Informing or Engaging: What Is the Role of Higher Education in Strengthening Public Life? (Connections 2015)

The five-page article, Informing or Engaging: What Is the Role of Higher Education in Strengthening Public Life?, by Derek W. M. Barker was published Fall 2015 in Kettering Foundation‘s annual newsletter, “Connections 2015 – Our History: Journeys in KF Research”. Barker discusses how Kettering’s work over the last 20 years has explored the role of higher education and democratic citizenry. Kettering recognized the need for improved democratic processes to address the public’s deep frustration toward politics in this country and created a network of colleges to experiment deliberative practices within higher education. Below is an excerpt from the article. Connections 2015 is available for free PDF download on Kettering’s site here.

From the article…

KF_Connections 2015Higher education is a key institution in our democracy, charged with shaping the next generation of our citizenry. From Kettering’s perspective, future citizens need more than information if they are to be effective actors in public life. They need to be able to come together with other citizens—across partisan divides—and make a difference in their communities. However, a key challenge underlying Kettering’s research is how higher education views its civic role. That is, as these institutions have evolved, rather than an engaged citizenry, they have in most cases narrowed their role to developing an informed citizenry. To address this challenge, over time Kettering has developed a small network of college campuses that are experimenting with deliberative approaches to civic education and public forms of scholarship that integrate the civic aspirations of academics into their professional work.

Kettering’s research on higher education, of course, was part of the foundation’s shift from technical innovation to democracy and citizenship. At the beginning of this shift, the foundation faced a critical puzzle. The dominant narrative was that the public was apathetic and uninterested in politics. Low rates of voter turnout and opinion data on attitudes toward government reinforced this view. There seemed to be no demand for the type of democracy that Kettering saw as increasingly necessary to address our nation’s problems. A key insight helped shape Kettering’s research agenda for the next 20 years: perhaps what appeared as apathy and disinterest was in fact a deep sense of frustration and alienation. While the public may be disgusted with politics-as-usual, perhaps citizens could be reenergized by a different kind of politics worthy of their time and attention. Indeed, researchers in Kettering’s network found evidence for this hypothesis in a series of focus group reports of public attitudes toward politics. Following the landmark Citizens and Politics: A View from Main Street America study of the public-at-large published in 1991, the Harwood Institute found this phenomenon to be especially true of students in the 1993 study, College Students Talk Politics. While frustrated with politics-as-usual, college students were enthusiastic about working together in their communities and engaging in public discourse across partisan divides. As David Mathews wrote in his foreword to College Students Talk Politics, “This study found that students have retained a remarkable ‘instinct’ for democratic practice; there is a buried civic consciousness in students.”

Sparked by the idea that people had a latent potential for civic awakening, Kettering began thinking about the possibilities for higher education to provide the sorts of experiences that students seemed to want. The foundation became aware of the larger possibilities for higher education’s civic role by looking historically at the major movements in higher education, from the liberal arts colleges of the founding era, to land-grant and minority serving institutions founded after the Civil War, and community colleges in the 1950s. In “The Public and Its Colleges,” an article that appeared in the 1998 issue of the Higher Education Exchange, Claire Snyder-Hall observed that, in each case, the colleges evolved in the context of larger civic movements. They were responding to particular groups, each demanding not only technical knowledge or vocational training but also education as full participants in our democracy. Although it seems strange to speak in this way now, at the most transformative moments in its history, higher education has been itself a civic movement.

Stirrings within the Academy
While Kettering was just beginning to focus its attention on higher education in the 1990s, within the academy interest in civic engagement was also beginning to take shape. A consensus emerged that universities seemed to have narrowed their vision and lost their way. Based on interviews with faculty at the University of Minnesota, Harry Boyte observed a widespread disenchantment among academics with their disconnection from public life—even among academics who joined the profession with hopes of their ideas contributing to social change. Academics began talking once again about civic education and their democratic role. In 1999, a “civic movement” was formally declared with a document now known as the Wingspread Declaration, in which a group of college presidents committed to an expansive vision of an informed and engaged citizenry. By the turn of the millennium, nearly every campus had courses and offices devoted to civic engagement.

Although something was stirring in higher education, from Kettering’s point of view, what it actually meant for democracy had yet to be determined. Would this civic movement aim to educate students in their civic capacities, to participate in politics and public life, to negotiate conflict and work together across their differences? Or would it teach students to make a difference by using their knowledge as individuals through direct service? Arguably, both goals represent coherent and complementary visions for higher education and its civic mission. Indeed, during the formation of the civic movement in higher education, both visions were part of the conversation. However, Kettering realized the civic engagement movement had become more focused on the application of expert knowledge rather than the relational norms and habits needed to revamp our politics; in the categories of the philosopher Jürgen Habermas, it had prioritized instrumental reason over communicative rationality.

The civic education of college students, while much improved, has mostly emphasized individual community-service experiences. As Rick Battistoni, himself a proponent and practitioner of service learning, has argued in the 2014 issue of the Higher Education Exchange, such efforts are “a mile wide and an inch deep.” By emphasizing such programs, higher education sends students the signal that individual service is a more satisfying and direct way of making a difference than working through politics and public life. Students are taught to see communities as recipients of their expertise rather than ecosystems rich with their own civic assets. More than ever before, represent coherent and complementary visions for higher education and its civic mission. Indeed, during the formation of the civic movement in higher education, both visions were part of the conversation. However, Kettering realized the civic engagement movement had become more focused on the application of expert knowledge rather than the relational norms and habits needed to revamp our politics; in the categories of the philosopher Jürgen Habermas, it had prioritized instrumental reason over communicative rationality. The civic education of college students, while much improved, has mostly emphasized individual community-service experiences. As Rick Battistoni, himself a proponent and practitioner of service learning, has argued in the 2014 issue of the Higher Education Exchange, such efforts are “a mile wide and an inch deep.” By emphasizing such programs, higher education sends students the signal that individual service is a more satisfying and direct way of making a difference than working through politics and public life. Students are taught to see communities as recipients of their expertise rather than ecosystems rich with their own civic assets. More than ever before, students have opportunities to apply their knowledge in community contexts, but higher education seems to have reached its limit when it comes to educating their civic skills and capacities.

Similarly, academics in outreach and extension fields are talking about civic engagement more than ever before. However, what they mean by civic engagement remains unclear. Again, the dissemination of expert knowledge brings academics into communities and constitutes an important part of their civic mission. But might they also see a role for themselves in strengthening the civic capacities of communities? Reflecting on a series of research exchanges with cooperative extension and outreach professionals, David Mathews’ Ships Passing in the Night? posited a fundamental disconnect between the role of the university in disseminating technical knowledge and communities’ needs to come together to solve their own problems. Similarly, a recent study by Ted Alter, based on interviews at Penn State University, found that most faculty saw their civic role in terms of disseminating and applying their expert knowledge, while only a few saw themselves as strengthening civic life or addressing controversial issues…

If our goal is for the citizenry to be not merely informed, but also active and deliberative, what is the role of higher education? Reflecting upon 20 years of research on higher education, this is the question to which we have come.

About Kettering Foundation and Connections
KF_LogoThe Kettering Foundation is a nonprofit operating foundation rooted in the American tradition of cooperative research. Kettering’s primary research question is, what does it take to make democracy work as it should? Kettering’s research is distinctive because it is conducted from the perspective of citizens and focuses on what people can do collectively to address problems affecting their lives, their communities, and their nation.

Each issue of this annual newsletter focuses on a particular area of Kettering’s research. The 2015 issue, edited by Kettering program officer Melinda Gilmore and director of communications David Holwerk, focuses on our yearlong review of Kettering’s research over time.

Follow on Twitter: @KetteringFdn

Resource Link: www.kettering.org/sites/default/files/periodical-article/Barker_2015.pdf

Trebor Scholz’s New Report on Platform Cooperativism

The backlash to the corporate “sharing economy” is gaining momentum, and one key player is the movement to develop “platform cooperativism.”  The New York Office of Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung has released a report critiquing the “sharing economy” and describing the alternatives.  It’s called “Platform Cooperativism:  Challenging the Corporate Sharing Economy” (pdf file).  and it’s written by Trebor Scholz, an associate professor at the New School. 

Scholz and journalist Nathan Schneider were co-organizers of a November 2015 conference that served as an historic flashpoint on this topic.  People are starting to realize the many anti-social effects of the “gig economy,” as typified by Uber, Airbnb, TaskRabbit and Mechanical Turk, but the development of workable alternatives is barely underway.

The first half of the report addresses the many deficiencies of the so-called sharing economy.  First of all, it’s not about sharing at all. It’s an “on-demand service economy” that relies on the same exploitative techniques of conventional capitalism, but with powerful tech enhancements. 

While the system delivers amazing convenience and efficiencies, it also preys upon those who cannot obtain good-paying stable jobs with benefits.  It re-introduces piecework on a massive scale, this time with sophisticated computer algorithms to ratchet down wages to below minimum wage.  Since everyone is nominally considered an independent contractor, corporate platforms can shrug and exonerate themselves by saying that everyone is “free to choose” their working circumstances, in Milton Friedman’s classic phrase. 

But as more jobs are sent abroad to countries that pay lower wages and have few worker protections, workers are in many cases victimized by a global race to the bottom.  Corporate platforms act as lucrative intermediaries that shed the costs of conventional businesses – the capital infrastructure, regular paychecks and employee benefits.

read more

Join D&D CAN Call on Faith-based Climate Dialogue, 2/16

Since last year, NCDD has been supporting an important new initiative called the D&D Climate Action Network (D&D CAN) that is being led by NCDD supporting member Linda Ellinor of the Dialogue Group. The Network’s purpose is build a community of practice that fosters mutual learning, sharing, and inspires collaboration around the complexities of climate change, and it has been doing great work since it’s launch.

We highly encourage our NCDD members to get involved in D&D CAN, and one of the best ways to to do that is to join their monthly networking and discussion conference calls. The calls are focused on a different climate-and-dialogue topic every month, but spots are limited, so make sure you sign up ASAP!

The Network is hosting its fourth conference call tomorrow, Tuesday, Feb. 16th from 5-7pm Eastern / 2-4pm Pacific. The call will focus on the theme of “Working with Faith Communities on Climate,” and it features the reflections of NCDD supporting member Mike Huggins on his work within a multi-faith Eco-Spirituality Working Group. The call will explore what D&D practitioners who have been having climate conversations in faith communities have observed and experienced, what we can learn or hope to learn from those conversations, and what values and challenges this form of climate work holds.

It promises to be a great conversation, so don’t miss out – register today!

You can learn more about the D&D Climate Action Network and tomorrow’s call by visiting http://ddclimateactionnetwork.ning.com. You can also learn more from our first announcement about the network at www.ncdd.org/19299.

Activity to Explore Community Demographics

This two-page activity from Everyday Democracy, Activity to Explore Community Demographics, is to improve efforts to be inclusive when creating a team or coalition. This exercise gives prompts for a group brainstorming activity, suggests doing previous research, and utilizing resources to find information on the community to build a diverse group of people. Read the activity below or find the original and download for free from Everyday Democracy’s site here.

explore-community-demographicsFrom the activity…

Purpose of activity: Use this exercise to help your coalition make a list of the diverse people and groups in your community.

This list is helpful for recruitment and communications purposes, to help your efforts be inclusive.

Materials needed:
Flip chart
Markers

Part 1: Brainstorm activity
Brainstorming is a creative way for a group to come up with lots of ideas in a short amount of time.

As a large group, brainstorm responses to these questions:

Who makes up our community?

What kinds of people live, work and go to school here?

Make sure to think about ALL the different kinds of people who make up your community. Think about race and culture, economic background, religious or spiritual background, political background, profession, age, gender, etc.

Capture each response on a flip chart.

Part 2: Research the demographics of your community
Have some volunteers do research about who makes up the community. Bring the information back to the group at the next meeting. Or, you can prepare the information ahead of time to continue the conversation immediately after the brainstorm.

Compare the list you brainstormed with the information the volunteers researched. As a group, discuss these questions:

Are there any groups that we missed in our brainstorm? Why?

Is there any information you find surprising?

As you continue your work, keep these observations in mind so you can be sure to reach out to all groups in your community.

Resources for finding community information
The town hall or clerk’s office in your community might have data on what kinds of people are in the community.

Look up your community using one of these online resources:

American FactFinder is a Census Bureau tool that offers statistics on different areas of the country. You can view the available Census data (including the American Community or other available survey’s) for your town. This data may be older. There is “Guided Search” feature that allows you to look in depth at available data.

DiversityData lets you customize reports with the specific information you’re looking for. You can print or email them and convert them to a PDF document. The information is only available for large metropolitan areas.

ZipSkinny offers a simple layout of Census Bureau results with a quick search of a zip code. You can view the results in chart form or compare zip codes.   

County Business & Demographic Map is interactive and lets you explore different types of statistics throughout the U.S. Choose the statistics you’re interested in such as race, ethnicity, population, housing status, etc., search any county, city, etc., and compare it with another location.

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

Follow on Twitter: @EvDem

Resource Link: http://everyday-democracy.org/resources/activity-explore-community-demographics

Youth Participatory District Councils

Definition Rosario, Argentia The Youth Participatory District Council is a space of permanent participation made up by councilors elected in the neighborhood assemblies in the first round of the Participatory Budget (PPJoven). Once the first round is concluded, the totality of the councilors reunite and determine what will be the...

Gender Bias in Open Source

I was trolling for something to write about today when I ran across this article click-bitingly titled “Women are better at coding than men — if they hide their gender.”

The article reports on an interesting, recently released study of Gender Bias in Open Source which looks at “acceptance rates of contributions from men versus women” on GitHub – an online community where users share, collaborate on, and review code in a variety of programming languages.

The study found that “women’s contributions tend to be accepted more often than men’s. However, when a woman’s gender is identifiable, they are rejected more often. Our results suggest that although women on GitHub may be more competent overall, bias against them exists nonetheless.”

This is troubling.

Interestingly, the article I found the study through takes these finding as a sign that women are better at coding than men – even adding the titillating header “the future really is female.

Of course, that’s not an entirely accurate reading of the study. (To be fair, I imagine that the article’s title and quaintly 1950s header image were not selected by the author.)

As the study’s author’s themselves explain, there are many reasons why their analysis may have found women, on average, to be better coders. A key explanation may be what is known as survivorship bias: “as women continue their formal and informal education in computer science, the less competent ones may change fields or otherwise drop out. Then, only more competent women remain by the time they begin to contribute to open source. In contrast, less competent men may continue.”

That is, there’s no secret coding gene that makes women better programmers – rather, it is much harder for a woman to survive in the coding world, and therefore those who do are the best.

This explanation resonates with research done in other fields, and is underscored by a 2013 survey finding that only 11% of open source developers are female.

With that ratio, it would rather be surprising if the average woman did resemble the average man.

The ironic thing is that attention grabbing headlines declaring women better coders – while seemingly feminist in nature – have the unfortunate effect of obfuscating the real barriers to gender parity.

Women aren’t better coders; the women who are allowed to survive as coders are by necessity only the best. They are held to higher standards and constantly forced to the sidelines. In order to simply do the work they love, they are forced – in the words of one study referencing StackOverflow – to participate in a “relatively ‘unhealthy’ community.”

It’s hardly a wonder that women tend to “disengage sooner.”

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Can Average Citizens Can Make Politics More Civil?

Just before the Iowa caucuses last month, long-time NCDD member Carolyn Lukensmeyer of the National Institute for Civil Discourse penned an op-ed in the Huffington Post that we thought was worth sharing here. In it, she discusses the crisis of civility in our politics, and calls on citizens – and especially those of us who work in D&D – to hold politicians and ourselves to higher standards for political conversations. We encourage you to read her piece below or find the original on Huff Post here.


We Need a Civility Revolution

As we draw closer to February 1 and the Iowa Caucuses, the noise level from the presidential campaigns grows louder. The Caucuses are the first step in a lengthy process, and because the stakes in Iowa are so high – a good finish means you keep following the trail to the White House while a bad one can mean it’s all over but the post mortem – both republican and democratic candidates have been raising the volume on the race. On the republican side the attacks are getting more personal, louder and nastier, while on the democratic side, ads on everything from health care to gun control are digging deep lines in the sand between rivals.

America is a great democracy, but it is hard to remember that sometimes these days as we listen to the candidates and their surrogates degrade not only their rivals, but everyone who questions their positions. Throw in the media hype on the latest “he said, she said” and it makes you wonder how we came to this low point. Because it is a low point. Our people are better than our politics – the actual caucuses in Iowa as they have been in years past, will be far more civil than any debate or discussion among the candidates has been.

We need to hold our politicians – whether they are running for president or city council – to the highest of standards. Discussion and disagreement are all part and parcel of our democracy but name calling, race baiting and personal attacks are not. If candidates want our votes, we need to demand they start acting like the leaders they claim to be instead of rewarding them for acting like bullies and braggarts.

And we have to stop agreeing with them when they tell us compromise is for sissies. We are a large, diverse nation and our views – whether we are talking with a neighbor across the street or a relative on the other side of the country – will often differ. No one person nor one party has all the “right” answers so discussion of values and facts, the how and the why, are important. But those discussions can’t move forward in any type of useful manner unless we listen to each other – really listen. It doesn’t mean we have to agree – and it doesn’t mean we won’t state our own case – but we need to act like adults and find the road we can take together to allow America – and all Americans – to move forward.

This past Monday, we celebrated Martin Luther King Day. Dr. King did not believe that loud voices and harsh words would lead to consensus. As Marcy Curtis noted in a Roll Call column titled “Stop Shouting; Start Listening” “…it would also be welcome, revolutionary even, to reflect on and learn from King’s time, when the country was no less divided. Yet there were men, women and children… who made the country better by leading with dignity and unity.”

Revolutionary indeed.

You can find the original version of this Carolyn Lukensmeyer piece in the Huffington Post at www.huffingtonpost.com/carolyn-lukensmeyer/we-need-a-civility-revolu_b_9028646.html.

Association for Moral Education 2016 conference theme is civic engagement

(Arlington, VA) Tisch College is a cosponsor of the Association for Moral Education’s 42nd Annual Conference: 8–11th December, 2016 at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA, USA

Conference Theme: Civic engagement: a cultural revolution? The expanding definitions of ‘civic’ participation, their intersections with ethics, and the implications for education

The challenges and innovations in civic engagement in and beyond formal education are gaining worldwide attention. There are interesting links, synergies and dialogues among civics, ethics and moral development, including the significance of new media.

Submissions are welcome from scholars, students and practitioners across the many disciplines that contribute to the study and practice of moral and civic education, including psychology, education, sociology, philosophy, interdisciplinary, cultural studies, among others.

Submission deadline: March 14, 2016.

For submission details, and/or to register or the conference, please go to the conference website.