<?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; Case Studies &amp; Stories</title>
	<atom:link href="http://civicstudies.org/category/case-studies-stories/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>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:08:56 +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>Does Culture Matter for Deliberation? Linguistic Speech Cultures and Parliamentary Deliberation in Switzerland</title>
		<link>http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9952</link>
		<comments>http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9952#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2015 13:00:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Keiva Hummel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Studies & Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journal of Public Deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public engagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[research]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncdd.org/rc/?p=9952</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This 27-page case study,&#160;Does Culture Matter for Deliberation? Linguistic Speech Cultures and Parliamentary Deliberation in Switzerland&#160;by&#160;Seraina Pedrini,&#160;was&#160;published in the&#160;Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 11: Iss. 1. The study explores the effects of culture on parliamentary deliberation in Switzerland. Even though culture is seen as an important aspect of deliberation, empirical research on culture&#8217;s effects on deliberation is almost completely absent. This paper offers one of the first systematic empirical studies of cultural underpinnings on deliberation. It explores two conceptions of culture, namely &#8216;holistic&#8217; vs. &#8216;contextual&#8217;. [&#8230;] <a href="http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9952">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://civicstudies.org/2015/08/14/does-culture-matter-for-deliberation-linguistic-speech-cultures-and-parliamentary-deliberation-in-switzerland/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Diverse Discourse: Analyzing the Potential of Public Affairs Magazine Online Forums to Reflect Qualities of the Public Sphere</title>
		<link>http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9946</link>
		<comments>http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9946#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:00:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Keiva Hummel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Studies & Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journal of Public Deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public engagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[research]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncdd.org/rc/?p=9946</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Diverse Discourse: Analyzing the Potential of Public Affairs Magazine Online Forums to Reflect Qualities of the Public Sphere&#160;(2015),&#160;written by&#160;David Wolfgang and Joy Jenkins, was&#160;published in&#160;Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 11: Iss. 1. This study explored&#160;the quality of public discourse within public affairs magazines and how the quality of discussion varied depending on whether the magazine was moderate and directed at a broader audience, versus liberal/conservative specific magazines which also held diverse perspectives.&#160; From the Abstract Public affairs magazines have expanded beyond their print editions to [&#8230;] <a href="http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9946">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://civicstudies.org/2015/08/12/diverse-discourse-analyzing-the-potential-of-public-affairs-magazine-online-forums-to-reflect-qualities-of-the-public-sphere/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Deliberating While Voting: The Antecedents, Dynamics, And Consequences Of Talking While Completing Ballots In Two Vote-By-Mail States</title>
		<link>http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9948</link>
		<comments>http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9948#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:00:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Keiva Hummel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Studies & Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Gastil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journal of Public Deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public engagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[research]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncdd.org/rc/?p=9948</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The study,&#160;Deliberating While Voting: The Antecedents, Dynamics, And Consequences Of Talking While Completing Ballots In Two Vote-By-Mail States&#160;(2015), by&#160;Justin Reedy and John Gastil was&#160;published in&#160;Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 11: Iss. 1. The paper explores how the deliberative process occurs for citizens who voted by mail in Oregon and Washington, and how this influenced the way voters felt about the process itself. From the Abstract An overlooked context for citizen deliberation occurs when voters discuss their ballots with others while completing them at home. Voting [&#8230;] <a href="http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9948">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://civicstudies.org/2015/08/11/deliberating-while-voting-the-antecedents-dynamics-and-consequences-of-talking-while-completing-ballots-in-two-vote-by-mail-states/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Variations of Institutional Design for Empowered Deliberation</title>
		<link>http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9942</link>
		<comments>http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9942#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2015 13:00:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Keiva Hummel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Studies & Stories]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncdd.org/rc/?p=9942</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Written by Carolina Johnson and John Gastil,&#160;Variations of Institutional Design for Empowered Deliberation&#160;(2015) was published in&#160;Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 11: Iss. 1. The study explores the characteristics of empowered deliberation as a distinct variation of deliberative processes, then some case study examples of empowered deliberation from around the world. From the Abstract This paper lays out the practical and theoretical characteristics of formally empowered deliberation as a distinctive subset of deliberative processes. As part of a recent broad shift toward a more deliberative conception [&#8230;] <a href="http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9942">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://civicstudies.org/2015/08/03/variations-of-institutional-design-for-empowered-deliberation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Democratic Innovations in Deliberative Systems – The Case of the Estonian Citizens’ Assembly Process</title>
		<link>http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9950</link>
		<comments>http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9950#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2015 15:02:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Keiva Hummel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Studies & Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evaluation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journal of Public Deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public engagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[systems change]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncdd.org/rc/?p=9950</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This 29-page case study, Democratic Innovations in Deliberative Systems- The Case of the Estonian Citizens&#8217; Assembly Process&#160;(2015) by&#160;Magnus E. Jonsson and published in&#160;Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 11: Iss. 1. This study focuses on the &#8216;Estonian Citizens&#8217; Assembly Process&#8217; (ECA), which sought to operationalize a systemic approach to deliberative democracy and how this could be used to evaluate democratic innovations.&#160; From the Abstract With the proliferation and application of democratic innovations around the world, the empirical study of deliberative and participatory processes has shifted from [&#8230;] <a href="http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9950">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://civicstudies.org/2015/07/31/democratic-innovations-in-deliberative-systems-the-case-of-the-estonian-citizens-assembly-process/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Inclusion, Equality, and Discourse Quality in Citizen Deliberations on Broadband</title>
		<link>http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9944</link>
		<comments>http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9944#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:00:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Keiva Hummel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Studies & Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic issues]]></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[research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[theory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncdd.org/rc/?p=9944</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 24-page case study,&#160;Inclusion, Equality, and Discourse Quality in Citizen Deliberations on Broadband&#160;(2015) published by &#160;Soo-Hye Han, William Schenck-Hamlin, and Donna Schenck-Hamlin in&#160;the&#160;Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 11: Iss. 1. The study is based on a program of Kansas library forums on broadband telecommunications policy. It explores the theories versus realities of public deliberation, in regards, to participant inclusion, equality and the quality of discourse. From the Abstract Proponents of deliberative democracy have theorized that in order to contribute to improved decision-making, citizens should aim [&#8230;] <a href="http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9944">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://civicstudies.org/2015/07/21/inclusion-equality-and-discourse-quality-in-citizen-deliberations-on-broadband/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Deliberation for Reconciliation in Divided Societies</title>
		<link>http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9954</link>
		<comments>http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9954#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2015 13:00:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Keiva Hummel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Studies & Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[highly recommended]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intercultural dialogue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journal of Public Deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journals & Newsletters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public engagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reconciliation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[theory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncdd.org/rc/?p=9954</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 37-page case study,&#160;Deliberation for Reconciliation in Divided Societies&#160;(2015)&#160;published by Dr.&#160;Magdalena Dembinska and Dr. Fran&#231;oise Montambeault in the&#160;Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 11: Iss. 1. The study discusses the how deliberate processes were utilized to facilitate dialogue for inter-group reconciliation. From the Abstract Engaging with the literature on deliberative democracy, this article contends that in the context of ethnic group hostilities, deliberative processes where participants have a genuine opportunity to communicate and &#8216;hear the other side&#8217; can be a way for inter-group dialogue and reconciliation. [&#8230;] <a href="http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9954">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://civicstudies.org/2015/07/17/deliberation-for-reconciliation-in-divided-societies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Context and Medium Matter: Expressing Disagreements Online and Face-to-Face in Political Deliberations</title>
		<link>http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9910</link>
		<comments>http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9910#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2015 13:00:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Keiva Hummel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Studies & Stories]]></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 D&D]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncdd.org/rc/?p=9910</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 22-page case study,&#160;Context and Medium Matter: Expressing Disagreements Online and Face-to-Face in Political Deliberations (2015)&#160;by Jennifer Stromer-Galley, Lauren Bryant and Bruce Bimber was published&#160;in the&#160;Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 11: Iss. 1. This case study examines how participants&#8217; behavior differs depending on the medium, when expressing disagreements about political topics. From the Abstract Processes of disagreement are important to public deliberation, but research has not examined the dynamics of disagreement in deliberation of political topics with respect to effects of the channel of interaction. [&#8230;] <a href="http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9910">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://civicstudies.org/2015/07/06/context-and-medium-matter-expressing-disagreements-online-and-face-to-face-in-political-deliberations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Understanding Participant Representativeness in Deliberative Events</title>
		<link>http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9895</link>
		<comments>http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9895#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:00:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Keiva Hummel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Studies & Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journal of Public Deliberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public engagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[random selection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recruitment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncdd.org/rc/?p=9895</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The case study, Understanding Participant Representativeness in Deliberative Events: A Case Study Comparing Probability and Non-Probability Recruitment Strategies, by&#160;Jamie Griffin,&#160;Tarik Abdel-Monem,&#160;Alan Tomkins,&#160;Amanda Richardson, and&#160;Stacia Jorgensen, was published in the&#160;Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 11: Iss. 1. This case study examines participant representativeness within deliberative events and then reviews two public participation processes in Lincoln, Nebraska. From the Abstract Deliberative event participants often differ in meaningful ways from the population they are intended to represent; however, less is known about whether various recruitment methods influence participant [&#8230;] <a href="http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9895">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://civicstudies.org/2015/06/19/understanding-participant-representativeness-in-deliberative-events/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Participatory Budgeting case study: Vallejo, CA</title>
		<link>http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9870</link>
		<comments>http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9870#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:00:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Keiva Hummel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Studies & Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Participatory Budgeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public engagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[research]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncdd.org/rc/?p=9870</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This case study by Participedia,&#160;Participatory Budgeting- Vallejo (CA), published June 2015, gives a brief overview of the participatory budgeting (PB) process in Vallejo from 2012 to present. The case study reviews: the history in Vallejo behind why PB was implemented, information about who participated, influences, objectives and lessons learned. From the Abstract Vallejo was the first city in the United States to implement city wide Participatory Budgeting Practice, as thousands are participating to make calls and to brainstorm ideas that would affect them and they [&#8230;] <a href="http://ncdd.org/rc/item/9870">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://civicstudies.org/2015/06/11/participatory-budgeting-case-study-vallejo-ca/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
