Dialogue and Deliberation Resource Center

As a proponent of systems thinking, I’m often reminded of the gulf that exists between our ability to recognize big, hairy, systemic problems and our capacity to solve such problems together. It’s sometimes tempting to throw up our hands in disgust at the persistent divisions that impede constructive conversation and action on big system challenges. But one organization that never wavers in its resolve and has established itself as a force for progress in this realm is the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD).

NCDD has been cataloging resources about and for dialogue and deliberation since 2002.  Their extraordinary resource center gives you access to more than 2,600 discussion guides, assessment tools, case studies, public engagement programs and organizations, articles, books, videos, and more.

Dialogue and deliberation are innovative processes that bring people together across divides to discuss, decide, and collaborate on today’s toughest issues.  NCDD’s Resource Center was designed to connect you with the information, guidance, theory, and examples you need to engage people effectively.

You can use the search field, categories and tags, or additional sidebar navigation options to hone in. Especially recommended is the “I’m Looking For…” sidebar box that lets you cross-search categories and tags. Use the site map contents to see a full list of all the categories and tags, or just look over the most recently added resources.  Know of a great resource on dialogue, deliberation, or public engagement that should be added to NCDD’s Resource Center?  A form is provided so you can submit your favorites!

A big thank you to NCDD co-founders Sandy Heierbacher and Andy Fluke for their commitment to this important work.

What’s in it for We…and Me?

The campus center at UMass Boston was a splendid setting for last Friday’s regional gathering of the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD), a nonprofit that promotes civic engagement and provides networking and resources for facilitators of community conversations.

The stunning view of Boston Harbor from the third floor of the center underscored our access to precious public resources and our shared responsibility for participating in policy-setting processes.

With so much at stake, you might think that public participation in such processes would be quite high, but of course, the truth is that barely half of us even bother to vote. Many fewer actually engage in meaningful conversation about how to balance various community interests—that is, until there’s a waste treatment plant being sited in our neighborhood, or a forest management plan that we’re afraid will decimate our family business.

In a small table discussion with Bill Logue of MODR (Massachusetts Office of Public Collaboration; formerly “dispute resolution”), we reviewed some of the reasons that we give for not getting involved in “upstream” conversations about civic issues before we feel threatened by a proposed change:

1. I don’t have enough time (too busy)
2. My participation won’t change anything (too jaded)
3. I’m not good at that sort of thing (too shy)

Obscured in these reasons is a fundamental affection for the status quo. Yes, even during a time of high citizen dissatisfaction like the one we’re in now, many of us would prefer to live with the “devil we know” rather than embrace the uncertainties of change. And I’m not just talking about change in our environment; I mean change in ourselves.

At the meeting, Daniel Clark of AmericaSpeaks presented the results of a 3,500-person/57-city town hall meeting that his organization facilitated last summer to solicit citizen input on resolving our national budget deficit crisis. Among the most interesting things they heard at the end of the 7-hour collaboration: Fewer than 15% of the participants said that they had not been changed by the process. And over 90% said they had enjoyed it and would do it again.

Somehow we know that when we engage with the system directly, the influence doesn’t flow in only one direction. In other words, by taking steps to influence others we also open ourselves to being influenced—something we might find reasons to avoid because it feels demanding and risky. When we remind ourselves that the rewards of being changed more than outweigh the risks, we find the time and the moxie to be part of the process.

What civic process might you choose to engage in—both for your sake and ours?