Doing Democracy: How a Network of Grassroots Organizations Is Strengthening Community, Building Capacity, and Shaping a New Kind of Civic Education

This Kettering Foundation report examines a burgeoning network of organizations that is inventing new forms of community renewal and citizenship education. Their names vary -- some call themselves public policy institutes, others centers for civic life -- yet they share a common methodology, one aimed at tackling tough public issues, strengthening communities, and nurturing people's capacities to participate and make common cause.Today, there are more than 50 of these centers operating in almost every state in the union, most of them affiliated with institutions of higher learning. Except for a handful that are freestanding, the centers combine the best of what colleges and universities provide -- civics courses, leadership development, service-learning programs, community-based research -- with the kinds of hands-on, collaborative problem solving traditionally done by nongovernmental organizations. Because they operate at the intersection of the campus and the community, their impact extends to both: they nurture and sustain public life while at the same time enriching higher education

Use of Research Evidence: Social Services Portfolio

The William T. Grant Foundation intends that the emerging research evidence from its Use of Research Evidence (URE) portfolio be useful to those engaged in these (and other) diverse efforts. But broad and meaningful use of research evidence will require conversations that extend beyond researchers and expert forums. Indeed, URE findings suggest that policymakers and practitioners should not be viewed simply as "end users" of research evidence. To provide insight into how URE studies and the resulting evidence could be most relevant and useful to them, policymakers and practitioners at all levels in the social services system must have a voice in these conversations. This paper is intended to foster and inform dialogue among researchers, policymakers, and practitioners by reflecting on the Foundation's social services URE portfolio from the perspective of policy and practice and by identifying potential opportunities for the next generation of studies and considerations for those undertaking that work

Brokering Community–campus Partnerships: An Analytical Framework

Academic institutions and community-based organizations have increasingly recognized the value of working together to meet their different objectives and address common societal needs. In an effort to support the development and maintenance of these partnerships, a diversity of brokering initiatives has emerged. We describe these brokering initiatives broadly as coordinating mechanisms that act as an intermediary with an aim to develop collaborative and sustainable partnerships that provide mutual benefit. A broker can be an individual or an organization that helps connect and support relationships and share knowledge. To date, there has been little scholarly discussion or analysis of the various elements of these initiatives that contribute to successful community–campus partnerships. In an effort to better understand where these features may align and diverge, we reviewed a sample of community–campus brokering initiatives across North America and the United Kingdom to consider their different roles and activities. From this review, we developed a framework to delineate characteristics of different brokering initiatives to better understand their contributions to successful partnerships. The framework is divided into two parts. The first examines the different structural allegiances of the brokering initiatives by identifying their affiliation, principle purpose, and who received primary benefits. The second considers the dimensions of brokering activities in respect to their level of engagement, platforms used, scale of activity, and area of focus. The intention of the community campus engagement brokering framework is to provide an analytical tool for academics and community-based practitioners engaged in teaching and research partnerships. When developing a brokering initiative, these categories describing the different structures and dimensions encourage participants to think through the overall goals and objectives of the partnership and adapt the initiative accordingly

The role of community conversations in facilitating local HIV competence: case study from rural Zimbabwe

Background This paper examines the potential for community conversations to strengthen positive responses to HIV in resource-poor environments. Community conversations are an intervention method through which local people work with a facilitator to collectively identify local strengths and challenges and brainstorm potential strategies for solving local problems. Methods We conducted 18 community conversations (with six groups at three points in time) with a total of 77 participants in rural Zimbabwe (20% HIV positive). Participants were invited to reflect on how they were responding to the challenges of HIV, both as individuals and in community groups, and to think of ways to better support openness about HIV, kindness towards people living with HIV and greater community uptake of HIV prevention and treatment. Results Community conversations contributed to local HIV competence through (1) enabling participants to brainstorm concrete action plans for responding to HIV, (2) providing a forum to develop a sense of common purpose in relation to implementing these, (3) encouraging and challenging participants to overcome fear, denial and passivity, (4) providing an opportunity for participants to move from seeing themselves as passive recipients of information to active problem solvers, and (5) reducing silence and stigma surrounding HIV. Conclusions Our discussion cautions that community conversations, while holding great potential to help communities recognize their potential strengths and capacities for responding more effectively to HIV, are not a magic bullet. Poverty, poor harvests and political instability frustrated and limited many participants’ efforts to put their plans into action. On the other hand, support from outside the community, in this case the increasing availability of antiretroviral treatment, played a vital role in enabling communities to challenge stigma and envision new, more positive, ways of responding to the epidemic

Integrative Collaborative Activities: Public Deliberation with Stakeholder Processes

Collaborative governance is the process of public, private, and non-profit sectors jointly developing solutions to public problems. This process—convening people from different sectors to work together on a shared issue—can yield the best solutions to public problems. Research and experience show that solutions created in a collaborative governance process are “better informed, stronger in concept and content, and more likely to be implemented,” according to Terry Amsler, Director of the Collaborative Governance Initiative. These solutions go beyond what any one sector could achieve on its own. They are more lasting and effective than solutions from traditional approaches. They are more lasting than legislative solutions because they will not be undone in the next year or legislative session. They are more effective than solutions from traditional processes because they integrate resources from across agencies and sectors to address the problems. In addition, these solutions are more likely to be implemented because stakeholders (interested parties) are involved in the process from the start and have a role in the final decision. This promotes ownership by stakeholders and thereby helps the solution be put into action promptly and without litigation. This report explores how leaders can create even better solutions by combining collaborative governance activities—engaging the public in discussion and implementing their ideas through a representative group of stakeholders. This type of integrated collaborative process could first engage the public in a dialogue to hear their values and ideas about an issue or a project. Then, a stakeholder group could implement the ideas that were developed in the public forum

Teaching and learning in virtual worlds: is it worth the effort?

Educators have been quick to spot the enormous potential afforded by virtual worlds for situated and authentic learning, practising tasks with potentially serious consequences in the real world and for bringing geographically dispersed faculty and students together in the same space (Gee, 2007; Johnson and Levine, 2008). Though this potential has largely been realised, it generally isn’t without cost in terms of lack of institutional buy-in, steep learning curves for all participants, and lack of a sound theoretical framework to support learning activities (Campbell, 2009; Cheal, 2007; Kluge & Riley, 2008). This symposium will explore the affordances and issues associated with teaching and learning in virtual worlds, all the time considering the question: is it worth the effort