Civic Studies

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

Main menu

Skip to primary content
Skip to secondary content
  • Home
  • About
  • Discussion + Collaboration
  • Get Involved
  • Meet-Up

Category Archives: event design

Post navigation

Newer posts →

Understanding Structural Racism Activity

Posted on February 11, 2016 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

Everyday Democracy published the five-page activity, Understanding Structural Racism Activity, on January 2015. This activity gives participants an opportunity for better understanding how structural racism manifests and how to design realistic events/actions from a structural racism lens. Participants will explore all three layers of structural racism: personal attitudes/beliefs, formal and informal practices, and policies and procedures- via group discussion and skit activity, then work through the issues that arise at all three levels to create realistic events/actions. Below is an excerpt from the activity and you can download for free from Everyday Democracy here. 

ED_structural_racismFrom the activity…

This activity helps participants delve deeper in analyzing racism and start to learn how to use a structural racism lens. Many times, actions are focused on changing the personal beliefs without looking at the practices and procedures that contribute to the issue. Through this activity, participants will have the opportunity to break down the issue of racism at a structural level so that the group can come up with realistic action ideas for change.

Goal:

To get participants to analyze an issue through a structural racism lens

To engage participants in an interactive way to identify the personal beliefs, practices, and procedures that contribute to the issue

To create a compiled list of barriers impacting the issue on the structural level

Materials needed:

Structural Racism handouts
Chart paper
Markers

Preparation:

Review the Structural Racism handout. Familiarize yourself and understand all 3 layers to structural racism: the personal attitudes/beliefs, formal and informal practices, and policies and procedures.

Review the sample structural racism examples. If the sample examples do not fit the community specific issue, brainstorm a few examples for each level.

Identify the community specific issue the group will work on.

Part 1: Activity overview

Pass out the Structural Racism handouts. Give participants a few minutes to review them.

Explain each level of structural racism as participants look on.

Use the examples to help participants understand each level. Allow time for clarifying questions.

Divide participants into three groups. Group 1 will be “Personal Attitudes,” Group 2 will be “Formal and Informal Practices,” and Group 3 will be “Policies and Procedures.”

In the small groups, give participants 10 minutes to think of examples for their assigned group. Have the groups record their answers on chart paper.

Part 2: Skit Activity

Following the brainstorm, ask each small group to pick one example and create a 2-minute skit to illustrate the example.

Have each group set the skit’s context and perform their skit. Ask the audience to pay attention to how the skit illustrates the group’s assigned level.

After each skit, debrief with the following questions:

Was the skit realistic?

How was the skit an example of personal attitudes and beliefs/practices/policies and procedures?

After all the skits, ask all three skits to start up simultaneously. Wait about 20 seconds.

Then, stop the skits and explain that collectively, these are the different levels contributing to the issue. If one level is addressed, there are two other levels occurring at the same time. If this group wants to truly see change, actions need to address all three levels.
…

You can find access to the rest of the activity on Everyday Democracy’s site here.

About Everyday Democracy
Everyday Democracy
Everyday Democracy (formerly called the Study Circles Resource Center) is a project of The Paul J. Aicher Foundation, a private operating foundation dedicated to strengthening deliberative democracy and improving the quality of public life in the United States. Since our founding in 1989, we’ve worked with hundreds of communities across the United States on issues such as: racial equity, poverty reduction and economic development, education reform, early childhood development and building strong neighborhoods. We work with national, regional and state organizations in order to leverage our resources and to expand the reach and impact of civic engagement processes and tools.
Follow on Twitter: @EvDem

Resource Link: http://everyday-democracy.org/resources/understanding-structural-racism-activity

Posted in All Resources, EvDem/Study Circles, event design, great for beginners, great for public managers, human rights, public engagement, race issues, social justice, tools, Tools & Handouts | Leave a reply

Deliberative Publicity

Posted on February 5, 2016 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

Deliberative Publicity by Chris Karpowitz and Chad Raphael, was published on the Deliberative Democracy Consortium blog in April 2015. The article talks about the evolving role of publicity around deliberative forums, and how deliberative publicity has the power to amplify the public’s voice and create meaningful connections to the larger political structure.

Karpowitz and Raphael analyzed a wide variety of deliberative forum practices, and found that many had opportunities for improvement when publicizing a forum around transparency and accurately sharing participant’s viewpoints. They recognized the growing need for common standards around how to accurate share what happened inside a forum with those who did not attend the forum, which lead to the creation of the “Deliberative Publicity Checklist”, as a starting point for these standards. Read the article in full below or find the original posting here.

Read the full article

Why should anyone who does not attend a deliberative forum trust that it was run fairly and that its conclusions are sound? Sure, we know from ample research and our own experiences that practitioners of public deliberation are committed to discovering an authentic public voice and wise solutions to social problems. But even in a world with many more opportunities for deliberation, the vast majority of citizens will not attend any given forum. Those who do not attend cannot directly experience the benefits of deliberation, and they may not fully understand what such forums add to the political discourse or how much credence they should give to what happens there. How do practitioners communicate effectively and ethically to decision makers, stakeholders, journalists, and community members who do not participate in our forums? This is the challenge of publicity.

It is a challenge the field needs to confront squarely. Most civic forums are recent arrivals on the political scene and so their authority and legitimacy are less widely accepted than established kinds of public consultation and decision making, such as polls, hearings, and elections. If the unique kind of civic voice that emerges from dialogue and deliberation is to influence other parts of the political system, we need to find better ways to express and amplify that voice. It is primarily through publicity that policy makers and the public can assess forums’ legitimacy and decide whether to accept their conclusions. In that sense, effective publicity can be the glue that binds deliberative forums to the wider structure of political decision making. And, like other professional and civic movements, the field of dialogue and deliberation needs to distinguish ethical and unethical practice, separating the many forums that genuinely seek the public’s voice from the few that aim to ventriloquize citizens with the opinions of sponsors or organizers.

In our view, the goal should be the practice of deliberative publicity, which ought to be distinct from political public relations, on the one hand, or sensationalistic forms of journalism, on the other. The key is to adapt the principles of good deliberation used within forums to how we communicate with others outside the forum. For example, an important question is whether the publicity exhibits respect for deliberators’ arguments, expressing their conclusions clearly and explaining coherently how their positions were supported by underlying reasons, evidence, and norms. In addition, does publicity present the opposing views that participants considered and treat them respectfully? Does it practice transparency by revealing who sponsored and organized the forum, and their organizational missions? Effective publicity will also share ample details about the design of the forum, its intended influence and audience, how it was evaluated, and whether participants were asked to ensure the fidelity of the publicity to their own experience of the discussion.

As a way of highlighting these important questions, we composed a “deliberative publicity checklist” (seen below) that could serve to remind both scholars and practitioners of important elements of deliberative publicity. The checklist provides guidance about the kind of information that will be needed for those who did not attend the forum to understand its purposes, the processes of deliberation, and the policies that deliberators ultimately endorsed. In our recent book, we elaborate on each element of legitimate deliberative publicity and we explore other possibilities for improving lines of communication between civic forums and other institutions of public decision-making.

Delib_publicity_checklist

We also took a first step toward understanding how civic forums currently practice publicity by examining how well the final reports of a diverse sample of forums met the criteria in our checklist. The sample included large and small forums of long and short duration, well-funded and shoestring efforts, a variety of designs (National Issues Forums, consensus conferences, etc.), diverse organizers (academics, governments, and NGOs), multiple decision rules (voting, polling, consensus), and different levels influence and governance (national, state, and local). While our principles are intended to inform publicity at each stage of a forum, we studied final reports because organizers have direct control over such materials, unlike the content of news media stories, these reports are typically the fullest summary of what happened at a forum, and it is likely that policy makers pay greatest attention to these documents.

None of the forums we analyzed met every criterion in our checklist, and in that sense, our analysis shows considerable room for improvement. Some reports did not clearly express participants’ conclusions, but more reports failed to explain why deliberators supported some policy steps and rejected others. That should be surprising to people who value civic reasoning. Many reports omitted important details about how the forum was conducted, such as who organized and funded it, how issues were framed for participants, decision-making rules, and whether participants thought the process was fair. That should give pause to people who are aware of the potential influence of forum designs on participants’ views. Very few reports shared evaluation data or information about whether the participants approved of how their arguments and experience were presented publicly. That should concern anyone who knows that we need to dispel suspicions, especially among interested stakeholders, that forum organizers stack the deck in favor of our own views.

However, almost every report practiced some element of publicity well, and we found many innovative and promising practices that deserve to be emulated in the future. This suggests that those who value deliberation are fully capable of practicing effective deliberative publicity. Indeed, the spotty coverage we found is in part a result of the absence of common standards and practices for publicity. Given this fact, we are calling for a conversation about the challenge of publicity and renewed focus on sharing best practices among scholars and organizers of deliberative civic forums. We hope the publicity checklist can be a way of beginning this conversation.

Importantly, a commitment to effective publicity does not necessarily require us to write endless public reports that are too daunting for anyone to read. We found no relationship between length and comprehensiveness of reports. In fact, one of the better examples of publicity around today is the Oregon Citizens Initiative Review Commission statements, published in the state’s official voter pamphlet, in which citizen panels advise the public on whether to support proposed ballot measures. These statements fulfill almost every item on our checklist in 250 words or less.

By the way, we did not spare ourselves the scrutiny we turned on others’ publicity. A report of a forum on municipal broadband that one of us conducted and the other evaluated several years before our study scored well on summarizing participants’ recommendations and reasons, but neglected to report even a shred of the evidence that influenced their views. Nostra culpa.

Undoubtedly, we all have more to learn about how to practice deliberative publicity.

How can we build on good examples, like Oregon’s Citizen Initiative Review Commission, to improve publicity by forums that do not have as powerful a means for communicating their work to the public as a voter guide and as straightforward a link to the electoral system? Those of us who are committed to a more deliberative political system would benefit from assembling and discussing promising practices for reporting each phase of our work, establishing common standards such as those in our publicity checklist, and devoting more resources to communicating the public’s voice in ways that other democratic institutions can hear and heed.

About the authors
Christopher F. Karpowitz is co-director of the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy and associate professor of political science at Brigham Young University. Follow on Twitter:@ProfKarpo. Chad Raphael is professor of communication at Santa Clara University. They are authors of Deliberation, Democracy, and Civic Forums: Improving Equality and Publicity.

Resource Link: www.deliberative-democracy.net/index.php/blog/1-general/191-deliberative-publicity-karpowitz-and-raphael

Posted in All Resources, deliberation, event design, gems, great for beginners, highly recommended, Manuals & Guides, messaging, public engagement, reports on forums, tools | Leave a reply

How to Recruit Dialogue Participants

Posted on January 26, 2016 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

How to Recruit Dialogue Participants, published June 2015 by Everyday Democracy, includes five tips to for getting a well-rounded group of dialogue participants together. The one-page read has five recommendations for having a successful dialogue, including: reviewing dialogue recruitment goals, developing talking points, plan outreach strategies, give coalition members recruiting assignments, and take extra steps to recruit underrepresented groups. The article can be read below and found on Everyday Democracy’s website here.

From Everyday Democracy

To have effective community conversations, it’s important to get as many different kinds of people involved as possible. A program that involves a broad cross-section of the community is more likely to benefit the community as a whole. And, having a diverse mix of participants helps make for lively and rewarding dialogue. Use these tips to recruit dialogue participants from every part of your community.

Review your recruitment goals
First, the coalition must decide how many and what kinds of people you are trying to reach. Refer back to the recruitment goals generated when you first met. Now, it’s time to get specific about your objectives. Ask yourselves:

– How many people do we need to involve to bring about the changes we are aiming for?
– Who are the different kinds of people we need to recruit to make our program diverse? (Be sure to think about multiple kinds of diversity.
– Why would people from each of these groups want to participate
– What might keep people in each group from participating?
– Are there groups or individuals on our coalition who can reach out to groups not yet involved? If not, who can help to spark their interest?

Develop talking points
This will help keep your message clear and consistent. As a coalition, role-play describing the dialogue to action effort to each other so members become familiar with the messages. The goal is for all members to be comfortable asking friends, family members, co-workers, and community members to participate in the dialogues. They should be able to give a brief overview about the program, talk about what issue they’ll be addressing and why it’s important.

A personal invitation is the best recruiting strategy. There is no substitute! You can do this through face-to-face visits and through phone calls. The coordinator and coalition members can introduce the program to lots of people by speaking at community groups or meetings.

You may want to supplement your in-person invitations with other tools such as flyers, brochures, Facebook announcements, blog posts, or radio interviews. Be creative!

Whenever possible, give people a chance to take part in a sample dialogue. Be sure to allow plenty of time for questions and answers. Explain how the program can help them make a difference on the issue, form new partnerships and relationships, and strengthen their own organization. Capture the excitement that is generated on the spot by having sign-up forms with you.

To ensure your dialogues include a diverse group of people, design your sign-up sheet to collect basic information – such as name, age, occupation, gender, neighborhood, ethnic/racial group – and then use that data to help arrange diverse groups. Make sure you ask people for their preferred times and days for participating in the dialogues.

Give coalition members recruiting assignments
Ask the members of your coalition to reach out to people in their networks. You may even want to set specific recruitment goals for each member.

Think about people who can spread the word to their entire network and tap into their resources. Reach out to leaders of businesses, nonprofits, faith communities, clubs, and other organizations. If community members hear the message from someone they trust, they will be more likely to participate. And, it’ll make recruitment easier because you won’t have to sign up each person individually.

Take extra steps to recruit underrepresented groups
One of the biggest challenges is to recruit people who don’t often get involved in community events. This will take extra work, but without it, you will be missing many important voices in your program.

To reach out to groups you may not be a part of, you have to take time to establish trust. If you can, find a spokesperson or leader in that community that can help spread the word. Sometimes they can be found in unlikely places such as barbershops or restaurants.

 About Everyday Democracy
Everyday Democracy
Everyday Democracy (formerly called the Study Circles Resource Center) is a project of The Paul J. Aicher Foundation, a private operating foundation dedicated to strengthening deliberative democracy and improving the quality of public life in the United States. Since our founding in 1989, we’ve worked with hundreds of communities across the United States on issues such as: racial equity, poverty reduction and economic development, education reform, early childhood development and building strong neighborhoods. We work with national, regional and state organizations in order to leverage our resources and to expand the reach and impact of civic engagement processes and tools. Follow on Twitter: @EvDem

Resource Link: http://everyday-democracy.org/tips/how-recruit-dialogue-participants

Posted in All Resources, dialogue, EvDem/Study Circles, event design, great for beginners, public engagement, Reports & Articles, social justice | Leave a reply

Democratic Rules of Order: Easy-to-use rules for meetings of any size

Posted on December 4, 2015 by NCDD Community
Reply

The 72-page book, Democratic Rules of Order: Easy-to-use rules for meetings of any size (2010), by Fred Francis and Peg Francis, gives straight-forward rules of order for running meetings.

Democratic_RulesDemocratic Rules of Order demonstrate that efficient, democratic decision-making is a simple and natural process. Meetings that are governed by straightforward rules enable the Chair and the participants to focus on issues without being preoccupied with the rules. Within the simple meeting structure prescribed, members reach agreements more quickly and easily and ultimately, make better decisions.

This book can be adopted as the official rules of order for almost any organization. It is a reliable, universal standard. Through nine editions, it has been thoroughly revised to be sure that each point is crystal clear and that not a single necessary rule is missing. The rules of all editions are so similar, however, that earlier editions can be used along with the latest edition

This easy-to-read book uses plain language, no complicated hierarchy of rules to memorize and gives Chairs confidence in helping members deliberate harmoniously and agree to decisions. It can be adopted as the official rules of order for meetings of any size. The rules are based on the natural laws of democracy – the right of the individual to be fully heard and the right of the group to make decisions for themselves – and based on common practice of making motions, voting, etc.

Its purpose is to allow groups to make decisions together smoothly, fairly and inclusively without struggling with rules. When everyone knows the rules, the decisions are more truly democratic. The rules allow informality but automatically require more formality when needed. The book has been rigorously tested and now appreciated by thousands of organizations such as condo associations, unions, clubs, churches, professional associations, etc. The rules are 27 pages, followed by Questions and Answers and a sample meeting. A flow chart of decision-making and a summary of rules and index are included. Purchase the book or PDF here.

Follow on Twitter: @DemocraticRules

Resource Link: www.democraticrules.com/

This resource was submitted by Joyce McMenamon, from Democratic Rules of Order, via the Add-a-Resource form.

Posted in All Resources, Books & Booklets, decision making, democratic renewal, event design, planning, public engagement, tools | Leave a reply

Leading Great Meetings: How to Structure Yours For Success

Posted on October 26, 2015 by NCDD Community
Reply

The 230-page book, Leading Great Meetings: How to Structure Yours for Success, by Dr. Richard Lent was published June 2015. This book discusses how providing structure to meetings can help to create more productive meetings and offers 32 tools to conduct better meetings.

More about the book…

Leading_Great_MeetingsRecent advances in helping groups talk together to provide new ways to run effective meetings naturally…a structural approach. All meetings come with structures that affect how we behave in them. Structure includes how leaders frame a task, include different views, support dialogue, manage time, and reach decisions. In most meetings, this structure goes unconsidered and unseen, but it still has a powerful impact.

Leading Great Meetings: How to Structure Yours for Success, is designed to help leaders use structure to create more productive meetings. It provides 12 choices and 32 tools to plan and conduct a wide range of meetings from team meetings to board meetings. You can select from the choices and tools, the ones relevant to your situation. There also are stories, examples, even “blueprints,” so you can see how a structural approach works in action.

To see structure at work, consider the number of participants in a recent meeting. If there were more than 7 or 8 participants, then the chances are very good that some participants did not stay engaged. This is the effect of the structures in place when larger groups try to hold one conversation. Fortunately, there are simple processes (“tools”) that you can use to keep all engaged. This book shows you how. Other structures include how the task is framed, who attends, hierarchy, room arrangements, approach to discussions and decisions and many more.

Using the right meeting structure enables people to talk together more effectively without having to remember how to behave. Most recommendations for better meetings emphasize adopting rules or changing behavior. But when discussions get heated, people ignore the rules and good behavior is hard to maintain. Structure can create a naturally productive meeting. For more information go to http://amzn.to/1dZL67Q or visit www.meetingforresults.com.

About Dr. Richard Lent
Dr. Richard Lent has spent the last 20 years designing, facilitating and coaching leaders on more effective meetings. He facilitates meetings around the world in business, non-profit organizations and communities. Some of the organizations with which he has worked include the World Food Programme, UNICEF, Logitech, the WK Kellogg Foundation, Johnson & Johnson, and the International Red Cross. He received his Ph.D. from Syracuse University in Instructional Design, Development and Evaluation. He can be contacted at rick[at]meetingforresults.com.

Resource Link: www.meetingforresults.com

Posted in All Resources, Books & Booklets, event design, facilitation, facilitation technique, Leadership, public engagement, tools | Leave a reply

10 Tips for Better Attendance at Engagement Events

Posted on September 28, 2015 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

The article from Everyday Democracy, Where Did All The People Go? One Reason You’re Getting a Low Turnout at Community Engagement Events and 10 Things You Can Do About It, by Rebecca Reyes was published August 11, 2015. In the article, it talks about the challenges of getting people to attend public engagement events and provides 10 tips for how to improve attendance. Below is the full article and the link to the original article on Everyday Democracy’s site is here.

Read the full article below…

If you’ve ever organized or attended a community event like a town hall meeting, a meet and greet with your lawmaker or a public forum and were surprised that not many people showed up, you’re not alone.

It sometimes seems like people are too busy or don’t care enough to take action. That’s probably true for some people. But for others, they’re tired of spending their time in programs or at events where people don’t value their opinion. They don’t want to participate in something that has a low chance of making any difference. No one does.

Unfortunately, traditional methods of engagement have gotten a bad reputation. Once people have participated in a poorly run event or community engagement program, they’re not likely to come back.

When you’re trying to mobilize people to become more engaged in their community, you have to overcome the negative connotation associated with public participation. It sounds like an impossible task to overcome this kind of barrier, but it can be done.

The good news is, when people get a taste of another form of engagement, they’ll want more. That means more people will want to participate again, tell their friends about it, and even volunteer to help coordinate the next program or event. It means you’ll be able to host a program or event that engages the community and see the room filled with people wanting to take part in creating change.

Here 10 ideas for how you can get started:

1. Acknowledge that some people may not have had a positive experience with public participation.
Whether your program or event builds on an existing form of engagement or you’re trying something new, preconceptions may affect your outcome. Now that you’ve recognized this reality, you’ll be able to take steps to build a good reputation for this kind of work.

2. Think like a skeptic when you are creating your messages and marketing materials.
What would you say to someone who has participated in the past and had a bad experience? How is your program or event different? People need to know that your way of engaging the community will be different, so let them know!

3. Invite people who haven’t been invited before or who don’t often attend community events.
The demographics of our communities are changing, and unfortunately the leadership doesn’t always reflect the diversity of our communities. Be intentional about reaching out to different groups in your community, especially ones who are underrepresented. Having those diverse voices, opinions, and ideas will make your event and your community stronger.

4. Start small.
Changing people’s perceptions won’t happen overnight.  Start with small events or activities and work up to a larger event if that’s your goal. Try things like incorporating engagement activities into your workplace or hosting sample dialogues at various existing community programs to start building a positive reputation.

5. Try different ways of engaging the community.
There is no one size fits all for any community or situation. Try different engagement processes or programs and adapt them to fit your unique needs.

6. Focus on quality.
When people participate in a well-run event or program, you’ll start to build a positive reputation for your organization, for the events you host, and for community engagement in general. Participants will recommend your event to their friends the next time around – that’s the best kind of outreach you can have.

7. Show participants that you value their opinion.
The best way to do this is to truly listen to what they have to say and to take action as a result of their participation. For example, if you’re inviting the community to talk about the city budget, perhaps the community can decide how to allocate a certain amount of funds. Even if the community is only able to influence a small percentage of the total budget, if they have a positive experience with the process then it will increase their respect and trust for the difficult decisions city officials have to make. Another option is to ensure that the city mayor is present in the conversations and will truly listen and take into consideration the community’s concerns. Whether or not people have a direct impact on decision-making, they want to know that their time, experiences and opinions are valued.

8. Get creative and make it fun.
People want to spend their free time doing something they enjoy. Think about how you can make your program or event something that people of all ages will want to attend. Food, entertainment, and activities for children are great additions to a more traditional program.

9. Keep track of what you’re learning about your community.
Test different locations, times of day, types of events, length of commitment, online and offline options, etc. Keep note of what works and what doesn’t so you can improve each time you ask the public to participate.

10. Share what you’ve learned with others.
We’ll be able to create stronger communities if we share what we’ve learned with each other.  Write an email, blog post or report with your findings to distribute with your network.

About Everyday Democracy
Everyday Democracy
Everyday Democracy (formerly called the Study Circles Resource Center) is a project of The Paul J. Aicher Foundation, a private operating foundation dedicated to strengthening deliberative democracy and improving the quality of public life in the United States. Since our founding in 1989, we’ve worked with hundreds of communities across the United States on issues such as: racial equity, poverty reduction and economic development, education reform, early childhood development and building strong neighborhoods. We work with national, regional and state organizations in order to leverage our resources and to expand the reach and impact of civic engagement processes and tools.

We have learned that some of the key components to ensuring racially-equitable systemic change include building relationships, establishing a diverse coalition, having trained peer facilitators during dialogues, building on assets, and linking actions to individual, community, and policy change. We provide online tools and in-person trainings on organizing, racial equity, facilitation, communications, and action planning. We act as a catalyst and coach for communities, knowing that the people of each community are best suited to carry out and sustain the work that will make a difference. The communities we serve are the focal point of our work. Our ultimate aim is to help create communities that value everyone’s voice and work for everyone, and to help create a strong national democracy that upholds these principles.

Follow on Twitter: @EvDem

Resource Link: http://everyday-democracy.org/news/where-did-all-people-go-one-reason-you%E2%80%99re-getting-low-turnout-community-engagement-events-and

Posted in All Resources, collaborative action, dialogue, dialogue guide, dialogue to action, EvDem/Study Circles, event design, highly recommended, public engagement, tools, Tools & Handouts | Leave a reply

Post navigation

Newer posts →

Connect with:

Contributors

This site brings together posts from these scholar and practioner blogs:

anotherpanacea
Centre for Deliberative Democracy
Civic Fizz
David Bollier
DemocracySpot
Eric Thomas Weber
Florida Civics
Harry Boyte
NCDD Community
Participedia
Peter Levine
Public Agenda
Sweet Sorrow
The Good Society

Email us if you would like your blog included

Recent Posts

  • AAUP v Rubio
  • consider the octopus
  • Tufts equity dataset
  • national narcissism
  • tips for democracy activists in 2025

Archives

  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • October 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • January 2011
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • January 2010
  • September 2009
  • July 2009
This site has grown out of the annual Summer Institute of Civic Studies and Frontiers of Democracy Conference, both hosted by the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service at Tufts University.
Proudly powered by WordPress