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: public engagement

Post navigation

Newer posts →

Rulemaking 2.0: Understanding and Getting Better Public Participation

Posted on August 1, 2013 by Courtney Breese
Reply

This 2013 report from the IBM Center for The Business of Government is based on five case studies of e-rulemaking experiments to better engage the public, and offers advice on how agencies can increase the quantity and quality of public participation. By authors Cynthia R.Farina and Mary J.Newhart with CeRI (the Cornell eRulemaking Initiative).

From Center Executive Director Dan Chenok’s announcement: 

Pages from Rulemaking 2 0

This report provides important insights in how governments can improve the rulemaking process by taking full advantage of Rulemaking 2.0 technology, building on the progress made by the U.S. Government’s longstanding Regulations.Gov initiative.  The report’s findings and recom­mendations are based on five experiments with Rulemaking 2.0 conducted by CeRI researchers, four in partnership with the Department of Transportation and one with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

While geared specifically to achieving better public participation in rulemaking, the concepts, findings, and recommendations contained in the report are applicable to all government agen­cies interested in enhancing public participation in a variety of processes.  The report offers advice on how government organi­zations can increase both the quantity and quality of public participation from specific groups of citizens, including missing stakeholders, unaffiliated experts, and the general public.

The report describes three barriers to effective participation in rulemaking: lack of awareness, low participation literacy, and information overload.  While the report focuses on rulemaking, these barriers also hinder public participation in other arenas.  The report offers three strategies to overcome such barriers:

  • Outreach to alert and engage potential new participants
  • Converting newcomers into effective commenters
  • Making substantive rulemaking information accessible

This report makes an excellent companion piece to two previous IBM Center reports. In 2011, the Center published Assessing Public Participation in an Open Government Era: A Review of Federal Agency Plans, by Carolyn Lukensmeyer, Joe Goldman, and David Stern. That report addresses how public participation can be increased via online public participation, face-to-face public participation, and formal public participation (such as rulemaking and federal advisory committees). An earlier IBM Center report, The Management of Regulation Development: Out of the Shadows, by American University President Cornelius Kerwin, addressed the need to government to give increased attention to its role in regulation development and rulemaking.

Table of Contents

  • Foreword
  • Introduction
    • Purpose of this Report
    • Intended Audience and Outline
  • Understanding the Barriers to Rulemaking Participation
    • Case Studies
    • Barriers to Effective Participation
  • Understanding Types of Potential Rulemaking Participants
    • Type One: Sophisticated Commenters
    • Type Two: Missing Stakeholders
    • Type Three: Unaffiliated Experts
    • Type Four: Members of the General Public
  • Strategies to Lower Participation Barriers and Enhance Participation Quality
    • Strategy One: Outreach to Alert and Engage Potential New Participants
    • Strategy Two: Converting Newcomers to Effective Commenters
    • Strategy Three: Making Substantive Rulemaking Information Accessible
  • Recommendations
    • Understanding and Getting Broader and Better Rulemaking Participation
    • Building a New Culture of Rulemaking Participation—From Inside the Agency Out
  • References
  • Acknowledgments
  • About the Authors
  • Key Contact Information

About the IBM Center for The Business of Government
The IBM Center for The Business of Government connects public management research with practice. Since 1998, the Center has helped public sector executives improve the effectiveness of government with practical ideas and original thinking. They sponsor independent research by top minds in academe and the non-profit sector, and create opportunities for dialogue on a broad range of public management topics. The Center’s publications focus on the major management issues facing all governments today: e-government, financial management, human capital management, managing for performance and results, market-based government, and innovation, collaboration and transformation.

Resource Link: http://www.businessofgovernment.org/blog/business-government/new-report-examines-state-rulemaking-20

Direct Download: http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/Rulemaking%202%200.pdf

Posted in All Resources, Case Studies & Stories, great for public managers, open gov, public engagement, Reports & Articles, research, stakeholder engagement, Technology for Engagement, web 2.0 and social media | Leave a reply

Sciencewise Expert Research Centre

Posted on July 14, 2013 by Sandy Heierbacher
Reply

The Sciencewise-ERC is the UK’s national centre for public dialogue in policy making involving science and technology issues. It provides co-funding and specialist advice and support to Government departments and agencies to develop and commission public dialogue activities in emerging areas of science and technology.

Sciencewise is funded by the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) and aims to help policy makers commission and use public dialogue to inform policy decisions involving science and technology issues. Sciencewise aims to ensure that all future policy involving science, technology and innovation is robustly developed, informed by public concerns and aspirations and based on all the available evidence.

The Sciencewise-ERC consists of a comprehensive online resource of information, advice and guidance together with a wide range of support services aimed at policy makers and all the different stakeholders concerned with policy involving science and technology issues, including the public.

Support includes co-funding to Government departments and agencies to develop and commission public dialogue projects, a team of highly experienced Dialogue and Engagement Specialists (DES), general dialogue training and mentoring to policy makers and an online Community of Practice.

Resource Link: http://sciencewise-erc.org.uk

Posted in All Resources, highly recommended, international, Notable Websites, Organizations & Programs, public engagement, science & technology, U.K. | Leave a reply

Political Fix: How Do We Get American Politics Back on Track? (NIF Issue Guide)

Posted on July 7, 2013 by Sandy Heierbacher
Reply

One of the National Issues Forums Institute’s issue guides, Political Fix: How Do We Get American Politics Back on Track? outlines this critical public issue and several choices or approaches to addressing the issue. National Issues Forums do not advocate a specific solution or point of view, but provide citizens the opportunity to consider a broad range of choices, weigh the pros and cons of those options, and meet with each other in a public dialogue to identify the concerns they hold in common. From the 12-page issue guide’s introduction…

Political-Fix-CoverThe view that something is amiss in American government is now widely shared. “We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years,” say scholars Tomas E. Mann and Norman Ornstein, “and never have we seen them this dysfunctional.”…

Even some elected officials acknowledge they have a problem. “We need to change the way we do business,” says Tom Udall, a Democratic senator from New Mexico. “Right now, we have gridlock. We have delay. We have obstruction, and we don’t have any accountability.”

The troubles facing American politics are varied and complex. Observers point to a wide range of developments that, if left unchecked, are likely to further weaken the effectiveness of government. These include:

  • The flood of corporate money into American political campaigns.
  • The growing influence of lobbyists and special interest groups.
  • The increasing polarization and rancor of our political discourse.
  • Structural impediments, such as current redistricting laws that limit ballot choices and skew elections results.
  • The “permanent campaign” that encourages lawmakers to focus on short-term gains instead of long-term solutions.
  • Political leaders acting in their own interests rather than serving the public good.
  • The disengagement of ordinary Americans who turn away from politics in disgust rather than getting involved and making their voices heard.

This issue guide presents three options for consideration:

Option 1: Break the grip of special interests
The key to addressing gridlock and dysfuntion in government is to rein in special interests and curb the influence of big money.

Option 2: Increase responsibility
Our best hope of fixing American politics is to restore individual responsibility in communities and at every level of government.

Option 3: Fix the mechanisms of politics
The mechanisms of government are no longer responsive to the will of the people. We need major structural changes to make the system work as it was intended to.

More about NIF issue guides…

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

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

NIF issue guides and associated tools can be accessed at www.nifi.org/discussion_guides/index.aspx.

Resource Link: www.nifi.org/issue_books/detail.aspx?catID=6&itemID=24378

Posted in All Resources, D&D field, decision making, deliberation, democratic renewal, dialogue guide, gems, highly recommended, JLA, Manuals & Guides, National Issues Forums, partisan divide, public engagement | Leave a reply

Building a Culture of Participation: Citizen Engagement in Vancouver, BC

Posted on July 4, 2013 by NCDD Community
Reply

The “Building a Culture of Participation” report describes workshop outcomes and participant ideas to empower citizens of Vancouver, British Columbia in official city decision-making. This May 2013 workshop brought together City of Vancouver employees, members of Vancouver’s Engaged City Task Force and community members and was jointly presented by Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue, SFU Public Square and the City of Vancouver.

SFU-logoFeature guest and community organizer Dave Meslin presented examples of active citizen engagement from his projects in the Greater Toronto Area. Meslin proposed four pre-conditions for citizens to engage with their cities: confidence; knowledge of the political system; an expectation of malleability or responsiveness; and a sense of ownership over their city. A summary of Dave Meslin’s ideas is available in the 3-minute video at http://youtu.be/hHMKMjzRZiw produced for the visit.

Next, three local guests presented short case studies of successful citizen empowerment in the City of Vancouver. These included Nathan Edelson speaking on community planning in Renfrew-Collingwood; Peter Whitelaw providing an overview of the Arbutus Lands Co-Designing Process; and Shirley Chan discussing the successful opposition to building a freeway through Historic Strathcona and Chinatown.

Participants then engaged in a breakout exercise, with the goal of designing a model engagement process that would achieve citizen political empowerment in deciding the future of Vancouver’s False Creek South community. For the purpose of this workshop, Citizen Political Empowerment was defined as a citizen engagement process where the City and citizens work collaboratively to frame issues, develop options and identify preferred solutions, or processes where the decision-making power rests primarily in the hands of citizens.

The breakout groups shared many common themes and ideas. Approximately half of participant ideas focussed on outreach tactics to increase stakeholder awareness and input, such as using game-style formats to encourage team building and receive input. Several breakout groups proposed ambassador-style roles for citizens to deepen the connection to community members and support stakeholder groups participate in a city-led process as a means of reducing power imbalances.

Some groups went further by proposing methods for citizens to actively frame issues, develop options, and identify preferred solutions. Suggestions included facilitating dialogues that allow stakeholder groups to hear each other and find compromises, creating a panel of citizen representatives to certify the final plan against pre-determined principles, and presenting options to citizens for voting instead of asking for feedback on a single proposal. Finally, several breakout groups proposed that resident groups could manage major aspects of engagement if they met certain official standards to ensure full representation of their communities and neutrality on policy outcomes.

A full description of the workshop design, presentations and breakout group ideas is available in the final report.

Funding for Building a Culture of Participation was provided through the Centre for Dialogue’s Bruce and Lis Welch Community Dialogue, a yearly event designed to encourage transformative social change through dialogue.

For more information, please contact Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue at dial@sfu.ca or visit www.sfu.ca/dialogue.

Resource Link: www.sfu.ca/dialogue/programs/welch-dialogue/building-participation.html

Submitted by Robin Prest of Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue via NCDD’s Add-a-Resource form.

Posted in All Resources, Canada, Case Studies & Stories, decision making, dialogue, higher ed, highly recommended, institutionalizing D&D, international, public engagement, Reports & Articles | Leave a reply

Video: Dave Meslin on the Importance of Dialogue

Posted on July 3, 2013 by NCDD Community
Reply

Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue commissioned a series of short videos of the well-known Toronto-based community organizer Dave Meslin in May 2013. In this second video of the series, Meslin describes why dialogue is a critical but missing part of the political process.

The video series marks the 2013 Bruce and Lis Welch Community Dialogue, titled Building a Culture of Participation. This event brought together City of Vancouver employees, members of the City’s Engaged City Task Force and community members to explore opportunities for increased citizen political empowerment in official City decision-making. Activities included an interactive public lecture and an invitational workshop that was jointly presented by Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue, SFU Public Square and the City of Vancouver.

At the invitational workshop, Meslin presented examples of active citizen engagement from his projects in the Greater Toronto Area. Meslin proposed four pre-conditions for citizens to engage with their cities: confidence; knowledge of the political system; an expectation of malleability or responsiveness; and a sense of ownership over their city.

Next, participants engaged in a breakout exercise, with the goal of designing a model engagement process that would achieve citizen political empowerment in deciding the future of Vancouver’s False Creek South community. For the purpose of this workshop, Citizen Political Empowerment was defined as a citizen engagement process where the City and citizens work collaboratively to frame issues, develop options and identify preferred solutions, or processes where the decision-making power rests primarily in the hands of citizens.

A full description of the workshop design, presentations and breakout group ideas is available in the final report, available at: http://www.sfu.ca/dialogue/programs/welch-dialogue/building-participation.html.

Funding for Building a Culture of Participation was provided through the Centre for Dialogue’s Bruce and Lis Welch Community Dialogue, a yearly event designed to encourage transformative social change through dialogue.

For more information, contact Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue at dial@sfu.ca or www.sfu.ca/dialogue.

Submitted by Robin Prest of Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue via NCDD’s Add-a-Resource form.

Posted in All Resources, Canada, dialogue, great for beginners, highly recommended, public engagement, Videos About D&D | Leave a reply

Video: Building a Culture of Participation with Dave Meslin

Posted on July 2, 2013 by NCDD Community
Reply

Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue commissioned this short video of the well-known Toronto-based community organizer Dave Meslin in May 2013. The video showcases Meslin’s ideas to increase civic engagement and makes the case for why involving citizens in decision-making is critical in improving our cities.

SFU-logoThe video also marks the 2013 Bruce and Lis Welch Community Dialogue, titled Building a Culture of Participation. This event brought together City of Vancouver employees, members of the City’s Engaged City Task Force and community members to explore opportunities for increased citizen political empowerment in official City decision-making. Activities included an interactive public lecture and an invitational workshop that was jointly presented by Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue, SFU Public Square and the City of Vancouver.

At the invitational workshop, Meslin presented examples of active citizen engagement from his projects in the Greater Toronto Area. Meslin proposed four pre-conditions for citizens to engage with their cities: confidence; knowledge of the political system; an expectation of malleability or responsiveness; and a sense of ownership over their city.

Next, participants engaged in a breakout exercise, with the goal of designing a model engagement process that would achieve citizen political empowerment in deciding the future of Vancouver’s False Creek South community. For the purpose of this workshop, Citizen Political Empowerment was defined as a citizen engagement process where the City and citizens work collaboratively to frame issues, develop options and identify preferred solutions, or processes where the decision-making power rests primarily in the hands of citizens.

A full description of the workshop design, presentations and breakout group ideas is available in the final report, available at: http://www.sfu.ca/dialogue/programs/welch-dialogue/building-participation.html.

Funding for Building a Culture of Participation was provided through the Centre for Dialogue’s Bruce and Lis Welch Community Dialogue, a yearly event designed to encourage transformative social change through dialogue.

For more information, contact Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue at dial@sfu.ca or www.sfu.ca/dialogue.

Submitted by Robin Prest of Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue via NCDD’s Add-a-Resource form.

Posted in All Resources, civic engagement, civility, collaborative action, dialogue, gems, great for beginners, highly recommended, public engagement, Videos About D&D | 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

  • tips for democracy activists in 2025
  • truth, justice, and the purposes of a university
  • the politics of nostalgia just isn’t what it used to be
  • the nonviolent response
  • who is most concerned about crime as a political issue?

Archives

  • 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