Importing Democracy: The Role of NGOs in South Africa, Tajikistan, & Argentina

Posted on November 5, 2013 by Courtney Breese

This 2013 book written by Julie Fisher and published by the Kettering Foundation Press, focuses on the roles of democratization nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in three countries in the developing world: South Africa, Tajikistan, and Argentina.

The book is organized around three chapters for each country, South Africa, Tajikistan, and Argentina. The first chapter of each country’s section begins with the historical, political, and economic context and continues with a discussion of the general contours of civil society. The second chapter in each section deals with the role of democratization NGOs in promoting both loyal opposition and law-based civil liberties. The third chapter focuses on their role in promoting political culture and political participation. Loyal opposition and law-based civil liberties help define democratization at the national level, whereas changes in political culture and increased political participation often occur throughout society. Following the nine country chapters, the book concludes with a comparative overview and implications for international policy.

Fisher, a former Kettering Foundation program officer, writes that the idea that democracy can be exported has lost credibility in recent years. In many countries, however, democratization NGOs are importing democratic ideas and recovering local democratic traditions.

From the book’s Introduction:

Nothing has so discredited the attempt to export democracy militarily as the Iraq and Afghan wars. Both Iraq and Afghanistan remind us that democracy must be built from within. Even peaceful efforts to export democracy, undertaken with the best of intentions, can founder on the reefs of simplistic Western visions of other societies.

A common response to this failure is to assume that many countries are simply not suited to democracy, at least for the foreseeable future. This book is about the people of three countries–South Africa, Tajikistan, and Argentina–who refuse to be so easily dismissed and who have already started the long, arduous process of democratization from within. They have done this, first, by “importing” democratic ideas from abroad and, second, by rediscovering indigenous democratic traditions….

Table of Contents includes:

Preface & Acknowledgments

Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 2 South Africa: History, Politics, & Civil Society

Chapter 3 The Role of Civil Society in South Africa: Building a Loyal Opposition & Law-Based Civil Liberties

Chapter 4 The Role of Civil Society in South Africa II: Nurturing a Democratic Political Culture & Deepening Political Participation

Chapter 5 Tajikistan: History, Politics & Civil Society

Chapter 6 The Role of Civil Society in Tajikistan: Building a Loyal Opposition & Law-Based Civil Liberties

Chapter 7 The Role of Civil Society in Tajikistan II: Nurturing a Democratic Political Culture & Deepening Political Participation

Chapter 8 Argentina: History, Politics, & Civil Society

Chapter 9 The Role of Civil Society in Argentina: Loyal Opposition, Strengthening the State, and Law-Based Civil Liberties

Chapter 10 The Role of Civil Society in Argentina II: Nurturing a Democratic Political Culture & Deepening Political Participation

Chapter 11 Conclusions

Chapter 12 International Implications & Recommendations

Appendix I List of Interviews

Appendix II Democratization NGOs in Other Countries

Appendix III An Overview of Democracy Assistance

Appendix IV Research Methods

List of Acronyms

Bibliographies

Ordering info: The book is currently available for purchase from the Kettering Foundation or from Amazon.com

Resource Link: http://kettering.org/publications/importing-democracy/

Discussion of stakeholder and citizen roles in public deliberation

Posted on October 25, 2013 by NCDD Community

Here’s a warm invitation from a team of top deliberative democracy scholars and practitioners (David Kahane and Kristjana Loptson from Canada and Max Hardy and Jade Herriman from Australia) to join in an important exploration they’ve embarked on together…

Some public participation exercises bring together people who formally represent different constituencies, other exercises focus on ordinary or unaffiliated citizens, and others combine these.

We’re a team of deliberative democracy researchers and practitioners who wanted to explore the distinction between ‘citizens’ and ‘stakeholder representatives’, and how these groups are brought into public participation exercises. A conversation that began at a workshop in Australia early in 2011 led into a virtual Australia-Canada workshop, and now to a paper in the Journal of Public Deliberation at www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol9/iss2/art2/.

Here’s the abstract for the article:

This paper explores theoretical and practical distinctions between individual citizens (‘citizens’) and organized groups (‘stakeholder representatives’ or ‘stakeholders’ for short) in public participation processes convened by government as part of policy development. Distinctions between ‘citizen’ and ‘stakeholder’ involvement are commonplace in government discourse and practice; public involvement practitioners also sometimes rely on this distinction in designing processes and recruiting for them. Recognizing the complexity of the distinction, we examine both normative and practical reasons why practitioners may lean toward—or away from—recruiting citizens, stakeholders, or both to take part in deliberations, and how citizen and stakeholder roles can be separated or combined within a process. The article draws on a 2012 Canadian- Australian workshop of deliberation researchers and practitioners to identify key challenges and understandings associated with the categories of stakeholder and citizen and their application, and hopes to continue this conversation with the researcher-practitioner community.

We’re hoping that the conversation can continue here on the NCDD blog: we invite you to read the article and chime in with your stories, questions, comments, objections, and qualifications.

Here are a few prompts, to get you thinking:

Do you or others in your practice community distinguish between ‘citizen’ and ‘stakeholder’ processes (perhaps using other terminologies)?
The article explores reasons to involve stakeholder representatives in public deliberation and some cautions (pages 9-14): is there anything you’d want to add, modify, or challenge in this analysis?
The article does the same for citizen involvement in deliberative exercises (pages 15-18): what rings true to you there, or needs to be added or modified?
In the table on pages 18-19 and the text on 19-26, we look at different ways of designing deliberative exercises to include citizens, stakeholders, or both: how does this typology fit with your experience?
Overall, what’s helpful to you in the analysis we’ve offered? How could it be made more useful to practitioners or researchers? Is there something that you can add from your perspective?

David, Kristjana, Jade, and Max, the authors of the article, are very interested in your perspectives. We’ll watch this space and add our voices to the conversation (though there may be a bit of a lag to our responses, as we have lots going on!).

If there’s strong interest in this conversation, we may work with NCDD to find other ways of connecting with you and the broader community (e.g. a webinar, a session at the next NCDD gathering); suggestions welcome here too.

We know that our analysis so far is just the beginning of a conversation and exploration with the much broader D&D community. We’re grateful to Sandy and NCDD for this chance to keep talking.

Citizens’ Initiative Review (Featured D&D Story)

Posted on October 4, 2013 by Roshan Bliss

If you haven’t heard of the Citizens’ Initiative Review before, you should have! We’ve featured it at two of our conferences, and spent a day introducing NCDDers to Healthy Democracy Oregon’s work back in August 2010. Healthy Democracy just won TWO of the core values awards presented at the IAP2 conference in Salt Lake, so their success is certainly no secret.

This mini case study was submitted by Lucy Palmersheim via NCDD’s new Dialogue Storytelling Tool, which we recently launched to collect stories about innovations in D&D. Add your story today to help spread the word about your great work!

Title of Project:

Citizens’ Initiative Review

Description

The Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) is Healthy Democracy’s flagship program. It is an innovative method of public engagement, passed into law in Oregon in 2011, that directly empowers citizens to deliberate and provide information to their fellow voters.

During the CIR, a randomly selected and demographically balanced panel — a microcosm of the public — is brought together and given the time and resources to fairly evaluate a ballot measure. The panel hears directly from campaigns for and against the measure in question and calls on policy experts during the multi-day public review.

At the conclusion of each review, panelists deliberate and then draft a “Citizens’ Statement” highlighting the most important fact-based findings about the measure and the most relevant arguments for and against the measure. In Oregon, the CIR is overseen by an independent commission, and each statement is published in the voters’ pamphlet as a new and easily accessible resource for voters to use at election time.

The Citizens’ Initiative Review is a major innovation in democracy, and in Oregon, one of the first states in the nation to enact the initiative and referendum, we’ve successfully developed the model, passed it into law, and tested it rigorously over three iterations. Major studies of the CIR in 2010 and 2012 (funded in part by the National Science Foundation and Kettering Foundation) have conclusively demonstrated that the CIR process provides voters with a fundamentally sound and easy-to-use source of trustworthy information to make better choices.

Studies found that a majority of voters read a CIR statement in 2012, and that roughly two-thirds – over 627,000 Oregonians – found it helpful when making voting decisions (statistically significant). Additionally, voters who read a CIR statement demonstrated greater knowledge leading to greater confidence about how to cast their ballot and learned more about the ballot measures than those who read official explanatory and fiscal statements or saw equivalent doses of paid pro and con arguments.

These results are incredibly exciting, and show us that the CIR is having a major impact on improving voters’ understanding of ballot measures.

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

Citizens’ Juries

What was your role in the project?

Healthy Democracy provides project management and fundraising.

What issues did the project primarily address?

Economic issues
Education
Partisan divide
Planning and development

Lessons Learned

Healthy Democracy is extremely satisfied with the 2012 Citizens’ Initiative Reviews. A few factors that contributed:

Building on past success: We ran the CIR as a pilot program in 2010 and used our learnings to enhance the 2012 project. Some changes included providing feedback from campaigns to panelists on final statements and asking panelists on one side of a measure to provide feedback to those writing the statement for the opposite side. These changes ultimately improved the Citizens’ Statements produced and distributed to voters.

Assembling an effective team: We brought together a team of full-time and project-specific staff with deep experience in deliberation and project management. Our team was able to foresee potential obstacles and plan an effective program.

Planning for potential setbacks: We built contingency plans to ensure the CIR would be viable even if our original plan could not be carried out.

Maintaining objectivity: The CIR can be a very effective tool for public deliberation, but its credibility is dependent on maintaining a process that is free from bias. We built staff training, panelist selection, and expert testimony around objectivity. As a result, 96% of participants reported being satisfied with staff neutrality during the CIR process, with 76% of those reporting they were “very satisfied.” Furthermore, 89% of voters who read the voters’ pamphlet reported that they placed at least some trust in the CIR statements, which was higher than trust in paid pro and con arguments or the measures’ official fiscal statements.

Achieving media endorsements and publicity: We were pleased to receive several new newspaper endorsements in 2012, and independent research funded in part by the Kettering Foundation found that over 51% of Oregon voters knew about the CIR, an increase from 42% in 2010.

Measuring our work: We brought in researchers early in the process so that they were able to follow the 2012 CIRs from start to finish. They surveyed participants each day and followed up with broad polls of the Oregon electorate. This depth of research allows us to understand our impact, search for ways to improve our process, and will help us plan future expansion.

Where to learn more about the project:

You can find more information at www.HealthyDemocracy.org. You can also read the 2012 report by clicking here.

Bias warps reason. Does deliberation ameliorate that?

Posted on September 7, 2013 by Tom Atlee

Summary: Research shows that individuals bend facts and math to align with their existing views. But does this happen when they’re in high quality interactive deliberative forums?

A recent Salon article “Study Proves That Politics and Math Are Incompatible“ reports that research led by Yale law professor Dan Kahan demonstrates that “it’s easier than we think for reasonable people to trick themselves into reaching unreasonable conclusions. Kahan and his team found that, when it comes to controversial issues, people’s ability to do math is impacted by their political beliefs.”

Researchers reported that BOTH conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats got poor grades on mathematically interpreting data about “the effectiveness of concealed carry laws… [W]hether or not people got the question right depended on their political beliefs – and whether or not the correct answer supported their preconceived notions of gun control.” Interestingly, “The people who were normally best at mathematical reasoning… were the most susceptible to getting the politically charged question wrong.”

“For study author Kahan, these results are a fairly strong refutation of what is called the ‘deficit model’ in the field of science and technology studies–the idea that if people just had more knowledge, or more reasoning ability, then they would be better able to come to consensus with scientists and experts on issues like climate change, evolution, the safety of vaccines, and pretty much anything else involving science or data (for instance, whether concealed weapons bans work). Kahan’s data suggest the opposite–that political biases skew our reasoning abilities, and this problem seems to be worse for people with advanced capacities like scientific literacy and numeracy.”

As fascinating and significant as this study is for democratic theory and practice, it misses a factor that might well modify its conclusions in important ways–the role of well designed, well facilitated, well informed deliberative forums involving diverse citizens who have a mandate to work together to come up with findings that are useful for their community or country.

So much of both political activism and deliberative democracy efforts focus on informing the opinions of individual voters rather than on the capacity of high-quality deliberative activity to generate higher forms of collective political wisdom that take into account and transcend the separate opinions of the participants.

I would like to see research that explores that collective deliberative potential. And I would offer this as the experimental hypothesis:

In the context of well designed group deliberations to produce collective public policy recommendations, diverse citizens’ mathematical, scientific, and rational capacities prove much more sound than when those same citizens reflect on an issue by themselves or with like-minded fellows.

I believe that the fairly balanced briefings, quality conversations, and shared mandate involved in such forums significantly reduce the tendency for “reasonable people to trick themselves into reaching unreasonable conclusions.” I believe that the research I recommend above would show that such forums measurably reduce the tendency for “political biases [to] skew our reasoning abilities” and that they can and do help citizens “come to consensus with scientists and experts on issues like climate change, evolution, the safety of vaccines, and pretty much anything else involving science or data.”

Until such research is done, I urge us to notice the extent to which the hypotheses above manifests in the citizen engagements with which we are involved and to promote exercising and empowering our collective political wisdom-generating capacity beyond its mere impact on individual participants and observers.

Coheartedly,
Tom

Participate in research on public participation and win $50

Posted on September 3, 2013 by NCDD Community

Research is underway to understand how participants perceive communication in public participation processes. With funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Social and Environmental Research Institute has developed a short online survey.

We need your help to spread the word about this important research.

Publics, stakeholders, or experts who are taking part in any public participation process are eligible. Please share this invitation widely. There is a drawing for several $50 cash awards.

Take the survey on a smartphone or computer at: http://fluidsurveys.com/s/Publicparticipation/

Thomas Webler
Social and Environmental Research Institute

New issue of the International Journal of Collaborative Practices

Posted on September 2, 2013 by Sandy Heierbacher

The current issue (Issue 4) of the International Journal of Collaborative Practices is out! The Journal provides a forum for the exchange of ideas and stories from practitioners, researchers and scholars who utilize collaborative principles in their daily work and disciplines.

The journal is published once a year, with new issues coming out in the Spring. Sponsored by the Houston Galveston Institute, the Taos Institute, and the Psychology Department at Our Lady of the Lake University, it is an open-access on-line publication that is offered in the spirit of promoting community and collaboration. You can subscribe by emailing journal@talkhgi.com.

Your participation is encouraged through the submission of articles and your responses through the Journal blog.

Here is a list of the articles featured in the new issue:

‘Good Enough’, ‘Imperfect’, or Situated Leadership: Developing and Sustaining Poised Resourcefulness within an Organization of Practitioner-Consultants (Jacob Storch and John Shotter)
Of Crabs and Starfish: Ancestral Knowledge and Collaborative Practice (Rocio Chaveste and Papusa (Maria Luisa) Molina)
Invitation to Therapeutic Writing: Ideas to Generate Welfare (Elena Fernandez)
A Lawyer’s Provocative and Reflective Journey into Social Constructionism and Not-Knowing (Bill Ash)
The Practice of Collaborative Dialogue in Education – The Case of Kai-Ping (Hui-Wen Hsia, with reflections by Shi-Jiuan Wu)

Also featured in the issue:

An Essay in Six Voices: A Story of Overseas Online Dialogue (Jitka Balasova, Jakub Cerny, Pavel Nepustil, Katerina Novotná Rocío Chaveste & M.L. Papusa Molina)
FAQ: Is Collaborative Practice Politically and Socially Sensitive? (Saliha Bava, Rocio Chaveste, Marsha McDonough & Papusa Molina)
Two poems and a painting
And several essays on “books of interest”

This issue was edited by Harlene Anderson, Ph.D. & Saliha Bava, Ph.D.

More on the Journal

The International Journal of Collaborative Practices brings together members of a growing international community of practitioners, scholars, educators, researchers, and consultants interested in postmodern collaborative practices.

This community responds to important questions in social and human sciences such as:

How can we make our theories and practices have every day relevance and how can our ordinary experiences have relevance for our theories and practices, for as many people as possible in our fast changing world?
What will this relevance accomplish?
And who determines it?

Globalization and technology are spawning social, cultural, political, and economic transformations in our shrinking and interdependent world. People everywhere are constantly exposed to real time events in the world and enlightened through television and the Internet. They are fast losing faith in the rigid institutions that treat them as numbers and ignore their humanity. People expect to be directly involved in whatever affects their lives and they demand flexible systems and services that honor their rights and respect their needs.

Faced with such local, societal and global shifts, with the unavoidable complexities they engender, and with their effect on our lives and our world, practitioners are wondering how best to respond. The Journal is designed to serve as one part of a timely and valuable response by spotlighting important interconnected issues such as:

The juxtaposition of democracy, social justice, and human rights;
The importance of people’s voices locally and globally; and
The fundamental need for professional collaboration.

The Journal is an open access on-line bilingual (English and Spanish) interactive publication.

New Report on E-Petitions and Engagement

Posted on August 27, 2013 by Roshan Bliss

We are happy to share a great summary of the new report on government-sponsored e-petitions from long-time NCDD member AmericaSpeaks. The paper compares e-petition platforms from the US, UK, and Australia, and it’s a useful guide for thinking through the ins and outs of the many different e-petition platforms aimed at helping public engagement specialists make better use of this emerging technology.

You can read the full article below, or find the original post on the AmericaSpeaks blog here.

AmericaSpeaks_Logo

Exploring E-Petitions

By Elana Goldstein

AmericaSpeaks doesn’t often have the opportunity to be involved with projects like this, so it was exciting for the organization to take a step back and look at citizen participation from a new angle. We see e-petitions as a new means for governments to encourage increased citizen interaction and involvement in the policy making process. Over the past two years, AmericaSpeaks has been working with funds from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund to explore issues related to open government. The grant culminated at the beginning of the summer with the release of “Government Sponsored E-Petitions: A Guide for Implementation and Development,” a paper focused on electronic petitioning and local government.

The paper serves as a guide for public managers who are interested in e-petition design and implementation. The guide breaks down the key decision areas that a public manager may face throughout the implementation process. In addition, the guide includes three case studies, each of which examines a different governmental entity’s approach to e-petition implementation. The first case study looks at e-petitioning in the United States with the Obama Administration’s “We the People” e-petition platform. The second case discusses state level implementation in Queensland, Australia, with an emphasis on using e-petitioning as a way to overcome geographic barriers to citizen participation. The final case study examines implementation on the local level with the e-petition platform in Bristol, England.

While e-petition implementation is highly dependent on the local context, several issues emerged as best practices throughout the case studies. For example, the use of a trial period in the early stages of an e-petition process gives the government time to work out glitches in the platform, as well as work to get elected officials and the public bought in to the benefits of the system. Similarly, we recommend that all e-petition systems utilize a time response guarantee. So, if a petition gathers enough signatures it is guaranteed a response within a specific time frame. While the amount of time will vary across localities and platforms, the guarantee will provide a sense of accountability for citizen petitioners and create a petition response structure that treats all petitions equally.

As more communities implement and innovate around e-petitions, our notions of best practices will change. In the long history of petitions and governance, e-petitions, we must remember, are still in their infancy. However, it is safe to say that the spread of e-petitions is a positive development for the practice of democratic participation. For citizens, the continued use of e-petition systems can lead to a greater capacity for civic participation, a greater ability to get things on the government agenda, and greater expectations for political participation outside of the voting booth. Citizen participation and increased government accountability through e-petition processes has genuine potential to strengthen linkages between elected officials and the participatory public.

We hope that you take the time to read through the guide and share it with your elected officials. Enjoy!

Find the original article here: www.americaspeaks.org/blog/exploring-e-petitions. Find the full report here: www.americaspeaks.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/EPetitionPaperFinal.pdf.

Talking about Guns and Violence: Strategies for Facilitating Constructive Dialogues

Posted on August 25, 2013 by Sandy Heierbacher

This 11-page essay by Greg Keidan, a public engagement specialist and writer in the San Francisco Bay Area, was written for the University of AZ’s National Institute for Civil Discourse (NICD). After the December 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, NICD called for essays to address the challenges of conducting constructive conversations about gun violence in the U.S. As part of their mission, NICD seeks to promote civil discourse on issues of public interest and does not take a policy position on gun violence or gun control but is committed to encouraging a civil discussion.

Articulation of the Question

Guns are viewed by many people as a sacred emblem of American independence. We own enough nonmilitary guns to arm every man, woman, and child, plus a few million of our pets. Gun related violence accounts for 30,000-40,000 deaths each year in the U.S., approximately 60% by suicide.

Recent tragedies in Newtown and other communities involving horrific mass shootings have brought widespread calls for new efforts to address and reduce gun related violence. Unfortunately, the highly partisan, adversarial nature of our two-party system and this issue has proven to be a giant obstacle to finding common ground and common sense solutions. In the spring of 2013, the U.S. Senate failed to pass a compromise piece of legislation in response to public and Presidential demands for tighter background checks for people purchasing firearms online and at gun shows. Despite polls showing that 90% of American adults supported this compromise deal, influential advocates were able to sink the bill in the Senate.

A new approach to addressing and reducing gun related violence is desperately needed. It has been almost 20 years since Congress has passed any legislation to address the issue. A growing number of local and national organizations are interested in engaging diverse Americans in civil dialogue and deliberation to find consensus on common-sense solutions and to hold our leaders accountable for implementing them.

However, traditional public meetings where a few advocates each take their two minutes at the microphone often result in acrimonious shouting matches, rather than identifying areas of consensus where collaborative efforts could improve safety. I spoke with seasoned facilitators and thought leaders from the dialogue and deliberation movement to answer the following question: what are the emerging best practices and strategies for facilitating civil and constructive dialogues aimed at reducing the number of Americans killed and injured by guns?

From the Conclusion:

It is our hope that using these strategies may help engage a greater number of Americans in more productive discussions about guns and violence so that this issue does not become a permanent dividing line in American society. People who have an opportunity to listen deeply to a variety of perspectives will be less apt to vilify those they disagree with and more able to work together to find better solutions and areas of agreement that could serve as a basis for effective public policy.

The more Americans experience taking part in constructive, civil dialogues that lead to tangible positive outcomes, the more you work against the notion that what happens in public life is decided only by policy makers. Empowered, active and networked citizens can effectively address very difficult societal problems, as evidenced by the environmental and civil rights movements.

Communities, states and nations that learn how to effectively engage residents in dialogue on the issue of guns and violence will be better positioned to take collective action. They will be able to consider and implement policies in more informed, thoughtful, and effective ways that keep residents safer. If we can promote conversations about how to prioritize safety rather than conversations driven by fear, we have a better shot at creating policies that will effectively protect our children. Previous experiences have demonstrated that Americans who were locked in adversarial relationships can collaborate and achieve common goals when they take part in well facilitated, intelligently framed, sustained dialogues.

In the past, we have mostly heard the voices of people who express deeply held views representing the far ends of the spectrum of the gun rights vs. gun control debate. These vocal advocates don’t represent where most of us stand on the issue of guns and violence. If we can engage the majority of people who are not on one side or the other of the existing gun debate, make their voices heard and empower them to work with their neighbors to create change and communicate with decision-makers, we have a chance to make real progress towards preventing tragedies and making our country safer.

Resource Link: http://ncdd.org/rc/wp-content/uploads/Keiden-TalkingAbtGunsAndViolence.pdf

New Public Agenda Paper on Clickers in Deliberation

Posted on August 22, 2013 by Roshan Bliss

Here in the 21st Century, technology is continuously shaping and reshaping the way that we engage with each other and how we govern ourselves. But striking the right balance between using technology to improve our engagement and letting it get in the way can be difficult. That’s why we wanted to share the article below from our friends at Public Agenda (long-time organizational member of NCDD) that shares findings from their new report on a piece of technology that can help practitioners strike that balance correctly while improving the quality of our dialogue and deliberation.

You can read the full article below, or find the original post here on the Public Agenda blog.

4 Ways Clickers Can Improve Group Discussion and Deliberation

Though tech innovations can be helpful in improving communication and engagement, especially when immediacy is necessary, some make the mistake of relying too heavily on technology as a stand in for other communication practices.

Keypads, or “clickers” as they are called in higher education, are certainly no exception to that rule. Using these types of audience response systems alone won’t support better interactions between people, but they do have the potential to immensely improve engagement practices when used appropriately.

“Click to Engage: Using Keypads to Enhance Deliberation,” a new paper from Public Agenda’s Center for Advances in Public Engagement, supports the work of public engagers seeking to improve their use of keypads in group discussion and engagement.

Here are some ways clickers can complement small group discussion:

Keypads can reveal who is and who isn’t in the room. Using keypads to field demographic questions enables discussion participants to understand who is in the room and situate themselves with the group. It also provides an easy way for the discussion facilitators and organizers to look back at the data. Using keypad responses for recording demographics can motivate those hosting the group discussion to improve their recruitment of persons from diverse backgrounds as well.
Keypads can be conversation starters. Keypads can be a great way to break the ice among discussion participants. Asking a couple of neutral, even comedic, questions can set a comfortable tone and allow for some low-pressure conversation to begin. Incorporating this sort of ice breaker in the beginning typically generates more inclusive and robust dialogue. Another bonus: such questions help discussion participants get used to the device.
Keypads can show variance in opinion and illuminate minority views. With divisive issues, each side may assume it has the strong majority and the opposition is merely an uninformed but vocal minority. Keypads have the power to provide a more accurate count of the splits and give voice to minority views that might not otherwise enter the conversation. This is not fool-proof though, and can have an adverse effect if audience members do not come from a variety of backgrounds and perspectives. Organizers should take care in designing the discussion so that those with minority views do not end up feeling alienated. If a room predominately holds one perspective and only a few disagree, allowing those dissenters to have the floor, if they’re willing, can be a powerful means for exploring divergent viewpoints in a reasonable way.
Keypads can assist facilitators in allocating remaining time. Identifying areas of agreement and disagreement through quick polling using the clickers can help a facilitator better allocate precious remaining time. If a topic reveals sharp disagreement, perhaps that topic warrants further, and deeper, discussion. Alternately, participants may not be ready to take on an issue if not enough time remains and the best option is to table it for more research.

The benefits of using a tool like the keypad to engage a diverse room of people far outweigh the drawbacks. Its immediacy and ease of use make it a powerful aide in deeper engagement. But thoughtful preparation, care and attention to design are crucial to using keypads successfully.

For more pointers on how to use this tool, including a breakdown of best practices and strengths and limitations, download our new paper here. For other tips on engagement practices, visit our Center for Advances in Public Engagement. We’d love to hear your successes, words of caution, and other tips regarding the use of keypads send us an email to Michelle Currie at publicengagement@publicagenda.org.

See the full post at www.publicagenda.org/blogs/4-ways-clickers-can-improve-group-discussion-and-deliberation?qref=http://www.publicagenda.org/pages/our-blog%3Fcurrentpage=1#sthash.hFeGCFli.dpuf

International Journal of Collaborative Practices

Posted on August 7, 2013 by NCDD Community