The Making of a Public by Craig Paterson
Posted: January 31, 2012 Filed under: Possible Issues to Frame for Deliberation - What do you think? | Tags: California NIF Network, communities, public, public-making 1 Comment »
We all have a place and a role in the ‘public.’ This appreciation of an all-inclusive participation in a shared, human environment goes back at least to the Greeks as they pondered their common good and civic purpose. The Greeks had already recognized that an awareness of a ‘public’ as an entity in its own right…larger and more significant than just the accumulation of disparate individuals. Those of us who seek to hear the voice of the ‘public’ today are challenged with all the classical barriers to public conversation AND some modern barriers that are presenting themselves for the first time in human history.
The ‘public’ exists and functions without our awareness…it doesn’t need anyone’s permission to be powerful. But…our awareness and appreciation of the ‘public’ CAN have some significant benefits…as we solve problems together, as we organize together to maximize our effective use of resources, and as we build great communities together. We have learned through the years, however, that this ‘public’ awareness doesn’t happen by itself…it requires its own careful attention.
Several years ago, we identified ‘public-making’ as one of the most critical roles in any deliberative project…large or small. And lately…the need for intentional and effective methods in gathering people into deliberative settings has been the theme of many blog posts and articles throughout the dialogue and deliberation community. Just for your information, here is the link to the matrix our California NIF Network is using…as an expansion from the original work on deliberative roles of a Kettering Foundation workshop:
Deliberative Roles for Community Teams matrix
Building on this basic understanding of ‘public-making’ then, we can begin to identify some key variables in this practice. Some communities have ‘public-makers’ who seem to be completely natural in the role without any prompting or teaching…it’s in their genes! Other communities have people who can become effective ‘public-makers’ with some encouragement and practice. A wide range of variables can be considered, tried and evaluated through time, creating a continuous, upward-spiral in learning and doing. Here are some thoughts from last May on several of these variables… (read the full article)
Capitol Hill leaders observe two National Issues Forums held in Washington, DC, December 5, 2011
Posted: December 12, 2011 Filed under: News and Views | Tags: A Nation in Debt, DC, deliberative forums, National debt, National Issues Forums, Washington Leave a comment »This post was written by Diane U. Eisenberg
On December 5, 2011, some sixty persons – forum participants and representatives of various Congressional offices and national and state associations – met at the Hall of States on Capitol Hill to address “A Nation in Debt”, a featured issue on this year’s National Issues Forums (NIF) agenda.
Given the size of the group, it was decided to convene two forums in adjoining rooms. Forum participants included delegations from the Legacy Leadership Program at the University of Maryland, the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute (OLLI) members from Victoria Falls, Maryland, and a student government class from Montgomery College, Maryland, thereby, adding an intergenerational perspective to the deliberations. One forum was co-moderated by Sharon Simson and Doris Goodlet of the Center for Public Life at the University of Maryland. The other forum was co-moderated by Bill Corbett and Beth Offenbacker, Center for Voter Deliberation of Northern Virginia. Michelle Scott, Montgomery College, served as recorder.
The representatives from Congressional offices and national and state associations served as observers of what for them was an opportunity to witness a different kind of conversation, one in which citizens brought their personal stakes and values to options for moving forward toward resolving their own and the country’s national debt.
After reviewing the ground rules and viewing the starter video, participants in both forums progressed diligently and systematically through the issue book options, arriving at their preferred approaches and identifying the tradeoffs or drawbacks for each.
Central to the conversations in both forums was a strong sense of disappointment in our nation’s leadership. While the participants were able to arrive at specific suggestions for each option, they expressed a strong sense of skepticism that they could be heard, and a feeling of lack of control. A sampling of frequently articulated comments were:
• I feel like a ball that is being manipulated and tossed around
• The system is just too big and poor little me has no say
• Things are out of whack; we need cultural changes
• The political will to affect change is missing
• The government needs to come together to solve problems
• We can’t do anything in the current political situation
• The Congress needs to take action, DO something
• They need to listen to the citizens and get off the dime
Despite this striking skepticism, there were points on which the participants agreed. Many were willing to accept higher taxes. They believed that the retirement age needs to be raised. They felt that entitlements should be reassessed. The one point on which there was total agreement was the need to strengthen our education system with emphasis on STEM education (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) and the addition of financial literacy courses into the high school curriculum. And finally, they agreed that it would take a combination of all three choices for progress to be made.
When asked to express their reactions to what they heard, several of the observers said the experience was interesting, but not surprising . . . “it’s a complex issue and we are in a heap of trouble.” However, they were impressed by the forum participants’ willingness to tackle such a multifaceted problem and to make real changes.
The representative from the House Agricultural Committee said it was good to hear from people outside the Beltway, but he reminded the group that Congress reflects the American people – - the divisions in Congress reflect our society. When asked what was different about this conversation, one thoughtful observer commented that true emotions come through, “it’s not like reading a report”, “it was not only what they said, but how they said it.”
During the summing up period, several forum participants said that despite their frustration they found great value in the forum experience as a way of not only expressing their own ideas, but learning how others felt about the issue. They praised the issue book because “it forces you to look at all aspects.” And, in general, “forums create opportunities to think more deeply and speak more candidly.”
These forums, organized by Alice Diebel and Phil Lurie, were appreciated by all who attended. Because they were held in Washington, D.C., they offered an opportunity for Capitol Hill leaders to hear first hand “a public voice.”
Deliberation as an Alternative?
Posted: October 31, 2011 Filed under: News and Views | Tags: Des Moines, National debt, National Issues Forums, NIF Leave a comment »(The following is Gerald Ott’s response to a guest columnist’s piece titled ”One Helping of Irony is now Being Served” in DesMoinesRegister.com.)
Graham,
Nice piece in today’s Des Moines Register. Near the end you say “Instead of disparaging those seeking to be heard, those in elected office need to give these throngs a voice by trying to collaborate to improve America’s situation.”
On Saturday I attended a forum at the DM Central Library. The seven of us “deliberated” about the national debt, using a moderated process and materials from the Nat’l Issues Forums (www.nifi.org). It seemed the few at the library were collaborating, but the throngs were in the streets. Any thoughts about how the two might get together (along with elected officials)?
Below are words from the NIF materials, including the the approaches we discussed. After the forum, we seven each filled out a survey and the moderator will send them and a report to the Kettering Foundation, who prepared the discussion guides. KF will write a report for leaders including politicians. Seems small in face of these huge problems. Thoughts?
Gerry Ott
gerry-ott@mchsi.com
Ankeny
From the introduction to A Nation in Debt: How Can We Pay the Bills?
It’s become apparent to many Americans that if we do not act decisively on the nation’s debt soon, our economy will be seriously hobbled and we will dump an unsustainable burden on our children and grandchildren.
“What’s decided (or not decided) over the next few years will spell big changes for the way we live our daily lives,” write Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson in Where Does the Money Go? Your Guided Tour to the Federal Budget Crisis. “How the country solves or doesn’t solve this problem will affect our paychecks, our investments, our mortgages, our kids’ prospects in life, what kind of health care we’ll get, our chances of ever getting to retire—even whether we live in a country that’s fair, stable and prosperous.”
This 12-page issue guide presents an overview of the problem and three options for deliberation.
Option One: Agree to Make Sacrifices Now – We need to compromise on our differences and act now to reduce the national debt. If this generation doesn’t make needed sacrifices, we’re simply passing the burden to the next generation. It’s time to face this urgent problem. We need to raise taxes and cut spending; neither will get the job done alone.
Option Two: Strengthen Checks and Balances – We cannot just hope that personal discipline and basic legislative safeguards will control the urge to spend. Citizens willingly accept more benefits than government can afford and leaders are too willing to help us dig this hole. Our top priority should be to make systemic changes to increase fiscal responsibility.
Option Three: Invest in Growth First – We need to encourage economic growth and invest in research, development, infrastructure, and science education. Growing the economy will boost tax revenues, make the debt more manageable, and will be better for the country in the long run. Drastic cost-cutting measures would likely harm the economy as it tries to recover.
Also read Gerry Ott’s blog post at http://asseenfromthisside.blogspot.com/
Taylor L. Willingham, 1957-2011, Public Engagement Pioneer
Posted: September 7, 2011 Filed under: News and Views 6 Comments »
- Taylor Willingham
Taylor L. Willingham, a pioneer in the public engagement field and in National Issues Forums (NIF) work, including her service as a National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI) director, passed away on Monday, September 5, 2011 at her home in Salado, Texas, after a year-long battle with kidney cancer.
During her career Taylor designed, organized, and led numerous public engagement projects; taught university courses online; founded Texas Forums, along with her work with the LBJ Presidential Library; worked in the adult literacy field; and wrote about public engagement, just to name a few of her many accomplishments.
The following is a message written by Taylor’s mother, June Willingham, announcing Taylor’s death, and the establishment of the Taylor Willingham Legacy Fund:
Heaven just became sweeter…
…for the time has come for our shining star, who never had enough time, to make her final journey to eternal life where time has no end. She slipped through the fingers of her loving family at her side, husband and mom and dad, unencumbered at last, in a spiritual body with no more pain or suffering, to her home in the heavens in the evening of September 5, 2011.
On August 17, 1957, this beautiful baby was shoved out into God’s beautiful world, flawed by man. With hands on hips, and head held firm, she assessed the situation and declared, “What we need is deliberative democracy through deliberative dialogue with community engagement learning to manage change through libraries with literacy involvement.” And that was her life’s work.
But alas, her work came to an untimely end in this world. She has moved on to a bigger and better world where there is no need to deliberate democracy, for there is only one party—sitting at the feet of Jesus singing and praising God. This community is already engaged in harmony and in one accord. The Management never changes—He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. And everyone can read their own names in the only book—the Book of Life. I wonder which of her names will be recorded there. Taylor? Teri? Terri Lynn? Or Teresa. Doesn’t matter. Taylor by any other name is a child of God.
We invite you to a celebration of her life on September 17, at the Salado United Methodist Church. Taylor loved nature, but her real passion was her work. If you would like to honor her memory and support her passions, you may donate, in lieu of flowers, to:
Taylor Willingham Legacy Fund, to honor her life’s work in a way that comes from her and means she will be remembered for the core of her own passion.
Send check marked for Willingham Legacy Fund to:
National Issues Forums Institute
National Issues Forum 100 Commons Road
Dayton, Ohio 45459or
Salado Education Foundation (marked for Willingham Memorial)
P O Box 458
Salado, TX 76571
Attn: Claire HartmanThank you all for your loving support during this difficult journey. Your beautiful notes have carried us through, and we will treasure them always as we carry Taylor in our hearts. She will be missed by family and friends.
With love,
Terry, Ben, June, Brent, Terri, Ben and Becca
From Craig Paterson – A Deliberative ‘Carpe Diem’ Moment
Posted: August 4, 2011 Filed under: News and Views 1 Comment »A Deliberative ‘Carpe Diem’ Moment
Certain moments in history require dedicated and focused attention to critical decisions. I believe we’re living in one of those moments…when deliberative work can be incredibly important for short-term and long-term well-being of our neighbors and our country. This is the moment for which we’ve been prepared in our experiences, our research and studies, and our professional practices. Carpe diem, my friends! ‘Seize the day’ to revive our democratic resilience through thousands of networked, small-group conversations to inform our leaders with the values, hopes and expectations of all Americans.
Last November and again in May, research workshops at the Kettering Foundation focused on how online digital strategies could encourage and effectively network greater public engagement in our most critical political dilemmas. In both of these workshops, we reaffirmed our confidence that great strides have been made in dialogue and deliberation during the past quarter century. We have a remarkably rich and deep deliberative infrastructure in place for in big cities and small towns across the country. Our biggest challenge it seems is to coordinate highly diverse efforts and then to make sense of a huge and nebulous cloud of deliberative data.
As we consider dialogue and deliberation as a wide-spread national strategy in light of our rancorous political environment, I want to reiterate my belief that the National Issues Forums (NIF) and National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD) communities are already well prepared for these conversations…with a diversity of practices giving many entry-points. Each practice is specifically suited to approach issues in a unique way, so participants with different personalities and small-group comfort levels can add their values, hopes and expectations to a composite view of public opinion. It’s like a room with many doors…it doesn’t matter how you get in, it matters that you’re included in the deliberative room.
Some conversations among NCDD practitioners recently seem to be leaning toward a one-methodology approach to a national conversation. While I don’t really want to be a wet-blanket about this approach, I do believe the development, management and coordination requirements of such an effort would make it too costly, too slow and too complicated, when we already have a wealth of deliberative professionals and volunteers who are trained and ready in their preferred disciplines.
I believe we need to encourage all deliberative disciplines to focus their attentions on our economy, jobs, wealth distribution and long-term economic sustainability. Each discipline can frame and conduct these conversations in whatever ways they find to be appropriate. It would probably be healthy to have many different frameworks for these deliberative conversations, so many people from all political, ethnic, geographic, and ideological backgrounds can find a place in a small-group somewhere.
But then…here’s a huge need, but one I’m sure we can meet with imagination and innovation: once these diverse disciplines inspire conversations across the country on these topics, how can we then gather the highlights and agreements in a meaningful and persuasive cloud of values and desires? This is already a huge challenge with deliberative efforts working at just a tiny fraction of its true capacity. If we can somehow increase this capacity to meet the needs of our current political environment, we’ll clearly need some new technological tools to make sense of all the data we’ll need to process.
Any thoughts? How should we encourage and inspire participation in public engagement at this critical time? How can we network all disciplines in some semblance of focus as the public hopes for more opportunities to speak? How can we recognize the patterns of common ground that already exist but elude detection? It’s time to meet these challenges…as we embrace our deliberative ‘carpe diem’ moment.
Higher Education
Posted: August 4, 2011 Filed under: Possible Issues to Frame for Deliberation - What do you think? Leave a comment »National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI) director Jean Johnson suggested the following as a possible issue for development into a deliberative framework. We welcome your comments and additional information about this issue.
I am proposing higher education as an NIF topic because I believe the country faces a number of important choices and trade-offs about its future, some of which involve core values about opportunity and fairness in our country. Although the U.S. higher education system has long been regarded as the best in the world, there are numerous signs that the system is under stress and that large numbers of Americans are asking tough questions about whether the system we have is the system that we need and want.
Here are some of the developments that make this topic so compelling to me.
- According to U.S. government projections, “nearly 8 out 10 new jobs will require higher education and work force training” over the next decade.[1]
- There’s a whole cast of government, corporate, foundation, and education leaders pushing for reform. Their criticisms circle around higher education’s costs, quality, whether the system is “accountable,” and whether its mission is suited to the world we live in now.
- According to a forthcoming Public Agenda study of young adults, most young college graduates say it is very likely that they’ll be economically secure in their lifetimes, but only 36 percent of young people without degrees say the same.
- The number of Americans going to college has been increasing, but dropout rates are stunningly high. Only 4 in 10 students who start four-year college programs graduate after six years.[2]
- According to the ACT College Readiness Standards, 78 percent of students entering higher education are not adequately prepared for college-level reading, English, math or science.[3] This puts an enormous pressure on the system. It raises the question of whether college is the right choice for all of these students and about higher education’s responsibility for helping these young people catch up.
- Despite broad calls for more college graduates in the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and math), the United States is number 27 in the proportion of college students who complete degrees in these fields.[4] As of 2000, there were more foreign students in U.S. graduate engineering programs than there were Americans.[5]
- Many are concerned about the rise of for-profit colleges. Some see them as providing a needed prod to traditional higher education, while others say these new schools profits off the aspirations of the most vulnerable Americans who are seeking to better themselves.
Public Agenda surveys of the public also show that more Americans are asking tough questions:
- As recently as 2000, just 31 percent of Americans believed that a college education was essential to succeed in the American workplace. By 2009, a 55% majority had come to believe it—a stunning change in such a short period of time.
- At the same time, more Americans worry that there are many qualified, motivated students who don’t have the opportunity to go to college.
- Most Americans say students have to borrow too much money to go to college
- 6 in 10 have come to believe that colleges are more focused on the bottom line than they are on their educational missions.
NIF would need to develop a compelling choicework for the higher education topic, and I am not sure what the choices would be at this point. However, I do think the issue raises interesting practical and values questions such as:
- Is going to college a right or is it a privilege for those willing to work hard, save, and sacrifice to get a degree?
- Has the system become too focused on what’s good for the institutions rather than what’s good for students and the greater society?
- Do we want a society where people are rewarded based on how educated they are, and what are the implications of that decision?
- Do we want a higher education system that’s geared to building a stronger economy or one that emphasizes citizenship, free inquiry, or the acquisition of knowledge for knowledge’s sake?
- Are we putting too much emphasis on going to college? What do we owe to the young people who, for whatever reason, do not pursue college degrees?
- Is American losing its respect for people who are not college graduates—people who work with their hands or have non-academic skills? How do we feel about that?
[1] White House Fact Sheet, Building American Skills by Strengthening Community Colleges, 2010. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/White_House_Summit_on_Community_Colleges_Fact_Sheet.pdf
[2] Public Agenda, With Their Whole Lives Ahead of Them, 2009, Page 2. http://www.publicagenda.org/files/pdf/theirwholelivesaheadofthem.pdf
[3]The National Academy of Sciences, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited:
Rapidly Approaching Category 5, Page 11, 2010. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12999#description
[4] The National Academy of Sciences, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited:
Rapidly Approaching Category 5, Page 8, 2010. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12999#description
[5] The National Academy of Sciences, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited:
Rapidly Approaching Category 5, Page 7, 2010. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12999#description
End of Life Spending
Posted: August 4, 2011 Filed under: Possible Issues to Frame for Deliberation - What do you think? Leave a comment »National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI) director Chris Satullo suggested the following as a possible issue for development into a deliberative framework. We welcome your comments and additional information about this issue.
The issue I’d recommend could be named, provocatively, “Do we have a duty to die?”
It’s generally agreed that one of the main drivers of government spending and deficits is health care.
It’s generally agreed that the most worrisome drivers of government health care spending are Medicare and Medicaid.
A little-recognized diver of Medicaid spending is skilled nursing care for the elderly, infirm poor (and, after some dubious finagling, the middle-class elderly).
A well-known driver of Medicare spending is the heroic, costly and usually futile care given to people who are near the end of life.
It is not unfair to suggest that our health care system has a bias for such futile spending on the very sick and very elderly over proper prenatal and early childhood care, over preventive, holistic care for adults, and for long-term care for those with chronic diseases and disabilities.
I have yet to speak to a public health or health economics expert who does not take the above statements as givens of the status quo.
But I have also never spoken to one who has any optimism that the American public is ready for the conversations, judgments and adjustments that would be required to shift health spending from end-of-life futility to public health logic. Few have either the deliberative skills or the patience to figure out how to frame the issue for public consumption.
The experience of the Obama health care overhaul – and in particular the demagogic storm over “death panels” – has strongly reinforced the experts’ pessimism. That brouhaha has pretty much turned this issue into a “third rail” of inside the Beltway politics.
A deep cause of this syndrome is the American reluctance to come to terms with a brutal fact: We all die.
We tend to ask the health care system and government to spend enormous sums to sustain the pretense that either our loved ones or ourselves can be exempted from mortality, or at the least guaranteed a quiet death in our sleep at age 99.
So we do not have the conversations with family members that we should have, to give them clear guidance if we are incapacitated by a life-threatening situation. We do not prepare living wills or final directives. When it comes to other loved ones, we insist that medicine spend enormous sums on the off chance that a miracle will happen.
As a result of our clinging to pretense, the medical profession does not train or gird itself to have the kind of honest conversations with patients and families that could lead to a good, or at least better, death free of tubes, machines and unnecessary spending. It shrugs, orders procedures and tests, and inflates the health care budget to no good end.
This is an issue that involves technology and finances, but that is not really technical or fiscal. It is purely about values, about family dialogue and community will, about professional values and individual understanding.
It’s a great and urgent topic for deliberation.
Among those I’ve discussed these issues with are Art Caplan, head of bioethics at Penn, David Grande, a health economist and doctor at Penn, David Nash, death of public health at Thomas Jefferson University, Rob Field, a health economist at Drexel, Harris Sokoloff of the Penn Project for Civic Engagement, and my wife, who is an oncology social worker who has guided many families through end of life situations.
Eating Ourselves Sick
Posted: July 13, 2011 Filed under: Possible Issues to Frame for Deliberation - What do you think? Leave a comment »National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI) director Frank Fear suggested the following as a possible issue for development into a deliberative framework. We welcome your comments and additional information about this issue.
Food, Nutrition, and Health in Precarious Relationship
Many issues facing Americans today are imposed on them, such as the national macro-economic changes that are affecting families’ economic security. However, every day in this country Americans are doing something to themselves: consuming food—in type and amount—that has negative implications for their long-term health.
The Growing Gap between the Haves and Have Nots
Posted: July 13, 2011 Filed under: Possible Issues to Frame for Deliberation - What do you think? Leave a comment »National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI) director Bo Beaulieu suggested the following as a possible issue for development into a deliberative framework. We welcome your comments and additional information about this issue.
Is Income Inequality Harmful to American Communities?
A recent book published by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett titled, The Spirit Level (2009), has created quite a stir in countries across the world. The central premise of the book is that societies or communities that are more equal often do better on a wide array of socioeconomic measures – be they health, education, crime, trust, and social mobility. In essence, people from the same social strata with the same set of quality of life attributes do better in societies that are more equal than those associated with greater income inequality.
National Issues for Consideration
Posted: July 13, 2011 Filed under: Possible Issues to Frame for Deliberation - What do you think? Leave a comment »National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI) director Scott Clemons suggested the following as possible issues for development into deliberative frameworks. We welcome your comments and additional information about these issues.
Racism
With our first black President, our prospective on racism and our sensibilities may have changed. The protracted discussion about the President’s birth certificate, however, suggests that the issue is still ripe for a national conversation. Comments by talk radio personalities and the sudden termination of Shirley Sherrod for supposedly discriminatory remarks give further credence to this.
