Difference between revisions of "Civic Intelligence as Professional Practice"

From civicintelligence
m
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users 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!)
  
The template for the basic "perspective" chapter follows this paragraph. The original template (possibly revised) is in [[Introduction_to_Section_II]].  (After the chapter is further along — and the template structure is more-or-less finalized, we can remove this extra verbiage.)
 
  
The basic Plan has four parts:
+
It looks like the broad areas within this perspective are: organizational development, policy, and governance...
  
(1) A Introduction to the perspective
 
  
(2) One or more case studies that show different facets of this perspective. Our decision was, as much as it's possible, not to artificially separate thinking and doing. At the same time we do want to present a variety of approaches, some of which will be better suited for think-work and some will be better suited for action (that plays out in the "real" (or material?) world.
+
== Introduction to Civic Intelligence as Professional Practice ==
  
(3) Conclusions
+
== Case Studies ==
  
(4) Finally, a section that includes text book like end-of-chapter exercises, questions for the student, suggested activities, etc.
+
=== 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)
  
It looks like the broad areas within this perspective are: organizational development, policy, and governance...
+
* 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 15:56, 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