Tag Archive for 'Deliberation'

Intellitics at “No Better Time” Conference, University of New Hampshire, July 8-11, 2009

Published by Tim on July 7, 2009 in Deliberation, Events and Research. 3 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

I’ll be taking the red-eye to Boston tonight on my way to what looks like a great conference: No Better Time: Promising Opportunities in Deliberative Democracy for Educators and Practitioners

The conference is hosted by The Democracy Imperative and the Deliberative Democracy Consortium.

From their website:

What are the conference’s objectives?

Deliberative democracy has reached a critical point in its development. Over the last fifteen years, shifts in citizen capacities and attitudes have led to a dramatic proliferation of citizen participation and deliberative practices, and in 2008 they helped to produce an historic presidential election. On the heels of these changes, new opportunities for educators and practitioners are emerging in communities, in government, and on campuses. The primary goal of “No Better Time” is to take stock of these developments and to consider future directions for educators and practitioners in teaching, research, and in citizen‐centered initiatives.

We know what we want to happen: colleges and universities will make democracy central to their academic, governance, and public missions; researchers, practitioners, and other leaders will learn together better in order to improve the practice of deliberative democracy on the ground; educators will ensure that all graduates understand and know their responsibilities in a just, free, equitable society; students will become skilled in the arts of dialogue, deliberation and public reason, conflict management, and collaborative decision and policy making; the gap will close between researchers and practitioners and theory and practice…

We don’t know all that needs to happen to make these aspirations a reality. And we think that by bringing together a lot of smart, dedicated, and experienced people, we can figure it out. Convening people who care about deliberative democracy, learning from each other about what works, mapping out and prioritizing activities, and providing the space for innovation and collaboration; these are the objectives of this conference.

About 250 people are attending.

Below are some of the sessions I’m looking at (many run in parallel, so sadly I won’t be able to attend them all):

  • The “downside” of deliberative democracy (Alice Siu, Stanford University; Mary Jacksteit, Public Conversations Project)
  • Deliberative democracy in federal agencies (Roger Bernier, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Leanne Nurse, Environmental Protection Agency)
  • Embedding deliberative practices in local democracy (Terry Amsler, Collaborative Governance Initiative, League of California Cities; Will Friedman, Public Agenda; BongHwan Kim, Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, City of Los Angeles)
  • Funding and fostering democracy: What have foundations learned about the field, and what do they want to know? (Stuart Comstock-Gay, Vermont Community Foundation: John Esterle, Whitman Institute; Chris Gates, Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement; Dick Ober, New Hampshire Foundation)
  • Renewing the research agenda (Jim Fishkin, Stanford University; Archon Fung, Harvard University; Peter Levine, CIRCLE)
  • A tech-savvy citizenry: New media for public participation, policy deliberation, and social change (Joe Peters, Ascentum; Brad Rourke, blog.bradrourke.com)
  • Embedding deliberative practices in national democracy (Carolyn Lukensmeyer, AmericaSpeaks; Pete Peterson, Pepperdine University and Common Sense California)
  • Making the case for this work: Improving the way we collect, report, and explain outcomes (Tina Nabatchi, Syracuse University; Kristen Cambell, National Conference on Citizenship)
  • Choosing, combining, and adapting deliberation models and methods (Martin Carcasson, Colorado State University; Jim Fishkin, Stanford University; Sandy Heierbacher, National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation; Joe Peters, Ascentum)
  • Participatory budgeting in local government (Malka Kopell, Community Focus; Harris Sokoloff, University of Pennsylvania)

Quite the line-up, eh?

A lot of pre-conference reading material is publicly available on the conference wiki.

For those wanting to follow the conference from a distance, the tag for this conference is nbt09 (or #nbt09 on Twitter).

What Is Deliberation?

Published by Tim on March 4, 2009 in Deliberation and Dictionary. 0 Comments Tags: , .

In their FAQ, The Deliberative Democracy Consortium defines deliberation and deliberative democracy as follows:

What is “deliberation”?

Deliberation is an approach to decision-making in which citizens consider relevant facts from multiple points of view, converse with one another to think critically about options before them and enlarge their perspectives, opinions, and understandings.

What is “deliberative democracy”?

Deliberative democracy strengthens citizen voices in governance by including people of all races, classes, ages and geographies in deliberations that directly affect public decisions. As a result, citizens influence–and can see the result of their influence on–the policy and resource decisions that impact their daily lives and their future.

See also these previous posts:

NCDD’s Learning Exchange lists a few more definitions and notes that deliberation “can be used to solve problems, make decisions, produce recommendations, identify choices, and develop action plans.”

National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation: October 3-5, 2008 in Austin, Texas

Published by Tim on July 2, 2008 in Events. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , .

Intellitics will attend this year’s National Conference on Dialogue and Deliberation, October 3-5, 2008 in Austin, Texas.

Here’s a quote from the NCDD email newsletter from today that gives you the details:

1.  Latest on the 2008 National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation: Creating Cultures of Collaboration

We know your budget is tight this year, but if you are only able to attend one conference in 2008, we think it should be this one. Many people have told us our conferences are the best they’ve ever experienced. I just got an email from Larry Dressler saying the last NCDD conference (his first) was “probably the most innovatively designed meeting of this kind that I’ve ever attended.”

Our conferences are highly participatory (no keynotes and no traditional, dry panels), highly innovative (we try new things each year that are often imitated) and highly accessible (regular registration is only $375, which is about half of what comparable events cost). But the best thing about our conferences, by far, is the people. NCDD events draw the most intelligent, kind-hearted, positive, and thoughtful people I’ve ever encountered, and they’re what make our gatherings great.

So here’s what’s new…

a. The preliminary conference schedule is up at www.thataway.org/events/?page_id=113 – it’s shaping up to be our best conference yet. Confirmed workshops will be added shortly.

b. Our featured speakers are pictured and described at www.thataway.org/events/?page_id=156 – the stellar line-up includes D&D stars Carolyn Lukensmeyer, Bill Isaacs, Frances Moore Lappe, David Campt, Jim Fishkin and Hans-Peter Meister.

c.  At NCDD Austin, we’ll be tackling 5 of the main challenges facing our field. Check them out at www.thataway.org/events/?p=106

NCDD 2008 is co-sponsored by the Institute for Civic Discourse and Democracy at Kansas State University, the Global Facilitator Service Corps, the Forum Foundation, the Democracy Imperative, the Bluebonnet Hills Christian Church, the LBJ Presidential Library, and Regis University’s Institute on the Common Good, and Everyday Democracy and Hal Saunders are Partners of the conference.

Learn more about the 2008 NCDD conference, which will take place October 3-5 in Austin, Texas, at www.thataway.org/events – or register at www.thataway.org/events/?page_id=136 .  Hope to see you there!

Their 2006 conference was held in San Francisco and a truly spectecular event, in terms of both content and people.

If you’re interested in doing something at or around the conference that focuses on the online component to dialogue, deliberation, or public participation, make sure to drop me a line or simply leave a comment.

14 Facebook groups for the dialogue, deliberation, public participation, e-government and e-democracy community

Published by Tim on May 9, 2008 in Community and Resources. 8 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , .

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.

Announcing Project Z

Published by Tim on April 22, 2008 in About and Events. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , .

These are the slightly modified slides from a quick presentation I gave last night at Web Monday Silicon Valley in San Francisco. It’s a first high-level introduction to our first product, a web application for problem solving and decision making in large groups.

We hope to have the initial pieces of an alpha version in place some time over the coming weeks.

Quick Comparison: Debate and Deliberation

Published by Tim on November 18, 2007 in Deliberation and Dictionary. 0 Comments Tags: , .

Sandra S. Hodge, Ph.D. and Program Director Discovering Common Ground: Missouri Communities Deliberate at University of Missouri has a nice comparison chart that looks at the differences between debate and deliberation: Deliberation and Your Community: How to Convene and Moderate Local Public Forums Using Deliberative Decision-Making (training manual) (PDF, 1.1MB). The training manual is part of a resource kit for deliberative decision-making projects.

Debate vs. Deliberation

In debate, you search for weaknesses in another position In deliberation, you search for strength in another position.
In debate, you search for glaring differences. Deliberation involves concern for others.
Debate involves countering the other’s position at the expense of the relationship. Deliberation assumes that many people have pieces of an answer to a workable solution.
Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in your beliefs. In deliberation, you temporarily suspend your judgment of other’s beliefs.
Debate is oppositional and seeks to prove the other wrong. Deliberation is collaborative and seeks common understanding.
The goal of debate is winning – often only for a short-term advantage. The goal of deliberation is common ground for action, which is the basis for consistent policy.
In debate, you listen to find flaws and counter-arguments. In deliberation, you listen to understand and find meaning in agreement.
Debate defends assumptions as truth. Deliberation reveals assumptions for reevaluation.
Debate defends original solutions. Deliberation opens the possibility of better solutions.
In debate, you submit your best thinking and defend its rightness. In deliberation, you submit your best thinking in order to improve it.

Interestingly enough, while there have recently been quite a few initiatives that focus on building better tools for online debate the same cannot be said for online deliberation (at least as far as I am aware of).

One reason for that, in my view, is the fact that both dialogue and deliberation require very good listening skills on the part of the participants. And as difficult as listening may seem in real life, it is generally that much harder to do online.