After helping facilitate a deliberation regarding single-use plastic intake and attending another deliberation about Maternity/Paternity and Child Care policies in the United States, I can appreciate the importance of continued collaboration and discussion about things we want to see change in our community. The areas of comparison I am going to be drawing from will be based off of the criteria for deliberative discussion as outlined by Gastil’s deliberation chapter.

First I would like to talk about the creation of a solid information base. Both deliberations I attended did a great job of bringing in personal issues, experiences, and stories. This allowed for further discussion about a possible approach or solution to a topic. For example, having someone at the plastics discussion who had already given up single-use plastics altogether allowed questions to be asked about the process and if it was a plausible solution to delve into further. At the child care deliberation, participants brought in stories about their own families, such as one participant who expressed her parent’s frustration with not being able to spend as much time with her younger sibling as a newborn because of their financial need. This leads into a few social points that were also used well throughout both discussions. Respect of other participants was at a high, as people were receptive to the life experiences of others, especially when it came to the child care discussion. And as I said, the plastics group was able to get more questions in regarding other people’s opinions, asking for clarification. This mutual comprehension was also a major point in the child care discussion, with people consistently not being shy about speaking frankly when it came to what they thought about a certain topic. This in particular forces everyone at that discussion to listen carefully to everyone, considering their ideas and experiences, and replies that disagreed with opinions presented were respectful and understanding of the fact that everyone disagrees. For example, at the child care discussion, there was dissent regarding child care in the workplace, and people disagreed upon if this would be easier or harder on the children themselves. This point was not one we came to a consensus about, but both sides expressed their opinions openly without fear of being ridiculed or judged.

One social point the plastics group did exceptionally well with was distribution of speaking opportunities. While the child care group sometimes had difficulties when two people spoke at the same time, the use of a single microphone eliminated that problem in the plastics deliberation, giving everyone the opportunity to feel they could speak and have everyone attentively listen.

What I believe was a major difference between the groups, however, was the fact that the child care group’s solutions were very pointed and direct. They may have had deeper values behind them, but they were never addressed, and it was hard to make that connection when trying to prioritize key values. The plastics group had an excellent way of defining their approaches as broad topics that reflected individual and group values, such as education, reinforcement, punishment, etc.