Difference between revisions of "Civic Intelligence as Professional Practice"

From civicintelligence
(Created page with 'Examples of civic intelligence at the level of government: Gross National Happiness in Bhutan')
 
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Examples of civic intelligence at the level of government:  
 
Examples of civic intelligence at the level of government:  
[[Bhutan - Gross National Happiness| Gross National Happiness in Bhutan]]
+
[[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?

 +
: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...


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?

Conclusions

For Future Exploration