At the 2008 National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation, we focused on 5 challenges identified by participants at our past conferences as being vitally important for our field to address. Our leader for the “Framing Challenge” was Jacob Hess, then-Ph.D. Candidate in Clinical-Community Psychology at the University of Illinois. Jacob wrote up an in-depth report on what was discussed at the conference in this challenge area, as well as his own reflections as a social conservative who is committed to dialogue. Download the 2008 Framing ... (continue)

At the 2008 National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation, we focused on 5 challenges identified by participants at our past conferences as being vitally important for our field to address. This is one in a series of five posts featuring the final reports from our “challenge leaders.” Evaluation Challenge: Demonstrating that dialogue and deliberation works How can we demonstrate to power-holders (public officials, funders, CEOs, etc.) that D&D really works? Evaluation and measurement is a perennial focus of human performance/change interventions. What evaluation tools and ... (continue)

The first NCDD conference was held in October 2002 outside of Washington, DC in Alexandria, Virginia. This 28-page report includes a letter from the conference director outlining what worked and what could be improved, a list of who made the conference happen, a listing of all workshops offered at the conference, a description of the three plenary sessions and their outcomes, descriptions of the 12 "next steps groups" that formed at the conference, and a detailed look at whether we met our initial goals. (continue)

NCDD's Engagement Streams Framework helps people decide which dialogue and deliberation method(s) are most appropriate for their circumstance. The framework is a series of two charts that categorize the D&D field into four streams based on intention or purpose (Exploration, Conflict Transformation, Decision Making, and Collaborative Action), and show which of the most well-known methods have proven themselves effective in which streams. The second chart goes into more detail about 23 dialogue and deliberation methods, and includes information such as group size, meeting type and how participants are selected. (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 survey was conducted by Sandy Heierbacher for the Center for Living Democracy and the Corporation for National Service via telephone between the months of July 1998 and February 1999. Seventy-five leaders of U.S. dialogue organizations and dialogue groups were interviewed, the vast majority of whom primarily organize intergroup dialogues on race. This survey eventually led Sandy to initiate (with others) the first National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation, and to found NCDD, since it was clear that dialogue practitioners were disconnected from one another and largely unaware of the organizations and resources that were available to them. (continue)

In October 2004, over 300 people came together at Regis University in Denver, Colorado for the second National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation. The main purpose of the gathering was to encourage conference attendees and planners, together, to continue developing this important, growing field of practice. Networking, experiencing different methods, sharing learnings, hearing from leaders in the field, exploring key issues facing the field - all of these are field-building activities, and all were given a place at the 2004 NCDD Conference. (continue)

In 2004 and 2005, NCDD contracted with AmericaSpeaks to have them conduct a scoping study to determine whether a 'National Dialogue Bureau' was a feasible idea. The Dialogue Bureau, if developed, would supply journalists with a 'one stop' destination for the collection of views held by ordinary Americans who engage in informed dialogue about current affairs. The Dialogue Bureau would create a network of leaders of dialogue and deliberation groups who are willing to speak with the media about the key findings and concerns of their group. Here is the home of the final reports resulting from interviews with journalists and leaders in D&D. (continue)

The NCDD staff, Board of Directors, Steering Committee, and membership all participated in a collaborative visioning and planning process to provide us with clarity about NCDD's objectives, vision, resources and strengths, and a blueprint for effectively incorporating all of these things into our decision-making process. Our Strategic Plan is the result of this process. For an organization that is being pulled in dozens of different directions due to the varied needs of our members, our field of practice, our communities and humanity in general, this plan will help ensure that NCDD develops into an efficient, forward-thinking organization. (continue)

Collaborative technology can create an interactive learning environment involving people who are hundreds or thousands of miles apart. Businesses are far more savvy with the more sophisticated packages of high-tech tools available than we are in the dialogue and deliberation community, and the prohibitive cost of many of the tools, software and services primarily marketed to businesses is the most obvious reason for that. (continue)