There are at least three reasons to engage in a careful review of the limitations of current democratic discussion:

• It is important to challenge the assumption that the First Amendment by itself can yield the kind of “discussion” implicit in the notion of democracy.

• Although we may share a strong intuitive sense that there is one “ideal” or “perfect” form of democratic discussion, there are in fact dozens of competing understandings of what democratic discussion might entail.  An understanding of what is currently amiss can help clarify choices among them and set priorities.

• Charting the limitations of current democratic discussion is a useful practical and historical prelude to elaborating a positive vision of democratic discussion.

Limitations of Democratic Discussion.   I will not attempt here to pinpoint the causes of the various limitations I describe.  Most have multiple causes; others have causes that are difficult to discern or locate.  Nor do I make any attempt here to measure the varying extent or degree of the limitations I describe.  Nor do I rank them in importance.   Here they are simply described; the chart which follows highlights some of the ways in which each limitation aggravates others.

(1)   Lack of citizen participation 

There is a wealth of political science research extending back over some fifty years showing that American political participation is low in both absolute and relative terms.  This research also shows that the more demanding participation is, the lower the percentage of citizens engaging in it.  Thus, while research on the specifics of citizen involvement in democratic discussion is extremely scarce, it is reasonable to suppose that only a small proportion of the citizenry discusses policy concerns and an even smaller fraction discusses them in a way that avoids the other limitations described in this list.   Low levels of participation in democratic discussion are of special concern.  Low levels of citizen participation in democratic discussion deprive individual citizens of certain intrinsic benefits of democratic discussion: personal growth, community, enhanced sense of autonomy and control.  Low participation also deprives the public of the benefits of robust democratic discussion, primarily in the form of intelligent public policy.   Finally, low participation hurts citizens both individually and as members of a larger public because it limits the clarity and range of their individual and collective choices. 

(2)   Citizens are reluctant to fully speak their minds 

Even when citizens do participate in public discussions, they are often reluctant to fully speak their minds.  “Self-censorship” happens for many reasons, from the sinister (pressure from a powerful person or group) to the everyday (fear of ridicule).  And it may always be difficult to voice unpopular views.  Whatever the causes, when citizens unduly edit themselves, everyone loses.  The suppression of citizens’ concerns—even when self-administered in some sense—short-circuits democracy in a very direct way.  If citizens do not fully voice their concerns, they will go unaddressed or, if addressed, they will fail to be fully explored.

(3)   Predominance of self-interest

 Our liberal culture and political heritage confer great legitimacy on self-interest.  Our attachment to market arrangements and legal rights reflect this.  So, too, does our democratic history.  For familiar reasons, appeals to self-interest are almost always considered valid.  As well they should be: good public policy should in general be based on citizens’ interests.  But not all policy can be reduced to individual or even group interests.  In many cases “the public interest” is worth considering as well.  And there are many other concerns—emotions, purposes, needs, habits, and consequences among them—that cannot be reduced to “interests” at all.

(4)   Failure to address emerging policy concerns

 Contemporary democratic discussion typically focuses on solving immediate problems of one sort or another.  Although practical problems need to be addressed, an exclusive focus on problem-solving leaves little room in policy discussion for anticipatory thinking.  Immediate issues are debated.  Crises are addressed.  But all too often emerging concerns, possibilities for dealing with them, and the consequences of those possibilities are simply set aside as a luxury that thoughtful democratic discussion cannot afford.  Even apart from its interactions with the other limitations of democratic discussion, the predominance in democratic discussion of reactive thinking is a concern because it impoverishes discussion and thus deprives citizens of a fuller range of choices.  Discussing future possibilities, on the contrary, widens the range of the possible—and helps clarify choices as well. 

(5)   Frequently ignores practical considerations

 Americans’ famous “pragmatism” often turns out, ironically, to fall far short of being truly practical—in at least one sense.  True, democratic discussion typically devotes considerable attention to how or when to do something.  But perhaps as often other considerations that are every bit as practical—relating to what or why questions—get short shrift, if they are discussed at all.  Being practical is not only a matter of “getting something done” (or done efficiently or “on time”); it is also a matter of exploring what might be done and why to do it.  It is practical considerations of this latter sort that are often left out of public discussion.  Concerned as we rightly are with “doing it well,” we often fail to discuss whether there might be alternative possibilities and why we might be motivated to pursue them. 

(6)   Overly narrow

 Public discussion is narrowed anytime possible questions and answers to them are excluded from consideration.  Perhaps the two most common occasions on which this happens are when specialized or technical thinking predominates and when, despite robust discussion, there is no attempt to integrate the various contributions of participants.  For practical reasons, discussion can never be “complete,” but a concern arises whenever democratic discussion either excludes non-technical considerations or when even wide-ranging discussion yields no coherent alternatives.

 (7)   Bias toward facts

 Facts—in particular those subject to quantification—tend to dominate current policy discussions.  When they do, a great deal goes unexplored, even unrecognized, including the way in which:

• Facts are “selected” from a logically infinite set of descriptions of “reality”—and that someone is therefore responsible for selecting them

• Facts take on meaning in a larger context provided by theoretical or conceptual frameworks

Facts are hardly a bad thing.  Indeed, they are arguably quite necessary for governmental action.  But they probably obscure “the bigger picture” relevant to governance discussion as often as they clarify it because their limitations aren’t recognized and the frameworks which they inform and which inform them go unexamined.

(8)   Constrained information

Closely linked to our current fixation with facts is the belief that more information is the answer to all public policy concerns.  True, additional information can be helpful, sometimes even crucial.  But it is a mistake to think that information is by itself informative in any but the most trivial sense.  As journalists and intelligence officers know—information is only as good as its source.  When it comes to “information,” quality often counts at least as much as quantity.  And all information must be filtered, made sense of.  And “Constrained” information is information of questionable quality and/or information derived from questionable sources.  

The following Table summarizes points (1)-(8).  It lists each of the eight chief limitations of current democratic discussion and indicates some of the ways they interact, as well as some of the reasons we might be concerned about them as citizens of a democratic society.  The Table also highlights an important theme in what I’ve said so far: all of these limitations tend to obscure citizens’ choices and/or prematurely narrow the range of choices available to citizens, whether considered as individuals or as groups.  Citizens must repeatedly face the necessity of choice both as individual and as social beings, but they are better able to do so if their choices have first been expanded and clarified.

Current Limitations of Democratic Discussion

Possible Constructive Responses Based on the IF Discussion Process.  One way to view public discussion is as a response to limitations on current democratic discussion. 

 (1)  Lack of citizen participation

Public discussion that is also exploratory and developmental gets citizens involved.  Even if this participation is limited to a few hours, it may prove useful to citizens both a means of fulfilling their duties as active citizens and as individuals and members of various social groups who are called upon to make choices for themselves and others.

 (2)  Citizens are reluctant to fully speak their minds

Good facilitation and a relatively unhurried pace help citizens “speak out.”

 (3)  Predominance of self-interest

Careful facilitation and a deliberative pace also help ensure that public discussions, like IF sanctuary discussions, incorporate more than strategic calculations of self-interest.

 (4)  Failure to address emerging policy concerns

 The areas of concern that are chosen for IF projects are all “emerging” either in the sense that they have yet to figure prominently in democratic discussion—such as depression or human genetic technology—or because their social, political, or technical context is undergoing such profound change that fundamental rethinking involving the exploration, development, and testing of contrasting conceptual possibilities is in order—such as privacy, rewards for work, and education.

(5)  Ignores practical considerations

 IF’s public discussions incorporate “what” and “why” considerations very directly:

• Participants in public discussion begin with the careful exploration and development of what might be at stake in an area of concern like “privacy and privacy rights” or “responsibility for health care.”

• Participants then go on to explore and develop several contrasting conceptual possibilities for addressing the area of concern.

• The final step in public discussion is for panelists to describe what they see as the likely practical consequences of each of the possibilities that have been developed in sanctuary or that they have themselves developed in the second stage.

 (6)  Overly narrow

 Public discussions range very broadly, encouraged by both IF’s discussion Reports, the IF discussion process, and IF’s facilitators.

 (7)  Bias toward “facts”

Facts play very little role in IF’s public discussions, which unfold almost entirely at the level of conceptual exploration and development on the one hand and thoughtful practical speculation about future consequences on the other.

 (8)  Constrained information

 IF’s public discussion place no premium on “information,” per se.  What does count instead is trust, which both results from and further encourages transparency about the “sources” of participants’ views.  Our experience is that both the civility and relaxed pace of public discussions strongly encourage trust among participants.

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

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?”.

My “bench” is that pool of individuals that I have learned to draw upon for participants and extended networking for recruitment again and again. I have observed a fair amount of frustration resulting from the “cold call” method of recruitment for each new project and each new citizen discussion. While it is worth the effort to spend some extra time to get the missing talent or perspective to round out a group, it is also extremely helpful to have a core of open-minded and alert potential participants who are “discussion-ready”.

Like a coach who needs to be aware of the talents of “utility players” and “role players” on his bench, the facilitator over time can gather potential participants who understand exploration and development under the IF process. “Seasoned” participants can prove helpful in all of our discussion efforts and make for good facilitator prospects as they grow their deliberative skills.

Here are some of the advantages I have seen from participants drawn “off the bench”:

• Those with experience in prior projects require far less coaching and prompting in exploration and development in subsequent projects.
• Those with prior experience discussing IF reports develop helpful ideas about what sorts of concepts make for rich discussion as “possibilities” and are less likely to get hung up on language issues.
• Repeated IF discussion experience seems to hone empathetic skills that are useful in developing contrasting possibilities.
• Facilitators trained to lead citizen discussions of IF reports can be very valuable panelists in projects and can deepen their understanding of IF process and potential avenues of discussion through such participation.
• Recruitment of panels with blends of prior IF exposure and experience, when combined with unique perspectives of other individuals, can lead to rich discussion that is often self-correcting and where the facilitator can focus more on developing the conceptual content of the discussion.
• Multiple exposure to IF experiences may also bring us closer to discussions that are organized and co-facilitated by the participants, lessening the need for direct IF support.

Repeated IF discussion experience may help us further develop the proposal of ongoing discussion clubs that routinely engage in citizen conversation of possibilities in areas of public concern.

What was disappointing about the most recent debate here, however, was the violent turn it took.  Death threats from both extremes of the political spectrum were sent to member of Congress.  Spitting and deplorable insults were directed at African-American and gay members of Congress.  Congressional members who had lived through the Civil Rights Movement were unflustered, having seen worse.  It had been some time, however, since Americans had seen debate boil over into such animus.  Our country is once again stuck in one of those discourse ruts from which we might, at times, suspect we will never emerge.  The intensity of the extremes eclipses the range of viewpoints that are available for consideration.  IF’s mission aspires to bring a much wider range of views into focus by considering emergent areas of policy concern rather than the most immediately pressing issues that so readily cause tempers to boil over.

IF aspires both to draw out a contrasting range of potential policy approaches to an area of concern during its sanctuary projects and to then engage citizens in thought-provoking and engaging public discussions of those possibilities (and, possibly, others the public discussion group might propose).  I have found that the following practices help to ensure these outcomes:

(1) Seat as many perspectives as possible at the table.  A recent perusal of feedback collected from some of the citizens who participate in our public discussions suggests that we are skewed towards white and very well-educated participants.  I would apply some caution to this observation since many of our public discussions are happening in rural Wisconsin, where internet access is not widespread.  Many of our Wisconsin participants have a high school degree (or less) and several are Native Americans who are citizens of sovereign territories and therefore may define themselves in ways not represented by the questions we posit on our survey.  That said, we also are hearing from our public discussion participants that they get the most insight from our discussions when there are diverse perspectives seated around the table.  It can be helpful, then, to also ensure that a range of political, social, and demographic perspectives are included on sanctuary panels so that unique, robust, and contrasting possibilities can be generated.  Panelists can always “imagine” other points of view, but this is much more likely to lead to a straw man outcome than is a possibility that is generated by real democratic discourse.

(2) Facilitate a voice for everyone.  Given the point discussed above, it is crucial that a facilitator work hard to ensure that all of the perspectives that are seated at the table are adequately heard.  This is where facilitation skills are sharpened:  it can be very intense sometimes to facilitate the exploration of what may be very different points of view.  As a facilitator, it can be helpful at such times to help to encourage the group to get beyond the binary opposition to a consideration of other possible framings.  It is important, as well, to ensure that, as a facilitator, one’s own political biases not impinge upon one’s ability to elucidate what that particular group of citizens wants to explore.  I have recruited several panelists to my panels who differ markedly in their world views from my own frame of reference (and from that of others on the panel).  I sometimes find myself initially reacting to something one of these panelists might say but then reminding myself that my role is to ensure that they are able to voice their ideas in such a way as can be heard by the group.  By the time I really hear their idea, I find that even I am reconsidering my initial reaction and, sometimes, even my own perspective on the issue under discussion.  For me, this is the most exciting part of facilitating.

(3) Reports are starting points for public discussion.  Rather than worrying about getting our reports “just right,” we might do better to consider their purpose.  Are they meant to be careful summaries of what our panels’ ideas and the way by which they reached these ideas?  Or, more likely, are they meant simply to be the starting point for discussions that are to be had by other citizens in public discussions.  For me, the entire purpose of our sanctuary work is to provide a framework by which other citizens can talk about the area of concern.  Therefore,  my primary consideration with regard to our reports is that they incorporate a manageable number of possibilities (probably 4 – 6, with the advisement that less is more) and that the possibilities included be ordered in a thoughtful way and be representative of an interesting range of contrasting policy possibilities.  To know what sorts of possibilities work best in public discussion, I find that it is crucial that anyone who is facilitating sanctuary projects also be actively engaged in facilitating public discussions.  Every time I have done a public discussion, I have found that my facilitation skills have been honed, that citizens are yearning for such discussions and very astute at providing good feedback regarding our possibilities, reports, and process, and that I have walked away with a sense that the work IF is doing is the stuff that can both anchor and animate our democratic process.  What could be more rewarding work?

Trying to create discussion groups by recruiting individuals is hugely time consuming.  And the groups fall apart without constant tending.  This is because discussion is rarely glue enough to hold groups together. This is why it almost always makes sense to start with groups that are already there, that have their own religious, social, economic, political, or recreational reasons for existing.  We’ve had it all wrong: rather than building our own social capital, we should be building on that of other groups.

If we do, we will be relieved—more or less permanently—of the need to pitch, sell, and explain the IF Process.  Our community contacts will do that for us.  We won’t have to do it 101 times on the phone or via email to get people to participate.  And, once we’re in the same room, we’ll be able to get on with the discussions.

If we do, we can build on the shared values and connections in the room, rather than thinking we need to create them.

If we do, we can look forward to repeat invitations—the group will still be there, held together not only or primarily by its interest in discussion but by whatever brought it together in the first place.

The community organizer who can deliver public discussion groups at the drop of a hat is the El Dorado of facilitating public discussions.  You can become that person if you work hard at it.  Or you can go find one.  I found mine at the local Rotary club.  She is willing to use her connections for me because she trusts me personally and endorses our work.  She’s the bridge between me and the community.  People here respond to IF invitations not because they know me or IF or have a burning need for civic discussion; they respond because my contact asks them to.

It’s not what you know.  .  .

I also have a peer mentor in my course who is a senior.  She has no grading responsibilities, but she is there to model college learning in my classroom and serve as an advisor to the students.   Through her I’ve learned about some of the interpersonal issues that have arisen among the members of the class, and these issues are forcing me to consider how to best navigate this group so they can have constructive discussions.  So far, it’s going alright, but if the present dynamics are left as they are, things will take a turn for the worse.  Fortunately, some of the facilitation techniques have helped, and I’m going to include more think/pair/share and other techniques to ensure that discussions are more balanced.  A round-robin activity already worked well on Tuesday, since it forced some of them into more active roles.

I summarized our Tuesday discussion and posted the summary online for my students, and they responded well so far.  They produced two conceptual possibilities that could describe the nature of art.  Both possibilities are only in a nascent stage – they are more like germs of ideas rather than fully formed possibilities.  They also produced a list of 6 important concepts surrounding art (intention, appreciation, context, etc.) which we will pick up again in next Tuesday’s discussion.

Finally, wish me luck this Sunday as I attempt to use an IF-style discussion model in a Board of Trustees retreat for a local school, where I’ve been asked to facilitate a discussion.  I’m going to try to get 16 Board members to generate a set of possible responses to the question “What can we, as a Board and as Board members, do to further the mission of the school?”  I only have 2 hours to get the job done, so I’m going to have to work quickly with them.  I’m packing my flipchart and markers!

All the best to everyone!

Michael Gettings

Back in that first week of August, when it seemed we all the time in the world to reflect on our teaching, our courses, and the IF process, I volunteered to blog weekly about my Fall course.  The reality of the semester has hit, but it looks like Friday afternoons might be the best time to grab a few minutes and share how things are going.

I have twelve first-year students, all 17 or 18 years old, all women and all new to college.  About half are from Virginia, one from Jamaica, and the rest are from around the Eastern seaboard.  I shared my syllabus via e-mail with all SI 2009 faculty, so I won’t go into detail, but I’m beginning by asking them to discuss the question “what is art?”, without doing any outside reading.  So working without a text right now feels like tightrope-walking without a net.  On the first day we had an hour-long discussion, which was pretty haphazard.  I hadn’t planned on taking as much time as we did, but there was a lot of energy in the room, and I didn’t want to cut it short.  I didn’t have any flipcharts (I bought them later in the afternoon), so part of the problem was that we didn’t have notes visible to help orient everyone.  I also made the mistake of sitting among the students (sorry Jeff!), which I think gave them permission to get a bit sloppy.  Three of the 12 really dominated the conversation, 6 more occasionally spoke, and the remaining 3 were silent the whole time.  Smaller groups will really help later on.

I told them at the end of the discussion that they hit on at least two dozen ideas that deserve further exploration, and in later classes I’m going to push them to develop their ideas in more detail.  So I’m not at a loss for ideas – they could have gone on much longer.  I also found that one of the students in particular was quite doctrinaire in her beliefs, and I only partially resisted the urge to correct her by sharing an alternative view that challenged her beliefs.  Hopefully as the semester gets underway the group will develop in a way that ensures that other students will play that role, not me.  Hopefully time will also bring out some of the members of class who right now don’t seem comfortable participating in discussion.  It’s so new to all of us, of course.

So I think it was a successful, though rather unfocused, beginning to my IF-oriented course.  This coming Tuesday we’ll have another class discussion on the topic, this time with me standing, taking notes on the flipchart.  Next Thursday we’ll be discussing a reading I’ve assigned, which leaps off from discussion we already had yesterday.  More next week…

–Michael Gettings

–Jeff Prudhomme

Lauren is a bright student who suffers from panic attacks. She has struggled with depression and has seen a counselor for both her depression and panic attacks.  In classes where her grades depend on written work, she does very well.  But in courses where she needs to do an oral presentation, her anxieties get in the way of her performance.  She hasn’t done well on such presentations.

Lauren wants a career in health care management and realizes she has got to learn how to lead groups and make presentations in front of a group.  She wants this career strongly enough that she is willing to enroll in a team-based discussion course. She knows it will be a struggle for her.

She is the only female on her team (there are few women in the class).  Since Lauren is the most organized student in the team, the team has looked to her for a lot of team management activities.  When Lauren is asked to facilitate, she has done this as an extension of her innate organization skills. She has come to see facilitation as essentially an organizational task.  As a result, Lauren doesn’t experience the same anxiety of being in front of a group as she did when making a solo presentation. The facilitation experience has given her the confidence that she can be effective communicating to and with a group.  After just two experiences at facilitating, she has overcome the panic and anxiety that have bothered her for years.

Lauren has become an excellent facilitator in part because she is sensitive to the challenges that her teammates may be having in the discussion.  Her style is one of quiet confidence.  She asks questions of others without interjecting her own opinions.  The unique skill that Lauren brings to facilitation is her organizational approach.

Some lessons learned:

• Discussion facilitation is a different communication skill from making a typical oral presentation. It has a lower level of personal risk and tends to generate less anxiety. As a result students might find facilitation experiences to be a vehicle for developing confidence in front of a group.
• When students incorporate their personal strengths (e.g. organizational skills, creativity) into their facilitation approach, the anxiety of facilitation tends to dissolve. You might encourage students to build on their particular strengths to shape their approach to successful facilitation.
• Solo presentations can be easy for extroverted students who naturally have the gift of gab–and a terrifying challenge for the student who is shy by nature. Shy or quiet students, students who are good listeners, can, however, end up being superb discussion facilitators.

–Jack Byrd

–Jeff Prudhomme

One of the things that often happens in a student-centered discussion course is that students will diversify their social skills.  Many students start such a class with a set of social skills that work fine in a fairly narrow peer group.  When students participate in a discussion course, they begin to develop social skills that are suitable for a more diverse society.  Consider the case of Ryan.

To be blunt, Ryan has been a horrible student so far. His attendance has been spotty and he rarely does homework. He has been on academic suspension once already and will be suspended permanently if he doesn’t improve.  Recently he enrolled in a facilitation course where students are assigned to discussion groups.  Students are taught to be facilitators and are asked to facilitate their group discussion on a rotating basis.  Since it is a performance class, attendance is mandatory. Both the individual student and members of the discussion team are penalized for missed classes by any team member.

At first Ryan didn’t fit in with his group.  He comes from an urban area while the others come from rural communities. He is full of bluster while the  others tend to be shy.  Ryan is really into sports, while the others don’t really don’t follow sports at all.  His group is a mix of low-performing and high-performing students.

Ryan’s role in the group has been fascinating to observe. Almost right away he found out that his typical bluster wouldn’t work. The other students wouldn’t engage him when he was trying to bluster his way through. His group developed some strict cooperative behavior guidelines.  This was a big change for Ryan. He now had a group for which he was responsible when it came to attendance and homework.

Once Ryan understood and embraced the rules of the group, his performance changed.  One thing that helped him make this change was to see how his group functioned like a sports team. He’d taken part in team sports before, and he understood and valued the idea of not letting down his teammates. Pretty soon, the others started to look upon him as a team leader, like a team captain. Never before in college had he felt that his contribution was that important.

Ryan has now become a major contributor in the class.  He is an excellent facilitator.  He has become respectful of all his classmates.  This is especially striking because at the start of the class it was clear he had social prejudices that were common in the urban neighborhood where he grew up.  Ryan has also helped his group develop a harder edge.  The other group members were initially too polite with each other.  Ryan never held back on his strongly held beliefs, even when these were often contrary to the majority. He has helped his teammates learn to express what they really believe rather then holding back on ideas that might not fit the mainstream.

Some lessons learned:

• When students are in the same discussion group throughout the semester, they develop a sense of responsibility for others in their group. This sense of responsibility can improve a student’s own academic performance.
• Blending cultures in a group can be very effective in building up a broader range of social and communication skills among the group members.
• Groups can function as sports teams.  For some students, this can be a valuable frame of reference for working within the group.

–Jack Byrd