What Griffith realized, however, as reported in David Owen’s May 17, 2010 New Yorker article “The Inventor’s Dilemma,” was that there were other questions that superseded the importance of his own. The key question he found was not about how to make cheaper lenses, it was about how to get access to healthcare—including accurate eyeglass prescriptions—to individuals living in poor and underserved communities. It turned out that his cheap corrective lens question had been answered by low cost manufacturing in China and relatively low cost shipping. But what had not been answered was the question of how to provide individuals in third world or impoverished communities accurate corrective lens prescriptions.

“In effect, Griffith’s invention addressed a problem that had been solved years before, at lower cost, by Chinese labor and global shipping. The real problem with eyeglasses in the world isn’t making lenses, he told me; it’s testing eyes and writing prescriptions for people with little or no access to medical care—a matter of politics and economics rather than technology.”

There are a couple of lessons here relevant to the Interactivity Foundation’s discussion process.  First, Griffith’s experience reinforces the importance of casting a wide net when it comes to exploring and developing the diverse questions that we, as a society, might have to address regarding complex areas of social and political concern.  Questions are vital to the construction of meaningful policy responses. The questions we ask, and the ways that we frame these questions, will shape the kinds of answers we discover. So if we want to develop a range of contrasting policy possibilities, as we do in Interactivity Foundation projects, then we need to explore a range of questions, or a range of ways of framing these key questions, about an area of societal concern. As Saul Griffith came to recognize, it’s important to realize that the questions that may be first and foremost on our minds may not be the questions that others find themselves grappling with, especially when these others might have social situations quite different from our own. For our discussion process, it’s important to try to generate these questions from multiple points of view. Exploring questions about an area of concern from divergent points of view can help us discover alternative ways for our society to approach this area of concern.

Second, as Griffith realized, there are different kinds of questions. He was largely focused on answering a technological question—and then found that the technical question was superseded by political and economic questions. Of course, in Interactivity Foundation projects, we’ll leave technological questions aside. Our discussions are “political” discussions in the broadest sense of that term (we may discuss the political implications of a kind of technology, but we’ll leave the technical discussions for others). Still it’s vital for us to keep Griffith’s lesson in mind for our projects: there is never just one kind of question when it comes to complex areas of social and political concern. There are political questions, economic questions, moral questions, psychological questions, social and cultural questions, and many more besides.

If you tend to think that psychological or cultural perspectives are a bit of a stretch when it comes to public policy matters, just consider the reality Griffith confronted with donated eyeglasses in the third world. What happens when the right prescription glasses for a young man turn out to be donated pair of pink women’s glasses? Answer: he won’t ever wear them. And if people won’t wear them, you haven’t addressed the need.

All of these different kinds of questions offer different ways of framing the core concerns that public policy possibilities might address. They offer different lenses on an area of social and political concern. Remember, we’re dealing with human realities, and we humans are complicated beings. Human life involves all of these different kinds of factors interacting with one another in various ways. You really have to try to look through different lenses to make sense of it. You can’t use just one lens. To generate a range of diverse questions, we really need to look at the area of concern through the various lenses of these different perspectives.  We need to come up with different ways of framing the key questions and key kinds of questions that we, as a society, might need to answer.

–Jeff Prudhomme

Of course, you might then wonder how it’s possible to facilitate a project if you don’t know where it is going. How can you facilitate discussions on a complex topic if you  don’t know the answers to the big questions the group will be exploring? Is this like the blind leading the blind? Along these lines it might help to think about some recent comments made by the novelist Barbara Kingsolver about her approach to writing a novel (per my rough transcription):

I begin with a question or often kind of a complex of questions that seem enormously important to me and whose answers I really don’t know. And that way I can enjoy the process of writing my way to, not exactly to one answer, because, of course, a novel doesn’t deliver a single answer, but it should deliver you, the reader, some satisfaction on the terms that it has established. It should really lead you to answer these questions for yourself. (Barbara Kingsolver on the Diane Rehm Show)

Following Kingsolver’s lead, we might describe the Interactivity Foundation’s Discussion Projects as taking a “novel” approach. A Discussion Project begins much as Kingsolver says: we start with a complex of questions whose answers we don’t know. The project discussions move ahead by the panelists exploring these different questions and developing different possible ways to respond to them. Like the process of writing a novel, our Discussion Projects are intended to enable creative insights and open up new possibilities we may not have thought up before. And just like a novel, our projects don’t deliver a single answer.

There are some key differences, of course, between an Interactivity Foundation Discussion Project and writing a novel. Rather than describing one narrative or storyline, our project discussions essentially develop different possible “storylines,” or different possible ways to respond to an evolving complex of questions. (Maybe it’s more like writing a collection of short stories). And it’s important to keep in mind that our project panelists aren’t in the role of “readers,” or recipients of what’s produced in the project discussions. They are the authors of it. As the authors, the panelists are not seeking to reach satisfaction for themselves on the “answers” that are produced. They’re trying to spell out a range of possibilities, to tell a number of contrasting stories, so that others, in future citizen discussions, can find their way to their own answers. The ultimate product of a project, a Citizen Discussion Report, should help citizens develop their own thinking about the area of concern.

The analogy between an Interactivity Foundation Discussion Project and Barbara Kingsolver’s approach to writing a novel may not be a perfect one. But if you’re wondering how a Discussion Project could work if it doesn’t know in advance where it is going, you might do well to think of it more like writing a novel and less like engaging in research or taking a trip to a predetermined destination. You might do well to think about Barbara Kingsolver’s approach to starting with a complex of questions whose answers she doesn’t know.

–Jeff Prudhomme

The problem is that students are a great deal more creative and engaged than we imagine.  Most times, when faculty provide discussion questions to their students, these questions are not particular robust and do not meet students where they are.  Some students may not have a full sense of what is meant by the question.  Other students may be able to think more critically and deeply than faculty imagine and may therefore be bored by the question.  Faculty talk a lot about “critical thinking,” but do we make enough space in our classrooms for this sort of thinking to happen?

The holy grail of critical thinking can, in its essence, be stated as an ability to identify a range of possible explanations, answers, questions, or possibilities and then to weigh a set of options using a rational logic.  In the digital age, it may be that the ability to imagine and to judge a range of possible explanations is needed more than ever but made increasingly elusive by the very nature of our times:  in surfing the web, reviewing emails, or managing the untold other gigabytes of information that appears before us each day, we are constantly having to make quick decisions.  Which page will I surf next?  Do I respond to this message now?  Later?  Never?  The more that information can be made succinct, the more appeal it has to us.

Could this be why big, complicated issues seem, increasingly, to come down to “obvious” conclusions that appeal to the gut instinct:  (1) Vaccines are dangerous because big corporations are marketing them without sufficient testing so that they can maximize their profits—even if it means that kids become autistic; (2) The earth is heating up, and humans’ reliance on carbon fuels is to blame; (3) A child who abuses an animal will eventually go on to be violent against people because anyone that could abuse an animal must be a cruel and dangerous person?  In fact, all of these conclusions are hardly the only possible explanations for the concerns they address.  But, anyone who is in the business of peddling opinion is well aware that the quick “gut check” is crucial:  an explanation that “just makes sense” to people is easily received—even if it’s not the best possible explanation by which to understand the data/facts.  An expedient explanation is most appealing in an age when information is seemingly never-ending.

In an effort to meet this “digital native” generation where they are, many faculty now use things like PowerPoint slides, YouTube film clips, and clicker technology that periodically asks students’ opinions or tests their factual understanding of the material being covered so as to keep lectures interesting and engaging.  The basic classroom structure largely remains, however:  the lecture hall, which was designed for a time in which texts were scarce.  Professors would literally read from the text they had so that the students could hear what the text had to say.  Multiple choice tests place a premium on the ability to memorize information.  When did you last rely on your memory for anything?  Even if I think I have remembered something correctly, I nearly always check Google to be sure I am correct.

The 21^st Century student always has access to any bit of information they could possibly want to know.  What is needed is an ability to imagine different possibilities and then to evaluate those possibilities—in effect, an ability to critically contemplate and examine the deluge of information that is constantly presented to us.  While these skills are not needed when deciding where to have lunch or which movie to watch tonight, these skills are what now distinguish the most valued workers from their counterparts and the most effective citizens from those who cannot seem to prioritize, communicate, and help to effect changes that resonate within their communities.

In the IF classroom, student-centered discussion is not characterized as students performing a teacher-generated task or series of tasks.  Instead, the students themselves are given the time and space to drive their own reflection of an area of concern—a broad question or concerns that relates to the course topic.  At first, students are very uncomfortable with the broad task at hand.  They fret:  am I doing this right?  Eventually, though, once reassured that the goal is to engage with the process rather than to do some specific task that is to be evaluated (i.e., write a quiz, test, or essay), students relax and engage with what is an exploratory, generative process.  Students are evaluated as a group by their ability to ask questions and to push their fellow students to think about the issue more deeply.

Once allowed reign to do this, students will make intriguing comments and observations and will ask provocative questions.  In fact, most faculty come to realize that a course is far richer when students are afforded space to ask questions and raise issues.  Faculty who view themselves as bearers of special knowledge who are meant to transmit insight to their students have difficulty in an IF classroom.  But, faculty who themselves as experienced mentors to their students know that students have a wonderful “beginner’s mind” and a capacity to ask remarkable questions.  The IF classroom allows students space to explore an issue and then to assess what would happen if various alternative paths were pursued.  Seldom are students given the time and space to do this sort of exploration, and yet this capacity for critical thinking is exactly the skill that they most need in the modern age.

Developing Conceptual Questions or Concerns

When your discussions start, they’ll likely focus on a lot of concrete examples that lead to very specific questions. There tends to be a lot of storytelling at this point, which is natural.  Your task is to use these stories (or particular examples) as springboards for the discovery of underlying issues or bigger ideas (actually there’s usually a fair amount of storytelling throughout the process, but participants gradually get more adept at following these stories to the deeper points they disclose).  In the genetic technology discussions, people brought up specific questions like these:

• What if parents at risk for having kids with Tay-Sachs disease could use genetic testing of their embryos in vitro fertilization so they could make sure their kids did not have the disease?
• What if, while they were doing the above testing, the parents could select embryos that would develop other likely traits?
• How would you feel if you were the child born of those parents, who selected many of your physical and even behavioral traits?
• What if there was a genetic manipulation that could fix defective genes–such as those with Tay-Sachs?
• What if you were a child born with a genetic disorder that could have been prevented with genetic testing or fixed with a genetic therapy but your parents chose not to for religious reasons?  What if they chose not to for economic reasons?

From specific questions like those, you might eventually develop bigger or more conceptual questions like these (among others):

• Who in our society should get to decide the big questions about using or not using genetic technologies?
• What might be the different factors that affect these decisions–such as economics, cultural or religious concerns, concerns about social justice, concerns about maximizing personal health or public health, etc.?
• How might we address concerns about unequal access to these technologies?
• How might we address concerns about the ways these technologies could affect our sense of personal or human identity and/or our social roles and social relationships?

Developing Conceptual Possibilities

When you first start thinking up some different ways that society might respond to these questions, it’s likely that these possibilities will be fairly concrete or fragmentary, like these:

• For-profit corporations might decide only to develop those genetic technologies that promise of high-profits
• We might want to maximize public health by publicly funding the development of some genetic technologies
• We could let majority vote decide what genetic technologies we might ban, even if this is just for religious reasons
• There could be protections for individuals facing employment discrimination based on information revealed by genetic testing
• Markets might open up to trade in people’s genetic information (like the markets that trade in personal financial data)
• We could protect individual’s rights to make their own decisions about how to use–or not use–genetic technologies
• We could let the free-market decide, through insurers or for-profit service providers, who will get to make those decisions
• The government might mandate the use of some genetic technologies (like the model of requiring vaccinations)
• We could let government make it so everyone could get to make some basic level of choices about using genetic technologies
• We could educate people so they’d be empowered to make their own informed decisions

Many of these initial ideas might spell out different actions or different ways to put an idea into practice (people might start talking about a handful of different ways you could set up a public health approach). Over time you would probably start to notice some connections among these ideas. You might start to notice some common themes that would allow you to combine some of these into a more robust description of a broad possibility.  For example:

• You might use the theme of “letting the market decide” to develop a possibility where for-profit commercial agents would largely determine the direction for developing human genetic technologies and where people would have access to whatever genetic technologies they could afford.
• You might use the theme of maximizing public health to develop a possibility where the public, acting through its government, essentially determines the directions for developing human genetic technologies and determines who will use what technologies. You might think about ways that collective resources could be pooled to help society meet collective goals (for example, to have a healthier society overall).
• You might use the themes of letting individuals decide and of marshaling collective resources to develop a possibility where people would be empowered to make their own choices (for example by publicly supported education about those choices) among genetic technologies to which every citizen, regardless of financial status, would have access.
• You might use the themes of making a cultural or moral appraisal of genetic technologies to develop a possibility where there is more of a blanket evaluation of whether these technologies should even be allowed.

Of course, you’d likely discover and develop more themes than these, but these would be a way to get started. Each of these might begin to stand out as a distinct answer to some of the big questions that emerged in the first stage of the discussions. Now, as the discussions move ahead, you’d gradually flesh out more of the thinking behind each of these. From your earlier discussions, you’d likely be able to fill in some of the different thinking about the different values that might shape each of these policy possibilities. You’d probably find ways to fold together some of the more concrete initial ideas into a broader possibility. Once these take shape, you’ll be ready to start thinking about some of their likely real-world implications.

–Jeff Prudhomme

Before jumping in, however, I want to emphasize that this discussion process is intended to flow organically, like a natural conversation. Think of a time when you were part of a really good conversation, one that led to a real breakthrough or new insights.  It’s likely that it often changed direction as new perspectives opened up, or it may have circled around to pick up earlier points that seemed to be left behind. There were undoubtedly times when you were stymied and didn’t know what to say.  We think of the sanctuary discussion process as flowing in such a self-directed and non-linear manner.  We don’t see it as marching forward in a mechanical fashion. And while it doesn’t proceed by systematic or logical derivation, there is a definite “logic” to how it unfolds.  You’ll find that the different “stages” of the discussion are not rigidly separated from each other, even while there is a progressive development over time.

• Prologue: Starting with a Rich Area of Concern

Before the discussions get started, you’ve got to develop a topic. We often refer to this as an “area of social and political concern” or just an “area of concern.”  What we’re trying to convey is that the discussion topics are intended to be complex ones that can’t be readily reduced to a single problem or issue.  You might think of an area of concern as surrounding a whole host of intertwined and intersecting problems and issues.  We want to help people think big–and that means starting with big issues or concerns.  These are the very things that are usually pushed aside because they seem too big or complex for anyone or anyone discipline to deal with.  These are topics that don’t have simple answers. These are topics that are so complex that they really call for people to approach them from a variety of perspectives.  In our projects, we typically choose topics where the facilitator is not an expert, because there an advantage to having a beginner’s mind when approaching the area of concern.  This can be a helpful attitude in the classroom, and with interdisciplinary collaboration, as well.

To get to a broad area of concern, you might find it helpful to step back from more concrete problems to think of the more general issues that surround them. For example, say you were thinking about recent advances in genetic testing. You might initially think of specific problems like whether insurers should cover genetic tests or whether you’d want to have a test for a specific condition. You might wonder what would happen if your insurer or employer required you to undergo genetic testing. You might wonder what could be revealed about you from such testing–and whether others might want to get their hands on this information. Pretty soon you’ll start to see how big questions of social justice, morality, cultural and personal identity, get intertwined with questions of economics and politics.  And you might start to wonder if something could be done to alter your genetics, or to turn genes on or off.  Instead of thinking just about genetic testing, and what we might do about this or that test, you might start to think more broadly about all the things we humans could do regarding our genetics.  If you expand the area of concern to “human genetic technology” you might then explore the interrelated concerns regarding genetic testing, genetic manipulation, or even stem cell therapies or human cloning.

• Raising Questions, Exploring and Describing the Area of Concern

The first stage of your actual discussions will focus on developing an expanded description of the area of concern. We often talk about this in terms of “describing–not defining.”  You’re not trying to delimit the area of concern. You’re not trying to say definitively what it is all about.  Instead, you’re trying to generate different possible descriptions of what the area of concern might be about.  One way to get at this is by exploring different basic questions we might face regarding the area of concern.  Raising questions is a different kind of mindset from making assertions.  The activity of questioning can open us up to possibilities.  Further, when you explore different ways to frame these basic questions, you might begin to reflect upon the guiding presuppositions or values that inform the different ways to think about the area of concern.  Typically there are untested assumptions or unquestioned principles that guide a lot of our thinking. This is a time to test them out, to reflect upon them, and  to question them.  This can also help you uncover the various dimensions that might make up that area of concern, whether these be moral, social, cultural, economic, psychological, political, etc.  This is a time to explore the different questions that might be asked from these different perspectives.

As you begin to generate these questions, you’ll likely find that at first they are fairly specific. If we go back to the genetic technology example, the early questions might be more along the lines of “should an insurer pay for genetic testing?” or “do I want to know the results of a genetic test?”  As the discussions expand, these might lead to questions like, “what concerns about access to genetic technology services might we have as a society?” or “how might unequal access to genetic services impact our society?”  And you might get to big questions like, “who should get to make the key decisions about using genetic technologies–or not using them?” or “how might human genetic technologies impact my sense of identity as a human, as a parent, as a free individual, or as a member of a distinct cultural or ethnic community?”

The key is to generate an expanding description of the different concerns that make up the area of concern.  You’re not trying to reduce to the one question that should be answered.  You’re trying to explore the different possible questions that might emerge from different perspectives.  You’re trying to explore the different ways to frame the area of concern.  The point is not to create a systematically complete account of the area of concern, since you don’t want to get locked into one particular way of framing the key issues. This is a case where there is a value to discontinuity and where gaps can be useful for provoking divergent insights.  Once you have developed a rich description of the area of concern, it’ll be time to turn to the next step: trying to answer some of the questions you’ve raised.

–Jeff Prudhomme