Song Of A Citizen produced several series of dialogue and deliberation-related videos. The first was a series of Video Op-Eds with esteemed political philosophers, academics, and leaders of major deliberative democracy organizations. Those were filmed at various locations around the country between 2008 to 2010.
​
The second series features Q&A interviews with key practitioners and other experts in the dialogue and deliberation community, filmed at the NCDD Conference in October 2012. All can be found on the SoaC YouTube Channel.

Song of a Citizen YouTube channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5SfcjE5O4OjdUw7Jjfvvew

Created by NCDD co-founder Sandy Heierbacher in collaboration with Martin Carcasson, Will Friedman and Alison Kadlec (and based on Carcasson’s paper Beginning With the End in Mind), the Goals of Dialogue & Deliberation graphic pictured here outlines 3 types of goals for public problem-solving work. In a nutshell, the three tiers of goals are individual and knowledge-based goals, immediate group/community outcomes, and longer-term capacity building and community change.  Click on the image to view a larger version of the graphic.

In a summer 2009 occasional paper published by Public Agenda‘s Center for Advances in Public Engagement (CAPE), NCDD member Martin Carcasson of Colorado State University’s Center for Public Deliberation outlines three broad categories of goals for deliberation. The essay explores how a clearer understanding of the goals and purposes we are trying to achieve through public engagement can sharpen our methods and increase our impacts. It offers a practical framework to help practitioners systematically consider both their short-term and long-term goals and the strategies that will set them up for success.

​Carcasson’s paper is titled Beginning with the End in Mind: A Call for Goal-Driven Deliberative Practice (Summer 2009), and can be downloaded for free at this link. NCDD’s Co-founder, Sandy Heierbacher, was deeply impressed by the paper and Carcasson’s brilliantly simple “Goals of Deliberation” framework. Carcasson points out that although “first-order goals” like issue learning and improved democratic attitudes are often discounted as we focus on our primary goals related to concrete action and impact on policy, those first-order goals still impact the big-picture goal of increasing a community’s civic capacity and ability to solve problems.

​In July 2009, Heierbacher spoke to Carcasson about expanding his “Goals of Deliberation” framework slightly so public dialogue for purposes of conflict resolution or conflict management are also emphasized in the framework (he was very interested). In the paper, Carcasson writes about “improved relationships” between individuals and groups as a first-order goal, and mentions that conflict management is another second-level goal… yet his framework figure did not feature those goals.

In close communication with Carcasson as well as Will Friedman and Alison Kadlec of Public Agenda, Heierbacher expanded on the framework to create the Goals of Dialogue & Deliberation graphic. View a larger image here.

Both the original and the adapted frameworks emphasize improved community problem solving and increased civic capacity as longer-term goals of public engagement work. As we work from project to project, we can lose sight of the fact that our work is contributing to the bigger picture goal of more democratic, effective communities and cultures. In the online dialogue we held at CivicEvolution.org on the “Action & Change” challenge before the 2008 NCDD conference, Joseph McIntyre of the Ag Futures Alliance noted that although public engagement work can lead to numerous types of action outcomes and products, often “D&D is simply plowing the field and planting the seeds that will result in the changes needed. In my case, D&D is part of an evolutionary change.”

In his new book, Democracy as Problem Solving: Civic Capacity in Communities Across the Globe (2008: MIT Press), Xavier de Souza Briggs shows how civic capacity—the capacity to create and sustain smart collective action—is crucial for strengthening governance and changing the state of the world in the process.

Valuing shorter-term first-order goals and the overall development of civic capacity may be more practical – and satisfying – than solely emphasizing second-order goals like collaborative action and policy change, since such goals usually depend on many decisions and factors outside the scope of any one project. Practitioners should consider all three types of goals when determining project design and when measuring their success.

Carcasson’s essay and the Goals of Dialogue & Deliberation framework are helping to create much-needed clarity about the link between public engagement, civic capacity building, and shorter-term goals. It is a great complement to NCDD’s Engagement Streams Framework, which NCDD and its members have used since 2005 to help people decide which engagement methods best fit their goals and resources.

At the 2008 NCDD conference, even funders were emphasizing the need for practitioners to (1) own the definition of success and then (2) demonstrate their success. At a breakfast John Esterle and Chris Gates hosted for a cross-section of NCDD leaders to discuss funding challenges and opportunities for this work, Esterle, Executive Director of The Whitman Institute and board chair of Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement (PACE), implored those present to empower themselves regarding impact. “Let funders know, ‘this is how we measure our success.’” Be proactive and able to articulate your impact in a compelling way.

​We hope this framework helps practitioners do just that.

Resource Link: Goals of Dialogue & Deliberation

At the 2008 NCDD conference in Austin, from 4:00 to 5:00 pm on the first day, we held a plenary session we called the “D&D Marketplace.” Similar to a poster session, the Marketplace provided a way for 20 or so presenters to introduce their work and their ideas to the majority of conference participants. Here’s how this high-energy session worked…

Conference planners selected people to present during the D&D Marketplace who are passionate about sharing tools, concepts, and success stories. During the session, these presenters struck up conversations with participants who strolled around the room, perusing the wares. No timers or buzzers were involved.

Presenters displayed “posters” during the Marketplace (more on this below) and provided handouts for participants. They also prepared succinct “spiels” about their method, topic, case or resource so attendees could quickly learn the basics and follow up with whatever questions they had.

During the D&D Marketplace, the round conference tables were removed from the ballroom so people had room to move about.  Marketplace presenters were stationed throughout the room, standing at small cocktail table where they displayed information and handouts. Every Marketplace presenter was provided with a sign with their topic printed on it. Those who prepared posters were also provided with tabletop easels.

During this 90-minute session, conference participants strolled around the ballroom, looking over posters, picking up resources, and talking with Marketplace presenters.

Are you presenting in the Marketplace?  Here’s what you’ll need to prepare…

• A quick spiel or “elevator speech” about your case, program, tool, etc. that will get people interested in learning more. Practice it until it comes out naturally!  We suggest you prepare several spiels of different lengths (30 seconds, 1 minute, etc.).
• Handouts about your program, tool, case, event, etc. that include further details.  Include your contact information and web address on your handouts, or also provide a stack of your business cards.
• And if you are presenting a poster, you will need to prepare a visually interesting poster.  See specs and suggestions for posters below.

About the Posters…
D&D Marketplace presenters were invited to also prepare posters, which were displayed at their Marketplace table and then moved to a prominent location near the main ballroom for the rest of the three-day conference.
Posters are a great way to introduce a large percentage of conference participants to your work or your idea. A workshop about a method, resource or program people aren’t familiar with may attract only a few people, while a poster on something new and innovative is likely to be seen by the majority of attendees.

Your poster may consist of one large sheet of paper, or you can tack up multiple sheets of smaller paper. Your poster should take people through a process, program, concept or story. The type is large and wording is simple, and diagrams and pictures bring the poster to life. People should be able to quickly discern your message and determine whether they need to read more or move on. Although you will be able to walk people through the story/process/concept depicted on your poster during the marketplace and perhaps at other times as well, the poster should be able to clearly present the concept on its own. Your poster should NOT consist mainly of pasted-up pages of small type!

Up to three co-authors can be named for each poster, and up to three people may present the poster during the D&D Marketplace.

At the 2008 National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation, we focused on 5 challenges identified by participants at our past conferences as being vitally important for our field to address. This is one in a series of five posts featuring the final reports from our “challenge leaders.”

Systems Challenge: Making dialogue and deliberation integral to our systems
Most civic experiments in the last decade have been temporary organizing efforts that don’t lead to structured long-term changes in the way citizens and the system interact. How can we make D&D values and practices integral to government, schools, organizations, etc. so that our methods of involving people, solving problems, and making decisions happen more predictably and naturally?

Challenge Leaders:
Will Friedman, Chief Operating Officer of Public Agenda
Matt Leighninger, Executive Director of the Deliberative Democracy Consortium

Report on the Systems Challenge:
Although no formal report was submitted, Will and Matt identified the following as common themes that emerged in this challenge area:

• the recognition that this work is (and must be) action-oriented
• the recognition that all of us (not just government) can be public problem-solvers (that we need to further develop the concept of policy with a small ‘p’)
• that these must be non-ideological/neutral arenas
• that we need to start with increased collaboration among the ‘involvers’
• that there are traditions to draw on to learn about embedding, such as New England town meetings
• that there are government agencies that are committed to embedding
• deliberative practices and are actively working on it

At the 2008 National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation, we focused on 5 challenges identified by participants at our past conferences as being vitally important for our field to address. This is one in a series of five posts featuring the final reports from our “challenge leaders.”

Evaluation Challenge: Demonstrating that dialogue and deliberation works
How can we demonstrate to power-holders (public officials, funders, CEOs, etc.) that D&D really works? Evaluation and measurement is a perennial focus of human performance/change interventions. What evaluation tools and related research do we need to develop?

Challenge Leaders:
John Gastil, Communications Professor at the University of Washington
Janette Hartz-Karp, Professor at Curtin Univ. Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute

The most poignant reflection of where the field of deliberative democracy stands in relation to evaluation is that despite this being a specific ‘challenge’ area, there was only one session in the NCDD Conference aimed specifically at evaluation – ‘Evaluating Dialogue and Deliberation: What are we Learning?’ by Miriam Wyman, Jacquie Dale and Natasha Manji. This deficit of specific sessions in evaluation at the NCDD Conference offerings is all the more surprising since as learners, practitioners, public and elected officials and researchers, we all grapple with this issue with regular monotony, knowing that it is pivotal to our practice.

Suffice to say, this challenge is so daunting that few choose to face it head-on. Wyman et al. made this observation when they quoted the cautionary words of the OECD (from a 2006 report): “There is a striking imbalance between time, money and energy that governments in OECD countries invest in engaging citizens and civil society in public decision-making and the amount of attention they pay to evaluating the effectiveness and impact of such efforts.”

The conversations during the Conference appeared to weave into two main streams: the varied reasons people have for doing evaluations and the diverse approaches to evaluation.

A. Reasons for Evaluating
The first conversation stream was one of convergence or more accurately, several streams proceeding quietly in tandem. This conversation eddied around the reasons different practitioners have for conducting evaluations. These included:

“External” reasons oriented toward outside perceptions:

1. Legitimacy for dialogue and deliberation accrued by measuring whether it met its purpose and whether it added value
2. Justification of value for money spent on process
3. Anchors/validates public involvement as one of the inputs to decision-making
4. Accountability and transparency, including all parties; this is often a requirement for quality management
5. Tracking impacts and outcomes

“Internal” reasons more focused on making the process work or the practitioner’s drive for self-critique:

1. Helps the process itself by focusing attention on the objectives and clarifying expectations and purpose of activities
2. Captures lessons learned that can improve practice
3. Seeking process improvement through feedback and reflection

B. How to Evaluate
The second conversation stream at the Conference – how we should evaluate – was more divergent, reflecting some of the divides in values and practices between participants. On the one hand there was a loud and clear stream that stated if we want to link citizens’ voices with governance/decision making, we need to use measures that have credibility with policy/decision-makers. Such measures would include instruments such as surveys, interviews and cost benefit analysis that applied quantitative, statistical methods, and to a lesser extent, qualitative analyses, that could claim independence and research rigor.

On the other hand, there was another stream that questioned the assumptions underlying these more status quo instruments and their basis in linear thinking. This stream inquired, Are we measuring what matters when we use more conventional tools? For example, did the dialogue and deliberation result in:

1. Transforming effects – individually, relationally and collectively?
2. Enabling citizens to be the authors of their own lives?
3. Citizens adding value to the decisions being made, resulting in better decisions made in the highest public good and sustainable in the long term?
4. A virtuous cycle (in terms of systems thinking) that reinforces and increases mutual learning, understanding, trust, capacity building and increased democratization?

From these questions, at least three perspectives emerged:

1. We need to use the quantitative, statistical methods accepted by policymakers to ‘come of age’ and ‘show our worth as a discipline’.
2. Using these traditional methods of evaluation uncritically could distort the purpose and intent of what we are doing. Instead, we need to use more dialogic evaluation methods.
3. There is no single ideal approach to evaluation. We can and should use a diverse tool kit of qualitative and quantitative, short term and long term measures, because if we don’t we are in danger of remaining at the edges rather than at the center of any democratic renewal.

An ecumenical approach to evaluation may keep peace in the NCDD community, but one of the challenges raised in the Wyman et al. session was the lack of standard indicators for comparability. What good are our evaluation tools if they differ so much from one context to another? How then could we compare the efficacy of different approaches to public involvement?

Final Reflections
Along with the lack of standard indicators, other barriers to evaluation also persist, as identified in the Wyman et al. session:

1. Lack of time, resources, expertise
2. Lack of commitment to evaluation from senior management
3. Lack of organizational capacity within organizations

Wyman et al commenced their session with the seemingly obvious but often neglected proposition that evaluation plans need to be built into the design of processes. This was demonstrated in their Canadian preventative health care example on the potential pandemic of influenza, where there was a conscious decision to integrate evaluation from the outset. The process they outlined was as follows: Any evaluation should start with early agreement on areas of inquiry. This should be followed by deciding the kinds of information that would support these areas of inquiry, the performance indicators; then the tools most suited; and finally the questions to be asked given the context. A key learning from the pandemic initiative they examined was “In a nutshell, start at the beginning and hang in until well after the end, if there even is an end (because the learning is ideally never ending).”

In terms of NCDD, we clearly need to find opportunities to share more D & D evaluation stories to increase our learning, and in so doing, increase the strength and resilience of our dialogue and deliberation community.

At the 2008 National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation, we focused on 5 challenges identified by participants at our past conferences as being vitally important for our field to address. Our leader for the “Framing Challenge” was Jacob Hess, then-Ph.D. Candidate in Clinical-Community Psychology at the University of Illinois. Jacob wrote up an in-depth report on what was discussed at the conference in this challenge area, as well as his own reflections as a social conservative who is committed to dialogue. Download the 2008 Framing Challenge Report (Word doc).

Framing Challenge: Framing this work in an accessible way
How can we “frame” (write, talk about, and present) D&D in a more accessible and compelling way, so that people of all income levels, educational levels, and political perspectives are drawn to this work? How can we better describe the features and benefits of D&D and equip our members to effectively deliver that message? Addressing this challenge may contribute greatly to other challenges.

Challenge Leader:
Jacob Hess, then-Ph.D. Candidate in Clinical-Community Psychology at the University of Illinois

Here is a taste of Jacob’s thoughtful report:
As a social conservative who has found a home in the dialogue community, I was invited to be “point person” for this challenge at the 2008 Austin Conference.  The different ways we talk about, portray and frame dialogue can obviously have major differences in whether diverse groups feel comfortable participating in D&D venues (including our coalition).  Of course, conservatives are only one example of a group for whom this challenge matters; others who may struggle with our prevailing frameworks include young people, those without the privilege of education, minority ethnic communities, etc.

As I learned myself, even progressive people may be “turned off” from a particular framing.  After becoming involved in dialogue, I would share what I was learning with classmates and professors during our “diversity seminar.”  When hearing about dialogue framed from their white, male, conservatively religious classmate, several of my classmates decided that dialogue must really be a conservative thing—i.e., an attempt to placate, muffle or distract from activism and thereby indirectly reinforce the status quo (a valid concern!).

Ultimately, however, in each case I believe these fears are less inherent to dialogue or deliberation itself than to a particular framing of the same.  Does dialogue inherently serve either a radical or status quo agenda?  Does it require someone to either believe or disbelieve in truth?  Does it implicitly cater to one ethnic community or another—one age group above another—one gender or another?  I think not.  Having said this, little cues in our language and framing may inadvertently communicate otherwise. . .

After being identified by the NCDD community (alongside 4 other key challenges), the articulation of this challenge was explored and elaborated in an online discussion of members of NCDD; ultimately, the challenge came to read:  “Articulating the importance of this work to those beyond our immediate community (making D&D compelling to people of all income levels, educations levels, political perspectives, etc.)  — and helping equip members of the D&D community to talk about this work in an accessible and effective way.”

This “challenge #2” is intended to draw our collective attention to how we can make dialogue and deliberation more accessible to more communities—not necessarily by radically altering the practice itself, but my making sure the packaging, the framing and presentation doesn’t inadvertently scare them away.  As reframed by Steven Fearing, the “core question” for this challenge becomes:  “How can we frame (speak of) this work in a more accessible and compelling way, so that people of income levels, educational levels, and political perspectives are drawn to D&D?”

At the 2008 National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation, we focused on 5 challenges identified by participants at our past conferences as being vitally important for our field to address. This is one in a series of five posts featuring the final reports from our “challenge leaders.”

Inclusion Challenge: Walking our talk in terms of bias and inclusion
What are the most critical issues of inclusion and bias right now in the D&D community and how do we address them? What are the most critical issues related to bias, inclusion, and oppression in the world at large and how can we most effectively address these issues through the use of dialogue and deliberation methods?

Challenge Leader:
Leanne Nurse, Program Analyst for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
​

The third NCDD conference (we feel, the best of the three!) took place in San Francisco, California in August 2006. The conference was designed to give us all a better sense of who we are as a community of practice, field, and/or movement, and provide us with a stronger sense of where we should go from here if we want to truly have the impact we believe we could and should have on the world.

By the 2006 NCDD Conference Planning Team (design and layout by NCDD's Creative Director, Andy Fluke)
National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD) (2006)
​
Download this resource

This workshop at NCDD’s 2006 conference addressed how civic engagement practitioners can assist local governments in thinking systematically about and choosing among the various forms of civic engagement in public decision-making, and here is where you can find all five handouts/presentations that from this popular session.

In the workshop, Terry Amsler presented a forthcoming Collaborative Governance Initiative publication on Strategic Civic Engagement addressing important questions for local government officials to consider in selecting, designing, implementing, and sustaining civic engagement processes.

Beyond the Vocal Few: Ideas To Encourage Broader Public Participation In Your Community
This 2-page document offers suggestions for achieving better representation in public involvement and civic engagement efforts that were compiled by the Institute for Local Government’s Collaborative Governance Initiative.

Ten Public Involvement “Hot Spots”
While most public involvement strategies offer positive results for all, some efforts are not as effective as sponsors and participants would like. Outlined in this two-page document from the Institute for Local Government are a few of the ‘hot spots’ where extra attention may mean the difference between success and failure.

Lisa Blomgren Bingham presented a research paper examining the work of AmericaSpeaks in three cities – Cincinnati, Chicago, and Charlotte. In interviews with local and regional government officials, researchers examined questions of entry and contracting, impact of the process on public policy, and sustainability or institutionalization of civic engagement processes.

Assessing Deliberation: Setting the Agenda, Implementing Policy, and Outcomes
This 33-page research report presented at NCDD’s 2006 conference examines AmericaSpeaks’ 21st Century Town Meeting – one important model for facilitating citizen participation through large scale (100-5,000) dialogue in which citizens come together, listen to each other in a public arena, and make decisions as a collective community. Many researchers ask why there is a gap between scholarship and practice in the field of deliberation; this study responds to the call for empirical testing by examining the AmericaSpeaks model of a 21st Town Meeting. Specifically, this study examines agenda setting, implementation, and outcomes in the context of three different cities where the Town Hall Meetings occurred. You can also download the 20-slide PowerPoint presentation used to introduce this research project.

Malka Kopell presented Community Focus’s report on participatory budgeting in Menlo Park, Your City/Your Decision: Phase II Report on Community Workshop Results, describing a year-long process to involve the community in decisions about a sustainable funding strategy for city-provided services.

Your City/Your Decision: Citizen-Based Budgeting in Menlo Park, CA
5-page PowerPoint document created by Malka Kopell.

Here are the five great handouts from “The Wisdom Council: A Tool for Empowering 'We the People'” – facilitated by Jim Rough and Deanna Martin at the 2006 NCDD Conference in San Francisco.

Here is the full workshop description:
Imagine all of citizens in your community talking together creatively and collaboratively about the big, important issues. Convening this kind of conversation holds the promise of raising our collective intelligence, consciousness and wisdom on issues like healthcare, traffic, our educational system, and violence. The Wisdom Council is a new democratic tool that promises a grassroots way to develop near-unanimous strategies and the will to implement them on the issues that matter to you and your neighbors. It offers the prospect of engaging all in one, heartfelt, creative conversation that is ongoing, moving people beyond partisanship to serving the public interest. There have been a number of successful experiments with the "Wisdom Council" in cities, schools, among homeless people and in various organizations. Come hear about the growing number of experiments that demonstrate this new process really works – like in the Department of Agriculture of Washington State, at Salmon Bay Elementary School in Seattle, and at a local food co-op. Join us for an introduction to the process and learn how you might implement a Wisdom Council in your community.

The Handouts:

• An 18-slide PowerPoint presentation on the Wisdom Council process – access presentation
• A two-page Word document comparing dialogue, deliberation, and the Dynamic Facilitation's "choice-creating" – access document
• Another two-page Word doc, this one with a chart comparing traditional facilitation with dynamic facilitation – access document
• A three-page Word doc describing both Dynamic Facilitation and the Wisdom Council process – access document
• A 6-page PDF article by Jim Rough called "Transforming the Public Conversation" which wasn't handed out, but which the facilitators planned to include as the follow up to the session – access article

Jim Rough and Deanna Martin
(2006)

This very meaty 151-page final report to the Hewlett Foundation by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung includes detailed case studies on West Virginia’s National Issues Forums, Public Deliberation in South Dakota, Public Deliberation in Hawai’i, and Connecticut’s Community Conversations about Education. Elena Fagotto presented a workshop on her research at NCDD’s 2006 conference called “Embedded Deliberation: Moving from Deliberation to Action.” She decided to share the report with the NCDD community since many of her workshop participants requested it.

NCDD 2006 session description for “Embedded Deliberation: Moving from Deliberation to Action”
In this session, Elena Fagotto will present findings from an ongoing research project based at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government investigating the connections between embedded deliberation and action. She will first introduce the concept of embedded deliberation, and how embeddedness can lead to action. We will also analyze different arenas in which deliberation can become embedded – from non-profit organizations, to academia and state legislatures.

We will then examine the role of deliberative entrepreneurs, and areas in which public deliberation can promote public action and policy change. Throughout the presentation, fieldwork evidence will be used to support the theory and provide concrete examples for the audience. There will also be opportunities for participants to engage by reflecting on new arenas for embedding deliberation, or examples of action not contemplated in our findings. This workshop offers new ideas for those interested in exploring opportunities to promote action through public deliberation.
--
Also download Elena’s 30-slide PowerPoint presentation for the workshop, entitled Public Deliberation and Action: Key Findings. The PowerPoint provides a nice overview of the research results and you may find it easier to digest.

Final Report for the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, submitted by the Taubman Center for State and Local Government and John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. April 14 (2006)

Download this resource here

This 5-page PowerPoint document was created as a handout for the workshop entitled “Collaborative Governance in Local Government: Choosing Practice Models and Assessing Experience” given by Terry Amsler, Lisa Blomgren Bingham, and Malka Kopell at the 2006 NCDD Conference in San Francisco. The session addressed how civic engagement practitioners can assist local governments in thinking systematically about and choosing among the various forms of civic engagement in public decision-making. Using this and other documents, Kopell described a year-long process to involve the Menlo Park, California community in decisions about a sustainable funding strategy for city-provided services.

Malka Kopell – Community Focus

​Download this resource

Lisa Heft distributed this meaty two-page handout during her “showcase” session on these processes at the 2006 NCDD conference in San Francisco. ‘Samoan’ Circles invite participants to share thoughts on complex and even conflicting issues – without feeling that someone will be solving, arguing or debating what they are sharing – and knowing that what they say will be witnessed by others. Inquiry Circles invite deep, rich thinking through the sharing of richly-textured questions, without any cross-dialogue but instead engaging the group in deep listening and weaving a deeper understanding together. Lisa Heft uses the term ‘Witness Circles’ as an overarching term for these and other similar methods.

Download this resource