A couple weeks ago, I facilitated a public discussion on Anticipating Genetic Technology with a group of individuals residing in the borough of Queens in New York City, and I wanted to comment on how different the process was from facilitating (and training student...
The Interactivity Foundation (IF) focuses upon three major discussion areas: sanctuary project discussions designed to develop public policy possibilities in our selected areas of concern, public discussions of the contrasting policy possibilities presented in our...
Once you have a basic understanding of the policy possibility---what it says and what it doesn’t---the next step is to understand why someone might actually propose it. In order to do this, you will typically need to go beyond the description of the policy...
Within the Interactivity Foundation, and as part of our continuing and internal development, we frequently discuss how to make our conceptual possibilities more “useful” for public discussion. And related to that ongoing discussion, we’ve had a number of recent...
Election time is probably the time when people hear and talk about policy the most. So you may feel that you have already heard way too much about policy debates in recent months. And you may feel—just like me—completely disgusted with all the negative campaign...
The first step, of course, is to understand the possibility: what it says and what it doesn’t. This almost inevitably means reading the description of the possibility, and the reasoning behind it, and paying attention to the words that describe it. We did this the...
What are IF public discussions like and how do they differ from other type of policy discussions? IF typically organizes a discussion series—usually 3 or 4 meetings—for small groups of people to explore the possibilities in our reports. The possibilities in our reports emanate from the different concerns, beliefs, values, goals, and interests that Americans might have about an area of concern. They thus present contrasting possibilities that emanate from conceptual differences. We ask our participants to try to consider the possibility from the perspective of someone who might propose it before they begin to assess it from their own perspective.
Despite warnings from colleagues and apoplectic reactions from partisans of various stripes, I have been working during the last year to see if it is possible to develop general starting points for discussion of climate change. These efforts first came together as...
IF’s public discussion Reports are akin to the curricular materials that all teachers rely on—with two critical differences. First, citizens--no less than experts—have a say in what IF Reports say. Second, and even more importantly, the end of IF Reports is to...
IF public discussions provide participants with opportunities to discuss contrasting policy possibilities in neutral, non-partisan settings. Because these possibilities are meant to be anticipatory of possible policy approaches that allow participants to...