Category Archives: conflict transformation

Using Ground Rules to Create “Safe-Enough” Spaces

Posted on by
Reply

We learned a lot from the article below written by a team from the Public Conversations Project, one of our NCDD member organizations. The piece uses story and art to offer a valuable lessons about how ground rules in dialogues can temper the impacts that power and privilege frequently have on tense discussions and help everyone be heard, even when emotions run high. We encourage you to read the PCP article, cross-posted below, or find the original here.

No, We Won’t Calm Down: Emotion and Reason in Dialogue?

PCP new logoA recent cartoon on digital platform Everyday Feminism stimulated a lot of questions among Public Conversations Project staff. Entitled “No, We Won’t Calm Down-Tone Policing is Just Another Way to Protect Privilege,” it raised important issues about power, privilege, the apparent contrast between reason and emotion, and the roles of advocacy and dialogue.

Tone policing

The protagonist, Robot Hugs, talks about how tone policing allows privileged people to define the terms of a conversation about oppression and how this “hinges on the idea that emotion and reason cannot coexist – that reasonable discussions cannot involve emotions.” It further asserts that this allows privileged people to regain control of a conversation that is making them uncomfortable and thereby avoid the discomfort caused by being exposed to the very real emotional fallout of oppression and discrimination.”

Image via EverydayFeminism.com, Credit: Robot Hugs

Our dialogue work frequently focuses on polarized and extremely controversial topics that touch on issues of power and privilege. We see “tone policing” as something to be avoided; we value people’s bringing their feelings into dialogue. That is one reason we talk with participants beforehand: to offer guidance about how they can speak in ways that are more likely to be heard, and how to listen with resilience. The communication agreements that participants commit to beforehand are ones that they have jointly drafted and found acceptable to support their purpose in having a deeper, more authentic conversation.

Power and privilege

The cartoon raises challenging and important questions about power and privilege that surface frequently in the course of our work. In fact, many partisans (on whatever side of a controversial issue) see advocacy and dialogue as mutually exclusive and cite issues of privilege and power imbalance as reasons it should be avoided. As Robot Hugs continues, “these conversations aren’t meant to be comfortable. We are discussing real, dangerous, structural things that make lives worse for entire groups of people. If it makes you feel uncomfortable, the thing to do isn’t to try to get us to talk about it differently – the thing to do is to help us stop it from happening.”

Why there may still be a need for dialogue

There are, however, many occasions when people on different sides of important issues feel the need to sit down and talk together. They may be tired of conflict or violence, or may see the potential benefit to their community of such a conversation. Our work in Montana was initiated because pro and anti-open carry advocates decided that it was important to try to understand each other’s perspectives, to strengthen their communities and keep them safe. In Nigeria, we worked with Muslims and Christians who wanted to address sporadic outbreaks of violence between their communities.

Bottom line, there are times when people experience the need to listen to one another, as a first step toward building relationships and trust. If such efforts succeed, people may be interested in attempting to work together to address problems, when neither group can solve the problem on their own.

Shared purpose, shared power

A dialogue is a conversation that participants enter with the clear and shared purpose of mutual understanding. They have also had an opportunity to contribute to how they want to be together. They contribute ideas that will promote this purpose, so they are the ones who are actively participating in designing the structure and communication agreements, rather than someone who is more privileged or powerful “imposing” them. They have agreed to focus on certain questions, to limit the time of responding, and to respond in ways that enhance learning and connection. We are aware that everyone is not always interested in such conversations and they may not be possible in certain circumstances.

The power of agreements

The agreements are co-created by all participants so that those who are “privileged” hold the same power as all others. Agreements can be negotiated throughout the process, so that if something is not working, the opportunity to fix it exists. In dialogue, the purpose of the conversation is mutual understanding. We know that when people are having difficult conversations around polarizing issues, it is helpful to create a space for effective communication. Hard work! In order to create a safe space – specifically one that does not induce a flight, fight, or freeze response – a person has to feel safe.

Avoiding fight, flight, or freeze

A part of our brain is watching for danger, and may prevent us from being capable of having a constructive conversation when we most need it. When there’s a lot at stake and we feel under attack, the brain and central nervous system release hormones designed to keep us hyper vigilant, with physiological (racing heartrate, cold, sweaty palms, etc.) and psychological effects. Our capacity to think and reflect shuts down as we prepare for fight, flight or freeze. A conversation with highly emotional responses, however justified, can trigger this reactive response. A structured, voluntary conversation, however, creates a sense of safety and wellbeing so that participants can focus on the narratives and not the fear that emerges because of feeling threatened.

One example of this dynamic occurred a number of years ago, in which issues of power imbalances and privilege caused collaborative work to run aground and precipitated a request for our assistance. The Massachusetts Department of Mental Health had received a three-year federal grant to reduce the use of seclusion and restraint in its psychiatric hospitals. DMH formed a Steering Committee, which included people with lived experience of psychiatric illness, family members, advocates, mental health clinicians, hospital directors, and staff.

Although all the participants shared a common purpose, the enterprise foundered within its first six months, as Steering Committee members experienced massive frustrations, with many voicing the sense of not feeling seen or heard by others. People with lived experience spoke powerfully of their sense that DMH staff were unwilling to hear their experience of having been traumatized by the seclusion and restraint orders that psychiatric hospital staff had initiated. In response to voicing their concerns, the message they heard back was that they needed to speak differently so that the (more powerful) DMH staff would not feel attacked. Many of the clinicians felt guilty and misunderstood, seen as one-dimensional and complained of being attacked verbally when they attempted to engage or empathize. From their perspective, there was a power imbalance in terms of the “moral power of the victim.”

Freedom through structure

One of our first tasks was to help them figure out how both sides could express themselves clearly and powerfully, in ways that invited thoughtful listening, rather than resistance and shutting down. How could the issues of power and privilege be addressed in a way that would allow them to resume their work together? We began by meeting with each group separately and helping them think through their priorities and their purpose in coming together. It soon became evident that there were significant differences within each group.

We encouraged a candid discussion that focused on helping them identify the kinds of behaviors and commitments that would support their purpose. As participants explored their own feelings and experiences within each group, they engaged energetically with each other. As facilitators, we did not impose “ground rules” but allowed these to emerge from the group after thorough discussion.

When the two groups came together one of the first items of conversation was the negotiation of these ground rules. This was accomplished quickly and it successfully provided the kind of “safe-enough” space within which participants were able to have a more fruitful conversation that led to their getting back on track.

Purpose first; no policing later

Image via EverydayFeminism.com, Credit: Robot Hugs

To return to Robot Hugs, one of the underlying assumptions that we noted was the lack of clarity in identifying the purpose for the conversation. Robot Hugs expressed the belief that sometimes conversations are not just for moving toward solutions but they can also be for exploring situations, letting off steam, finding community, and feeling less alone. The cartoon suggested that those conducting the “tone policing” had very different purposes for the conversation, namely to retain their power and privilege and avoid feeling uncomfortable.

One thing that we emphasize in our work is the importance of purpose. If the purpose for a conversation is clear and shared, then developing shared commitments of how people want to be together can help support that purpose. If the participants have very different purposes for the conversation, these differing purposes frequently manifest behaviorally and interfere with task accomplishment. If the purpose involves mutual learning and understanding, differences of power and privilege can usually be directly addressed and successfully negotiated. This kind of direct and open conversation, focused on mutual learning and understanding, can lay the foundation for collaborative action to create more fairness and justice.

Robot Hugs rightly complains that the more powerful people sometimes want to make the rules of the game, to impose their views on how the conversation should be held. In our work, communicating with participants beforehand helps to address issues of purpose, conducive behaviors, and commitments. Groups might, for example, talk about sharing airtime, listening with resilience, and other kinds of behaviors that would help support their purpose.

Emotion and reason are not enemies. We want people to bring their feelings and their passions into the room when they engage in dialogue, but not to be overwhelmed by them. And we want to help them to think about how they can express these in ways that invite listening with an open heart and speaking in ways that invite receptivity.

You can find the original version of this Public Conversations Project post at www.publicconversations.org/blog/no-we-wont-calm-down-emotion-and-reason-dialogue#sthash.YJKzIe1V.dpuf.

Join D&D Climate Action Network Call on Networks, 4/19

Posted on by
Reply

We encourage our NCDD members to save the date for the next D&D Climate Action Network (D&D CAN) conference call coming up on Tuesday, April 19th from 5-7pm Eastern / 2-4pm Pacific!

D&D CAN is a network led by NCDD supporting member Linda Ellinor of the Dialogue Group that is working to foster shared learning, networking and collaboration among those seeking to use dialogue, deliberation, and other process skills to address climate change. The monthly D&D CAN conference calls are a great way to connect with the network, and you can register to save your spot by clicking here.

The theme of this month’s D&D CAN call is The Power of Networks, and it will feature the insights of special guest Andrew Zolli. Here’s how D&D CAN describes the call:

Futurist Andrew Zolli says “the unit of action in the 21st century is the network, not the organization.”   To build a network capable of tackling something as complex as climate change, we must attend to creating greater connectivity (trust building, information sharing, learning), alignment (shared identity and value proposition), as well as collective action (advocacy, education and/or launching initiatives).

Bring your stories of:

  • Your experiences as part of a successful networks
  • What gives them life and meaning?
  • What’s working?

This is the second D&D CAN call that is being hosted using the QiqoChat platform, which is run by NCDD member Lucas Cioffi and about which we hosted a recent Tech Tuesday call (you can hear the recording of the call here).

With the combination of great D&D technology and powerful ideas, the call promises to be one you don’t want to miss, so be sure to register today at https://ddcan.qiqochat.com. We hope to hear many of our members on the call!

DOJ Community Relations Service is Hiring Conciliators

Posted on by
Reply

Last week, Grande Lum – the former director of the Dept. of Justice’s Community Relations Service (CRS) and a keynote speaker at NCDD 2014 – shared on an announcement on our NCDD Discussion Listserv about a couple job openings at the CRS that we wanted to mention here, too.

The CRS is hiring for Conciliation Specialists, and we encourage our NCDD members to apply or share about the opportunity with people in your networks. The CRS seeks to serve as a neutral convener and mediator for communities dealing with conflict, and we know that some of our members would make great additions to their national staff.

Here’s how the CRS describes the positions:

Are you interested in a rewarding and challenging career? Join the U.S. Department of Justice!
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Community Relations Service (CRS) is seeking to hire highly qualified Conciliation Specialists for various Regional Offices. CRS has responsibility for assisting state and local units of government, private and public organizations, and community groups with preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents, and civil disorders, and in restoring racial stability and harmony.

You can find the job announcements at www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/431163900 and
www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/431163900. But the deadline to apply is Monday, April 4th, so if you think you’re a good fit for this position, be sure to apply soon!

Good luck to all the applicants!

Register for D&D Climate Action Call using QiqoChat, 3/15

Posted on by
Reply

We want to remind our NCDD members to be sure to register for the next D&D Climate Action Network (D&D CAN) conference call this Tuesday, March 15th from 5-7pm Eastern / 2-4pm Pacific. D&D CAN is being led by NCDD supporting member Linda Ellinor of the Dialogue Group and is working to build a community of practice that fosters mutual learning, sharing, and inspires collaboration around the complexities of climate change, and their monthly conference calls are a great way to connect with others in the field working to use dialogue and deliberation to address climate issues.

This month’s D&D CAN call will feature special guest Rev. Dr. Russell Meyer, the Executive Director of the Florida Council of Churches, who will be discussing the call’s theme – Reuniting Science & Spirit. You can register to save your spot by clicking here.

Here’s how D&D CAN describes the call:

We have enough climate change science. What’s out of balance are ways to talk about it and choose wise actions. To create safe places for sharing. To listen for what we don’t know. To explore together.

Russell will help us consider:

  • Why can religious frameworks make certain conversations about climate change difficult?
  • What languaging can we use in faith-based groups that is inclusive?
  • How can values and personal experience keep us together on the journey?

We are also pleased to share that D&D CAN is hosting this call using the QiqoChat platform, which is run by NCDD member Lucas Cioffi and about which we hosted a recent Tech Tuesday call (you can hear the recording of the call here). We are excited to see the combination of important dialogue and powerful technology, and this call promises to be one of D&D CAN’s best yet!

If you are interested in climate issues or if you are working with communities of faith, this call is for you. Be sure to register today or learn more about D&D CAN at http://ddclimateactionnetwork.ning.com.

Can Average Citizens Can Make Politics More Civil?

Posted on by
Reply

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 by
Reply

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.

Join Us at Citizen University’s 2016 Conference, Mar. 18-19

Posted on by
Reply

We want to encourage NCDD members to consider registering Citizen University’s annual conference this March 18th – 19th in Seattle, Washington. Citizen University was founded by former NCDD keynote speaker Eric Liu to build a stronger culture of citizenship, and their annual confernece is an incredibly unique civic gathering.

This year’s conference theme is “Who Is Us? Race, Citizenship, and America Now.” As many of us in the D&D field continue to ask ourselves about how to engage more diverse populations beyond the “usual suspects”, this conference on the intersection of race and citizenship – keynoted by one of the founders of the national Black Lives Matter network – couldn’t be more timely.

Here’s how Citizen University describes the gathering:

A new America is being born. All across the country, citizens are forcing institutions to move on racial justice and social inclusion. Now more than ever, it’s time to ask: Who is Us? Who gets to define the emerging America?

This is the focus of our annual national conference, a civic gathering unlike any other in America. Join hundreds of change-makers, activists, and catalysts tolearn about power, deepen your networks, and recharge your sense of purpose.

With luminary speakers, master teachers, and rapid-fire lessons on civic power, the conversation will be rich and provocative. This is a time when citizens are solving problems in new ways, bypassing broken institutions, stale ideologies, and polarized politics. We are part of a movement to rekindle citizenship and remake the narrative of America. Join us.

The conference is going to have a great line up of speakers and engaging sessions, which you can learn more about on the conference website at www.citizenuniversity.us/programs/conference. Plus, our own NCDD Director Sandy Heierbacher will be in attendance, so we hope lots of NCDD members will be there to connect with her!

Conference registration is only $200 right now, but the early bird registration ends March 1st, so don’t wait too long! Learn more and register for the conference by clicking here, and we hope to see some of you in Seattle!

NCDD-CRS Meetings Catalyzed Projects, Continue in 2016

Posted on by
Reply

In the last year, we’ve been reporting on the collaboration that NCDD formed with U.S. Department of Justice’s Community Relations Service to organize meetings between NCDD members and CRS staff at their fourteen regional field offices. To date, meetings or conference calls have been held with CRS offices in Boston, Detroit, Chicago, Kansas City, New York, Dallas, and Seattle. Meetings are still in the works for Atlanta, Denver, Los Angeles, Miami, Philadelphia, and San Francisco in 2016, so be on the look out for more news if you live in those cities. The meetings are limited to dues-paying members and 2014 Conference attendees, so if you want to participate in one of the remaining meetings, make sure your dues are current, then contact NCDD’s Program Director Courtney Breese at courtney@ncdd.org.

NCDD Supporting Member Janice Thomson helped organize the NCDD-CRS meeting in Chicago, and it was a great example of the powerful collaborations that are being catalyzed by this initiative. She wrote up some insightful reflections on the meeting and the partnerships it made possible it on her blog, and we encourage you to read them below or find the original piece here.

How D&D Can Help Communities Adapt to Rapid Change

Since the 1960s, the US Department of Justice has provided peacekeeping services via its Community Relations Service (CRS) for community conflicts and tensions related to race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, and disability.

In 2015, the heads of the CRS and the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD) organized a series of nationwide meetings to identify possible areas of cooperation between the two groups. I and a dozen other NCDD members from Illinois, Iowa, and Michigan met with CRS staffers in Chicago and Detroit on February 23, 2015.

During our meeting, it became apparent that the types of conflicts the CRS commonly addresses are often symptoms of multiple stresses communities can experience as a result of rapid demographic, social, and economic change. The CRS can legally only act as a first responder after a crisis event. However, NCDD members can help support these communities to address the underlying stresses and so prevent crises from ever occurring.

As farming and manufacturing declined in the Midwest, service sector jobs grew, and real estate values fell, newcomers with very different histories, needs, and values from those of long-time residents moved into what previously were fairly stable and homogeneous communities. As a result, traditional ways of handling everything from public safety to education to transportation planning just aren’t working anymore. Resources are stretched. Residents are frustrated. Community leaders are desperate for new ways to meet residents’ needs and resolve issues before they fester into anything as destructive as hate crime. Importantly, this is happening not only in the Midwest, but throughout the country and in many other parts of the world.

As specialists in dialogue and deliberation, methods for helping communities to engage in meaningful conversations and make wise public decisions, we NCDD members knew that we had powerful tools to bring to communities struggling with rapid change. But how could we convince more communities to try them?

Three of us, Tracy Rogers-Tryba, Hubert Morgan, and I, decided to start answering this question by creating and testing an introductory D&D training designed specifically for communities struggling to adapt to disorienting demographic, economic, and social change.

With the support of The Center for Governmental Studies at Northern Illinois University (NIU) and the DeKalb County Community Foundation, on August 5, 2015 we shared this day-long training with members of DeKalb area civil society. We showed how 12 D&D methods have been used in other towns, suggested ways they might be applied to a fictitious case study city, and then provided time for participants to reflect on how they might be used in their own community. D&D methods were chosen to represent diverse approaches. Each was well-developed, time-tested, and supported by organizations, trainers, and resource materials.

We used the NCDD four streams of practice model to structure our discussions. This framework was originally designed to help practitioners decide which D&D methods to use when. However, it can also be a very helpful way to show how different D&D methods could complement each other when used by various groups within the same community (e.g., government, museums, schools). Below is a summary of methods we shared from each stream.

D&D methods from the Exploration stream encourage residents to learn more about themselves, their community, and/or an issue. They also teach skills in respectful listening and considering diverse viewpoints. They can thus provide a low-risk way for communities to begin to discuss difficult issues. We shared the Civic Reflection, Conversation Café, and Study Circles methods. For the case study city, we suggested using the first with teachers to address issues of burnout caused by growing student needs and declining resources. Conversation café would be used to explore community aspirations and address the issue of declining community spirit. Study Circles would explore public safety, both examining causes of increasing crime and identifying potential solutions.

Conflict Transformation approaches are used to resolve conflicts, foster personal healing, and improve relationships between groups. They provide safe ways to discuss divisive and sensitive topics, including issues linked to race, ethnicity, religion, and social class. We shared the Public Conversations Project (PCP), Restorative Justice Circles, and Nonviolent Communication (NVC) methods. In the case study city, we proposed using PCP to diffuse religious and ethnic tensions related to immigration. Circle would be taken up by schools to resolve non-violent student conflicts. NVC would be taught within diverse faith groups as a way to embed conflict transformation skills in the community.

Decision-making processes seek to influence public decisions and public policy, and to improve public knowledge on topics such as public education, policing, and economic development. We outlined the 21st Century Town Hall Meeting and Citizens’ Jury methods, as well as various approaches to informal and online engagement. For the case study city, we suggested using the first method to get resident input when cutting the city budget. A Citizens’ Jury would provide neutral guidance to voters on a contentious ballot initiative to change the tax structure. Informal and online engagement would both be used to get the input of “hard to reach” residents on a regional transportation plan.

Collaborative Action methods empower groups and individuals to solve complicated problems and take responsibility for the solution. We presented World Café, Open Space Technology (OST), and Appreciative Inquiry. World Café would be used to improve university-resident understanding and identify common goals. OST would help residents and economic development stakeholders to collectively identify ways to build a more vibrant economy. Appreciative Inquiry would help kick off a housing summit on a positive note by reminding participants of current assets and successes.

Our primary goal with this training was to introduce participants to dialogue & deliberation by demonstrating how a dozen different methods might be used in a community similar to their own. That we achieved.

We also wanted participants to start thinking about how they could use these and similar methods in their own work. They did. Collectively, they identified about a dozen potential projects or areas to explore.

What we could have done better, however, was help them to overcome risks inherent in trying something new in a potentially volatile environment. While they saw the need for and benefits of D&D, they were also worried about possible negative outcomes. Careful planning, involving key stakeholders from the beginning, and starting small could help reduce some of these risks. However, ultimately it takes courage to be the first to host a community dialogue on sensitive topics. Hopefully, we will have inspired some individuals and organizations to try and that their efforts will in turn make it easier for others to follow suit.

You can find the original version of this Janice Thomson piece at www.janicethomson.net/new-faces-changing-towns.

Public Agenda & WNYC Release NY Opinion Survey Results

Posted on by
Reply

Last month, another great D&D-public radio partnership came to fruition – this time between Public Agenda, an NCDD member organization, and WNYC. PA conducted a survey of metro NYC residents’ opinions on key public issues and released its results in an in-depth report and a series stories on The Brian Leher Show all accompanied by PA blog posts. We encourage you to check out the results of their partnership in the PA announcement below or find the original here.

PublicAgenda-logoNew York Metropolitan Area State of Mind

Over the past year, we’ve been working with WNYC to survey residents of the New York metropolitan region. We wanted to know how area residents are thinking about public issues like education, income inequality, housing costs, taxes, crime and police-community relations.

Throughout the fall, we’ll be releasing results from that survey in coordination with WNYC. Starting Monday, October 15, tune in each day to The Brian Lehrer Show at 10 a.m. ET to hear about what we found. Will Friedman and Carolin Hagelskamp, our president and director of research, respectively, will be talking with Brian about a different story each day. If you’re not in the area, you can listen online, live or after the show.

The segments will be accompanied by blog posts from us, which we’ll post below, and reporting from WNYC’s newsroom and data viz team. Don’t miss out on any of it: follow us on Facebook and Twitter, where we’ll be providing links in real time.

In November, we’ll release a couple of formal reports summarizing everything we’ve learned. Be sure you’re registered for our email list if you want to receive those reports.

The Public Agenda/WNYC Survey is the first annual Deborah Wadsworth Fund Project and is possible thanks in large part to the generosity of our donors. The survey will help inform our next annual Deborah Wadsworth project, through which we’ll seek to find collaborative solutions to an issue local residents care and worry deeply about…

Methodology

The Public Agenda/ WNYC New York Metro Area Survey was conducted between June 29 and July 21, 2015 with 1,535 residents in the New York metro area, including New York City, Long Island, Southern New York State, Northern New Jersey, and Southern Connecticut. Additional responses were collected from 219 residents on a small subset of questions between August 25 and September 4, 2015. Some questions were posed to random subsamples of the overall sample, including the reported questions on people’s view on policing and crime, which explains why the total number of responses on these questions is smaller than the total survey sample. Data were collected via phone, including cellphone, and online, and weighted to be representative of known demographics in the region.

The Results

Full Report

What’s At Issue Here?: New York Metro Area Residents on the Problems That Concern Them Most

This PDF summarizes main findings from the 2015 Public Agenda/WNYC New York Metro Area Survey.

Survey Topline

Public Agenda/ WNYC New York Metro Area Survey Topline

This document includes a full description of the questions asked in the survey, complete survey responses and a comprehensive methodology report.

Press Release, October 12, 2015

Is New York No Longer the Land of Opportunity?

New York Metropolitan Area Residents Feel Trapped by Economic Insecurity, According to New Public Agenda/WNYC Survey; Most Say Government Responds to the Wealthy, Not Them

 

Press Release, October 12, 2015

Public Agenda/WNYC Survey Finds Stark Racial Differences in How New York Metropolitan Area Residents View Crime, Policing

Black and Hispanic Residents Twice as Likely as Whites to View Police-Community Relations as a Serious Problem

 

Blog Post

What Do Residents of the Greater New York Metro Area Worry About Most?

Regardless of where they live, affordability is what residents of the greater NY metro region worry about the most.

 

Blog Post

New Yorkers Don’t Resent the Wealthy, But…

Most New York area residents say it’s ok for wealthy people to get wealthier as long as everyone else also has a good chance to get ahead. The problem is, people don’t feel like they’re getting that chance.

Blog Post

In Solving Region’s Problems, New York Area Residents See a Role for Government, and for Themselves

New York area residents see a place for both the government and for themselves in solutions to the region’s problems.

 

Blog Post

New Yorkers on Taxes: Contradictory or Common Sense?

New York area residents say high taxes are a big problem, yet they want more government spending on housing and education. What gives?

Blog Post

Police-Community Relations Strained Where Police Needed Most

Results from our recent survey with WNYC suggest that the communities that may need police the most are also likely to say their relations with the police are most problematic.

You can find the original version of this Public Agenda posting at www.publicagenda.org/pages/wnyc-new-york-metro-area-survey#sthash.F1GGrsYj.dpuf.

PCP Guide Offers Help for Red-Blue Holiday Conversations

Posted on by
Reply

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

PCP new logoElection 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.