Tiny House
More About The National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation • Join Now!
Community News

Posts with the Tag “assessment”

A Comprehensive Approach to Evaluating Deliberative Public Engagement

This 2008 essay by John Gastil (professor in the Department of Communication, University of Washington) provides a definition of citizen deliberation and suggests broad categories for evaluation, including design integrity, sound deliberation and judgment, influential conclusions/actions, and other secondary benefits (e.g., positive changes to individual participants’ civic attitudes and improvement in local political practices). Evaluation methods are identified for measuring each of these evaluation criteria, and summary recommendations consider how to conduct a thorough, integrated project assessment with a small or larger evaluation budget. Download […] (continue)

So What Difference Does it Make? Mapping the Outcomes of Citizen Engagement

This 72-page article by John Gaventa and Gregory Barrett was published in 2010 by the Institute for Development Studies. Over the last two decades, the idea that citizen engagement and participation can contribute to improved governance and development outcomes has been mainstreamed in development policy and discourse. Yet despite the normative beliefs that underpin this approach, the impact of participation on improved democratic and developmental outcomes has proved difficult to assess. Where previous research studies have attempted to demonstrate impact, they tend to be limited […] (continue)

Fostering Canadians’ Role in Public Policy: A Strategy for Institutionalizing Public Involvement in Policy

This 2006 CPRN (Canadian Policy Research Networks) report by Lori Turnbull and Peter Aucoin looks at the structural, cultural and practical barriers to making citizen engagement a natural and permanent part of our policy processes. To document the benefits of citizen involvement in the policy process, and for accountability, we need accurate and comparable data. Despite progress in Canada and elsewhere on evaluation frameworks, a commonly accepted set of evaluation criteria has yet to be established. Abelson and Gauvin make suggestions for refining evaluation (evaluating […] (continue)

Breaking barriers, crossing boundaries, building bridges: Communication processes in intergroup dialogues

Ratnesh Nagda’s 2006 article titled “Breaking barriers, crossing boundaries, building bridges: Communication processes in intergroup dialogues” was published in the Journal of Social Issues, 62(3), 553-576. Ratnesh shared the following text about the article and some related resources in an NCDD listserv discussion about assessment in October 2010: The communication processes conceptualizes the dialogic nature of encounter within the context of differences and inequalities. I found four interrelated processes: appreciating difference, engaging self, critical reflection and alliance building. My colleagues and I are now using […] (continue)

Why Engage Online?

Bang The Table’s 5-page pdf titled Why Engage Online outlines “eleven good reasons to engage your community online.” 1. Internet Saturation “Home-based internet access will be as normal in the 21st century as home-based telephone access became in the 20th century. Online conversation will be as normal as breathing. While there will always be some sections of the community with poor access to the internet, it is safe to say that more people have access to the internet than any other form of community engagement.” […] (continue)

Communities Creating Racial Equity: Sample Goals & Indicators of Outcomes

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. (continue)

PG Exchange

The CIVICUS Participatory Governance Programme (PGP), a subset of the World Alliance for Citizen Participation, hosts a global virtual platform for knowledge development, sharing and learning on participatory governance. The PG Exchange, at www.pgexchange.org, offers free access to resources covering a wide range of participatory governance practices and tools that aim to promote active citizenship and more transparent, responsive, accountable and effective governance at both the local and national level. (continue)

Evidence of Change: Exploring Civic Engagement Evaluation

This report summarizes the recent efforts of the Building Movement Project, the Alliance for Children and Families and the Ms. Foundation for Women who came together to respond to the call for methods and tools for measuring the impact of social change work. It offers a look into how organizations currently view their relationship with impact measurement and then presents a brief summary of the key findings that came out of the Civic Engagement Evaluation Summit convened by the partner organizations. (continue)

Assessing the Impacts of Public Participation: Concepts, Evidence and Policy Implications

This 2006 Research Report was written by Julia Abelson and François-Pierre Gauvin for the (now defunct) Canadian Policy Research Networks (CPRN). The arguments for engaging Canadians at all stages of the policy process are clear and overwhelming. Citizens demand a more meaningful role in policy development. Engagement is a powerful antidote to voter disaffection with political institutions. It means greater policy effectiveness and legitimacy, and it fosters inclusion and social cohesion. Assessing the Impacts of Public Participation explores what we know about assessing the impact […] (continue)

A Model for an Introductory Dialogue on Abortion

The model described here was developed for the single session introductory dialogues on abortion that Public Conversations Project conducted in 1990-1992 (eighteen sessions) and 1995-1998 (ten sessions). Most of these dialogues took place on weekday evenings between 6:00 and 9:30 and involved four to eight participants who did not know one another ahead of time. Several participants were activists but few were highly visible leaders. All groups were evenly balanced with people who described themselves as 'prochoice' or 'prolife.' (continue)