Kettering Foundation Research Articles

The global belief that "life gets better and better": National differences in recollected past, present, and anticipated future life satisfaction around the world, across time, and in relation to societal functioning.

National-level differences in individuals' ratings of their recollected past, current, and anticipated future life satisfaction (LS) were examined using results from two pioneering projects comprising national-level results for 14 countries (Cantril, 1965) and 15 regions of the world (Gallup International Research Institutes & Charles F. Kettering Foundation, 1976; Study 1), as well as sequential results from the Gallup World Poll based on 137 countries representing a broad range of nations from around the world surveyed from 2005 to 2018 (Study 2). Results from both studies revealed a robust belief that "life gets better" over time (i.e., recollected past < current < anticipated future LS) in nations around the world. Such beliefs were examined in relation to objective and subjective indicators of societal-level functioning. Results replicated across studies in showing that nations with less positive societal functioning and prosperity were characterized by less recollected past improvements in LS, and yet greater anticipated future improvements in LS. Results from Study 2 also revealed that such expectations were positively biased compared to changes over time in national levels of LS; further, greater bias was related to less positive societal-level functioning. In conclusion, examining national-level differences in LS from a subjective temporal perspective provides valuable new insights concerning human development and prosperity across countries, over time, and around the world. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Review of Deliberation in the Classroom: Fostering Critical Thinking, Community, and Citizenship in Schools by Stacie Molnar-Main (Kettering Foundation Press, 2017)

Review of Deliberation in the Classroom: Fostering Critical Thinking, Community, and Citizenship in Schools by Stacie Molnar-Main (Kettering Foundation Press, 2017).

Turning the Tide on Poverty: History, theoretical frameworks, and methods

Desiring to enhance understanding of the key elements that promote community-based democratic engagement and spur people to engage in the vitality of their communities, in 2008 the Turning the Tide on Poverty project launched in six southern US states. Inspired by the successes of the Horizons project in the northwestern US, Tide was a collaborative effort led by the Southern Rural Development Center with partners that included the Kettering Foundation, Everyday Democracy, the Farm Foundation, and land-grant universities. Researchers and Cooperative Extension personnel from southern universities developed a strategy to involve residents in the process of addressing challenges in their impoverished communities. The purpose of this article is to present a brief history and overview of the project, to locate the project within theoretical frameworks, and to discuss the methods used for data collection and analysis. In so doing, we provide a context for the scholarly examination of Tide that follows in this special collection of Community Development.

Tackling Wicked Problems Through Deliberative Engagement

National Civic ReviewVolume 105, Issue 1 p. 44-47 Essay Tackling Wicked Problems Through Deliberative Engagement Martin Carcasson, Martin CarcassonSearch for more papers by this author Martin Carcasson, Martin CarcassonSearch for more papers by this author First published: 07 April 2016 https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.21258Citations: 12 Author's note: I oversee the Center for Public Deliberation (CPD) at Colorado State University (CSU), which trains undergraduate students as small group facilitators, then designs and runs various deliberative projects for local cities, school districts, and community organizations, providing critical capacity for deliberative engagement. I also work with the Kettering Foundation's Centers for Public Life program to build such capacity across the nation. This article originally appeared in the October 2013 issue of Colorado Municipalities. Used by permission of the Colorado Municipal League. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume105, Issue1Spring 2016Pages 44-47 RelatedInformation

Engaging Underrepresented Minorities in Research: Our Vision for a "Research-Friendly Community".

This article introduces our "Research-Friendly Community" vision, placing research in the arena of social justice by giving citizens a voice and opportunity to actively determine research agendas in their community. The mission of Tri-County Rural Health Network, a minority-owned, community-based nonprofit serving 16 counties in Arkansas' Mississippi River Delta region, is to increase access to health-related services and opportunities to both participate in and shape research. Tri-County has built trust with the community through the use of Deliberative Democracy Forums, a model devised by the Kettering Foundation and through a community health worker program called Community Connectors. Over time, a partnership was formed with investigators at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS). Tri-County serves as a boundary spanner to link community members, other community organizations, local politicians, policy maker, and researchers. We describe our experience for other nonprofits or universities who might want to develop a similar program.

After the Flood: Citizen Action Following Natural Disaster

National Civic ReviewVolume 104, Issue 2 p. 28-39 Essay After the Flood: Citizen Action Following Natural Disaster Aaron Leavy, Aaron LeavySearch for more papers by this author Aaron Leavy, Aaron LeavySearch for more papers by this author First published: 14 July 2015 https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.21231 Adapted with permission from the Kettering Foundation. The Kettering Foundation is a nonprofit operating foundation rooted in the American tradition of cooperative research. Established in 1927 by inventor Charles F. Kettering, the foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization that does not make grants but engages in joint research with others. The materials contained herein represent the views and opinions of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, its trustees, or its officers. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume104, Issue2Summer 2015Pages 28-39 RelatedInformation

Putting the Public Back into Public Education: An Old‐Fashioned Remedy for a Troubled Relationship

National Civic ReviewVolume 104, Issue 2 p. 3-10 Essay Putting the Public Back into Public Education: An Old-Fashioned Remedy for a Troubled Relationship David Mathews, David MathewsSearch for more papers by this author David Mathews, David MathewsSearch for more papers by this author First published: 14 July 2015 https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.21227 Editor's Note: This article was reprinted from the Cousins Research Group Report to the joint staff and partners meeting of the Kettering Foundation, February 11, 2015. The Kettering Foundation is a nonprofit operating foundation rooted in the American tradition of cooperative research. Established in 1927 by inventor Charles F. Kettering, the foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization that does not make grants but engages in joint research with others. The materials contained herein represent the views and opinions of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, its trustees, or its officers. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume104, Issue2Summer 2015Pages 3-10 RelatedInformation

Community development and democratic practice: pas de deux or distinct and different?

In this introductory article, we discuss the theme of the Special Issue of Community Development focused on community development and democratic practice. Seven articles are summarized and highlight a range of case studies that vary by location, scale, and purpose, followed by a reflective essay. Drawing from the articles in the Special Issue and a series of joint learning exchanges on the topic sponsored by the Kettering Foundation, we then outline a heuristic framework for “democratic community development.” The framework asks a number of related questions about how democracy, community, and the public are constituted, and what processes, end goals, methods, and tools are to be used to further democratic community development.

Helping Students Succeed: Communities Confront the Achievement Gap

National Civic ReviewVolume 104, Issue 1 p. 25-32 Essay Helping Students Succeed: Communities Confront the Achievement Gap Fannie Flono, Fannie FlonoSearch for more papers by this author Fannie Flono, Fannie FlonoSearch for more papers by this author First published: 09 April 2015 https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.21221 Adapted from Helping Students Succeed: Communities Confront the Achievement Gap with permission of the Kettering Foundation. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume104, Issue1Spring 2015Pages 25-32 RelatedInformation

Maze of Mistrust: Parents, Educators, and the Challenge of Public Engagement

National Civic ReviewVolume 104, Issue 1 p. 33-46 Essay Maze of Mistrust: Parents, Educators, and the Challenge of Public Engagement Steve Farkas, Steve FarkasSearch for more papers by this authorAnn Duffett, Ann DuffettSearch for more papers by this author Steve Farkas, Steve FarkasSearch for more papers by this authorAnn Duffett, Ann DuffettSearch for more papers by this author First published: 09 April 2015 https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.21222Citations: 2 Adapted from Maze of Mistrust: How District Politics and Cross Talk Are Stalling Efforts to Improve Public Education with permission of the Kettering Foundation. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume104, Issue1Spring 2015Pages 33-46 RelatedInformation

Community as an Educational Institution

National Civic ReviewVolume 103, Issue 2 p. 17-20 Essay Community as an Educational Institution Amy Lee, Amy LeeSearch for more papers by this author Amy Lee, Amy LeeSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 August 2014 https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.21187 This article was first published in 2011 in the Kettering Foundation's annual journal Connection. Reprinted with permission. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume103, Issue2Summer 2014Pages 17-20 RelatedInformation

Rethinking Civic Engagement: The Case of the Public Schools and the Public

National Civic ReviewVolume 103, Issue 2 p. 4-10 Essay Rethinking Civic Engagement: The Case of the Public Schools and the Public David Mathews, David MathewsSearch for more papers by this author David Mathews, David MathewsSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 August 2014 https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.21184Citations: 1 This article is adapted from David Mathews's latest book, The Ecology of Democracy: Finding Ways to Have a Stronger Hand in Shaping Our Future (Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation Press, 2014). Adapted with permission. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume103, Issue2Summer 2014Pages 4-10 RelatedInformation

Public Deliberation and Practical Application of Civic Engagement through a “Train the Trainer” Process at a Historically Black College

IntroductionThe work of institutions of higher education is often associated with processes and activities beyond the gates of the college/university and is reflected in experiences framed in constructs of the institutional mission. This is often captured in the consciousness, commitment, and engagement of the campus and community. The work of institutions takes higher education outside the confines of the campus and into communities and society with focus on deliberate experiences and activities connecting work to engagement. Creating for deliberation on college campuses involves a commitment to engagement and connection to that mission. Such spaces and opportunities provide experiences for students (and all campus constituents) to embrace and actualize the of deliberation, responsibility and professional practice of public work.This study is positioned in the conceptual framework of civic agency, which emphasizes the collective capacity of engagement (civic) and voice. Boyte (1997) suggested that the concept of agency highlights the broader set of capacities and skills required to take skillful, imaginative collective action in fluid and open environments. Additionally, Boyte notated agency through a project initiative with the American Association of State Colleges & Universities (AASCU; www.aascu.org) and the Kettering Foundation (www.kettering.org). The focus is to incorporate agency into minority-serving institutions such as historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and regional institutions. A key component of the initiative involves building capacity for agency through engagement and among students, faculty, and staff. Public, private, HBCUs and predominantly White institutions (PWIs) through the years have had a service component associated with their institutions. Activities may take the form of a variety of experiences (e.g., community service, learning, and engagement) and link the campus and community through work. Connecting or reconnecting the academic life of the college with work of citizenship calls for commitment and intentional efforts toward the democratic process. The relevancy of an engaged people must be examined with focus on the establishment of an institutional culture of engagement, democratic practice, and scholarship. Mathews (2005) asserted that a scholarship movement off campus is as great as the potential on campus. The connection between community and campus serves as a platform for forums or marketplaces as described by Mathews. Review of scholarship and leads to analysis and a reflective process involving institutional purpose and mission.Examination of the mission of institutions is directly linked to the process of institutional self-study. Whisenton and colleagues (1969) concluded that the self-study process aids an institution in making a realistic appraisal of its status and effectiveness, whereby providing opportunities for rethinking the purpose and yielding insights into the institution and its people. As such, a question emerges: Does the institutional mission represent the practice of the institution with focus on engagement and service? Peters (2005) highlighted four key points related to higher education's public-service mission: (a) higher education's mission directly links the academy with external partners in both the sphere and the private sector through the work of engagement; (b) engagement is a two-way activity, which is mutually beneficial, and helps to advance the interests of external partners and the general as well as the academy; (c) engagement has declined in the post-world War II era in both status and frequency, which leads to conversation regarding the need for renewal; and (d) there are significant barriers and disincentives blocking scholars and as such engagement is not sufficiently appreciated, valued, documented, assessed, or rewarded. …

The Community Context for Education

National Civic ReviewVolume 102, Issue 2 p. 13-16 Essay The Community Context for Education† David Mathews, David MathewsSearch for more papers by this author David Mathews, David MathewsSearch for more papers by this author First published: 23 July 2013 https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.21124Citations: 1 † This article was originally published in the December, 2011, issue of the Kettering Review. It is republished with permission from the Kettering Foundation. AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume102, Issue2Summer 2013Pages 13-16 RelatedInformation

The power of relationships

AbstractThe Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the 21st Century, edited by John Gastil and Peter Levine. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass, 2005. 336 pp., $36.00 cloth.Politics Is About Relationship: A Blueprint for the Citizens' Century, by Harold H. Saunders. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. 242 pp., $35.00 cloth.Going Public: An Organizer's Guide to Citizen Action, by Michael Gecan. New York: Anchor, 2002. 224 pp., $12.00 paper. The Civic Renewal Movement: Community‐Building and Democracy in the United States, by Carmen Sirianni and Lewis A. Friedland. Dayton, Ohio: Kettering Foundation Press, 2005. 260 pp., $9.95 paper.

A Brief History of the Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll

Phi Delta Kappa and the Gallup Organization have been asking the public what it thinks of the public schools since the late 1960s. Mr. Rose describes the evolution of the PDK/Gallup poll itself and how educators and policy makers are influenced by its findings. THE 37th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/ Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools was released in August 2005 at a press conference held at the Gallup Building in Washington, D.C. Members of the national media were in attendance; the president of Phi Delta Kappa International came from Denver to preside; and the poll's director, PDK's executive director, and a consultant to the poll responded to questions for over 40 minutes. The conference was carried on C-SPAN, and numerous media outlets reported the poll results. The poll was subsequently printed in a 16-page article in the September issue of the Phi Delta Kappan. Major publications, such as the Christian Science Monitor and Education Week, analyzed the results, and some reprinted the poll in part or even in its entirety. Those who started this poll in the late 1960s would be amazed at the way it has endured and grown in both content and purpose. Its annual release is widely anticipated. It is disliked by some, respected by others. A former secretary of education, having reviewed the approval ratings given the public schools, commented, We will never bring about the needed change if people continue to believe that they have good schools. Today's PDK/Gallup poll is a cooperative effort between PDK and the Gallup Organization, a tie established after the first poll had been published in 1969 in the IDEA/ Reporter. The poll was the brainchild of James Kettering and Edward Brainard, two members of the prestigious Kettering Foundation's board. Envisioning a poll that would provide educators with insights regarding the public's views on day-to-day issues, they enlisted the expertise and support of George Gallup, Sr., who was on the way to establishing public-opinion polling as a true science. Gallup, strongly committed to the public schools, liked the idea of an education poll and used his expertise to make it a reality. He was the poll's first director. In a 2004 conversation in Colorado, Brainard recalled that, while the first poll was judged a success, there was general agreement that it needed wider distribution. Stanley Elam, who had established the Phi Delta Kappan as a leading education journal since he took over as its editor in 1956, readily signed on with the understanding that the Kappan would be the poll's publisher. Thus began the partnership between the Gallup Organization and Phi Delta Kappa that has so far endured for nearly four decades. THE EARLY DAYS In the early days, Gallup convened a national panel of experts to discuss the issues the poll should explore. He chaired the meeting, asked questions, listened intently, and took copious notes. At some point, he would thank everyone and declare the meeting over. Then he would draft the questions, prepare the questionnaire, and direct the polling process. When the surveying was complete, Gallup analyzed the results, picked out the significant findings, and wrote the report. Elam edited it, checking frequently with its author, and the poll was published in the Kappan. From 1969 until his death in 1984, this was George Gallup's poll, and he delighted in it. Alec Gallup, co-chair of the Gallup Organization, became the point person for the poll after his father's death. He monitors the questions and co-authors the report. Stan Elam remained a co-author of the report until 1995, and I joined Stan and Alec in 1991 and became co-author, with Alec, in 1995. THE PROCESS TODAY The poll cycle starts in October, when potential questions are sought from and proposed by a variety of sources. Roughly half the questions are trend questions, whose meaning is enriched by the valuable data collected when they were asked in previous years. …

Three Models of Democratic Deliberation

This paper comes out of my experience working at the of three models of deliberative democracy: (1) the preference-based model held by many deliberative theorists in the social sciences; (2) the rational proceduralist model suggested by John Rawls's political philosophy and Jurgen Habermas's discourse ethics; and (3) what I will call an integrative model that has been overlooked in the literature but can be seen at work in most actual deliberative forums com- posed of members of a polity deliberating on that polity's direction. The latter includes the National Issues Forums (NIF), a network of civic organizations that run deliberative forums consonant with a quasi-Deweyan approach to pub- lic deliberation. My aim in this paper is to see the extent to which any or all of these models can be mapped onto actual deliberative forums, including delib- erative polls, the method developed by James Fishkin (1991; 1995). These three models are not mutually exclusive. A deliberator might see herself engaged in more than one sort at a time (perhaps testing out, as in the second sort, whether a justification for a policy is acceptable to all, while at the same time hoping to find some integration even where participants cannot reach accord, as in model three). Any combination could work, in practice, even though some of the meth- ods may, again in practice, work at cross purposes. For example, focusing largely on the normative aims of the second model might lead one to minimize the empirical facts of people's actual, strategic aims, of which the third model is highly aware. I want to draw out the theoretical differences between these ap- proaches and show how these differences matter in practice. My own intersection among these three approaches is rather makeshift: I happened to begin working with Fishkin on a deliberative poll we called the National Issues Convention (NIC) while I was a graduate student at the Univer- sity of Texas (writing a dissertation, in part, on Jurgen Habermas). I was never Fishkin's student, rather our collaboration began because of my association with the Kettering Foundation, which is a major force behind the NIF. 2 Fishkin be- came allied with NIF and the Kettering Foundation because of their shared in-

NRJ Book: Getting the Whole Story: Reporting and Writing the News

the Whole Story: Reporting and Writing the News, by Cheryl Gibbs and Tom Warhover (The Guilford Press, 2002, $44) 451 pages. Advocates of public, or civic, journalism finally have a basic reporting and news writing textbook that they can call their own. In the acknowledgements, co-authors Cheryl Gibbs and Tom Warhover relate that public journalism guru Jay Rosen suggested that they contact Guilford Press about their ideas for the book, Getting the Whole Story: Reporting and Writing the News. While writing the book, they also consulted such public journalism heavyweights as Davis Buzz Merritt, Cole Campbell, Jim Carey, Ed Lambeth, and Phil Meyer.But Gibbs and Warhover were already well-versed in public journalism theory and practice. Gibbs, a former print journalist and an assistant professor of journalism at Earlham College, has worked on various public journalism projects and groups including the Project on Public Life and the Press, the Charles F. Kettering Foundation and the Pew Center for Civic Journalism. Warhover, an associate professor at the University of Missouri School of Journalism and the executive editor of the Columbia Missourian, worked at the Virginian-Pilot, where as deputy managing editor he helped put public journalism theory into practice and showcase it nationally.The authors wrote the book to help beginning reporters not only learn the craft of journalism but also to understand the role journalists play in our democracy. They wanted to stress both the practice of journalism and the theory behind it, which they noted is usually neglected in beginning textbooks.Our goal was to create a textbook that put the 'whys' of journalism together with the 'hows,' they write in the introduction. We have included sufficient 'how to' information on developing basic journalism skills, but we also discuss the journalists' role, the importance of press freedom and many ethical concerns that come up in day-to-day reporting. Additionally, we address changes in professional values and practices that have occurred in response to concerns among both journalists and nonjournalists about declining credibility in news coverage.The public journalism approach is reflected in the organization of the well-written and well-researched book. Instead of beginning the book by exploring news values, the first chapter discusses The Journalist's Role in Society. It stresses that journalists must engage in story telling, information gathering and conversation. The best of American journalism doesn't explain a problem or issue and then leap to another and another and another. It follows important developments over time, offering information about what's at stake, how people can get involved, and how well the community as whole is doing, the authors write.The next two chapters discuss the more typical What Journalists Do and How Writing Is Different, followed by another chapter focusing on public journalism. The as a Context for the News stresses the importance of journalists understanding their community and how journalists can contribute to public life. Besides discussing the philosophical importance of community and gaining community knowledge, the text includes breakout boxes with practical tips, such as Ways to Get to Know a Community and Expanding Our View of Civic Life. At the end of each chapter, the authors provide exercises to help students understand how the concepts apply in daily journalism. …

Moving from Forums for the People to Forums by the People

For more than 20 years, thousands of people around world have participated in civic forums for deliberation. Initially issues were named and framed with tremendous support and guidance from Charles F. Kettering Foundation. Gradually, guides were custom-designed with partners such as schools, churches, colleges and universities, community development, adult literacy, policy centers and institutes, and libraries, and often National Issues Forum Institute. The Foundation, research organization, is keenly interested in engagement and participation in society, and forums have offered type of laboratory for studying the public as it considers and weighs most compelling issues of our times, such as children who commit crimes, troubled American family, money and politics, racial and ethnic tensions, terrorism, Americans' role in world, rising costs of health care, welfare, immigration, freedom of speech, social security and retirement, and restoring trust in media. Naming and framing issues might be thought to be best left to experts in fields such as policy, communications, political science, sociology, or adult education. Indeed, individuals representing these areas and others have often been critical contributors to work. Yet, perhaps preparing frameworks for deliberation should include public, who are most affected by these Their contribution can address language, perspectives, values, and ideas for action beyond those of professional experts. In addition, inclusion of language, stories, opinions, and values can increase support. Adult educators engaged in community development and program design are well suited for issue development and forum implementation. In many places, they are indeed part of National Issues Forum network, a nonpartisan, informal association of educational and community organizations that convene forums for citizens to deliberate on issues. However, there is room and need for many more adult educators to associate with these forums because citizens, new and old, more than ever need opportunities to deliberate on national issues and reengage in civic life. Adult educators may initially feel that they lack content expertise to address complex policy Yet, they do know how to tap content specialists as team members to work with them and for purposes of naming and framing Public perceptions and values as they weigh these issues are as cogent to deliberation as the facts. Another initial hesitancy to engage in forums could be challenge of how to promote and implement programs for an audience as diffuse as the public. Adult education program planning resources are rich in information about publicizing inclusive programs. The heritage of adult education, including works by Knowles, E. Johnson, and Lindeman, illuminates social benefits of forming partnerships and relationships with diverse audiences to expand participation of our many publics. Democracy requires voices of both majority and minority Adult educators also recognize that programs require investments of time, energy, and money. Sharing investments and returns on these investments with multiple partners maximizes and benefits outcomes and heightens odds that such programs are sustained. So while appreciating Kettering Foundation's generosity, more and more partners are experimenting more independently with naming and framing issues on their own. To see this happen is indeed rewarding to those who have worked closely with Foundation and early associates in National Issues Forums. Also, sense of ownership results from shaping deliberations from their perspectives. Following are some exemplars of partners and collaborators who illustrate how to present issues for attention. …

Changing Post-Totalitarian Values in Russia through Public Deliberation Methodology

P ublic Deliberation Methodology (PDM) developed from activities sponsored by the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, which engages in research to enhance the practice of politics. Politics, generally understood, encompasses public activities that help create the kind of communities, the kind of country, and the kind of world order where people are interested and involved in governing and strengthening civil society. PDM establishes an environment