5 More Ways to Overcome Barriers to Youth Engagement

Posted on March 23, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The article, 5 More Ways to Overcome Barriers to Youth Engagement by Rebecca Reyes and Malana Rogers-Bursen was published in 2016 on the Everyday Democracy site, and is the second installment of challenges, after the first article of a similar name, 5 Ways to Overcome Barriers to Youth Engagement. Again, the authors share 5 common challenges to getting youth to participate and offer solutions to address each of these challenges. These tips are helpful when designing events that are more inclusive for youth and also good to keep in mind for other groups of people. Read a condensed version of the article below and find it in full on Everyday Democracy’s here.

From Everyday Democracy…

Challenge #6: Transportation
Young people may not have a car they can use on a regular basis, or even a license. Your recruitment efforts won’t be successful unless they have a way to travel to the meeting place.

Possible solutions:
-Schedule meetings and events in locations that are easily accessible by public transportation.
-Consider meeting spaces at a local school or college campus, or at least within walking distance of one.
-Set up a carpool system.

…

Challenge #7: The same young people are always invited
It’s easy for existing group members to invite their friends or family members to a meeting. Often times this is the most effective tactic to boost membership. However, if you’re not intentional about inviting a diverse group of people, it’s easy for the group to be homogeneous…

Possible solutions:
-To make space at the table for different youth perspectives, reach out to local schools, colleges, community centers, youth groups, and other places where young people are.
-When reaching out to student and youth groups, don’t stop with student council and student government. Have you reached out to the Black Student Alliance? The statistics club? Tutoring services?
-In addition to getting recommendations from adults, also ask the young people in the group to suggest someone to join the effort. This gives young people a voice in decision-making even before they come to your meeting.

…

Challenge #8: Allowing young people to try something that didn’t work in the past
It would be impossible to follow up on every idea people proposed. However, many times adults quickly dismiss ideas because “we’ve tried that before.” Young people are more likely to suggest things that have already been tried since they were not around to hear about it the first time. When we invite young people to come to the table, we need to also make space to express their ideas and opinions.

Possible solutions:
-Give everyone a fair chance to explain an idea. Perhaps once you hear more details you’ll discover that it’s not exactly the same as what’s already been tried. They may have a different way of implementing the idea. Or, the timing might be better and there’s a good chance it will successful at this point.
-If you listened to the idea but still don’t think it would be in the program’s best interest to implement it, be sure to explain why. Simply saying “no” without an explanation can lead to misunderstandings. They might think that you’re dismissing the idea just because of their age, experience, skills, etc.

…

Challenge #9: Young people may not be aware of unspoken norms
Many of the norms your group follows likely come from working with groups of adults and/or work settings. Young people have limited experience in both of those areas. This can have an impact on things such as what experience to highlight when applying for a position, how to format emails, understanding what certain terms mean, or how to interject in a discussion.

Possible solutions:
-Sometimes we perpetuate certain norms just because we’ve always done it a certain way, even if it might not be the most efficient way of doing things anymore. Be open to new ways of doing things. Having new people in the group can be refreshing and can help you work more effectively, so take advantage of this opportunity. It might be helpful to develop group norms together for things like how to run meetings or how to communicate with each other.
-It may be helpful t ask young people if and how they’d like to get up to speed on the topics of conversation or how things are run. Make some suggestions, but let them decide what they think will work best. And, some may feel that they don’t need any guidance at the moment. Here are some ideas you could run by them:

…

Challenge #10: Understanding how young people can contribute
The idea that young people don’t have as much to contribute as adults is ingrained in our culture. And as adults, we often perpetuate the same things adults told us when we were young. Young people of all ages can make a contribution whether they go to school, work in a grocery store, or are a small business owner.

Possible solutions:
-Change your frame: instead of thinking that young people are at a deficit because they don’t have much experience, start seeing the opportunity for young people to build skills at a young age by contributing to your efforts.
-We all have things to learn; young people and adults can learn from each other. As with any group member, find out what they’re good at and challenge them to take it to the next level. If they are on the debate team, perhaps they’d be interested in helping to develop messages. If they are technically savvy, they may be able to help with some of the technical logistics of an event.

Read more solutions to each of these challenges on Everyday Democracy’s site here!

About Everyday Democracy
Everyday Democracy (formerly called the Study Circles Resource Center) is a project of The Paul J. Aicher Foundation, a private operating foundation dedicated to strengthening deliberative democracy and improving the quality of public life in the United States. Since our founding in 1989, we’ve worked with hundreds of communities across the United States on issues such as: racial equity, poverty reduction and economic development, education reform, early childhood development and building strong neighborhoods. We work with national, regional and state organizations in order to leverage our resources and to expand the reach and impact of civic engagement processes and tools.

Resource Link: http://everyday-democracy.org/tips/5-more-ways-overcome-barriers-youth-engagement

Dialogues Across Differences: An Introduction to Reflective Structured Dialogue

Posted on February 17, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

This partial-day workshop, Dialogues Across Differences: An Introduction to Reflective Structured Dialogue, from Public Conversation Project and has been developed over the last two decades. The dialogue process established in this training creates an opportunity to transform communication between participants who have conflict. Below is the description from Public Conversations Project and check out if there are upcoming workshop dates here on their site.

About the workshop…

Summary:
25 years ago, Public Conversations Project created a unique approach to dialogue that promoted connection and curiosity between those who saw one another as the enemy. Our approach has transformed conflicts across the country and the world – but its principles are widely applicable for everyday conversation. An intentional communication process can help individuals, organizations and communities build trust, enhance resilience for addressing future challenging issues, and have constructive conversations with those they otherwise “wouldn’t be caught dead with.”

Learning Objectives:

Learn basic theory and practice of Public Conversations’ relationship-centered approach to better communication and dialogue.
Achieve shared, clear, and mutually understood purpose in a conversation.
Design a framework for a constructive conversation that will encourage people to participate fully, listen actively, and enhance empathy.
Stimulate self-discovery and curiosity about the “other” through questions that promote connection, curiosity and caring.

Results:
As a result of this workshop, you will be equipped to:

Communicate with self-confidence about difficult or divisive topics.
Break destructive communication habits like avoidance, silence, or reactive responses, enabling those in a conversation to feel truly listened to.
Design conversations, dialogues, or meetings with clear purpose, full participation, and a structure for moving forward.
Employ effective and satisfying communication exercises in a broad range of personal and professional settings.

Who might participate:

Executives in the nonprofit, public, or private sectors interested in shifting the culture of communication in their workplace.
Managers seeking to lead more constructive conversations with a divided, frustrated, or distracted team.
Clergy looking to broach a challenging concept with their congregation or internal leadership.
Consultants in strategic communications, strategic planning, or organizational development exploring new ways to improve client relations.
Administrators seeking to encourage collaboration between departments.

Accreditation:
This workshop is approved for 6 clock hours for national certified counselors, Massachusetts licensed mental health counselors, MA licensed marriage and family therapists, and New Hampshire pastoral psychotherapists. Credits are accepted by the NH Board of Mental Health Practice for all licensed NH mental health professionals. For more information, please see our workshop policies. Public Conversations Project is an NBCC-Approved Continuing Education Provider (ACEP™) and may offer NBCC-approved clock hours for events that meet NBCC requirements. The ACEP solely is responsible for all aspects of the program.

For more information, please contact us at training[at]publicconversations[dot]org or 617-923-1216 ext. 10.

About Public Conversations Project
Public Conversations Project fosters constructive conversation where there is conflict driven by differences in identity, beliefs, and values. We work locally, nationally, and globally to provide dialogue facilitation, training, consultation, and coaching. We help groups reduce stereotyping and polarization while deepening trust and collaboration and strengthening communities.

Follow on Twitter: @pconversations

Resource Link: www.publicconversations.org/workshop/dialogue-across-differences-introduction-reflective-structured-dialogue

Can Average Citizens Can Make Politics More Civil?

Posted on February 12, 2016 by Roshan Bliss

Just before the Iowa caucuses last month, long-time NCDD member Carolyn Lukensmeyer of the National Institute for Civil Discourse penned an op-ed in the Huffington Post that we thought was worth sharing here. In it, she discusses the crisis of civility in our politics, and calls on citizens – and especially those of us who work in D&D – to hold politicians and ourselves to higher standards for political conversations. We encourage you to read her piece below or find the original on Huff Post here.

We Need a Civility Revolution

As we draw closer to February 1 and the Iowa Caucuses, the noise level from the presidential campaigns grows louder. The Caucuses are the first step in a lengthy process, and because the stakes in Iowa are so high – a good finish means you keep following the trail to the White House while a bad one can mean it’s all over but the post mortem – both republican and democratic candidates have been raising the volume on the race. On the republican side the attacks are getting more personal, louder and nastier, while on the democratic side, ads on everything from health care to gun control are digging deep lines in the sand between rivals.

America is a great democracy, but it is hard to remember that sometimes these days as we listen to the candidates and their surrogates degrade not only their rivals, but everyone who questions their positions. Throw in the media hype on the latest “he said, she said” and it makes you wonder how we came to this low point. Because it is a low point. Our people are better than our politics – the actual caucuses in Iowa as they have been in years past, will be far more civil than any debate or discussion among the candidates has been.

We need to hold our politicians – whether they are running for president or city council – to the highest of standards. Discussion and disagreement are all part and parcel of our democracy but name calling, race baiting and personal attacks are not. If candidates want our votes, we need to demand they start acting like the leaders they claim to be instead of rewarding them for acting like bullies and braggarts.

And we have to stop agreeing with them when they tell us compromise is for sissies. We are a large, diverse nation and our views – whether we are talking with a neighbor across the street or a relative on the other side of the country – will often differ. No one person nor one party has all the “right” answers so discussion of values and facts, the how and the why, are important. But those discussions can’t move forward in any type of useful manner unless we listen to each other – really listen. It doesn’t mean we have to agree – and it doesn’t mean we won’t state our own case – but we need to act like adults and find the road we can take together to allow America – and all Americans – to move forward.

This past Monday, we celebrated Martin Luther King Day. Dr. King did not believe that loud voices and harsh words would lead to consensus. As Marcy Curtis noted in a Roll Call column titled “Stop Shouting; Start Listening” “…it would also be welcome, revolutionary even, to reflect on and learn from King’s time, when the country was no less divided. Yet there were men, women and children… who made the country better by leading with dignity and unity.”

Revolutionary indeed.

You can find the original version of this Carolyn Lukensmeyer piece in the Huffington Post at www.huffingtonpost.com/carolyn-lukensmeyer/we-need-a-civility-revolu_b_9028646.html.

How Do We Show Dialogue’s Risks are Worth its Rewards?

Posted on February 8, 2016 by Roshan Bliss

Last month, NCDD Board member John Backman sparked lots of thoughtful conversation on our NCDD Discussion Listserv with the article below, and we wanted to share it on the blog too. His piece examines the fear we feel sometimes have around engaging in dialogue that could shift our stance on strongly-felt issues. He points out that for many average people, the idea of dialogue with “the other side” presents a risk – maybe real, maybe imagined – that allowing our opinions to shift might hurt some of our important relationships.
John’s article prompts us dialogue workers to take seriously what it sometimes means for us to ask people to take a risk like that, and it asks us how we can demonstrate that the risk is worth the reward. We encourage you to read John’s article below (original here) and let us know what you think about his questions in the comments section.

Guns, Changes of Mind, and the Cost of Dialogue

My opinion on government gun policy is starting to shift. That shift fills me with dread – and the reason, I think, may say a lot about why dialogue is such a hard sell.

Let’s start with my own biases. Temperamentally, I am as close to pacifist as you can get without actually being pacifist. Guns hold no appeal for me whatever (beyond the curiosity I have about pretty much everything). I grew up on Bambi. For most of my life, then, my thoughts on gun control were pretty much a default on the pro side.

But recent events have nudged me into more reflection. My experiments with gun dialogue (last month and in 2012) put me in contact with gun owners and their stories about why they value their guns, the enjoyment of pursuits associated with guns, the security they feel in owning a gun and knowing how to use it. Moreover, after pondering the Second Amendment, I can see how the standard gun owner’s interpretation may have some merit.

Bottom line: I can still support commonsense measures like background checks and waiting periods. But now, whenever cries to reduce gun ownership permeate the public square, I can’t quite join in – as much as my Bambi instinct still wants me to.

But this post is not about guns. It’s about why the shift scares me.

There are several reasons, but one towers above them all: some of the most important people in my social network – dear friends, immediate relatives, colleagues who might influence the course of my career – are vociferously anti-gun. I can think of a family member whose wisdom and love I would not do without… a colleague whose family has suffered several murders due to gun violence… a Catholic writer who shares many of my sensibilities but whose wrath grows with each mass shooting.

Will they abandon me now that I’m expressing a different opinion, even if just slightly different?

You might argue that it’s unlikely, and you’d probably be right. But in our current culture, friends and colleagues do part ways over disagreements like this. Consider the “harmonious” traditional family that fractures when a daughter comes out as gay, or good neighbors who find themselves on opposing sides when a casino comes to town. The notion that “if they abandon you over this, they weren’t real friends (or colleagues, or loved ones) anyway” is far too simplistic.

Now consider that I feel this dread strongly enough to hold my tongue around certain people – and I’m a dialogue person. How can I expect folks who are unfamiliar with dialogue to enter in when the risk is so high: when they might lose not only their basic convictions, but even their friends? How can those of us who care deeply about dialogue demonstrate that, in fact, the reward is worth the risk?

You can find the original version of this piece by John Backman on his blog at www.dialogueventure.com/2016/01/12/guns-changes-of-mind-and-the-cost-of-dialogue.

EvDem Campaign Reaches Student Democracy Project in Bolivia

Posted on December 16, 2015 by Roshan Bliss

As we work in our own local niches, it’s easy at times to forget that D&D is an international field. But as this recent post from NCDD member organization Everyday Democracy shows, our work continues to impacts and be impacted by a global movement for democracy. This EvDem article shows how ripples their recent social media campaign made it all the way to young people democratizing their student governments in Bolivia. Read more about it below or find the original piece here.

Putting ‘Everyday Democracy’ Into Practice: Making Visions a Reality

When people think of “democracy,” what comes to mind most often is voting. This is certainly an important part of it, but democracy is something we as citizens should be connected to every day.

As an organization, we work to make sure people have opportunities to participate in decision-making at all levels. We believe people should have a voice in what happens in their schools, in their communities, and in their government on a regular basis – not just on Election Day.

This summer to celebrate our Independence Day, we launched a campaign to get people talking about what democracy means to them. People from all over the country contributed their ideas, which ranged from “transparency” to “participation” to “sharing responsibility for the outcomes of government,” and more.

Not only did this campaign draw responses from people all over the U.S., it also caught the attention of Adam Conkright, co-founder of Democracy In Practice, a nonprofit organization based in Cochabamba, Bolivia, dedicated to democratic innovation, experimentation, and capacity building.

“What stood out to us,” Adam explains, “is that several people in the campaign expressed the idea that democracy can be done better, and that improving democracy is like a journey that continues with no real endpoint.” He says this theme really connected with them because that is what Democracy In Practice is all about. “We are trying to help strengthen this growing global movement to improve democracy, and we think the most important thing is for people to start experimenting with different approaches, not only in governments but also in schools, community associations, unions, nonprofits, worker cooperatives, and the like. We’re trying to get people to think outside the box and get creative.”

They’re hoping to inspire others in this way by setting an innovative example themselves. For the past couple years, Democracy In Practice has been working in schools in Bolivia helping students reinvent student government. Adam sees schools as a really great place for this type of experimentation because “the stakes are so low that students can completely redesign their government – each semester if they want to – in ways that would be too risky elsewhere.” He also points out that this kind of experimentation has the added benefit of encouraging students to be engaged and to think critically and creatively about improving their school community.

It’s in this innovative atmosphere that students have replaced elections with random lotteries, rotated meeting roles, and tested out both mandatory and voluntary participation. These and other changes have had an effect: the student government at one school has started the school’s first library, issued its first ID cards to halve student transportation costs, and exposed one teacher’s abuse of power. All the while, the Democracy In Practice team provides suggestions, support, and capacity building to go along with support from school staff. It’s a continual process of trying to make student government more inclusive, representative, and effective in a variety of contexts. A journey with no endpoint.

Bolivians celebrate their independence on August 6^th, and inspired by our campaign Democracy In Practice asked these student governments what democracy meant to them. As Adam explained, the students added their own twist. “Just like in the US, people here in Bolivia come from a variety of different backgrounds and have very different views, but each student government decided to deliberate and agree upon a collective answer to the question.” Not surprisingly, the responses of both groups stressed unity.

The 4th-8th grade student government members at the rural school where Democracy In Practice is working decided that “Democracy is participation, working together, and the community united.”

The other school Democracy In Practice is working in is an urban night high school with much older students. The student government there agreed that “Democracy means working as a team to defend the rights of everyone – unity is strength.”

Adam feels that the next step for Democracy In Practice in this journey is to look beyond schools to find a union or community organization that is open to experimenting in this manner. “People in your campaign said that democracy means ‘participation’, ‘equality’, ‘transparency’, etc.,” he noted. “If we want government to actually embody those beautiful ideals then we’ve all got to roll up our sleeves and develop better ways to govern ourselves. We liked that your campaign encouraged people to think critically, and we appreciate that Everyday Democracy’s work takes an innovative approach to bringing communities together. Hopefully together we can get more people thinking creatively about what democracy means and what it’s going to take to make those visions a reality.”

We have a lot we can learn from each other, whether it’s from our neighbor next door or our friends in a different hemisphere. In fact, the only way we can continue to build a democracy that works for everyone is to continuously examine and improve our current systems, learn from the experiences of others as well as our own, and make sure everyone has a chance to participate.

You can find the original version of this Everyday Democracy post at www.everyday-democracy.org/news/putting-everyday-democracy-practice-making-visions-reality.

Creating Spaces for Dialogue – A Role for Civil Society

Posted on December 8, 2015 by Keiva Hummel

Creating Spaces for Dialogue – A Role for Civil Society, is a publication released December 2015 from the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC). It is a compilation of different case studies about dialogue processes that have taken place among polarized societies.

From GPPAC…

Dialogue and mediation is at the heart of the work of the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC). GPPAC members employ dialogue and mediation as a means for conflict prevention, to decrease tensions during conflict, or as a tool for reconciliation in post-conflict situations. Last week, GPPAC presented its new publication dedicated to dialogue and mediation “Creating Spaces for Dialogue – A Role for Civil Society” in Pyongyang, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

The stories presented in this book are authored by GPPAC network members who initiated a conversation between communities and societies polarised and divided as a result of conflict. Each story shows how civil society plays a vital role in rebuilding trust and enabling collaborations.

The authors describe how the dialogue processes unfolded, and share resulting lessons and observations. They also present their views on the questions that need to be addressed in designing a meaningful process. Is there such a thing as the most opportune moment to initiate a dialogue? Who should introduce the process? How is the process of participant selection approached, and what are the patterns of relationship transformation? Lastly, what follows once confidence and trust have been established?

The first two stories provide an account of civil society contribution to normalising inter-state relations between the US and Cuba, and Russia and Georgia. The following two chapters offer chronicles of community dialogues between Serbians and Albanians in Serbia and Kosovo, and Christians and Muslims in Indonesia.

On June 10th, GPPAC’s experts on dialogue and mediation convened in Pyongyang, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, for a seminar co-organised by the Korean National Peace Committee and GPPAC. The seminar marked the first public presentation of the book.

In Pyongyang, the GPPAC delegation reflected on the case studies presented in the book. They also shared and examined specific examples of dialogue and mediation initiated and facilitated in different contexts, including in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Southeast Asia.

You can download the full publication in PDF here.

About GGPAC
The Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC, pronounced “gee-pak”) is a global member led network of civil society organizations (CSOs) who actively work on conflict prevention and peacebuilding. The network consists of fifteen regional networks of local organisations with their own priorities, character and agenda. These regional networks are represented in an International Steering Group, which jointly determines our global priorities and actions for our conflict prevention and peacebuilding work.

Our mission is to promote a global shift in peacebuilding from solely reacting to conflict to preventing conflicts from turning violent. We do this through multi-actor collaboration and local ownership of strategies for peace and security. Together, we aim to achieve greater national, regional and global synergy in the field of conflict prevention and peacebuilding, and to strengthen the role of local members in the regions affected by conflict.

Follow on Twitter: @GPPAC

Resource Link: Creating Spaces for Dialogue – A Role for Civil Society

Akron Millennials’ Advice on Engaging Youth in Civic Life

Posted on December 1, 2015 by Roshan Bliss

Engaging young people is often something that many in our field know we need to do, but aren’t sure how. So we wanted to share a recent post from the team at the Jefferson Center, an NCDD member organization, in which they share recommendations from Millennials about how local governments can increase young people’s participation. It comes as part of a broader project on engaging Millennials, and we encourage you to read more in the Jefferson Center post below or to find the original here.

Young People Don’t Vote

Young people don’t vote. Millennial turnout at the polls is dismal, especially for local and off-year elections. To be fair, young people have never turned out at the rate of older Americans. But even the turnout gains seen during President Obama’s election in 2008 have eroded, and quickly.

By their own admission, many young voters lack critical information about the relationship between government and the issues they care about most. Many distrust politicians and ignore the majority of candidates who fail to address their priority issues. Many feel government can’t solve the problems they see as most pressing.

We know, however, that young Americans care deeply about their communities, participating in volunteer and service activities at greater rates than older generations. What we don’t know, at least not yet, is how we can leverage that enthusiasm for community and country into more active participation in our democratic political system.

To begin answering that question, we’re exploring Millennial engagement in local elections and civic life with a pilot project in Akron, OH funded by the Knight Foundation. We’re working with major media outlets and student journalists to dive into Millennial perceptions of local government, local politics, and the role they see for themselves in local civic life as they negotiate student debt, underemployment, and more. You can read the first two articles from student journalists online in the Youngstown Vindicator, outlining Millennial priorities, and the Akron Beacon Journal, highlighting young people’s perspective on electoral politics.

We’ve also asked Akron’s Millennials to consider how we might stoke their participation in local civic life and politics more broadly. Their recommendations expressed a desire for a stronger participatory role for young people to help shape their community and their collective future

1. Educate young people about local government and their community.

Hire city staff whose principal responsibility is public and youth engagement.
Expand volunteer, internship, and mentoring opportunities for students within city government and community organizations.
Host mock City Councils in area schools that focus on city issues.

2. Improve City of Akron’s online presence.

Web interface encourages active conversation, presents a transparent budget and legislation in clear, accessible language, and highlights opportunities for direct participation.
Develop a City of Akron app that includes information about voting, updates on important city information, and reminders of community projects and events.

3. Create opportunities for young people to tangibly impact decision making.

Regularly host diverse youth “think tanks” with residents from around Akron to learn about issues and provide input for the City on appropriate courses of action.
Allocate a portion of the city budget for projects designed and voted on by young people (participatory budgeting).

We’re committed to working with Akron’s new mayor-elect and City Council to implement these recommendations and provide more support for youth engagement in politics. We’ll continue to share updates as we move forward.

You can find the original version of this Jefferson Center post at www.jefferson-center.org/u4d-akron.

Reaching Out Across the Red-Blue Divide, One Person at a Time

Posted on November 25, 2015 by Keiva Hummel

The four-page conversation guide, Reaching Out Across the Red-Blue Divide, One Person at a Time (2009), was written by Maggie Herzig from Public Conversations Project. This useful guide provides a framework for navigating highly polarized conversations and includes several starter questions to help keep the dialogue open. Read the intro to the guide below and download the PDF, as well as, find the original guide on PCP’s blog here.

From the guide…

What this guide offers
This guide offers a step-by-step approach to inviting one other person—someone whose perspectives differ from your own—into a conversation in which • you both agree to set aside the desire to persuade the other and instead focus on developing a better understanding of each other’s perspectives, and the hopes, fears and values that underlie those perspectives; • you both agree to pursue understanding and to avoid the pattern of attack and defend; • you both choose to address questions designed to open up new possibilities for moving beyond stale stereotypes and limiting assumptions.

Why bother to reach across the divide?
Many people have at least one important relationship that has been frayed by painful conversations about political differences or constrained due to fear of divisiveness. What alternatives are there? You can let media pundits and campaign strategists tell you that polarization is inevitable and hopeless. Or you can consider taking a collaborative journey with someone who is important to you, neither paralyzed with fear of the rough waters, nor unprepared for predictable strong currents. You and your conversational partner will be best prepared if you bring 1) shared hopes for the experience, 2) the intention to work as a team, and 3) a good map that has guided others on similar journeys. We hope this guide will help prepare you to speak about your passions and concerns in ways that can be heard, and to hear others’ concerns and passions with new empathy and understanding—even if you continue to disagree.

Are you ready?
Are you emotionally ready to resist the strong pull toward polarization? What’s at the heart of your desire to reach out to the person you have in mind? Is pursuing mutual understanding enough, or are you likely to feel satisfied only if you can persuade them to concede certain points? What do you know about yourself and the contexts in which you are able—or not so able—to listen without interrupting and to speak with care? Are you open to the possibility—and could you gracefully accept—that the other person might decline your invitation?

Are the conditions right?
Do you have a conversational partner in mind who you believe will make the same kind of effort you are prepared to make? Is there something about your relationship that will motivate both of you to approach the conversation with a positive spirit? Will you have a chance to propose a dialogue in ways that don’t rush or pressure the other person? Will you be able to invite him or her to thoughtfully consider not only the invitation but the specific ideas offered here— ideas that you might together modify? Can you find a time to talk that is private and free from distraction?

If you decide to go forward, take it one step at a time.

To continue reading the guide, download it below or read it on Public Conversation Project’s site here.

About Public Conversations Project
PCP fosters constructive conversation where there is conflict driven by differences in identity, beliefs, and values. We work locally, nationally, and globally to provide dialogue facilitation, training, consultation, and coaching. We help groups reduce stereotyping and polarization while deepening trust and collaboration and strengthening communities. At the core of many of today’s most complex social problems is a breakdown in relationships that leads to mistrust, gridlock, and fractured communities. Public Conversations’ method addresses the heart of this breakdown: we work to shift relationships, building the communication skills and trust needed to make action possible and collaboration sustainable. Since our founding in 1989, Public Conversations’ practitioners have worked on a broad range of issues, including same-sex marriage, immigration, abortion, diversity, guns, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We have also contributed to peace-building efforts in several conflict-torn regions overseas. In situations where a breakdown in trust, relationships, and constructive communication is part of the problem, PCP offers a solution.

Follow on Twitter: @pconversations

Resource Link: Reaching Out Across the Red-Blue Divide, One Person at a Time

PCP Guide Offers Help for Red-Blue Holiday Conversations

Posted on November 13, 2015 by Roshan Bliss

As we approach the holidays and the difficult conversations with relatives from opposite sides of the political spectrum, we could all use some support keeping the discussion civil. Thankfully the Public Conversations Project, an NCDD member organization, has produced a useful red-blue conversation guide along with the piece below that offer frameworks and starter questions to help those holiday dinner discussions – or any discussion – tend more toward dialogue than discord. We encourage you to check out the guide and the post below or to find the original piece here.

A Better Question: Dialogue Across Political Differences

Election Day: when we cast our voice on matters of public concern and celebrate democracy. It’s also when partisan bickering rears its ugly head, and we are reminded of the lack of civil conversation in politics, without knowing how to shift the dynamic. We exist in a world so starkly polarized that there are few models of dialogue between liberals and conservatives, and a void of nuance, uncertainty, or voices more centrist on the ideological spectrum. Instead, we overwhelmed by the extremes talking (loudly) past or over one another and refusing to acknowledge one another’s humanity, let alone consider collaboration or collective responsibility.

This trend is most visible (and perhaps most dire) in our civic spaces, from acrimonious policy debates in Congress that quickly devolve into mischaracterizations or to the petty partisan bickering of presidential candidates. But we also often experience the red/blue tension closer to home: we’ve all sat through at least one dinner where differences in political leanings have been a source of discord. Many people have an important relationship that has been frayed by painful conversations about political differences or constrained due to fear of divisiveness. With the belief that the changing the culture of political polarization could start at home, with everyday conversations and relationships, Public Conversations Project Founding Associate Maggie Herzig published Reaching Out Across the Red Blue Divide, One Person at a Time in 2009.

Strengthening democracy doesn’t just happen in the public sphere, but through individual choices, relationships, and communities. As the guide states, “you can let media pundits and campaign strategists tell you that polarization is inevitable and hopeless. Or you can consider taking a collaborative journey with someone who is important to you, neither paralyzed with fear of the rough waters, nor unprepared for predictable strong currents.” That starts with a new conversation framed by better questions than “how can you think that way?” Here are some better questions to open a conversation across political differences to invite genuine understanding, rather than recrimination and stereotypes.

What hopes and concerns do you bring to this conversation?
What values do you hold that lead you to want to reach across the red-blue divide? Where or how did you learn those values?
What is at the heart of your political leanings (e.g., what concerns or values underlie them) and what would you be willing to share about your life experiences that might convey what those things mean to you?
Within your general perspective on the issue(s), do you experience any dilemmas or mixed feelings, or are there gray areas in your thinking?
In what ways have you felt out of step with the party or advocacy groups you generally support, or in what ways do those groups not fully reflect what’s important to you?
During divisive political debates, are there ways that your values and perspectives are stereotyped by the “other side”? If so, what is it about who you are and what you care about that makes those stereotypes especially frustrating or painful?
Are there some stereotypes of your own party that you feel are somewhat deserved – even if they are not fully true – given the rhetoric used in political debates?

As a bonus, Maggie shared some insights she’s gleaned since the guide was published and offers her hope for the future.

1. What inspired you to write the guide at this particular time?

The guide was written in November 2004 at the time of the presidential election (Bush-Kerry). (It was slightly revised in 2006.) Both years, we were motivated by the dilemma many people faced when they gathered with family and others on Thanksgiving, typically across different political views and across 2 or 3 generations: To talk or not to talk about politics. And if political talk was inevitable, how could it occur in a spirit of dialogue? We wanted to offer a mini-guide that could easily be shared with a conversational partner, a guide that not only suggested some opening questions but also conveyed the importance the preparatory phase: reflecting on one’s own readiness to try a different kind of conversation, inviting the other to reflect on their readiness, finding a time and place, and, if sufficient interest and motivation exist, deciding together on communication agreements and some opening questions.

2. Have you seen any strides in fostering this more civil, curious dialogue across the aisle?

I’d like to say I see less polarization in politics. I think the forces that drive the media and electoral politics make change very difficult. But I do think that the typical citizen is more aware of these forces. For some, that awareness might lead to cynicism; for others I’d like to think it inspires rebellion against a culture of division and derision of the political “other.”

3. Where in particular do you see a need for it today (either issues or something like Congress, etc.)?

When relationships clearly matter, e.g., in families, communities, organizations and places of worship, reaching across divides with self-awareness, care and curiosity are acts of preservation of those bonds. The work of preserving and deepening relationships can happen in groups or in one-on-one conversations, thus our desire to provide guides for both settings.

4. Is there anything you would add to the guide or change, based on shifts you’ve noticed in our political climate?

I think the guide has stood the test of time but there’s always room for more questions! Here are a few ideas. So many controversial issues remain controversial because there are important considerations on both sides of a dilemma, like issues related to privacy and security, the role and size of government, and foreign policy. I like to ask questions that invite people to speak to both sides of a dilemma even if they customarily speak to only one side. For example:

What would most concern you about increased American involvement in countering ISIS? What would most concern you about curtailing American involvement in countering ISIS?
What most pleases you about the past decade in American public life?
Where have you seen progress, if only in “baby steps”? What most concerns or distresses you about the past decade in American public life? What trends would you like to see reversed?
What makes you feel proud/grateful to be an American? What embarrasses you or makes you uncomfortable about being an American?

You can find the original version of this PCP blog post at www.publicconversations.org/blog/better-question-dialogue-across-political-differences#sthash.vUVqOzPX.dpuf.

Learning from Radio-Supported Dialogues on Hunger in CA

Posted on October 20, 2015 by Roshan Bliss

Public radio is a powerful, natural ally to D&D work, but often an under-utilized one, so we’re happy to feature the insights gained from a radio-supported community conversation on hunger that recently took place in CA. The strategies come from NCDD supporting member jesikah maria ross of Capital Public Radio, and we encourage you to read her piece below or find the original here. You can also check out the great toolkit she created to help others start their own conversations using public radio stories.

10 Strategies for Creating Powerful Conversations via Public Media Events

There’s an alchemy when people get together face-to-face to ponder a tough issue and what to do about it. Good conversations are game changers. They help us connect with the topic, see issues in a new light, and shift how we relate to people different from us. All that impacts our willingness to work together to solve wicked problems.

Democracy is not a spectator sport and if we want our world to be a better place then a diverse array of people need to participate in community problem-solving. Creatively designed public conversation events invite the kind of participation through which the wider public can respectfully explore a thorny topic together. Public radio stations, in our role as community conveners and storytellers, are uniquely positioned to make these events happen.

But how? Here are ten strategies I developed while designing a series of public conversations called Hunger in the Farm-to-Fork Capital as part of Capital Public Radio’s multiplatform documentary project Hidden Hunger. My ideas are informed by The World Café, literary salons, and my own experience throwing big parties.

These strategies aren’t unique to pubradio events. They’ll work for anyone interested in sparking conversations through storytelling activities. Scroll to the end for a handy infographic. And check out this video to see what these events were like.

Invite Unlikely Allies
Great parties have a diverse mix of people and a host who knows how to connect them. The collision of different points of view provokes new understandings and creates relationships among people who wouldn’t otherwise meet. Deliberately invite a wide cross-section of residents to attend the public event.

Create the Space
The physical space is the container for the participant’s experience. Create an environment that is beautiful, inviting, and living-room-like to establish that your event is more than a typical civic meetup. For example, seat guests at round tables featuring colorful tablecloths, fresh flowers, and appetizers.

Set The Tone
People do their best thinking when they feel comfortable and engaged. They listen and stay open to new ideas when the atmosphere is respectful. Find ways to create and communicate a warm, open, and generous atmosphere throughout every aspect of the event. One idea: provide table hosts that welcome and introduce participants as they sit down.

Give the Context
Begin the event with a warm welcome. Clearly convey the reason you are bringing people together and what you hope to achieve. Establish a spirit of inquiry and the goal of sharing experiences, listening to one another, and making meaning together about a social issue. Review etiquette and give participants a road map for what’s to come.

Tell Me A Story
Communicate with stories, not statistics. Personal stories build understanding and empathy. Their intimacy and immediacy connect us with our own values and circumstances. Play a few audio clips and invite selected community leaders to respond by sharing personal and professional reflections.

Connect The Dots
Give participants time to talk in small groups about the stories and speakers. Provide table hosts with questions that encourage participants to share personal reflections and surface connections between their lives and the experiences of storytellers.

Mix It Up
Have you ever been seated at a table and felt stuck there? Or just wanted the chance to talk to more people at a gathering? Make the experience playful and energizing by having participants switch tables during the event. This allows them to meet new people and cross-pollinate ideas between conversations.

Share Collective Insights
Bring the entire group together towards the end of the event to reflect on the experience they’ve just had. Elicit common themes and discoveries to identify patterns, share new knowledge, and build a shared understanding of the kind of community that they want to live in.

Provide A Path Forward
Powerful conversations fire people up. Create ways for participants to continue the conversation, learn more, and get involved. Engage community partners in generating concrete and timely action steps to share with participants at the end of the event.

Assess and Share Results
Use graphic recorders, event surveys, exit interviews or other tools to assess the impact of the experience on participants. Share evaluation data that community partners can use to advance their goals. Dynamic public conversation events are a team effort—celebrate your collective success with a party to acknowledge everyone’s role and contributions.

Here is a handy cheat sheet of the above steps. If you have other tips on how to design powerful public encounters send them my way!

You can find the original version of this Jesikah Maria Ross blog post at http://jesikahmariaross.com/2015/10/10-strategies-for-creating-powerful-conversations-via-public-media-events.

Civic Studies

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

Category Archives: bridge building