As we attempt to analyse dialogue as a human phenomenon, we discover something, which is the essence of dialogue itself: the word. But the word is more than just an instmment that makes dialogue possible; accordingly, we must seek its constructive elements. Within the word we find two dimensions, reflection and action, in such radical interaction thai if one is scarified – even in part – fhe other immediately suffers. There is no ime word that is not at the same time praxis. Thus, to speak a true word is to transform the world. (Freire, 1996) This article covers study circle history, tradition, research, practice, development and challenges for the future. As a method for ‘liberal adult education,” the study circle has existed for a hundred years. The study circle is a democratic and emancipatory method for leaming. *For the people, by the people’ became the study circle slogan influencing adult learning in Scandinavia for years. The article is based on a presentation at the Umguayan govcmmental conference on leaming for youngsters and adults in Montevideo, June 2006.

Study circles may – when they are functioning at their best – offer leaming without humiliation, leaming without guilt and bad consciousness, non-violent leaming, a humble way of leaming and leaming for self-confidence and selfesteem. But there was a long way to go to here. As a Nordic traditional method for liberal adult education, the study circle has been active for more than a hundred years. From the beginning, the Study Circle has been seen as a democratic and emancipatory method and arena for leaming, particularly among adults. Study circles were bom in New York in the 1870s. By their peak in 1915, 700,000 people were participating in 15,000 study circles in the USA. People close to the union, co-op, the temperance movement, and the Social Democratic Party carried the idea to Sweden to educate their followers. Even though study circles have more or less passed away in the USA, they have flourished ever since in Sweden and Scandinavia. Still nearly three million Swedes participate in more than 300,000 study circles annually, partly funded and subsidised (but not controlled) by the public sector and the govemment. Scandinavian communities have even convened study circles to work through major issues facing their local areas and towns, with study circle participants turning into activists who then have a significant impact on events. In the last ten years, there has been a renewed and blooming interest in study circles in the USA also.’ The study circle followed the ‘top-to-botfom approach’ for enlightenment developed in the eighteenth century, expressed, for example, through the University Extension movements in France, England and Scandinavia,- to become a ‘bot1om-up’ method. The so-called founder of the study circle, the Swede Oscar Olsson, expressed that ‘the emancipation of the working class should be a task for the workers themselves.’ ‘For the people, by the people’-’ became the political slogan that infiuenced the study circle and the adult education system in Scandinavia for years. The close links between the method study eircle and the tool for democracy study circle may also be exemplified with the expression by the former Swedish Prime Minister OIov Palme: ‘Sweden is to a great extent a Study Circle democracy’ (1998). The study circle is a human, easy, and fearless way to leaming for adults with low self-esteem and self-confidence. But the study circle method is also demanding. It claims activity and dialogue between its participants (members), and just occasionally you can rely on a teacher or an expert joining in. Normally the study eircle is a group of equals, the leader the ‘primus inter pares.’ The pedagogical idea may – in my words – be summarised by ‘leaming by sharing,’ relying on each member’s experience.

‘The Study Circle, which voluntary organisations claim to be their special method, from both ideological and educational reasons, has very much been taken for granted,’ says the Norwegian researcher Hallgjerd Brattset in her study (1982, p. 13) on how to describe and analyse the experiences from methods of planning and organising study circles. Because the Norwegian Act on Adult Education”* (NOU, 1976) requires students’ involvement in contents and method in the courses, Brattset thought it was of special interest to find out to what extent this is practised in study circles.

Scandinavian Background
The study eircle was developed in late-nineteenth-eentury Sweden. It is usually dated to 1902, the year Oscar Olsson, ‘the father of the study circle,’ started his first circle in the Lund branch of the Intemational Order of Good Templar and named it a ’study circle.’^ The most distinctive features of circle studies, as Oscar Olsson (quoted in Brattset, 1982, p. described them, were that: * * * people studied in small groups, ofren at home; study material was rare; teachers were not considered a necessary prerequisite of study. The leader of the group was an organiser, and he possessed no theoretical qualifications; people supplemented their group studies by attending lectures or meetings; circle members had no previous theoretical qualifications but a good deal of practical experience; members leamt to discuss, argue, show consideration for others, accept defeat, and share responsibility; members experienced a sense of community and identity; the knowledge members acquired could be directly related to their everyday lives; and studies began at the initial cognitive level of the members and were guided by their needs.

* * * * * *

According to Oscar Olsson, the most important features of study circles were that they operated independently of teachers, were based on the reading of fiction, and used conversation and discussion as methods. His definition of a study circle was ‘a circle of friends who come together to discuss problems or subjects of common interest’ (quoted in Brattset, 1982, p. 9). From this definition it follows that the leader should be more a guide to the members than a traditional teacher. A practical consequence of this is the terms applied: circle members or participants, not pupils or students: circle leaders. Convergence, Volume XXXIX. Number 2-3. 2006 51

not teachers, circles or groups and meetings, not clas.’ses or lessons. This use of tenninology has been considered quite important, because the participants should not associate the studies with ‘bad previous school experiences.’

Voluntary Organisations
Historically, study circles and popular movements are inseparable concepts. Oscar Olsson’s study circle exemplifies the close links that have always existed between popular movements and the study circle, and also that adult education has always been strongly associated with the voluntary sector in Scandinavia. The aim of their educational activities was to promote changes in society, according fo their values. Therefore adult education can be described as instrumental to reach their goals, and the study circle their tool to do so. The study circle is a fiexible tnethod. Several terms are therefore in use, such as: ‘ * * * * * * circles with or without a teacher; circles combined with lectures; circles based on prcproduced plans; correspondenee eireles; combined circles – members taking correspondence courses individually, supported by circle studies with teacher; multimedia courses, studies integrated in a pre-produced scheme, including usage of media; and, finally and most recently, ‘E-circles,’ in which the members communicate on the Intemet.

Research
The study circle as an aeademic field of research has been rare. Most of the research being done in recent years is known from Sweden and the University of Linkoping (see, for example, Andersson et al., 1996). The most comprehensive study was conducted by Jan Bystrom (1976). The aim of Bystrom’s study was lo investigate and discuss the reasons why study circles develop differently and to pay special …

A major theme in the Framing Challenge at the 2008 NCDD conference was the need to understand the specific concerns of conservatives.

The public engagement field and related fields struggle with the fact that many more progressives than conservatives are attracted to this work. The vast majority of practitioners are politically progressive, and it is typically more challenging to recruit people with more traditional or conservative views to participate in dialogue and deliberation programs.

During the conservative panel sub-plenary on the second day of the conference, panelists Joseph McCormick, Grover Norquist, Michael Ostrolenk and Pete Peterson mentioned several words that can turn conservative communities away from public engagement: grassroots, organizing (“I don’t want anyone to organize me”), consciousness and enlightenment (“something you have and I don’t?”).

In their workshop, Attracting Conservative Citizens to Dialogue Events: Liberal-Conservative Campus Dialogue & Mormon-Evangelical Interfaith Initiatives, Jacob Hess and Reverend Greg Johnson explained some of the sources of wariness of dialogue by many social conservatives. One is the fear of being asked to give up truth or absolutes, as dialogue can seem to assume that all truth is relative.

One participant wrote this reflection about Hess and Johnson’s powerful session:

“I had a big, big revelation [during your session]. At 64, I have thought my whole life that to be open-minded, all accepting, non-judgmental toward different people, beliefs, and values was an absolute good thing. How could it be bad to be tolerant, embracing, accepting all beliefs as valid? Wouldn’t everyone appreciate that attitude, since it includes everyone? What I heard from you is that having an absolute truth is fundamentally, critically important to you. It is the most important thing. It may be easier for you to deal with each other, or with others who have conflicting versions of the truth, than to do deal with someone like me who doesn’t seem to advocate any particular truth, but sees it all as relative.”

Others shared similar realizations after this workshop. Often, dialogue is said to bring people together whose viewpoints and experiences contribute important “pieces of the puzzle” for making progress on issues like racial inequity, education reform, and youth violence. But framing dialogue in relativist terms may backfire for some audiences. According to Hess and Johnson, it may be important to reassure conservatives that “truth Capital T is still welcome” – as long as they also agree to be open to learning more.

Another concern brought up in Hess and Johnson’s workshop is the fear of a hidden [liberal] agenda. Pete Peterson confirmed this on the conservatives panel, suggesting people with more traditional views might respond better when dialogue is framed as an end in itself, rather than a means to an end. When dialogue is seen as a “tool,” the question arises from all sides “What is the hidden agenda? To change my mind so I agree with you? To challenge my beliefs or values?”

Peterson’s comment echoed another concern Hess and Johnson explored in their session: the fear of being changed. Dialogue can be seen by people with deep-rooted belief systems as something that might require them to compromise their beliefs somehow. Consider how a conservative Christian might feel when asked to participate in a dialogue on gay marriage aimed at “finding common ground” or moving forward in ways that “work for all” among people with disparate viewpoints. Panelist Grover Norquist, Founder of Americans for Tax Reform, likewise pointed out latent fear among some towards events seeking common ground.

There are many theories as to why progressives have shown more interest than conservatives in public engagement work, but the fact remains that the outcomes of public engagement projects cannot be easily categorized as serving left-wing or right-wing agendas. Participants sometimes recommend tax increases or new government programs to address the issue at hand; other times they call for business or nonprofit groups or take over tasks that had been the responsibility of government. Often, they call for citizens to take more direct responsibility for solving community problems.

–

Note from Sandy:

This is my third blog post featuring content of an article published in the latest edition of the International Journal of Public Participation (IJP2), titled Taking our Work to the Next Level: Addressing Challenges Facing the Dialogue and Deliberation Community.  The article outlines our learnings in two of the five challenges we focused on at the 2008 NCDD conference in Austin:  The “Framing Challenge” (How can we talk about and present D&D work in ways that are accessible to a broader audience?) and the “Systems Challenge” (How can we make D&D values and practices integral to government, schools, and other systems?).  You can download the full article from the IJP2 site.

Another clear theme in the Framing Challenge at the 2008 NCDD conference was the importance of understanding how different groups of people respond to the various ways public engagement is currently framed. In the online dialogue and at the conference itself, many pointed towards acquiring and cultivating greater sensitivity to the ways that distinct language ‘plays out’ for different groups.

The concept of blind spots in our language – terms and phrases that dissuade or confuse without our realizing it – was discussed in the online dialogue. Susan Partnow, a leader in the Conversation Cafe movement, remarked that she had been surprised in the past when her efforts to be inclusive and welcoming fell short. She proposed a need to “assume you are making a lot more assumptions than you think you are.”

“Different language pushes different people’s buttons,” stated Avril Orloff, who led our 5-person Graphic Recording Team for the conference. While many cringe at “touchy feely” terms like heart-work, wholeness, and consciousness, “others [like me] sigh over bureaucratic-sounding language like multi-stakeholder engagement, whole systems change and the dread empowerment.” Kai Degner, Mayor of Harrisonburg, Virginia and founder of the OrangeBand Initiative, summed it up well when he said that people in the dialogue and deliberation community often talk about the work they do in ways that are “either too new-agey or too ivory tower.”

Many anecdotes were shared of instances when blind spots in language unintentionally dissuaded people from participating. Erin Kreeger related how some clients talk in terms of decision making but cannot relate to the term deliberation – “even though their processes are what many of us would call deliberation.”

Another colleague of Kreeger’s “would never use the term democracy because it’s too loaded and manipulative when used in the contexts he works in.” Jim Driscoll, who co-led a workshop with several Iraq-era veterans on his program Vets4Vets, shared how a donor reconsidered a large gift “because the organization had used the word democracy in the proposal… he thought it must be a ‘feel good’ organization and he is a hard-nosed conservative.” Irene Nasser related how even the concept of collaboration can turn people away from participating in Jewish-Palestinian dialogue, since potential participants often see each other as the enemy and have no interest (yet) in working together.

As Framing Challenge leader Jacob Hess wrote in his report on this challenge, the degree to which we can “surface ways in which different terms play out differently across different communities, we can move forward more deliberately to accomplish what we really want in drawing diverse communities together…. The aim is to be mindful about the language we use, being aware that different words that really resonate with us may need some explaining, translation or upgrading for another setting.”

–

Note from Sandy:

This is my second blog post featuring content of an article published in the latest edition of the International Journal of Public Participation (IJP2), titled Taking our Work to the Next Level: Addressing Challenges Facing the Dialogue and Deliberation Community.  The article outlines our learnings in two of the five challenges we focused on at the 2008 NCDD conference in Austin:  The “Framing Challenge” (How can we talk about and present D&D work in ways that are accessible to a broader audience?) and the “Systems Challenge” (How can we make D&D values and practices integral to government, schools, and other systems?).  You can download the full article from the IJP2 site.

Also, see NCOC’s 2008 Civic Health Index (p. 17-18) for a fascinating summary of people’s reactions to terms we often use to describe public engagement work: democracy, citizenship, civic engagement, service, social entrepreneurship and community organizing. 13% of survey respondents responded negatively to the word “democracy” when asked to share the first thing that came to mind. 20% cited some kind of right or duty, such as voting. 12% mentioned rules of decision-making, such as majority rule, and 9% cited the government. www.ncoc.net

An article of mine was published in the latest addition of the International Journal of Public Participation (IJP2), titled Taking our Work to the Next Level: Addressing Challenges Facing the Dialogue and Deliberation Community.  The article outlines our learnings in two of the five challenges we focused on at the 2008 NCDD conference in Austin:  The “Framing Challenge” (How can we talk about and present D&D work in ways that are accessible to a broader audience?) and the “Systems Challenge” (How can we make D&D values and practices integral to government, schools, and other systems?).

I want to make sure the D&D community sees and benefits from this article (it was a lot of work! – plus I quote and mention many of you)…  so I plan to share segments of the article here on the NCDD blog every few days for the next month as food for thought.  Feel free to add your thoughts and reactions using the comments field.  I would love for the article to spur more conversation in our community about these critically important issues.

You can download the full article from the IJP2 site. Note that the current edition of the Journal also includes great articles from NCDD members David Campt (on using audience response keypads), Janette Hartz-Karp and Lyn Carson (on the Australian Citizens’ Parliament), and others.

Now for blog post #1…

The Framing Challenge: Presenting dialogue and deliberation in an accessible way

Oftentimes, people’s assumptions, fears or reactions to dialogue and deliberation have much more to do with framing than with the processes themselves. Subtle cues in how we talk about and present this work can put people on the defensive and turn them away. In this challenge area, we explored how public engagement processes can be made more accessible to more communities—not by radically changing the practice itself, but my making sure the “packaging” is as welcoming, accessible and compelling as possible. The crux of this work is to provide the space for people with a wide variety of perspectives and experiences to solve problems together, and the ability to draw in people of all educational levels, ages, income levels, and political perspectives is vital.

Our leader for the “Framing Challenge” was Jacob Hess, a young social conservative who says he has “found a home in the dialogue community.” The first time he was invited to a dialogue at his college, Jacob saw how the ways we talk about, portray and frame dialogue can strongly affect whether diverse groups feel comfortable participating. Conservatives are just one group for whom this challenge matters, but the NCDD community has been particularly concerned about attracting more conservatives to this work since the first National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation in 2002 – when keypad polling showed that a surprisingly low number of conference attendees had voted for President Bush in 2000.

This is troubling for a field that embraces inclusion as a core principle, so we decided to address this challenge head-on at NCDD Austin. One of the things that significantly informed our learning in this challenge was a sub-plenary session we held on the second day of the conference called Walking our Talk: What the D&D Community Can Learn from Conservatives. A huge hit at the conference, what became known as the “Conservatives Panel” featured conservative leaders who support public engagement work discussing, among other things, why certain language is off-putting to those on the right side of the U.S. political spectrum.

Panelists included Joseph McCormick, Director of the Transpartisan Alliance and Co-Founder of Reuniting America; Grover Norquist, Founder of Americans for Tax Reform; Michael Ostrolenk, Co-Founder of the Liberty Coalition and the American Conservative Defense Alliance; and Pete Peterson, Executive Director of Common Sense California. Dave Joseph of the Public Conversations Project skillfully moderated the session.

We also devoted special energy to another group that tends to be underrepresented at our conferences: youth. Knowing that professional conferences can seem inaccessible to young people, and that young people aren’t always attracted to dialogue and deliberation as it is commonly framed, we worked with Deborah Goldblatt and the Rockrose Institute to run a Youth Dialogue Project (YDP) at the 2008 conference. YDP’s goal was to ensure that the voices of young leaders are included in creative and innovative ways, and we held two workshops and a sub-plenary session to this end. The sessions were co-designed and hosted by young leaders.

Of course, the concept of “framing” itself poses some challenges. A key component of deliberation work is framing the issue so people with different perspectives on the topic are attracted to participate, and so multiple viewpoints are presented fairly in discussion materials. The term “framing” in the political world, however, is often used to mean spinning — carefully shaping political arguments to influence people (often with emotional triggers) in a particular direction. Here we focus on the former use of the term.

Here are some of the themes that emerged at the conference about how this work can be framed to be more broadly accessible.

1. Develop a common language of practice with more universal appeal

Tom Atlee and Peggy Holman invited NCDD attendees to begin creating a “pattern language” for dialogue and deliberation practice in their pre-conference workshop. Atlee, Holman, and other thought leaders in this work are calling for more careful examination of both the common and distinct elements across dialogue settings so a basic “grammar” or pattern language of essential/universal elements can be developed. According to Holman, “As we articulate D&D in more ordinary language that most people can understand from their own experience, it will be more likely to go viral.”

In the online dialogue, planning team member and CivicEvolution.org creator Brian Sullivan suggested we develop a concise set of principles for dialogue and deliberation – “a basic floor of understanding beneath our feet which will allow us to have consequential interaction with the public (and each other) instead of continually re-establishing what D&D means.” As illustrated above, the field has made huge strides since the conference in the critically important work of developing a set of basic principles for dialogue and deliberation work.

In addition to the attention to pattern language and basic principles, some also emphasized the importance of developing a theoretical framework for dialogue and deliberation. In their workshop, Will Friedman and Alison Kadlec of Public Agenda emphasized how a well-articulated theoretical framework would enable practitioners to communicate about their work in a clear and compelling way to funders, public officials and communities. Another session, led by Philip Thomas and Bettye Pruitt, focused on exploring our theory of change for public engagement work. Similarly, Maggie Herzig and Lucy Moore’s workshop outlined a new, dynamic theoretical model that reflects the systemic and cyclical nature of dialogue and deliberation—going beyond a simple linear view of the work.

Some conference attendees with visual arts backgrounds encouraged their peers to develop a common language that is colorful and evocative. Avril Orloff, the leader of our 5-person graphic facilitation team, even suggested we translate some basic concepts of dialogue and deliberation into graphic form, using “images that have emotional pull in people’s minds.”

Clearly, more work needs to be done to help practitioners frame dialogue and deliberation work in ways that are welcoming and accessible. A recent thread on the NCDD discussion list explored the different definitions of the terms civic engagement, public engagement and public participation – terms which have distinct meanings to many people in the field but which blur together or elicit blank stares from those outside our field of practice. Add terms like multi-stakeholder engagement, democratic governance, public policy dispute resolution and deliberative democracy and it’s obvious that being clear and compelling even when we talk amongst ourselves is a challenge.

Whether a public engagement program is accessible and welcoming to people of all backgrounds depends on much more than how we talk about and present the program. But in a field of practice where innovation and leadership have emerged from so many different disciplines, each with different lexicons for this work, agreeing on effective ways to frame the work to community leaders, public officials, funders, and the general public is particularly challenging.

One key strategy is to reach out to those outside our field – and those who do what we would consider “dialogue” and “deliberation” work in communities but do not use those terms. We need to find out how they frame this work, and what terms resonate with them. As one conference participant said during a workshop, “We need to get real and bring down [our work] to a level where people can relate—bring it down to where people live.”