Unit Five: Deliberating in our Communities

In the last assignment, our “This I Believe” podcasts, we explored where our beliefs came from—experience, inheritance, tradition, resistance—and we crafted our philosophies into a lyrical monologue. With careful attention to ornament and arrangement, we delivered our stance on how best to live, each of us offering one instructive lesson among the millions that make up our civic life, our search for the good. Next, we will put our beliefs, values, and stories in play with others, focusing on dialogue more than monologue, listening more than expressing, and understanding more than asserting, all to discover the greatest good for the community.

For this assignment, our class will divide into two “Super Teams,” each of which will devise and lead a certain kind of civic discussion: a formal public deliberation event. A deliberation is a directed discussion focused on tough choices that confront the community. Its goal is to foster a deeper understanding of the issue and to discover the values that should guide the community in deciding its future. Each team will facilitate one two-hour-long deliberation session during a 10-day RCL-wide public event, “Deliberation Nation,” sponsored by Penn State’s Center for Democratic Deliberation. Teams will also be in charge of inviting members of the community to participate.

Within each Super Team, we will form several Mini-Teams, each with a specific role and set of responsibilities.

We will schedule this out-of-class event as soon as possible. Each Super Team will work to promote their deliberation to the Penn State community and public at large.

Primary Assignment Goals

  • Research and effectively frame “tough choices” associated with a civic issue so as to foster reflective discussion
  • Introduce and facilitate deliberation among the public on your team’s chosen issue
  • Reflect on how your behaviors affected the outcome of the presentation and deliberation and evaluate the emergent themes in the deliberation.
  • Effectively communicate the themes of the discussion and emergent policy recommendations to key policy makers in formal report(s).

Overview of Evaluation Components 

MiniTeam Introductory Presentation and Moderating at Event, 7.5% of final course grade

  • Based on quality of content, organization, delivery, and quality of moderation at the event.

Mini-Team Video and Menu Sections, 10% of final course grade

  • Introductory documentary-style video for Team Overview will be 3-5 minutes long (with bibliography) and will include one “menu” slide from each of the three approach teams that explain their approach. Team Overview’s video will also include Ground Rules for Deliberation, which can be drawn from (and cited or paraphrased) from the course resources page or the “Deliberation” Keyword entry. Approach Teams will create PowerPoint slides (with a bibliography) that explain their approach and remind the audience of the benefits, drawbacks, and tradeoffs of their approach. Videos will be evaluated based on quality of voice over, organization, research, concept, design, visuals, pacing, and explanation of tradeoffs and benefits.

Individual Post-Deliberation Report, 7.5% of final course grade     

  • A 750-word individually-written letter to a policy maker discussing deliberation findings and offering policy recommendations. Reports will actually be sent to the stakeholder and will incorporate evidence from the actual deliberation.

Team Member Evaluation (-3% for missing evaluation)

Breakdown of Mini-Team Roles 

Team Overview (2-3 people): Invited stake holding members of the community to the deliberation, prepare the 3-5-minute video introduction (with bibliography) for the deliberation topic and ground rules, moderate the “personal stake” section of the deliberation event, develop a post-deliberation questionnaire for participants, take notes during the approaches, moderate the conclusion, and distribute and collect post-deliberation questionnaires. Distribute deliberation notes and completed questionnaires to Super Team members for evidence to include in their post-deliberation letters.

Team 1 (2 people): Research Approach 1 and create video for Approach 1, create benefits and drawbacks (or “menu”) slide for Team Overview and for your own approach, moderate during Approach 1 for event.

Team 2 (2 people): Research Approach 2 and create video for Approach 2, create benefits and drawbacks (or “menu”) slide for Team Overview and for your own approach, moderate during Approach 2 for event.

Team 3 (2 people): Research Approach 3 and create video for Approach 3, create benefits and drawbacks (or “menu”) slide for Team Overview and for your own approach, moderate during Approach 3 for event.

Preparing for your Deliberation Event

Super Teams pick a complex Type 2 problem (or a less complex Type 3 problem).  This needs to be a researchable, open-ended, ongoing problem.  It also needs to be something where multiple approaches could be suggested.  (We will discuss in class the distinction between an approach and a solution.)  The selected issue may emerge from your civic issue blog topics or could be new for your group.

Research the topic using credible sources.  Consider using the list of civic issue sources, the libraries’ resources, or research from public policy institutes (think tanks).  These, plus any other useful additional sources should all be listed on your bibliography at the end of your introductory video.

Identify the “tough choices” faced by stakeholders in this issue.  Select three possible approaches, in accordance with the principles discussed in class for framing deliberative choices. For each possible approach you will need to identify the benefits and trade-offs that would need to be made if the approach were selected.  You also will need to identify the primary value informing the approach.

Prepare an introductory video presentation for your mini-team’s section of the event that clarifies the problem and cohesively, fairly, and accurately presents the possible approaches presented. Equally strong arguments and trade-offs need to be constructed for all approaches; the audience shouldn’t have a sense of which option you prefer, either individually or as a group. Depending on your chosen issue, you might include a discussion of context, causes, consequences, scope, severity, and key stakeholders.  Whatever you include, be sure that it prepares the group to deliberate on the problem, rather than simply running through a list of data.

The overall content will be graded collectively, but delivery and clarity, if particularly strong or poor, could impact an individual’s overall grade on this portion of the assignment.  

Your introductory video should frame the issue or approach for discussants when participating in the deliberation. Your identified three approaches should reflect the criteria outlined in the Identify the “tough choices” section above, as well as criteria established in class. This video should clearly and succinctly lay out the problem and the three main approaches you’re exploring. A bibliography of resources should be included at the end of the video

Prepare discussion questions to help guide your Mini-Team’s section the deliberation, although you’ll need to be flexible in adapting to comments offered by the discussants.  Team members should equally divide the tasks of moderating and recording discussion. Effective discussion moderation should be in keeping with the principles outlined in class and in our readings.

Prepare a post-deliberation questionnaire (Team Overview’s job) that asks participants questions about changed perspectives, preferred approaches, values, and sticking points. Making an online survey through Google forms that is sharable in the chat is the easiest way to manage this task. This questionnaire can be used to generate additional evidence for your team’s post-deliberation report.

Structure of the Deliberation

  • Welcome and Introduction Presentation: ~5 minutes (Team Overview)
  • Explanation of Deliberation and Ground Rules for Deliberation (Team Overview)
  • Personal Stake ~3-10 minutes (Team Overview)
  • Approach 1: 15-20 minutes
  • Approach 2: 15-20 minutes
  • Approach 3: 15-20 minutes
  • Review of notes and conclusion discussion: ~10 minutes (Team Overview)
  • Post-Deliberation Questionnaire: 5-10 minutes (Team Overview)

After the Deliberation: The Post-Deliberation Recommendation Report

Each member of the Super Team will consider which emergent themes and evidence from the deliberation seem most compelling and will write a 750-word post-deliberation e-mail/recommendation report directed toward policymakers who may be interested in understanding the public perspective on the issue. Super Teams are welcome to coordinate and collaborate their efforts here, after consulting their instructor. These reports will be actually sent to policymakers.

To write your report, sift through your evidence. Review your deliberation notes and questionnaires. Recollect and analyze the discussion. Are there any points of consensus or conflict? Do any policy suggestions or action items come to light in view of the deliberation? In

Consider themes, not approaches. You do not need to present or discuss the three approaches from the deliberation in the report. In many ways, the three approaches are merely constructs to draw out themes and values. Rather, examine the evidence from the deliberation (notes, recollections, questionnaire responses), and see if you can identity some emergent themes and opportunities for action. Maybe narrow your discussion to one important point or action item.

Consider your audience(s). Which policy makers could benefit from a report on your findings and recommendations? Should your Super Team collaborate on one big report to one policy maker or should individuals write different reports to more than one policy maker? You have several options here for how to break up the writing if your group chooses to collaborate. Here are some examples:

  • One compiled report on several themes or action items to one policy maker (e.g., a report containing several  programs and strategies to reduce sexual assault at Penn State directed to the university president or another campus officer).
  • More than one report addressed to policy makers at different levels (e.g., findings from a deliberation on sanctuary cities addressed to the State College Borough Council, the Global Programs office on campus, a state representative, and United States senators representing Pennsylvania)
  • More than one report addressed to policy makers about different topics (e.g., A deliberation on improving town-gown relations could generate a report to the university president on the topic of on-campus housing, another one to the State College Borough Council on the topic of the student housing crisis, and yet another to the Overall THON Chair on the topic of involving the State College community in THON.)

Components of Post-Deliberation Recommendation Reports: 

Excellent letters should feature the following:

  • A fitting title and visually appealing, professional-looking formatting
  • An introduction that briefly presents the issue and the details of the deliberation (who came, who hosted, when, and where) and explains the reasons this topic was a pressing civic issue, perhaps drawing on evidence from your issue guide research
  • A thesis statement that reflects the findings/themes of the report
  • Well-organized body content that provides evidence from your research and the deliberation itself to support the report’s findings, stances, or recommendations.
  • An elegant and efficient prose style that reflects the conventions of academic writing
  • An awareness of the needs and expectations of your chosen audience
  • MLA parenthetical citation throughout and a Works Cited page.

Citation tips: 

To cite the deliberation videos, use this format example: 

“The Future of Thon.” Deliberation. The Pennsylvania State University Zoom: Feb. 23, 2021.

To cite individual deliberator in discussion: 

Student Last Name, Student First Name. “The Future of Thon.” Deliberation. The Pennsylvania State University Zoom: Feb. 23, 2021.

To cite an individual commenter in the post-deliberation report, incorporate the name of the commenter if possible into your prose or refer to them as “one commenter” or an “anonymous commenter” and cite the survey as follows: 

O’Hara, Jessica [author(s) of survey]. “The Future of Thon Post-Deliberation Survey.” Online. Feb. 23, 2021. https://forms.gle/2H4A8n2sb98fNGzU8

To cite general trends in a survey, mention the number of respondents in the prose, and then use the same citation as above. 

Remember that you are using both in-text citation and a Works Cited list as the end.

All students also need to submit a Mini-Team Member via CANVAS dropbox by the due date on the course schedule. Here is the form: Peer Evaluation Deliberation

 

SAMPLE DOCUMENTS

Education_Pamphlet_Final_Copy_

Issue guide education and society

free speech menu

ToSpeakorNottoSpeakPost-DeliberationReport[1]