The Role of Experts across Two Different Arenas in a Deliberative System

Posted on January 26, 2018 by Keiva Hummel

The 35-page article, The Role of Experts across Two Different Arenas in a Deliberative System (2017), was written by Rousiley C. M. Maia, Marcela D. Laranjeira, and Pedro S. Mundim, and published in the Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 13: Iss. 1. In the article, the authors respond to the call to explore a deliberative systems perspective by looking at how one arena of deliberation affects another; they do this by exploring the role of experts in two distinct arenas of legislative public hearings and the media. Read an excerpt of the article below and find the PDF available for download on the Journal of Public Deliberation site here.

From the introduction…

Recently, several deliberative scholars have called for a systemic approach to deliberation in order to expand the scale of analysis beyond individual sites or institutions and tap into the complexity of interrelations among parts in the political system (Bächtiger & Wegmann, 2014; Dryzek & Hendriks, 2012; Goodin, 2005; Maia, 2012; Mansbridge et al., 2012; Neblo, 2015; Parkinson, 2006, 2012; Steiner, 2014; Thompson, 2008). While empirical scholars have been developing ever more sophisticated analyses on deliberation and have brought careful empirical evidence to warrant their claims, most studies are conducted in one single arena or in a separate institution. Thus, interconnections among arenas remain poorly understood, and current research designs fail to take note (particularly through systematic measurement) of how findings in one environment relate to other arenas in regards to the larger purposes of democracy. Whereas the systemic approach to deliberation seems genuinely innovative and attractive, empirical research in this field is underdeveloped.

In this article, we attempt to add a layer to this field. While previous studies have compared debate across different assemblies or parliamentary settings (Stasavage, 2007; Steiner, Bächtiger, Spörndli, & Steenbergen, 2004), we are interested in investigating the role played by a particular actor – the experts – regarding a specific debate in two distinct discursive arenas: legislative public hearings and the media. Although the literature has asserted that this actor can play different roles within democracy (Brown, 2014; Christiano, 2009, 2012; Pielke, 2007), we still have a vague notion of how experts’ opinions in face-to-face discussions in forums can be compared to the mediated comments in the media. We assume part of the systemic function of public hearings is to inform expectations about policy-making choices in face to face meetings. Media-based communication is important to draw public attention to issues of public concern and helping citizens to understand public processes and policies. Processes of mediation by media professionals, considering both technological apparatus and institutional organization, operate with their own logic, needs and standards of newsworthiness (Esser & Strömbäck, 2014; Ferree, Gamson, Gerhards, & Rucht, 2002; Gastil, 2008; Schudson, 2003). By paying attention to the news media within the deliberative system, we follow Dryzek and Hendriks’ (2012, Kindle Locations 897-912) suggestion that “it might be a good idea to work on the parts of the political system that are the least deliberative, where policy debates are highly exclusive, and where the rationale for decisions cannot easily be scrutinized.” Then, we ask how experts express and justify their opinions on public policy in a deliberatively designed forum as well as when they are quoted in the news media. We inquire into the kinds of reasons presented and whether it is possible to find experts’ engagement with conflicting views in these settings.

Through a case study, we investigate the debate around a contentious issue – a bill of law proposing the relocation of a bus station from downtown to a more remote district in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. We look at how this controversy played out over two years (2007 and 2008) in: a) public hearings (ALMG) organized by the local government; and b) three major local daily newspapers. Our empirical procedures follow the guidelines of the Discursive Quality Index (DQI), as developed by Steiner, Bächtiger, Spörndli and Steenbergen (2004) and Steiner (2012). Findings reveal that experts, despite facing different conditions, played a fairly similar role in the legislative hearings and as sources in the mass media. Whereas partisan positions for and against the policy at stake had different configurations in these settings, the majority of speakers appealed to technical arguments, and they disputed experts’ diagnoses, knowledge and recommendations to win political disputes.

While focusing only on two sites, we understand this study has some implications for suggesting how the systemic investigation of deliberation can be broadened. First, this study has analytical implications for current research on the role of experts on deliberation, which has proposed that citizens should conduct some checks on the experts’ knowledge input that affects the decision-making process. This study examines practical circumstances of such exchange in both a microsetting (public hearings) and a macro-situation of public debate (the mass media). Second, this article can contribute empirically by examining how a collection of experts can produce intelligibility of controversial policy proposals and clarify policy choices across different settings.

This article is organized in the following manner. First, it outlines a critique of experts in democratic processes and surveys theoretical attempts to reconcile the role of expertise with democratic deliberation. Second, the analysis discusses inclusion in debates, processes of reason-giving and discursive accountability, focusing on public hearings and the news media. Third, we characterize our case study, the methodology and the main issues that structure our research questions. The remaining sections present our empirical results and a discussion on the empirical and theoretical implications of our findings.

Download the full article 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/vol13/iss1/art2/

Land of Plenty: How Should We Ensure that People Have the Food They Need? (NIFI Issue Guide)

Posted on July 31, 2017 by Keiva Hummel

The 25-page issue guide, Land of Plenty: How Should We Ensure that People Have the Food They Need?, was published June 2017 from National Issues Forums Institute and Kettering Foundation.. The issue guide offers participants three options to use during deliberation on how to address the inequities within the current food system and how to create a world where all people have the food they need to thrive. The issue guide is available to download for free on NIFI’s site here, where you can also find a post-forum questionnaire.

From NIFI…

All of us affect, and are affected by, the food system: students who grow and eat carrots and tomatoes from their school garden; farm owners who maintain patches of natural habitat for bees; immigrants who hand-pick our apples, grapes, and oranges; public employees who design food-nutrition labels and monitor food safety; restaurant workers who take our orders and serve our meals; food reporters who write about ethnic cuisine; local groups of gleaners who keep edible food out of the dumpster and put it to good use; food pantries that teach teenagers to garden on vacant lots; parents who work to stretch their food budgets to the next payday; policymakers who determine agricultural subsidies; community members who advocate for policies to ensure that all of us have the food we need.

While we have one of the most productive and efficient food systems in the world, millions of people in the US still fall between the cracks. People who may have enough to eat today worry about the availability and quality of food for future generations.

This guide explores different approaches and actions that are, or could be, taken to create a food system that works for all of us. While the approaches overlap in some respects, they do suggest different priorities and involve different trade-offs. With this in mind, what should we do to ensure that people from all walks of life have the food they need?

This issue guide placemat presents three options for deliberation:

Option 1: Improve Access to Nutritious Food
Despite our nation’s abundance of food, some people still don’t have enough to eat, which undermines their health, productivity, and overall well-being. According to this option, we need a food system that ensures everyone has a stable source of affordable, nutritious food. We must strengthen our school nutrition programs and food assistance for low-income families, as well as improve access to fresh food in rural and low-income communities.

Option 2: Pay More Attention to the Multiple Benefits of Food
We have drifted away from traditions and principles that once helped us enjoy a healthier relationship to food, according to this option. We all need to be better informed about the foods we choose, their nutritional value, and how they’re produced and processed. Rather than allowing food advertisements to determine our choices, we need to pay closer attention to what we value about our food, traditions, and well-being.

Option 3: Be Good Stewards of the Food System
We are not managing our food system as well as we should, according to this option. We must do more to safeguard the quality and availability of food for generations to come. Good stewardship is needed at every link in the food-supply chain, from the seeds we plant to the reduction of food waste. It also includes preserving our natural resources, choosing sustainable methods of production, and strengthening the food-system workforce.

Preview the starter video above. Like what you see? Press the ‘BUY’ button in the upper right hand corner of the video. Your purchase includes UNLIMITED streaming and downloads of this starter video.

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

Follow on Twitter: @NIForums

Resource Link: www.nifi.org/en/issue-guide/land-of-plenty

Graduate Certificate in Collaborative Governance

Posted on May 18, 2017 by NCDD Community

The Collaborative Governance Graduate certificate is available at Portland State University and is part of the Mark O. Hatfield School of Government. In response to a growing need for collaborative approaches to complex problems that span multiple jurisdictional, sectoral, and organizational boundaries, the Hatfield School of Government, the Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning, the National Policy Consensus Center (NPCC), and the Center for Public Service (CPS) have partnered to offer a set of courses that lead to a Graduate Certificate in Collaborative Governance. Non-certificate students may also opt to take one or more courses individually.

It is our goal to improve the practice of collaborative governance (and therefore governance) by providing students with the following knowledge and skills:

Define collaborative governance and its value in public policy-making and creation of public goods.
Identify and exemplify principles of professional responsibilities and ethics in a collaborative setting.
Design and manage collaborative processes, partnerships, and networks.
Employ appropriate analysis techniques to understand and monitor collaborative efforts and outcomes, including the identification and application of relevant technical and scientific information.
Demonstrate leadership, as well as verbal and written communications skills aligned with principles of collaboration.
Demonstrate an understanding of group dynamics, deliberation, and decision-making by effectively engaging with teams and groups in collaborative contexts.
Identify and apply appropriate negotiation and conflict management theories and frameworks in two-party, and multi-party settings.
Employ computer and web-based decision and communications tools in a collaborative context.

The certificate program consists of 16 credit hours of graduate coursework and is intended to provide working professionals and graduate students with the knowledge and skills necessary to successfully lead or engage in collaborative efforts designed to generate and/or implement sustainable solutions. All core courses for the Graduate Certificate in Collaborative Governance are offered on-line. In addition, at least one of the elective courses (PA 577) is offered on-line.

Course of Study
[NCDD note: Below are the current courses for the program as of Spring 2017 and they may be subject to change in the future.]

Core Courses
Students must take the following four core courses:

PA 575: Foundations of Collaborative Governance (3 credits) – Fall
This initial course provides an overview of the current governing context and the new models that have emerged in response. In addition, students will explore the nature of collaborative relationships, the role of trust, harnessing the potential power of groups, and how to address conflict and reach consensus.
PA 576: Collaborative Governance Process & Systems (3 credits) – Winter
This skills-based course focuses on the assessment, organization and phases of facilitating collaborative agreement-seeking processes, emphasizing techniques and challenges for reaching mutually satisfying agreements, including how to frame an issue to increase the group’s chance for success.
USP 584: Negotiation in the Public Sector (4 credits) – Summer
This course offers an overview of the conventional and innovative applications of negotiations in public sector activities, and the potential and limitations of negotiation-based approaches to public decision making. Key components include negotiation theory, individual skill development and a review of the institutional, legal and political context of negotiations.
PA 578: Collaborative Governance Practicum (3 credits) – Fall
In this culminating practicum, students participate in discussions with faculty experts and fellow students as they apply the knowledge and skills gained in core courses to a community-based problem, issue, or project of their choosing.

Electives
Students must also complete one elective course of their choice. The following is a list of suggested elective courses. Courses not on this list may also be eligible with pre-approval by certificate program faculty.PA 577: Case Studies in Collaborative Governance (3 credits) – Spring

PA 543: Creating Collaborative Communities (3 credits)
PA 553: Sustainable Development Policy and Governance (3 credits)
USP 550: Concepts of Citizen Participation (4 credits)
USP 619: Development Partnerships (3 credits)
SYSC 511: Systems Theory (4 credits)
PA 564: Current Issues in Environmental Policy and Administration (3 credits)
CR 515: Negotiation and Mediation (4 credits)
CR 524: Advanced Mediation (4 credits)
CR 526: Intercultural Conflict Resolution (4 credits)
CR 512: Perspectives in Conflict Resolution (4 credits)

About PSU’s Hatfield School of Government
Dedicated to public service and social justice, the Hatfield School does more than teach — we prepare students for community leadership and for making the world a better place. Located in the vibrant heart of downtown Portland, the Hatfield School offers real-world application of studies only steps away from the classroom. Students actively engage in a variety of hands-on public service projects throughout Oregon, the nation, and the world.

Resource Link: www.pdx.edu/hatfieldschool/collaborate

This resource was submitted by Sarah Giles, Special Projects Manager at Portland State University’s Hatfield School of Government via the Add-a-Resource form.

The Reunited States of America

Posted on May 26, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The 192-page book by Mark Gerzon, The Reunited States of America: How We Can Bridge the Partisan Divide, was published February 2016. This book is a manifesto on how to bridge the political divide in America, during a time when the political environment is deeply poisoned. Gerzon shares the experiences of 40 individuals and organizations that are already doing the work of finding common ground, and working together around challenging and divisive issues. Here you will find a toolkit to join the emerging movement towards a transpartisan political environment and help reunite the states of America.

You can find the book on Mark Gerzon’s site here and also, in physical copy or audio format from Amazon here.

From the book…

We Americans are solving problems and achieving positive results not despite but because of our differences. Many or our fellow citizens are living evidence of this third story. They are putting country before party. They are drawing the outlines of a new political map that connects us rather than divides us. They are forming networks and organizations that are building bridges rather than walls. They are bridging the partisan divide- in living rooms and in communities, in state legislatures and on Capitol Hill.

Story #3 does not mean agreeing on everything. Nor does it mean being “nice” or being “moderate” or “splitting the difference”. On the contrary, it may mean fighting for what one believes in- but respecting one’s adversary for doing the same. It means knowing the difference between an issue on which you are willing to listen and learn, and one where you believe you are not. Above all, it means disagreeing strongly without ever forgetting that “they” probably love America just as much as “we” do.

The truth is, 70 to 90 of us say that we are “very patriotic”. That means almost all of us claim to love our country deeply. If we love our family, we want it to stay connected. Similarly, if we love America, we naturally want our country to be able to work through its deep and genuine difference and remain united.

This book is part of a campaign- not a Republican or Democratic campaign, but an American campaign; not a campaign for office, but a campaign for our country. It is about the people, some of whom are our neighbors, who are drawing a new political map that connects us rather than divides us. It is about our fellow citizens who are already reuniting American- in living rooms and in communities, in state legislatures and on Capitol Hill. These are, in my view, today’s real American heroes.

The book is available for purchase, both in physical and audio format, from Amazon here.

About Mark Gerzon
Mark is an author, leadership expert, and veteran convener of cross-party conversations. Having worked in both the private and public sectors, both domestically and internationally, his primary current focus is having a positive, transformative impact impact on the 2016 election.

Resource Link: www.markgerzon.com/

Change for the Audacious: a doer’s guide

Posted on May 3, 2016 by NCDD Community

The 240-page book, Change for the Audacious: a doers’ guide by Steve Waddell, was published in 2016. This book explores how we must, and can do much better at addressing issues such as: climate change, food security, health, education, environmental degradation, peace-building, water, equity, corruption, and wealth creation. This book is for people working on these types of issues, with the belief that we can create a future that is not just “sustainable”, but also flourishing. This perspective means that the challenge is not just one of simple change, but of transformation – radical change in the way we perceive our world, create relationships and organize our societies. This is the implication of the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals and other global efforts, and also innumerable efforts locally, nationally and regionally.

This book approaches these challenges as large systems change issues: issues requiring engagement of many, many people and organizations often globally; issues requiring deep innovation with shifts in mindsets and power structures; and issues that require capacity to work with complexity. Large systems change is presented as a new field of practice and knowledge; the book is not about a “method” or particular “approach”; rather it provides an overview of frameworks, methods and approaches to develop capacity to use the appropriate ones in particular contexts.

After introducing concepts of transformation and complexity, the book presents five case studies of large systems change. These cases and others are referenced throughout the remainder of the book to present large systems change strategy, organizing structures, steps in developing the necessary collective action, tools, and personal guidance for change practitioners.

About Steve Waddell & NetworkingAction
Responding to the 21st century’s enormous global challenges and realizing its unsurpassed opportunities require new ways of acting and organizing. NetworkingAction is my personal vehicle to support organizational, network, and societal change and development, through consultation, education, research, and personal leadership. In particular, I focus upon intersectoral (business-government-civil society) and inter-organizational collaboration to produce innovation, enhance impact, and build new capacity. These initiatives may be local, national and/or global. The topics are varied, including water, forestry, youth, finance, economic development, and peace.

Resource Link: http://networkingaction.net/product/a-truly-path-breaking-work/

This resource was submitted by Steve Waddell, the Principal at NetworkingAction via the Add-a-Resource form.

Democratic Innovations in Deliberative Systems – The Case of the Estonian Citizens’ Assembly Process

Posted on July 31, 2015 by Keiva Hummel

This 29-page case study, Democratic Innovations in Deliberative Systems- The Case of the Estonian Citizens’ Assembly Process (2015) by Magnus E. Jonsson and published in Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 11: Iss. 1. This study focuses on the ‘Estonian Citizens’ Assembly Process’ (ECA), which sought to operationalize a systemic approach to deliberative democracy and how this could be used to evaluate democratic innovations.

From the Abstract

With the proliferation and application of democratic innovations around the world, the empirical study of deliberative and participatory processes has shifted from small-scale environments and experiments to real-life political processes on a large scale. With this shift, there is also a need to explore new theoretical approaches in order to understand current developments. Instead of analyzing democratic innovations in isolation, the recent ‘systemic turn’ in the field encourages us to broaden our perspective and evaluate democratic innovations as complementary parts of a political system.

This paper will draw upon a qualitative case study, based on interview and supported by survey data, of the ‘Estonian Citizens’ Assembly Process’ (ECA), in order to operationalize the systemic approach to deliberative democracy and illustrate how this can be applied to an analysis of democratic innovations.

The ECA spanned more than a year (November 2012 to April 2014) and covered three political arenas: the public sphere, democratic innovations and representative institutions. The systemic analysis highlights the deliberative strengths and weaknesses of arenas and institutions, and illuminates how various arenas and democratic innovations did and did not complement one another in the creation of a deliberative process. The systemic analysis offers two possible interpretations of the ECA. The more affirmative interpretation is it constituted a deliberative system, as it did perform the three main functions fulfilled by different arenas and institutions. The more critical interpretation is that the ECA partly failed to be a deliberative system, due to social domination and decoupling of institutions

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

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/art7

Rethinking Complexity Blog

Posted on March 19, 2015 by NCDD Community

We live in a time of growing complexity, a time that calls for new thinking, new conversations, new ways of working together and new forms of organization that support continuous learning and innovation. Finding new ways to work within and across organizations and communities is critical to address current needs for climate change, resource use, social innovation and social justice.

Rethinking Complexity is a forum to explore these issues, examine best practices, and share critical research at the cutting edge of how organizations behave, systems change, and complexity can be managed for the good of humanity.

Produced by the Organizational Systems program of Saybrook University, Rethinking Complexity holds a system must be sustainable and support the human potential of the people it touches before it can be considered effective.

About Saybrook University
Saybrook University is the world’s premier institution for humanistic studies. It is a rigorous and unique learner-centered educational institution offering advanced degrees in psychology, mind-body medicine, organizational systems, and human science. Saybrook’s programs are deeply rooted in the humanistic tradition and a commitment to help students develop as whole people – mind, body, and spirit – in order to achieve their full potential. Experiential learning and professional training are integral components of the transformative education offered through Saybrook’s programs.

Our global community of scholars and practitioners is dedicated to advancing human potential to create a humane and sustainable world. We accomplish this by providing our students with the skills to achieve and make a difference, empowering them to pursue their passions and their life’s work. Our scholars and practitioners are creative, compassionate innovators pursuing new ways of thinking and doing for their professions, organizations, and communities.

Follow on Twitter: @SaybrookU.

Resource Link: www.saybrook.edu/rethinkingcomplexity/

This resource was submitted by Marty Jacobs, a student at Saybrook University, via the Add-a-Resource form.

Perspectives on Theory U: Insights from the Field

Posted on December 22, 2013 by NCDD Community

In recent years, the utilization of Theory U has pushed the boundaries of traditional leadership and management thinking, making it an important aspect of change across a broad assortment of international businesses and communities.

Perspectives on Theory U: Insights from the Field, edited by Olen Gunnlaugson, Charles Baron, and Mario Cayer (all of the Université Laval, Canada), brings together an existing array of research on Theory U, including specific aspects of the theory, through diverse interpretations and contexts. While exploring key theoretical concepts and outlining current approaches and blind spots, this book will act as a reference source for researchers and practitioners intending to raise awareness of the applicability of Theory U to colleagues, students, and international business leaders.

See our post on Theory U at http://ncdd.org/rc/item/2817 for more details on the theory.

Resource Link: www.igi-global.com/book/perspectives-theory-insights-field/78265

This resource was submitted by Ann Lupold, Promotions and Communications Coordinator, IGI Global (Publisher) via the Add-a-Resource form.

Civic Studies

An intellectual community of researchers and practitioners dedicated to building the emerging field of civic studies

Category Archives: systems change