This NCDD report to the Kettering Foundation (pdf) was written by Sandy Heierbacher, NCDD’s Director (2009). Before the October 2008 conference, NCDD embarked on a research project with the Kettering Foundation to learn about how attendees at the 2008 National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation see themselves playing a role in democratic governance. Kettering was also especially interested in two of the five challenge areas taken on at the conference (the Systems Challenge and the Action & Change Challenge). Many NCDD members are quoted in the report, which includes descriptions of a number of their innovative projects and initiatives. Eighty-eight members were surveyed or interviewed as part of this research project, and others contributed through our graphic recording team at the conference, and during the online dialogue we held on the 5 challenge areas at CivicEvolution.org before the conference. The report is 38 pages long, but it’s full of gorgeous photos and graphic recordings from the conference (so it’s shorter than it looks!). The report represents a snapshot of a specific time in this rapidly growing, maturing field of practice. An exciting time, when process leaders and networks in the field are being brought into discussions about federal policy, and when the field is exploring how and whether it fits into a broader “democracy reform” movement. It’s also a time in which we’re seeing clear shifts in approach in the field. Practitioners, organizations and institutions are starting to think in terms of capacity building and find ways to demonstrate perceptible shifts in civic capacity. Practitioners are focusing more on developing ongoing relationships with institutions, decision-makers and other power-holders in the communities they serve. And people are becoming more and more adept at using multiple models, combining elements of different models, and designing unique processes to fit different contexts. You can download the full report here, download a 3-page overview of the report, or learn a bit more about the report below. Feel free to share this report or the overview with others. Summary of the Findings Below is a quick look at the topics that are explored in the report in more depth. What is citizens’ role in democratic governance? When asked how they would describe “the role citizens play in democratic governance,” people responded in five distinct ways. Some took a positive stance, outlining citizens’ critically important role in governance. Others took a pragmatic stance, recognizing that the role of citizens varies depending on a variety of factors. Others responded soberly about the very limited role citizens have in government. Many expressed why they felt the role citizens currently play is far from where it should be. And several outlined what citizens’ role should ideally be in governance. In addition to these five categories of responses, a number of people pointed out that ensuring citizens play a significant role in democratic governance is what our work in dialogue, deliberation and public engagement is all about. Much of the work of those who attended the 2008 NCDD conference focuses on broadening citizens’ role by inviting greater participation in public discussions about critical issues. Types of goals/impacts of dialogue and deliberation What do respondents mean when they refer to the “action and change” that results from dialogue and deliberation efforts? When asked how their work impacts citizens’ role in democratic governance, most respondents mentioned impacts that fall clearly into at least one of the categories in the Goals of Dialogue & Deliberation graphic pictured here. The graphic expands slightly on the Goals of Deliberation figure in an occasional paper published in summer 2009 by Public Agenda. The paper, written by Martin Carcasson, Director of Colorado State University’s Center for Public Deliberation (and a workshop presenter at NCDD 2008), outlines three broad categories of goals for deliberation. In the report, Heierbacher outlines how respondents feel their work falls under each of the sub-categories under the three types of goals, and include direct quotes from dozens of respondents. Carcasson contends in his article that improved community problem solving should be the ultimate goal of deliberative practice. Rather than overly identifying with specific issues or processes (and the squabbles between them) or focusing solely on individual events and projects, Carcasson argues that dialogue and deliberation practitioners should become “known for their passionate focus on democratic problem solving and all that entails.” Here is how Carcasson describes community problem solving: At its best and most effective, community problem solving is a democratic activity that involves the community on multiple levels, ranging from individual action to institutional action at the extremes, but also includes all points in between that involve groups, organizations, non-profits, businesses, etc. It is also deeply linked to the work of John Dewey and his focus on democracy as ‘a way of life’ that requires particularly well-developed skills and habits connected to problem solving and communicating across differences. Many of the 88 respondents mentioned civic capacity building when asked how their work impacts citizens’ role in democratic governance. The action & change challenge More and more people are coming to realize that addressing the major challenges of our time is dependent on our ability to collectively move to a new level of thinking about those challenges, and that dialogic and deliberative processes help people make this leap. Yet we continually struggle with how best to link dialogue and deliberation with action and change, and with the misconception that dialogue and deliberation are “just talk.” For the “Action and Change Challenge,” members explored this question: “How can we strengthen the links between dialogue, deliberation, community action, and policy change?” Eight themes emerged in this challenge area at the 2008 NCDD conference and in dialogues, interviews and surveys with conference attendees:
Survey respondents, interviewees and conference attendees had many other suggestions for this challenge area, and some of those are listed in the report as well. Strengthening the link between public engagement and action and policy change is a challenge that every practitioner struggles with. In this section of the report, a couple of promising frameworks that were presented at the conference are highlighted. Maggie Herzig’s “Virtuous and Vicious Cycles” model is presented, which acknowledges the systemic and cyclical nature of dialogue and deliberation (as opposed to a linear progression of steps or stages). And Philip Thomas’ integral theory of dialogue seeks to reconcile the seemingly incompatible views of dialogue he came across while working on the Handbook on Dialogue published by the United Nations Program on Development and its partners. Thomas interviewed some practitioners who felt, for example, that personal transformation among dialogue participants was a critical outcome to emphasize in the Handbook, while others he interviewed wanted to de-emphasize and even eliminate such concepts from the book and focus primarily on political processes and outcomes. The systems challenge For the “Systems Challenge,” participants explored ways they can make public engagement values and practices integral to government, schools, and other systems, so that methods of involving people, solving problems, and making decisions are used more naturally and efficiently. At the conference, participants focused most on institutionalizing public engagement in governance―an area often referred to by scholars as “embeddedness.” Most of the themes identified as being part of the Action & Change Challenge also overlap with the Systems Challenge in critical ways. Five additional themes emerged in discussions about this challenge area at the conference:
In this section of the report, Heierbacher goes into detail about the outcomes of a two-part workshop at the Austin conference co-led by Adin Rogovin and DeAnna Martin. The workshop brought together method leaders and practitioners in a dynamically facilitated fishbowl conversation to explore how practitioners could weave together their work to enhance democracy. Participants in this workshop discussed how a collaborative, multi-process “demonstration project” could support, fund, advocate for and convene whole system engagement initiatives that involve government officials and demonstrate their legitimacy and value to our society. Susan Schultz, Program Manager of the Center for Public Policy Dispute Resolution at the University of Texas, summed up the Systems Challenge area well with this comment in the survey: It is indeed a challenge to bridge the gap between the concept of having the public involved in public policy decision-making (what is already on paper) and the actuality of having the public influence public decision-making (what realistically happens). I believe that a crucial component in having a meaningful public participation system in place is to make the commitment to that participation part of the organization’s and governmental entity’s culture. Easier said than done, but it starts with clear written policies, commitment to implementing those policies from high level “champions” to field staff (through consistent education and training), and persistent expectations from the public. About the Author The author of this report, Sandy Heierbacher, is the Co-founder of the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD) and its conferences. NCDD is a network of organizations, practitioners, and scholars on the leading edge of the fields of intergroup relations, deliberative democracy, conflict resolution, community building and organizational development. Note: Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Kettering Foundation, its directors, or its officers.
0 Comments
This article by NCDD Co-Founder Sandy Heierbacher was published in the September 2009 edition of the International Journal of Public Participation (IJP2). You can download the full .doc article here. The article outlines NCDD’s learnings in two of the five challenges we focused on at the 2008 NCDD conference in Austin:
Abstract. At the National Conference on Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD) in Austin, Texas in October 2008, conference organizers ran a unique multi-tiered process aimed at helping attendees focus on five major challenges facing the dialogue and deliberation community. The five issues were identified by participants at previous National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation conferences as vital to address if we, individually and collectively, are to be our most effective. This article outlines the discourse in our community of practice on two of the five challenges: the “Systems Challenge,” which focuses on making dialogue and deliberation integral in our government and other systems, and the “Framing Challenge,” which is concerned with how we can talk about and present public engagement work in ways that are accessible and compelling to the greatest possible audience. Here’s a quick summary of the segments on the Framing Challenge: 1. Develop a common language of practice with more universal appeal Can we identify common yet compelling language that represents the work we do in dialogue and deliberation? Can we get clear on our theories of change? 2. Consider how different framings affect different groups Some terms we use in this field turn people away because they are too “new-agey” sounding; others because they are too academic or jargony, or because they have negative connotations or implications for certain audiences. Practitioners are acquiring and cultivating greater sensitivity to the ways that distinct language ‘plays out’ for different groups. 3. Understand the specific concerns of conservatives Progressives seem to be more drawn to public engagement work than conservatives. Understanding and acknowledging conservatives’ concerns about this work is key. 4. Frame in terms of general goals and desired outcomes While no single framing works for all audiences, practitioners are finding success in focusing on the purpose or potential outcomes (in general) of engagement rather than focusing on process. 5. Cultivate the ability to adapt framings for different audiences How practitioners should emphasize potential action outcomes depends, in part, on who they are trying to reach. We must use language to which people from potentially underrepresented groups can relate, while remaining open and honest about the purpose of the program. Keywords: dialogue, deliberation, public engagement, framing, systems, embeddedness, practitioner Citation: Heierbacher, Sandy. (2009). Taking our work to the next level: Addressing challenges facing the dialogue and deliberation community. International Journal of Public Participation, 3(1), 108-131. NCDD Members’ Views on the Framing Challenge: Results of an Online Dialogue at CivicEvolution6/29/2010 At the 2008 National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation, we focused in on 5 of the most pressing and challenging issues our field is facing – issues that past conference participants agreed are vital for us to address if we are to have the impact we’d like to have in our communities. One of the five challenges we focused on was the “Framing Challenge” — framing this work in an accessible way. Our leader for the Framing Challenge was Jacob Hess.
Six months before the conference, we used the online dialogue and collaborative proposal-writing tool CivicEvolution.org to engage the NCDD community around the 5 challenges. Here is the summary of the discussion about the Framing Challenge, prepared by 2008 conference planning team member Madeleine Van Hecke. Imagine Chicago is a Chicago-based nonprofit that facilitates and trains people in community visioning practices. Founded by Bliss Browne in 1992, the organization utilizes a three-step process of understanding what is, imagining what could be through collaboration, and creating what will be through action. Its community visioning and planning model incorporates Appreciative Inquiry (with an emphasis on intergenerational collaboration), Open Space Technology, the World Café, and asset based community development. This approach has inspired the creation of Imagine and other community planning projects spanning six continents. Learn more at imaginechicago.org and see a list of similar initiatives cited by NCDD members below.
Imagine Chicago “designs, manages and facilitates intergenerational and intercultural networks and partnerships which cultivate hope and civic engagement and harness imagination for public good” through the use of constructive questions, dialogue, curriculum and event design, and network formation. NCDD has run “Reflective Panels” at most of our national conferences. The Reflective Panel is the closest we come to a “keynote speech” at NCDD conferences, enabling conference participants to hear from figureheads in our field without enduring long speeches with no dialogic quality to them. Unlike traditional “talking head” panel presentations, conversation in this space flows among the panelists without long monologues. The format is designed to build collective intelligence while honoring and modeling the spirit and power of dialogue.
The reflective panel at our 2004 conference in Denver was our way of enabling conference participants to hear from some of the most prominent leaders in the field while still retaining high levels of participation and a dialogic quality. This unique plenary session was one of the most well-received features of the conference, using the “inquiry circle” method to keep a conversation flowing among panelists. Participants called it “inspirational and informative” in their evaluations. To one person, the circular process used in the reflective panel was “new to me and a complete revelation.” Another commented that it was a “great way of facilitating a panel experience in plenary that avoided long monologues and was more interactive.” The five panelists we featured at the 2004 conference were Jim Fishkin, Glenna Gerard, Martha McCoy, Hal Saunders, and Bill Ury. We used the Reflective Panel process again at the 2006 NCDD conference in San Francisco, in hopes of enabling five leaders in the dialogue and deliberation community to inspire everyone in the room to recommit to their own role as leaders in this emerging field of practice. Panelists included Juanita Brown, Chris Gates, Leanne Nurse, and John Gastil. This article was written by Sandy Heierbacher at the request of Yes! Magazine (and published on August 21, 2009). Sandy also created two abbreviated versions of this article and a one-page ready-to-print flier for public officials, encouraging NCDD members and others to use the resources freely for blog posts, letters to the editor, etc. during and after the contentious August 2009 town halls on health care. All four of these resources are based on insights and tips shared by NCDD members during this controversial time.
This article was written by Sandy Heierbacher at the request of Yes! Magazine. Sandy also created two abbreviated versions of this article and a one-page ready-to-print flier for public officials, encouraging NCDD members and others to use the resources freely for blog posts, letters to the editor, etc. during and after the contentious August 2009 town halls on health care. All four of these resources are based on insights and tips shared by NCDD members during this controversial time.
What follows is an archive of a February 2006 conversation on the NCDD Discussion list. Lars Hasselblad Torres initiated the discussion, asking if anyone was running dialogues around the outrage over the cartoons that were published in Denmark in September 2005.
Lars Hasselblad Torres:Is anyone coordinating dialogue activities around the recent outrage over cartoons that were published in Denmark in September last year? This seems to be an instance where assumption, representation, politics and reaction have combined in a particularly toxic cocktail that is only now reverberating around the world. The Danish government has said that increased dialogue is necessary. I wonder what kinds of conversations this opportunity can open here in the US as well? The theme for Arsalyn’s 2007 youth conference, which took place in D.C. August 9-12, 2007, was “Bridging the Partisan Divide: Rediscovering Deliberation,” and NCDD was proud to play a major role at the event. Arsalyn invited 150 young people ages 16-20 to the 2007 conference to learn the art of political deliberation. This event is part of a series of conferences geared toward helping young people – especially politically active youth – develop skills that will help them communicate effectively with those of opposing views or with more lukewarm potential allies without alienating them or poisoning the wells of deliberation and common action. Arsalyn was a non-partisan program of Ludwick Family Foundation, which promotes youth civic and political engagement. On the opening evening, following dinner and a keynote address by speechwriter John P. McConnell, NCDD member Susan Partnow ran a World Cafe to help the students meet each other and get them talking about the reasons the conference theme is important to them. Nusa Maal provided graphic recording services during the event, and Susan facilitated (with NCDD director Sandy Heierbacher and NCDD member Diane Miller helping out as needed). The photos on this page were all taken during the World Cafe. NCDD’s main listserv is a popular resource for practitioners, scholars, activists and students of dialogue and deliberation. As of January 2022, more than 1,000 subscribers use this moderated listserv to network, share information, and discuss key issues facing our field. This discussion list is NCDD members’ primary means of communicating directly with one another. Non-members are welcome to subscribe to this list, though we strongly encourage you to join NCDD.
Please familiarize yourself with the list’s ground rules below before posting to the list. People tend to be very generous with their expertise and know-how on the list, so it’s a great place to ask for practice-related advice. One subscriber posted that she’s “always grateful for the generosity of spirit and sharing within this group …. all the sharing's are like jewels!” This 10-page manual teaches the Conversation Café method in detail. This is the simplest process we know and one that has a proven track record to be easily and reliably adopted by hosts who may have no previous experience – as well as by skilled facilitators. Let’s Talk America was a 2004 national dialogue initiative designed to spark and coordinate dialogues of various sizes across the political divide in the U.S. This manual provides a process that honors LTA principles and enables you to take the conversation from small talk to big talk in a way that allows everyone to feel respected, safe and heard. With a little study and preparation, your conversation can create a positive and empowering experience for all. Download the manual here.
Also see the 12-page Let’s Talk America Cafe Hosting Guide, created to help people host large-group LTA dialogues.This 12-page guide blends the Conversation Café and World Café approaches. The World Café’s principles are aligned with Conversation Café, though the form is different. Instead of convening random people at a café, the World Café is an event hosted by a group that wants to think and learn together, often to aid their work. Instead of staying in one conversation for 60 to 90 minutes, at a World Café people move to different tables to stimulate new thoughts. Instead of “no committees will be formed,” the World Café conversations lead to a whole group discussion that surfaces group insights and learnings and new commitments. Let’s Talk America (LTA) was a joint project of the Utne Institute, Conversation Cafe, World Cafe, and NCDD run in/around 2004. The project strove to bring Americans from all points on the political spectrum together in cafes, bookstores, churches and living rooms for lively, open-hearted dialogue to consider questions essential to the future of our democracy. LTA reconnected with the “town hall” meeting spirit that’s the lifeblood of our democracy, providing opportunities for everyone to talk about America’s promise, about what freedom, democracy, unity and equality mean to us — to “we the people.” Let’s Talk America is a meeting ground where we can come together to listen, speak, ask and learn — without being forced to agree, change or bite our tongues. Here is a bare bones version of what’s in the LTA Hosting Manual… How can I start a Let’s Talk America Conversation? Anyone who has the curiosity and courage to find out what other people think about America – especially the current state of our democracy — can start a LTA conversation. Let’s Talk America gives you a way to invite others into a conversation about what our democracy means in our lives. Who do you do it with? Anyone else. You can choose how safe or adventurous you want to be. You can pick a circle of friends, a few neighbors, the person next to you in the grocery line, a church group, a work group or come to any of the open Let’s Talk America events listed on this website. You are always welcome! And if you’d like others to join, you can post your event. LTA especially encourages you to invite others who think differently than you do – others that you don’t usually get to talk to about the questions that matter to you. How many people come? You can have a Let’s Talk America conversation with one other person, with ten …or, if more, we can help you do that. What do you talk about? The best response to a question isn’t an answer, it’s a conversation. Try these conversation starters:
How do you have a Let’s Talk America conversation? Gather these ingredients:
How do I take the conversation from good to great? We’ve all been in conversations that have gotten stuck, confused, boring or even a bit scary. Here are some ideas to help you stay at ease, curious and inviting, and keep the conversation interesting:
Once we’ve talked, then what?
Download this resource here 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…
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. The following article is one of a series of articles NCDD created in August 2009 in response to the volatile town hall meetings on healthcare held at the time. NCDD members were encouraged to adapt the articles and submit them as op-eds in their local papers. Go to https://ncdd.org/rc/item/3172 to see the other articles and one-page flyer.
-- Town hall meetings being held on healthcare legislation across the country are exploding with emotion, frustration, and conflict. Citizens are showing up in throngs to speak out about health care as well as dozens of other topics, but it seems the louder voices get, the less people are actually heard. The meetings have become a vivid demonstration of what’s missing in American Democracy. So how can officials hold better open meetings with their constituents? The following article is one of a series of articles NCDD created in August 2009 in response to the volatile town hall meetings on healthcare held at the time. NCDD members were encouraged to adapt the articles and submit them as op-eds in their local papers. Go to https://ncdd.org/rc/item/3172 to see the other articles and one-page flyer.
-- Town hall meetings being held on healthcare legislation across the country are exploding with emotion, frustration, and conflict. Citizens are showing up in throngs to speak out about health care as well as dozens of other topics, but it seems the louder voices get, the less people are actually heard. The meetings have become a vivid demonstration of what’s missing in American Democracy. So how can officials hold better open meetings with their constituents? Dozens of effective public engagement techniques have been developed to enable citizens to have authentic, civil, productive discussions at public meetings—even on highly contentious issues. Techniques like National Issues Forums, Study Circles, 21st Century Town Meetings, Open Space Technology, and World Cafe, to name just a few. When done well, these techniques create the space for real dialogue, so everyone who shows up can tell their story and share their perspective on the topic at hand. Dialogue builds trust and enables people to be open to listening to perspectives that are very different from their own. Deliberation is often key to public engagement work as well, enabling people to discuss the consequences, costs, and trade-offs of various policy options, and to work through the emotions and values inherent in tough public decisions. Given a diverse group, good information, a structured format, and time, citizens can grapple with complicated issues and trade-offs across partisan and other divides. Perhaps most importantly, the legislator hosting the meeting must genuinely be open to learning from what his or her constituents think should be done to address the issue at hand. Here are some guidelines for our political leaders:
These ideas and others posted at www.ncdd.org were developed by members of the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD). Though it may not seem like it when we watch clips from recent healthcare town halls, the truth is that people can come together to have a positive impact on national policy—not only in spite of our differences, but because working through those differences allows us to make better decisions. Citizens have higher expectations than ever for a government that is of, by and for the people, and it’s high time for an upgrade in the way we do politics. by Sandy Heierbacher Sandy Heierbacher is the co-founder of the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD), a network of groups and professionals who bring together Americans of all stripes to discuss, decide and act together on today’s toughest issues. She recommends the following resources to those interested in engaging the public in healthcare in more meaningful and substantive ways. NCDD Members Directory: www.ncdd.org/directory Find a facilitator or convening organization in your region. NCDD’s Engagement Streams Framework: www.ncdd.org/streams This free resource helps practitioners, community leaders and elected officials decide which public engagement methods are most appropriate for their circumstances and resources. Core Principles for Public Engagement: www.ncdd.org/pep These seven principles were developed collaboratively by leaders in citizen engagement, and have been endorsed by over 50 organizations. The following article is one of a series of articles NCDD created in August 2009 in response to the volatile town hall meetings on healthcare held at the time. NCDD members were encouraged to adapt the articles and submit them as op-eds in their local papers. Go to https://ncdd.org/rc/item/3172 to see the other articles and one-page flyer.
-- Town hall meetings being held on healthcare legislation across the country are exploding with emotion, frustration, and conflict. Citizens are showing up in throngs to speak out about health care as well as dozens of other topics, but it seems the louder voices get, the less people are actually heard. The meetings have become a vivid demonstration of what’s missing in American Democracy. |
Categories
All
|