After a longer period of downtime, one of the most comprehensive resources in the area of dialogue and deliberation is back in business. From the blog post: NCDD resources are back online (all 2,392 of them!)

The Resource Center describes and categorizes close to 2,400 resources — including many dialogue guides, D&D methods, online tools, case studies, videos, higher ed programs, articles, NCDD publications, and more.  It’s up on the new ncdd.org site (we’re transitioning from thataway.org to ncdd.org) so you can see the new, simpler, cleaner site design while you’re at it.

Check out the many manuals and guides, organizations and programs as well as journals and newsletters.

Update (02/03/2010): There is now an official NCDD list at http://twitter.com/ncdd/ncddlist (already much more comprehensive than ours, so we recommend you follow it instead!)

* * *

And while we’re at it, why not create a list of Twitterers who are members of the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD)?

Here it is: @intellitics/ncdd

I had the distinct pleasure to attend NCDD’s past two conferences (in 2006 and 2008). It is an organization made up of so many great people, it’s truly amazing. So if you find following the conversations on Twitter worthwhile, consider supporting NCDD and become a member (at complete bargain rates, too, considering the value).

If you’d like to be added, just send me a direct message. Or leave a comment below in case I’m not following you yet (make sure to include your Twitter handle).

Playing with Twitter’s (relatively) new list feature this morning, I’m putting together a list of Twitterers who are members of the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2).

IAP2 is currently undergoing a member consultation about the future governance structure of the organization, and I find that following the discussion via people’s blogs and Twitter is always helpful.

There’s also a North America meeting in the works the last weekend of January in Phoenix, AZ and I expect some interesting tweets to come out of that.

Here’s the list: @intellitics/iap2

To be added to the list, simply send me a direct message. Or leave a comment below in case I’m not following you yet (make sure to include your Twitter handle).

Back in February, the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD), along with a number of other established associations and organization in the field of dialogue, conflict resolution and public participation, launched a collaborative effort to craft a set of principles for public engagement that would inform the Open Government Directive currently being worked on by the Obama administration.

After two months of insightful discussions, the final version of the Core Principles for Public Engagement Document (PDF, 144 KB) has now been released. It starts:

In a strong representative democracy, citizens and government work together to build a society that protects individual freedom while simultaneously ensuring liberty and justice for all.  Engaging people around the issues that affect their lives and their country is a key component of a strong democratic society.

Public engagement involves convening diverse yet representative groups of people to wrestle with information from a variety of viewpoints all to the end of making better, often more creative decisions. Public engagement aims to provide people with direction for their own community activities, or with public judgments that will be seriously considered by policy-makers and other power-holders.

The more any given public engagement effort takes into consideration the following seven Core Principles, the more it can expect to effectively build mutual understanding, meaningfully affect policy development, and/or inspire collaborative action among citizens and institutions.  These seven interdependent principles serve both as ideals to pursue and as criteria for judging quality.  Rather than promoting partisan agendas, the application of the Core Principles creates the conditions for authentic engagement around public issues.

The Seven Core Principles

In practice, people emphasize or apply these principles in many different ways, and often embrace additional principles. These seven principles reflect the common beliefs and understandings of those working in the fields of public engagement, conflict resolution, and collaboration.

1. Careful Planning and Preparation

Through adequate and inclusive planning, ensure that the design, organization, and convening of the process serve both a clearly defined purpose and the needs of the participants.

2. Inclusion and Demographic Diversity

Equitably incorporate diverse people, voices, ideas, and information to lay the groundwork for quality outcomes and democratic legitimacy.

3. Collaboration and Shared Purpose

Support and encourage participants, government and community institutions, and others to work together to advance the common good.¹

4. Openness and Learning

Help all involved listen to each other, explore new ideas unconstrained by predetermined outcomes, learn and apply information in ways that generate new options, and rigorously evaluate public engagement activities for effectiveness.

5. Transparency and Trust

Be clear and open about the process, and provide a public record of the organizers, sponsors, outcomes, and range of views and ideas expressed.

6. Impact and Action

Ensure each participatory effort has real potential to make a difference, and that participants are aware of that potential.

7. Sustained Engagement and Participatory Culture

Promote a culture of participation with programs and institutions that support ongoing quality public engagement.

————-

¹ In addition to reflecting the democratic ideals of liberty, justice, and freedom for all, the term “common good” refers to things that optimize the well-being of all (like a traffic light in a dangerous intersection) or conditions that serve to benefit all involved (as in a consensus agreement focused on cleaning up the water supply).

There’s also an expanded version that goes into more detail:

PEP Expanded Text

Although we are not seeking endorsements for the expanded text under the principles and their one-sentence descriptions, the text under the headers “In high quality engagement” and “What to avoid” was developed alongside the basic seven principle, in a highly collaborative and transparent manner.  The purpose of the expanded text is to illustrate and breathe life into the principles, and should accompany the list of Core Principles whenever possible.  The expanded text can be tweaked or revised for a variety of different audiences.

Intellitics is proud to be among the group of initial organizational endorsers.

About a couple of weeks ago, the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD) — in collaboration with a few other organizations in this field — launched the Public Engagement Principles project, an effort to craft a recommendation for the Obama administration as they work on the Open Government Directive. From the NCDD website:

Get involved in the Public Engagement Principles project, a collaborative effort to see if our broad field can present a united front to the Obama administration. We are starting by developing and describing a set of core principles or criteria for quality public engagement that are broad enough yet meaningful enough that we can all endorse. Help us get there!

Here’s how Sandy Heierbacher, NCDD’s director, introduced the project:

We are facing an unprecedented opportunity in the fields of public engagement, conflict resolution and collaboration. President Obama has demonstrated his commitment to participation, transparency and openness in his administration in numerous ways we’ve all taken note of

There are a number of established associations and organizations in the U.S. that unite professionals and promote the practice and principles of consensus, dialogue, participation, collaboration, conflict resolution and other means of achieving largely the same end.

We suspect that many of these groups will try to communicate with the administration about how to best move forward, but we are concerned about the fact that although most of us speak the same basic language to describe this work, we tend to use many different dialects. This could weaken each of our cases, and overwhelm members of the administration rather than support them.

Rather than each of us contacting the administration separately with mixed messages and various levels of success, we believe we could make a greater impact working together. Can we collaborate or unify to present a collective source of principles, practices, talent and resources that this administration and nation will need in the next four years?

The discussion forum has quickly become a treasure trove for anyone interested in making public engagement work. The list of over a dozen tried and tested sets of principles from around the world as well as the conversations about which pieces are generally applicable or how they should be framed in the context of a guideline or recommendation to the administration is a valuable asset in and by itself and I hope NCDD will preserve the results.

Here’s the latest revision of the public engagement principles:

CRITERIA FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

The following principles describe high quality public engagement in public conversation on public issues.  While each is distinct, they overlap considerably and reinforce each other in practice.  They serve both as ideals to pursue and as criteria for judging quality.  Their proper use is to generate authentic engagement in public problem-solving, collective creativity, and social healing.  They are not designed to promote partisan agendas.

1. Preparation – Consciously plan, design, convene and arrange the engagement to serve its purpose and people.
2. Inclusion – Incorporate diverse people and ideas to lay the groundwork for quality outcomes and democratic legitimacy.
3. Collaboration –  Support organizers, participants, and those engaged in follow-up to work well together for the common good.
4. Learning – Help participants listen, explore and learn without predetermined outcomes — and evaluate events for lessons.
5. Transparency – Promote openness and provide a public record of the people, resources, and events involved.
6. Impact – Engage official and public attention and follow up — in context — so that each participatory effort actually makes a difference.
7. Participatory Culture – Promote programs and institutions that sustain quality public engagement and advance democratic principles and competence.

Tom Atlee did a lot of the integration and synthesis work on this.

I want to start a conversation about how these principles can best be applied to online participation efforts and tools.

A few days after the launch of the new WhiteHouse.gov website, President Obama issued a memorandum on Transparency and Open Government, which announced that the new administration

… is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.  We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

It also directs the yet-to-be-named Chief Technology Officer (emphasis mine):

… to coordinate the development by appropriate executive departments and agencies, within 120 days, of recommendations for an Open Government Directive, to be issued by the Director of OMB, that instructs executive departments and agencies to take specific actions implementing the principles set forth in this memorandum. The independent agencies should comply with the Open Government Directive.

Here’s what the memorandum had to say about public participation:

Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the Government’s effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government.

Today, Washington DC-based Sunlight Foundation rolled out Our Open Government List (OOGL), a new microsite that allows the public to make suggestions as to what should be included in the Open Government Directive:

Shortly after President Obama’s inauguration, he issued a memo on transparency directing his top officials to develop plans for an Open Government Directive to promote transparency, participation, and collaboration. The Sunlight Foundation has created this page in order to add a public element to the crafting of this Open Government Directive that is itself transparent, participatory, and collaborative.

We encourage you to submit ideas for what the Directive should address, and to vote for your favorite submissions below.

While a lot of the discussions lately seem to focus solely on the aspects of transparency and open government data, I thought it was appropriate to point out that  the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) has developed a list of seven Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation that could be tremendously helpful in guiding government efforts in this area:

1. Public participation is based on the belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process.
2. Public participation includes the promise that the public’s contribution will influence the decision.
3. Public participation promotes sustainable decisions by recognizing and communicating the needs and interests of all participants, including decision makers.
4. Public participation seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those potentially affected by or interested in a decision.
5. Public participation seeks input from participants in designing how they participate.
6. Public participation provides participants with the information they need to participate in a meaningful way.
7. Public participation communicates to participants how their input affected the decision.

I’ve added them to OOGL here under Public Participation Principles (feel free to vote).

PEP-NET, another promising e-participation initiative at the European level, launched earlier this month.

From the about page:

PEP-NET will be a European network of all stakeholders active in the field of eParticipation. PEP-NET therefore already includes public bodies, solution providers and citizen organizations as well as researchers and scientists. The network is open to all organizations willing and actively trying to advance the idea and use of eParticipation in Europe.

The project aims to help overcome fragmentation and promote best practice by connecting established and experienced eParticipation players and networks throughout Europe as a critical first step. The objective of this project is to achieve critical mass for the establishment of a Pan European eParticipation Network (PEP-NET). Such a network will act as a repository and disseminator of good practice and exchange of experience, and be a visible resource for all interested parties across the European Union.

PEP-NET will ensure wider access to European eParticipation projects and permit more effective dialogue between eParticipation experts, researchers, practitioners, public administrations, civil society organisations and the interested public with the ultimate goal of facilitating knowledge transfer, encouraging further eParticipation trials and establishing European leadership in this field.

[...]

Already, a number of organizations in the field have signed on as the initial PEP-NET members.

The project is coordinated by Hamburg, Germany-based TuTech Innovation GmbH, who for over a year now have been sharing a steady flow of insights on their blog (mostly in German).

The following are a few Facebook groups we watch that deal with various aspects of dialogue, deliberation, public participation, e-government or e-democracy (membership numbers as of today):

• C2D2 – Canadian Community for Dialogue and Deliberation (18 members)
  Community of interest on dialogue and deliberation. Conference held every two years.
• Conversation Cafe (308 members)
  Conversation Cafes promote community, democracy and wisdom world-wide through generating millions of open, respectful public conversations.
• e-democracy (346 members)
  For those interested in e-democracy, especially the efforts of E-Democracy.Org.
• E-Demokratie.org (in German, 12 members)
  E-Government oder E-Verwaltung beschreiben die Darstellung von Regierungs- und Verwaltungshandeln. E-Government wird aber auch häufig synonym mit dem Begriff E-Demokratie (eDemocracy) verwendet. Im Detail muss dabei jedoch stark differenziert werden: so geht es bei E-Demokratie nicht nur um elektronisch gestütztes Regieren. Es geht um viel mehr, es geht um Legitimation, Partizipation und Öffentlichkeit.
• ePractice.eu (97 members)
  epractice.eu is a good practice exchange scheme with a web portal, weekly newsletter, country factsheets, online library, practitioner profiles, events calendar and monthly workshops created by the European Commission for the professional community in eGovernment, e-Inclusion and eHealth. epractice.eu involves practitioners from all 27 Member States, EU-member candidate states and EFTA countries but others are welcome to join. The portal combines online activities with frequent offline exchanges: workshops, face-to-face meetings and public presentations. A large knowledge base of real-life case studies submitted by portal members is freely available. The Facebook extension is provided in order to bridge the gap between Facebook’s social and epractice.eu’s professional touch.
• Everyday Democracy (53 members)
  Everyday Democracy (formerly the Study Circles Resource Center) is a national organization that helps local communities find ways for all kinds of people to think, talk and work together to solve problems. We work with neighborhoods, cities and towns, regions, and states, helping them pay particular attention to how racism and ethnic differences affect the problems they address.
• Government 2.0 (205 members)
  A new governance construct is possible… Create it
• I support participatory democracy! (395 members)
  This group is for people who believe that democracy only becomes meaningful when it involves its people in participatory decisionmaking processes.
• ICT4Democracy (192 members)
  Gathering of citizens from across the world believing that Information and Communication Technologies can help in providing us with more and better democracy and are willing to do something about it … in their lifetime …
• International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) (20 members)
  IAP2 is an association of members who seek to promote and improve the practice of public participation in relation to individuals, governments, institutions, and other entities that affect the public interest in nations throughout the world.
• National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD) (348 members)
  A group for those dedicated to solving tough problems with honest talk, quality thinking and collaborative action. Join us if you agree with Einstein, that the problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.
• Participatory Budgeting (158 members)
  Participatory Budgeting (PB) can be broadly defined as the participation of citizens in the decision-making process of budget allocation and monitoring public spending. Participation may take various forms, from effective decision-making power in the allocation of resources to more modest initiatives that confer voice during the development of the budget. This is a group for exchange of information among those interested in practices of participatory budgeting.
• POLITECH INSTITUTE (European Center of Political Technologies) (112 members)
  POLITECH INSTITUTE is a not-for-profit international association (AISBL) and a European Center of Political Technologies located in Brussels, Capital of Europe, bridging public institutions, international institutions, governments, regional and local authorities, universities, research centers, think tanks, civil society and political leaders with technology actors for a better use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) towards the advancement of modern public governance and democracy.
• The World Cafe (249 members)
  A group for practitioners of/people interested in the TWC.

Needless to say, most of these organizations maintain resource-heavy websites of their own.

It’s by no means an exhaustive list, but should give you a head start if you want to connect with people in this community via Facebook. If you happen to know of any additional Facebook groups in this area, feel free to leave a comment.

I just joined a recently launched online community at epractice.eu, a portal created by the European Commission which connects practitioners from the e-government, e-participation, e-health etc. field from all across the European Union. It is “an interactive initiative that empowers its users to discuss and influence open government, policy-making and the way in which public administrations operate and deliver services.”

From the welcome message to their new eParticipation and eDemocracy Network:

Welcome to the eParticipation and eDemocracy Network

The eParticipation and eDemocracy Network is now open to all interested in issues such as eEngagement, eDeliberation, eInvolvement, eLegislation and eVoting, as well as eDecision, eRule and ePolicy-making. Despite this broad remit, however, these issues are all inter-related and contribute to new concepts and practices for the governance of our societies. Thus, it is also important not to see ‘e’ tools as separate from traditional democratic and participatory processes, for example there are potentially fundamental impacts on the relationships between representative and direct democracy. The community is an open platform for meeting and sharing experiences and knowledge, as well as for asking and providing support. It will encompass blog discussions, news items, good practices, promoting events and sharing documents and source material. It will also link to and help coordinate the various European Commission supported studies and projects directly relevant to eParticipation and eDemocracy. [...]

At Intellitics, that sounds like our cup of tea.

Already, a number of well-known European e-democracy practitioners and advocates have signed up. Given epractice.eu’s track record as a valuable resource in this field, I expect this community to get off to a great start.

Feel free to look me up. Look forward to insightful discussions and meeting great people.

From the November 26 issue of the Deliberative Democracy eBulletin (a must-read resource for us, click here to get to their archive and email subscription):

1 | Four Years of DDC Research and Practice
—–
Matt Leighninger writes about a draft discussion report, “Where is Democracy Headed? Four years of DDC research and practice” which is now available on the DDC wiki. In the report, Peter Levine and Lars Hasselblad Torres have described the findings, publications, and other products of the 2003 and 2005 Researcher and Practitioner meetings, and incorporated those ideas in an insightful essay on the future of deliberative democracy. They make twelve key observations on the state of the field and suggest seven critical steps for moving forward.

To read the draft and provide feedback visit: http://wiki.deliberative-democracy.net/index.php/Summary_Report

You can find Matt’s full blog post (and follow the discussion) here: Four years of DDC research and practice

Under “Ideas for Moving Forward”, the report lists a number of proposed areas for future research. The last paragraph is especially interesting with regard to what Intellitics does:

19. Give deeper attention to online methods

Since the Airlie House meeting in 2002, the DDC has deliberately included practitioners and proponents of online deliberation. However, the bulk of research has been devoted to face-to-face processes, and several interviewees wondered if there might still be a bias against technology. Polletta said, “I really think online is really important. We operate with this idea that face to face is the ideal form. All the research seems to suggest that you should generate your theories of deliberation based on what happens in face to face deliberation. Online is seen as a ‘peculiar’ form. ” However, face-to-face methods are more expensive and in some respects harder to implement.

At Intelltics, we want to contribute to this exciting field of work as much as we can. A few guidelines come to mind that we will try to follow:

• Plan ahead — Design and build with research in mind (instead of it being a mere afterthought).
• Provide access — Be available and open to outside research.
• Share — Make any findings available to the dialogue and deliberation community or the public.

So, if you are a researcher and would like help us bring online dialogue and deliberation to the next level, let’s talk!