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:
0 Comments
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:
“Internal” reasons more focused on making the process work or the practitioner’s drive for self-critique:
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:
From these questions, at least three perspectives emerged:
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:
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 Did you ever wonder how Citizens Juries are different from Deliberative Polling? When should you use World Café, rather than Open Space? Or are Charrettes what's called for? First developed in 2005, NCDD’s Engagement Streams Framework (web version) helps people navigate the range of dialogue and deliberation approaches available to them, and make design choices that best fit their circumstance and resources. No method works in all situations, yet too often people become overly attached to the first D&D process they learn about -- and end up with less-than-satisfying results. Although it was designed for beginners to these processes, the tool also helps more seasoned practitioners understand where their own experience resides on the continuum, and which methods they may want to learn more about depending on the needs of their communities or clients. The framework presents two charts:
The full 8-page Engagement Streams Framework (.pdf) should be printed in color on 8.5 x 11 paper, front-and-back (so the charts line up across two pages). Download the print version of the doc. Last updated August 2014.
Here are a few ways people are using the framework:“The Engagement Streams Framework is a critical tool for us at the CPD as we initially evaluate potential projects for deliberative ripeness, and then again when we get down to process design. It succinctly introduces and organizes the diverse world of D&D in a very practical way. It’s simple enough for beginners to not get overwhelmed, but rich enough for more experienced practitioners to return to again and again.”
-Martín Carcasson, Colorado State University Center for Public Deliberation “I’ve found NCDD’s Engagement Streams Framework to be a very valuable tool when conducting workshops with local government staff and officials on how to improve public engagement practices. It not only helps give the big picture of what methods make sense to use when, but provides enough detail so that people can begin thinking about how they could apply these methods in their local engagement efforts.” -Diane Miller, Civic Collaboration “I love the Engagement Streams as a jumping off point to understanding what features you need in a deliberative process. It’s one of the best breakdowns I’ve seen for explaining the progression of complexity in implementation of the deliberative process. I trust NCDD, which is regularly looking at ALL the methods in play, to do a sound analysis as opposed to people who might be seated in a particular practice or approach. This kind of logical analysis from the community itself is invaluable for technologists to build applications that effectively support dialogue and deliberation.” - Ele Munjeli, Web Developer “When I was working on my report on the civic engagement landscape in Chicago, I had no idea how to organize the thousands of diverse pieces of information I’d collected into a coherent narrative. As I thought through options, the information naturally seemed to cluster into four areas, strikingly reminiscent of the four NCDD Engagement Streams. At first, I hesitated using that framework, designed to categorize methods, to segment a city’s organizations and projects. Surprisingly though, it has proven the single most valuable tool in helping Chicagoans understand the local D&D field.” - Janice Thomson, Stakeholder Engagement Consultant “I use the framework in both leadership training and traditional teaching environments. I found it very helpful for adults taking leadership courses who often had little experience with dialogue, as the framework helped them “get it” and differentiates dialogue from other processes. It also quickly gave them several models of dialogue, so they understood that there are many ways to approach it. With professors and students who are engaged in “Difficult Dialogues” classes at UT Austin, focusing on challenging topics such as immigration, science and religion, and HIV, the framework helps them understand what I mean when I say “Dialogue is NOT your usual classroom discussion” and gives them a useful context for learning how to talk about these controversial topics in a meaningful and productive way.” - Juli Fellows, Organizational Consultant and Trainer “We built the Streams of Engagement framework into our online Issue Guide Exchange. When someone uploads a guide to the tool we give them the option of identifying which streams of practice the guide addresses. Then, when someone is searching for guides, the streams of practice provide them with another way to figure out which guides will best meet their needs.” - Carrie Boron, formerly of Everyday Democracy “I just discovered the framework and am using it in a group facilitation workshop I’m teaching to AmeriCorps interns. My intent is to get them to think about what type of facilitation they are attempting and what outcomes they are looking for, and then look at what methods make the most sense, given the desired outcomes.” - Marty Jacobs, Systems In Sync “I’ve used the engagement streams cartoon mostly, since it’s a great tool for introducing people to the ideas of different uses for the methods. I’ve used it and prepared it for Carolyn [Lukensmeyer] to use at presentations for United Way leadership, state elected officials, and college classrooms.” - Susanna Haas Lyons, formerly of AmericaSpeaks Web Version (373KB) Print Version (3.5 MB) We also recommend you download NCDD's Resource Guide on Public Engagement which features the engagement streams in full. 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 Back in 2003, there was a great conversation on the main NCDD Discussion list sparked by the question “What should we do when our most visible collaborator is perceived as liberal, yet our goals are to involve people with all ideologies?” That conversation evolved to address the all-important question “Are conservatives less interested in citizen engagement than liberals?” Here is a summary of that meaty conversation…
What should we do when our most visible collaborator is perceived as liberal, yet our goals are to involve people with all ideologies? Focus on how the project is framed.
Focus on how the discussion is framed.
Answer the “So What?” question; give people a reason to participate.
It is important for there to be a conservative (or at least neutral) partner for this project. Sponsorship should be balanced.
Get individuals involved instead of groups.
Make sure conservatives feel welcomed into (and at) the conversations, and that conservative views are both spoken and heard.
Focus on design and facilitation concerns.
Emphasize outreach and advertising.
Are conservatives less interested in citizen engagement than liberals? No – conservatives are very interested.
Yes – Citizen engagement appeals more to liberals.
Part of the problem may be that conservatives aren’t given as much of a voice in D&D programs, and that facilitators (who tend to be liberal) are more interested in outcomes than in building understanding.
Learn more about the main NCDD Discussion list (including how to subscribe). You can also look over all of NCDD’s listservs. As we did for the first NCDD conference, we conducted an online needs assessment to determine what people wanted to see and experience at the 2004 conference, which was held in October in Denver, Colorado. About 120 people from throughout the dialogue and deliberation community honored us by completing the survey, and the results are both interesting and informative.
National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation, 2004 Download this resource In October 2004, over 300 people came together at Regis University in Denver, Colorado for the second National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation. The main purpose of the gathering was to encourage conference attendees and planners, together, to continue developing this important, growing field of practice. Networking, experiencing different methods, sharing learnings, hearing from leaders in the field, exploring key issues facing the field – all of these are field-building activities, and all were given a place at the 2004 NCDD Conference.
Conference attendees enjoyed a variety of plenary sessions that introduced them to large-group dialogue methods while enabling the community to explore issues relevant to the field. They each had to choose four of 57 two- and three-hour workshops delivered by their peers. And through the use of graphic facilitation and playback theatre, they experienced how the arts can enhance dialogue and deliberation. The conference focused on three broad questions: “How can we have a greater collective impact on the challenging issues of our time?”, “How can we develop intelligently and wholeheartedly as a community of practice?”, and “What do we need to know and do individually to enhance our capacity to do this work?” In this report, Heierbacher recognizes all of the people and groups who made the 2004 conference a success, She outlines the “history” of the 2004 and 2002 gatherings and what happened in between, and talks about how the 2004 conference was different from the 2002 event. She describes the main elements of the 2004 conference, outline what was learned from the 2004 event and what NCDD is doing about it, and lists some other actions that need to be taken to ensure the sustainability and success of this burgeoning field. Also check out the report from the 2004 conference Assessment Team, which is quite a long document because it includes all results and comments from the Satisfaction Survey administered on the final day of the 2004 conference. Assessment Team members include Theo Leverenz, Jen Murphy, Miriam Wyman (team chair) and Sandra Zagon. Sandy Heierbacher National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD) (2005) Download this resource This 2-page document was used 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. 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 are a few of the ‘hot spots’ where extra attention may mean the difference between success and failure. Download the handout here.
Ten Public Involvement ‘Hot Spots’ Voices in and outside of government are stressing the importance of involving communities in the public decisions and policymaking that affects them. The Public Policy Institute of California has described “a need to inform and motivate citizens about participation beyond the ballot box.” Local government is responding and collaborative efforts exist throughout California that address budgetary, housing, land use, environmental, and other issues. While most public involvement strategies offer positive results for all, some efforts are not as effective as sponsors and participants would like. We offer below a few of the “hot spots” where extra attention may mean the difference between success and failure.
The Collaborative Governance Initiative, a program of the Institute for Local Government, supports informed and effective civic engagement in public decision-making and helps local officials in California successfully navigate among the many community involvement options that bring the public’s voice to the table on important issues. See the Institute’s website at www.ca-ilg.org/cgi. 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.” Action & Change Challenge: Strengthening the relationship between D&D and action and policy change. How can we increase the likelihood that D&D engagement streams of “exploration,” “conflict transformation,” and “collaborative action” will result in community action? How can we increase the likelihood that the “decision making” engagement stream will result in policy change? What can we learn from promising D&D efforts that did not result in the action or policy change desired? Challenge Leader: Phil Mitchell, Director of the Greater Seattle Climate Dialogues ———- Report on the Action & Policy Challenge: We are here to make the world a better place. Sometimes good process in itself is enough. Usually it is not. Usually good process must contest for power in places where power does not give up without a fight, ie., everywhere. What can we do to maximize the chance that our processes will bear fruit in terms of desired action and policy outcomes? When community action is the desired outcome, it is critical to identify and understand the key obstacles that impede moving to action. It is necessary to systematically remove these obstacles. Running a process and just hoping for good outcomes does not work. For example, in North India, Varun Vidyarthi has spent two decades figuring out how to empower those who are at the bottom of the heap even in remote, impoverished rural India. His organization, Manavodaya (Human Awakening), runs facilitated dialogue circles as a key to building self-esteem and collective identity. But he has learned that circles alone rarely succeed. The circle must have a material basis, by having each member contribute to a common fund which is used for micro-loans. Even if each member can contribute only one handful of rice per month, this changes everything. The participants have an experience of agency and of building power that changes them and changes the material conditions that have defined them. But still, groups fail. Another key characteristic of success that Vidyarthi has identified is that the group be a group of equals; mixed groups, with different levels of investment in the pool and different power backgrounds, do not succeed. And so on. Failure is a lesson in what are the obstacles to success. Each and every obstacle must be addressed. When political action is the desired outcome, it is necessary to identify and understand the leverage points controlling political power. It is necessary to try to create the conditions that make control of these leverage points possible. I wish I had a good example of this in practice. At NCDD 2008, examples were discussed, but I have been unable to confirm the details. Finally, a bigger question — if that is possible — percolated through NCDD 2008: Can we, the D&D community itself, work together towards systemic change? Can we transcend our various passionately held issues and work holistically towards shifting the whole system towards healthy, inclusive process? What might that look like? |
Categories
All
|