Copyright 2008 Interactivity Foundation
PO Box 9 - Parkersburg, WV 26102-0009 - ph 304-424-3605 - FAX 304-485-8218 - if@citynet.net
PO Box 9 - Parkersburg, WV 26102-0009 - ph 304-424-3605 - FAX 304-485-8218 - if@citynet.net
IF...
Engaging citizens in the exploration and development of possibilities for public policy.
Our Project Director, Jack Byrd, Jr., has developed a set of guidelines for facilitating small group citizen discussions of the policy possibilities developed in our sanctuary discussions. We have published these guidelines as a new "Facilitation Guidebook for Small Group Citizen Discussions" and you can download a copy from this website or request a printed copy.
While our process for citizen discussion differs from our sanctuary discussion process, they are interrelated and have certain techniques in common. Our small group citizen discussions are similar to sanctuary discussions in that they use an active facilitator in small groups (5-8) of recruited citizen discussants to promote interactive discussion and open exploration and development. And, as in sanctuary discussion, there is a commitment to citizen participation, a focus on developing conceptual possibilities rather than deciding or solving current problems, an opportunity for civic engagement and personal growth, and, ultimately, a potentially useful result for future policy development in the resulting feedback and written materials from the discussions. Our approach to citizen discussion differs significantly, however, from sanctuary discussion because they begin (rather than end) with the contrasting conceptual possibilities presented in the Citizen Staff Work Reports. The discussions are also much shorter (approximately 3-4 sessions of 3-4 hours each), and the identities of the participants are public, not confidential.
In 2007, our Fellows, our Outreach & Projects Administrator, and some of our summer institute faculty began conducting such discussions. We anticipate that they and other faculty and others will continue to conduct additional citizen discussions of our reports. We hope to learn from all these citizen discussions and incorporate their insights into both our discussion processes overall and into future revisions of this Guidebook.
.
While our process for citizen discussion differs from our sanctuary discussion process, they are interrelated and have certain techniques in common. Our small group citizen discussions are similar to sanctuary discussions in that they use an active facilitator in small groups (5-8) of recruited citizen discussants to promote interactive discussion and open exploration and development. And, as in sanctuary discussion, there is a commitment to citizen participation, a focus on developing conceptual possibilities rather than deciding or solving current problems, an opportunity for civic engagement and personal growth, and, ultimately, a potentially useful result for future policy development in the resulting feedback and written materials from the discussions. Our approach to citizen discussion differs significantly, however, from sanctuary discussion because they begin (rather than end) with the contrasting conceptual possibilities presented in the Citizen Staff Work Reports. The discussions are also much shorter (approximately 3-4 sessions of 3-4 hours each), and the identities of the participants are public, not confidential.
In 2007, our Fellows, our Outreach & Projects Administrator, and some of our summer institute faculty began conducting such discussions. We anticipate that they and other faculty and others will continue to conduct additional citizen discussions of our reports. We hope to learn from all these citizen discussions and incorporate their insights into both our discussion processes overall and into future revisions of this Guidebook.
.