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

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Inclusion, Equality, and Discourse Quality in Citizen Deliberations on Broadband

Posted on July 21, 2015 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

The 24-page case study, Inclusion, Equality, and Discourse Quality in Citizen Deliberations on Broadband (2015) published by  Soo-Hye Han, William Schenck-Hamlin, and Donna Schenck-Hamlin in the Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 11: Iss. 1. The study is based on a program of Kansas library forums on broadband telecommunications policy. It explores the theories versus realities of public deliberation, in regards, to participant inclusion, equality and the quality of discourse.

From the Abstract

Proponents of deliberative democracy have theorized that in order to contribute to improved decision-making, citizens should aim for high levels of inclusion, participation equality, and reciprocal, rational reasoning when they convene to discuss policy issues. To measure the extent to which these goals are achieved in actual practice, the authors analyzed transcripts from 13 public forums on the topic of broadband access in rural communities. Demographic attributes of participants were compared with their utterances during deliberation, coded by five quality variables: justification rationality, common good orientation, constructive politics, interactivity, and consideration of trade-offs. Analysis showed that turnout, quantity and quality of discourse varied significantly across different socioeconomic groups. For example, individuals with college education were more likely to provide higher levels of justification, alternative and mediating proposals, and consideration of the common good compared to those without college education. Non-salaried participants expressed the lowest level of justification for their arguments and showed significantly less interactivity with other participants. Addressing these differences requires greater effort by forum organizers to prepare participants through repeated, sequential forum experiences.

Download the case study from the Journal of Public Deliberation here.

About the Journal of Public DeliberationJournal of Public Deliberation
Spearheaded 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/vol11/iss1/art3/

Posted in All Resources, Case Studies & Stories, decision making, deliberation, economic issues, Journal of Public Deliberation, Journals & Newsletters, online & hi-tech, public engagement, research, social justice, theory | Leave a reply

Deliberation for Reconciliation in Divided Societies

Posted on July 17, 2015 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

The 37-page case study, Deliberation for Reconciliation in Divided Societies (2015) published by Dr. Magdalena Dembinska and Dr. Françoise Montambeault in the Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 11: Iss. 1. The study discusses the how deliberate processes were utilized to facilitate dialogue for inter-group reconciliation.

From the Abstract

Engaging with the literature on deliberative democracy, this article contends that in the context of ethnic group hostilities, deliberative processes where participants have a genuine opportunity to communicate and ‘hear the other side’ can be a way for inter-group dialogue and reconciliation. Separating the deliberative process into three distinct moments, it offers a framework for understanding how unequal and conflicting parties may be brought together to deliberate, how to grasp the micro-politics of deliberation, and to understand the diffusion mechanisms that bring society back in. The approach we propose aims to bridge the normative-macro and the experimental-micro accounts of deliberation in order to focus on non-ideal real-life contexts and to offer ‘deliberative lenses’ to study the (rare) cases of deliberative inter-ethnic reconciliation. The approach and the three moments are illustrated by the deliberative turn taken to resolve a conflict between the Innu communities, the Quebec government and the local non-Innu in Saguenay-Lac-Saint Jean.

Download the case study from the Journal of Public Deliberation here.

Journal of Public DeliberationAbout the Journal of Public Deliberation
Spearheaded 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/vol11/iss1/art12/

Posted in All Resources, Case Studies & Stories, decision making, deliberation, highly recommended, intercultural dialogue, Journal of Public Deliberation, Journals & Newsletters, public engagement, reconciliation, research, theory | Leave a reply

Understanding Participant Representativeness in Deliberative Events

Posted on June 19, 2015 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

The case study, Understanding Participant Representativeness in Deliberative Events: A Case Study Comparing Probability and Non-Probability Recruitment Strategies, by Jamie Griffin, Tarik Abdel-Monem, Alan Tomkins, Amanda Richardson, and Stacia Jorgensen, was published in the Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 11: Iss. 1. This case study examines participant representativeness within deliberative events and then reviews two public participation processes in Lincoln, Nebraska.

From the Abstract

Deliberative event participants often differ in meaningful ways from the population they are intended to represent; however, less is known about whether various recruitment methods influence participant representativeness. Furthermore, a better understanding of where in the recruitment process lack of representation occurs is needed. We present a framework for understanding why event attendees might not represent the target population and then compare two different recruitment strategies using this framework. Specifically, we consider a Deliberative Poll that used a random-digit-dial telephone recruitment survey and a deliberative event that used a convenience sample web recruitment survey. For two stages in the recruitment process, we calculate nonresponse errors for statistics assessing demographic characteristics and confidence in local government. Notably, both recruitment methods resulted in event attendees that were older and better educated than the population they were intended to represent providing evidence that probability recruitment methods do not necessarily outperform nonprobability methods. Additionally, we demonstrate that aspects of the recruitment process other than the recruitment survey sampling method used can influence participant representativeneess. We conclude by discussing adjustments to the recruitment process that might improve the representativeness of event attendees.

Download the case study from the Journal of Public Deliberation here.

About the Journal of Public Deliberation
Spearheaded 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/vol11/iss1/

Posted in All Resources, Case Studies & Stories, deliberation, Journal of Public Deliberation, public engagement, random selection, recruitment | Leave a reply

Journal of Public Deliberation- Volume 11, Issue 1 (2015)

Posted on June 15, 2015 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

The Journal of Public Deliberation is a peer reviewed, open access journal that is published biannually. JPD is a collaborative effort between the Deliberative Democracy Consortium and the International Association of Public Participation that merged as a joint venture in November 2010. The principal objective of the journal is to synthesize research, opinion, projects, experiments and experiences of academics and practitioners in the multi-use disciplinary field of “deliberative democracy”. Below is the contents of Spring 2015 edition- Volume 11, Issue 1:

Contents of Volume 11, Issue 1

Articles

Context and Medium Matter: Expressing Disagreements Online and Face-to-Face in Political Deliberations
Jennifer Stromer-Galley, Lauren Bryant, and Bruce Bimber

Variations of Institutional Design for Empowered Deliberation
Carolina Johnson and John Gastil

Inclusion, Equality, and Discourse Quality in Citizen Deliberations on Broadband
Soo-Hye Han, William Schenck-Hamlin, and Donna Schenck-Hamlin

Understanding Participant Representativeness in Deliberative Events: A Case Study Comparing Probability and Non-Probability Recruitment Strategies
Jamie Griffin, Tarik Abdel-Monem, Alan Tomkins, Amanda Richardson, and Stacia Jorgensen

Diverse Discourse: Analyzing the Potential of Public Affairs Magazine Online Forums to Reflect Qualities of the Public Sphere
David Wolfgang and Joy Jenkins

Deliberating While Voting: The Antecedents, Dynamics, And Consequences Of Talking While Completing Ballots In Two Vote-By-Mail States
Justin Reedy and John Gastil

Democratic Innovations in Deliberative Systems – The Case of the Estonian Citizens’ Assembly Process
Magnus E. Jonsson

Does Culture Matter for Deliberation? Linguistic Speech Cultures and Parliamentary Deliberation in Switzerland
Seraina Pedrini

Deliberation for Reconciliation in Divided Societies
Magdalena Dembinska Dr. and Françoise Montambeault Dr.

Book Reviews

Review of Everyone Counts: Could Participatory Budgeting Change Democracy by Josh Lerner and Making Democracy Fun: How Game Design Can Empower Citizens and Transform Politics by Josh Lerner
Stephanie McNulty

Review of The Silent Sex: Gender, Deliberation, and Institutions by Christopher F. Karpowitz and Tali Mendelberg
Nicholas A. Felts

Review of Facebook Democracy: The Architecture of Disclosure and the Threat of Public Life by José Marichal
Justin G. Foote

Review of From Deliberation to Demonstration: Political Rallies in France, 1868-1939, by Paula Cossart, trans. Clare Tame
Alex Lovit

About the Deliberative Democracy Consortium
A network of scholars and practitioners who advocate public engagement and deliberative democracy.

Follow on Twitter: @delibdem

About the International Association of Public Participation
IAP2 is an international association of members who seek to promote and improve the practice of public participation in relation to individuals, governments, institutions, and other entities that affect the public interest in nations throughout the world.

Follow IAP2 USA on Twitter: @IAP2USA

Resource Link: www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol11/iss1/

Posted in All Resources, decision making, deliberation, highly recommended, Journal of Public Deliberation, Journals & Newsletters, public engagement, research, theory | Leave a reply

Participatory Budgeting case study: Vallejo, CA

Posted on June 11, 2015 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

This case study by Participedia, Participatory Budgeting- Vallejo (CA), published June 2015, gives a brief overview of the participatory budgeting (PB) process in Vallejo from 2012 to present. The case study reviews: the history in Vallejo behind why PB was implemented, information about who participated, influences, objectives and lessons learned.

From the Abstract

Vallejo was the first city in the United States to implement city wide Participatory Budgeting Practice, as thousands are participating to make calls and to brainstorm ideas that would affect them and they are working with Participatory Budgeting Project (PBP) to help increase the living standards of the residents to the better by representing the people and giving them better services and to give training workshops, also to allocate millions of dollars the tax payers money to something the locals would choose on where to use it at, it is making the people make their decision on how to spend the money, the people had formed 12 projects which affects their civic life and making constant meetings for residents to gather and make decisions

Learn more about PB in Vallejo from the Participatory Budgeting Project: www.participatorybudgeting.org/vallejo/

More about Participedia
ParticipediaParticipedia harnesses the power of collaboration to respond to a recent global phenomenon: the rapid development of experiments in new forms of participatory politics and governance around the world. Participedia responds to these developments by providing a low-cost, easy way for hundreds of researchers and practitioners from across the globe to catalogue and compare the performance of participatory political processes.

Follow on Twitter: @participedia

Resource Link: http://participedia.net/en/cases/participatory-budgeting-vallejo-ca-us

Posted in All Resources, Case Studies & Stories, Participatory Budgeting, public engagement, research | Leave a reply

Effects of the Internet on Participation

Posted on May 27, 2015 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

The 38-page study, Effects of the Internet on Participation: Study of a Public Policy Referendum in Brazil, by Paolo Spada, Jonathan Mellon, Tiago Peixoto and Fredrik M. Sjoberg, was published February 2015. It explores how online voting increases voter participation during an annual participatory budgeting vote in Brazil and what factors were influential for citizen engagement. You can download the paper here.

From the Abstract

Does online voting mobilize citizens who otherwise would not participate? During the annual participatory budgeting vote in the southern state of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil — the world’s largest — Internet voters were asked whether they would have participated had there not been an online voting option (i-voting). The study documents an 8.2 percent increase in total turn-out with the introduction of i-voting. In support of the mobilization hypothesis, unique survey data show that i-voting is mainly used by new participants rather than just for convenience by those who were already mobilized. The study also finds that age, gender, income, education, and social media usage are significant predictors of being online-only voters. Technology appears more likely to engage people who are younger, male, of higher income and educational attainment, and more frequent social media users.

More about Paolo Spada
Paolo is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions at the University of British Columbia. He specializes in comparative public policy, with a focus on policy diffusion, policy analysis and institutional design. Check out his site here.

More about Jonathan Mellon
Jonathan is a Postdoctoral Fellow at University of Oxford – Nuffield College, working on the British Election Study. He also works for the World Bank as a data scientist analyzing online civic engagement in developed and developing country contexts, for the Organisation for Security and Co-Operation in Europe, running statistical analysis of election observer reports, and for the BBC on their election night coverage. Check out his wordpress here and follow on Twitter: @jon_mellon.

More about Tiago Peixoto
Having worked for 10 years as a practitioner and researcher in the field of ICT and participatory governance, Tiago is currently an open government specialist at the ICT4Gov program of the World Bank’s Open Government cluster. Read his blog, DemocracySpot, which is focused on the intersection of participation and technology. Follow on Twitter: @participatory.

More about Fredrik M. Sjoberg
Dr. Fredrik M Sjoberg is a data analyst and political scientist with extensive experience in the developing world. He currently manages a research team on Digital Citizen Engagement at the World Bank and is a Research Affiliate with Data-Pop Alliance. Learn more about him here and follow on Twitter: @fsjoberg.

Resource Link: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract

Posted in All Resources, international, online & hi-tech, Participatory Budgeting, public engagement, Reports & Articles, research | Leave a reply

Strategies to Take Action and Build Trust Between the Community and Police

Posted on May 6, 2015 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

Strategies to Take Action and Build Trust Between the Community and Police (2014), from Everyday Democracy puts forth four strategies for positive community change from 25 years of experience with community-police relation dialogues.

From Everyday Democracy

1. Join with other who want to create change on this issue.
Community change happens when we all work together.  Join others already working toward change on this issue, or start a new group to organize community dialogue and action on community-police relations. Check out stories from South Bronx, N.Y.,Stratford, Conn., and Lynchburg, Va., to see what’s possible when communities come together after a tragic incident involving a community member and police officer. As you join with others, think about how you can:

  • Include all voices in the community, especially those who have been marginalized or excluded. Think about the neighborhoods, racial/ethnic groups, people with various viewpoints, and people who work in specific sectors who may be affected by this issue; invite them to take part in community conversations and action steps. Community conversation and action work best when people from all parts of the community come together.
  • Involve local officials and members of the police community. Having these groups take part in the conversation and action steps will begin to open a different form of communication between police and residents
  • Involve young people. The disconnect between police and the community is particularly wide between police and young people, especially youth of color. That’s why it’s essential for young people be involved from the beginning both in decision-making and implementation of change.
  • Work with bridge-building organizations and leaders in your community. Find local organizations and people to partner with who have trusting relationships with both the police department and community members.

2. Create opportunities for genuine community engagement.
Having a structured process for people, institutions, and government to work together can lead to real change. Our discussion guide, Protecting Communities, Serving the Public: Police and Residents Building Relationships to Work Together helps to create a space for community members and police to talk about trust, expectations, policing strategies and tactics.  This allows residents to communicate their concerns and allows the police community to communicate how residents can play critical roles in effective partnership strategies.

3. Address the history of mistrust and disconnection between the community and the police.
Tragic incidents don’t happen in a vacuum – there are hundreds of years of history and policies that have shaped our communities today. Our Facing Racism in a Diverse Nation discussion guide can help you have a conversation with your community to begin to dismantle stereotypes, understand the impact of structural racism, build mutual trust and respect, and develop strategies for changing institutions and policies.

4. Link dialogue to action and community change.
With appropriate planning and organizing, the buy-in of local officials and the police community is possible. A dialogue initiative with community residents and police can become a springboard not just for building relationships, but also for transforming the practices and policies of our public institutions. We must address the systemic roots of the recurring tragedies in our communities and work toward inclusive, equitable communities where everyone has voice and opportunity.

The whole article can be found here.

More about Everyday Democracy Everyday Democracy
Our mission is to help communities talk and work together to create communities that work for everyone. We work directly with local communities, providing advice and training and flexible how-to resources.

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

We have learned that some of the key components to ensuring racially-equitable systemic change include building relationships, establishing a diverse coalition, having trained peer facilitators during dialogues, building on assets, and linking actions to individual, community, and policy change. We provide online tools and in-person trainings on organizing, racial equity, facilitation, communications, and action planning. We act as a catalyst and coach for communities, knowing that the people of each community are best suited to carry out and sustain the work that will make a difference.

The communities we serve are the focal point of our work. Our ultimate aim is to help create communities that value everyone’s voice and work for everyone, and to help create a strong national democracy that upholds these principles.

Follow on Twitter: @EvDem

Resource Link: http://everyday-democracy.org/news/strategies-build-trust-and-take-action

Posted in All Resources, collaborative action, dialogue, dialogue to action, EvDem/Study Circles, public engagement, Reports & Articles | Leave a reply

What is Public Engagement and Why Do It? (ILG)

Posted on April 20, 2015 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

This five-page tip sheet guide from Institute for Local Government, What is Public Engagement and Why Should I Do It? (2015), has two major sections: part 1 puts forth public engagement terms to help local officials find which approach “fits” best and part 2 gives benefits of engaging the public. Download the PDF for free here.

From the guide…

ILG_PE and WhyWhat is Public Engagement?

Six definitions are given for public officials to better understand which approach is the most appropriate to use: civic engagement, public engagement, public information/outreach, public consultation, public participation/deliberation, and sustained public problem solving.

Why Engage the Public?

  • better identification of the public’s values, ideas and recommendations
  • more informed residents- about issues and about local agencies
  • improved local agency decision-making and actions, with better impacts and outcomes
  • more community buy-in and support, with less contentiousness
  • more civil discussions and decision making
  • faster project implementation with less need to revisit again
  • more trust in each other and in local government
  • higher rates of community participation and leadership development

About the Institute for Local Government
The Institute for Local Government is the nonprofit research education affiliate of the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties. Its mission is to promote good government at the local level with practical, impartial and easy-to-use resources for California communities. The Institute’s goal is to be the leading provider of information that enables local officials and their communities to make good decisions. Founded in 1955, the Institute has been serving local officials’ information needs for 55-plus years. Some of the highlights of that history are detailed in the story below. While respecting and honoring its past, the Institute is also intently focused on the present and future. In these difficult economic times, the need for the Institute’s materials for local officials is even greater.

Follow on Twitter: @InstLocGov.

Resource Link: www.ca-ilg.org/document/what-public-engagement

Posted in All Resources, great for public managers, Institute for Local Government, public engagement, tools, Tools & Handouts | Leave a reply

Organizing Community-wide Dialogue for Action and Change

Posted on April 15, 2015 by NCDD Community
Reply

This comprehensive 157-page guide, Organizing Community-wide Dialogue for Action and Change, from Everyday Democracy was published September 2001, to help develop a community-wide dialogue to change program from start to finish. Part 1 of the guide gives an overview of Community-wide dialogue “study circles”, and Part 2 is  how to organize a program: clarifying the issues, building your team, developing a plan and sustaining a program. Part 3 is about five case study community profiles from: Georgia, North Carolina, New York, California, and Illinois.

The guide can be downloaded here.

From the guide…

Organizing a community-wide study circle program is a complex undertaking. Many things will be happening at the same time: coalition building, communication and publicity, recruiting participants, training facilitators, fund raising, planning for action, and more. The guide is designed to help you understand and carry out the many aspects of community-wide organizing for public dialogue and action.

The Study Circle Process:

The study circle process is not magic or mysterious. It’s simply a tested set of democratic principles and tools for engaging the whole community in all its variety, bringing people together for public dialogue, and combining their ideas and resources to create and implement solutions.

A Community-wide Study Circle Program:

  • is organized by a diverse coalition that reflects the whole community.
  • includes a large number of participants from all walks of life.
  • uses easy-to-use, nonpartisan discussion material.
  • uses trained facilitators who reflect the community’s diversity.
  • results in specific opportunities to move to action when the study circles conclude.

More about Everyday Democracy Everyday Democracy
Our mission is to help communities talk and work together to create communities that work for everyone. We work directly with local communities, providing advice and training and flexible how-to resources.

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

We have learned that some of the key components to ensuring racially-equitable systemic change include building relationships, establishing a diverse coalition, having trained peer facilitators during dialogues, building on assets, and linking actions to individual, community, and policy change. We provide online tools and in-person trainings on organizing, racial equity, facilitation, communications, and action planning. We act as a catalyst and coach for communities, knowing that the people of each community are best suited to carry out and sustain the work that will make a difference.

The communities we serve are the focal point of our work. Our ultimate aim is to help create communities that value everyone’s voice and work for everyone, and to help create a strong national democracy that upholds these principles.

Follow on Twitter: @EvDem

Resource Link: http://everyday-democracy.org/resources/organizing-community-wide-dialogue-action-and-change

This resource was submitted by Rebecca Reyes, the Communications Manager at Everyday Democracy, via the Add-a-Resource form.

Posted in All Resources, collaborative action, D&D Methods, dialogue, dialogue to action, EvDem/Study Circles, Participatory Practices, public engagement, Tools & Handouts | Leave a reply

Building Healthy & Vibrant Communities: Achieving Results through Community Engagement (ILG)

Posted on April 6, 2015 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

ILG_whole planning pamphletThis pamphlet from Institute for Local Government, Building Healthy & Vibrant Communities: Achieving Results through Community Engagement, highlights information for public engagement in land use planning. The pamphlet reviews: What is Land Use Planning, Who is Involved, Why Community Engagement Matters and How to Engage. Download the pamphlet here.

About the Institute for Local Government
The Institute for Local Government is the nonprofit research education affiliate of the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties. Its mission is to promote good government at the local level with practical, impartial and easy-to-use resources for California communities. The Institute’s goal is to be the leading provider of information that enables local officials and their communities to make good decisions. Founded in 1955, the Institute has been serving local officials’ information needs for 55-plus years. Some of the highlights of that history are detailed in the story below. While respecting and honoring its past, the Institute is also intently focused on the present and future. In these difficult economic times, the need for the Institute’s materials for local officials is even greater.

Follow on Twitter: @InstLocGov.

Resource Link: www.ca-ilg.org/post/building-healthy-and-vibrant-communities

Posted in All Resources, community building, planning, public engagement, tools, Tools & Handouts | Leave a reply

Post navigation

← Older posts
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