Most of the classes at the large, private school enroll 400-700 students.  The exception is the freshmen seminar, which is capped at 23 due to the size of seminar classrooms.  Senior faculty actually have the hardest time and complain the most about teaching the small seminars, where students seem to be displaying the anti-authoritarian, inquisitive, and even sometimes bullying and cliquish tendencies that we see in many American 21st C., or Generation Y, students (usually ages 16-28).  Nonetheless, since the earthquake and tsunami, all faculty are genuinely wanting to explore ways of incorporating more discussion into their classrooms– even the larger ones.  My colleague and I would like to explore East/Southeast Asian students’ willingness to engage in various sorts of classroom discussions.

The other Japanese faculty member is much better placed to engage in small-group, student-led discussion, as his classes are small and incorporate students from around the world.  This is likely great cultural variation, however, in students’ receptiveness to a student-led discussion model such as IF promotes.  Sometimes, though, students are willing to take more risks when they are engaged with students and teachers outside of their primary cultural context.

Asian students, on average, are perceived as not being so willing to engage in discussion.  It is not so clear, however, if that is true of the current generation, and teachers really want to know how far they can go with using discussion in their classrooms.  Teachers in Singapore really want to find new ways to engage students in controversial topics.  Student-centered discussion does a great job to make space for this sort of discussion.  Few teachers will chance trying it, however, before they have a better sense of how receptive their students will be to it. This is why further research with students in East/Southeast Asia is important.

IF discussions encourage participants to think broadly about a topic, promote multiple perspectives, and at times contribute ideas or opinions that they believe someone who is very different from them would possess.  Under these circumstances, it seems like it would be contradictory to also stress the importance of recognizing self-interest, but it may actually be a very important component of a successful deliberation.  Understanding one’s own motivations and desires can obviously help a citizen articulate their own points, but it can also serve another important purpose; to help someone realize and appreciate the perspectives of others. 

There are different types of participants in all deliberations.  Sure, there are those who will try and talk until their face turns blue while attempting to get their points across, but there are also those citizens who fear that sharing ideas based on their own self-interests will create some kind of conflict in the discussion.   Sometimes I think facilitators inadvertently create an atmosphere where people are afraid to express self-interest because, like some participants, they fear that the discussion will become too aggressive.   Taking all of this into consideration, it might be a good idea for a facilitator to encourage or at least explain the positive aspects that incorporating self-interest into discussion can bring.

The purpose of testing for possible practical consequences.  Whereas public discussion of an area of concern and of the conceptual possibilities for addressing it clarify citizens’ choices primarily by expanding and refining their repertoire of choices, testing clarifies citizens’ choices primarily by illustrating the possible practical consequences that might follow were each particular public policy possibilities previously developed in public discussion or presented in a staff work report actually “in place” in “the real world.”  At the same time, testing can often contribute to the other types of public discussion (see Section B., below).

Although testing’s immediate aim is primarily practical rather than conceptual, it shares with the other types of public discussion the larger aim of promoting citizens’ autonomy by engaging them in civic activity (specifically, public discussion) and clarifying and expanding their choices and may, in turn, contribute to improved public policy.  And, because it presupposes a certain level of citizen involvement, testing, like the other types of public discussion, will most typically sustain, not create, civic motivation and citizens’ autonomy.

The process of testing for possible practical consequences.  Again like the other types of public discussion, testing in public discussion (which assumes that conceptual possibilities have been first explored and developed, then selected and excluded) involves citizen interaction.  And its various moments, described below, interact with one another and with other possible forms of public discussion.

Testing itself involves three—sometimes four—conceptually distinct but interactive moments:

• Specifying a series of policies that might implement a conceptual possibility (this first sort of possible practical consequence might be described as possible implementation consequences).  Testing starts by identifying a limited set of (governmental and non-governmental) policies that might be used to implement each of the contrasting conceptual possibilities.  Because (1) not all possible means of implementing a particular conceptual possibility can be explored given practical limits on citizens’ time; and (2) not all possible means of implementing a particular conceptual possibility will be of equal interest to citizens, this step involves a relatively formal process of selection and exclusion.

• Listing of possible practical consequences of possible implementation policies.  Once possible policies for implementation have been specified, participants list their possible practical consequences.  This second sort of possible practical consequences might be to: culture, social norms and values, social processes (e.g., market prices), institutions (both governmental and non-governmental), groups, organizations, and/or individuals—but participants may come up with consequences that do not easily fit within these categories.  Furthermore, participants may wish to explore chains or sequences of consequences—the consequences of consequences, as it were (though there will be a limit to how far such sequences can usefully be pursued).  The consequences of implementation consequences that are listed by participants are not excluded by debate, consensus, or vote.  Consequences are not judged as to their “truth” or “desirability.”  Nor are they refined, except perhaps qualitatively.  They are simply enumerated.  The term “possible practical consequences” is descriptive only; it is not used to exclude anything from the discussion.  It is up to discussion participants to decide what “counts” as a possible practical consequence.  For these reasons, it may well turn out that testing will result in a list containing consequences that are ambiguous or even contradictory.

• Further exploration and/or development of conceptual possibility in light of testing.  Testing usually yields results that can contribute to the further exploration and/or development of a conceptual possibility.  However, there will typically be practical constraints on the degree to which any given public discussion will present participants with an opportunity to take advantage of this potential.

• Conclusion of testing pending choice or further discussion.  As with exploratory and developmental public discussion, discussion involving testing must come to an end, either to resume later or to come to terms with the necessity of choice.  Testing is in this sense, like exploration and development, always “unfinished”—always illustrative rather than conclusive.  This last point bears emphasizing.  Testing deals with possible practical consequences, which can never be fully or exhaustively known because:

• the world of human affairs changes in ways made unpredictable by citizens’ intentional choices, the sometimes random effects these produce, and natural forces that are themselves to an extent unpredictable

• different citizens have different concerns and will therefore “test” for the consequences of different concerns

• different citizens will perceive even the consequences of similar concerns in different ways.

 Attempts to forecast or predict the future, which typically employ statistical techniques, ignore these points.  They may be quite accurate in their own terms—able, for example, to predict whether a given policy will increase or decrease economic growth (and even by what amount).  But the precision with which they are stated can easily obscure the residual element of randomness they always contain and the number and breadth of concerns they exclude (e.g., employment, justice, well-being, and environmental integrity in the example just given).

Interactivity between Testing for Possible Practical Consequences, Discussion of An Area of Concern, and Discussion of Contrasting Conceptual Possibilities.   In actual public discussion, testing will perhaps typically interact with discussion of an area of concern and contrasting conceptual possibilities for addressing it in several ways:

• Testing for practical consequences may begin informally or as part of a discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities.

• Testing can lead to new discoveries about the conceptual possibility(-ies) under discussion.

• Testing can lead discussion participants to elaborate or refine the conceptual possibility(-ies) under discussion. 

The place of Testing for Practical Consequences in the Policy-Making Process.  As already noted, testing for practical consequences is well-suited to public discussion, either on its own or in combination with public discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities.

Testing, like discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities, is most usefully conducted well in advance of other sorts of discussion like debate and deliberation aimed at making actual decisions.  Unfortunately, opportunities for public discussion that incorporate testing are perhaps at least as rare as those that offer opportunities for exploratory and developmental discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities.

Encouraging Testing in Public Discussion.  Testing in public discussion can be encouraged in a variety of ways.  Beyond attending to language, testing will tend to be encouraged when participants:

• are allowed sufficient time

• focus on qualitative consequences rather than on precise measurements, statistics, predictions, or quantitative forecasts

• refrain from debate about whether a particular consequence is “true,” “likely,” or “real.”

* For more extensive discussion of this topic, see essay T-5 at: http://www.interactivityfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Public-Discussion-paper.pdf

Scheduling an event and selecting a topic is very time consuming. In order to avoid going back and forth between people, IFers have come up with ideas such as to let students write down their available time slots and interested topics on pieces of papers, so that the organizer can combine them and make a decision.  Many times, the organizer has to sacrifice a few people and make compromises. However, with doodle.com scheduling an event is much easier and more efficient. Participants’ demand can be maximized in this way. Here is how:

When you click into www.doodle.com you will see a blue button “schedule an event.” Once you click on that, you can put in the event title (such as “IF Boston August Discussion”) and tentative location for the discussion. You can also write a brief description about the discussions if you have not informed the participants yet. Entering your name and email address will be helpful here.

Once you click “next,” you will see a calendar, which allows you to put in potential days to organize this event. Usually including both weekdays and weekends will work the best. Too few options will end up with less mutually agreeable times and too many options will make people select less. With my past experience, 5-7 dates will be ideal.

Once you’ve select your dates, you can click “next.” You will be able to specify time slots for each date. Or you can simply enter time slots for the first date and click “copy and paste first row.” Make sure your time slots can potentially accommodate people who have to work during the day and also keep the meal time in mind. It is extremely important that the facilitator herself/himself can make it to all the time slots you’ve put in.

Once you are done, click “next” and select “basic” to “finish” and your event is now scheduled. All you need to do is copy and paste the link provided saying “Send this link to anyone you wish to invite” to the emails you will be sending out to the participants. It is always a good idea to fill out the survey first yourself to see if it works. I would recommend checking all the time slots (since you’ve only put time slots you are available on the list). This, in economics terms, is setting an “anchor.” Participants, therefore, will be more likely to enter more slots.

Here is an example what the participants will see: http://www.doodle.com/rgderxx7h45i6ni2  You can click on the same link to check participants’ responses or you will receive an email after each respondent has answered if you’ve entered your email previously.

I also provided a list of topics for the participants to choose using survey monkey (many of you are already using). Again, setting an anchor by selecting all works well based on my experience: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/X236V78

You will be surprised by how many people actually have access to the internet nowadays, especially the student body. The entire scheduling process probably will take you ten minutes and you will get the maximum out of it. Some phone communication is still needed before setting up the doodle as you will need to know around which days there might be people available for discussions.

I hope this can save some of your time and make your scheduling more efficient.

Best,

Taiyi

 The purposes of exploring and developing contrasting conceptual possibilities.  Public discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities serves the immediate purpose of clarifying and expanding citizens’ choices and the longer-term purpose of enhancing public policy.

 Through exploratory and developmental discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities democratic citizens may discover new policy possibilities or they may discover new ways to think about policy possibilities about which they are already generally aware.  The re-discovery of familiar possibilities is probably more common.  Yet even when citizens re-discover possibilities they have considered before, their views of the possibilities are likely to change, sometimes significantly.  Re-discovery of “known” possibilities can lead citizens to a clearer and fuller understanding of any or all of the following:

• rediscovered possibilities’ moral content

• rediscovered possibilities’ conceptual content

• rediscovered possibilities’ limitations.

 All of these impacts are probably facilitated and heightened when exploration and development deals with contrasting possibilities.

Both discovery and re-discovery serve the same immediate purpose, namely: to promote citizens’ autonomy by engaging them in civic activity on the one hand and by clarifying and expanding their choices as individual citizens on the other.  (Ultimately we might expect expanded civic engagement and enhanced citizen choice to improve the quality of public policy as well.)  However, it should be remembered that since citizens already need to be stimulated and engaged if they are to get involved in serious public discussion, public discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities will perhaps more often sustain rather than create civic motivation and citizen autonomy.

 The process of public discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities.  Like the other two aspects of IF’s public discussion (exploration of an area of concern, exploration of policy consequences),  public discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities is an interactive process, both in the sense that it involves the interactions of citizens and in the sense that its various moments interact with one another and with the other two aspects of public discussion.

Like public discussion of an area of concern, public discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities involves five interactive stages or moments.  Public discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities can, however, usefully focus on one or another of the three intermediate stages (exploration, development, or selection and exclusion).

 1)    Choice of a starting point: possible conceptual questions

Public discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities, too, needs a place to start.  Such a starting point is provided by the possible questions explored and developed during discussion (in sanctuary or in public) of an area of concern.

 2)    Exploration of possible conceptual answers 

Public discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities begins with a search for ways to address the concerns raised during exploration of the area of concern.  The focus at this stage is not on fine-tuning participants’ answers (which would be more akin to agreeing on the most convenient way to travel to a pre-selected destination) but on looking for something new—new conceptual possibilities especially.  To remain consistent with the process of exploration that produced them and the aim of stimulating further exploration, the “results” of exploration should be a survey not of a single possibility or two, but of multiple and contrasting conceptual possibilities.  In this way, the results can better reflect the best that the public discussion discovered rather than just a portion of participants’ thinking. As with exploration of an area of concern, exploration of contrasting conceptual possibilities is fundamentally open-ended.  There are many reasons exploration of conceptual possibilities cannot be exhaustive.  Among the most compelling is that, unlike a state (or section of the universe), public policy cannot be adequately or usefully “mapped” in any definitive way.  This is because the policy world and policy possibilities respond to forces that are to some degree foreseeable but also to an important degree beyond our control in an ever-changing world.  In addition, possibilities are themselves fundamentally open-ended.  If exploration cannot be exhaustive, the best that can be hoped for is that it be an ongoing, developmental affair.

3)    Development of possible conceptual answers: grouping, elaboration and refinement of conceptual possibilities

Development of conceptual possibilities begins where exploration has left off, i.e., with the full set of conceptual possibilities discovered in prior discussion.  During development exploration may continue, with new discoveries being added to the old.  But as development proceeds the emphasis will shift, however subtly, from acquiring wholly new concepts to grouping and elaborating those that have already been discovered.  Conceptual answers are grouped into conceptual possibilities—but in a way that allows their continual recombination as the discussion unfolds.  Elaborating and refining conceptual answers can take place at the level of individual conceptual answers or at the level of conceptual possibilities.  In both cases, it can take a number of different forms, including:

• identifying and ordering their significant elements—especially those that are contrasting

• identifying and filling in conceptual gaps

• working out their conceptual implications

• grasping their various interactivities

• eliminating conceptual and practical inconsistencies.

4)    Selecting and excluding contrasting conceptual possibilities

 Although there may be some informal selection and exclusion of conceptual possibilities during the exploratory and developmental stages, public discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities also allows for a more formal selection and exclusion process.   At this stage participants decide, through a process of convergence, on those contrasting conceptual possibilities they would like to “test” for possible practical consequences and/or report for further consideration by other democratic citizens.  Individual conceptual possibilities are only “excluded” (or dropped from further consideration) if all present agree to do so.  Individual conceptual possibilities are “selected” as long as even one participant is in favor of doing so.

5)    Conclusion of public discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities pending choice or further discussion

As with public discussion of an area of concern, public discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities—however deliberate its pace—must come to an end, either to face the necessity of choice regarding actual decisions or actions—or to await future opportunities for additional discussion.  Indeed, in the case of public discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities, the necessity of choice is perhaps more pressing.  Theoretically or abstractly speaking, exploration and development of contrasting conceptual possibilities can be no more be exhaustive than of an area of concern.  Yet the usefulness of public discussion is if anything more, not less, dependent on the usefulness of the conceptual possibilities they yield than on their re-description of a selected area of concern.  And actually arriving at the point at which they are able to make such possibilities available to other citizens will require of discussion participants no small measure of self-imposed closure.

 The place of public discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities in the policy-making process.  Public discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities can be a useful activity, either on its own or—given adequate time—in combination with one or both of the other forms of public discussion.  The exploration and development of contrasting conceptual possibilities surely has its place, namely: after exploration and development of possible questions and before other sorts of discussion such as debate and deliberation aimed at actual decisions.  Citizens can without difficulty usefully focus on conceptual exploration, development, and selection and exclusion.  Unfortunately, like public discussion of areas of concern, public discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities is far from being a regular feature of today’s policy-making process.

Encouraging Exploration and Development of Contrasting Conceptual Possibilities in Public Discussion.  Exploratory and developmental public discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities (in response to questions developed either in sanctuary or in a previous public discussion) can be encouraged using the same general strategies that apply to public discussion of an area of concern, i.e., by keeping participants focused on:

• concepts rather than technical problem-solving, debate, advocacy or efforts to develop a consensus 

• the content of concepts rather than the language with which they are expressed

• contrasts between possible conceptual answers, since these are useful in moving “beyond” the familiar or conventional

• the flow of the discussion rather than external constraints such as schedules or deadlines.

* For an earlier, expanded, version of this essay, see essay T-3 at: http://www.interactivityfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Public-Discussion-paper.pdf

 The purpose of public discussion of an area of concern.  Public discussion of an area of concern is intended to be useful both in itself and as the starting point for public discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities.

As a type of public discussion, exploratory and developmental discussion of an area of concern can lead to discoveries of two different types.  Citizens may discover new policy questions—or they may discover new ways to think about policy questions about which they were already generally aware.  The re-discovery of familiar questions is probably more common.  But even when citizens re-discover questions they have considered before, their views of the questions are likely to change, sometimes significantly.  Re-discovery of “known” questions through exploratory and developmental discussion can lead citizens to a clearer and fuller understanding of any or all of the following:

• rediscovered questions’ moral (consequential) and ethical (prescriptive) content

• rediscovered questions’ conceptual content

• rediscovered questions’ limitations or boundaries.

Both discovery and re-discovery of this kind can be useful in themselves because they serve the goal of promoting citizens’ autonomy by engaging them in civic activity on the one hand and by clarifying and expanding their choices as individual citizens on the other.  (Ultimately we might expect expanded civic engagement and enhanced citizen choice to improve the quality of public policy as well.)  However, it should be remembered that since citizens already need to be stimulated and engaged if they are to get involved in serious public discussion, public discussion of an area of concern will perhaps most typically sustain, rather than create, civic motivation and citizen autonomy.

Both discovery and re-discovery during public discussion of an area of concern can also be useful because they provide a rich set of questions with which to begin public discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities.

 The process of public discussion of an area of concern.  Public discussion of a selected area of concern is an interactive process of exploration and development—either of “new” concerns or of new ways of understanding “old” concerns.

Public discussion of a selected area of concern proceeds through these five conceptually discrete, but ultimately interactive, steps or moments:

 1)    Choice of a starting point

Public discussion of a selected area of concern begins with a minimal conceptual description of the area of concern and a short set of conceptual questions.  These can be taken from public discussion reports like those produced by Interactivity Foundation or can be developed by the discussion facilitator.

 2)    Exploration: search for possible conceptual questions regarding the area of concern

 Once underway, discussion of a selected area of concern shifts into a search mode.   The searching that is at the heart of exploration of an area of concern is neither linear nor random.  It is not linear because the “destination”—possible questions about the selected area of concern—is not known.  It is not random both because it is oriented by the general nature of the concern that citizens have gathered to discuss and because those engaged in the discussion interact with each other and with what they find along the way.  As discussants interact with each other and the material they are exploring together, the discussion moves along a path (and according to a logic) of its own (though again, that path would be nearly impossible to chart in advance).

 3)    Development: elaboration and refinement of possible conceptual questions regarding the area of concern

The questions that result from exploration are not “left alone” but re-examined to see if they yield variations, refinements, or additional questions.  As thorough as this second stage may be, however, it can never be exhaustive.  Different citizens will have different concerns; all citizens are limited.  Hence the list of possible questions resulting from developmental questions will also be selective.

 Taken as a whole, the questions in their developed form amount to a re-description of the area of concern.  This new description can be useful by itself, for the reasons described earlier.  Or it can be useful as the starting point for public discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities.

 4)    Selection and exclusion of possible conceptual questions

 Selection and exclusion during public discussion of a selected area of concern is informal rather than formal.  Possible questions are not eliminated; nor are they “endorsed.”  But as finite beings with particular individual and social concerns, citizens will choose to raise some questions and leave others unasked.

 5)    Conclusion of exploration and development pending choice or further discussion

 Like most practical activities, public discussion of an area of concern —however deliberate its pace—must come to an end, either to face the necessity of choice (actual decisions or actions) or to await future opportunities for useful additional discussion, either of the same area of concern, of conceptual possibilities for addressing it, or of their possible practical consequences.

 The place of public discussion of an area of concern in the policy-making process.  A well organized policy-making process would ensure that exploration and development of citizens’ concerns occurred before other sorts of discussion ensued (such as debate, which is primarily a means of organizing and pressing for choices among already-formulated possibilities) and then gave way to actual decisions or actions.

Yet while exploratory and developmental discussion of citizens’ concerns makes sense in the early stages of policy discussion, in actual policy discussion it is almost wholly absent.  Policy discussion tends to be used either to make decisions or ratify decisions that others have proposed or made in the name of those participating in the discussion.  Hence while the conceptual place of public discussion of areas of concern is clear, as a practical matter it remains to be seen where and how it can actually be developed in the policy-making process

Encouraging exploratory and developmental public discussion of an area of concern.  Exploratory and developmental public discussion of an area of concern (whether developed by a discussion facilitator or taken from a discussion report) will be encouraged to the extent that the facilitator helps participants focus on:

• concepts rather than technical problem-solving, debate, advocacy or efforts to develop a consensus 

• the content of concepts rather than the language with which they are expressed

• contrasts between conceptual questions, since these are useful in moving “beyond” the familiar or conventional

• the flow of the discussion rather than external constraints such as schedules or deadlines.

* For an earlier, expanded, version of this essay, see essay T-2 at: http://www.interactivityfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Public-Discussion-paper.pdf

Humor can contribute to IF discussions by:

• creating common ground through shared references
• promoting openness and trust–since people often use humor to personalize their comments, show their vulnerabilities, and admit their weaknesses
• diffusing tense or awkward situations
• helping keep the discussion at the conceptual rather than anecdotal or personal level
• keeping the discussion focused on possibilities rather than advocacy

A few comments about this list.  First, I’m no comedian, so I’d be the first to admit that there are surely items missing from it.  Second, even this short list makes clear that humor can be useful even in diametrically opposite ways.  It’s useful when intensely personal, useful also when used to illustrate a conceptual insight   It’s useful for illuminating shared beliefs, useful for diffusing unproductive conflict.  Finally, my sense is that while all of these are important, it’s the last item on the list that matters most.  I’ll leave it to someone who was a famous humorist, James Thurber, to explain why: “[O]ne of the great menaces” is “people with intelligence deciding that the point is to become grimly grey and intense and unhappy, and tiresome because the world and many of its people are in a bad way” (quoted in The Economist; August 23, 2003, p. 67).

Consider “values,” for instance.  IF founder Jay Stern found it useful to focus on consequences because, as he once put it in a 2004 internal memo, “‘Consequences carries much less baggage than ‘values’–particularly less than ‘moral values.’” Nevertheless, as Jay went on to say in the same memo, possible future consequences “are often ‘memorialized’ as ‘moral values’ for present or future usability/application.”  And Jay had a very broad understanding of “values,” describing them as ”normative ‘standards’/'criteria’/principles’ (and perhaps even ‘laws’).”  Certainly this would include “purposes,” a category that figures prominently in the history of moral philosophy and many laypersons’ ethical thinking.  Indeed, Jay often insisted that the IF Discussion Process be open to all sorts of considerations, including emotions.  All of these were important because they were indispensable in both judging consequences and making choices.

The reason for this “tolerant” approach to the ethical side of public policy wasn’t and isn’t logical but, rather ,”political”–Jay believed, and we continue to believe, that the IF Process should be democratic rather than exclusive.  It should be open to all citizens, whatever their particular approach to thinking about consequences.  However you tend to evaluate the consequences of public policy, whether by reference to the public purpose, rules, values, principles, relationships, God, self-interest, history, or something else, you’ll find IF public discussions a useful forum in which to expand your thinking.

Philosophers, social thinkers, and cognitive scientists of various kinds have long argued hotly about the origin and nature of language.  But “ultimate” questions about language need not be answered conclusively in order to describe the kinds of language (or ways of using language) that might be most useful in particular contexts.  The context that interests us at IF is public discussion or, more specifically, public discussion of  selected areas of concern, contrasting conceptual possibilities for addressing them, and their possible practical consequences.

Whether for psychological motives or because they are bent on advocating a particular policy, some citizens’ desire to “win” will express itself as an attempt to exercise control over language.  Other citizens will equate precision with clear thinking, forgetting that the aim of exploration and developmental discussion is not precision, but the multiplication and clarification of possibilities.  Still others, concerned above all with achieving some form of consensus, will forego true exploration and development as long as they are satisfied that those present are in agreement about how to express themselves.

By contrast, IF’s  general approach to language is to maintain a certain distance or caution about language: by guarding against the impulse to “get it right,” by being aware of its obvious and potential limitations, and by remembering that while language may be an “end in itself” in other contexts, in public discussion it is not.  In short, we believe that language should serve public discussion, rather than the reverse.

Language and Exploration.  Because it involves a broadening process of multiplying avenues of inquiry the conceptual work of exploration—whether of an area of concern, contrasting conceptual possibilities for addressing it, or their possible practical consequences—is particularly vulnerable to linguistic narrowing.  The process of exploration can easily fall into any of several enticing linguistic traps, all of which undermine the essentially conceptual work of exploration.  The two most common both have to do with an overblown concern with “getting the words right.”  Some citizens, spurred by a desire to “win,” may insist on certain phrases or terms.  Others, motivated by the altruistic aim of striving to achieve exactness, sometimes attempt to impose more precision on a discussion than it can—or should—bear.

To avoid these traps and allow exploration to proceed most usefully, a certain ambiguity in language can be tolerable, perhaps even desirable.  “Positive” ambiguity can help:

• prevent arguments over terms, definitions, or constructions (participants can understand concepts in their “own” language without needing to defend it)

• keep conceptual possibilities and their accumulating meanings open to discussion until ready for external communication to those not party to the group discussing them

• encourage thinking beyond the boundaries that language creates or imposes (conceptual possibilities may develop before language becomes available to describe them aptly or fully)

• prevent false consensus, i.e. consensus based on agreement on terms rather than convergence on concepts

• encourage awareness of the need for exploration as a prelude to selections, exclusions, and the further development and testing of possible answers.

Using language, with its general rules, is useful for reflecting reality but too often is used to define reality in positive or rigid terms, despite the unavoidability of future change.  Public discussion cannot of course do without words.  Yet words necessarily channel and narrow discussion because all words result from choices to represent or construct something in one way rather than others.  Nevertheless, participants—especially with the help of an able facilitator—can resist this narrowing process to some degree, primarily by allowing conceptual questions and their answers to be referred to by preliminary descriptions rather than labels or definitions.  Using groups of words (“descriptions”) narrows thinking less than single words or definitions.  Thinking of descriptions as preliminary or tentative keeps them more open still.

The more that citizens discuss concepts without trying to define them, the more will concepts have a chance to infuse the language that is ultimately used to describe them, and the less the danger that language, with all of its prior conceptual baggage, will overly circumscribe them, either directly (through narrowing participants’ thinking) or indirectly (by diverting them into arguments about terminology and construction).

During exploration, it is important to remember that as individuals, and perhaps even more as interacting citizens, we often find ourselves in the position of groping toward the new, of being able to grasp something only partially or inchoately.  In such situations, we very often think or feel or “know” something before we can “put a name on it.”

Language and Development. Because exploration and development are interactive, but different, sorts of tasks the language apropos to the development of possible questions during public discussion of an area of concern and of possible answers during public discussion of contrasting conceptual possibilities will tend to be both similar to and different from that which is most useful during the exploratory phase of these types of public discussion.

During the initial phases of development, the nuances of possible questions and possible answers are fleshed out.  This remains a conceptual rather than linguistic process that, for the reasons given in the previous section, can be seriously limited by a concern over definitional exactness.  As they are developed, conceptual questions and conceptual answers should be allowed and encouraged to take on a life of their own, with new meanings added to (or subtracted from) the old and variations being selected or excluded as the discussion unfolds.  This process involves clarification—but still in a conceptual sense.  Sometimes the result will be a simplification of the original concept(s), sometimes a further constructive organization into a more complex whole.

If development—whether of possible questions or possible answers—moves on to the task of improving their coherence, however, language may begin to play a more significant role.  Still, this role will not be determinative since practical coherence, while perhaps aided by the avoidance of linguistic contradiction, is not the same as linguistic rigor or logical rigor, although it may bear a close resemblance to them.

Should participants in public discussion converge on a number of contrasting conceptual possibilities they may wish to communicate them to other citizens and/or policy-makers or test them for possible practical consequences.  The latter task, especially, will depend on a degree of linguistic exactness or directness that would be out of place during exploration and the early stages of development.  To be communicated effectively to others, contrasting conceptual possibilities should be expressed coherently and accessibly.  Ambiguities that can be an asset during exploration and the initial stages of development should be translated into terms that most citizens will find useful.  Even greater linguistic exactness is needed for testing, for reasons that are described in the next section.

Language and Testing. When public discussion aims at testing conceptual possibilities for their possible practical consequences, the language in which possibilities are expressed should be more precise—in the sense of being simpler or more direct or more minimal—than will prove useful to either conceptual exploration or even the latter phase of development.  This is because testing is more helpful if it starts from a relatively “fixed” starting point—i.e., if all can see what is being tested.

The consequences that are explored by participants during testing are the practical consequences of a particular conceptual possibility.  But while any conceptual possibility might be expressed in any number of ways, any test of a possibility can only be performed on a single one of its expressions at a time.  The results of testing are thus likely to be more useful to other citizens when it is relatively clear to them just what was being tested, even if it is understood that what was being tested is only one formulation of the conceptual possibility among perhaps many.

* For more extensive discussion of this topic, see essay A-6 at: http://www.interactivityfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Public-Discussion-paper.pdf

As the sanctuary discussions that generate IF Citizen Discussion Reports move along, they rely on two distinctive, if not unique, decision-making processes.  The first is to preserve any possibility as long as even one discussion participant wants to report it for consideration in later public discussions.  The other is convergence, which I describe here as both the current that moves developmental and exploratory sanctuary discussion along, and its result.

Discussion Processes and The Necessity of Choice.  To produce useful results that can be passed along to others, all discussion processes need a way to make choices or decisions.  Otherwise they risk degenerating into mere aimless talk—as deliberation, dialogue, and especially, debate, all too often do.  To produce real results, discussion processes need a way to make choices about:

• where to begin—the concerns or questions that will serve as a starting point for discussion

• what to keep alive—the material that will be carried forward from one discussion session to another

• when to conclude—when to end discussion

• what (if anything) to disseminate—the material that will be made available to those not party to the discussions.

The way in which individuals engaged in group discussion make such choices typically interacts in multiple ways with the practical direction or content of their choices.

The Limitations of Conventional Alternatives to Convergence.  The two primary alternatives to convergence are polling and consensus.  Neither is “wrong.”  But both are limited in important ways by the kind of decisions these alternative processes are intended to produce.

Polling is a procedure for sorting or aggregating the preferences of individuals in a group in response to an already-stated question or set of choices.  Examples are surveys, ranking, and voting.  Polling can be useful, especially when discussion needs to give way to making actual choices among alternative course of action.  But polling has significant limitations because it tends to be:

• too formal—polling tends to allow the decision-making procedure to unduly influence the discussion by
  • focussing attention on the decision-making procedure rather than on the substance of the discussion it is meant to serve
  • encouraging compromise and lowest-common-denominator thinking rather than boldness, creativity, and innovation

• too decisive—polling tends to close off discussion in a way that does not encourage participants to revisit insights later in the discussion, even though such insights might prove useful

• too divisive—polling tends to foster advocacy and defensive position-taking of a sort that may be useful in democratic debate and action situations but often limits discussion to:
  • yes-or-no certainties
  • attempts to influence other participants rather than to encourage the openness that is most useful for exploratory and developmental discussion.

Many groups and thinkers, sensitive to the reality that polling substitutes statistically aggregated “preferences” for more interactive processes, have turned to consensus as an alternative decision-making procedure.  Consensus is a process in which a decision is made only if all members of the group “freely” agree to it.  Especially in small groups, consensus may prove more productive than polling.  And, at its best, consensus can keep formality, decisiveness, and divisiveness within bounds.

However, consensus, too, has its limitations, which for the most part are mirror images of those that constrain polling.  Many of these limitations have to do with the fact that consensus can only very rarely function “at its best.” Unless a group is both small and already highly unified, consensus is unlikely to work very well—if at all.  In most circumstances, consensus tends to be:

• not formal enough—consensus, however understood or described at the outset of a discussion, tends to remain sufficiently nebulous a notion—at least in practice—that it can easily fade from view as a practical requirement.  When this happens, the need to actually make decisions along the way also fades, with the result that the discussion wanders aimlessly.

• not decisive enough—consensus not only discourages attention to closure, but often makes closure impossible (in the process preventing the discussion from moving forward at all).  This can result because consensus allows and may even encourage participants—even those with the best and most public of motives—to:
  • insist on attempting to convince others that they have the “right” answer(s)
  • insist on exploring the minutiæ of their differing perspectives
  • “hijack” the discussion by insisting on having their positions attended to for what may be “altruistic” but purely personal motives
  • focus on the gratification of “talk for its own sake” rather than on useful results.

• not divisive enough—consensus tends to blur useful distinctions and erase insights by:
  • placing a higher value on the act of coming to group decisions than on their content (group unity can take precedence over a careful consideration of the usefulness of what is being agreed to)
  • encouraging “groupthink”—even when it does not lead participants to confuse “efficiency” and “quality” as described in the previous point, consensus tends to heighten individuals’ natural desire to avoid standing out (even when there is no ostensible pressure to conform from particularly authoritative, forceful, or influential group members)
  • constraining discussion to either particular actions or a wider range of subjects that have been mutually agreed upon in advance of discussion (in which cases it parallels the “pre-ordained” aspect of polling).

Convergence.  Although convergence is a decision-making procedure, even more than consensus convergence resembles a process more than an event.  Convergence describes the movement in a discussion toward a similar view of the desirability of possibilities.  Convergence represents a quite minimal degree of agreement in order to move toward some sort of choice (or, in the case of governmental discussion, action).  It can be thought of as an iterative—and interactive—distillation of the views of discussion participants, a distillation which, however, preserves the richness of the foregoing discussion.  Like all interactive processes, it takes time.  A suitable deliberative pace ensures that convergence will not prematurely exclude useful material or foreclose possibilities.  Convergence tends to increase participants’ respect for each others’ views and heightens participants’ sense that decisions are both interactive and shared.

Convergence often requires that debate be replaced by interaction that is exploratory and developmental.  Explicit decisions are generally deferred until mutual agreement emerges—not about details, but about the general nature of the possibilities under consideration.

Although as a process convergence may well be theoretically open-ended, in practice the process is bounded by participants’ desires to move the discussion forward according to the agreed-upon time constraints governing the discussion.

The primary differences between convergence and the two conventional approaches to decision-making in group discussion contexts are that convergence:

• requires no yielding of the “self” to the group.  Truly consensual processes require that individuals be ready, at the end of the day, to yield the floor and their positions to the wisdom of the group.  Polling requires that individuals be ready to acquiesce to the majority or some other calculated standard.  The process of convergence, by contrast, arises out of interaction and it allows the preservation of difference while encouraging the minimal agreement necessary for discussion to move forward.  (At the same time, convergence can evince varying levels or degrees of agreement.)

• is even less formal than consensus, which typically ends up being buttressed by procedural rules to deliver on its promise of fairness and unity.

• aims not at a single “solution” (consensus) nor a mathematically derived ordering (polling), but at the accumulation and selection of a limited number of plural possibilities—and the preservation of the central elements of the thinking from which they developed.

The interactivity that unfolds between the process of convergence and its outcomes are the key to understanding how convergence avoids the limitations of polling and consensus.  Convergence can: (1) operate informally; (2) lead to decisions while avoiding either premature closure or total lack of closure; and (3) encourage decisions while avoiding the divisiveness of polling and the unity of consensus—all because the consequences of convergence are:

• Selected possibilities rather than final action choices

• conceptual possibilities that can be developed further rather than actual policies or specific recommendations to be applied or enforced

• multiple and contrasting conceptual possibilities that might be usefully applied to action rather than singular (and possibly premature) decisions.

The exploration, development, and testing of multiple and contrasting conceptual possibilities cannot be reduced to a set of formal rules, but result rather from the interactive “flow” of discussion—a flow that is better served by a reliance on convergence than by either the divisiveness of polling or the unity of consensus.

* For an earlier, expanded, version of this entry, see essay A-5 at: http://www.interactivityfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Public-Discussion-paper.pdf