Category Archives: Journals & Newsletters

Equity in School Forums: An Interview with John Landesman

Posted on by
Reply

The 14-page article, Equity in School Forums: An Interview with John Landesman (2016), was written by Carolyne Abdullah, Christopher Karpowitz, and Chad Raphael, and published in the Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 12: Iss. 2. In the article, the authors interview Landesman of Everyday Democracy to share his experience working to address the barriers within the Montgomery County Study Circles Program, which he helped to coordinate. Landesman clarifies the importance between equality and equity; and how these play out when designing a process to effective address the power dynamics that arise within school spaces between admin, faculty, parents, and students.

Read an excerpt of the article below and find the PDF available for download on the Journal of Public Deliberation site here.

From the article…

For adults and youth, American public schools are a major entryway to public engagement. Not only are public schools charged with preparing students for civic life, but they are the custodians of parents’ educational and economic aspirations for their children, often the largest recipients of taxpayer funding in a community, neighborhood hubs that host public meetings and events, and institutions that are formally accountable to the community through school boards, parent teacher associations, and other public forums. Schools need active support from their communities to approve school bonds, attract donations, enlist mentors and volunteers, approve (or at least accept) curriculum reforms, engage parents in supporting their children’s learning, and address social problems such as academic achievement gaps among students of different racial and income backgrounds, bullying, and gangs. Yet, like other institutions of democracy, public school governance is often dominated by the voices of politicians and policy makers, professionals (administrators and teachers), and privileged citizens (parents of higher socio-economic status) (Nabatchi & Leighninger, 2015).

In Maryland, the Montgomery County Public School system offers a hopeful example of how public dialogue can improve school governance. John Landesman, a Senior Associate at Everyday Democracy, coordinates the Montgomery County Public Schools Study Circles Program. The program engages parents, students, staff, and administrators in dialogue to address racial and ethnic barriers to parent involvement and student achievement in this multilingual, multi-ethnic school district. These dialogues have helped to build trust and collaboration, and increased involvement by parents of color, as well diminishing differences in achievement among students from more and less advantaged backgrounds (Childress, Doyle, and Thomas, 2009; Orland, 2007; Fagotto & Fung, 2009).

In this interview, Landesman explains how Everyday Democracy thinks about equity and equality, and how the organization integrated equity considerations throughout the process of organizing study-circle dialogues in Montgomery County, including recruiting and retaining diverse participants, forming agendas, facilitation, small group discussions in affinity groups of less-powerful participants as well as mixed groups, evaluation, and implementation of plans. The techniques discussed here can be adopted or adapted to forums on schooling and many other issues.

Equity and Equality
Abdullah, Karpowitz, and Raphael (AKR): Some people working in dialogue and deliberation have argued that instead of practicing equality by treating people 1 Abdullah et al.: Equity in School Forums: An Interview with John Landesman similarly, we should strive for equity by treating participants differently in order to create conditions that achieve fair discussion and decisions. Do you see this distinction between equal and equitable treatment as useful to our field and in your own work?

Landesman: I do see a distinction. There’s a picture that we often use in our presentations of three boys trying to look over a fence at a baseball game (see Figure 1). In the first panel, which shows equal treatment, each boy is standing on a box that is the same height. The tall boy can see the game over the fence, the middle boy can barely see, and the shortest boy can’t see at all. In the next panel, which shows equity, the tall boy’s box has been given to the little boy, so now all three of them can see the game. The idea is that everyone needs something different to participate in whatever they’re doing. But to me, this feels like the wrong question. The question should be, “What is the goal of the dialogue, and who needs to be in the room to make the dialogue effective?” If the goal is to have a variety of perspectives deliberating together, then organizers need to think about how to recruit for those different perspectives. If there are people who need something different to be part of it, but having their voice will make the deliberation more effective, then organizers have to use different strategies to get them there.

Think of successful companies like Coca-Cola. Their goal is to sell more of their products. They don’t just develop their product and then say, “OK everyone, come get it.” They spend a lot of time and resources thinking about how to get different kinds of people to buy their products. If the goal of deliberation is to have a richer understanding of an issue based on all the different perspectives that are in the community, than we need to spend time thinking about how to ensure that we get all those perspectives in the room.

In my experience, organizing for diverse perspectives is often an afterthought. Organizers plan the way they always have, and then say, “How do we get Latino participants or low-income folks, or people who have different political perspectives?” That never works, because all we’re doing is adding an extra strategy to what’s already been put in place. Successful organizing starts by asking, “What is the goal of the dialogue, and who needs to be in the room to reach that goal?” Then every piece of the organizing—whether it’s the outreach, the facilitation, the setup once you get there, where it’s located—all of those things are driven by who you want in the room and what perspectives you need to hear to make your dialogue effective. That’s a very different way of looking at it than saying, “We’re going to do it the way we’ve always done it, and now we’re going to develop a strategy to get to these so-called marginalized people.”

This is an excerpt of the article, which can be downloaded in full from the Journal of Public Deliberation here.

About the Journal of Public Deliberation
Journal of Public DeliberationSpearheaded by the Deliberative Democracy Consortium in collaboration with the International Association of Public Participation, the principal objective of Journal of Public Deliberation (JPD) is to synthesize the research, opinion, projects, experiments and experiences of academics and practitioners in the emerging multi-disciplinary field and political movement called by some “deliberative democracy.” By doing this, we hope to help improve future research endeavors in this field and aid in the transformation of modern representative democracy into a more citizen friendly form.

Follow the Deliberative Democracy Consortium on Twitter: @delibdem

Follow the International Association of Public Participation [US] on Twitter: @IAP2USA

Resource Link: www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol12/iss2/art12/

Kettering and China: Thirty Years and Counting (Connections 2015)

Posted on by
Reply

The three-page article, Kettering and China: Thirty Years and Counting by Maxine Thomas was published Fall 2015 in Kettering Foundation‘s annual newsletter, “Connections 2015 – Our History: Journeys in KF Research”. Thomas recounts the relationship Kettering and China have cultivated from dialogue over the last 30 years. Beginning in 1985, the dialogues have been an exercise to normalize relations with China. 2016 marks the 30th anniversary of the initial dialogue in Beijing, and a celebration is scheduled in fall of 2016 to honor the milestone. Below is a excerpt from the article and the full piece can be found here. Connections 2015 is available for free PDF download on Kettering’s site here.

KF_Connections 2015From the article…

From these humble beginnings, connections between Kettering and our Chinese colleagues have flourished. In 1985, Mathews and a small team went to Beijing to meet with several Chinese organizations and explore their mutual interest in establishing a dialogue among nongovernmental organizations to complement the work of the two governments. The purpose of these dialogues was to expand and deepen the interactions and understanding between the two societies. There were also concerns about Russia and foreign policy. This meeting began what has evolved into 30 years of collaboration.

Focus on the Public

As the foundation does in all its research, the work has focused on the public. At the first meeting in 1985, participants included David Lampton, now with the Johns Hopkins China Institute, Kettering vice president Rob Lehman, Kettering program officer Suzanne Morse Moomaw, Kettering vice president Phillips Ruopp, and conference coordinator Patricia Coggins. This initial meeting resulted in citizen-to-citizen meetings held the following year in the United States. Over time, participants on the US side included leaders like Robert McNamara, Kenneth Lieberthal, William Taft IV, James Leach, Donald Oberdorfer, and former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

Early dialogue members from China included Li Shenzhi, head of the Institute of American Studies in the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Huan Xiang, head of the Center of International Strategic Studies of the State Council; and participants from the Beijing Institute of International Strategic Studies. It also included young scholars like Wang Jisi and Yuan Ming, who went on to have illustrious careers and now head the Institute of International and Strategic Studies at Peking University.

The central question for these dialogues was how to maintain a US-China relationship in the wake of China, Russia, and US-Russia challenges. All along, the two sides have struggled with the distinction between what our governments were doing and saying and what the public, on both sides, thought about the relationship. Over the years, Kettering networks held deliberative forums using National Issues Forums issue guides on the public’s views of China (China-U.S. Relations: What Direction Should We Pursue? and China-U.S. Relations: How Should We Approach Human Rights?), and Chinese colleagues began some innovative Chinese public opinion research (something not really done before in China). In 2001, we jointly published a volume in Chinese and English, China-United States Sustained Dialogue, 1986-2001, and a summary history of the dialogue. Along the way, we not only got to know more about each other but also were able to present deeper and more nuanced understandings of our countries, something the Chinese were particularly interested in. Each of our trips to China included visits to the US ambassador in Beijing, and Chinese colleagues also took the opportunity to meet with Chinese officials when they were in the United States.

About Kettering Foundation and Connections
KF_LogoThe Kettering Foundation is a nonprofit operating foundation rooted in the American tradition of cooperative research. Kettering’s primary research question is, what does it take to make democracy work as it should? Kettering’s research is distinctive because it is conducted from the perspective of citizens and focuses on what people can do collectively to address problems affecting their lives, their communities, and their nation.

Each issue of this annual newsletter focuses on a particular area of Kettering’s research. The 2015 issue, edited by Kettering program officer Melinda Gilmore and director of communications David Holwerk, focuses on our yearlong review of Kettering’s research over time.

Follow on Twitter: @KetteringFdn

Resource Link: www.kettering.org/sites/default/files/periodical-article/Thomas_2015.pdf

The Dartmouth Conference (Connections 2015)

Posted on by
Reply

The five-page article, The Dartmouth Conference by Harold Saunders and Philip Stewart was published Fall 2015 in Kettering Foundation‘s annual newsletter, “Connections 2015 – Our History: Journeys in KF Research”. Saunders and Stewart describe how the Dartmouth Conference came to be a long-time ongoing dialogue between the US and Russia since 1959. Read an excerpt of the article below and find Connections 2015 available for free PDF download on Kettering’s site here.

KF_Connections 2015From the article…

[The] Dartmouth [Conference] is designed not only to reflect American public thinking to our Russian/Soviet partners, but also to share with the American public insights about the experiences, ideas, and thinking behind Russian policy and behavior gleaned from the dialogue. The Americans tend to see a two-way relationship—on the one hand, nearly all US participants accept as part of their responsibility to raise concerns prevalent among the US public. These ranged in Soviet times from Soviet treatment of prominent authors, such as Alexander Solzhenitsyn, to pressing for the emigration of Soviet Jews, as well as other human rights issues; and today, from concerns about Russia’s role

…

The Dartmouth Conference produces three essential kinds of “products.” First, it produces creative proposals to convey to our governments and larger societies that address specific issues in our relationship. Many of these proposals have found constructive resonance in the policy arenas on each side. The March 2015 dialogue at Dartmouth XIX, for example, persuaded the participants that the absence of high-level working groups in those areas where the United States and Russia share interests, such as Syria, ISIS, and the arms control arena, is having a negative effect on the United States’ ability to address subjects clearly in our national interest, as well as the interests of our relationship with Russia.

Second, and as important, the Dartmouth Conference, by engaging many of the same individuals over time, enables each side to understand the experiences, the processes, and the reasoning that ultimately shape policy on each side. Especially today, this kind of in-depth understanding is sorely needed. At Dartmouth XIX, for instance, influential elements in the Russian leadership made clear that they continue to see Russia as a part of the broader Euro-Atlantic community. Russia continues to seek security arrangements within the Euro-Atlantic world that will permit Russia and its region to determine their own political, economic, and cultural future and looks at the future in that context. However, Russia also has its own regional relation- ships, interests, culture, history, traditions, and values for which it demands respect. It will defend these and will reject efforts by others to impose their models and values on Russia and its region.

Third, the diversity of backgrounds, experience, and outlooks represented in the Dartmouth delegations encourages the spread of insights into the “other” throughout our societies. Within a few days of the March 2015 conference, one American participant had been interviewed by CNN—one of a number of articles and blogs that appeared in other media.

…

The agenda at Dartmouth is cumulative, with issues raised but not fully explored at one session forming the basis for the next round. These include arms control, terrorism, regional issues, and opportunities for increased exchanges in fields like preventable diseases, journalism, religion, and others. Beyond these, at Dartmouth XX a central focus was deepening our exploration of how our Russian colleagues understand what they describe as “values” particular to Russia, how these values relate to their behavior toward neighbors, and how they impact their understanding of what it means in practical terms to be “part of the Euro- Atlantic economic, political, and security space” to which they claim to be committed. By pursuing this agenda with persistence, honesty, and integrity, the Dartmouth Conference will continue to play a vital role in enabling Russia and the United States, the only two powers with global reach and global commitments to collaborate more constructively to address critical global issues, from peace and security, to terrorism and development.

About Kettering Foundation and Connections
KF_LogoThe Kettering Foundation is a nonprofit operating foundation rooted in the American tradition of cooperative research. Kettering’s primary research question is, what does it take to make democracy work as it should? Kettering’s research is distinctive because it is conducted from the perspective of citizens and focuses on what people can do collectively to address problems affecting their lives, their communities, and their nation.

Each issue of this annual newsletter focuses on a particular area of Kettering’s research. The 2015 issue, edited by Kettering program officer Melinda Gilmore and director of communications David Holwerk, focuses on our yearlong review of Kettering’s research over time.

Follow on Twitter: @KetteringFdn

Resource Link: www.kettering.org/sites/default/files/periodical-article/Saunders-Stewart_2015.pdf

KF and Journalism: On Again! Off Again! On Again! (Connections 2015)

Posted on by
Reply

The four-page article, KF and Journalism: On Again! Off Again! On Again! by David Holwerk was published Fall 2015 in Kettering Foundation‘s annual newsletter, “Connections 2015 – Our History: Journeys in KF Research”. Holwerk discusses Kettering’s relationship with journalism and how over the last couple decades, the relationship has had its ups and downs. Kettering has had several active areas in journalism, especially during the 1990s emergence of the public journalism movement. Read an excerpt of the article below and find Connections 2015 available for free PDF download on Kettering’s site here.

KF_Connections 2015From the article…

But even though Kettering was engaged with journalists on many fronts— broadcast projects, coverage of presidential elections, the link between journalism and public deliberation, the role of journalism education in shaping journalists’ ideas,
the Katherine Fanning Fellowship, which has brought many journalists from other countries to Kettering—the record (and my own experience as a journalist during that period) makes it clear that interest was waning, both inside the foundation and among journalists. And in fact, by 2000, it had almost disappeared.

…

And several things account for public journalism’s swift decline. Some were factors that affect any human endeavor but are not of interest here: personalities, competing ambitions, and battles for primacy of place in journalism’s weird class system. (If you’ve worked in the business you know what I’m talking about. If you haven’t, take it from me, you didn’t miss anything.)

But other factors do have something to do with Kettering’s interests. Chief among them, public confidence in journalists and journalism continued to decline. To those paying attention, this suggested that the public journalism efforts weren’t bridging the gap between citizens and journalists. And in an environ- ment where instant feedback is the norm, that message carried a lot of weight.

Meanwhile, newspaper industry revenues rose sharply between 1993 and 2000. So the incentive to rethink the relationship of journalism to citizens and communities receded, and with it the sorts of initiatives that Kettering was interested in studying.

I’ll pick up the narrative of Kettering’s work shortly, but let me pause here to make a point about the connection between the financial success of journalism and the interest in citizens and communities. It’s commonplace to identify this connection as a sort of existential crisis. Journalists saw their livelihoods threatened, this storyline goes, and so they turned to connecting with citizens as a possible lifeboat.

That’s true to some extent, but identifying (okay, I’ll say it: naming) the incentive that way obscures something useful. Such circumstances—which occur periodically across the entire spectrum of institutional life—create moments when professionals are open to examining how their work connects (or doesn’t) to citizens and communities. These are the moments when institutions and the professionals who work in them are most likely to experiment. These self-examinations and experiments, and what happens as a result of them, is what’s important to Kettering, not whether the institution survives or dies.

But back to the narrative. There is no concise record of the foundation’s journalism work from 2000 on. But I can speak from my own experience beginning in 2008, when I got involved with Kettering again, as part of a workshop involving the National Conference of Editorial Writers. Much of the focus was on new interactive media, and involved discussions of questions, such as whether these media are by nature democratic. (For the record: they are not. Egalitarian, yes. Democratic, no.) These discussions were interesting,if you’re interested in gadgets and their effect on people and society. But what seemed to be missing were the experiments and innovations that, for better or worse, marked the public journalism days.

To my mind, that began to change in a 2010 research exchange with editorial writers. By that time, it was pretty clear that things were going to hell in the news business and that this time there would be no business rebound to bail them out. A number of the folks in that meeting seemed eager to try some different things. They also seemed ready to reexamine questions, such as whether their ideas about what citizens do in democracy were accurate or what it meant to serve the needs of citizens.

Since then, life in Kettering’s Journalism and Democracy internal working group has been increasingly busy and fruitful. Everywhere we look, we find journalists trying to figure out how to connect better with citizens and communities, or how to manage the difficult tensions that arise even in the best of such connections. Among journalism academics both here and abroad, we have found a deep wellspring of interest in questions related to democracy—not just theoretical questions, but practical ones related to the professional training of journalists. In both cases, a sense of existential crisis seems to have opened up the willingness to consider questions that just a few years ago were not on journalists’ agenda.

How long this state of affairs will last, I wouldn’t care to guess. Journalism itself, at least as we know it, could disappear, in which case Kettering would be left with nothing to examine. But as of this writing, the foundation’s on-again, off-again engagement with journalism and journalists is definitely on.

About Kettering Foundation and Connections
KF_LogoThe Kettering Foundation is a nonprofit operating foundation rooted in the American tradition of cooperative research. Kettering’s primary research question is, what does it take to make democracy work as it should? Kettering’s research is distinctive because it is conducted from the perspective of citizens and focuses on what people can do collectively to address problems affecting their lives, their communities, and their nation.

Each issue of this annual newsletter focuses on a particular area of Kettering’s research. The 2015 issue, edited by Kettering program officer Melinda Gilmore and director of communications David Holwerk, focuses on our yearlong review of Kettering’s research over time.

Follow on Twitter: @KetteringFdn

Resource Link: www.kettering.org/sites/default/files/periodical-article/Holwerk_2015.pdf

Scholars and Scholarship with Ties to Communities (Connections 2015)

Posted on by
Reply

The four-page article, Scholars and Scholarship with Ties to Communities by Ellen Knutson and Ileana Marin was published Fall 2015 in Kettering Foundation‘s annual newsletter, “Connections 2015 – Our History: Journeys in KF Research”.

In 1998, Kettering Foundation and Joffre T. Whisenton and Associates, collaborated to create Whisenton Public Scholars program, for scholars to experiment with and provide research on facets of citizen-centered democracy. The two-year research exchange program encourages scholars, usually faculty and administration, who work with often under-served communities. Knutson and Marin give examples of the research projects that the fellows have worked on in the past and talk about the Whisenton Public Scholars Alumni Research Conference in 2015, which shares some of the outcomes of the whole program over the years. Read an excerpt of the article below and find Connections 2015 available for free PDF download on Kettering’s site here.

KF_Connections 2015From the article…

The Whisenton Public Scholars program is a joint project between the Kettering Foundation and Joffre T. Whisenton and Associates. Participants have primarily included faculty and administrators from schools with a mission to serve minority communities (such as historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges). Many of these institutions have maintained close ties to their communities and focus on developing student engagement. The two-year program encourages scholars to experiment with elements of citizen-centered democracy, such as naming and framing issues and making choices together in the context of teaching, research, and service. Additionally, the research exchange provides space for conducting novel research addressing the fundamental problems of democracy. Since 1998, when the program was created, more than 70 faculty and administrators have participated; the newest cohort met for the first time in July 2015.

The program was designed to investigate ways that faculty from various disciplines at schools closely tied to their communities could institute public scholarship practices. During the first year of the research exchange, participants come together to discuss topics related to public life and democratic self-governance, the role of higher education in democracy, and approaches to research in their communities. They also focus on learning toname and frame issues for public deliberation, the ideas behind public scholarship, and the relationship between institutions of higher education and communities. In order to have a deeper understanding of the concepts introduced in the exchange, participants experiment with putting the ideas into practice through completing field work between face-to-face meetings. The second year of the program is directed by the research projects of the participants. Beginning with the 2010- 2012 cohort, the scholars also joined other research exchanges conducted at the foundation that matched their research interest during this second year.

Four Research Areas
Over the course of the program, the scholars have produced research around the following broad areas:
– Developing curricular or cocurricular activities around public practices and citizenship;
– Framing an issue for public deliberation that is important to their campus, community, or professional groups;
– (Re)discovering the democratic foundations of higher education professions; and
– Articulating public scholarship as it relates to disciplinary concerns.

Many scholars have worked to include deliberative practices in their courses. They represent a variety of disciplines, from teacher education to international business education. For some, this meant including a forum as a pedagogical tool for students to learn about a relevant topic related to the course, while others revamped their complete curriculum to include deliberative elements throughout the course. In Deliberation and the Work of Higher Education, Cristina Alfaro (2000- 2001 cohort) describes how she infused her teacher education courses with deliberation in her chapter, “Reinventing Teacher Education: The Role of Deliberative Pedagogy in the K-6 Classroom.”

Scholars have also worked with students and community members to name and frame issues for deliberation. Three examples of such framing efforts on campuses and in communities are from Nora Antoine (Sinte Gleska University), Xuan Santos (California State University San Marcos), and a trio of scholars from three campuses, Anna Green (Florida A&M University), Brian Anderson (Tougaloo College), and Kevin Rolle (South Carolina State University). Antoine (1998-2000 cohort) framed the issue of community development on the Rosebud Reservation in South Dakota. Santos (2013-2015 cohort) is working with youth in his community to support them as they identify and frame issues that affect them. Green, Anderson, and Rolle (2005-2007 cohort) focused their issue guide on fraternities and sororities on HBCU campuses.

About Kettering Foundation and Connections
KF_LogoThe Kettering Foundation is a nonprofit operating foundation rooted in the American tradition of cooperative research. Kettering’s primary research question is, what does it take to make democracy work as it should? Kettering’s research is distinctive because it is conducted from the perspective of citizens and focuses on what people can do collectively to address problems affecting their lives, their communities, and their nation.

Each issue of this annual newsletter focuses on a particular area of Kettering’s research. The 2015 issue, edited by Kettering program officer Melinda Gilmore and director of communications David Holwerk, focuses on our yearlong review of Kettering’s research over time.

Follow on Twitter: @KetteringFdn

Resource Link: www.kettering.org/sites/default/files/periodical-article/Knutsen-Marin_2015.pdf

Kettering’s Archives Hold a Quarter-Mile of History (Connections 2015)

Posted on by
Reply

The four page article, Kettering’s Archives Hold a Quarter-Mile of History, by Maura Casey was published Fall 2015 in Kettering Foundation‘s annual newsletter, “Connections 2015 – Our History: Journeys in KF Research”. Casey describes the treasure trove of information that can be found within the Kettering Foundation archives. The archives contain decades of documentation, dating as far back at the 1920s, which give detailed information on how citizens have interacted around a variety of issues.  Read an excerpt of the article below and find Connections 2015 available for free PDF download on Kettering’s site here.

KF_Connections 2015From the article…

The windowless, basement room that houses the archives of the Kettering Foundation is out of the way for most of the foundation’s visitors. But, in many ways, the records it holds serve as the silent sentinels of the organization. They tell a tale of where the foundation has been and hold clues as to the path ahead.

The room contains a little more than a quarter-mile of material nestled in towering, rolling shelves. There’s an estimated 1,250 feet of paper files, 25 feet of photographs, and more than 100 feet of audio-visual material. The foundation thrives on conversation and discussion, and the archives make certain that all those words, and the research supporting them, leave records behind.

…

“The breadth of information that we have traces the research and follows various ideas relating to citizen roles involving community, government, and education and how to make citizen ideas visible,” Kingseed said. “We do a lot of work by talking, but those conversations leave traces. This is the place that backs up the stories we tell.

McDonough agreed. “You can’t know where you are going, unless you know where you have been,” she said. “For example, if you want to do work in public education, it’s always a good idea to see what we learned 20 years ago. As much as people like to think that in 20 years America has changed a whole lot [concerning education], well, it really hasn’t. All you have to do is examine our NIF issue guides from the 1980s: the things they talked about we are still dealing with today. And if you don’t save it, you won’t have it in the future.” Are the archives in danger of getting filled? Not for awhile, said McDonough.

The archives room is only about half-full. The foundation began to scan reports in 2010, but digitizing records won’t necessarily mean more room, as the originals are retained. Publications, such as the Kettering Review, Higher Education Exchange, and Connections, will be scanned and become .pdf copies, searchable through the foundation’s computer network. Changing technology, however, presents challenges of its own. McDonough keeps a floppy disk drive reader handy for accessing old files and will keep a DVD drive to read compact discs that are already being replaced by newer technology.

According to McDonough, materials related to Kettering’s Citizens and Public Choice program area take up the most files in the archives, followed by materials related to public education and higher education. Kettering’s archives are primarily organized by program area. Some materials are organized by a single foundation staff member, such as with the multinational/international program area. “Hal Saunders had it so well organized, I just kept all the files the way he had it,” McDonough said. When staff members prepare for retirement, McDonough starts working with them months in advance of their final day to get their files organized for inclusion in the archives.

About Kettering Foundation and Connections
KF_LogoThe Kettering Foundation is a nonprofit operating foundation rooted in the American tradition of cooperative research. Kettering’s primary research question is, what does it take to make democracy work as it should? Kettering’s research is distinctive because it is conducted from the perspective of citizens and focuses on what people can do collectively to address problems affecting their lives, their communities, and their nation.

Each issue of this annual newsletter focuses on a particular area of Kettering’s research. The 2015 issue, edited by Kettering program officer Melinda Gilmore and director of communications David Holwerk, focuses on our yearlong review of Kettering’s research over time.

Follow on Twitter: @KetteringFdn

Resource Link: www.kettering.org/sites/default/files/periodical-article/Casey_2015_0.pdf