NCDD’s October 2010 Resource Guide on Public Engagement showcases the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation’s best collaboratively-created products (like the Core Principles for Public Engagement and the Engagement Streams Framework), as well as recognizing and directing you to a lot of the great work on public engagement that has been done by others in our field. Created for our 2010 regional events (all attendees received a copy), this must-have guidebook was developed to share stories and resources with the dialogue and deliberation community, public managers, and anyone else with an interest in public engagement. Here’s how the Engaging Cities blog described the Resource Guide: It’s a small compendium full of valuable knowledge on all facets of public engagement. Not only does the guide contain a directory of valuable resources, points of contact, and case studies of collaborations that work, but it also contains some of the more exciting results of last year’s conferences. Items such as the ‘Core Principles for Public Engagement’ remind us of how far we’ve come, the commonality of our goals and how much more we have yet to achieve. The brief ‘Online Engagement’ section of the manual is a fantastic introduction and database of resources, including Public Agenda’s Promising Practices to Online Engagement that we helped write. And the ‘Upgrading the Way We Do Politics’ portion of the manual addresses common issues found when politics and public engagement intersect. Handling the material in a constructive manner, NCDD provides helpful tips and positive suggestions for improvement. Extremely informative, the ‘Engagement Streams’ matrix ties common goals of public engagement to strategies that complement those goals in proven ways while also showcasing key features that will help in achieving that goal. The matrix is invaluable for anyone involved in public outreach. In fact, the entire manual is invaluable for anyone involved in public outreach and engagement. Resource Link: NCDD Resource Guide
0 Comments
NCDD’s email discussion lists are open to anyone whose work involves dialogue and deliberation — not just NCDD members. Our discussion lists foster networking, information-sharing and collaboration within the ever-growing dialogue and deliberation community.
First, thank you to L-Soft for their generous support! Since 2008, NCDD has benefited from the generous donation of mailing list services by L-Soft, a leading provider of email list management software, email marketing software and email list hosting services. NCDD has been relying on L-Soft’s LISTSERV® email list management software solution since 2006 and all our mailing lists are hosted by L-Soft free of charge. Current NCDD Listservs Those of you who are interested in how evaluation can be used from the outset of a public engagement initiative may find this 2-page chart useful. It was developed in 2008 for Everyday Democracy by the Center for Assessment and Policy Development (CAPD) for EvDem’s Communities Creating Racial Equity project, which involved about a half-dozen community coalitions around the country addressing various forms of structural racism. Download the chart here. The right column of the chart lists benchmarks for “Institutionalization of democratic processes in the community” while the left column lists benchmarks for the issue (racial equity). The chart is also organized according to 4 time-frames ranging from one year to six years plus.
The Public Engagement Principles (PEP) Project was launched in mid-February 2009 to create clarity in our field about what we consider to be the fundamental components of quality public engagement, and to support President Obama’s January 21, 2009 memorandum on open government. The following principles were developed collaboratively by members and leaders of NCDD, IAP2 (the International Association of Public Participation), the Co-Intelligence Institute, and many others.
Enjoy this interactive DebateGraph of the principles! Click on a principle to see the additional text on what the principle looks like in practice, and what to avoid. 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. 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. 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 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.
Keypads are audience response devices that look like little calculators or remote controls. They are used in group meetings or events to collect audience responses or opinions, allowing audience members to interact with presentations, give feedback, and become more engaged in large-group settings. Keypads are often used as an added element in large-group deliberation and dialogue events. This resource lists and links to experts in keypad response system as well as mobile device response systems, as recommended by NCDD members in April 2010. This resource was updated in 2021 to remove tools no longer available for use. 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. |
Categories
All
|