Having conducted some 80+ public discussions, each lasting several hours, IF is beginning to accumulate some significant experience in this area.  And while not all of this experience has translated into expertise, one lesson is clear, and that is that it is easier to get groups talking when one does not first have to create the group.

Common sense?  Maybe.  But it’s also the studied view of Harvard researchers Elena Fagatto and Archon Fung, who base their conclusions regarding embeddedness on a series of 9 case studies in successfully embedded local deliberation.  Their study, issued in October 2009 by Everyday Democracy and the Kettering Foundation, focuses on deliberation linked to problem solving rather than “reflection” or exploratory discussion alone.  (The study is entitled Sustaining Public Engagement: Embedded Deliberation in Local Communities and is available at http://www.everyday-democracy.org/en/Resource.136.aspx.)  Still, the main source of embeddedness Faggato and Fung identify as relevant to reflective discussion is “deliberative capacity” or “the resources and expertise to convene structured deliberations and to mobilize people to participate in those deliberations” (pp. 4, see also 32).

Public discussion is made more democratic when it encompasses a wider range of citizens.  Foundations and government can only do so much to widen the circle.  At some point IF, like other organizations that share its commitment to democratic discussion, needs to encourage “embeddedness” by finding “organizations that can be long term allies” (p. 33) and working with them to develop their own discussion habits and skills.  Only in that way can they take on the task of conducting thoughtful public discussions without the help of a good discursive Samaritan.  Only in that way will their discussions become truly citizen-centered, truly democratic.

There are circumstances where organizations find it helpful to engage experienced professional facilitators. Yet it is often the case that the need for deliberative discussion is ongoing and is needed at many different levels of organizations and the broader society. Previous perspectives have addressed the general issue of the “ethical dimensions of deliberation”. A case can be made that our professional sectors, particularly our regulated ones, are a pivotal area for embedding useful deliberative habits and skills.

Key professions could be enlisted in the service of improved public discussion through combinations of the following:

• Starting at the earliest levels of undergraduate introduction to a discipline, instill a sense of exploration of the main public issues at stake in that field and encourage thinking in terms of a range of possibilities dealing with them.
• Introduce those same students to the techniques of discussion facilitation and give them ample opportunities to practice those techniques.
• At the graduate level intensify those discussion skill-building opportunities, along with community-based internships in discussion programs, and classes that model discussion-based approaches.
• In those professions where graduates are almost certain to benefit from discussion skills as they move into the work world, create course and community service requirements toward that end.
• In certified professions that deal with policy and administration, use continuing education requirements to reinforce discussion skills.
• Encourage such professions to enlarge their sense of deliberation and public discussion to include obligations for public service, responsible organizational management, and leadership development, and include such obligations in their professional codes.

IF has been exploring some of the initial higher education aspects of public discussion with faculty on campuses throughout the U.S.  What remains to be seen is how such discussion-based approaches might become a routine part of professional training and certification.

Debate among opposing views, political brokering, and agency listening sessions may pass for deliberation in some quarters, but are far from what is needed in a healthy democracy. Working with the IF discussion process has given me a sense, after nearly 30 years in pubic sector work, that a more holistic deliberative approach in government calls for a number features that are seldom present in most government operations:

• A genuine effort to look beyond present controversies and to improve our ability to deal with the future.
• An open attitude that encourages the exploration of a wider array of possibilities for policy development and government action.
• Creation of non-partisan deliberative bodies that assist government with the challenges of future focus and broader consideration of alternatives.
• Greater inclusiveness and diversity in the voices represented in those deliberative bodies, with independence and expertise valued more than political connections.
• Dedication to periodic review of practices that allow assumptions to be questioned and that favors adjustments to reflect changing conditions.

IF founder Jay Stern was very interested in the concept of advisory bodies that might help agencies and officials deal with some of these deficiencies. The basic idea was that such bodies could operate more independently and exercise judgment unclouded by political pressures. Under that type of approach, we might hope to see more than two overtly partisan options and the split-the-difference compromise discussed seriously.

Unfortunately, progress toward such practices has not been impressive in our highly partisan era. However, we are not without models for better deliberative practices. Here and there Progressive Era innovations still function in a number of states, and local governments still offer some opportunities to serve as laboratories for deliberative mechanisms—like participatory budgeting and facilitated citizen participation in land use planning.

As is the case with most “reform”, broader use of deliberative best practices probably awaits more obvious demand for them from the public and more experience with those practices at the grassroots level.

The concern over the staying power of citizen discussion methods is not just a matter of worry about short attention spans. It flows from recognition that deep discussion is often a flash-in-the-pan event. As citizens we will often rise to the occasion and deal with a pressing crisis or focus on an issue that society’s major institutions have blessed with the spotlight. But most of us recognize that this reactive and media-driven approach leaves much to be desired and comes up short on many complicated issues that require longer-term thinking.

The broad deliberative community has been working on many helpful ideas about how to cultivate better civic habits that offer staying power. At IF we have also been trying to learn directly from public (or “citizen”) discussions of policy possibilities about what opens citizens up to the idea of ongoing discussion of significant concerns. We have the experience of nearly fifty citizen discussion series all across the US in the last three years. We hear varied comments from the participants in these series, but the response is overwhelmingly positive to the core idea of more discussion about the possible choices facing society. When I ask participants what is needed to give discussions staying power, they mainly offer responses in the following areas:

• We need to expect and demand that our grassroots organizations use workable deliberative practices – we just can’t wait for “officials” to show up and tell us how it’s done.
• We need to expect and demand that discussion focus on real issues that impact the quality of life—we want to plug into dialogue on energy, transportation, and land use.
• We need to expect and demand that we (and our community leaders) get better at doing these things through practice—we need tools and training to grow our own discussion leaders.

Almost everyone I’ve talked to after one of these IF discussion series has felt the quality of public engagement could be improved, enriching it, making it more relevant, and, hopefully producing more insights that might lead to better decisions. And even where better outcomes are hard to track, they expect better understanding among those with differing views. In these polarized times many thought that alone was reason to press for more and better discussion.