e-Deliberation™

Posted on September 25, 2013 by NCDD Community

e-Deliberation™ is a web-based platform used by teams and communities to collaboratively deliberate to resolve a focus, which can be a complex problems or a goal. The teams include a rich variety of stakeholder perspectives (between 15 and 80 participants) who all contribute to define a consent-based, strategy to address the said focus. The strategy develops as several complementary vectors which are integrated and harmonized as part of the process. e-Deliberation™ can be used for face to face summits as well as entirely web-based collaborations. e-Deliberation is based on Stafford Beer’s Team Syntegrity process.

e-Deliberation events or summits have defined start and finish dates/times, and follow the e-Deliberation process. All this is facilitated by a full-featured web-based user interface that supports each phase of the process. This interface can be used to support a conference where people are present in person, or it can be the virtual town hall meeting place for an entirely online event.

The e-Deliberation process starts with a named focus such as “What would it take to….” (resolve a difficult issue, achieve a goal, or manifest a vision). The proponent provides an initial Focus and description and lists stakeholder groups who ought to be concerned with or affected by the focus. The event can be private (participants are invited) or public (participants can also sign-up). A project manager/facilitator ensures all stakeholder groups are represented and sets a schedule for the phases of the e-Deliberation process based on how many hours per day participants can commit to the process (ranges from full-time to 1 hours/day). Signed up participants can offer suggestions to improve the wording of the Focus and the event description, as well as upload briefing documents and presentations.

The first phase of the e-Deliberation process is called Perspectives. In this phase, the participants do an unrestricted brainstorm of ideas that have to do with the e‑Deliberation Focus question or issue as seen through the lens of each participant. These ideas will reflect the various perspectives of the participating stakeholders, creating a universe of ideas from which the next step will draw inspiration.

The next phase is called Topic Jostle. Here, participants are asked to submit topic proposals for further deliberation. These topics are proposals that would inform or resolve the e-Deliberation Focus question or issue. Here we encourage “outside the box” thinking and provocative, creative thinking, so new avenues of thought and possibility are explored.

Once a topic is endorsed by at least 5 participants, it is included in the potential agenda of the e-Deliberation. Topics that are ill-conceived tend not to get endorsed or be replaced by better idea; this is a normal part of the creative process. Similar topics may get consolidated. The Perspectives brainstorm (previous step) is used to inspire these topics, as well as to validate that we have topics that talk to or advance the essential parts of that universe of ideas.

Participants are then individually polled to rate each of the topics that got 5+ endorsements based on how important they see that topic is with regard to resolving the event Focus. The topics that aggregate the highest importance score are conserved – how many depends on the number of participants (12 topics for 30 participants, 8 for 20, etc.) The participants are then polled to indicate on which of the conserved topics they would like to personally work on. This drives the assignment of the participants to teams formed around each topic. Each participant is a deliberative member of 2 of these teams, and a facilitator/guardian of up to 2 others. The formation of the team membership ensures that each team has direct access to all the other teams via the co-memberships of it’s team members.

The next phase are the Waves of Deliberation. Each Topic Team is tasked to deliver a document, called an Outcome Resolve, which puts forward proposals to the rest of the event participants on how the Team’s Topic can be put forward in support of Focus statement.

The mandate of each Topic Team is to ensure that their Outcome Resolve is consistent with the Outcome Resolves of the other Topic Teams, and that it has the support of all the participants of the e-Deliberation event. This means that while each participant is accountable to him/herself to speak their mind and be true to their values, they are also accountable to the deliberative community as a whole to help it deliver a wholesome and fully consented resolution to the Focus issue.

To achieve this integrated result, the process includes up to three Waves. In each wave, each team deliberates and drafts an Outcome Resolve document for their Topic. The deliberation is supported by a number of tools such as interactive team mind maps, threaded discussion forums, conference calls, Skype, even meeting face to face is an option if all the members of the Topic Team are collocated. The Outcome Resolve is edited online and is version controlled.

At the end of the first wave, each participant reviews the Outcome Resolves drafted by the various Topic Teams. The participant is asked to consent to the Outcome Resolve, or to object to it by providing an argued objection. Each Topic Team therefore gets feedback from all the Participants to understand gaps, blind spots and where others are coming from, as input to the next wave of deliberation.

This feedback also gives the Team guidance on how well their Outcome Resolve “fits” in the big picture and they also understand where the other teams are going with regard to their own respective Outcome Resolves.

This feedback, quantitative and qualitative, becomes an input to each Topic Team as it enters the second wave, which then proceeds the same way as the first wave, with a second draft of the Outcome Resolve and a feedback poll. A third wave follows the second, especially is during the second wave, several participants still had objections.

The goal ultimately is that the Outcome Resolve will win the consent of the whole e-Deliberation team and that it also dovetails with the Outcome Resolves of the other teams.

The last Outcome Resolve from each team is again polled to validate that it meets the approval of the whole team, and to allow a final round of adjustments to obtain the consent of everyone on the final version. An Executive Summary report is compiled which included all the deliverables from each of the process phases.

Not all the phases of the process are needed for every situation. Sub-sets of the process, called Variants, can be used for simpler situations.

The entire process is facilitated by a dynamic user interface that self-adjusts given the then current phase of the process. The website includes a number of automated workflows that simplify the job of facilitating the process: process phase changes execute according to the event schedule, and participants get emails to wrap up their work on the current phase as the next one is introduced. Summary as well as detailed “how to” instructions are provided for each phase so each participant always knows what is expected of him or her.

The e-Deliberation platform is entirely encrypted and hosted in a high security Canadian data center.

Resource Link: www.e-deliberation.com

This resource was submitted by Jean-Daniel Cusin, Managing Director of e-Deliberation Inc., via the Add-a-Resource form.

Documentary: Participatory Budgeting in Belo Horizonte

Posted on September 13, 2013 by Tiago Peixoto

Through the Facebook Participatory Budgeting group I came across a documentary about Belo Horizonte’s PB. The documentary, by Joao Ramos de Almeida, provides a unique view of the functioning of one of the oldest PBs in Brazil.

Among other things, the documentary shows how the process leads to a degree of civic empowerment and activism rarely seen in traditional governing models. It is particularly interesting to see how citizens contest, for instance, the cost estimates of public works made by the city administration. The documentary also shows how PB manages to engage citizens in an extremely time consuming process. It is also interesting to see that, while there is some degree of deliberation in the PB process, much of it is also about negotiation between the different communities involved.

Among other things, it shows that Belo Horizonte’s PB is far from perfect, and the suspicion of some degree of co-optation of some PB participants by the administration highlights difficulties that are inherent to many participatory processes. To some, it might come across as a sobering message. Yet, when looking at participatory initiatives, we should not only compare their functioning to an ideal vision of democracy. In this case, we should also compare it to the status quo, that is, how public budgeting takes place in the absence of public participation.

For those interested in citizen engagement this documentary (English subtitles, 55 mins) is worth watching.

***

threats, negotiations, and deliberation: the case of the Syria crisis

Posted on September 10, 2013 by Peter

It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. – Hamilton, The Federalist #1 (first paragraph)

Here are three modes of interaction that apply to the Current Emergency:

1. Making credible threats to deter bad behavior. The Geneva Protocol to the Hague Convention bans the use of chemical weapons. President Obama called that a “red line.” There is a case for drawing red lines and credibly threatening to punish people who cross them. Mark Kleinman lays out an argument for Congressional authorization based on this idea of credible threats. Kleinman doesn’t consider his argument determinative, but Ross Douthat does. Douthat writes that a “no”vote in Congress would “basically finish off the current American president as a credible actor on the world stage” because he could no longer make credible threats.

[Footnote: I wish that no one would say "bombing Syria" or--in Kleinman's phrase--"an attack on Syria," because that is a euphemism for "killing human beings resident in Syria." Syria is an abstraction that cannot die or suffer. As Hannah Arendt and George Orwell taught us, euphemisms are deadly in politics. Maybe we should kill people in Syria, but let's call that what it is.]

2. Zero-sum political struggle between the President and Congress. That is the implicit model that people imagine when they think that by asking Congress to vote, Obama already weakened himself, and a “no” vote would be a humiliation that would embolden the Republicans to oppose him on all other fronts. “Negotiation” is an appropriate word for nonviolent zero-sum interactions. In this case, the president wants a yes. He and his people are busy negotiating with Members of Congress and will either succeed or fail.

3. An open-ended discussion about what to do. This is the model that people invoke when they say that the President prompted an important national conversation about military intervention by asking Congress to debate a resolution on Syria. If that model applies, the administration must honor the results of the vote, but any result could be called a victory for the process.

My origins are in deliberative democracy, but I try not to be naive about it. Deliberative moments are rare and fragile and depend on cultural norms and formal structures. You can’t deliberate with Assad (which doesn’t mean that you are required to bomb his army). You can’t necessarily deliberate with Congress if they are in a mood to wreck your administration or if the constitutional structure is dysfunctional. It is harder to deliberate if pundits are standing by with political scorecards, ready to call a “no” vote a humiliating defeat that ends your presidency.

On the other hand, the deliberative model has value. We ought to prize what Madison called “the mild voice of reason” whenever it has a chance. If Congress rejects the president’s proposal, that is not actually a defeat for him. We could commend his decision to go to Congress as a courageous and enlightened form of leadership. Certainly, in a family, a neighborhood, or a workplace, admirable leaders often delegate tough decisions to groups and agree to accept the results. We do not call that weakness; it can be wisdom. But it won’t be seen as wise unless someone says it is.

Politics cannot be pure deliberation. However, if we fail to recognize the deliberative moments, they have no chance at all. Regardless of the results, I am preemptively celebrating the president’s decision to go to Congress and I am preemptively denouncing all the reporters and talking heads who will score it as a win or a loss for the White House. Let’s pay attention to whether the bombing would be good for Syria and whether the debate is good for our democracy.

The post threats, negotiations, and deliberation: the case of the Syria crisis appeared first on Peter Levine.

Organ Donation: the Facebook Effect

Posted on September 9, 2013 by Tiago Peixoto

I just came across a fascinating paper published last June in the Journal of Transplation, Social Media and Organ Donation: the Facebook Effect. Unfortunately I could not find an ungated version of the paper, but the abstract is below:

Despite countless media campaigns, organ donation rates in the United States have remained static while need has risen dramatically. New efforts to increase organ donation through public education are necessary to address the waiting list of over 100,000 patients. On May 1, 2012, the online social network, Facebook, altered its platform to allow members to specify “Organ Donor” as part of their profile. Upon such choice, members were offered a link to their state registry to complete an official designation, and their “friends” in the network were made aware of the new status as a donor. Educational links regarding donation were offered to those considering the new organ donor status. On the first day of the Facebook organ donor initiative, there were 13 054 new online registrations, representing a 21.1-fold increase over the baseline average of 616 registrations. This first-day effect ranged from 6.9× (Michigan) to 108.9× (Georgia). Registration rates remained elevated in the following 12 days. During the same time period, no increase was seen in registrations from the DMV. Novel applications of social media may prove effective in increasing organ donation rates and likewise might be utilized in other refractory public health problems in which communication and education are essential.

The concept, as reported on the John Hopkins University website, was developed by two long–time friends, Facebook’s COO Sheryl Sandberg and JHU transplant surgeon Andrew Cameron:

When Harvard University friends Sheryl Sandberg and Andrew M. Cameron, M.D., Ph.D., met up at their 20^th college reunion last spring, they got to talking. Sandberg knew that Cameron, a transplant surgeon at Johns Hopkins, was passionate about solving the perennial problem of transplantation: the critical shortage of donated organs in the United States. And he knew that Sandberg, as chief operating officer of Facebook, had a way of easily reaching hundreds of millions of people.

The findings of the study are fascinating and a reminder of the variety of ways in which social media, and particularly Facebook, can be used towards the public good. But when it comes to the issue of citizen engagement, I have reservations about seeing Facebook as a virtual public sphere. Rather than a public square, Facebook resembles the food court of a shopping mall: while it is a social space, it is still a private one and it is still about business. But despite that fact, there’s lots of amazing things that can be done, and we are just scraping the surface. Some of my thoughts on this are in a recent article at TechCrunch.

***

Like this? Also read about the foundations of motivation in the age of social media.

Human Migration: Policy Possibilities for Public Discussion

Posted on September 4, 2013 by NCDD Community

The Interactivity Foundation (IF) has recently published a discussion guidebook entitled “Human Migration: Policy Possibilities for Public Discussion.” The guidebook was edited by IF Fellow Ieva Notturno, who also managed the long-term project and two discussion panels that explored and developed the ideas that resulted in the six policy possibilities listed below and further outlined in the guidebook.

The discussion panelists initially worked thru a series of fundamental questions and concerns about human migration, including “What could human migration mean? What are the forces that drive it? What societal goals and public policies might pertain to it? What are its different dimensions and how might these different dimensions conflict with each other? How might human migration and the conflicts that arise from it affect the ability of democracy to achieve its goals? Might immigration and emigration, as special examples of human migration, pose special threats to democracy? And if so, what are they? What concerns might Americans have about human migration? How might our public policies address these concerns? What conceptual policy possibilities might we develop that might affect the future of human migration?”

In response to these and other questions and concerns, they developed the following six policy possibilities for further exploration and discussion:

Put Security First
Privilege Human Rights & Humanitarian Needs
Promote Assimilation into Local Communities
Put the Economy First
Keep Families Together
Embrace Freedom of Movement

For each of these possibilities, the discussion guidebook also describes possible implementations, effects (or consequences), and further discussion questions.

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 reports. For more information see the Foundation’s website at www.interactivityfoundation.org.

Resource Link: www.interactivityfoundation.org/discussions/human-migration/

This resource was submitted by Peter Shively of the Interactivity Foundation via the Add-a-Resource form.

The Human Impact of Climate Change: Opportunities & Challenges

Posted on September 4, 2013 by NCDD Community

The Interactivity Foundation (IF) has recently published a guidebook for public discussion on “The Human Impact on Climate Change,” edited by IF Fellows Dennis Boyer, Jeff Prudhomme, and Adolf Gundersen. The guidebook was developed from the group discussions of 16 panelists in two groups from south central and southwestern Wisconsin.

Human-Impact-on-Climate-cover Test discussions facilitated by former Wisconsinites in Tucson, Ariz., and in Sonora and Mazatlan, Mexico, further developed the text of the discussion guide.

Six contrasting policy possibilities emerged from these group discussions and are described in this discussion guide along with possible implementations, examples, and consequences:

Promote climate awareness: Improve public understanding of climate impacts, their consequences, and options for action.
Change consumer habits: Focus on human consumption as a source of atmospheric carbon and greenhouse gases.
Go for results: Identify efficient and low-cost solutions that are currently available for short-term action.
Heal the planet: Plan and implement long-range recovery and rehabilitation of ecosystems.
Deal with a different world: Adapt to changed conditions and plan for climate emergencies.
Focus on the developing world: Assist developing nations in reducing climate impact activities and help them “leap over” traditional industrial development to clean technologies.

In developing these possibilities, the project panelists felt that much of the existing political “debate” about climate impacts has been unhelpful to citizens and policymakers. Eventually, their discussions designated certain issues, such as “Is the planet getting warmer? How is the climate changing? What role does human action play in global climate change?” as questions that rely more on empirical scientific research for their answers. Conversely, they designated other key questions, such as “What public policy choices might we make about climate change? What, if anything, might society do about global climate change?” as public policy questions that need exploration by all citizens.

This distinction helped the panelists to side-step much of the highly partisan and interest-group-driven “debate” and engage in a public conversation that was more anticipatory and imaginative. Their explorations seem to be shaped by three realizations:

Universal agreement on the precise nature and extent of climate impacts is difficult to achieve and waiting for it could forestall consideration of workable impact policies.
There is sufficient current evidence of dramatic environmental consequences connected to climate impacts to merit development of policy responses.
Significant institutions and interests are assuming that human climate impacts are real and must be accounted for.

This last point accounted for a dramatic shift in the project discussions. Among the more conservative panelists, the realization that major financial institutions, large investors, risk managers, insurers, and military and national security leaders take climate impacts into account in their planning was a turning point. It was seen as evidence that the politicians often lag behind in both consciousness and practical problem-solving.

The sense that emerged from the climate project was that these starting points for public conversation represent a possibly useful foundation for discussion of the opportunities for innovation, economic development, and prudent planning related to climate impacts. Now it’s your turn.

Resource Link: www.interactivityfoundation.org/discussions/human-impacts-on-climate/

This resource was submitted by Peter Shively of the Interactivity Foundation via the Add-a-Resource form.

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

Posted on September 2, 2013 by NCDD Community

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.

The 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

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

Posted on August 27, 2013 by Andy Fluke

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

Talking about Guns and Violence: Strategies for Facilitating Constructive Dialogues

Posted on August 25, 2013 by Sandy Heierbacher

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.

Articulation 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

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

Posted on August 20, 2013 by Sandy Heierbacher

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.

NIF This 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/

Civic Studies

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

Category Archives: deliberation