Problem Statement The realities of increasing diversity, cleavages among the increasing wealthy and increasing poor and environmental shifts and changes in the U.S. and Europe over the last have had twenty years have had important personal and social implications to its citizenry. Amidst the rapidly changing social context and social fabric of our global communities, some question whether our communities are becoming more isolated and divided over these same social and political realities. Robert Putnam's seminal study in the U.S. (2000) attests to the declining civic engagement and social cohesion over the last third of the 20th century. Characterizing the diminution of social capital in community life from the 1960s, Putnam describes how Americans began to "join less, trust less, give less, vote less, and schmooze less". The Greater Pittsburgh region in southwestern Pennsylvania is not unlike the communities in the country who are feeling effects and impact of socioeconomic shifts at neighborhood, town or city, and regional levels. The decreasing social capital in the U.S. has mirrored the regional realities and socioeconomic changes due to declining steel and industry markets and economic interest in the region. Study Purpose and Research Questions The purpose of this study is to ascertain practices of ethical reflection and "shared looking" among participants of a social program that attempts to evoke a heightened concern for community involvement and development through a weekly gathering over dinner. The guiding questions of the study are twofold: i) What happens in dialogue that connects a person with another and evokes concern for him/her and the broader social context?, and ii) How do practices of ethical reflection and "shared looking" in a diverse setting make a difference? The social program, Conversations for Common Wealth (CCW) is a seven week long program that brings 4-10 individuals from differing race, gender, ethnic, religious, occupational, and educational backgrounds for weekly conversations. Following a thematic course, conversations are intended to move from shared hopes to shared commitments for the commonwealth, through structured discussions that have been the cause of regional and local concern related to race/diversity, economic disparities, environmental degradation, and materialism/media. Theoretical Framework: From Anomie to History-Making for Social Change The theoretical framework of this study stems from multiple traditions in social sciences, including sociolinguistics, sociology, psychology, and social policy. These multiple perspectives converge in a layered spiral formation when applied to this study. In particular, notions of anomie, history-making, and social capital are critical theoretical elements undergirding this study. The notion of anomie rests as the point of departure for the efforts established by CCW. The program rises as a response to this symptom of lawlessness that exists in the social structure. It is out of the experience that there exists a disjunction in the social ethic that participants have, before taking part of CCW concerned themselves on some level or another with civic action History-making refers to efforts that attempt to change the way that we understand ourselves in relationship to others and our surroundings. Spinosa, et. al (1997) indicate that history-making underlies various practices of civic action and engagement. Through these practices, the authors further outline ways in which change can take place in a social context, most directly when individuals are intensely involved in changing taken-for- granted, everyday practices; that is, when the are making history. In particular, Spinosa, et.al recommend a democracy of civil activism that rearticulates ethical action through civic engagement. Research Design and Procedures An ethnographic, evaluative perspective within CCW will be applied as a research framework to add a number of important elements to ongoing evaluation efforts, potentially integrating conceptual and methodological attention to meanings and context in the daily lives of participants, providing snapshots of their lives for evaluative purposes. Whereas traditional evaluation emphasizes a detached, bias-avoiding and methods-driven subject, an alternative conceptualization of the ethnographer's role in evaluation encourages relationships between the evaluator/field researcher and participants/people in a setting as asset rather than deficit. In this way, according to Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw (1995), "The field researcher sees first-hand and up close how people grapple with uncertainty and confusion, how meanings emerge through talk and collective action, how understandings and interpretations change over time" (4). ReferencesBerger, P & Luckman, T. 1966. Society as a Human Product.*Social Theory: The Multicultural & Classic Readings.Butler, J. 1993. Bodies that Matter. New York: Routledge.Durkheim, E. 1902. Anomie and the Modern Division of Labor. *Durkheim, E & Mauss, M. 1903. Primitive Classifications and Social Knowledge.Fromm, E. 1929. Psychoanalysis and Sociology.*Hooks, b. 1984. Yearning: Race, Gender and Cultural Politics. Boston: South End Press.Habermas, J. 1968. Emancipatory Knowledge*---------. 1970. Social Analysis and Communicative Competence.MacLeod, J. 1996. Ain't No Makin' It: Aspirations & Attainment in a Low-Income Neighborhood. Boulder: Westview Press.Merton, R.K. 1938. Social Structure and Anomie.*Putnam, R. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. NY: Simon & Schuster.Schwartz, D. 1997. Who Cares: Rediscovering Community. Boulder: West View Press.Spinosa, C. et. al. 2001. Disclosing New Worlds: Entrepreneurship, Democratic Action, and the Cultivation of Solidarity. Cambridge: MIT Press.Storr, A. 1983. The Essential Jung. Princeton: Princeton University Press.