CPN is designed and maintained by ONline @ UW: Electronic Publishing Group.

Manuals and Guides: Community

Planning Community-wide Study Circle Programs, continued
Part V: Appendices

Manual Index

Part I: Introduction
Part II: Basic Steps in Creating a Community-wide Program
Part III: Sample Documents
Part IV: Stories of Community-wide Study Circle Programs
Part V: Appendices

Contents this Page

Part V: Appendices
Annotated bibliography on collaborative community building
A comparison of dialogue and debate
Positive conflict: an essential tool for democracy
Study circles in action
Why the sudden interest in dialogue and democratic participation
Newspaper coverage [not available online]

Annotated Bibliography on Collaborative Community Building

The publications listed here contain useful ideas for organizing citizen involvement programs.

Adams, Bruce. Building Healthy Communities. Charlottesville, VA: Pew Partnership for Civic Change, 1995. For more information about the Pew Partnership and its reports, write to the Pew Partnership for Civic Change, 145-C Ednam Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22903, call (804) 971-2073, or fax (804) 971-7042.

One in a series of research reports commissioned by the Pew Partnership for Civic Change. Adams lays out some of the elements of a healthy civic community, illustrated with examples of how citizen leadership can work. He focuses on the differences between productive and divisive communities, and lays out guidelines for overcoming divisions. Includes lists of background reading and key organizations.

Axner, Marya. The Grassroots Community Leadership Project Curriculum. Pomfret, CT: Topsfield Foundation, 1992. To order this curriculum, write to the Topsfield Foundation, Inc., PO Box 203, Pomfret, CT 06258, call (860) 928-2616, or fax (860) 928-3713.

A five-module curriculum for learning and practicing leadership skills. The curriculum helps participants to see themselves as leaders; solve community problems through collaboration; use their leadership roles to inspire and teach other people to lead; and resolve conflicts within and among community groups and institutions. Each module includes interactive exercises and other class activities. A GCLP course could help leaders who emerge from the study circle program to further realize their leadership potential.

Briand, Michael K. Building Deliberative Communities. Charlottesville, VA: Pew Partnership for Civic Change, 1995.

Another in the series (see Adams, above) of research reports commissioned by the Pew Partnership for Civic Change. Briand describes the role deliberation can play in creating new opportunities for communities to work together. He explains some of the main principles underlying deliberation, cites some of the most influential authors, and describes some projects which have given voice to citizens representing all segments of the community. Includes lists of background reading and key organizations.

Chrislip, David D., and Larson, Carl E. Collaborative Leadership: How Citizens and Civic Leaders Can Make a Difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994.

A description of the new generation of citizen-government collaborations that have been created to help solve community problems. Chrislip and Larson explain why citizen-government collaborations are so needed and so effective, and reveal some of the most successful leadership strategies. This book will be particularly helpful for those who are building study circle coalitions.

Creighton, James L., Ph.D. Involving Citizens in Community Decision Making: A Guidebook. Washington, DC: Program for Community Problem Solving, 1992. To order, write PCPS Publications, 915 15th Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20005, or call (202) 783-2961

A guide to help community leaders fashion citizen participation programs that inform members of the public, solicit their reactions to proposed actions or policies, and engage them in problem solving and decision making in their communities.

Delgado, Gary. Beyond the Politics of Place: New Directions in Community Organizing in the 1990s. Oakland, CA: Applied Research Center, 1994. For more information, write to the Applied Research Center, 440 Grand Avenue, Suite 401, Oakland, CA 94610.

An update on the community organizing movement. Though community organizing and study circle program organizing are different, some of the techniques, stories, and resources described in this book may be helpful to study circle organizers. It includes sections on training community organizers, finding financial and technical support, and organizing in communities of color.

Kaye, Gillian, and Wolff, Tom, Ph.D., eds. From the Ground Up: A Workbook on Coalition Building and Community Development. Amherst, MA: AHEC/ Community Partners, Spring, 1995. To order, write to AHEC/Community Partners, 24 South Prospect Street, Amherst, MA 01002, or call (413) 253-4283.

This guide, supported by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, includes very practical suggestions for building community coalitions. The chapters look at goals for community development, the assumptions underlying coalition building, and principles for successful collaboration. The book gives special attention to two aspects that are critical to most community-wide study circle programs: creating ethnically diverse coalitions, and developing grassroots involvement. Worksheets and resource lists are included.

Kettering Review. Dayton, OH: Charles F. Kettering Foundation. For more information, write to the Kettering Foundation, 200 Commons Road, Dayton, OH 45459-2799, or call (513) 434-7300.

A journal of ideas and activities dedicated to improving the quality of public life in the American democracy. Many issues contain articles that will be of interest to study circle organizers.

Mattessich, Paul W., and Monsey, Barbara R. Collaboration: What Makes It Work. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, 1994. To order, write to the Amherst H. Wilder Foundation Publishing Center, 919 Lafond Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55104, call (800) 274-6024, or fax (612) 642-2088.

A summary of the key factors involved in successful collaborations. Mattessich and Monsey reviewed 18 studies on collaborations between governments, human service agencies, and community organizations, and interviewed a number of key researchers. The result is a basic outline of what works and what doesn't in six categories: environment, membership, process/structure, communications, purpose, and resources. The book is particularly relevant for building study circle coalitions.

McCoy, Martha, Dialogue on Race Relations: Rebuilding Community. Reprinted from the Winter 1995 issue of Doing Democracy, the newsletter of the Center for Living Democracy.

This article outlines the study circle program in Lima, Ohio, and describes its impact on the community.

McCoy, Martha L., and Sherman, Robert F. Bridging the Divides of Race and Ethnicity. Reprinted from the Spring-Summer 1994 issue of the National Civic Review.

This article provides specific examples of communities that have established institutions for genuine, effective interracial interaction. It shows how, in New York City, the Increase the Peace Volunteer Corps integrated dialogue and conflict resolution methods to build understanding and ease intergroup tensions, and it describes the healing effects of study circle programs in Lima and Springfield, Ohio.

McKnight, John L., and Kretzmann, John P. Building Communities From the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community's Assets. Evanston, IL: The Neighborhood Innovations Network of the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research at Northwestern University, 1993. For more information, write to the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Neighborhood Innovations Network, Northwestern University, 2040 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208, call (708) 491-3518, or fax (708) 491-9916.

A comprehensive, hands-on guide for identifying and capitalizing on community assets of all kinds. The chapters focus on strengthening individual capacities, empowering local organizations, rebuilding the community economy, and providing support for this "asset-based development." The book is very helpful for translating the enthusiasm and ideas of study circle participants into positive community change. It includes plenty of stories, charts, action steps, and sample forms.

National League of Cities. The NLC Futures Reports. Washington, DC: NLC, annually. For more information, call the NLC Publications Center at (301) 725-4299.

A series of reports, published annually, on how cities can address critical problems. Each includes a long list of successful programs around the country. Past issues include: "Diversity & Governance: Changing Populations and the Futures of Cities and Towns" (1991); "Families & Communities" (1992); "Global Dollars and Local Sense: Cities and Towns in the International Economy" (1993); and "Rethinking Public Safety" (1994). The reports can be useful for involving local government in your program, and the examples they describe are useful models for collaborative projects among study circle participants, government, and businesses.

Schaffer, Jan, and Miller, Edward D., eds. Civic Joumalism: Six Case Studies. Washington, DC: Pew Center for Civic Journalism, 1995. For more information, write to Pew Center for Civic Joumalism, PO Box 7413, Washington, DC 20044-7413.

A collection of case studies which demonstrates the ways that civic journalism seeks to improve joumalism, to stimulate civic discourse, and to involve citizens in the life of their communities. Issues covered range from crime and violence in the neighborhoods of Charlotte, North Carolina, to citizen involvement in the political process in Madison, Wisconsin; Tallahassee, Florida; Boston, Massachusetts; San Francisco, California; and Seattle, Washington. Can be useful as you think about media participation in your study circle program.

Thomson, Ken; Bissetta, Joanne; and Webb, Thomas. Participation Works. Medford, MA: The Lincoln Filene Center at Tufts University, 1994. To order, write to Tufts University, Lincoln Filene Center, Medford, MA 02155, call (617) 627-3453, or fax (617) 627-3401.

A report on effective citizen participation programs. This is one of the publications that resulted from the National Citizen Participation Development Project, which examined initiatives in Birmingham, Dayton, Portland, San Antonio, and St. Paul. It uses case studies from those communities to describe successful participation practices in environmental action, crime prevention, participatory planning, and city budget processes.

White, Otis, ed., Community Leadership Quarterly. Decatur, GA: The Community Leadership Co. For subscription information, write to Community Leadership Quarterly, PO Box 1687, Decatur, GA 30031-1687, phone (404) 371-9534, fax (404) 373-3804, or E-mail <71053.2400@compuserve.com>.

Each issue of this newsletter includes practical, hands-on articles about organizing and leadership at the community level. Many issues deal explicitly with the race relations dynamic, and all include action suggestions for overcoming various obstacles to effective organizing.

Back to top

A Comparison of Dialogue & Debate

• Dialogue is collaborative: two or more sides work together toward common understanding.
• Debate is oppositional: two sides oppose each other and attempt to prove each other wrong.

• In dialogue, finding common ground is the goal.
• In debate, winning is the goal.

• In dialogue, one listens to the other side(s) in order to understand, find meaning, and find agreement.
• In debate, one listens to the other side in order to find flaws and to counter its arguments.

• Dialogue enlarges and possibly changes a participant's point of view.
• Debate affirms a participant's own point of view.

• Dialogue reveals assumptions for reevaluation.
• Debate defends assumptions as truth.

• Dialogue causes introspection on one's own position.
• Debate causes critique of the other position.

• Dialogue opens the possibility of reaching a better solution than any of the original solutions.
• Debate defends one's own positions as the best solution and excludes other solutions.

• Dialogue creates an open-minded attitude: an openness to being wrong and an openness to change.
• Debate creates a closed-minded attitude, a determination to be right.

• In dialogue, one submits one's best thinking, knowing that other peoples' reflections will help improve it rather than destroy it.
• In debate, one submits one's best thinking and defends it against challenge to show that it is right.

• Dialogue calls for temporarily suspending one's beliefs.
• Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in one's beliefs.

• In dialogue, one searches for basic agreements.
• In debate, one searches for glaring differences.

• In dialogue, one searches for strengths in the other positions.
• In debate, one searches for flaws and weaknesses in the other position.

• Dialogue involves a real concern for the other person and seeks to not alienate or offend.
• Debate involves a countering of the other position without focusing on feelings or relationship and often belittles or deprecates the other person.

• Dialogue assumes that many people have pieces of the answer and that together they can put them into a workable solution.
• Debate assumes that there is a right answer and that someone has it.

• Dialogue remains open-ended.
• Debate implies a conclusion.

Adapted from a paper prepared by Shelley Berman, which was based on discussions of the Dialogue Group of the Boston Chapter of Educators for Social Responsibility (ESR). Other members included Lucile Burt, Dick Mayo-Smith, Lally Stowell, and Gene Thompson. For more information on ESR's programs and resources using dialogue as a tool for dealing with controversial issues, call the national ESR office at (617) 492-1764.

Back to top

Positive Conflict: An Essential Tool for Democracy

Americans hate conflict. An employer promotes a subordinate for being "a good team player" who "doesn't make waves." A principal decides his good teachers are those with orderly classrooms without noise and—above all—without conflict. A parent praises his teenager for being "a good kid" who "never gives me problems." Entire minority communities are praised or cursed according to whether they "cause trouble" or are seen as "peaceful, good folk."

It may not matter that the thinking, creative employee may challenge conventional wisdom in ways that lead to product innovation. Or that children learn best when they are actively engaged in a subject—which may mean noise and even disagreement. Or that a teenager's developmental tasks include coming to a sense of ownership of his own values, which may require understanding them in relation to the values of his elders. Or that in order to take their rightful place in the American democracy, a minority community may have to demand resources and focus attention on issues that others would prefer to ignore.

Yet if we ask Americans what they think of when they hear the word conflict, we receive answers like "tension," "power grabs," "nastiness," "fights," "win/lose," "war," and "anger." Is it any wonder, therefore, that we Americans try to avoid conflict at all costs?

Indeed, this limited perspective logically leads to a version of the "flight or fight" response: either avoid conflict or be prepared to "duke it out." And since disagreements—about values, resources, and policies—are unavoidable, our courts are clogged and our city councils hold endless hearings in which parties fight over their respective positions.

We have created a contentious public culture in which a modern warrior class—mainly politicians, lobbyists and highly paid lawyers—argue over every imaginable issue while the rest of us shun "politics" as the public arena of hostile interests groups. Fight or flight, battle or avoidance.

There is hope, however, in this ugly picture. Millions of Americans are acknowledging that neither fight nor flight is a very successful strategy. They are learning that one of the key barriers to a satisfying public life is the very limited set of responses we have to conflict. Fighting over our problems leaves us with polarized positions, and fleeing only allows our problems to grow larger. Yet our nation's problems are so enormous, so complex, so interrelated, we'll never arrive at real solutions by avoiding them or arguing from fixed, narrow positions.

Many are experimenting with techniques for using conflict constructively—with books like Getting to Yes soaring to the top of the bestseller list—but before many of us will make the effort to learn new skills we have to uproot our own prejudices about conflict. We have to fully grasp its positive functions:

Conflict means success, not failure. The absence of conflict usually means that diverse perspectives have been excluded from the decision-making table. When conflict—the clash of views and values—surfaces, we can congratulate ourselves. It means all interested parties are taking the first step in real problem solving. In order to produce a quality solution, different views must be heard, critically evaluated, and reflected upon before we reach agreement. In fact, the very idea of discussion presupposes different points of view.

Conflict uncovers Interests. Often we only fully understand our own interests as they emerge in dialogue with others. Conflict can shake us out of selfishness (narrowly defined interests) as we see the larger consequences of our views through the eyes of those who disagree. Conflict that surfaces divergent interests is a necessary first step in meeting everyone's interest.

Conflict deepens our understanding of a problem. Solutions depend on accurately defining a problem. Considering diverse definitions of a problem—and the consequences of proposed solutions—helps sharpen our understanding of our most complex problems.

Conflict provides more options for action. One of the most common mistakes in problem solving is developing a premature commitment to one solution without being aware of alternatives. Conflict broadens our view of what is possible, and thus gives us more choices.

Conflict is not about "winning or losing" but about learning. Every difference, discomfort, or disagreement can be used to better know ourselves and others. They become clues to uncovering concerns, prejudices, needs, values—and goads to improving the skills we need to interact with others.

Conflict builds organizations. Groups that successfully use conflict for learning become stronger; they believe in themselves more. With confidence in their ability to use conflict constructively, they can take more risks. Since healthy conflict stimulates involvement in the problem-solving process, and encourages each of us to be heard, it deepens our sense of ownership, both of the process and, eventually, the solution.

Conflict will not go away. Yet, think how much energy and time we waste trying to avoid it or engaging in destructive battles. Simply perceiving conflict as both inevitable and useful—even essential—to healthy public discussion is the first step in turning it from a curse to a creative tool.

Study circles have much to offer in developing these democratic attitudes and skills. People usually enter study circles not as protagonists but as learners, so they can focus on those arts of democracy that produce quality talk while they learn to handle disagreements that may arise. A study circle provides an ideal setting to deepen understanding, exercise public imagination, engage in constructive dialogue, and creatively address value conflicts. A reinvigorated democracy, and fully engaged citizens, require nothing less.

This article, by Paul Martin Du Bois and Frances Moore Lappe, first appeared in the Fall 1991 issue of SCRC's newsletter, Focus on Study Circles. Du Bois and Lappe are co-founders of the Center for Living Democracy. You can reach CLD at RR #1 Fox Road, Brattleboro, VT 05301, (802) 254-1234, fax 254-1227.

Back to top

Study Circles & Actions

It's a question SCRC hears frequently: "How do study circles connect to action on public issues?" As an organization that works to "promote deliberative democracy and improve the quality of public life," and is committed to learning from those who are putting democracy into practice, our answer continues to evolve. These days it encompasses three aspects of action.

We have always assumed that, at the very least, participation in study circles makes people better informed, more understanding of other viewpoints, and able to vote more intelligently. These results of dialogue embody the idea that "to understand is to act." With every change in an individual, every study circle nibbles away at the polarization and grandstanding that currently dominate our public life. On a grand scale, this can result in a greater sense of ownership of public issues, as well as in elections defined more by substance than style.

"Government by the people," however, means more than just voting. In the hands of many organizers, study circles have become a way of directly communicating the views and values of citizens to officials in government and in the schools. These organizers have shown that providing input is another important way to take action. Reports written jointly by study circle members, individual letters from study circle participants, and structures like the Study Circle Council in Lima, Ohio, funnel ideas and concerns from participants to community leaders.

Beginning in 1992, community-wide study circle programs began to demonstrate yet another link between study circles and action. For the first time, hundreds of citizens in a single community became involved in study circles—because they believed that by doing so they themselves could make a difference on an issue. Organizers were often surprised to see the collaborative efforts that resulted from dialogue, since neither consensus nor an explicit action plan is the goal of a study circle. But the action had evolved very naturally, as participants shared personal experiences, analyzed public problems, discovered common ground, and identified community assets. By participating in democratic and collaborative dialogue, they gained the understanding and connections they needed for democratic and collaborative action. As people realized they could make real change, they began to think of themselves as actors on public issues—not simply as the people who elect the actors or the people who give input to the actors.

Examples of these collaborative efforts resulting from community-wide study circles around the country include: youth mentoring projects; a film festival on ethnic diversity; collaborative school-business efforts; a multiracial "unity choir"; improvements to a community policing program; new playgrounds; a new soup kitchen; neighborhood "peace zones"; and a citywide planning process for violence prevention. These kinds of collaborative efforts to address public problems define citizenship broadly and actively.

These three aspects of action represent three visions of how best to strengthen the connection between citizens and public life. Whichever vision you are working toward, one thing is clear: study circles are a way of doing the essential work which must come before action. No matter what avenue citizens decide to take—voting differently, or communicating with leaders, or working collaboratively to address problems—study circles help them to think of themselves as members of a community capable of action.

This piece, by Matt Leighninger of SCRC, first appeared in the Summer/Fall 1995 issue of SCRC's newsletter, Focus on Study Circles.

Back to top

Why the Sudden Interest in Dialogue & Democratic Participation? ... & Where Do Study Circles Fit In?

Recent articles by scholars and practitioners such as Robert Putnam, Bruce Adams, Jean Bethke Elshtain, and Benjamin Barber have fleshed out these concepts. A host of new organizations and efforts, including the Alliance for National Renewal, the American News Service, America Speaks, and the Civic Practices Network, are convening some of the thinkers and doers, and identifying examples of communities and programs that embody the cuffing edge of democratic practice.

Many of these leaders and organizations have turned their attention to the study circle, a proven method for strengthening dialogue and democratic participation. The community-wide study circle program—in which study circles are used throughout a community to engage citizens in discussion and problem solving—is a vital model for this work. As a result, SCRC has become a focal point for this new, larger audience.

Why now?

It is no secret that for many years large numbers of American citizens have felt alienated and disconnected from government and from public life in general. Some of the symptoms of this problem have been evident for a long time: falling voter participation, increasingly nasty political campaigns, and a declining sense of community. So why, all of a sudden, are more people paying attention to the need for dialogue and democratic participation?

Much of the new interest comes from public officials, who are beginning to realize that the old debates don't connect to citizens in their struggles to deal with the issues that affect their lives and their communities. It is becoming more difficult to rely on the old "right-wing" or "left-wing" ideas and policies, because those ideas and labels no longer resonate much with citizens.

Conservative and liberal public officials are interested in dialogue and democracy for very different reasons. Conservatives have long championed the need to reinforce family and community values, but they've never been more eager to find a mechanism for doing it. Many conservative thinkers and leaders have realized that merely keeping "big government" out of the way is not enough. In the pages of the Wall Street Journal, William Bennett has called for a "return to civil society." Lamar Alexander advocates local organizing to confront community problems—his campaign slogan is "The people know what to do."

At the same time, liberals who believe in the power of govemment to address social problems are facing the reality that growing numbers of taxpayers don't share this belief—or at least aren't willing to sustain movement spending. By encouraging citizens to examine problems like crime and poverty, liberals hope to foster community-based programs that help pick up where government has left off. Some liberal thinkers and leaders also suspect that citizens who take a hard look at community problems will realize that a role for government is necessary.

As public leaders from the right and the left look for the center, they are discovering ideas like active citizenship, civic renewal, and community values.

Why study circles?

Through study circles, citizens and public leaders in a growing number of communities are finding a way to turn these ideas into reality. When leaders in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors collaborate to organize a community-wide study circle program, they establish open, democratic spaces where citizens can work together. Several aspects of study circles make them ideal for reinvigorating public life:

1. They provide a safe, structured environment for dialogue. It's difficult to know how to enter into a productive dialogue with neighbors or complete strangers who may have views that are different from our own. The study circle ground rules and the presence of a trained facilitator create an atmosphere that welcomes a range of viewpoints and allows people to deal productively with their differences.

2. They nurture the personal relationships that make up community networks. In well-organized study circle programs, each study circle contains a mix of people who approach a single problem from different vantage points—black and white citizens, for example, or parents and teachers. Forming these new relationships is the most basic step in building community and overcoming divisions. When many of these relationships become intertwined in a community, the resulting web forms a basis for cooperation and for the discovery of shared values.

3. They help citizens solve problems and make a difference on the issues that concern them. Most Americans care deeply about issues, but feel helpless to do anything about them. Community-wide study circle programs provide citizens with an opportunity to make a difference. By helping people come up with solutions on different levels—as individuals, as members of small groups, and as members of large institutions—they help citizens begin thinking of themselves as part of a community capable of solving its problems.

Study circles and public life.

All kinds of people find what they are looking for in study circles. Conservatives and liberals, public leaders and citizens can look to community-wide study circle programs around the country to find examples of dialogue and democratic participation in practice. As more organizers make study circles work effectively in their own communities, they are providing variations on the theme, and a wider range of models for others.

SCRC will continue to tell the story of these communities so that their lessons can be applied to the new questions about dialogue and democratic participation. As we do so, we realize the need to keep in mind the reasons that citizens and public leaders are asking these questions in the first place. Study circles provide a flexible formula for renewing our civic culture. Through the effort and ingenuity of citizens, community leaders, and national political figures, study circles can help form a new foundation for American public life.

This piece, by Matt Leighninger of SCRC, first appeared in the Winter 1996 issue of SCRC's newsletter, Focus on Study Circles.

Manual Index

Part I: Introduction
Part II: Basic Steps in Creating a Community-wide Program
Part III: Sample Documents
Part IV: Stories of Community-wide Study Circle Programs
Part V: Appendices