Civic Studies

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

Main menu

Skip to primary content
Skip to secondary content
  • Home
  • About
  • Discussion + Collaboration
  • Get Involved
  • Meet-Up

Category Archives: civic engagement

Post navigation

← Older posts

Updates and Resources for Civic Learning Week

Posted on March 8, 2024 by stevemasy
Reply

Good afternoon friends. Next week is Civic Learning Week, and we wanted to take a few minutes and share with you some resources to support student civic learning and engagement.

Teachers Advacing Civic Learning

First of all, here at the Lou Frey Institute and our Florida Joint Center for Citizenship, we believe in the power of elevating the voices of educators in advocating for civic learning policy at the local, state, and federal levels. A new initiative, Teachers Advancing Civic Learning, has launched and it is a great opportunity to grow as a civics advocate and educator! You can learn more about the TACL initiative (Teachers Advancing Civic Learning) at its newly launched website.

Webinar With Congressman Dennis Ross

We would also like to remind you of our upcoming webinar featuring former Florida Congressman Dennis Ross! We will discuss student civic enagement, civil discourse, and other issues important to civic learning and life! You can sign up here, as registration is required. Please feel free to share the link and the flyer!

ross-flyerDownload

Civic Learning Week National Forum

This is a great opportunity, and we encourage you to attend in person if you can and virtually if you cannot!
U.S. Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett will join the Civic Learning Week National Forum on March 12, 2024, livestreamed from Washington, D.C. Showcasing the Justices’ shared commitment to high-quality civic education, the featured conversation will be moderated by Eric Liu, Co-Founder and CEO of Citizen University, and address student questions about the judicial system and civic engagement, as well as the Justices’ legal career paths. The discussion will highlight the civic knowledge, skills, and dispositions gained through civic education, and why civics is essential to sustaining and strengthening constitutional democracy in the United States.

There will also be some other fantastic events during the forum, including talks on information literacy and bridging the divide brought about by political polarization, among others. Hope to ‘see’ you there! You can register for the livestream here! If you can get to DC, you can register to attend in person here!

Civic Learning Week Resources

While we are proud of our own materials, you can find many useful and different resources available from multiple organizations on the Civic Learning Week website. We encourage you to check them out to determine if they meet your needs!

Posted in civic engagement, democracy, education, events, news | Leave a reply

“Nothing about politics”: The political scope in rural participatory governance, a case-study in the Basque Country, Spain.

Posted on May 16, 2018 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

The 29-page article, “Nothing about politics”: The political scope in rural participatory governance, a case-study in the Basque Country, Spain. (2017), was written by Patricia García-Espín, and published in the Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 13: Iss. 2. From the abstract, “Participatory mechanisms are understood as settings for citizens’ 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)”. Read an excerpt from the article below and find the PDF available for download on the Journal of Public Deliberation site here.

From the introduction…

“There is nothing, nothing, nothing about politics. … You don’t know who strips to each [political] side. We never talk about that” (M. R., participant in a concejo abierto).1 Maria Rosa is a farmer who was engaged in a town meeting in a rural community in Araba (Basque Country, Spain). Two years before, she started attending meetings and acquired such extensive knowledge of the rules and the daily procedures that she was elected to the administrative board by her neighbors. Like Maria Rosa, other participants in this participatory institution believe it to be strictly non-political. In other settings of community engagement such as participatory budgeting assemblies and neighborhood associations, participants also believe that they are not playing politics (Baiocchi, 2005; Ball, 2005; Talpin, 2012). At the core of this belief is the idea that broader political issues should not be addressed in settings dedicated to small deliberation on community problems (Ganuza & Francés, 2012).

The political scope of participation, like the range of issues which are addressed, is not something that can be deduced only from the institutional design and the list of powers formally attributed to the participatory institutions. It also depends on the cultural frame assumed by participants. As Baiocchi (2005) noted regarding Porto Alegre’s participatory budget (PB) process, participants found it unacceptable to speak about political issues in assemblies, as they were committed to solving community problems in a practical sense. Talpin (2012) noticed the same thing in several European cases. In concejos abiertos (rural town meetings in Araba) most of the issues that come under the title of “politics” also sit uneasily with the participants. Like Maria Rosa, other participants think that politics should stay away.

Through a case-study in the concejos abiertos of Araba, we analyze the political scope of a community-based participatory institution. I will show how participants understand and confer meaning to this participatory setting, a highly empowered institution of rural governance. As we will observe, within the cultural framework of “politics-away,” participants distinguish themselves from party politics, making space for their own decision-making; they limit potential conflict, divisions, and promote inclusiveness; and they sustain collective action, even on broader political issues such as environmental concerns. The focal point of the paper is that participants use selective depoliticization as the best approach to sustain community engagement.

Download the full article from the Journal of Public Deliberation here.

About the Journal of Public DeliberationJournal of Public Deliberation
Spearheaded by the Deliberative Democracy Consortium in collaboration with the International Association of Public Participation, the principal objective of Journal of Public Deliberation (JPD) is to synthesize the research, opinion, projects, experiments and experiences of academics and practitioners in the emerging multi-disciplinary field and political movement called by some “deliberative democracy.” By doing this, we hope to help improve future research endeavors in this field and aid in the transformation of modern representative democracy into a more citizen-friendly form.

Follow the Deliberative Democracy Consortium on Twitter: @delibdem

Follow the International Association of Public Participation [US] on Twitter: @IAP2USA

Resource Link: www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol13/iss2/art8/

Posted in All Resources, civic engagement, decision making, deliberation, Journal of Public Deliberation, Journals & Newsletters, public engagement, Reports & Articles, research | Leave a reply

Meeting the Challenges of a World Divided: Engaging Whole Bodies Politic (Connections 2016)

Posted on April 11, 2018 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

The six-page article, “Meeting the Challenges of a World Divided: Engaging Whole Bodies Politic” by Harold H. Saunders was published in Kettering Foundation‘s 2016 edition of their annual newsletter, Connections – Kettering’s Multinational Research. For this tenth article of the newsletter, Kettering drew from Saunders book, Politics is about Relationships: A Worldview for the Citizens’ Century, on the five challenges to citizens for more effectively participating in our global political world. Below is an excerpt from the article and Connections 2016 is available for free PDF download on Kettering’s site here.

From the article…

Our country and our world are deeply divided. Too many people have lost the capacity to listen thoughtfully, to talk respectfully, and to relate constructively. A culture of dialogue generated and sustained over time by citizens outside government is critical to peace and to equitable and sustainable economic, political, and social development.

The challenges of our troubled world require political—not just technical—responses. There are some things only governments can do—negotiate binding agreements, make and enforce laws, provide for the common defense, fund public projects and programs. But some things only citizens outside government can do—transform conflictual human relationships, modify human behavior, and change political culture. Only governments can negotiate peace treaties, but only people can make peace.

As John Gaventa wrote, “When aware of their rights and agency, and when organized with others, citizens have the power and capacity to bring about fundamental and lasting change. . . . While the idea of citizen driven change has been around for a long time, it still stands in sharp contrast to many other paradigms which dominate public affairs.”

The conceptual lenses we use to understand events determine how we act. Achieving a fresh way of understanding the world around us requires new conceptual lenses to bring a rapidly changing world into focus. Thus, we must spend some time reflecting on how we think about politics.

To act more productively, we must change our way of understanding how our public world works—a world that is falling behind in meeting its challenges. My aim is to help each of us see the world through new lenses and demonstrate that these can change how we act.

Five challenges top the human agenda at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Responses to all depend on citizens outside government as well as on the governments they constitute.

This is just an excerpt, you can read the rest of the article by clicking here.

About Kettering Foundation and Connections
KF_LogoThe Kettering Foundation is a nonprofit operating foundation rooted in the American tradition of cooperative research. Kettering’s primary research question is, what does it take to make democracy work as it should? Kettering’s research is distinctive because it is conducted from the perspective of citizens and focuses on what people can do collectively to address problems affecting their lives, their communities, and their nation.

Each issue of this annual newsletter focuses on a particular area of Kettering’s research. The 2016 issue of Connections, edited by KF program officer and senior writer/editor Melinda Gilmore; KF senior associate Philip Stewart; and KF vice president, secretary, and general counsel Maxine Thomas, focuses on our year-long review of our multinational research.

Follow on Twitter: @KetteringFdn

Resource Link: www.kettering.org/sites/default/files/periodical-article/Saunders-Connections-2016.pdf

Posted in All Resources, bridge building, civic engagement, democratic renewal, international, JLA, Journals & Newsletters, Kettering Foundation, Reports & Articles | Leave a reply

What’s Next, Alabama?

Posted on February 28, 2018 by NCDD Community
Reply

What’s Next, Alabama? is an issue guide created by the David Mathews Center for Civic Life in 2017 for Alabama Issues Forums 2017 – 2020. The issue guide provides a brief overview of economic issues facing Alabama and outlines three approaches in addressing economic infrastructure over the course of three forums. The David Mathews Center—a non-profit, non-partisan, non-advocacy organization—does not advocate a particular approach or solution to economic issues, but rather seeks to provide a framework for citizens to carefully examine multiple approaches, weigh costs and consequences, and work through tensions and tradeoffs among different courses of action.The issue guide, authored by Justin Lutz, Program Director at the David Mathews Center, outlines what “the economy” means to a community:

When we talk about “the economy,” we don’t just mean jobs and unemployment or the stock market. We define the economy as any issue that is important to your community on its quest to achieve a better life. Perhaps it’s ensuring quality schools in your community, or expanding broadband internet access, or having an educated and sober workforce, or a thriving downtown area—the economy is the community you live in, and your capacity to thrive and prosper as a part of that community.

The issue guide outlines three types of economic infrastructure: physical, human, and civic. These are used to examine the current state of a community, assess what the community would like to change, and map out a way to make those changes, over the course of three forums:

Forum One: Where are we now?
The first forum addresses the current state of economic issues in a community. Participants are introduced to both local and statewide economic data and are asked to reflect on both the assets and challenges within their community. The objective of the first forum is to allow the participants to become familiar with all aspects and concerns of their community and their fellow citizens before deciding on a direction in which to take their community.

Forum Two: Where do we want to go?
The next step is for the group to decide, together, what they want the future of the community to look like. Participants are asked to identify and examine issues impacting the economic infrastructure of their community, and to then consider the strengths, opportunities, resources, and trade offs associated with each option. The goal of the second forum is for the community to identify and prioritize an issue or set of issues in which they would like to affect change.

Forum Three: How do we get there?
In final forum community members must take the components of the previous forums and decide what issues to address first and what actions to implement. Participants must consider who to involve, what challenges may arise, what work is already being done and can it be built upon, what actions are the most doable, and what are the next steps. At the end of the forum the community should walk away with a clear idea of what changes they can make together and where to start.

Watch the introductory video below about What’s Next, Alabama?

About DMC Issue Guides…
David Mathews Center issue guides are named and framed by Alabama citizens for Alabama Issues Forums (AIF). Alabama Issues Forums is a David Mathews Center signature program designed to bring Alabama citizens together to deliberate and take community action on an issue of public concern. Digital copies of all AIF issue guides, and accompanying post-forum questionnaires, are available for free download at http://mathewscenter.org/resources/

For further information about the Mathews Center, Alabama Issues Forums, or this publication, please visit http://mathewscenter.org/.

Resource Link: http://mathewscenter.org/whatsnext

This resource was submitted by Cristin Brawner, Executive Director of the David Mathews Center for Civic Life via the Add-a-Resource form.

Posted in All Resources, bridge building, civic engagement, community building, David Mathews, dialogue, dialogue fodder, dialogue guide, dialogue to action, economic issues, great for public managers, Manuals & Guides, Organizations & Programs, tools | Leave a reply

Graduate Certificate in Collaborative Governance

Posted on May 18, 2017 by NCDD Community
Reply

The Collaborative Governance Graduate certificate is available at Portland State University and is part of the Mark O. Hatfield School of Government. In response to a growing need for collaborative approaches to complex problems that span multiple jurisdictional, sectoral, and organizational boundaries, the Hatfield School of Government, the Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning, the National Policy Consensus Center (NPCC), and the Center for Public Service (CPS) have partnered to offer a set of courses that lead to a Graduate Certificate in Collaborative Governance. Non-certificate students may also opt to take one or more courses individually.

It is our goal to improve the practice of collaborative governance (and therefore governance) by providing students with the following knowledge and skills:

  1. Define collaborative governance and its value in public policy-making and creation of public goods.
  2. Identify and exemplify principles of professional responsibilities and ethics in a collaborative setting.
  3. Design and manage collaborative processes, partnerships, and networks.
  4. Employ appropriate analysis techniques to understand and monitor collaborative efforts and outcomes, including the identification and application of relevant technical and scientific information.
  5. Demonstrate leadership, as well as verbal and written communications skills aligned with principles of collaboration.
  6. Demonstrate an understanding of group dynamics, deliberation, and decision-making by effectively engaging with teams and groups in collaborative contexts.
  7. Identify and apply appropriate negotiation and conflict management theories and frameworks in two-party, and multi-party settings.
  8. Employ computer and web-based decision and communications tools in a collaborative context.

The certificate program consists of 16 credit hours of graduate coursework and is intended to provide working professionals and graduate students with the knowledge and skills necessary to successfully lead or engage in collaborative efforts designed to generate and/or implement sustainable solutions. All core courses for the Graduate Certificate in Collaborative Governance are offered on-line. In addition, at least one of the elective courses (PA 577) is offered on-line.

Course of Study
[NCDD note: Below are the current courses for the program as of Spring 2017 and they may be subject to change in the future.]

Core Courses
Students must take the following four core courses:

  • PA 575: Foundations of Collaborative Governance (3 credits) – Fall
    This initial course provides an overview of the current governing context and the new models that have emerged in response. In addition, students will explore the nature of collaborative relationships, the role of trust, harnessing the potential power of groups, and how to address conflict and reach consensus.
  • PA 576: Collaborative Governance Process & Systems (3 credits) – Winter
    This skills-based course focuses on the assessment, organization and phases of facilitating collaborative agreement-seeking processes, emphasizing techniques and challenges for reaching mutually satisfying agreements, including how to frame an issue to increase the group’s chance for success.
  • USP 584: Negotiation in the Public Sector (4 credits) – Summer
    This course offers an overview of the conventional and innovative applications of negotiations in public sector activities, and the potential and limitations of negotiation-based approaches to public decision making. Key components include negotiation theory, individual skill development and a review of the institutional, legal and political context of negotiations.
  • PA 578: Collaborative Governance Practicum (3 credits) – Fall
    In this culminating practicum, students participate in discussions with faculty experts and fellow students as they apply the knowledge and skills gained in core courses to a community-based problem, issue, or project of their choosing.

Electives
Students must also complete one elective course of their choice. The following is a list of suggested elective courses. Courses not on this list may also be eligible with pre-approval by certificate program faculty.PA 577: Case Studies in Collaborative Governance (3 credits) – Spring

  • PA 543: Creating Collaborative Communities (3 credits)
  • PA 553: Sustainable Development Policy and Governance (3 credits)
  • USP 550: Concepts of Citizen Participation (4 credits)
  • USP 619: Development Partnerships (3 credits)
  • SYSC 511: Systems Theory (4 credits)
  • PA 564: Current Issues in Environmental Policy and Administration (3 credits)
  • CR 515: Negotiation and Mediation (4 credits)
  • CR 524: Advanced Mediation (4 credits)
  • CR 526: Intercultural Conflict Resolution (4 credits)
  • CR 512: Perspectives in Conflict Resolution (4 credits)

About PSU’s Hatfield School of Government
Dedicated to public service and social justice, the Hatfield School does more than teach — we prepare students for community leadership and for making the world a better place. Located in the vibrant heart of downtown Portland, the Hatfield School offers real-world application of studies only steps away from the classroom. Students actively engage in a variety of hands-on public service projects throughout Oregon, the nation, and the world.

Resource Link: www.pdx.edu/hatfieldschool/collaborate

This resource was submitted by Sarah Giles, Special Projects Manager at Portland State University’s Hatfield School of Government via the Add-a-Resource form.

Posted in All Resources, civic engagement, collaborative efforts, conflict resolution, cross-sector, education, Education & Training, higher ed, mediation, systems change, theory, tools | Leave a reply

21st Century Civic Infrastructure: Under Construction

Posted on May 4, 2017 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

The 28-page paper, 21st Century Civic Infrastructure: Under Construction, written by Jill Blair and Malka Kopell was commissioned by The Aspen Institute Forum for Community Solutions and published in spring 2015. The paper offers 3 keystones for building an effective and more equitable civic infrastructure: engaging all sectors; enlisting all voices; and creating vertical and horizontal thoroughfares for the exchange of information and practice. Below is an excerpt of the paper, which can be found in full on The Aspen Institute’s FCS’s site here.

From the introduction…

Our existing civic infrastructure was not designed with intention; it evolved over time in an ad hoc fashion and was built, in part, as a result of investments made over time, largely by philanthropy, but also by private and public sector entities. While philanthropy has helped to populate our current civic infrastructure with nonprofit organizations, the public sector has introduced civic infrastructure policies – from public hearings to citizen budget commissions, and the private sector has contributed to civic infrastructure as well by sponsoring everything from volunteer engagement programs to corporate social responsibility efforts.

The investments and contributions have created a set of institutions, organizations, policies and practices upon which society has come to rely to facilitate public engagement in what Alexis de Tocqueville described as “associational life.” This is civic infrastructure, and it is made up of civic platforms of interplay and participation that enable us to connect with one another and to discover, express, and act on our collective community and civic interests.

We are suggesting here that given the myriad ways in which the world has changed and the persistence of the problems our civic infrastructure is intended to address, there is a need not only to revisit that infrastructure but to consciously create an infrastructure capable of meeting the challenges of our times. Our existing civic infrastructure is, in some cases, failing to take advantage of opportunities, in terms of today’s technology, communications and access to information. In other cases, our current system is failing to meet the challenges it was intended to overcome. Some remnants of 20th century civic infrastructure are ineffective and others may be damaging or undermining or compromising our potential for positive social impact.

Purpose
As leading investors in public problem solving across all content and disciplines, we see philanthropy as the primary, but not the sole, audience for this paper. As problem-solving investors, philanthropy historically has been a source of support for many of the institutions and organizations that comprise our civic infrastructure. With that said, the concepts presented here are relevant to all individuals and organizations committed to building a better world — one in which fairness, justice, economic and educational opportunity prevail and where all people are engaged as stakeholders in civic and community life. We offer this concept of intentional civic infrastructure design to provoke broad interest and to spark participation in its further development and realization.

Approach
We set out to explore the nature of and to begin to frame the principles of an intentionally designed civic infrastructure. We conducted conversations with 18 individuals1 and facilitated a number of small group discussions representing a range of philanthropic, nonprofit and private sector organizations. Many of those interviewed are quoted anonymously throughout this paper. We posed questions about designing a 21st century civic infrastructure in small groups gathered to discuss a range of issues, from democratic practice to place-based or neighborhood-based philanthropy. From these discussions and building on our original intention, we have gleaned what we believe are the keystone elements of a 21st century civic infrastructure wherein organizations and relationships are redefined according to what is both needed and possible given the times in which we live. We offer these keystones in a nascent stage, hoping to provoke deeper exploration and exposition. We are convinced that this moment calls for a close look at what is possible, and a closer look at steps we can take to get there.

Goals
It is time to conceive and construct, imagine and then create, a new civic infrastructure that enables full engagement in community and civic life. We must build it to be more robust and to achieve greater impact on the most vexing and troubling issues confronting our communities and the nation at large.

We intend this paper to be the basis for a series of organized conversations during which the keystones will be refined and made practical by examples and by trial and effort. We hope our colleagues in philanthropy and beyond will consider how to apply the keystones to their own portfolios and their ways of doing business in order to consciously cultivate better conditions for 21st century problem solving. As we apply these principles and our new expectations to practice, the nature of 21st century civic infrastructure should become clearer. We will build it as we go; we will recognize it as it manifests along the way. We know this approach may require reimagining, recreating and dismantling organizations and strategies to which we have become accustomed (and perhaps even committed), but that is the nature of building.

This is an excerpt of the paper, which you can find in full here. 

About the Aspen Institute Forum for Community Solutions
The Aspen Institute Forum for Community Solution’s mission is to support community collaboration – including collective impact – that enables communities to effectively address their most pressing challenges. The Forum works to accomplish this mission by pursuing four complementary strategies including: 1) building awareness by documenting and lifting up impactful strategies and stories of success; 2) mobilizing stakeholders through knowledge and network development; 3) removing barriers by advocating for effective policy; and 4) catalyzing investment by encouraging funder partnerships.

Follow on Twitter: @AspenFCS

Resource Link: http://aspencommunitysolutions.org/21st-century-civic-infastucture-under-construction/

Posted in All Resources, civic engagement, collaborative efforts, deliberation, funders, gems, great for beginners, great for public managers, highly recommended, institutionalizing D&D, philanthropy, public engagement, Reports & Articles | Leave a reply

The Civic Engagement Primer (PACE)

Posted on May 2, 2017 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

The resource, The Civic Engagement Primer, from Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement (PACE) was released April 2017. It was designed to help philanthropies explore fostering civic engagement interests and increase their understanding of the civic engagement field. You can view the primer’s write up from PACE below and check out the primer on PACE’s site here.

From the site…

A new conversation about civic engagement is emerging. At PACE–a network of funders and foundations committed to civic engagement and democracy–we’ve seen the swell in interest and urgency around this work firsthand.  Philanthropies are continuing to understand the civic engagement field and the role they can play in its future.  We’re getting a lot of questions–things like:

  • What is civic engagement? How is it defined and what does it look?
  • How might civic engagement relate to my work?
  • How do I get started? Who might I learn from about how to do this work?

We don’t have all the answers, but we do have this:

This Civic Engagement Primer–also known as the #PACEprimer–is a resource designed to explore these questions and help philanthropies assess their interest and understanding in civic engagement, and ultimately help them along their journey toward integrating it into their work.  This tool is intended for:

  • Philanthropies thinking about civic engagement for the first time
  • Philanthropies that are not new to civic engagement, but have yet to invest in it
  • Philanthropies that are already investing in civic engagement, but seek common language and shared tools

It should take users 20-30 minutes to work through the Civic Engagement Primer. At the end, we hope philanthropies will:

  • Have a foundational understanding of civic engagement philanthropy
  • Know if pursuing civic engagement philanthropy might be right for them
  • Have resources at their fingertips to share with colleagues and explore further

Click here to view PACE’s Civic Engagement Primer. Continue reading →

Posted in All Resources, capacity building, civic engagement, funders, gems, great for public managers, highly recommended, institutionalizing D&D, philanthropy, public engagement, tools, Tools & Handouts | Leave a reply

Practicing Civic Courage in Our Time

Posted on March 20, 2017 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

The article, Practicing Civic Courage in Our Time, was written Martha McCoy and published February 2017 on Everyday Democracy’s site. In the article, McCoy shares different ways in which to have more civic courage by reaching in, reaching out, and creating spaces for democratic participation.  You can find the full article below, as well as, on directly from Everyday Democracy’s site here.

From Everyday Democracy…

The day after the election, we shared a piece by our board member Peter Levine, in which he called for civic courage. As division, uncertainty, and anxiety continue to grow, I find myself coming back to this important idea. When messages of fear become louder and more frequent, what does civic courage look like? How can we practice it?

At difficult times throughout our history, many people have exercised civic courage. What kind of courage do we need to practice today? What will it take to advance a democracy that values the voice and participation of people of all racial and ethnic groups, economic means, creeds, ages, genders, sexual orientations, abilities, and walks of life?

Since Everyday Democracy is a national civic organization that focuses on providing ways to lift every voice, we have opportunities to work with and learn from civic practitioners and visionary leaders across the country. Here are a few lessons about civic courage we have drawn from their experiences:       

Reach in: The work of strengthening democracy is ultimately collective, but it is also an “inside job.” Those whose words and actions touch us most deeply draw on their inner strength – often rooted in their faith in God and grounded in deeply held beliefs, such as a strong sense of compassion and justice. Many leaders we work with spend time apart – in quiet retreats, with others of their faith tradition, in nature, in poetry, in meditation – so that they can enter more fully into the work of strengthening voice, participation, and justice. They show us that when we take the time to listen to and nurture our own longings for wholeness and connection, we are better able to find the courage to operate from our best selves and to persist through great challenges.

Reach out: It requires courage to connect with and seek to understand others, especially those who have experiences and beliefs different from our own. As our politics become more prone to personal attack, overgeneralization, and stereotyping (“all conservatives believe this, all progressives believe that”), it is becoming even more difficult to open our hearts and minds. But it is possible. In our work, we have heard thousands of people tell their own stories, speak from their own values and experiences, listen deeply to others’ stories and concerns, and find human and civic connection.

The willingness to speak honestly and listen to others creates the empathy that is essential to democracy. Empathy helps us put ourselves in another’s shoes, understand the meaning of justice, and form relationships across difference. It enables us to be hard on ideas but not on people. It helps us make conflict productive. It prevents the “us vs. them” that is at the root of violence. It provides the foundation for working together, even when some disagreement (inevitably) remains. It makes it possible to stand for our convictions, even while we make room for others to stand for theirs.

Stand up: It takes courage to use our voices to stand against anti-democratic behaviors and practices and to stand for more democratic ways of governing ourselves. Speaking out against racism is one of the most powerful examples of “standing up.”

People are learning that racism goes well beyond bigotry. Racism is a web of attitudes, practices, and policies that treats people of color as inferior and creates unfair disadvantages. It has been a primary impediment to democratic practice since our very founding. And it has laid the foundation for other forms of disadvantage and inequity – such as those based on income level, education, gender, age, religion, ability, language, immigration status, and sexual orientation.

The more people understand the true nature of racism, the more they understand that it affects all of us – people of all colors, ethnicities, and income levels. Since our society provides very few ways to learn about this, it can be difficult for many to recognize those times when racism is being used to divide us from each other.

Today, growing numbers of people of all backgrounds are demonstrating civic courage by standing up to name the effects of structural racism and call for racial justice. People of color and white people are showing that it is possible to use a clearer understanding of racial justice to strengthen their advocacy for all kinds of justice and their efforts to bring all kinds of people into dialogue and public problem solving. And growing numbers of white people are showing the power of “standing with.”

Create spaces for democratic participation: We work with hundreds of leaders who bring people together across all kinds of divides for honest, sometimes difficult, conversations that are organized to lead to action and change. Such conversations allow people of all backgrounds and views to build trust and create solutions to public problems.

It takes civic courage and skill to build a welcoming public space where people of all backgrounds and views can share honestly and listen deeply, especially in the face of so much division. It takes courage to take part in dialogue, to sit down with others, especially when messages of distrust and fear bombard us daily. And it takes courage for elected leaders at all levels to sit down with everyday people and commit to listening to them.

Yet, all of this is possible. Diverse coalitions of community groups, grass-roots leaders, and public officials are creating opportunities for all kinds of people to:

  • speak honestly and listen deeply to each other
  • find their own voices and leadership potential
  • dispel stereotypes
  • build relationships of trust that can nourish and sustain civic courage
  • deepen their understanding of the nature of public problems and the roots of inequities
  • explore each other’s views and find shared concerns
  • consider a range of possible public solutions
  • make recommendations to policymakers
  • and develop action priorities and plans they can carry out together.

We and many of our partners are working toward a society in which these opportunities and practices become routine – in the ways we relate to each other, strengthen community, solve public problems, and make public decisions.

In fact, that is what “everyday democracy” would look like.

Cultivate hope: The late civil rights leader Vincent Harding once famously asked: “Is America possible?” He wondered whether it was possible to create a multi-racial democracy that works for all people.  His answer: “Yes, but only as we make it so.” Harding practiced civic courage in his own life, and then he shared his stories and lessons with many young people. He understood that advancing democracy was a multi-generational journey for the long haul, and that each of us can (and must) contribute.

At Everyday Democracy, we are committed to making America possible, to creating an authentic democracy that works for all. We stand against fear and for hope. We stand against demonizing others and for encouraging the voices and participation of all. We stand against implicit and explicit bias in ourselves and others; we stand for understanding and attending to the ways that structural racism has shaped our relationships with each other and how we govern ourselves.

There is great power in sharing stories of courage and hope and of how you are using these principles and values in your communities and in your work. It is possible for all of us to embrace civic courage by working to create positive change – in ourselves, our relationships, our institutions, and our systems.

​Please share your stories and thoughts with us:

  • What does civic courage mean to you in this time?
  • What does it look like?
  • What are you doing to exercise it?
  • What are you struggling with?
  • What resources are you calling on?
  • What are you learning?

Please send your stories, thoughts, and photos to us at naflalo@everyday-democracy.org, and check back for updates from around the country. We stand with you as you take this important work forward. In this challenging time, your commitment and work are vital. Together we will make America possible.

About Everyday Democracy
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.

Follow on Twitter: @EvDem

Resource Link: www.everyday-democracy.org/news/practicing-civic-courage-age-civic-anxiety

Posted in All Resources, civic engagement, EvDem/Study Circles, highly recommended, peter levine, race issues, Reports & Articles, social justice | Leave a reply

Civics, Gaming, and the Commons

Posted on February 21, 2017 by Joshua Miller
Reply

This past weekend, we inaugurated a new competition soliciting “civic games.” Hopefully it will become an annual contest, but for now the most vexing question coming from game designers is: “What makes a game civic?”

Our definition of civics offers little help: we argue that civics is an expansive conception of politics, understood as a response to questions like: “How can we make democracy work like it should?” or “How can we enhance citizens’ abilities to act as equal co-creators of our shared world?” You are a citizen of a group (regardless of your legal status) if you seriously ask: “What should we do?” (more) Civic activities include deliberation, community organizing, social entrepreneurship, protest, and–in a pinch!–electoral politics.

But what makes a game civic? Given how much game theory there is beyond the prisoner’s dilemma, I can’t summarize the different ways that a game can be civic here, but I want to point out some things:

  1. A game can teach a civic skill.
  2. A game can raise awareness of a civic issue.
  3. A game can produce a civic experience.
  4. A game can promote a civic cause.
  5. A game can encourage engagement in a civic activity.

The most popular game in the world, Monopoly, began as a “civic” game: Elizabeth Magie’s The Landlord’s Game designed to convey the basic injustice of rentier capitalism and promote the economic ideas of the utopian reformer Henry George. That’s an auspicious beginning to build on.

A game that teaches you a technique-for instance, how to act during a protest–might be a good candidate. The same goes for a game that lets people safely practice affirmative, enthusiastic consent for future sexual encounters. But there’s also a trend to “gamify” everyday life. The FitBit, for instance, allows you to compete to walk more than friends and family.

This is a weird kind of game: the activity is walking, but the “gamification” and challenges are designed to cause us to walk more, because we enjoy incentives even when we know they’re artificial. So civic “gamification” might encourage calling and writing one’s political representatives, or attending protests and demonstrations.

Not all civic games will be fun, even though that’s one of the categories against which it can be judged. To return to Monopoly, it’s precisely the monotony most people experience that is the core civic lesson of the game. The game is rigged in favor of early winners, which is why we should maybe avoid actual monopolies. But since people tend to prefer to play fun games, it seems like “unfun” can be a recipe for reduced impact that’s hard to overcome.

Finally, I think that civics is fundamentally about finding ways for people to take an ownership-stake in their shared world, which as I’ve written is closely tied to the idea that there are certain kinds of commonly-held resources that encourage civic engagement. Increasingly the “commons” is being depleted, as more and more things become purely private, controlled by large corporations. This makes us less efficacious as citizens because we practice politics less.

Whenever I talk about this connection I like to mention an essay Elinor Ostrom wrote for Scandanvian Political Studies, “Crowding Out Citizenship.” She argues that current public policy is based on a theory of collective inaction, which assumes that most citizens are rational actors unable to sacrifice their individual self-interest in pursuit of the public good. Moreover, collective inaction theories assume that citizens lack sufficient knowledge to design appropriate institutions on their own, so this work must be left up to experts.

By centralizing institutional design and reserving meaningful contributions for experts, we will tend to “crowd out” the motivations that make it possible for citizens to act in pro-social and collaborative ways. The study of civic agency aims to reverse the “crowding out” effect. Instead, local self-managed communities arrange to “crowd in” pro-social attitudes and expertise. Our knowledge and power as citizens is weakest when external interventions render us irrelevant. Unsurprisingly, the opposite is also true: when we are forced to manage our affairs together, we develop the wisdom and the strength to do so.

I’m encouraged to think that we can combat this by increasing the responsible usage of common-pool resources. (A standard tension or contradiction in the literature is that common-pool resources can be over-used, yet they require users to survive and thrive!) So for instance, Wikipedia is a massive common-pool resource whose use tends to encourage its expansion. In gaming, there’s a similar kind of open-source movement around games that can be “hacked” or altered for new purposes. The most famous example of this is probably OSR D&D and Pathfinder. Both take advantage of the limits on copyright law (you can’t copyright rules) or open sourced licensing inside a familiar “operating system” to create new things.

A less famous–but more salutary–example is the game Apocalypse World. The game itself encourages less of a hierarchy between the storyteller role (the Game Master or Master of Ceremonies) and the players, as well as creating more opportunities for collaborative storytelling among the players themselves in a post-apocalyptic world where the close bonds of community are paramount to survival. What’s more, the game has become a kind of hub for LGBT-friendly gamers, a smaller community within the world of games that is a little less white, a little less male, and a little less heteronormative. And the game has produced a common-pool resource that is now managed by that community: literally dozens of very different games have been created within a deliberately simple system created by Vincent and Meguey Baker.

Anyway, I believe that we are inaugurating a fruitful period of cross-pollination between game designers and civics practitioners.  I’m excited to see what happens when these two communities meet.

PS- Like us on Facebook!

Posted in Apocalypse World, board games, civic education, civic engagement, civic games, D&D, Elinor Ostrom, games, Monopoly, role-playing games, RPGs | Leave a reply

Can Public Life Be Regenerated?

Posted on January 27, 2017 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

The 32-page report, Can Public Life Be Regenerated? (2016), was written by David Mathews and supported by the Cousins Research Group of the Kettering Foundation. This report is based on a presentations Mathews gave the the Independent Sector conference on issues of community, civil society, and governance. In this report, Mathews explores the possibilities to “reweave the social fabric” within society, to improve its social capital and revitalize its sense of community, and create a healthier civil society.

Below is an excerpt of the report and it can be found in full at the bottom of this page or on Kettering Foundation’s site here.

From the guide…

Foreword
This paper was written in 1996 for an Independent Sector conference. At that time, the term public life was used to distinguish political life from other kinds of collective living. This was intended to counter a tendency to conflate largely social phenomena (attending a picnic) with more political activities (building a playground to give children a safer place to play). If I were writing this paper today, I likely would title it Can Democracy Be Regenerated? The Kettering Foundation’s research has led to a distinctive understanding of democratic politics that puts citizens at the center. By citizens, we mean people who join with others to produce things that serve our common well-being. As our research evolved, we came to use “making democracy work as it should” as a central, organizing theme. We define democracy, at its most fundamental, as a system of governance in which power comes from citizens who generate their power by working together to combat common problems—beginning in their communities—and by working to shape their common future, both through what they do with one another and through their institutions. – David Mathews April 4, 2016

These days we seem willing to consider the possibility that democracies need something more than written constitutions, multiple parties, free elections, and representative governments. They also depend on a strong public life, a rich depository of social capital, a sense of community, and a healthy civil society. Now comes the obvious follow-up: Is it possible to “reweave the social fabric,” to generate social capital where it is lacking, to build a sense of community in a fragmented, polarized city, to invigorate public life at a time when many Americans are seeking security in private sanctuaries? No one knows. Maybe a democratic civil society takes centuries to develop, building layer upon layer like a coral reef. Maybe the places we admire most result more from happenstance than we would like to admit. These reservations notwithstanding, we do have cases where a civil order changed its character in a relatively short period of time. Modern Spanish democracy emerged from Franco’s fascism in only a few decades, according to Víctor Pérez Díaz. And Vaughn Grisham Jr. reports that Tupelo, Mississippi, changed its civic character in roughly the same amount of time, the result being that the poorest city in the poorest county in the poorest state of the union became a progressive community with a per capita income close to that of Atlanta.

So maybe—just maybe—it is possible for towns and cities, perhaps even counties and states, to change their politics. Maybe public life can be regenerated. I say “regenerated” because I am assuming that some vestige or memory of public life exists almost everywhere. I think modern public life is rooted in the earliest institutions and norms created for collective survival. So my instincts tell me that strengthening public life is best accomplished by following the advice of J. Herman Blake, a very effective community organizer, whose practice is to “build on what grows.” With that as a predicate, I want to go on to the question of how people might change the character of their civil order. There is some urgency surrounding this question; I sense a danger in trying to strengthen public life with only a thin concept of the public, civil, or communal to guide the way. That would create a problem akin to trying to paint a barn red without clearly distinguishing red from pink or orange. There is a tendency to take descriptions of cities with a rich reservoir of social capital and try to replicate their features. If they have a lot of festivals, why not generate public life with a pig roast? (Actually, a foundation in Europe was asked to do just that.) But are community barbecues and festivals the product of something that happens prior to the events, of some precondition that we haven’t been able to identify? Are we in danger of mistaking the symptom for the cause? If we do, our strategies for building civil society will be the equivalent of dress-for-success strategies that tell us we can get ahead in the world by wearing the right tie or dress.

Developing a Concept of Public Life
Here is what I will try to do in this paper: Drawing on what the Kettering Foundation is learning from its research and observations, and from studies others have done, I will propose a way of thinking about public life, or a paradigm.5 Kettering has been developing a hypothesis about what public life is in order to have a better idea about how to strengthen it. The way we understand the structure and function of a public suggests ways to regenerate public life. Since no one knows the answer to the question of whether such life can be renewed, surely the thing to do is to spell out our assumptions, which can be tested by experience.

The Influence of Studies of Social Capital and Community Development
We aren’t making empirical claims when we develop a hypothesis. Yet our experiences influence our imagination of what might be. For 15 years, Kettering has been observing public life in communities from Grand Rapids, Michigan, to El Paso, Texas, and from Newark, New Jersey, to Orange County, California. We have also commissioned independent research on public life. And we have been influenced by studies like Pérez-Díaz’s on Spain, Grisham’s on Tupelo, Robert Putnam’s on north central Italy, and that of the Heartland Center for Leadership Development on the difference between dying and prospering rural communities, among others. Putnam and Grisham reinforced our own impressions that the “soft side” of the social order or an intangible such as social capital is critical to public life. Social capital is said to consist of networks of civic associations, along with norms of reciprocity and social trust, that result in high levels of voluntary cooperation. This capital is generated where public life is strong, that is, where people are involved in public matters and in relationships that run horizontally (among equals) instead of vertically (between haves and have-nots). As you know, while Putnam found these characteristics in some areas in Italy, they were noticeably absent in others. People in the “uncivil” areas did not participate in either local politics or social organizations, and their relationships tended to be hierarchical, with the have-nots dependent on the haves.

This is an excerpt of the report, download the full guide at the bottom of this page to learn more.

About Kettering Foundation
KF_LogoThe Kettering Foundation is a nonprofit operating foundation rooted in the American tradition of cooperative research. Kettering’s primary research question is, what does it take to make democracy work as it should? Kettering’s research is distinctive because it is conducted from the perspective of citizens and focuses on what people can do collectively to address problems affecting their lives, their communities, and their nation.

Follow on Twitter: @KetteringFdn

Resource Link: www.kettering.org/catalog/product/can-public-life-be-regenerated

Posted in All Resources, civic engagement, community building, David Mathews, democratic renewal, gems, great for public managers, JLA, Kettering Foundation, public engagement, Reports & Articles, research | Leave a reply

Post navigation

← Older posts

Connect with:

Contributors

This site brings together posts from these scholar and practioner blogs:

anotherpanacea
Centre for Deliberative Democracy
Civic Fizz
David Bollier
DemocracySpot
Eric Thomas Weber
Florida Civics
Harry Boyte
NCDD Community
Participedia
Peter Levine
Public Agenda
Sweet Sorrow
The Good Society

Email us if you would like your blog included

Recent Posts

  • who is most concerned about crime as a political issue?
  • a checklist for democracy activists
  • Civic Studies updates
  • open webinars on resistance
  • teaching in the era of AI (thoughts for fall 2025)

Archives

  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • October 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • January 2011
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • January 2010
  • September 2009
  • July 2009
This site has grown out of the annual Summer Institute of Civic Studies and Frontiers of Democracy Conference, both hosted by the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service at Tufts University.
Proudly powered by WordPress