Based on more than 60 interviews, this 2007 article by Peter Levine of the University of Maryland and Rose Marie Nierras of the University of Sussex explores the tensions between deliberation and various forms of political activism and advocacy. It identifies more than 20 objections to deliberation that are proposed by political activists in various countries and contexts. It concludes with suggestions for combining deliberation and advocacy. Download the article here. (continue)

The following are remixed highlights of Beth Noveck’s talk “Transparent Government” that she gave as part of the Long Now Foundation‘s Seminars about Long-Term Thinking. As with Noveck’s original talk, these highlights, as remixed by Hassan Masum and posted on August 11, 2010 here on worldchanging.com, are made available under a Creative Commons by-nc-sa 2.5 license. Noveck talks about the three pilars of the Open Government Directive:  transparency, participation and collaboration.  About deliberative democracy, she emphasizes the importance of focusing on action in addition to ... (continue)

This NCDD project report to the Kettering Foundation 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). (continue)

The issue guide, “Fulfilling Our e-State Potential: Building Community in a ‘Connected’ Age” on Everyday Democracy’s Issue Guide Exchange, is designed to help citizens deliberate about ways to use e-state technology to help enhance community and civic life. It’s designed to be used during a one-day symposium and includes an exploration of community, scenarios to help explore e-state opportunities and challenges, an exercise to identify e-state values, and opportunities to identify action steps. (continue)

This is the 2006 revision of the Facing Racism discussion guide from Everyday Democracy (formerly the Study Circles Resource Center). Available in both English and Spanish – with a supplementary guide for affinity-group dialogues, this six-session discussion guide helps all kinds of people take part in meaningful dialogue to examine gaps among racial and ethnic groups and create institutional and  policy change. The guide is endorsed by a wide range of public figures including Bill Bradley, Jack Kemp, Spellman College President Dr. Beverly Daniel Tatum, ... (continue)

A comprehensive guide to help you develop a community-wide study circle program from start to finish. Study Circles are at the heart of a process for public dialogue and community change. This process begins with community organizing, and is followed by facilitated, small-group dialogue that leads to a range of outcomes. Study circles don't advocate a particular solution. Instead, they welcome many points of view around a shared concern. (continue)

Part of a larger community program, an Everyday Democracy dialogue (formerly known as a "Study Circle") is a group of 8 to 12 people from different backgrounds and viewpoints who meet several times to talk about a critical public issue. In a dialogue, everyone has an equal voice, and people try to understand one another's views. They do not have to agree with one another. The idea is to share concerns and look for ways to make things better. A neutral facilitator helps the group look at different views and makes sure the discussion goes well. (continue)

The following is a working document developed in 2002 to ensure that members of the planning team for the first National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation were aware of the various streams of dialogic and deliberative practice. The 2002 conference was the first major event to bring people together from the entire spectrum of D&D practice, and it was important to us that all of these streams felt welcomed to the conference, and were represented in all aspects of the conference - from the handbook to the break-out sessions. (continue)

This questionnaire was designed to be used to examine the outcomes of dialogue groups. The intention was to measure attitudes toward racial, ethnic and cultural groups, optimism regarding the future of race relations in this country, willingness to interact with members of other racial and ethnic groups, perceived understanding of other racial and ethnic groups, and racial and ethnic stereotypes. (continue)

How can intergroup dialogue organizers integrate talk with action more effectively, without damaging the dialogue process itself by focusing too much on action or ending the dialogue too soon? Heierbacher's Master's thesis for the School for International Training tackles this important question. For this research, leaders of race dialogue programs were interviewed, materials in the fields of conflict resolution, community building, and social change were examined, and an in-depth study of existing dialogue materials and resources was conducted to answer this question. The end result? A set of strategies which can help dialogue organizers enable their participants to take more effective action in their communities. (continue)