The opinions of the NIF model are taking into consideration adaptations and additions that have been used in the Owensboro area. To learn more about the NIF model, visit the "National Issues Forums (NIF) website, the Kettering Foundation website, or the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation website.
"National Issues Forums (NIF)" is a nonpartisan, nationwide network of locally sponsored public forums for the consideration of public policy issues."
The NIF forum is characterized by the use of a NIF guide. The guide's primary thrust for a dialogue that yields a "successful deliberation" is the formulation of information and knowledge of the particular issue into at least three options. The premise is that to achieve critical thinking and in-depth analysis there must be more than a "yes/no" stance on a particular issue. Simply put, a minimum of three options on any particular issue, with pros and cons per option, places participants in a group setting where they are required at the outset to explore the topic in more depth.
Much of the NIF work has been facilitated by the Kettering Foundation.
The Kettering Foundation's work is guided by three assumptions:
1. Democracy requires citizens who accept their responsibility and are able to make sound decisions about the public's interest.
2. Democracy requires healthy societies of citizens in communities.
3. Democracy requires legitimate institutions that encourage healthy civil societies.
The NIF forums require participants "to make choices with others about ways to approach difficult issues and to work toward creating reasoned public judgment." The pervasive theme of NIF forums is participant involvement in "choice work".
The outcome for NIF forums is to have the group come to a common ground. The common ground is that gray area where participants can agree. After reviewing the pros and cons of each of at least three options on an issue, participants then are asked to develop a common ground statement about the issue of which each participant can agree.
Some issues to consider when using the NIF model are:
1. The NIF guides are usually very detailed and should be reviewed prior to the forum date by participants in order to have dialogue and subsequent deliberation on the topic.
2. Although participants do not necessarily have to read the material prior to the event, using the NIF guide presupposes a monopoly of opinion on the topic and can co-opt participant input even before the dialogue and deliberation begins.
3. If framing the topic is to capture all thought on the topic, the brief must indeed do that. Therefore local communities may be intimidated in framing local issues under the guise of the three choice model simply out of fear for "missing something".
4. Framing an issue for participants allows them to think publicly and to dialogue on the topic, which allows for easier transition into deliberation.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Friday, February 04, 2005
Crazy Wisdom
The following is a couple of paragraphs from "In defiance of gravity: writing, wisdom, and the Fabulous Club Gemini", by Tom Robbins found in the January 2005 edition of Harper's Magazine. I found it highly ironic that I found the courage to post the definition of wisdom to the Owensboro Blog, and found this definition shortly thereafter. Mr. Robbins offers insight on what Tibetans call "crazy wisdom".
"Crazy wisdom is, of course, the opposite of conventional wisdom. It is wisdom that deliberately swims against the current in order to avoid being swept along in the numbing wake of bourgeois compromise; wisdom that flouts taboos in order to undermine their power; wisdom that evolves when one, while refusing to avert one's gaze from the sorrows and injustices of the world, insists on joy in spite of everything; wisdom that embraces risk and eschews security; wisdom that turns the tables on neurosis by lampooning it; the wisdom of those who neither seek authority nor willingly submit to it."
"Crazy wisdom is, of course, the opposite of conventional wisdom. It is wisdom that deliberately swims against the current in order to avoid being swept along in the numbing wake of bourgeois compromise; wisdom that flouts taboos in order to undermine their power; wisdom that evolves when one, while refusing to avert one's gaze from the sorrows and injustices of the world, insists on joy in spite of everything; wisdom that embraces risk and eschews security; wisdom that turns the tables on neurosis by lampooning it; the wisdom of those who neither seek authority nor willingly submit to it."
Dialogue and Deliberation: Part I, An Introduction
I have been involved in exploring the dynamics of dialogue and deliberation in the Owensboro community proper for several years. I have also served as a facilitator in various forms, particularly as an adjunct instructor in sociology for close to ten years. There have been many opportunities for dialogue and deliberation in the Owensboro community for the past six to seven years, particularly led by Community Conversations and the Public Life Foundation.
As vice chair of Community Conversations, I know all too well the challenge of maintaining neutrality in addressing community issues, particularly with a focus on providing the opportunity for all voices to be heard. To develop this process and approach to individual communication, intra-group dialogue, community dialogue, and subsequent deliberation on each of these levels, it becomes important to establish a foundation of theoretical justification for initiatives to proceed. The dialogue/deliberative work in the Owensboro community for many years has been characterized as "an experiment". Suffice it to say, the experiment has yielded some positive results (e.g., national attention to the community, our efforts have been nationally recognized in a published book by the Pew Partnership for Civic Change, substantial local media coverage for the ongoing Conversation Cafes, preliminary local media coverage on our immigrant Study Circle, commentary after the immigrant Study Circle had completed, coverage by the Kettering Foundation and National Issue Forums for the local work on race and ethnicity and our police forums, and others) for the community and for the participants in these efforts.
To provide more clarity on this perspective of dialogue and deliberation, I have decided to focus on the discipline, highlighting models and techniques, and the underpinnings that make such efforts failures and successes in our community and state. This will be an academic, as well as an applied exercise that will bridge theory with practice, and vice versa.
I begin part one of this project, which I expect to take several months, with some common definitions and perspectives on what is dialogue and deliberation.
From the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation:
"Someone who works with these processes of public talk might explain that dialogue is a process that allows people, usually in small groups, to share their perspectives and experiences with one another about difficult issues. Dialogue is not about judging, weighing or making decisions, but about understanding and learning. Dialogue dispels stereotypes, builds trust and enables people to be open to perspectives that are very different from their own.
They might then explain that deliberation is a related process with a different emphasis. Deliberation promotes the use of critical reasoning and logical argument in decision-making. Instead of decision-making by power, coercion or hierarchy, deliberative decision-making emphasizes the examination of facts and arguments and the weighing of pros and cons of various options."
As vice chair of Community Conversations, I know all too well the challenge of maintaining neutrality in addressing community issues, particularly with a focus on providing the opportunity for all voices to be heard. To develop this process and approach to individual communication, intra-group dialogue, community dialogue, and subsequent deliberation on each of these levels, it becomes important to establish a foundation of theoretical justification for initiatives to proceed. The dialogue/deliberative work in the Owensboro community for many years has been characterized as "an experiment". Suffice it to say, the experiment has yielded some positive results (e.g., national attention to the community, our efforts have been nationally recognized in a published book by the Pew Partnership for Civic Change, substantial local media coverage for the ongoing Conversation Cafes, preliminary local media coverage on our immigrant Study Circle, commentary after the immigrant Study Circle had completed, coverage by the Kettering Foundation and National Issue Forums for the local work on race and ethnicity and our police forums, and others) for the community and for the participants in these efforts.
To provide more clarity on this perspective of dialogue and deliberation, I have decided to focus on the discipline, highlighting models and techniques, and the underpinnings that make such efforts failures and successes in our community and state. This will be an academic, as well as an applied exercise that will bridge theory with practice, and vice versa.
I begin part one of this project, which I expect to take several months, with some common definitions and perspectives on what is dialogue and deliberation.
From the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation:
"Someone who works with these processes of public talk might explain that dialogue is a process that allows people, usually in small groups, to share their perspectives and experiences with one another about difficult issues. Dialogue is not about judging, weighing or making decisions, but about understanding and learning. Dialogue dispels stereotypes, builds trust and enables people to be open to perspectives that are very different from their own.
They might then explain that deliberation is a related process with a different emphasis. Deliberation promotes the use of critical reasoning and logical argument in decision-making. Instead of decision-making by power, coercion or hierarchy, deliberative decision-making emphasizes the examination of facts and arguments and the weighing of pros and cons of various options."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)