;Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 13: Iss. 2. From the abstract, &#8220;Participatory mechanisms are understood as settings for citizens&#8217; political engagement. However, participants frequently depict these institutions as nonpolitical. In this paper, the political scope of participatory institutions is examined through a case-study of town meetings (concejos abiertos) in the Basque Country (Spain)&#8221;. Read an excerpt from the article [&#8230;] <a href="https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12297/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://civicstudies.org/2018/05/16/nothing-about-politics-the-political-scope-in-rural-participatory-governance-a-case-study-in-the-basque-country-spain/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Authority and Deliberative Moments: Assessing Equality and Inequality in Deeply Divided Groups</title>
		<link>https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12294/</link>
		<comments>https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12294/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2018 13:00:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Keiva Hummel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[community-police relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[great for public managers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intergroup relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journal of Public Deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journals & Newsletters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public engagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reports & Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[research]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncdd.org/rc/?p=12294</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 35-page article,&#160;Authority and Deliberative Moments: Assessing Equality and Inequality in Deeply Divided Groups&#160;(2017), was written by Rousiley C. M. Maia, Danila Cal, Janine K. R. Bargas, Vanessa V. Oliveira, Patr&#237;cia G. C. Rossini, and Rafael C. Sampaio, and&#160;published in the&#160;Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 13: Iss. 2. From the abstract, &#8220;The notion of equality is central to public deliberation, but few researchers have examined how participants construct interactions in face-to-face group discussion involving unequal conditions of authority. This study analyses discussion between slum residents [&#8230;] <a href="https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12294/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://civicstudies.org/2018/05/14/authority-and-deliberative-moments-assessing-equality-and-inequality-in-deeply-divided-groups/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Focus Group Discussions as Sites for Public Deliberation and Sensemaking Following Shared Political Documentary Viewing</title>
		<link>https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12279/</link>
		<comments>https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12279/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2018 13:00:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Keiva Hummel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journal of Public Deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journals & Newsletters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public engagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reports & Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[research]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncdd.org/rc/?p=12279</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 27-page article, Focus Group Discussions as Sites for Public Deliberation and Sensemaking Following Shared Political Documentary Viewing&#160;(2017), was written byMargaret Jane Pitts, Kate Kenski, Stephanie A. Smith, and Corey A. Pavlich, and&#160;published in the&#160;Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 13: Iss. 2. From the abstract, &#8220;This study examines the potential that&#160;shared&#160;political documentary viewing coupled with public deliberation via focus group discussion has for political sensemaking and civic engagement&#8221;. Read an excerpt from the article below and find the PDF available for download on&#160;the Journal of [&#8230;] <a href="https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12279/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://civicstudies.org/2018/04/27/focus-group-discussions-as-sites-for-public-deliberation-and-sensemaking-following-shared-political-documentary-viewing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Influence of Communication- and Organization-Related Factors on Interest in Participation in Campus Dialogic Deliberation</title>
		<link>https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12275/</link>
		<comments>https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12275/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2018 13:00:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Keiva Hummel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[higher ed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journal of Public Deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journals & Newsletters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online & hi-tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public engagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reports & Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[research]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncdd.org/rc/?p=12275</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 31-page article, The Influence of Communication- and Organization-Related Factors on Interest in Participation in Campus Dialogic Deliberation&#160;(2017), was written by Gregory D. Paul, and&#160;published in the&#160;Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 13: Iss. 2. From the abstract, &#8220;This study explored how communication and campus factors influence students&#8217; interest in and perceived helpfulness of dialogic deliberation participation&#8221;. Read an excerpt from the article below and find the PDF available for download on&#160;the Journal of Public Deliberation site&#160;here. From the introduction&#8230; As higher education continues to evolve [&#8230;] <a href="https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12275/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://civicstudies.org/2018/04/25/the-influence-of-communication-and-organization-related-factors-on-interest-in-participation-in-campus-dialogic-deliberation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Explaining Political Efficacy in Deliberative Procedures – A Novel Methodological Approach</title>
		<link>https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12270/</link>
		<comments>https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12270/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:00:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Keiva Hummel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journal of Public Deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journals & Newsletters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online & hi-tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public engagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reports & Articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncdd.org/rc/?p=12270</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 27-page article, Explaining Political Efficacy in Deliberative Procedures &#8211; A Novel Methodological Approach&#160;(2017), was written by Brigitte Geissel and Pamela Hess, and&#160;published in the&#160;Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 13: Iss. 2. From the abstract, &#8220;This article&#8230;identifies factors which lead to increased group-related political efficacy in deliberative procedures applying an almost novel method, i.e. a quantitative meta-synthesis combining and aggregating data from case studies&#8221;. Read an excerpt from the article below and find the PDF available for download on&#160;the Journal of Public Deliberation site&#160;here. From [&#8230;] <a href="https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12270/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://civicstudies.org/2018/04/23/explaining-political-efficacy-in-deliberative-procedures-a-novel-methodological-approach/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Beyond Aggregation: “The Wisdom of Crowds” Meets Dialogue in the Case Study of Shaping America’s Youth</title>
		<link>https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12264/</link>
		<comments>https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12264/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2018 13:00:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Keiva Hummel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journal of Public Deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journals & Newsletters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public engagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reports & Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[youth]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncdd.org/rc/?p=12264</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 28-page article, Beyond Aggregation: &#8220;The Wisdom of Crowds&#8221; Meets Dialogue in the Case Study of Shaping America&#8217;s Youth&#160;(2017), was written by Renee G. Heath, Ninon Lewis, Brit Schneider, and Elisa Majors, and&#160;published in the&#160;Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 13: Iss. 2. From the abstract, &#8220;The present interpretive case study examined how an inter-organizational partnership facilitating five large-scale public dialogues on childhood obesity, held throughout the United States, carried out its commitment to engage nonexperts in solutions&#8221;. Read an excerpt from the article below and [&#8230;] <a href="https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12264/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://civicstudies.org/2018/04/20/beyond-aggregation-the-wisdom-of-crowds-meets-dialogue-in-the-case-study-of-shaping-americas-youth/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prompting Deliberation about Nanotechnology: Information, Instruction, and Discussion Effects on Individual Engagement and Knowledge</title>
		<link>https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12262/</link>
		<comments>https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12262/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:00:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Keiva Hummel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journal of Public Deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journals & Newsletters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online & hi-tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reports & Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[research]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncdd.org/rc/?p=12262</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 33-page article, Prompting Deliberation about Nanotechnology: Information, Instruction, and Discussion Effects on Individual Engagement and Knowledge&#160;(2017), was written by&#160;Lisa M. PytlikZillig, Myiah J. Hutchens, Peter Muhlberger, and Alan J. Tomkins, and&#160;published in the&#160;Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 13: Iss. 2. From the abstract, &#8220;Deliberative (and educational) theories typically predict knowledge gains will be enhanced by information structure and discussion. In two studies, we experimentally manipulated key features of deliberative public engagement (information, instructions, and discussion) and measured impacts on cognitive-affective engagement and knowledge about [&#8230;] <a href="https://ncdd.org/rc/item/12262/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://civicstudies.org/2018/04/18/prompting-deliberation-about-nanotechnology-information-instruction-and-discussion-effects-on-individual-engagement-and-knowledge/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
