Friday, August 12, 2011

Research Friday: Is traditional civic engagement dead?

posted by Pat Lewis,
Senior Professional
in Residence
ASU Lodestar Center
Welcome to Research Friday! As part of a continuing weekly series, each Friday we invite a nonprofit expert to highlight a research report or study and discuss how it can inform and improve day-to-day nonprofit practice. We welcome your comments and feedback.

"Citizens should seek opportunities to create and share public knowledge and discuss public issues; expect their governments to be open, transparent and collaborative; volunteer to the best of their ability; and create and share knowledge about the networks and relationships in their communities."[1]

How many times have we heard a pronouncement starting with, "Never before have we needed ____ more?" I'm not sure that never before have we needed civic engagement more, but I do suggest that reviving civic communication will contribute to healthier communities. And I could argue that such might energize a greater level of civic engagement, which could contribute to a strengthened democracy.

This thought is not original; it is outlined in a recent policy paper by Peter Levine of the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service at Tufts University. Levine's paper, Civic Engagement and Community Information: Five Strategies to Revive Civic Communication, commissioned by the Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, was released in July 2011 and reported in CIRCLE, a publication of Tufts University.

CIRCLE's report of the paper brings to greater awareness the importance of technology and social infrastructure in civic communication. Its premise is that "Information by itself is inert. It begins to have value for a democracy when citizens turn it into knowledge and use it for public purposes." The paper further asserts that, "To create and use knowledge, individuals must be organized. Formerly, many Americans were recruited to join a civil society of voluntary membership associations, newspapers, and face-to-face meetings that provided them with information, encouraged them to discuss and debate, and taught them skills of analysis, communication, and political or civic action. That traditional civil society is in deep decline."[2] [emphasis mine]

Five recommendations for reviving civic communication are proposed in the report. To summarize:

Strategy 1: Infuse in the infrastructure of national and community service programs the requirement that participants learn civic communication skills.

Strategy 2: Incentivize universities to produce relevant, coherent information that is accessible to local communities; create forums for public deliberation.

Strategy 3: Encourage the growing practice of face-to-face public deliberation; offer training, spaces, and neutral conveners for deliberative summits and require public officials to pay attention to their results.

Strategy 4: Develop "relational" knowledge by using new tools for mapping networks; allow everyone access to these relationships that are otherwise "monopolized by professional organizers."

Strategy 5: Build an advocacy network of concerned and diverse organizations that debates public information and knowledge.

The report concludes with additional recommendations to help reverse the deep decline of traditional civil society.

HOWEVER, also included in the July 2011 edition of CIRCLE is a report on "The Language of Youth Civic Organizations." It reports on a 2008 study of the American public by the National Conference on Citizenship that found that almost one third of the respondents did not know what the term "civic engagement" meant. Further, "despite the popularity of the phrase in education today, Millennials were the most likely (at 42%) to say they didn't know what it meant."[3]


We want your opinion!
Do you subscribe to our biweekly e-newsletter? We'd love to get your feedback!
Click here to take a short survey about the LCNN.

Millennials were born between 1980 and the early 1990s and are now 18 – 30 years old. This is the segment of society currently investing in its education and developing public policy and leadership skills. These are those who will lead us in the next decades. And, according to the report, when using the term "civic engagement," an explanation of what it means is needed.[4]

Rich Harwood, founder of the Harwood Institute, last year wrote that "too often 'civic engagement' is more like a badge we wear to a cocktail party or conference, where we find ourselves boasting about the extraordinary engagement process we cooked up and implemented. People and impact take a back seat. We produce events not impact."[5] Harwood's focus is on empowering people to improve their communities. The report concludes that "focusing on civic engagement as a single term may over look other ways that goals may be expressed."[6]

So, what is the language that attracts people to the process of civic communication that results in civic engagement? What words would better describe this essential component of an engaged and energized society, where knowledge is easily available, and many views are thoughtfully and respectfully deliberated? Does civil discourse result from civic communication and lead to civic engagement?

We'd love to hear what you think and invite you to join in this conversation.

Patricia Lewis' role as Sr. Professional-in-Residence at the Lodestar Center is to help bridge academia and practice. She has a long career as a nonprofit executive and as a "pracademic," having previously served as President and CEO of the Association of Fundraising Professionals, Executive Director of Campfire Boys and Girls in Seattle-King County, Development Director of the Childrens' Home Society of Washington State, and as the Nonprofit Professional-in-Residence at George Mason University. She has written and lectured throughout the world about various leadership and management topics for the nonprofit sector.


Sources:
^ [1] "Five Strategies to Revive Civic Communication," CIRCLE, The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement, Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service, Tufts University, V.8 1.3, July 2011.
^ [2] ibid.
^ [3] "The Language of Youth Civic Organizations," CIRCLE, The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement, Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service, Tufts University, V.8 1.3, July 2011.
^ [4] Peter Simons, Institute for Ethical and Civic Engagement, Seattle Young People's Project. http://sypp.org
^ [5] http:/www.theharwoodinstitute.org/index.php?ht=Blogger/2010/m/6/pid/21438
^ [6] ibid.

Like this article? Get another!

Click here to read Dr. Robert Ashcraft's "A Case for Content Curation."

6 comments:

  1. Thanks, Pat. We spend a night on this topic in NLM 510, and students always come away really depressed. Following Putnam, I think the best answer is to go back in time and uninvent the television. It caused a fundamental change in how we engage our neighbors, and then the level of trust we have in strangers. No going back. Now we've got the internet creating another sea change in how we communicate and engage. Yes, I think "traditional civic engagement" is mostly dead, but that's the way of most things traditional. The future will be new and different, and hopefully mostly good.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Admission: I had to google exactly what "civic engagement" means. I understand the two words individually, and had heard the phrase, but I certainly didn't understand all of the meaning that goes into it. Wikipedia wasn't quite as much help as I'd hoped for either.

    I definitely agree with Mark, though, with my limited understanding. And I think Pat hits on something really important: that we may just need new terms. Or maybe they even already exist. With our newer methods of communicating, it seems frustrating to try to squish them into outdated ways of thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think it's odd that somebody asked people if they know what "civic engagement" means. It's just a term that observers make up when they're trying to describe something, and it might mean something slightly different to different observers... but it wouldn't necessarily mean anything to the people being observed. I don't know what gastroenteritis is exactly, but I know my stomach hurts sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Mark - Ha! To be honest, I get frustrated with the dependence on terms. In my grad program, we desperately need a new term to describe each and every thing we do. And then we all want to fuss nonstop about whether those terms are even right. The big running joke is to ask any of us Rhet/Comp kids to define "rhetoric." (Let's just say it gets messy.)

    By the time we've settled on something, a new development's been made and we need to go through the entire process again. In this case, with tech constantly evolving and shaping the way we interact, I could see it being a perpetual bone to pick.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Growing up I learned that it is considered impolite, and possibly dangerous to speak about politics or religion. It's not just civic engagement that's gone by the wayside - so has meaningful conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Normally a large shock gets civic engagement going. Creating the perfect environment but this only seems to last for a short time. Maintaining peoples energy for creating a better world is the challenge.

    ReplyDelete

ShareThis

Print This

ASU Lodestar Center for Philanthropy & Nonprofit Innovation

College of Public Programs | Arizona State University | University Center
Mail Code 4120
411 N. Central Ave. Suite 500, Phoenix, AZ 85004-0691
602.496.0500


An academic unit of the
College of Public Programs