Public Agenda Convenes Scientists, Evangelical Pastors for Dialogue

Public Agenda, an NCDD organization member, recently shared the piece below on their blog that we wanted to share with you. It is part of a series of pieces from the PA team reflecting on the experience of facilitating dialogue sessions between scientists and evangelical Christian pastors, and it’s fascinating. You can read the piece below or find the original here.

PublicAgenda-logoWhen I told people that I was headed to LA to facilitate a conversation between evangelical pastors and scientists, most reactions fell somewhere between surprise and cynicism. “Why bother,” asked a friend, “when they’re never going to agree on anything anyway?”

But a strange thing happens when you get a small group of people together in a room for a facilitated dialogue: they listen to one another. And instead of trying to persuade the group to support their worldviews, the pastors and scientists each respectfully introduced themselves and explained why they do what they do for a living. Similarities emerged right off the bat: curiosity, compassion and an unyielding search for truth.

It wasn’t long before the conversation took on a lighter tone. One participant, a reproductive biologist, acknowledged the tension in the room as he explained his research: “We already covered religion and politics,” he said, “so I figured I’d throw sex in there too.”

And there were profound moments as well, like when a scientist explained that he wasn’t 100 percent certain of anything, and that all scientific theories exist only until proven false. “What you just said makes me feel safe,” a pastor replied, “because many of the scientists I know seem so definite in their beliefs, so I don’t feel comfortable expressing my faith.”

Three hours later the group had hammered out areas of common ground and ideas for next steps to foster collaboration between the two communities. But more importantly, the conversations continued well past the end of the formal discussion. Most participants lingered in the room and talked, exchanging contact information and discussing how to keep the conversation going.

As a facilitator, it was humbling to witness a group of people overcome significant differences to explore how to work together to improve their community. Let’s hope that they can continue to defy expectations and set an example for the rest of us.

The original version of this piece is available at www.publicagenda.org/blogs/defying-expectations.

Community-Building Arts Project from Tamarack

We wanted to share a write up from Axiom News that featured a great initiative in Canada led by NCDD organizational member Tamarack. The lessons learned from this arts-based project to support community building are valuable for all of us, so we hope you’ll take a moment to read the Axiom piece below or find the original version here.


Massive, Main Street Photo Exhibit ‘Shifts Feelings’ in Alberta Community

The Village of Delburne, located halfway between Calgary and Edmonton, Alberta provides a model for communities looking to engage residents in setting priorities and making decisions on what matters.

Earlier this year the village engaged in the “1,000 Conversations Across Canada” initiative championed by Tamarack, the Institute for Community Engagement.

The intent of the 1,000 Conversations campaign is to help shape communities by promoting the idea that citizens can collaborate and communicate with one another to create positive change.

Close to half the village population of about 830 representing a broad cross-section of the community participated in the conversations, a related survey, and an art project geared to strengthening the community’s sense of connection.

For the art project, internationally renowned portrait artist John Beebe collaborated with the village to create gigantic photos of local residents. These were then wheat-pasted on multiple exterior building surfaces throughout the village. The village school featured a collection of about 140 portraits.

Delburne Family and Community Support Services (FCSS) community worker Nora Smith has been a key champion of all of these efforts, but has been especially struck by the possibilities in art as a community-building tool.

“There’s something incredibly powerful in tying the art element into the community development piece,” says Nora. “I can’t really put my finger on it, but I know it’s there just by the way I watched the community members stop and appreciate each other.”

The art project is “shifting the feeling” in the community, which testifies to the foundational level of change that Nora and others are investigating through this community engagement process. The work is largely about the biases and prejudices that shape one’s thinking and therefore one’s way of being in society. “If we can start shifting people at that level, that would be fantastic,” Nora says.

Delburne residents have now identified and voted on the following four priorities for their community:

  • Main Street revitalization
  • Health and Wellness
  • A Belonging Delburne project (which includes the art project)
  • A communication project
  • Plans are underway to re-engage in the Fall to flesh out tangible action plans within each of these four priorities. These plans will be revisited on a yearly basis to gauge accomplishments and reevaluate priorities.

Delburne represents a growing shift amongst communities and neighbourhoods in Canada to focus on stronger resident engagement, reducing the “role” of the local government in deciding what gets done and what doesn’t.

What other communities can learn from Delburne:

  • Be strategic about engaging people. Paul Born’s book, Community Conversations, offers valuable insights on how to ensure everyone who should be at the table is there.
  • People inviting those they have a relationship with to participate in the community engagement process is critical to ensuring strong engagement.
  • Trust the process. “It’s so easy as someone working in community development to want to give the answers,” Nora says. “Have faith that the answers are eventually going to come out of the community itself.” It’s important that the answers do emerge this way, to ensure sustainability as residents “own” the actualization of these answers.
  • Strengthening community engagement is a process: it takes time and work.
  • Strongly consider integrating the art element into community development efforts.

This story is part eight of a series focused on placemaking and other citizen led initiatives. To read the other entries in this series, visit the original post here.

You can find the original version of this Axiom News piece at www.axiomnews.com/massive-main-street-photo-exhibit-%E2%80%98shifts-feelings%E2%80%99-alberta-community.

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

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


ShareYourStory-sidebarimageTitle of Project:

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

Description

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

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

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

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

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

  • Sustained Dialogue
  • Charrettes

What was your role in the project?

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

Who were your partners in the project, if any?

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

What issues did the project primarily address?

  • Mental or physical health

Lessons Learned

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

Where to learn more about the project:

http://healthy-communities.grassrootssolutions.com

CM’s 4 Tips for More Inclusive Communities

Our partners at CommunityMatters recently put together a useful list of tips for creating more inclusive communities to go along with their recent conference call on the same topic. We wanted to make sure to our members see these pointers, so we encourage you to read CM staffer Caitlyn Horose’s write up below or find the original CM blog post by clicking here

CM_logo-200pxWhat do you do to make people in your community feel welcome? How do you create opportunities for people from all backgrounds to participate fully in building and improving your community?

Creating an inclusive community isn’t easy, but many places are finding ways to start building a more inclusive and welcoming culture.

Here are four strategies from cities and towns committed to inclusivity—share your own stories and ideas in the comments!

1. Make a statement. Riverside, California developed a, set of principles for building a more inclusive community. Their Inclusive Community Statement identifies the responsibilities of individuals, groups and institutions for achieving this common goal. Through maintaining an openness to dialogue, building intergroup partnerships and providing education about diversity the principles set a path toward fair treatment and equal opportunity for all residents of Riverside.

2. Spread the word. Signs line the streets in Newark, California signifying the city’s ongoing efforts to foster acceptance and inclusion.

3. Welcome newcomers. How do newcomers in your city learn about local people and places? Communities in the West Kootenay and Boundary regions of British Columbia developed welcomemap.ca, The website welcomes new immigrants to the area, and provides easier access to local information and services. Similarly, British Columbia’s North Shore developed a short video that illustrates the power of individual action in welcoming newcomers. Both efforts are part of British Columbia’s Welcoming and Inclusive Communities Initiative.

4. Adopt a resolution. Greenacres, Florida, Fort Worth, Texas and many other cities and towns have demonstrated a commitment to inclusion through the adoption of a public resolution. The National League of Cities offers a sample resolution that communities can use and build from.

On June 12th, Moki Macias and Tramunda Hodges of the Annie E. Casey Foundation will join CommunityMatters to share their experience promoting equal treatment and opportunity in community decision-making at the Foundation’s Atlanta Civic Site. Join this call to hear more ideas and strategies for building inclusive communities. You can see the notes and listen to the call here.

Harwood on US Soccer’s Civic Lessons

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you probably know that the USA’s national soccer team has been advancing steadily in the 2014 World Cup in Brazil. Rich Harwood, director of NCDD organizational member The Harwood Institute, penned an article reflective piece this week (before the US played Germany yesterday) on the civic lessons we can take from the US team’s resolve early on in the Cup. You can read Rich’s article below or find the original here.


HarwoodLogoAs a huge soccer fan, I was ecstatic about the U.S. National Team’s 2-1 victory over Ghana Monday. As an American, I was struck even more by the words used by the players, commentators and others to describe the win: grittiness, grinding it out, gutsy, and resolve. Such words not only reflect the U.S. team’s play, but our national character. It is this very character that we must now tap into in order to make progress on our challenges at home.

The national team’s win is a perfect civic parable for our country at this time. Ghana beat the U.S. in the last two World Cups. In 2010, it was a heart-breaking overtime loss. This time, the U.S. came into the game as the clear underdog. But the team did not cower in the face of Ghana, nor did it sit back; it struck. A mere 34 seconds into the first half, forward Clint Dempsey scored to put the U.S. ahead.

Another 89+ minutes remained. And adversity came quickly to the U.S. team. Jose Altidore, the vaunted U.S. striker, went down with a strained hamstring. A young substitute named Aron Johannsson, with little experience at this level, took his place. At halftime, Matt Besler, a key defenseman, was pulled from the game with an injury. Again another young substitute, Anthony Brooks, came on to play. When members of the team fell down, other players stepped forward.

Even as the national team got back on its feet, the Ghanians turned up the heat. Their relentless attacks put the U.S. team back on their heels for much of the second half. But the U.S. team was undeterred and resilient, withstanding the onslaught even as they were outplayed.

But their luck finally broke. With just eight minutes remaining, the Ghanians scored to tie the game and firmly grabbed the momentum. It was as if throughout the U.S. one could hear a collective gulp: here comes a repeat of 2010.

Amid the heightened pressure, the U.S. team kept plugging away. They would bend but not break. With just minutes left, Graham Zusi, yet another substitute, took a corner kick and the 21-year-old Brooks headed the ball into the back of the net. A gutsy, stubborn and sometimes not-so-pretty team performance landed a U.S. victory.

Today, many Americans say the country is on the wrong path. They want to know how we can move forward together. The story of the U.S. team Monday night reminds us just what it takes to get on the right path: people coming together with a sense of common purpose and setting a common goal. When they fall down, they dust themselves off and find a way to keep moving forward. Then, when things go wrong, they recalibrate. And when certain individuals must step away, they pass the baton to others who are willing to step forward.

Throughout all this, people persevere. They realize they must be resilient – willing and able to bend, but not break. And when they achieve their near-term goal, other longer-term goals push them to keep moving ahead, together.

As Americans, we are builders. It’s part of our DNA, central to our character. The U.S. national team demonstrated the meaning of this last night. And it reflects back to us something we already know but sometimes forget or push aside: we must tap our collective character to move this nation forward. What I know from my long experience working in communities across the country is this: Americans want to be builders again.

You can find the original version of this piece at www.theharwoodinstitute.org/2014/06/u-s-world-cup-win-a-civic-parable-for-our-time.

Learning from the Albany Roundtable

We read a fascinating article that NCDD member John Backman wrote for our partners at CommunityMatters that we think you should read. John writes about an innovative civic experiment that has become an institution called the Albany Roundtable, and we hope you’ll read more about it below or find the original piece here.

CM_logo-200pxAppropriately, the idea for a bastion of civic infrastructure in Albany, New York—a luncheon series—arose from a luncheon organization.

“I had been attending Kiwanis luncheons downtown since high school,” said Paul Bray. “At one point in 1979, I got to thinking that an open-to-all civic lunch forum might be helpful in Albany. It was my idea that it be monthly, open to the public by reservation, and have a civic or business leader speak at the luncheons.”

Thirty-five years later, the Albany Roundtable  has become an institution in New York’s Capital Region. Speakers at the monthly luncheons, which typically draw 100 participants, include local leaders from healthcare, higher education, the arts, business, and other elements of the community. Just as essential, the Roundtable serves as a gathering place for civic leaders and other citizens to build their networks across sectors and industries and beyond. It helped create the basis for establishing the Albany Heritage Area which is now one of 20 state designated heritage areas. Heritage areas is a new concept of park that utilizes whole cities and/or regions as a park. Lowell, Massachusetts is the first national city as a park and there are now 49 national heritage areas including 4 in New York State that are all regions.

The Albany Roundtable’s network infrastructure barely existed when Bray first conceived the Roundtable idea. The mayor of Albany, Erastus Corning 2d, had completed 37 years in office and headed a machine with complete control over all things political. And many people believed at the time that all things were political in Albany.

“Local officials were generally deferred to on most matters,” Bray recalled. “Albany had a fair number of neighborhood associations, a historic preservation organization, numerous social service organizations, etc., etc., but they didn’t get involved in governance. There was little sense of the community at large.”

The initial meetings reflected that assessment. Speakers drew crowds largely from their own industry or venture, and attendance hovered around 35. At one point, Bray mentioned the Roundtable to Corning, a conversation that eventually led to the Roundtable’s hosting the mayor’s annual State of the City message. “Only when the mayor spoke was there a greater diversity of attendees, and attendance went up,” Bray said.

Today attendees comprise a broad cross-section of Albany, and the monthly speakers reflect that diversity. The chancellor of the State University of New York has addressed the Roundtable; so have the CEO of the largest local healthcare system, a business leader in the region’s burgeoning nanotechnology sector, directors of the best-known museums, the head of the local transit authority, and many others.

In recent years, the Roundtable has spread its activities beyond the lunch hour. Each year, it invites a visiting speaker to an evening gathering, and the roster of past speakers looks like a who’s who of livable cities. Last year’s gathering featured Jeff Speck, the author of Walkable City and an international advocate for smart growth and sustainable design; this year the speaker is Kaid Benfield, a senior leader at the National Resources Defense Council and one of the world’s “top urban thinkers” according to the city planning website Planetizen.

The Roundtable also gives out awards. The Good Patroon Award goes annually to a person or organization that makes the community a better place to live. (Bray himself won in 2004 for his work with the Roundtable.) Just last year, the organization founded the Albany Roundtable Scholarship, a $1,000 award given to a high school senior recommended by a Roundtable member.

Over the years, the Roundtable has catalyzed a number of civic projects. For example, one Roundtable attendee urged Bray to invite Fred Salvucci, the former Transportation Commissioner in Massachusetts who led the $15 billion “Big Dig” project bury a highway in downtown Boston. When he came to Albany, Salvucci met the Mayors of Albany and Schenectady, met with transportation planners about a transit connection that became the existing Bus Rapid Transit between downtown Schenectady and Albany and he saw a lot of potential for expanding Albany’s downtown and accomplishing other infrastructure projects. Salvucci organized a proposal for a diversity of projects in the Capital Region that was entitled Revest. Although many of the projects were not realized initially, it sparked the awareness the collaborative efforts are possible.

Though Bray no longer serves as Roundtable president (“It took me over 30 years to find someone who would take over”), he remains active as a board member and founder.

And he has the satisfaction of knowing that his brainchild has made a difference. “For me,” Bray noted, “the Roundtable experience has confirmed an important truth: that there is great value in community-wide opportunities for citizens to gather, break bread, and hear from the civic leaders whose decisions affect their lives.”

You can find the original version of this article at www.communitymatters.org/blog/building-civic-infrastructure-your-lunch-hour.

New EvDem Documentary on Youth Mental Health Dialogue

We hope you will take a moment to read about a great project that our organizational partners at Everyday Democracy are working on with a New Mexico youth organization called Generation Justice. Their new documentary is helping young people have the difficult but needed conversations about mental health in connection with the NCDD-supported Creating Community Solutions initiative. We hope you’ll take a moment to read about their work or find the original post from EvDem here.


EvDem LogoWhen the Mask Comes Off, produced by the youth media organization Generation Justice, is a video documentary featuring young people from New Mexico discussing their experiences of living with mental illness. We hear stories of struggle on their journey from misperception and alienation toward self-acceptance and healing. The documentary comes with adaptable discussion guides for use in communities and schools.

Generation Justice Executive Director Roberta Rael said, “We want to make sure that young people have a voice in the discussions about mental health and that young people contribute to the change that is needed.” View the video trailer here:

When the Mask Comes Off is a partnership between Generation Justice and Everyday Democracy, a national organization working with communities to create positive change by providing tools, advice and strategies that help make democracy real for everyone.

Everyday Democracy answered the call of President Barack Obama for a National Dialogue on Mental Health and helped establish Creating Community Solutions to help local communities enter the national conversation. In July 2013, Albuquerque became one of the first cities to launch a multi-year initiative to bring people into dialogue as part of the National Dialogue on Mental Health.

At the launch event on July 20, hundreds of residents across the community participated in dialogue and identified a priority to expand mental health resources for young people and to create opportunities for youth to talk about mental health. Subsequent neighborhood dialogues throughout the region have also identified that priority. The release of When the Mask Comes Off is a step in fulfilling that need.

Martha McCoy, executive director of Everyday Democracy, said, “Bringing young people’s voices into this critical conversation has surfaced as a priority in community dialogues across the United States. When the Mask Comes Off will open the door for that difficult conversation.”

See the full version of the film.

View and download the discussion guide for schools.

View and download the discussion guide for communities.

The original version of this post from Everyday Democracy can be found at http://everyday-democracy.org/news/young-people-talk-about-living-mental-illness-new-documentary-when-mask-comes#.U6HZaPldUlp.

New EvDem Documentary on Youth Mental Health Dialogue

We hope you will take a moment to read about a great project that our organizational partners at Everyday Democracy are working on with a New Mexico youth organization called Generation Justice. Their new documentary is helping young people have the difficult but needed conversations about mental health in connection with the NCDD-supported Creating Community Solutions initiative. We hope you’ll take a moment to read about their work or find the original post from EvDem here.


EvDem LogoWhen the Mask Comes Off, produced by the youth media organization Generation Justice, is a video documentary featuring young people from New Mexico discussing their experiences of living with mental illness. We hear stories of struggle on their journey from misperception and alienation toward self-acceptance and healing. The documentary comes with adaptable discussion guides for use in communities and schools.

Generation Justice Executive Director Roberta Rael said, “We want to make sure that young people have a voice in the discussions about mental health and that young people contribute to the change that is needed.” View the video trailer here:

When the Mask Comes Off is a partnership between Generation Justice and Everyday Democracy, a national organization working with communities to create positive change by providing tools, advice and strategies that help make democracy real for everyone.

Everyday Democracy answered the call of President Barack Obama for a National Dialogue on Mental Health and helped establish Creating Community Solutions to help local communities enter the national conversation. In July 2013, Albuquerque became one of the first cities to launch a multi-year initiative to bring people into dialogue as part of the National Dialogue on Mental Health.

At the launch event on July 20, hundreds of residents across the community participated in dialogue and identified a priority to expand mental health resources for young people and to create opportunities for youth to talk about mental health. Subsequent neighborhood dialogues throughout the region have also identified that priority. The release of When the Mask Comes Off is a step in fulfilling that need.

Martha McCoy, executive director of Everyday Democracy, said, “Bringing young people’s voices into this critical conversation has surfaced as a priority in community dialogues across the United States. When the Mask Comes Off will open the door for that difficult conversation.”

See the full version of the film.

View and download the discussion guide for schools.

View and download the discussion guide for communities.

The original version of this post from Everyday Democracy can be found at http://everyday-democracy.org/news/young-people-talk-about-living-mental-illness-new-documentary-when-mask-comes#.U6HZaPldUlp.

Featured D&D Story: Class Discussion on Gun Violence

Today we’d like to feature a great example of dialogue and deliberation in action, a class discussion on gun violence from University of Missouri. This mini case study was submitted by NCDD supporting member Sarah Read of the Communications Center, Inc. via NCDD’s new Dialogue Storytelling Tool. Do you have a dialogue story that our network could learn from? Add YOUR dialogue story today! 


ShareYourStory-sidebarimageTitle of Project: Class Discussions on Gun Violence

Description

Last summer I was asked to redesign and teach the Public Policy Dispute Resolution class at the University of Missouri School of Law which I then taught in the fall semester. At the outset of the semester, the students were asked to write an essay about why they had enrolled and what they hoped to learn.

The majority of those essays reflected the students’ deep concerns, as citizens, with the partisan nature of our political discourse and their frustration at how quickly discussions on difficult issues, even with friends and family, turned into name-calling and debate. The students expressed a desire to better understand and address such things as “media-fueled divisiveness”, lack of “nuance in everyday politics”, and “polarization”. They also asked to learn about how points of view form, how policies are made, how to help opposing groups communicate, and how to “explore the area between two extreme views.”

These questions were discussed in the first part of the semester when we focused on skills such as conflict mapping, question framing, and use of non-adversarial dialogue patterns, and the use of different processes to navigate conflict. The last third of the semester focused on actually applying this learning to a difficult dialogue, and the topic chosen by the class was issues relating to gun control or violence.

The classes that followed were designed to allow the students to directly experience how the choice and sequencing of dialogue structures (here informal dialogue, through a World Cafe type forum, to a more deliberative issue forum), paired with dialogue-based phrasing, can change the usual scripts used in discussion of a politicized, highly charged issue like gun violence.

To focus the discussion students were given a real-world hypothetical of adopting a policy on who could carry guns in public schools. This hypothetical used the demographics of an identified nearby school district and a law that had been recently adopted in Kansas. Class members came into the discussions with a wide range of viewpoints (which had been reflected in their prior essays) and were loosely assigned roles as community members.

The two students who agreed to serve as (i) a school board member highly supportive of both the law and of allowing more guns in the schools, and (ii) the superintendent responsible for managing budgets, safety, personnel, and overall administration, received more detailed supporting information for their roles. They were instructed to raise or share thoughts and information as seemed natural or appropriate in the discussions.

Although starting from very different places, the students were (to their surprise), over three sessions, able to reach unanimous agreement on an interim policy that could be placed into effect immediately. Much of this progress had to do with how the dialogues were sequenced.

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

  • National Issues Forums
  • World Cafe
  • Conversation Cafe

What was your role in the project?

Professor / Convener

What issues did the project primarily address?

  • Crime and safety
  • Education
  • Partisan divide

Lessons Learned

The sequencing of different dialogue processes, with time off between sessions, when done thoughtfully, can substantially lessen the overall in-person time needed for groups to come to agreement. Sequencing also allows for better option development, and promotes more productive deliberations at the time deliberative thinking is required. This is because successful resolution of complex issues requires integrative thinking about several different factors – information, interests, values, and rules or standards.

Integrative thinking takes time. Sequencing discussions can provide the necessary time for new ideas and options to emerge. Effective integrative thinking within a group also takes trust in the others that you are making decisions with. Without trust, information is discounted and risk to one’s personal interests is likely to take precedence over the effects on others in the community.

Simply put, building trust requires an effort to build relationships. Building relationships also takes time, and multiple contacts. By sequencing conversations so that deliberation does not occur too soon allows for better relationship development.

Where to learn more about the project:

Read full series of posts here: http://buildingdialogue.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/teaching-the-navigation-of-difficult-dialogues-intro.

Featured D&D Story: Class Discussion on Gun Violence

Today we’d like to feature a great example of dialogue and deliberation in action, a class discussion on gun violence from University of Missouri. This mini case study was submitted by NCDD supporting member Sarah Read of the Communications Center, Inc. via NCDD’s new Dialogue Storytelling Tool. Do you have a dialogue story that our network could learn from? Add YOUR dialogue story today! 


ShareYourStory-sidebarimageTitle of Project: Class Discussions on Gun Violence

Description

Last summer I was asked to redesign and teach the Public Policy Dispute Resolution class at the University of Missouri School of Law which I then taught in the fall semester. At the outset of the semester, the students were asked to write an essay about why they had enrolled and what they hoped to learn.

The majority of those essays reflected the students’ deep concerns, as citizens, with the partisan nature of our political discourse and their frustration at how quickly discussions on difficult issues, even with friends and family, turned into name-calling and debate. The students expressed a desire to better understand and address such things as “media-fueled divisiveness”, lack of “nuance in everyday politics”, and “polarization”. They also asked to learn about how points of view form, how policies are made, how to help opposing groups communicate, and how to “explore the area between two extreme views.”

These questions were discussed in the first part of the semester when we focused on skills such as conflict mapping, question framing, and use of non-adversarial dialogue patterns, and the use of different processes to navigate conflict. The last third of the semester focused on actually applying this learning to a difficult dialogue, and the topic chosen by the class was issues relating to gun control or violence.

The classes that followed were designed to allow the students to directly experience how the choice and sequencing of dialogue structures (here informal dialogue, through a World Cafe type forum, to a more deliberative issue forum), paired with dialogue-based phrasing, can change the usual scripts used in discussion of a politicized, highly charged issue like gun violence.

To focus the discussion students were given a real-world hypothetical of adopting a policy on who could carry guns in public schools. This hypothetical used the demographics of an identified nearby school district and a law that had been recently adopted in Kansas. Class members came into the discussions with a wide range of viewpoints (which had been reflected in their prior essays) and were loosely assigned roles as community members.

The two students who agreed to serve as (i) a school board member highly supportive of both the law and of allowing more guns in the schools, and (ii) the superintendent responsible for managing budgets, safety, personnel, and overall administration, received more detailed supporting information for their roles. They were instructed to raise or share thoughts and information as seemed natural or appropriate in the discussions.

Although starting from very different places, the students were (to their surprise), over three sessions, able to reach unanimous agreement on an interim policy that could be placed into effect immediately. Much of this progress had to do with how the dialogues were sequenced.

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

  • National Issues Forums
  • World Cafe
  • Conversation Cafe

What was your role in the project?

Professor / Convener

What issues did the project primarily address?

  • Crime and safety
  • Education
  • Partisan divide

Lessons Learned

The sequencing of different dialogue processes, with time off between sessions, when done thoughtfully, can substantially lessen the overall in-person time needed for groups to come to agreement. Sequencing also allows for better option development, and promotes more productive deliberations at the time deliberative thinking is required. This is because successful resolution of complex issues requires integrative thinking about several different factors – information, interests, values, and rules or standards.

Integrative thinking takes time. Sequencing discussions can provide the necessary time for new ideas and options to emerge. Effective integrative thinking within a group also takes trust in the others that you are making decisions with. Without trust, information is discounted and risk to one’s personal interests is likely to take precedence over the effects on others in the community.

Simply put, building trust requires an effort to build relationships. Building relationships also takes time, and multiple contacts. By sequencing conversations so that deliberation does not occur too soon allows for better relationship development.

Where to learn more about the project:

Read full series of posts here: http://buildingdialogue.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/teaching-the-navigation-of-difficult-dialogues-intro.