Participedia Looks Back at 2013

participedia-logoOur friends at the Participedia, the open knowledge community focused on democratic innovation and public engagement, just published a great year-end post reflecting back on six innovative case studies from across the world that were added to the site in the last year.

It has been another great year for Participedia. We hope to become a key resource for scholars, activists, policy makers and citizens who are interested in new democratic practices and institutions. Our team has made big strides towards reaching that goal. This year, 445 new members joined the website and 152 new cases were added to our collection.

As a fitting finish to 2013, we have profiled six cases that were recently added to Participedia. Reflecting Participedia’s diversity and the global span of participatory innovation itself, each of these cases comes from a different country or region of the world, and each employs a different approach to public engagement.

We think the NCDD community can learn a lot from taking a look at the projects Participedia highlights in the post.  They cover a wide range of projects including:

We highly recommend that you take a moment to reflect with Participedia on what lessons we can learn from these 2013 projects and how we can apply them in 2014. You can find the full article by clicking here.

Happy New Year, and happy reading!

Group Decision Tip: Write on the walls

In principle, good group decisions stem from shared understanding and shared understanding comes from reading off the same page.

Group Decision Tips IconAlso, people like to feel heard and when people feel heard it allows the group to move on. A very effective way for someone to feel heard is for their point to get written for everyone to see.

Practical Tip: For every group meeting, have on hand the ability to write words in front of the group. Markers and a flip chart work well or you might use a laptop and projector. There are many creative ways.

When people make comments, paraphrase them on the chart or the screen. The words don’t need to be perfect, but representative of the view expressed.

When it seems like the group is agreeing to something, write words to represent the agreement. Make sure everyone understands and accepts the representative words.

Writing public words that represent viewpoints and agreements is a learned skill and requires focused effort. When done well it leads to shared understanding and individual empowerment — two key building blocks of good group decisions.

Crime & Punishment: Imagining a Safer Future for All (IF Discussion Guide)

Crime & Punishment: Imagining a Safer Future for All  is the newest discussion guide published by the Interactivity Foundation (IF). This booklet describes five contrasting policy possibilities or frameworks for addressing concerns over the future of our criminal justice system. These concerns include both the racial inequity and the many costs of our policies of mass incarceration, the “War on Drugs”, and general get-tough-on-crime policies.

Crime & PunishmentThe five policy possibilities are:

  1. Get Smart[er] to Prevent and Better Deter More Crime
  2. Support Families, Strengthen Community, Reintegrate Society
  3. Less Prison and More and Better Treatment for Mental Illness and Substance Abuse
  4. Fix our Prison System
  5. Do the Right Thing

The Crime & Punishment discussion guide also includes introductory sections on:

  • Why we should talk about crime & punishment
  • “You be the judge”: a real life fact pattern to spur discussion
  • “Just the facts, Ma’am”: some recent data about our criminal justice system, and
  • Some Key discussion questions and considerations for evaluating all crime and punishment policies

Copies of the Crime & Punishment discussion guide for individual or small group use may be obtained, free of charge, from the Interactivity Foundation’s website by either (a) downloading a pdf (42 pages, 1.5 MB) or (b) submitting a request for printed copies (via a form also on IF’s website).

The Interactivity Foundation is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that works to enhance the process and expand the scope of our public discussions through facilitated small-group discussion of multiple and contrasting possibilities. The Foundation does not engage in political advocacy for itself, any other organization or group, or on behalf of any of the policy possibilities described in its discussion guidebooks. For more information, see the Foundation’s website at www.interactivityfoundation.org.

Resource Link: www.interactivityfoundation.org/new-discussion-guidebook-crime-punishment-now-available

Envisioning the Role of Facilitation in Public Deliberation

This 2013 article by Kara Dillard argues that academic research has neglected a critical factor in promoting successful citizen deliberation: the facilitator. In outlining a continuum of a facilitator’s level of involvement in deliberative dialogues, the author finds that facilitators are important to the forum process. More academic investigations into facilitator actions should reveal more of the logic that turns everyday political talk into rigorously deliberative forums emphasizing quality argument and good decision-making.

ABSTRACT
Academic research has neglected a critical factor in promoting successful citizen deliberation: the public forum facilitator. Facilitators create the discursive framework needed to make deliberation happen while setting the tone and tenor for how and what participants discuss. This essay brings facilitators more clearly into scholarly discussions about deliberative practice by offering an expanded and nuanced notion of facilitation in action. I modify David Ryfe’s continuum of involvement concept to outline three distinct types of facilitators: passive, moderate, and involved. Using this continuum, I investigate how various moves, types of talk, and discursive strategies used by each of these facilitators differ during six National Issues Forums style deliberations. Results demonstrate that most facilitators are not neutral, inactive participants in deliberative forums. Analysis indicates that the pedagogical choices made by facilitators about their involvement in forums affect deliberative talk and trajectories. Scholars evaluating deliberation should take into account facilitation and its different dimensions.

Citation:  Dillard, K.N. (2013). Envisioning the role of facilitation in public deliberation. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41, 3, 217-235.

Resource Link: www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00909882.2013.826813#.UrdW8mRDunE

NIFI Announces New Vice President

NIF-logoNCDD is pleased to join our friends and partners at the National Issues Forums Institute in welcoming Carol Farquhar Nugent as the new NIFI Vice President.  Ms. Nugent was appointed earlier this month, and the announcement below was shared on the NIFI news page:

Carol Farquhar Nugent of Dayton, Ohio was appointed Vice President of the National Issues Forums Institute at a meeting of the NIFI Directors on December 5, 2013 in Dayton, Ohio.  Ms. Nugent formerly served as a Program Officer with the Kettering Foundation and as Executive Director of Grantmakers in Aging for twelve years.  A graduate of Antioch University, she has been a Director of NIFI for the past three years and has been working on expanding the use of NIFI issue guides by senior citizens and in retirement communities.

You can learn more about Ms. Nugent’s background here. Congratulations, Carol, and we look forward to seeing the great contributions you will make to NIFI and the field!

Challenges to Democracy Public Dialogue Series and Blog

I wanted to share some news from one of our newest supporting members. I finally got Archon Fung to take the plunge and join NCDD during the recent member drive. (Yay!) For those who don’t know, Archon is the Ford Foundation Professor of Democracy and Citizenship at the Harvard Kennedy School, and he’s one of the top researchers in our field.

ArchonFung-borderArchon is a key member of the faculty for the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at the Kennedy School. The Ash Center advances excellence and innovation in governance and public policy through research, education, and public discussion. One of its three major programs is the Program on Democratic Governance, which researches those practices that resolve urgent social problems in developed and developing societies.

In honor of its 10th anniversary, the Ash Center launched a public dialogue series named Challenges to Democracy. Through a series of events with scholars, policymakers, journalists, and artists, the Center seeks to broaden and deepen public dialogue on how we might address democracy’s greatest challenges in order to adapt and preserve our form of government.

The series launched October 3 with a standing room-only event featuring a panel discussion moderated by WBUR and NPR’s On Point host Tom Ashbrook on the threat economic inequality poses to the health of American democracy—and broadcast on the On Point radio program. Additional challenges will include immigration, lack of representation, business power, political polarization, the risks and opportunities created by digital technologies, the place of cities in American democracy, the decline of popular movements, and more.

The Challenges to Democracy Blog, launched in October 2013 by the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government (and edited by Archon), captures the stories and lessons of the public dialogue series, exploring ways that American democracy is being tested, digging deeper into possible solutions, and pointing readers to news stories germane to the series. The blog provides unique content including in-depth accounts and audio and video recordings of past events, interviews with public figures asking their thoughts on the greatest challenges to democracy, lengthy excerpts from the books of featured speakers, and posts highlighting new research from the Ash Center faculty and Democracy Fellows.

Check it out today at www.challengestodemocracy.us/home/ and stay tuned for future blog posts in the series.

Jean Johnson: On the Debt, Citizens Want Action, Not Perfection

My friend and colleague Jean Johnson had a great article published on the Huffington Post last month that I recommend NCDDers take a look at.

NIF-logoThe article, titled “On the Debt, Citizens Want Action, Not Perfection,” outlines three key observations from last year’s National Issues Forums on our country’s long-term budget and debt problems. NIF is a nonpartisan network of educational and community organizations that regularly convene people to exchange views on major issues. Throughout 2011 and 2012, the group brought typical citizens together in 24 states and the District of Columbia to deliberate on options for tackling the debt.

The article begins with a telling quote from one of the forum participants in Mississippi: “Right now, our representatives have loyalty to self first; loyalty to party second; and loyalty to country third. They need to reverse it.”

Jean, a Senior Fellow at Public Agenda, has long been associated with NIF, and she observed some of the debt forums and reviewed videos and transcripts of others. In 2-hour conversations, participants weighed ideas ranging from cutting federal spending and raising taxes to passing a balanced budget amendment to focusing on economic growth as the best way out.

Jean explains in the article:

Not surprisingly, people didn’t become budget experts in just one evening, nor did they agree chapter and verse on an explicit package of solutions. Even so, the vast majority of those attending approached this discussion with a sense of pragmatism and flexibility that often seems scarce in Washington.

Take a moment to read this important article at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jean-johnson/on-the-debt-citizens-want_b_4218921.html.

Public Agenda’s New “Beyond the Polls” Project

We are excited to share about a great new initiative from our partners at Public Agenda, in collaboration with the National Issues Forums and the Kettering Foundation. Together, they are launching Beyond the Polls, a new regular commentary on public opinion issues. We encourage everyone to check out the initial announcement about the project below, or find the original announcement here.

PublicAgenda-logoWelcome to Beyond the Polls, our regular commentary on what Americans are thinking about pivotal issues our country and communities face. Each month, we offer a second look — a deeper look — at public opinion. We try to put survey results in context and enrich them by drawing on our extensive experience listening to citizens in both research and community settings over the years.

Our aim is to explore and understand the hopes, values, concerns, and priorities people bring to today’s issues — the public questions and controversies we think about every day. Just as important, we want to juxtapose the views that polling typically captures with what happens to those views when citizens have a chance to absorb and weigh different options for addressing issues and hear what other citizens have to say about them.

So what led us to develop Beyond the Polls? Here is some of what’s behind the series:

  • Polls often reflect top-of-the-head thinking. Surveys capture what people may be thinking at any given time, depending on how they’re feeling about things, what they know, what they’ve heard, and what’s happening in their own lives and communities and in the media. Unless we also take a look at this context, polling results have limited value.
  • The public’s views are not static. Polling results can change over time as people move beyond this top-of-the-head thinking and consider the questions at hand more deeply. As Pubic Agenda co-founder Dan Yankelovich has pointed out, people’s views tend to shift based on whether or not they have had time and opportunities to learn about an issue, consider it from different perspectives and decide where they stand. When they do this, sometimes their thinking becomes clearer. Sometimes their outlook becomes less dogmatic and more flexible. Sometimes people re-arrange their priorities as they recognize and think through trade-offs. Sometimes people, by talking with others, discover something that is very important to them that may not have been evident beforehand. Polls can fail to discriminate between top-of-the-head reactions and these more stable views.
  • Leaders cherry-pick at times. With so many polls available, and so many people quoting them for all sorts of reasons, what appears in the media can be piecemeal and, at times, misleading. In addition to the reasons we mention above, survey results often change depending on how questions are asked and what aspect of an issue a survey organization chooses to address. Sometimes pundits, elected officials, candidates and others zero in on one or two poll results—the ones that best match their own preferences—and blithely ignore the rest. We don’t do that. We examine and comment on all the best polls and look at what they’re saying—taken together.
  • Polling can’t substitute for democracy. Don’t get us wrong, we love opinion polls. Public Agenda designs and conducts surveys, and the National Issues Forums and the Kettering Foundation regularly consult opinion research in their work to get citizens talking about tough problems and working together to solve them. But democracy means much more than conveying poll results on citizens’ preferences to elected officials. Citizens have a real job to do grappling with tough issues and listening to the views of others.
  • Sometimes polls are on the wrong side of history. Because all of us move through a learning curve as we think through issues and hear from others, polls can change dramatically over time. In some of the most important moments of our history, public opinion lagged behind the arc of change. For example, few public views have shifted more radically than those toward women in the workforce. In a 1938 Gallup poll, more than three quarters of respondents disapproved of “a married woman earning money in business or industry if she has a husband capable of supporting her.” Twenty-two percent approved. In the late 1980s, opinion had nearly reversed, with 77 percent approving and 22 percent disapproving. These days, the question seems outdated. Gallup and other polling organizations are now asking questions about equal pay for women and men staying home to care for the children. Historical shifts like this mean we need to view polling as one piece of information. Polling is not a full or complete rendering of what the American people support, or what they may come to support — and consider indispensable — over time.

We’re eager to hear your responses to Beyond the Polls. Sign up to receive an email update when we have a new Beyond the Polls post. And, if you have a question or issue that could benefit from our review, let us know. We’d be pleased to consider adding it to our list of potential topics. Interested in continuing the conversation? Join us on Twitter with the hashtag #BeyondPolls.

Original post: www.publicagenda.org/blogs/welcome-to-beyond-the-polls

Mental Illness in America: How Can We Address a Growing Problem? (NIF Issue Advisory)

In October 2013, National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI) released an Issue Advisory that contains materials that can be used in deliberating over the issue of the impact of mental illness in America. This “issue advisory” is not a full NIF issue guide, but a basic outline of the options, entitled Mental Illness in America: How Do We Address a Growing Problem? It can be downloaded here.

From the introduction…cover_mental_illness_advisory350

Many Americans share a sense that something is wrong with how we address mental health and mental illness. More and more of us are taking medications for depression, hyperactivity, and other disorders. Meanwhile, however, dangerous mental illnesses are going undetected and untreated.

According to some, recent violent incidents reflect the need to increase security and increase our ability to detect mental illness. Others point to increasing numbers of veterans returning from overseas with post-traumatic stress disorders as a major concern. One in five Americans will have mental health problems in any given year. Unaddressed mental illness hurts individuals and their families and results in lost productivity. In rare cases, it can result in violence.

This Issue Advisory presents a framework that asks: How can we reduce the impact of mental
illness in America?

This issue advisory presents three options for deliberation, along with their drawbacks:

  • Option One: Put Safety First – more preventive action is necessary to deal with mentally ill individuals who are potentially dangerous to themselves or others.
  • Option Two: Ensure Mental Health Services are Available to All Who Need them – people
    should be encouraged to take control over their own mental health and be provided the tools to do so.
  • Option Three: Let People Plot their Own Course – we should not rely on so many medical approaches and allow people the freedom to plot their own course to healthy lives.

Resource Link: http://nifi.org/stream_document.aspx?rID=25092&catID=6&itemID=25088&typeID=8 (pdf)