Groundwater Infographic a big hit – wins best overall poster award at EPA 2013 Community Involvement Training Conference

This post was submitted by John Blakinger, co-founder of CivilSay (an NCDD organizational member) via the Add-to-Blog form.

On July 12th, I met with the local “Citizens Action Group” in La Pine, Oregon to present the citizen advisory committee recommendations for groundwater protection.

Fortunately, they meet in a legion hall that has no facilities to use a slide show.

Recently Teresa Blakinger of Concepts Captured created an infographic of the story of groundwater protection and we created a vinyl banner of the drawing. Graphic below (see larger version here).

So without my standard PowerPoint crutch, I took the graphic, hung it from some log beams, and used it for the presentation.

Here are some comments from an attendee:

I have heard so many positive comments about John’s presentation at the CAG meeting. Let me tell you folks, he was spot on. He did a great job! Probably one of his best! The other great thing was the graphic. Lots and lots of positive feedback. Some comments were, “Easy to follow”, “You can follow the progression”, “Organizes the process”.

A few days later, Greg Ranstrom and I presented The Moment of Oh! workshop at the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2013 Community Involvement Training Conference in Boston using the graphic as a case study. The infographic won the Best Overall Poster Award. Congratulations Teresa!

This graphic is the perfect example of the core principle “Leave Tracks” described in Greg and my book The Moment of Oh!

Also check out the 3-minute video describing the graphic, or the live blog (recorded) of the EPA session.

Song of a Citizen Video Essays & Interviews with D&D Leaders

Song Of A Citizen has produced a second series of dialogue and deliberation-related videos. The first was a series of Video Op-Eds with esteemed political philosophers, academics, and leaders of major deliberative democracy organizations (see the NCDD resource listing here). Those were filmed at various locations around the country between 2008 to 2010.

EricLiuVid-screenshotThe more recent series features Q&A interviews with key practitioners and other experts in the dialogue and deliberation community, filmed at the NCDD Conference in October 2012. Most of them are on the SoaC site, and all of them are on SoaC YouTube Channel.

Now that “Song Of A Citizen” has produced a wide range of interesting and informative videos with field leaders and experts, as of August 2013 they are seeking funding for new productions designed to resonate with the general public.

Making films and videos that reach and impact millions of people is actually SoaC founder Jeffrey Abelson’s strong suit, as witnessed by his 30 year background as a creative filmmaker, whose work ranges from prime time PBS documentaries to high profile MTV videos. More about that can be found at http://jeffreyabelson.com.

Video interviews on the Song of a Citizens site: http://songofacitizen.com/songofacitizen.com/Video_Q%26A.html

Song of a Citizen YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDlxTRB4Z8g&list=PLNmpXlQNJcSNo65iOeiSlBjxD16kZTBMY

Register for NCDD’s next Tech Tuesday event — on Zilino

Our second “Tech Tuesday” event will take place on September 17th from 4pm-5pm Eastern (1pm-2pm Pacific). We’ll be taking a look at Zilino, a web-based solution that enables practitioners to host deliberative online forums and other types of well structured, well facilitated engagement processes.

Tech_Tuesday_BadgeThe webinar will be hosted by Tim Bonnemann, founder and CEO of Intellitics, Inc., a long-time NCDD organizational member and co-sponsor of the 2012 NCDD Conference. Intellitics is a digital engagement startup based in San José, CA that helps its clients apply technology to support, enhance and extend participatory processes.

Intellitics is currently working with a non-profit on the East Coast to translate their in-person citizen deliberation process (National Issues Forum approach) into a meaningful online experience using Zilino. This session will provide a brief overview of the tool and present insights from this ongoing project.

As with our first Tech Tuesday, we”ll be using GoToWebinar.  Please register today to reserve your spot:

Tech Tuesday is a new initiative from NCDD focused on online technology. Many in our field are curious about how they can use online tools to support their engagement work, and many tool creators are excited to talk to this community about their innovations.

These one-hour events, designed and run by the tool creators themselves, are meant to help practitioners get a better sense of the online engagement landscape and how they can take advantage of the myriad opportunities available to them.

If you have an idea for a Tech Tuesday event you’d like to run (or a tool you’d like to see featured), email NCDD’s Director, Sandy Heierbacher, at sandy@ncdd.org — or leave a comment here. Please note that unlike our “Confab calls,” which NCDD runs, promotes, and archives, we ask Tech Tuesday presenters to run these events on the platform of their choice. This frees us up to hold more events, and allows the presenters to use the platform that makes the most sense for their tool.

Immigration in America: How Do We Fix a System in Crisis? (NIF Issue Guide)

One of the National Issues Forums Institute’s issue guides, Immigration in America: How Do We Fix a System in Crisis? (updated edition, 2013), outlines this public issue and several choices or approaches to addressing the issue. National Issues Forums do not advocate a specific solution or point of view, but provide citizens the opportunity to consider a broad range of choices, weigh the pros and cons of those options, and meet with each other in a public dialogue to identify the concerns they hold in common.

The following excerpt is taken from the issue guide. The 12-page issue guide presents three options for deliberation.

The costs and benefits of immigration have always been debated. But as we work our way out of a tough economic recession, some wonder whether newcomers, especially those arriving illegally, are compromising our quality of life, taking jobs away from those already here, and threatening our security and sovereignty as a nation…

The question facing Americans today is how to create a system that meets our diverse needs–a system that values the role immigrants play in society, takes heed of today’s economic and legal responsibilities, and keeps us strong and competitive in the future.

To promote deliberation about immigration reform, this guide presents three options, each built on a framework of ideas and information drawn from studies, speeches, interviews, books, and public policy proposals.

Option One: Welcome New Arrivals
A rich combination of diverse cultures is what defines us as a people. We must preserve our heritage as a nation of immigrants by shoring up our existing system while also providing an acceptable way for the millions of undocumented immigrants currently living here to earn the right to citizenship.

Option Two: Protect Our Borders
Failure to stem the tide of illegal immigration undermines our national security, stiffens competition for scarce jobs, and strains the public purse. We need tighter control of our borders, tougher enforcement of our immigration laws, and stricter limits on the number of immigrants legally accepted into the country.

Option Three: Promote Economic Prosperity
To remain competitive in the 21st-century global economy, we need to acknowledge the key role that immigrants play in keeping the US economy dynamic and robust. This option favors a range of flexible measures, such as annual adjustments to immigration quotas, that put a priority on our economic needs.

More about NIF issue guides…

NIFI’s issue guides introduce participants to several choices or approaches to consider. Rather than conforming to any single public proposal, each choice reflects widely held concerns and principles. Panels of experts review manuscripts to make sure the choices are presented accurately and fairly. By intention, issue guides do not identify individuals or organizations with partisan labels, such as Democratic, Republican, conservative, or liberal. The goal is to present ideas in a fresh way that encourages readers to judge them on their merit.

NIFI offers various materials for each of the issues it produces issue guides on. The moderator guide or “guide to the forums” for each issue is available as a free download. Discussion guides (or “issue guides”) for participants are generally available in print or PDF download for a small fee ($2 to $4). DVD’s can also be purchased for some issues for just $6, for use at the beginning of your forums to introduce the topic and approaches.

All NIF issue guides and associated tools can be accessed at www.nifi.org/issue_books/.

Resource Link: www.nifi.org/issue_books/detail.aspx?catID=14&itemID=20619

Stakeholder Mapping for Collaboration – A tool for inclusiveness & diversity

This post was submitted by NCDD member Michelle Miller of MMBD Consulting via the Add-to-Blog form at www.ncdd.org/submit.

When mapping stakeholders for various initiatives, I found that existing stakeholder maps do not help identify all of the voices in a system – they do not help me as a facilitator in my quest to create the diversity and inclusiveness I need for an initiative. They do not help ensure that the whole system is represented and, even worse, they often use the language of control. As most facilitators know from experience, you cannot control stakeholders. Levels of control can vary, but control in general is anathema to collaboration. We need a fit-for-purpose stakeholder mapping tool that helps foster collaboration.

The stakeholder map for collaboration is based on three main ideas:

1) We can identify the stakeholders of a system by the questions they help us answer about an initiative.

  • Why are we doing this?
  • What are we doing?
  • How will we do it?
  • What’s possible?
  • What’s going on in reality?

2) Using a traditional symbol of the whole system, a circle, we indicate the (permeable) boundaries of a system

3) These questions create a set of “Voices” which categorize perspectives by their role in regards to an initiative:

  • Voice of Intent
  • Voice of Customer/User (or Citizen)
  • Voice of Experience
  • Voice of Design

Read the blog for the basic idea: http://bit.ly/17NFXWb

For full detail, read the paper presented at the 2013 ISPIM Conference in Helsinki: http://bit.ly/19tq51P

StakeholderMap

Talking about Guns and Violence: Strategies for Facilitating Constructive Dialogues

This 11-page essay by Greg Keidan, a public engagement specialist and writer in the San Francisco Bay Area, was written for the University of AZ’s National Institute for Civil Discourse (NICD).  After the December 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, NICD called for essays to address the challenges of conducting constructive conversations about gun violence in the U.S. As part of their mission, NICD seeks to promote civil discourse on issues of public interest and does not take a policy position on gun violence or gun control but is committed to encouraging a civil discussion.

NICD_logoArticulation of the Question

Guns are viewed by many people as a sacred emblem of American independence. We own enough nonmilitary guns to arm every man, woman, and child, plus a few million of our pets. Gun related violence accounts for 30,000-40,000 deaths each year in the U.S., approximately 60% by suicide.

Recent tragedies in Newtown and other communities involving horrific mass shootings have brought widespread calls for new efforts to address and reduce gun related violence. Unfortunately, the highly partisan, adversarial nature of our two-party system and this issue has proven to be a giant obstacle to finding common ground and common sense solutions. In the spring of 2013, the U.S. Senate failed to pass a compromise piece of legislation in response to public and Presidential demands for tighter background checks for people purchasing firearms online and at gun shows. Despite polls showing that 90% of American adults supported this compromise deal, influential advocates were able to sink the bill in the Senate.

A new approach to addressing and reducing gun related violence is desperately needed. It has been almost 20 years since Congress has passed any legislation to address the issue. A growing number of local and national organizations are interested in engaging diverse Americans in civil dialogue and deliberation to find consensus on common-sense solutions and to hold our leaders accountable for implementing them.

However, traditional public meetings where a few advocates each take their two minutes at the microphone often result in acrimonious shouting matches, rather than identifying areas of consensus where collaborative efforts could improve safety. I spoke with seasoned facilitators and thought leaders from the dialogue and deliberation movement to answer the following question: what are the emerging best practices and strategies for facilitating civil and constructive dialogues aimed at reducing the number of Americans killed and injured by guns?

From the Conclusion:

It is our hope that using these strategies may help engage a greater number of Americans in more productive discussions about guns and violence so that this issue does not become a permanent dividing line in American society. People who have an opportunity to listen deeply to a variety of perspectives will be less apt to vilify those they disagree with and more able to work together to find better solutions and areas of agreement that could serve as a basis for effective public policy.

The more Americans experience taking part in constructive, civil dialogues that lead to tangible positive outcomes, the more you work against the notion that what happens in public life is decided only by policy makers. Empowered, active and networked citizens can effectively address very difficult societal problems, as evidenced by the environmental and civil rights movements.

Communities, states and nations that learn how to effectively engage residents in dialogue on the issue of guns and violence will be better positioned to take collective action. They will be able to consider and implement policies in more informed, thoughtful, and effective ways that keep residents safer. If we can promote conversations about how to prioritize safety rather than conversations driven by fear, we have a better shot at creating policies that will effectively protect our children. Previous experiences have demonstrated that Americans who were locked in adversarial relationships can collaborate and achieve common goals when they take part in well facilitated, intelligently framed, sustained dialogues.

In the past, we have mostly heard the voices of people who express deeply held views representing the far ends of the spectrum of the gun rights vs. gun control debate. These vocal advocates don’t represent where most of us stand on the issue of guns and violence. If we can engage the majority of people who are not on one side or the other of the existing gun debate, make their voices heard and empower them to work with their neighbors to create change and communicate with decision-makers, we have a chance to make real progress towards preventing tragedies and making our country safer.

Resource Link: http://ncdd.org/rc/wp-content/uploads/Keiden-TalkingAbtGunsAndViolence.pdf

Kettering Resident Journalist Reflects on Press & Democracy

kfThe Kettering Foundation recently shared an interview with Duran Angiki, an indigenous journalist from the Solomon Islands who just finished his six-month residency with KF who faced persecution from his government for his role in exposing corruption as a citizen journalist. In his interview, he shares details of his own harrowing story, discusses the role of journalists and the press in advancing democracy, and reflects on how that role is changing.

We’ve shared a few choice excerpts from the interview below, but you can read the interview transcript in its entirety by visiting the Kettering Foundation’s blog at www.kettering.org/kfnews/kettering-conversations-duran-angiki.

Jack Becker: You describe the mission of Duranangiki.net as “to check the leaders of Solomon Islands and our province, Rennell and Bellona, and expose corrupt leaders regardless of who they are. Our purpose is to encourage transparency and accountability in the public sector without reservations, and expose corruption where it exists.” Can you talk a little about doing this? What kinds of barriers do you face in this pursuit?

Duran Angiki: The mission statement of Duranangiki.net is a labor of love that is based on conviction and sacrifice, but also an ongoing commitment to the ideal of promoting good governance. It is difficult as someone who had the opportunity of being educated and living in Western countries to see our people and communities being exploited by our leaders. Daring to speak in a nation where your allegiance is first to protect the image of your island, ethnic, and cultural group, before the nation, is not only suicidal, but also plain madness. It is one of the most unpopular jobs that yielded no personal gains for me, let alone my immediate family members, who indirectly, suffered the consequences of my work. Many times in my career, I’ve often questioned myself about the logic of this mission, but I often comforted myself with the knowledge that if I’m not to do it, who else.

If we want a better country and future for us, someone has to step up to the plate. Unfortunately, my traditional obligation has put me in this position. I become a journalist in the hope of making a difference. It is a commitment that I made to my people to represent them. …At times, this role seems to be travesty in a country where political and government institutions are highly corrupt. This situation has created a working environment where journalists and citizens often succumb to threats, harassment, bullying, and intimidation by politicians. I could have chosen an easy path, but I choose to take this daring path, instead of silently moaning the injustices. Despite the personal cost to my life, I have never given up hope about my mission and committed to the course. I’m hoping that this mission will inspire other young people to realize the importance of openly contributing to the broader conversation about building a secure, stable, and better future for our people and communities. We need to break away from the culture of silence and engage in open dialogue. I guess history will be our best judge.

And later in the interview…

JB: You mention that your work is based on a commitment to people in your community; one of Kettering’s core concerns is a lack of alignment between how citizens make decisions in community and the way institutions—including media institutions—go about their work. What should the relationship between journalists and a community be? How does journalism fit into a citizen-centered democracy?

DA: Realistically, the idea of alignment sounds good, but in practice, it is a huge challenge. In my experience in developing and developed communities, the majority of the people couldn’t care less about what the media and institutions are talking about or will talk about. The sad reality of this situation is this: citizens are often left to their own demise when decisions are taken and later impacted negatively on them. Global media tycoons more often than not control the news media in Western countries, which becomes a hindrance to the role of journalists. The case of US journalism is unique because news media outlets and their journalists are either conservative or liberal. There is no middle ground in American journalism. This situation has created distrust by citizens and communities of the media, especially the role of journalism as a watchdog. The watchdog role has replaced agenda setting. Despite public cynicism of the media in this country, America is the only country in the Western world that enshrined in its Constitution, under the First Amendment, freedom of the press. In Australia and other democratic countries, freedom of the press or media freedom is an implied right under Common Law. Sadly, in the case of the United States, the constitutional recognition of media freedom has not provided any greater access by citizens to the news media. The new culture of agenda setting has simply taken away authentic journalism, which grounded on the presumption that journalists and the news media will provide objective, fair, and balanced coverage of issues that are affecting communities. One of the reasons that journalism is still thriving in the states is it is protected by the Constitution. It is on this basis that citizen groups and communities are always fighting to be heard. The biggest threat to journalism in America is how the profession and educational institutions are entangled in the issue of allegiance to right-wing and left-wing politics. In my observation, this is the major blight to authentic journalism in America.

Group Decision Tip: Straw Vote

In principle, the best group decisions are based on shared understanding of everyone’s perspective, and a good way to get a quick read of where everyone stands is to take a straw vote. A straw vote is not a real vote; it doesn’t count over the long run, like straw. Someone might say, “Let’s just see how people feel about the latest idea. All those who tend to like it, show a thumb up. If you tend not to like it, show a thumb down. If you are neutral or undecided, show a horizontal thumb.” Count the thumbs in the three categories. That’s a straw vote.

Group Decision Tips IconIt lets everyone in the group see, in a quick and general way, if the latest idea is worth more group time and energy. It also shows where the concerns are (the down thumbs) so we know who to call on to hear concerns.

Some groups use color cards for straw votes. Some use high-tech remote keypads and the results are graphed instantly on a screen in front of the room. The most efficient groups use straw votes often and with ease.

Practical Tip: Don’t hesitate to call for, or participate in, a straw vote. Before calling for a straw vote, make sure the question is clear and simple; you don’t want to waste group time haggling about: “What are we voting on?”

When calling for a straw vote, remind everyone that it does not count over the long run; that everyone has the right to change their mind later; that it is simply a quick and blurry snapshot of how we feel at this moment. Still, even a snapshot can be worth a thousand words.

New Public Agenda Paper on Clickers in Deliberation

PublicAgenda-logoHere in the 21st Century, technology is continuously shaping and reshaping the way that we engage with each other and how we govern ourselves.  But striking the right balance between using technology to improve our engagement and letting it get in the way can be difficult. That’s why we wanted to share the article below from our friends at Public Agenda (long-time organizational member of NCDD) that shares findings from their new report on a piece of technology that can help practitioners strike that balance correctly while improving the quality of our dialogue and deliberation.

You can read the full article below, or find the original post here on the Public Agenda blog.


4 Ways Clickers Can Improve Group Discussion and Deliberation

Though tech innovations can be helpful in improving communication and engagement, especially when immediacy is necessary, some make the mistake of relying too heavily on technology as a stand in for other communication practices.

Keypads, or “clickers” as they are called in higher education, are certainly no exception to that rule. Using these types of audience response systems alone won’t support better interactions between people, but they do have the potential to immensely improve engagement practices when used appropriately.

Click to Engage: Using Keypads to Enhance Deliberation,” a new paper from Public Agenda’s Center for Advances in Public Engagement, supports the work of public engagers seeking to improve their use of keypads in group discussion and engagement.

Here are some ways clickers can complement small group discussion:

  1. Keypads can reveal who is and who isn’t in the room. Using keypads to field demographic questions enables discussion participants to understand who is in the room and situate themselves with the group. It also provides an easy way for the discussion facilitators and organizers to look back at the data. Using keypad responses for recording demographics can motivate those hosting the group discussion to improve their recruitment of persons from diverse backgrounds as well.
  2. Keypads can be conversation starters. Keypads can be a great way to break the ice among discussion participants. Asking a couple of neutral, even comedic, questions can set a comfortable tone and allow for some low-pressure conversation to begin. Incorporating this sort of ice breaker in the beginning typically generates more inclusive and robust dialogue. Another bonus: such questions help discussion participants get used to the device.
  3. Keypads can show variance in opinion and illuminate minority views. With divisive issues, each side may assume it has the strong majority and the opposition is merely an uninformed but vocal minority. Keypads have the power to provide a more accurate count of the splits and give voice to minority views that might not otherwise enter the conversation. This is not fool-proof though, and can have an adverse effect if audience members do not come from a variety of backgrounds and perspectives. Organizers should take care in designing the discussion so that those with minority views do not end up feeling alienated. If a room predominately holds one perspective and only a few disagree, allowing those dissenters to have the floor, if they’re willing, can be a powerful means for exploring divergent viewpoints in a reasonable way.
  4. Keypads can assist facilitators in allocating remaining time. Identifying areas of agreement and disagreement through quick polling using the clickers can help a facilitator better allocate precious remaining time. If a topic reveals sharp disagreement, perhaps that topic warrants further, and deeper, discussion. Alternately, participants may not be ready to take on an issue if not enough time remains and the best option is to table it for more research.

The benefits of using a tool like the keypad to engage a diverse room of people far outweigh the drawbacks. Its immediacy and ease of use make it a powerful aide in deeper engagement. But thoughtful preparation, care and attention to design are crucial to using keypads successfully.

For more pointers on how to use this tool, including a breakdown of best practices and strengths and limitations, download our new paper here. For other tips on engagement practices, visit our Center for Advances in Public Engagement. We’d love to hear your successes, words of caution, and other tips regarding the use of keypads send us an email to Michelle Currie at publicengagement@publicagenda.org.

See the full post at www.publicagenda.org/blogs/4-ways-clickers-can-improve-group-discussion-and-deliberation?qref=http://www.publicagenda.org/pages/our-blog%3Fcurrentpage=1#sthash.hFeGCFli.dpuf

Divided We Fail: Are Leaders and Citizens Talking Past Each Other on Higher Education?

In 2012–2013, National Issues Forums held around the country have brought college students, high school students, parents, faculty, employers, retirees, and others together to deliberate about the mission of higher education and the role it should play in the nation’s social, political, and economic progress.

NIFThis interim report by the National Issues Forums Institute Board finds that Americans outside the policymaking arena want to think and talk about the mission of higher education and its role in shaping our collective future. How does their vision compare with that of leaders now proposing and adopting reforms? The challenge highlighted here is that the country is now having two very different, largely separate, conversations about the future of higher education.

The final report, which will follow after the conclusion of the Shaping Our Future forums in fall 2013, will showcase the enormous divide between the policymaker debate on higher education and the ideas and concerns among the more typical citizens who participated in the forums. Both groups bring important values and issues to the table but, at present, there is substantial crosstalk and miscommunication between them. Indeed, the principal take-away from the forums is the need for broader, more inclusive deliberations—conversations that bridge the customary divisions in our society.

Resource Link:  http://kettering.org/publications/divided-we-fail/