Featured D&D Story: Putting People at the Center in Public Health

Today we are happy to feature another great example of dialogue and deliberation in action. This mini case study was submitted by NCDD student member Megan Powers of Grassroots Solutions via NCDD’s Dialogue Storytelling Tool. Do you have a dialogue story that our network could learn from? Add YOUR dialogue story today! 


ShareYourStory-sidebarimageTitle of Project:

Putting People at the Center: A Fundamental Shift in Public Health Campaigns

Description

One of the most pivotal developments in public health practice over the past 20 years is the attention that is now being paid to the wide range of factors that influence health, such as social connectedness, the built environment, and the characteristics of the places where people live, work, and play. As a result, the public health field not only educates people about individual behavioral changes people can make to improve their health, but also works to change the policies, systems, and environments that shape our world and our ability to make healthy choices.

We’ve seen this impact firsthand. Grassroots Solutions works extensively with public health entities at the local, state, and national levels to reduce tobacco use, mitigate obesity, and address other critical public health concerns.

This work has taught us that while facts and data are, of course, powerful tools, the most successful public health campaigns put people at the center. When you combine data and facts with real people’s passion, commitment,
and involvement, communities embrace changes that have a significant impact on the health of residents.

Our whitepaper draws on our 12 years of on-the-ground experience to illustrate how putting people at the center of public health campaigns results in better and more sustainable health outcomes, and why we believe that people-centric campaigns should serve as the gold standard for population health management.

Which dialogue and deliberation approaches did you use or borrow heavily from?

  • Sustained Dialogue
  • Charrettes

What was your role in the project?

Grassroots Solutions served as the project manager and hired grassroots organizers for a variety of these projects, executing engagement tactics and in some cases, facilitating participatory dialogue.

Who were your partners in the project, if any?

Blue Cross Blue Shield Center for Prevention, Cities of Bloomington, Edina, and Richfield (for the do.town initiative), Minnesota Dept of Health (for the CDC Communities Putting Prevention to Work technical assistance project).

What issues did the project primarily address?

  • Mental or physical health

Lessons Learned

  1. An important shift is to move from a campaign that is data-centered and people-supplemented to one that is people-centered, and data-supplemented. We’ve learned that this shift enables campaigns to create space for residents to shape their own neighborhoods with health in mind, and offers the opportunity to form both an intellectual and emotional attachment to their vision for a healthier community.
  2. Putting people at the center means that everything in the campaign is done with an eye towards how residents can be involved. Whether it’s prioritizing which issues to pursue, examining how a neighborhood could be made more walkable and bikeable, or exploring how a new development can support healthy behaviors, a people-centered campaign focuses on engaging residents. Everyday people are encouraged to chime in, talk with others in the community, participate in planning sessions, and make the case for changes to their friends and neighbors.
  3. The reason it is critical to put people at the center of health campaigns is that it results in better health outcomes. Communities that are built to support health will produce better health outcomes, such as bike paths, access to healthy food, walkable neighborhoods, and safe walking and bike routes for kids to get to school. Additionally, these kinds of community features also help shape how people connect with each other and with their neighborhood, town, or city. When it comes right down to it, healthy living is about people and relationships.
  4. Putting people at the center shifts a campaign from episodic, isolated opportunities to engage, to a more relationship-driven approach. This means that residents are invited to help set the campaign’s tone and direction from the very beginning, they are offered leadership opportunities, and become a part of the campaign’s infrastructure. When the campaign’s orientation is centered on people, engagement becomes grounded in relationships with residents who get involved in different ways over time. People’s participation becomes more authentic, like an ongoing conversation, rather than just a single event or action.

Where to learn more about the project:

http://healthy-communities.grassrootssolutions.com

New Issue Guide on Economy Choices from NIFI

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option One: “Free to Succeed”

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

Option Two: “An Equal Chance to Succeed”

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

Option Three: “Choose the Future We Want”

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

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

Distinguishing Collective Wisdom from “the Wisdom of Crowds”

This reflective piece comes from NCDD blogger Tom Atlee of the Co-Intelligence Project. Tom’s original post can be found at www.tomatleeblog.com/?p=175327099.

The popular book “The Wisdom of Crowds” says a lot about the remarkable accuracy of thousands of people making guesses about something that has a real but unknown answer now or in the future. This phenomenon is fascinating but it doesn’t provide us with actual wisdom to guide our collective future. What would real collective wisdom look like, and how might we find or co-create it?

A friend just sent me this essay from the BBC: “‘Wisdom of the crowd’: The myths and realities” by Philip Ball.

I feel a need to respond to it – publicly and urgently.

I think it is unfortunate that James Surowiecki’s 2005 book “The Wisdom of Crowds” – which is a perfectly good book as far as it goes – has colonized the most popular term for collective wisdom so that it is hard to talk about the subject in any other terms than his, and be heard.

But think about it for a minute. “The Wisdom of Crowds” is about how accurate (or not) dozens or thousands of people are when they are guessing the number of beans in a bottle or predicting who is going to win the World Cup. The number of times their average collective guestimates are accurate is remarkable – which is the subject of Surowiecki’s book. But is that what wisdom is really about?

If some individual could predict the outcome of this year’s US elections, would we call them wise? Is that what we proclaim Christ or Buddha as wise for doing?

I would love it if we would reserve the terms “wisdom” and “wise” for guidance that makes life better – especially useful guidance that makes life better for most or all of us – including all the creatures of this living, fragile Earth – over the long term. That’s what we need wisdom for, now more than ever.

The traditions of the world’s great religions are one source of that wisdom, if we are mindful and heartful about which aspects of them we choose to follow, such as the near-universal Golden Rule of treating others the ways we would like to be treated. That’s wise. Various forms of systems thinking – from shamanism to ecology and complexity sciences – offer such wisdom because they deal with the wholeness and interconnectedness of the world. Nature’s ways of solving problems – as revealed by the sciences of biomimicry and evolution – also offers such guidance because nature’s solutions (and ways of generating solutions) have arisen and proven themselves through millions of years of testing.

And then there’s the processes through which we make our collective decisions. Here Surowiecki and his followers and critics have a lot to say. Surowieckians stress the need for the diversity and independence of the participants, noting that the more they talk with each other or are exposed to each other’s ideas, the less accurate their predictions and estimates become.

While this may be true enough for their “prediction markets”, it is tragic advice for those of us seeking to generate true collective wisdom to address our collective problems and crises. For this latter purpose it is essential that we talk together. But the quality of our talking can make or break our wisdom-generating capacity. Conversations that creatively use our different perspectives and ways of thinking will generate more wisdom than debates in which different “sides” try to win or where certain voices colonize the conversation while others remain silent and unheard. Furthermore, people who feel well heard tend to become more open to hearing others and more able to join in seeking deeper and higher forms of insight and co-creativity together – all sources of greater wisdom.

Once we have the capacity to convene and carry out such generative conversations, then the diversity of the participants becomes a very special treasure. We want diversity that covers as many relevant perspectives as possible – all the different types of stakeholders or a good random selection of our community or everyone involved in a conflict – and different personality types and different roles in how an issue will play out. Not all differences are the same – and some are much more important for group wisdom than others. But what we don’t want is all people of like mind reinforcing their pre-existing agreements or two polarized sides reinforcing their pre-existing disagreements.

We want people in such conversations to have available to them whatever information is relevant to their shared inquiry and challenge. Hopefully that pool of knowledge and perspectives will include some of the kinds of material noted in the “sources of wisdom” paragraph above. And it should be understandable, balanced, and readily engaged with.

Finally, we want people to be able to show up as whole human beings. Reason and passion are a dynamic duo that – although they each have their own center of gravity – are totally dependent on each other in practice. We cannot make a rational final choice without a desire for particular kind of outcome, a desire that arises from our emotion, our passion, our felt sense of need or aspiration. On the other hand, our collective desires and aspirations need facts and logic to tie them to the real world and understand the likely outcomes of this or that initiative we might take.

Of course, we also need creative imagination – co-creative imagination – to weave our possibilities and pieces of the puzzle into proposals we all want to put energy into. So the extent of our consensus – how well has our final proposal addressed the longings and concerns of all involved? – is another source of wisdom, indicating that we have taken into account that much of what’s really involved with the issue we were addressing. A high level of consensus also means that our proposal will tap into the implementing energy of many of the people involved, thereby minimizing how much top-down, outside-in effort, direction, and resources will be needed to achieve the results we seek – which is another piece of what makes some guidance or action wise.

Of course we actually don’t know what proposals will prove wise until long after the fact. How well is what we proposed actually working out in reality? Is it producing what we hoped for? Is it producing unexpected side effects that we don’t want? These questions don’t just address our success or failure. Most importantly, they point us back to our process. Have we set things up to review how well we’re doing, so we can catch problems early on or, if necessary, start over again? Is our process iterative or ongoing such that we exercise a ceaseless collective intelligence that feeds our collective learning and adaptation? A big part of wisdom is the humility to learn from experience and not just barge ahead regardless.

There is so much “we” know about how to do this well – and so much more that we need to learn to do it better, to upgrade what we know so that it is powerful enough to deal with climate change, peak oil, economic transformation, a growing and aging population, unexpected impacts from powerful new technologies, and so much more. This is what the wisdom of groups and communities and whole social systems – all the forms of collective wisdom – needs to be about.

Prediction markets are a part of that, but a truly tiny part. Most of the wisdom we need will come from our capacity to do the above conversation-based collective learning and co-creativity in the context of a rich, wisdom-serving informational environment that not only tolerates diversity but hungers for it and knows how to use it well.

All our futures depend on it.

Coheartedly,
Tom

Looking Closer at “Mixed Results” in Civic Participation

One our ever-insightful NCDD members, Tiago Peixoto, shared a summary of some important civic participation research that shows that “mixed results” of participation efforts say more when we delineate between “tactical” or “strategic” interventions. We’ve shared Tiago’s piece from his DemocracySpot blog below, and you can find the original here.


Social Accountability: What Does the Evidence Really Say?

democracy spot logoSo what does the evidence about citizen engagement say? Particularly in the development world it is common to say that the evidence is “mixed”. It is the type of answer that, even if correct in extremely general terms, does not really help those who are actually designing and implementing citizen engagement reforms.

This is why a new (GPSA-funded) work by Jonathan Fox, “Social Accountability: What does the Evidence Really Say” is a welcome contribution for those working with open government in general and citizen engagement in particular. Rather than a paper, this work is intended as a presentation that summarizes (and disentangles) some of the issues related to citizen engagement.

Before briefly discussing it, some definitional clarification. I am equating “social accountability” with the idea of citizen engagement given Jonathan’s very definition of social accountability:

Social accountability strategies try to improve public sector performance by bolstering both citizen engagement and government responsiveness.

In short, according to this definition, social accountability is defined, broadly, as “citizen participation” followed by government responsiveness, which encompasses practices as distinct as Freedom Of Information law campaigns, participatory budgeting, and referenda.

But what is new about Jonathan’s work? A lot, but here are three points that I find particularly important, based on a very personal interpretation of his work.

First, Jonathan makes an important distinction between what he defines as “tactical” and “strategic” social accountability interventions. The first type of interventions, which could also be called “naïve” interventions, are for instance those bounded in their approach (one tool-based) and those that assume that mere access to information (or data) is enough. Conversely, strategic approaches aim to deploy multiple tools and articulate society-side efforts with governmental reforms that promote responsiveness.

This distinction is important because, when examining the impact evaluation evidence, one finds that while the evidence is indeed mixed for tactical approaches, it is much more promising for strategic approaches. A blunt lesson to take from this is that when looking at the evidence, one should avoid comparing lousy initiatives with more substantive reform processes. Otherwise, it is no wonder that “the evidence is mixed.”

Second, this work makes an important re-reading of some of the literature that has found “mixed effects”, reminding us that when it comes to citizen engagement, the devil is in the details. For instance, in a number of studies that seem to say that participation does not work, when you look closer you will not be surprised that they do not work. And many times the problem is precisely the fact that there is no participation whatsoever. False negatives, as eloquently put by Jonathan.

Third, Jonathan highlights the need to bring together the “demand” (society) and “supply” (government) sides of governance. Many accountability interventions seem to assume that it is enough to work on one side or the other, and that an invisible hand will bring them together. Unfortunately, when it comes to social accountability it seems that some degree of “interventionism” is necessary in order to bridge that gap.

Of course, there is much more in Jonathan’s work than that, and it is a must read for those interested in the subject. You can download it here [PDF].

You can find the original version of this piece on Tiago’s Democracy Spot blog at http://democracyspot.net/2014/05/13/social-accountability-what-does-the-evidence-really-say.

Center for Collaborative Policy Job Openings

Our colleagues at the the Center for Collaborative Policy – an NCDD organizational member – have recently announced three promising job openings at their California State University, Sacramento campus. We know some of our NCDD members would be a perfect fit for these positions, so we encourage you to find out more in CCP’s announcements below.

Job Announcement – Business Development Director

The Center for Collaborative Policy, California State University, Sacramento is recruiting for a Business Development Director.  The successful applicant will have experience in attracting significant revenues from public and private sector sources for collaborative public processes and activities.   The applicant is also expected to be a senior practitioner in conducting multi-party collaborative public processes with a high degree of complexity.  Responsibilities include:

  • Directly generate revenue for the Center through communicating with prospective clients as well as teaming partners, responding to competitive proposals, pursuing sole source agreements and creating other statewide business opportunities.
  • Develop and implement an annual Business Development Plan, and train and coach Center practitioners to execute the Plan and attract client business.
  • Develop, supervise and provide oversight for the Center business development personnel and data system.

Salary is competitive and commensurate with experience. Attractive benefits are provided. Application review will begin on July 14, 2014 and continue until the position is filled.

For further information and to view duties, qualifications and application process, see: http://www.csus.edu/about/employment. The website Job Identification number is 101075. All submissions are done electronically. California State University, Sacramento is an equal opportunity /ADA employer. For more information on the Center for Collaborative Policy, see www.csus.edu/ccp.

Job Announcement – Assistant Facilitator

The Center for Collaborative Policy, California State University, Sacramento is recruiting for two Assistant Facilitator positions.  Successful applicants will have the ability to: document technical and interpersonal discussions (including conditions of conflict); write reports on complex, multi-topic conditions; use web-based facilitation and meeting management tools such as Go-To Meeting/Webinar; WebEx, Doodle, Survey Monkey, MindMapper, etc.; and have excellent verbal and written skills, strong interpersonal skills, and knowledge of and interest in collaborative policy making practice and theory.

Duties include:

  • Accurately and objectively record information from fast-paced, highly technical discussions
  • Prepare draft and final detailed summaries and reports from meetings
  • Render complex and lengthy information into clear and accurate lay person terms
  • Provide logistical support for meetings
  • Develop meeting agendas, facilitation plans, and group process plans
  • Schedule and conduct stakeholder interviews
  • Conduct policy research

Salary is $3897 – $5847/month. It is the general practice of Sacramento State to hire at the lower end of salary range. This position is covered by health benefits. Application review will begin July 9, 2014 and will continue until positions are filled. Final application deadline is July 23, 2014.

For further information and to view duties, qualifications and application process, see: http://www.csus.edu/about/employment. All submissions are done electronically. The website Job Identification number is: Job ID #101088. For more information on the Center for Collaborative Policy, see www.csus.edu/ccp.

California State University, Sacramento is an equal opportunity /ADA employer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

The Scope of the Field

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

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

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

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

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

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

Challenges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Promising Future Directions

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

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

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

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

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

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

- — -

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

Environmental Issue Guide Series from Kettering Underway

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


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

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

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

Let’s Discuss: How Politics Makes Us Stupid

There is a fascinating article up at Vox.com that I encourage all NCDD members and subscribers to our Transpartisan Listserv to give some thought to. My friend Jean Johnson at Public Agenda, one of NCDD’s organizational members, alerted me to it last week, and it ties directly into conversations that are going on in both the NCDD Discussion list and the Transpartisan list.

PoliticsStupidPost1The article by Ezra Klein, How Politics Makes Us Stupid, talks about research that shows that a more informed public has little effect on politics, polarization, and political opinions.  Instead, “Cutting-edge research shows that the more information partisans get, the deeper their disagreements become.”

Researcher Dan Kahan’s findings were that people accepted some information without any problem — but in cases where their social standing and relationships were effected by their take on an issue, people dismissed information as faulty that didn’t line up with their group’s / tribe’s / community’s stances. This was true for partisans on both sides of the aisle.

Here’s an excerpt:

Kahan is quick to note that, most of the time, people are perfectly capable of being convinced by the best evidence. There’s a lot of disagreement about climate change and gun control, for instance, but almost none over whether antibiotics work, or whether the H1N1 flu is a problem, or whether heavy drinking impairs people’s ability to drive. Rather, our reasoning becomes rationalizing when we’re dealing with questions where the answers could threaten our tribe — or at least our social standing in our tribe. And in those cases, Kahan says, we’re being perfectly sensible when we fool ourselves.

And another:

Kahan calls this theory Identity-Protective Cognition: “As a way of avoiding dissonance and estrangement from valued groups, individuals subconsciously resist factual information that threatens their defining values.” Elsewhere, he puts it even more pithily: “What we believe about the facts,” he writes, “tells us who we are.” And the most important psychological imperative most of us have in a given day is protecting our idea of who we are, and our relationships with the people we trust and love.

This has so many implications for dialogue and deliberation work — about the role of experts and the effectiveness of expert knowledge, for instance.  It makes me wonder if we emphasize enough the SOCIAL aspects of dialogue and deliberation.  Are we doing enough to help people feel affinity for each other before launching into high-level deliberative discussions, for instance?  Are we doing enough to change the culture of our communities, or are we just engaging those who are already receptive to considering different viewpoints?

PoliticsStupidPost2The article goes on to talk about how Washington has become a machine for making identity-protective cognition easier. There is lots of thought-provoking stuff in this article for transpartisans to consider!

My big disappointment with this article is the conclusions at the end.  Kahan has come up with “communications” solutions, like having the FDA think through what people’s rational position-based arguments will be against a new policy, and communicate their decisions in a way that provides a rational response to those arguments.  The author, Ezra Klein, is dissatisfied with that solution and refers to it as “spin” at one point, and he concludes that “If American politics is going to improve, it will be better structures, not better arguments, that win the day.”

To me, the whole article pointed to the need for people to develop connections and relationships — strong ones — to those outside of their tribe.  Of course I see dialogue and deliberation as being key to that shift. Engaging in meaningful conversations about tricky issues like gun safety, climate change, and abortion with people you don’t necessarily see eye-to-eye with is not just about thinking more deeply or more rationally about these issues than we tend to. It’s also about seeing those who are “outside of your tribe” (those from the other side of the aisle, or those from a different class, race or generation than you) in a different light.

Portland2010-cafetableThis is one of the reasons NCDD has always encouraged “dialogue” to happen before “deliberation” takes place. Thought these terms (and the practices they represent) often blur, dialogue centers around storytelling, relationship-building and a focus on building understanding before any kind of decision or action is on the table. Deliberation tends to focus more on understanding issues, options and trade-offs to set the stage for better decisions and judgments. (Dig in a little deeper on our What Are Dialogue & Deliberation? page.)

We are in dire need of both dialogue and deliberation today, but combined, I believe these practices can work to counteract this “Identity-Protective Cognition” — or at least help people begin to broaden their ideas about who is in their tribe.

What do you think? Do you agree that “D&D” can counteract our tendency to only be effected by the evidence that leaves us unchanged and feeling safe with our social group? And if so, what are our shining examples of where this is happening? Where are you making inroads on this? And perhaps most importantly, what can be done to encourage your good work to become more widespread?

Let’s Discuss: How Politics Makes Us Stupid

There is a fascinating article up at Vox.com that I encourage all NCDD members and subscribers to our Transpartisan Listserv to give some thought to. My friend Jean Johnson at Public Agenda, one of NCDD’s organizational members, alerted me to it last week, and it ties directly into conversations that are going on in both the NCDD Discussion list and the Transpartisan list.

PoliticsStupidPost1The article by Ezra Klein, How Politics Makes Us Stupid, talks about research that shows that a more informed public has little effect on politics, polarization, and political opinions.  Instead, “Cutting-edge research shows that the more information partisans get, the deeper their disagreements become.”

Researcher Dan Kahan’s findings were that people accepted some information without any problem — but in cases where their social standing and relationships were effected by their take on an issue, people dismissed information as faulty that didn’t line up with their group’s / tribe’s / community’s stances. This was true for partisans on both sides of the aisle.

Here’s an excerpt:

Kahan is quick to note that, most of the time, people are perfectly capable of being convinced by the best evidence. There’s a lot of disagreement about climate change and gun control, for instance, but almost none over whether antibiotics work, or whether the H1N1 flu is a problem, or whether heavy drinking impairs people’s ability to drive. Rather, our reasoning becomes rationalizing when we’re dealing with questions where the answers could threaten our tribe — or at least our social standing in our tribe. And in those cases, Kahan says, we’re being perfectly sensible when we fool ourselves.

And another:

Kahan calls this theory Identity-Protective Cognition: “As a way of avoiding dissonance and estrangement from valued groups, individuals subconsciously resist factual information that threatens their defining values.” Elsewhere, he puts it even more pithily: “What we believe about the facts,” he writes, “tells us who we are.” And the most important psychological imperative most of us have in a given day is protecting our idea of who we are, and our relationships with the people we trust and love.

This has so many implications for dialogue and deliberation work — about the role of experts and the effectiveness of expert knowledge, for instance.  It makes me wonder if we emphasize enough the SOCIAL aspects of dialogue and deliberation.  Are we doing enough to help people feel affinity for each other before launching into high-level deliberative discussions, for instance?  Are we doing enough to change the culture of our communities, or are we just engaging those who are already receptive to considering different viewpoints?

PoliticsStupidPost2The article goes on to talk about how Washington has become a machine for making identity-protective cognition easier. There is lots of thought-provoking stuff in this article for transpartisans to consider!

My big disappointment with this article is the conclusions at the end.  Kahan has come up with “communications” solutions, like having the FDA think through what people’s rational position-based arguments will be against a new policy, and communicate their decisions in a way that provides a rational response to those arguments.  The author, Ezra Klein, is dissatisfied with that solution and refers to it as “spin” at one point, and he concludes that “If American politics is going to improve, it will be better structures, not better arguments, that win the day.”

To me, the whole article pointed to the need for people to develop connections and relationships — strong ones — to those outside of their tribe.  Of course I see dialogue and deliberation as being key to that shift. Engaging in meaningful conversations about tricky issues like gun safety, climate change, and abortion with people you don’t necessarily see eye-to-eye with is not just about thinking more deeply or more rationally about these issues than we tend to. It’s also about seeing those who are “outside of your tribe” (those from the other side of the aisle, or those from a different class, race or generation than you) in a different light.

Portland2010-cafetableThis is one of the reasons NCDD has always encouraged “dialogue” to happen before “deliberation” takes place. Thought these terms (and the practices they represent) often blur, dialogue centers around storytelling, relationship-building and a focus on building understanding before any kind of decision or action is on the table. Deliberation tends to focus more on understanding issues, options and trade-offs to set the stage for better decisions and judgments. (Dig in a little deeper on our What Are Dialogue & Deliberation? page.)

We are in dire need of both dialogue and deliberation today, but combined, I believe these practices can work to counteract this “Identity-Protective Cognition” — or at least help people begin to broaden their ideas about who is in their tribe.

What do you think? Do you agree that “D&D” can counteract our tendency to only be effected by the evidence that leaves us unchanged and feeling safe with our social group? And if so, what are our shining examples of where this is happening? Where are you making inroads on this? And perhaps most importantly, what can be done to encourage your good work to become more widespread?

Interview on Games & Engagement

As children run through sprinklers and enjoy fireworks (safely, we hope) over the holiday weekend, we thought it would be appropriate to share a post from the Davenport Institute’s Gov 2.0 Watch blog on games and engagement. As we know, civic participation can be fun, too! You can find it below or read the original here. Happy Independence Day, everyone!


DavenportInst-logoLast month, Project Information Literacy at the University of Washington Information School published an interview with Eric Gordon, a professor at Emerson College and Executive Director of Engagement Lab:

In his role as the Executive Director of the Engagement Lab, Eric leads play-based projects, spanning everything from community engagement in Detroit to disaster preparedness in Zambia. As he explains, the projects are “designed not just to facilitate official processes, education, and real-world action, but to natively be real-world actions themselves.

Through participatory action research in the United States, Europe, and Africa, Eric and his team are partnering with communities and organizations to understand how and where technology, play, and civic life intersect.

You can read the interview here.