Difference between revisions of "Civic Intelligence as Professional Practice"
From civicintelligence
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[[Bhutan - Gross National Happiness| Gross National Happiness in Bhutan]] (seems like a good one to address in this chapter!) | [[Bhutan - Gross National Happiness| Gross National Happiness in Bhutan]] (seems like a good one to address in this chapter!) | ||
| − | |||
| − | + | It looks like the broad areas within this perspective are: organizational development, policy, and governance... | |
| − | |||
| − | + | == Introduction to Civic Intelligence as Professional Practice == | |
| + | == Case Studies == | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Deliberation === | ||
*How can we organize a deliberation process that matters and avoid ineffective talking without any results?
| *How can we organize a deliberation process that matters and avoid ineffective talking without any results?
| ||
:The first thing we have to do is try. To some degree this is a design process — which is something that academics often eschew. I'd also characterize the work that I'd like to see as being experimental and constructive. I believe that we need to build, somewhat gradually and piecemeal, deliberative systems at the same time that we're building deliberative cultures. 'References: [[Doug Schuler | Schuler, D.]] (2011). Deliberation That Matters -- From Krems, Austria" Posted by House | :The first thing we have to do is try. To some degree this is a design process — which is something that academics often eschew. I'd also characterize the work that I'd like to see as being experimental and constructive. I believe that we need to build, somewhat gradually and piecemeal, deliberative systems at the same time that we're building deliberative cultures. 'References: [[Doug Schuler | Schuler, D.]] (2011). Deliberation That Matters -- From Krems, Austria" Posted by House | ||
| − | ( | + | e-participation: list of questions for Douglas Schuler (From Austrian journalist, Angelika Ohland, May 9, 2011) |
| − | + | * How can an average citizen become a motor for innovation and the implementation of solutions by e-participation?
| |
| + | * Which technical tools does he need? And are they already available?
| ||
| + | * How do deliberation networks function? Are there any rules, is there any control? Are there any barriers to participation?
| ||
| + | * How can we organize a deliberation process that matters and avoid ineffective talking without any results?
| ||
| + | * How can collective thinking help to solve problems in the community? Do you know any examples for successful
e-participation today?
| ||
| + | * Food shortages, despoiled natural resources, economic inequality, wars, dictatorship: Is collective reasoning also able to help to solve global problems?
| ||
| + | * What are the characteristic traits of civic intelligence? And on the contrary: How would you describe civic ignorance?
| ||
| + | * What do people have to know and to learn for being able to deliberate?
| ||
| + | * How influential are age, education, income, regional and cultural factors?
| ||
| + | * How can ordinary people with little education become a part of the deliberating community?
| ||
| + | * How can we increase the inclusiveness of e-participation?
| ||
| + | * Which role will ordinary people play in the new civic society? And will the political and economic elites be less influential in the future?
| ||
| + | * Will e-participation implement more grassroots democracy?
| ||
| + | * Deliberating networks do not have any democratic legitimation. Can this be changed? How can ideas be transformed into political action?
| ||
| + | * Will e-participation change the political institutions?
| ||
| + | * Do you think that citizens are interested in e-participation? Aren't they busy enough taking care of their ordinary life? Aren't they relieved if politicians and experts do the job for them?
| ||
| + | * Lobbyists spend huge amounts of money to anticipate a debate about the danger of atomic power or the destructive influence of our consuming habits on the climate. Do ordinary people have a chance to see through these aggressive forms of anti-deliberation?
| ||
| + | * And at last: Will we be smart enough, soon enough? | ||
| + | ==Conclusions== | ||
| − | + | ==For Future Exploration== | |
Latest revision as of 14:56, 26 May 2011
Examples of civic intelligence at the level of government: Gross National Happiness in Bhutan (seems like a good one to address in this chapter!)
It looks like the broad areas within this perspective are: organizational development, policy, and governance...
Contents
Introduction to Civic Intelligence as Professional Practice
Case Studies
Deliberation
- How can we organize a deliberation process that matters and avoid ineffective talking without any results?
- The first thing we have to do is try. To some degree this is a design process — which is something that academics often eschew. I'd also characterize the work that I'd like to see as being experimental and constructive. I believe that we need to build, somewhat gradually and piecemeal, deliberative systems at the same time that we're building deliberative cultures. 'References: Schuler, D. (2011). Deliberation That Matters -- From Krems, Austria" Posted by House
e-participation: list of questions for Douglas Schuler (From Austrian journalist, Angelika Ohland, May 9, 2011)
- How can an average citizen become a motor for innovation and the implementation of solutions by e-participation?
- Which technical tools does he need? And are they already available?
- How do deliberation networks function? Are there any rules, is there any control? Are there any barriers to participation?
- How can we organize a deliberation process that matters and avoid ineffective talking without any results?
- How can collective thinking help to solve problems in the community? Do you know any examples for successful e-participation today?
- Food shortages, despoiled natural resources, economic inequality, wars, dictatorship: Is collective reasoning also able to help to solve global problems?
- What are the characteristic traits of civic intelligence? And on the contrary: How would you describe civic ignorance?
- What do people have to know and to learn for being able to deliberate?
- How influential are age, education, income, regional and cultural factors?
- How can ordinary people with little education become a part of the deliberating community?
- How can we increase the inclusiveness of e-participation?
- Which role will ordinary people play in the new civic society? And will the political and economic elites be less influential in the future?
- Will e-participation implement more grassroots democracy?
- Deliberating networks do not have any democratic legitimation. Can this be changed? How can ideas be transformed into political action?
- Will e-participation change the political institutions?
- Do you think that citizens are interested in e-participation? Aren't they busy enough taking care of their ordinary life? Aren't they relieved if politicians and experts do the job for them?
- Lobbyists spend huge amounts of money to anticipate a debate about the danger of atomic power or the destructive influence of our consuming habits on the climate. Do ordinary people have a chance to see through these aggressive forms of anti-deliberation?
- And at last: Will we be smart enough, soon enough?
