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.

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

I heard an interview with former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor earlier this month. She talked about the importance of civic engagement in our democracy and her concern about the state of policy discussions in America. She was particularly concerned that people are not being taught how to think and evaluate policies. (And let’s face it, no one is born with it.) Indeed, we are not taught how to think about policy in our schools, our universities, or our increasingly polarized media. This poor civic knowledge and engagement weakens American democracy.

Jay Stern, the founder of the Interactivity Foundation, wanted to address this concern by facilitating and encouraging the development and thoughtful consideration of contrasting policy possibilities. We explore and develop a wide range of contrasting conceptual possibilities for public policy pertaining to our areas of concern in our sanctuary projects, and we then organize and facilitate discussions of them among the general public. The facilitators who conduct these discussions do not tell you what to think about policies pertaining to food, property, genetic technology, or work; which possibilities you should or should not support; or which congressman to call. They focus instead on the process of thinking carefully, critically, and seriously about the possibilities themselves. They focus, in other words, upon understanding the different concepts, principles, beliefs, values, interests, and goals that might motivate different policies; understanding how they relate to the possibilities themselves; exploring their possible implementations; and exploring their intended and unintended consequences (for more see Mark Notturno’s four part series on ‘How to Evaluate an IF Policy Possibility’). And they try to do this for each of the conceptual possibilities that we present in our reports.

But it is not an easy process. It is, first of all, very difficult to think conceptually. Most of us are focused upon the more practical everyday world and are unaccustomed to thinking about abstract concepts, principles, beliefs, values, interests, goals, and the reasoning behind them. And it is even more difficult to carefully and critically and seriously consider ideas that are fundamentally different from our own—especially because they just seem to be outright wrong.

But we do not try to show you that possibilities are either right or wrong in IF discussions. We do not try to change your mind. We simply provide a forum in which you can discuss—as opposed to debate—the different policy possibilities with your neighbors, and explore the possible ways of approaching important issues to our society.

IF reports are not intended as mere conversation starters. They invite you to participate in an on-going discussion about their areas of concern and the policy possibilities for addressing it with the people who have developed our reports and with the people who have taken the time to read and discuss them. IF public discussions are a continuation of our panels’ discussions. The participants in our public discussions continue to interact with our panelists’ ideas and, in the process, bring in their own thoughts and experiences and insights as well.

The policy possibilities in our reports are not pre-digested for you. They do not tell you what to think and why to think it. They instead present many contrasting ways of thinking about policy and many different ideas with which you can interact. They invite you to probe deeper into the possibility and to try to understand what it actually means, why some people might want to adopt it, the different possible ways to implement it, and the different consequences—both intended and unintended—that might ensue from it.

Policy reports that present only one conceptual possibility are rather dull for me, no matter how many ways they suggest to implement it. I prefer to look at an area of concern from many different sides; to consider the many different interests, values, and goals that Americans have; along with the unintended consequences of the policy possibilities that they suggest. I know that reports that advocate certain possibilities will generate more enthusiasm from ideologically homogenous audiences who come to cheer for the policies they prefer. I also know that some people find it more challenging, unsettling, and less attractive to interact with ideas that differ from their own, especially if they regard them as morally evil. But this is precisely what the Interactivity Foundation tries to overcome in our public discussions. We encourage people to try to understand ideas that differ from their, and the people who propose them, by providing opportunities to interact with them. We do not advocate any of the policy possibilities in our reports to be adopted. We do not ask the participants in our discussions to change their minds or to agree with any of the possibilities. But we do encourage them to think about different policy possibilities, and to discuss them with others.

The Interactivity Foundation (IF) asks a different question—‘What could we do?’—in its sanctuary projects and public discussions. This is a broader question. It is a question that invites reflection rather than action. And it does not presuppose a certain mindset in which we have identified a certain issue as a problem.

We do not look for or discuss problems per se in our discussions. We explore and discuss areas of concern. Many people think that our immigration policies, for example, are now a problem that this country has to deal with. This is because they presume a conceptual framework—consisting of certain concerns, values, beliefs, and interests—in which it emerges as a problem. But human migration is a broader area of public policy concern in which immigration could be seen in either way—as a problem or not a problem at all. There are, furthermore, many other relevant and important aspects of human migration—such as suburbanization or gentrification—that may merit discussion without yet being recognized as problems.

It is true that certain areas of concern may become problems sometime in the future. But that is part of IF’s mission, namely, to approach areas of concern with a broad view over the horizon and see what could be done about them.

There are times when more practical questions—or questions of ‘should’—take sway. This is when all or at least most of us agree on a certain conceptual framework. But even here, IF provides a wider range of policy possibilities for public discussion than are usually on the table. We encourage consideration and discussion of a broad range of contrasting policy possibilities before the sky starts falling. And we think that when the sky starts falling, it is better for the public to have an opportunity to consider and choose among a wide pool of public policy possibilities.

IF’s public policy reports aspire for the same universality, permanence, and applicability as great literature and philosophy have. The possibilities for public discussion in IF’s Privacy, Anticipating Human Genetic Technology, and Regulation reports are as applicable today as they were the day they were written—and they will be applicable in the future regardless of what political party is in power or what issues we regard as problems. This is because they aspire to answer the broader question ‘What could be done?’ about their areas of concern instead of ‘What should be done?’

Exactly what makes a policy possibility worthwhile to discuss is another question. But there are some very old policy possibilities that are worth discussing. There are, indeed, many old ideas in other fields—such as history, philosophy, and mathematics—that are worth discussing over and over again. This is especially true in politics. And it also holds true for public policy possibilities. This is because public policy possibilities emanate from the values, beliefs, goals, and interests that people have. They may have been first proposed years ago. But people may not know about them or may have never considered them seriously. ‘Don’t involve yourself in expensive foreign wars’ is a policy idea that can be traced back to the ancient Greeks. But each generation has to rediscover it for themselves.

IF creates opportunities for people to engage in a thoughtful and civil exploration of governance concerns and policy possibilities that are sometimes as old as the hills, but are often fundamentally different from what our public discussion participants believe ought to be done. We value ideas and policy possibilities that address governance concerns that are ‘over the horizon’, that are more conceptual in nature and have a long-term perspective. But we also think that our current policies—or the ‘status quo’—are worth discussing. And we understand that what is status quo for one person may be uncharted territory for another—and that a major concern for one person may not even be worth discussing for another.

Many policy wonks in DC talk as if the only policy possibilities that worthwhile to discuss are those that advocate their own concerns, beliefs, values, goals, and interests. They are always quite ready to tell you what is and is not worthwhile to discuss. We aim to explore and developed a wide range of contrasting policy possibilities for public discussion. If one of our project panelists regards a certain governance concern or policy possibility as worthwhile to discuss that, from our perspective, makes it worthwhile to discuss.

I’m not quite sure whether this is a new and original idea, but I think it’s a good one even if it’s not.

This recent group of experienced IF discussants took us at our word that our possibilities are “starting points” for discussion, not commandments on a stone tablet. We can easily get stuck on the original content of a report because of pride of authorship issues or a sense of “an agreement” with a project panel to respect the sweat equity of their efforts.

I felt honor bound to respect the sweat equity of my Rewarding Work panels. In subsequent projects I have been open about conducting the panel discussions as one phase of an ongoing journey of exploration and development.

Participants in these experimental energy discussions clearly felt more engaged. One woman participant (a veteran of a prior project, and two citizen discussion groups) raised this engagement issue in the final session wrap-up, saying, “It was nice to be able to ‘chip-in’ and feel like the talk contributes to something that continues to grow”. That was the beginning of a group conversation on chipping-in and an initial list of insights about why participants find this type of developmental discussion invigorating:

• There is a sense that participation will be meaningful to others and that participants are taken seriously.
• Developmental discussion seems to reduce “distance” from the possibilities and brings out what participants really think, not just polite platitudes.
• It seems likely to attract a more engaged sort of citizen who is looking for growth opportunities in public conversation.
• It provides a project-like environment for those who are unable to undertake a long commitment to group discussion and an opportunity for IF to tap the expertise of busy individuals.

As my astute participant said, “If your discussions don’t impact where you’re going with the possibilities, how can you call this interactive?”.

Some differences and similarities between the public and classroom discussion processes stood out for me. For example, in the public discussion, it was very difficult to find common understanding of some of the key terms and concepts required for discussion. In the classroom discussion, student groups built common understanding of topic concepts more organically and seamlessly through assigned readings – readings they used to frame questions and possibilities. In contrast, participants in the public discussion, many of them who were not college students, found the written document on Genetic Technologies read prior to discussion “too abstract” or “difficult to understand”. In addition, many struggled to accurately understand certain concepts such as “genetic susceptibility” or interpreted terms participants used in unique ways, making building common discussion ground problematic – especially in comparison to how classroom discussion got going.

One big similarity between the public and student discussion groups was how empowered participants reported they felt from thinking about problems on a conceptual level. Participants in the public discussion really enjoyed talking to fellow citizens and even more liked listening to others’ perspectives. Nobody had ever asked for their opinion or ideas before, they said. I did hear this sentiment from students in the IF course I taught, but not as frequently or with such veracity. At the same time, I am not sure what some of the citizen discussion participants will DO with the ideas they generated, whereas I know that the discussion process that occurred in the course I instructed last semester was a life-changing event for a few students.

What I now know that I didn’t know before is how important the facilitator is to a good discussion, and that to learn how to facilitate, you have to facilitate. Facilitating a public discussion opened my eyes to the value and difficulty of facilitating a good discussion – whether it is in ‘public’ or in the classroom.

People who tune in to us: These are generally people who are interested in discussing policy possibilities pertaining to our areas of concern. Many people care about issues related to our areas of concern. If they make the time and effort to participate in our sanctuary projects and public discussions, or to use our discussion process in their classrooms, then they are part of our audience.

People who want to think about (but not necessarily discuss) policy possibilities: There are different kinds of civic engagement, and there are many people who may be interested in reading and thinking about the policy possibilities in our reports, but not necessarily in discussing them. Some of them may not have the time or willingness to discuss them themselves, but may still be interested in hearing other people discuss them.

Civically engaged people: These are people who are actively engaged with policy issues. They read newspapers; listen to NPR; and watch C-SPAN, Fox News, and other media outlets.

Professionals who work within our areas of concern: These people are generally experts and specialists working within our areas of concern, such as health care workers, scientists, food regulators, etc.

People who are interested in our discussion process: These people may include teachers, other education professionals, people working in development, strategists, people who are interested in deliberative processes, and people working with the internal governance processes of various firms.

Policy makers and their staffs: We do not advocate any of the possibilities in our reports, but the content of the possibilities may still be of interest to policy makers and their staffs—especially since they have a professional obligation to consider a range of policy possibilities.

Different political groups: These include Democrats, Republicans, Independents, liberals, moderates, progressives, social conservatives—indeed, the whole range of how people in this country define themselves politically. Our reports present this wide range of possibilities.

Public institutions and other NGO’s that are interested in democratic deliberation: Organizations that promote democratic deliberation may be interested in our work, and we may find areas of mutual interest on which to work.

The education sector: IF promotes student-centered college classroom discussions. So we currently work with selected university faculty members, both in our Summer Institutes and in our JFDP training programs, to use our discussion process in their classrooms. We currently have a special interest in Communication Studies, Political Science, Public Administration, and Industrial Engineering (management). But we are also interested in expanding this category to include middle school and high school teachers and students.

Consider the description of the possibility from the Democratic Nation Building Report that we discussed last time: ‘This possibility would have us forgo all active efforts to build democratic nations abroad’. This description is typical of the descriptions of IF policy possibilities, and indeed of policy possibilities in general, in that it briefly describes what the possibility would do, but not the reasons why it would do it. If you had only this description to go on, then you would be at a loss as to how to evaluate it. You could say ‘salvation at last’ or ‘over my dead body’. But this is just a reaction, and not an evaluation. It may, no doubt, be based upon the concerns, beliefs, values, goals, and interests that you have pertaining to democratic nation building. But there are all sorts of reasons why someone might think we should not try to build democratic nations abroad. And the concerns, beliefs, values, goals, and interests that motivate this possibility may be very different from your own.

So what are the concerns that motivate this possibility? And what are the beliefs, values, goals, and interests that underlie it?

These are the questions that you have to ask yourself in order to understand the reasoning behind it. The question at this stage is not whether you like the possibility, or would be willing to support it. It is not whether you share the concerns, beliefs, values, goals, and interests that motivate it. It is not whether the possibility is consistent with the beliefs, values, goals, and interests that underlie it. And it is not even whether or to what extent it is likely to address the concerns that motivate it. We will get to all of that soon enough. The question at this stage is what those concerns, beliefs, values, goals, and interests actually are. But in order to understand what they actually are, you will have to understand the possibility on its own terms. And in order to do this, you will typically have to see the possibility—and, indeed, the world—through the eyes of someone who might propose it.

But here, we may once again be our own worst enemies, just as we are when we are trying to understand what a policy possibility says and does not say. For we are all almost inevitably over-burdened by the conceptual baggage of our own concerns, beliefs, values, goals, and interests when we try to understand a policy possibility on its own terms. And if we are not very, very careful about it, then we may all too easily end up understanding it on our own terms instead.

Thinking seriously about contrasting policy possibilities is not for sissies. This is because it can be very difficult to understand a possibility on its own terms. It is because most of us are so locked up in the prisons of our own minds—so certain about the truth of what we believe and the falsity of what we don’t—that we never even recognize the bars. But it is also because trying understanding a policy possibility on its own terms can also be very frightening. It may force us to question some of our deepest and most fundamental beliefs, values, goals, interests, and concerns. And it may, for many of us, even challenge our own self-identities and self-understandings of who we are.

All of this would be bad enough. But there is also the human condition.

We may feel that we have understood a policy possibility on its own terms when it begins to make sense in light of the beliefs, values, goals, interests, and concerns that motivate it. But human beings are inherently fallible and always subject to error. So it is always possible that, even when everything seems to make sense, we do not really understand the things that we think we understand.  The upshot is that even when we think that we have understood a policy possibility on its own terms, we may always come across something that makes us think that we haven’t. So we should always remain open to the possibility that we have not yet understood a possibility on its own terms and must rethink the whole thing all over again.

This is the human condition. And there is no way around it. One of the most difficult things in life is how to know whether we are ahead or behind—whether, in other words, we disagree with someone because we do not quite understand the reasoning behind his beliefs, or because we understand the reasoning behind them well enough and believe that they are false.

But this is where your imagination, creativity, and courage come in. In order to understand a policy possibility on its own terms, you will typically have to break out of your own mental prison far enough and long enough to think how someone who thinks very differently from you might think. This will require your creativity to find a way to explore the world with someone else’s eyes. It will require your imagination to see how the world might look to someone who has very different concerns, beliefs, values, goals, and interests than you do. And it may even require your courage to question your most fundamental beliefs, values, goals, interests, and concerns—and, very possibly, the courage to become a very different person than you currently are by doing so.