Six Simple Changes for Better Public Engagement

NCDD supporting member Jennifer Wilding of Consensus and her team have been working to increase civility in Kansas City, and we love their infographic on what KC residents told them officials can do to improve public engagement. Learn more about Consensus’ Civility Project at www.consensuskc.org/civilityproject/ and in Jennifer’s write-up below the image.

SixChangesForOfficials-infographic

Old Habits for Engaging the Public Make it Harder to Be Civil

Americans have talked a lot about civility the last few years. Along with exploring the way individuals behave, it’s important to pay attention to the processes that are used to engage the public. Outmoded habits are ineffective with a population that increasingly expects to be consulted, and can be disastrous in situations where values are in conflict.

It’s possible to change these habits, though. Specific, relatively simple changes can move people’s behavior from angry to productive. The Civility Project helps inform and advocate for building new habits that increase civility.

Consensus, a Kansas City-based nonprofit that focuses on public engagement, launched The Civility Project out of frustration with the way the 2009 health-care town hall meetings were conducted. Using the public hearing model meant that meetings intended to give people a voice ended up driving them further apart.

The project so far includes awards for people who bring civility to life and a one-day class on building civility into public engagement based on findings from 20 focus groups with local citizens. In addition, Consensus has held public forums co-sponsored by KCPT Public Television, the Congressional Civility Caucus and the Dole Institute.

Consensus held 20 focus groups across metro Kansas City and in Lawrence to talk about civility in public life and how it affects our ability to solve problems. The groups represented the entire political spectrum, but were in perfect harmony when they described what concerns them about our public processes and what would make things better.

Detailed findings are available at www.consensuskc.org/civilityproject, and we have distilled what people want into six simple changes elected officials can make to engage their constituents more productively.

For more information: Jennifer Wilding, jenwilding@consensuskc.org.

 

Two New Issue Guides from NIF

NIF-logoOur partners at the National Issues Forums Institute – an NCDD organizational member – have just released two new issue guides for helping facilitate dialogue and public deliberation around two important issues: mental health and alcohol abuse. As always, NIFI’s discussion guides present three different approaches to addressing the problem at hand for participants to weigh.

In the mental health guide, “Mental Illness in America: How Do We Address a Growing Problem?“, the three options presented are as follows:

Option One: “Put Safety First” - This option would make public safety the top priority and support intervention, if necessary, to provide help for those with serious mental illness.

Option Two: “Expand Services” - This option would make mental health services as widely available as possible so that people can get the help they need.

Option Three: “Let People Plot Their Own Course” - This option would reduce the number of mental illness diagnoses and curtail the use of psychiatric medications, allowing for more individuality.

And in the alcohol abuse guide, “Alcohol in America: What Can We Do about Excessive Drinking?“, the options are framed this way:

Option One: “Protect Others from Danger” – Society should do what it takes to protect itself from the negative consequences of drinking behavior.

Option Two: “Help People with Alcohol Problems” - We need to help people reduce their drinking.

Option Three: “Change Society’s Relationship with Alcohol” - This option says that solutions must address the societal attitudes and environments that make heavy drinking widely accepted.

To find out more about these and other issue guides, you can visit the NIFI issue books store here.

Announcing Next Stage Facilitation Intensives in Montreal and Boulder

We are happy to share the announcement below from NCDD Sustaining Member Rebecca Colwell of Ten Directions. Rebecca’s announcement came via our great Submit-to-Blog Form. Do you have news you want to share with the NCDD network? Just click here to submit your news post for the NCDD Blog!


Integral Facilitator® Next Stage Facilitation™ Intensives are 3-day workshops introducing the core competencies of an Integral approach to facilitation designed to enhance your capacity to generate greater coherence and increased collaboration and dialogue in the groups you work with.

In this three-day workshop, you’ll learn:

  • How to maintain presence in the face of challenging situations.
  • How to work effectively with group energetics and emotional states.
  • How to effectively build connection and working with tension to deepen coherence and intimacy.
  • How to engage tension, power dynamics and conflict in a group.
  • How to increase the positive impact you have on others.
  • How to bring an integral approach to your work.

As a Next Stage participant, you’ll learn directly from master facilitator, mediator and former Director of Dispute Resolution for the Utah State Judiciary, Diane Musho Hamilton.

Your participation will include a deep dive into your personal presence as a facilitator, including how bring an Integral approach to your work with groups, and opportunities to practice new approaches that will stretch your development as a skilled facilitator. Masterful facilitators with depth and presence are more responsive to the subtleties of group dynamics and can create more rewarding and effective dialogue and collaboration.

Next Stage Facilitation Intensives will be taking place September 8 – 10 in Montreal, Quebec, and October 6 – 8 in Boulder, Colorado.

Sign up for an upcoming Integral Facilitator Next Stage Facilitation Intensive.

Praise from workshop participants:

“The workshop has shifted my perception of issues such as power, and allowed me to understand where my choices lie. I feel confident to run with those issues now as opposed to fighting against them and using up all my energy.” – Marissa Moore, Senior Finance Executive

“This has been my best experience ever in a 3 day training. Diane is an amazing facilitator! I’m currently figuring out how to get myself in the 1 year program as the 3 days were so exciting and promising in terms of my personal growth.” – Tremeur Balbous, Consultant & Integral coach

“Take facilitation to a whole other level. The Next Stage Facilitation three day intensive shakes you out of conventional and stifled facilitation modes and expands your view to multi-perspectival, grows your competencies toward integral–exploring what it means to work with individuals, the collective and the topic at hand in a balanced, elegant and effective way, and, it strengthens your intuitive faculties to sense and trust the energetic field of the room and respond.” – Michelle Elizabeth, Consultant

Watch Integral Facilitator Lead Teacher Diane Musho Hamilton’s recent Google Book Talk on conflict resolution:

For more information, visit https://tendirections.com/next-stage-facilitation-3-day-intensive.

NCDD 2014 Co-Sponsor: National Dialogue Network

NCDD is proud to announce that the National Dialogue Network is joining us as a Co-Sponsor of the 6th National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation…

One of the great pleasures of working with people in our community is watching their ideas take root and grow.  It’s even more gratifying to see ideas presented at our events take on a life of their own.  The National Dialogue Network got its start at our Seattle conference and was eventually chosen by our members as one of the winners of the NCDD’s 2012 Catalyst Awards.

National Dialogue Network introduction video from John Spady on Vimeo.

The National Dialogue Network seeks to coordinate collaborative local conversations into mindful national dialogue. Its design and function is meant to strengthen local civic infrastructures that, collectively, can reveal deeper insights into the national scale awareness of participants. NDN does not consider itself a “scientific poll” in the typical sense because it utilizes the opinions of self-selected participants. But, like voting itself, results and insights are an accurate representation of all who chose to participate.

The NDN network is a nonpartisan, voluntary working group of practitioners, educators, and researchers in the fields of public engagement, governance, creative leadership, civic renewal, dialogue, deliberation, and participatory decision-making in public issues. They’re building a voluntary civic infrastructure that connects conversations across the U.S. among folks who wish to examine a difficult and complex community issue with others who see the situation or challenges from differing perspectives, disciplines, or ideologies.

You can learn a lot more about National Dialogue Network by visiting their website and when you meet the good folks from NDN at the conference this Fall, please thank them for helping make NCDD 2014 possible!

Interested in Sponsoring the Conference?

Over the next few months leading up to NCDD’s 2014 National Conference (held this year at the Hyatt Regency in Reston, VA just outside DC), we’ll be highlighting the work of our event sponsors on our news blog, on social media, and on our listservs.  Those interested in helping us create our best event ever can learn more about sponsorship opportunities by downloading our 2014 Sponsorship Info PDF.

We also recommend you check out Seattle’s sponsors to get a sense of the fantastic organizations that step up to support NCDD events — and check out the guidebook from NCDD 2012 to see how sponsors are featured.

New Issue Guide on Economy Choices from NIFI

NIF-logoWe wanted to make sure the NCDD members heard that our organizational partners at the National Issues Forums Institute have published their latest issue guide for deliberative conversations. Released earlier this month, the newest guide is called The Future of Work: How Should We Prepare for the New Economy? The guide is designed to walk participants through tough choices about what policy directions we should take in dealing with the broader national economy.

The following excerpt can help you get a better sense of the approach the guide is taking:

The nature of the work we do has changed in ways that few Americans a generation ago could have imagined, and it will undoubtedly be dramatically different in yet another generation. These changes will bring both opportunities and difficulties…

The stakes are high. Many Americans share concerns about the nation’s competitive edge, stagnant wages, and a sense that young people today will be worse off than previous generations.

We have choices to make together in shaping the future of work. Business, government, individuals, and communities all play a role in addressing this issue. This guide presents some of the options we might pursue, along with their drawbacks.

As with other NIFI issue guides, the new guide encourages forum participants to weigh three different courses of action on a controversial issue. The guide lays out the choices on dealing with the national budget in this way:

Option One: “Free to Succeed”

Give individuals and businesses the freedom they need to innovate and succeed.

Option Two: “An Equal Chance to Succeed”

Make sure all Americans have a chance to succeed in an increasingly competitive environment.

Option Three: “Choose the Future We Want”

Strategically choose to support promising industries rather than simply hoping that the changes in work and the economy will be beneficial.

For more information on the new guide or to order, visit www.nifi.org/issue_books/detail.aspx?catID=6&itemID=26071.

NCDD 2014 All-Star Sponsor: The Interactivity Foundation

NCDD is proud to announce that the Interactivity Foundation is stepping up as an All-Star Sponsor of the 6th National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation…

The Interactivity Foundation (or IF) works to engage citizens in the exploration and development of possibilities for public policy through small group discussions.  With projects impacting policy discussions as close to home as Madison, Wisconsin and as far afield as Hungary, Kazakhstan and the far east, the Interactivity Foundation works on several levels of public discussions within three main focal areas:

Their Project Discussions are longer-term projects with selected panelists that develop our Discussion Reports with different possibilities for future public policy.  IF sponsors—and their Fellows manage—these discussions on broad, complex topics of social and political concern.  They often refer to these Project Discussions as “Sanctuary” discussions because they are designed to foster a protected space for truly collegial discussion and open and collaborative exploration of difficult issues.

Their Public Discussions are shorter-term discussion series that use our Discussion Reports as a starting point for further discussion and exploration.  While these Public Discussions, which are sometimes refer to as “Citizen Discussions,” differ in certain respects from our Project Discussions, both types of discussion are interrelated. They share certain discussion techniques, they may overlap in time, and they are certainly interactive with each other.

Photos from The Interactivity Foundation website.

Photos from The Interactivity Foundation website.

Finally, their Classroom Discussions, where they work with educators to support student-centered discussions in a variety of educational settings, were initiated in late 2005, when they began thinking about education and college classrooms as another forum in which we might further develop our methods for facilitated, small-group discussions of broad public policy topics.

You can learn a lot more about The Interactivity Foundation by visiting their website and when you meet the good folks from IF at the conference this Fall, please thank them for helping make NCDD 2014 possible!

Interested in Sponsoring the Conference?

Over the next few months leading up to NCDD’s 2014 National Conference (held this year at the Hyatt Regency in Reston, VA just outside DC), we’ll be highlighting the work of our event sponsors on our news blog, on social media, and on our listservs.  Those interested in helping us create our best event ever can learn more about sponsorship opportunities by downloading our 2014 Sponsorship Info PDF.

We also recommend you check out Seattle’s sponsors to get a sense of the fantastic organizations that step up to support NCDD events — and check out the guidebook from NCDD 2012 to see how sponsors are featured.

JPD Special Issue Looks at “The State of Our Field”

JPD logoThis month, the Deliberative Democracy Consortium (DDC) and the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) released a special issue of their collaboratively produced Journal of Public Deliberation, and it is a must-read.  They collected writings from leading scholars and practitioners of our work – including numerous NCDD members and our director, Sandy Heierbacher – to create this special issue focused on “The State of Our Field”:

This is a special issue that assess the state of our field, celebrates our successes, and calls for future innovative work. The authors are scholars and practitioners who represent the diversity of our field and provide a wide range of perspectives on deliberation, dialogue, participation, and civic life. The ideas from this issue will be discussed at the upcoming Frontiers of Democracy conference, after which the editors will write an “afterword” reflecting on lessons learned.

We’re excerpting all of the abstracts of the articles in this issue here on the blog, because we think it will entice you to read these important articles. The special issue starts with an introductory overview, then is divided into three areas of focus: the scope of our field, challenges to our field, and promising future directions that some of us are taking.

Visit www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd to download each article for free.

JPD Volume 10, Issue 1 (2014) Special Issue: State of the Field

Introduction

The State of Our Field: Introduction to the Special Issue by Laura W. Black, Nancy L. Thomas, and Dr. Timothy J. Shaffer – “This article introduces the special “State of the Field” issue. The essay highlights some of the key tensions that our field is wrestling with at the moment, and advocates that we think carefully about the terms we use to describe our work. It previews the articles in this special issue and urges future work in the field to take up the ideas, questions, and challenges posed by these essays.”

The Scope of the Field

Why I Study Public Deliberation by John Gastil – “The author argues that scholars can best advance public dialogue and deliberation by conducting systematic research on practical innovations that have the potential to improve political discourse. The author explains and justifies this position through a personal narrative that recounts formative experiences with debate, group dialogue, political campaigns, academic research, and electoral reform.”

A 35-Year Experiment in Public Deliberation by David Mathews – “In the late 1970s, a small group of academics and former government officials began an initiative that led to the creation of a network of National Issues Forums (NIF) in 1981. NIF-style deliberation is based on the assumption that the greatest challenge in collective decision making is dealing with the tensions that result when many of the things most people hold dear are brought into conflict by the necessity to act on a problem. Public deliberation is a naturally occurring phenomenon that makes use of the human faculty for judgment. The most powerful insight from the NIF experiment has been the recognition that democracy depends on constant learning and that deliberation is a form of learning.”

Repairing the Breach: The Power of Dialogue to Heal Relationships and Communities by Robert R. Stains Jr. – “Dialogue can be a powerful force for healing communities and relationships broken by divisions of identity, values, religion and world-views. This article explores the reparative effects of dialogue and the elements that make them possible: re-authoring stories, communicating from the heart and witnessing others’ identities in constructive ways.”

What We’re Talking About When We Talk About the “Civic Field” (And why we should clarify what we mean) by Matt Leighninger – “The field of public engagement is experiencing a harmful identity crisis. While advocates of public participation may all agree that our work relates somehow to democracy, we have not established or articulated a common vision of what that really means. This lack of clarity has dire consequences, producing rifts between academics and practitioners, community organizers and deliberative democrats, civic technologists and dialogue practitioners, policy advocates and consensus-builders. Worst of all, the lack of clarity about democracy provides no help to people who are trying to create sustainable, participatory political systems in Egypt, Thailand, Ukraine, and many other countries. None of the participatory tactics and assets we have developed will reach their full potential if we don’t admit, to ourselves and the world, their true significance: these aren’t just props for conventional processes, but building blocks for new political systems.”

Democracy by Design by Nancy L. Thomas – “Renewing US democracy will require an active and deliberative public, people who can work together to address pressing social and political problems. To engage effectively Americans need an understanding of how American democracy works, its foundations and the complex and sometimes changing dimensions to those foundations. Advocates for increasing active and deliberative citizen engagement need to work with reformers in different areas of democracy’s ecological system, integrating public engagement with reform efforts in justice and equal opportunity, knowledge and information development, and government integrity.”

The Next Generation of Our Work by Sandy Heierbacher – “In this reflective piece, Sandy Heierbacher, Director of the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD), outlines some of the trends she has been noticing from her unique vantage point in the rapidly growing and innovating field of deliberative democracy. Heierbacher reflects on ways this field, centered around practices designed to engage citizens in the decisions and issues that effect their lives, is changing its relationship with government, becoming more receptive to online tools for engagement, shifting its attention back to local efforts, focusing attention on building infrastructure, and increasingly relying on collaboration to achieve its goals.”

Challenges

Public Engagement Exercises with Racial and Cultural “Others”: Some Thoughts, Questions, and Considerations by Yea-Wen Chen – “Concerns about the inadequacy of using dialogue to address the material realities of race and racism motivate this essay. Hence, I reflect on the current state of conversations on race, diversity, and inclusion from the standpoint of cultural and racial “others.” To orient my reflections, I first unpack assumptions about what might constitute “productive” public deliberation on race. I argue that productive public engagement exercises on race (a) move participants into praxis, (b) require participants to consider cultural identity differences, and (c) demand an understanding of how social forces such as racism and whiteness hinder and/or enable public engagement processes. I then reconsider public engagement from a cultural lens and rethink intercultural communication as publicly deliberating highly charged topics such as race. Finally, I caution against relying on cookie-cutter formulas to address complex issues such as race and recommend utilizing the strategy of counter-storytelling in public engagement exercises on race.”

Deliberative Democracy, Public Work, and Civic Agency by Harry C. Boyte – “This essay locates deliberation and deliberative theory as an important strand in a larger interdisciplinary and political movement, civic agency. The civic agency movement, and its related politics, a politics of civic empowerment, include a set of developing practices and concepts which enhance the capacities of diverse groups of people to work across differences to solve problems, create things of common value, and negotiate a shared democratic way of life. Stirrings of civic agency can be seen in many settings, including efforts to recover the civic purposes and revitalize the civic cultures of institutions such as schools and colleges.”

The Unfulfilled Promise of Online Deliberation by Jannette Hartz-Karp & Brian Sullivan – “Since online deliberation has not delivered on the expectations of more considered, democratic participation, the authors propose less focus on technological ‘fixes’ and more on re-conceptualizing its primary purpose to gathering resonance in an authentic public square. The ideas that emerge can then be deliberated in representative face-to-face public deliberations, with the coherent voice that results contributing to more inclusive, legitimate, and implementable democratic decision-making.”

A Brief Reflection on the Brazilian Participatory Experience by Vera Schattan Pereira Coelho – “The article highlights Brazilian participatory experiences such as the participatory budget and the policy councils and conferences. Based on research done by the author on daily routines and policy impacts of these forums, it is argued that there is still a long way before fulfilling normative expectations. In light of these challenges, reflections about how to move forward in the future are presented.”

Beyond Deliberation: A Strategy for Civic Renewal by Peter Levine – “To expand opportunities for discussion and reflection about public issues, we should look beyond the organizations that intentionally convene deliberations and also enlist organizations that preserve common resources, volunteer service groups, civics classes, grassroots public media efforts, and partisan, ideological, and faith-based movements that have some interest in discussion. Many of these groups are not politically neutral; more are adversarial. But they have a common interest in confronting the forces and decisions that have sidelined active citizens in countries like the US. They are all threatened by the rising signs of oligarchy in the United States. Collectively, they have considerable resources with which to fight back. It is time for us to begin to stir and organize–not for deliberation, but for democracy.”

Finding A Seat for Social Justice at the Table of Dialogue and Deliberation by David Schoem – “What does it mean for the dialogue and deliberation or public engagement community to exclude social justice from its mission and activities? Many dialogue and deliberation organizations, though clearly not all, shy away from either an explicit or implicit acknowledgement of issues of social justice or inequality, and power and privilege. This article argues that the field needs to 1) work intentionally for social justice and serving the public good for a strong, diverse democracy, 2) confront the illusion of neutrality, and 3) address issues of privilege and power. It discusses five principles to achieve this goal.”

Deliberative Civic Engagement in Public Administration and Policy by Tina Nabatchi – “This article explores deliberative civic engagement in the context of public administration and policy. The field of public administration and policy is seeing a resurgence of interest in deliberative civic engagement among scholars, practitioners, politicians, civic reformers, and others. Deliberative processes have been used to address a range of issues: school redistricting and closings, land use, and the construction of highways, shopping malls, and other projects. Additional topics include race and diversity issues, crime and policing, and involvement of parents in their children’s education. Finally, participatory budgeting, which has been used with success in Porto Alegre, Brazil since 1989 and has been employed in over 1,500 cities around the world, has been one of the most promising forms of deliberative civic engagement. Finally, the article suggests what we must do to build a civic infrastructure to support deliberative civic engagement, including government, but also practitioners and scholars.”

Key Challenges Facing the Field of Deliberative Democracy by Carol J. Lukensmeyer – “Deliberative Democracy has proved its value as an alternative to governance dominated by special interests, but its use in governing remains inconsistent. Overcoming this challenge will require the field to focus its energy on 1) building a cadre of elected leaders and public officials who understand deliberative democracy’s value and how to do it, 2) engaging with the media so that it becomes an effective partner for the field and a more productive part of our democratic system, and 3) continuing to embrace opportunities – like Creating Community Solutions – to work in unique partnerships, build national infrastructure to support high-quality deliberation, and innovate across methodologies and models.”

Promising Future Directions

The Design of Online Deliberation: Implications for Practice, Theory and Democratic Citizenship by Idit Manosevitch – “The essay focuses on the role of design in online deliberation, and outlines three directions for future research. First, research must embed the study of the technical and organizational architecture of online discussion spaces, as an ongoing area of inquiry. Scholars need to take stock of varying available design choices and their potential effects on the deliberative quality of online public discourse. Second, looking more broadly, research must examine the design of deliberative processes as they manifest themselves via digital technologies. The author discusses the importance of surveying the broad array of processes that are currently employed, and the varying theoretical assumptions that they convey. Third, the essay concludes with an outline of possible implications that online deliberation endeavors may have on democratic citizenship, and calls for further research on the broader implications of this work for promoting healthy democratic societies.”

Deliberation In and Through Higher Education by Dr. Timothy J. Shaffer – “This article explores how deliberative democracy has the ability to change how colleges and universities function. Deliberation offers a powerful way for students, faculty, staff, and community partners to learn and practice modes of reasoning and deciding together in a variety of settings such as classrooms, other campus settings, and in communities. The article includes scholarly resources as well as examples of deliberation in various contexts. The article suggests that deliberation can replace, or at least complement, many of the more familiar models pervasive in our institutions.”

The Critical Role of Local Centers and Institutes in Advancing Deliberative Democracy by Dr. Martín Carcasson – “Utilizing the development and early history of the Colorado State University Center for Public Deliberation as an example, this paper makes the case for expanding the number of and the level of support for such campus-based centers as critical resources for expanding deliberative democracy. Due to their ability to not only provide deliberative capacity to the community, but also to attract students to our field and equip with them with essential skills, to strengthen the connection of colleges and universities to their local communities, and to contribute to the further development of deliberative theory and practice, these local “hubs of democracy” represent a natural “win-win-win-win” that warrants significant focus as we work to develop the deliberative culture of our communities.”

A Path to the Next Form of (Deliberative) Democracy by Patrick L. Scully – “Supporters of deliberative democracy must work through complex tradeoffs if we hope to realize the full potential of empowered civic engagement in which citizens employ multiple forms of action and change. In order to sustain citizens’ interest, time, and resources in creating a robust civic infrastructure, we need to engage them in more highly empowered forms of civic engagement than is now typical of many deliberative initiatives. Our field’s strong emphasis on temporary public consultations diverts a disproportionate amount of time, intellectual capital, and other resources from efforts to improve the ability of citizens and local communities to have stronger, more active, and direct roles in shaping their collective futures. One set of choices facing us centers on tensions between reformism and more fundamental, even revolutionary changes to democratic politics. Other key tensions are rooted in aspirations for deliberative democracy to serve as both an impartial resource and as a catalyst for action.”

The State of Our Field in Light of the State of Our Democracy: My Democracy Anxiety Closet by Martha McCoy – “There is a large and troubling gap between the promise of deliberative innovations and the most prevalent practices of our largely dysfunctional democracy. A web of factors is widening this gap and increasing the urgency of addressing it. With democracy in crisis, the deliberative civic field is engaging in more collaborative efforts and in more pointed conversations about how to have a systemic impact. To have any chance of improving the state of democracy, our field needs to: 1) envision and work toward structural change; 2) find more compelling ways to describe empowered public participation and more welcoming entry points for experiencing it; and 3) address the challenge of equity head-on. As a field, we have begun to address the first two, though we have much more to do. Our field has been more reticent to address the challenge of equity.”

The Compost of Disagreement: Creating Safe Spaces for Engagement and Action by Michelle Holt-Shannon & Bruce L. Mallory – “The experiences gained in almost two decades of supporting community-based deliberative processes highlight the importance of balancing participants’ desire for civility and safety with the passionate expression of deeply held values and beliefs. Effective deliberations may surface highly contested positions in which intimidation or bullying can occur. At times, even the deliberative process itself may become the object of ideological objections. This has the potential to a create a climate of fear on the part of participants and public officials seeking solutions to complex issues related to public investments, long-term planning, or improved governance. We apply the metaphor of “community compost” to emphasize the value of eliciting diverse points of view on hot topics that have divided residents as well as public officials. By turning the fertile soil of passion, values, and disagreement, we have been able to find common ground useful to decision-makers. Balancing the need for safety and the benefits of strong disagreement, shared understanding and agreement may be achieved.”

- — -

If you’ve seen a few articles that you’d like to read more of, we encourage you to visit www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd to download the full text. Happy reading!

Let us know if you work with legislators — or would like to!

Later this week, Hawaii State Senator Les Ihara and I are both involved in an exciting workshop at the Kettering Foundation that will bring together 26 state legislators from 20 states to talk about effective public engagement.

Les asked me recently to gather information about NCDD members who had worked with legislators (or are currently working with them), and with all the conference goings-on, I haven’t been able to squeeze it in. But I think we can still help Les, and create a list of NCDDers who either (1) have experience working with legislators, (2) are interested in working with legislators, or (3) both!  I know Les’ impression is that there are not many NCDDers working with legislators, and I don’t believe that is the case at all.

Will you help me change Les’ mind and help me better represent you at this meeting by filling out the super-simple survey I’ve created.

Les IharaOver the last few years, I’ve networked with about 50 legislators who operate with a collaborative leadership model, rather than power-based model; and I plan to form a Collaborative Legislators Network when the time is right (we’re getting close).

We’re designing our meeting agenda to support legislators who want to conduct new citizen engagement type activities over the next year, and I’m looking for people who may have relationships with legislators in these states: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

If you haven’t yet worked with a legislator, I’d also like to know who might be interested in providing assistance to and collaborating with a legislator in your state. Thank you.

Aloha,
LES IHARA, JR.
Hawaii State Senator, 10th District

If you have worked with local, state or national policymakers, or would like to, please let us know by answering a few simple questions TODAY or TOMORROW. Again, here is the survey link:

Short Survey about Working with Legislators

Environmental Issue Guide Series from Kettering Underway

We are excited to share that our organizational partners at the Kettering Foundation have a series of at least three issue guides for facilitating deliberation on climate issues in the works. These guides can be an important tool for helping the public deal with this crucial issue. We encourage you to read the brief statement from Kettering’s online publication below. 


kfThe Kettering Foundation is breaking ground on an exciting new project–a series of National Issues Forums (NIF) framings for environmental issues. Amy Lee and Scott London have been doing the preliminary work for about a year now, but in April, they had their first official meeting with an old friend of the foundation’s, the North American Association of Environmental Educators (NAAEE). NAAEE actually produced a number of issue guides in the long, study guide-like format back in the 1990s, and they’ve become reacquainted recently with KF through research deputy Michele Archie.

Representatives from NAAEE included board member Bora Simmons, who was involved with Michele in producing the earlier issue guides, as well as other NAAEE staff members from different arms and levels of the organization. NAAEE, much like NIF, has a large, two-way network of local chapters as well as a national level, and both ends work together. Kettering hopes to produce at least three issue frameworks with NAAEE and to experiment with NAAEE in creating new materials for forums based on those frameworks. Standard NIF issue guides are certainly one possible product, but we hope to experiment with some new formats. We’ll also be observing, with NAAEE, the effects of engaging their members and audiences in deliberation, as well as how they negotiate cooperation with other kind of actors in the environmental arena, particular advocacy groups.

The work is off to a fantastic start. NAAEE is already planning some test forums for a framing on climate change that Scott London has begun, as well as making plans for creating a matrix of local frameworks on water issues from places around the country and perhaps using other materials NIF has developed, such as the soon-to-be-released Energy guide update.

A Glimmer of Hope in Pew’s Polarization Report

The Pew Research Center recently released a report on polarization in the US that has important insights for our field. The report is huge, but luckily, NCDD Board of Directors member John Backman created a wonderful overview of the report’s findings, with an eye toward what it means for our work. We highly encourage you to read John’s thoughts below and add your reflections on the Pew study in the comments section. 


How Far Apart Are We, Really? A Closer Look at Pew’s Polarization Report

by John Backman

The findings look dark, no doubt about it. Play with the numbers, though, and you can begin to see glimmers of hope—and opportunities for D&D practitioners.

The report from the Pew Research Center bears the ominous title “Political Polarization in the American Public,” and the first sentence in the web version is no better: “Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines – and partisan antipathy is deeper and more extensive – than at any point in the last two decades.” The nationwide survey of 10,000 adults found that:

  • The two ends of the spectrum are growing. 21% of respondents now identify as “consistently liberal” or “consistently conservative”—double the percentage in 1994.
  • Overlap between parties is in steep decline. Twenty years ago, 64% of Republicans were more conservative than the median Democrat, and 70% of Democrats were more liberal than the median Republican. Today those figures are 92% and 94%, respectively.
  • Hostility is more intense. The percentage of respondents with a highly negative view of the other side has more than doubled since 1994. Worse, most of these “high negatives” believe the opposing party’s policies to be “so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being.”
  • The silos are hardening. Half of consistent conservatives and 35% of consistent liberals value living in a place where most people share their views. Nearly one-third of consistent conservatives and one-quarter of consistent liberals would be unhappy if one of their family married into the other side.

In other words, the American public is moving in a direction diametrically opposed to the bridge-building instincts of most D&D practitioners. On the whole, it’s hard to be happy about the situation.

Until you dig deeper. Some of the under reported findings and unexpressed facts hold more hope for both our public square and our ability as practitioners to make a difference:

If 21% of Americans are now firmly ensconced in their worldviews, then 79% are not.

That leaves roughly 250 million people who, in theory, might be open to an exchange of views with others of different opinion. One key strategy for ensconcing dialogue in our public square, as I see it, is to build a critical mass of people who are (or become) oriented toward dialogue. It’s easier to find participants for that critical mass in a pool of 250 million than it would be if the middle were actually vanishing instead of declining.

The middle of the political spectrum is quiet. Dialogue and deliberation could change that.

The Pew report notes that the people at the ends of the spectrum have a disproportionate voice in the political process because they are more vocal. “Many of those in the center,” the authors write, “remain on the edges of the political playing field, relatively distant and disengaged.” Yet they don’t have to stay on the edges, and anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that D&D can draw them in. For how many people has a dialogue been their first experience with any sort of civic engagement? And how many of them have been delighted with the process?

Data to validate or refute these impressions would be helpful here, of course. But if the impressions are accurate, they point to the power of dialogue, not only to engage people in the civic/political arena, but to start them out with a civil, productive approach.

There is still common ground to use as a starting point for dialogue, and much of it involves one of our most powerful motivators: the drive to make a good life for ourselves and our loved ones.

According to the Pew report, even the most strident conservatives and liberals want to live near extended family, high-quality public schools, and opportunities to get outdoors. By and large, concern for those closest to us trumps political affiliation: for about three-quarters of respondents, a family member’s marrying across political divides doesn’t matter.

Yes, the trends are troubling. Yet there is more than enough “raw material” for D&D practitioners to advance the cause of dialogue and deliberation.

What do you see in the numbers? Please share your thoughts below in our comments section.