Create a solid information base: In our deliberation, I think that each person curated a solid, heavily researched background on their approach. The research gave us the educational backgrounds that enabled us to moderate the discussion effectively. This includes creating on-the-spot probing questions to further and deepen the deliberation. I think that this was one of our group’s strong suits. In every approach, each moderator did a great job of responding to the points by the audience with research based questions to ask and learn more about the audience’s beliefs. Sometimes, we would even challenge them. I specifically remember Andy bringing up specific statistics in response to a participant’s argument, which aided in making our deliberation seem more professional. 

 

Identify a broad range of solutions: Our group, while we did have very similar approaches, did have many different solutions. Within the spectrum of standardized testing, we proposed keeping standardized testing and offering a free prep class, test optional, or eliminating standardized testing. My approach was eliminating it all together, and within my approach the solutions of disregarding test scores in totality, and considering SAT subject tests or AP tests also arose. I think that with our issue, no solution is completely “right” which created the perfect grounds for a good deliberation. I feel as though our group had clear solutions compared to other groups where I felt it was a bit difficult to distinguish what the solutions to the issue were. 

 

Weigh the pros, cons, and trade offs among solutions: One deliberation that I attended that I thought did a great job of this was the Cancer Alley group. Their group really emphasized the pros and cons of their solutions in regard to cancer alley both socially and environmentally. I thought the duality of their issue added to its complexity, which made it very interesting to deliberate. I remember this revealing participants “priorities” in a way, since one approach had to come at the expense of another (considering the families and the environment). I think our group did a good job with comparing pros and cons too. We focused on the effects of our solutions on the college application, the student’s time in high school, and the admissions process. 

 

Adequately distribute speaking opportunities: I think that our deliberators did a solid job ensuring the majority of people spoke that wanted to. We moved through our deliberation quickly, keeping the points short but impactful to move the conversation along. However, we did run out of time a couple of times where there were more people wishing to speak. Conversely, the Cancer Alley deliberation had unique circumstances being on Zoom. I feel like people were probably hesitant to speak on zoom since it feels a bit more intimidating. Because of this, I think that less people spoke during their deliberation, which was not necessarily their fault. 

 

Ensure mutual comprehension: I think that both our group and the Cancer Alley group did a great job ensuring mutual comprehension. I specifically remember instances in both groups where people needed clarification on certain information, asked a member of the group, the member answered informatively, and the participant then added their points. I thought this demonstrated the quality of the deliberations, as the members of the groups were able to give them the further background information they needed to form an opinion. The only note I have is actually about my approach, where someone asked me the background of one of my statistics and I didn’t know all of the information about it. This negatively impacted my image as an educated moderator.

 

Respect other participants: Our group most definitely respected each and every one of the participants. I also feel as though the participants respected each other. There were definitely times when participants would disagree, but they were respectful when addressing each other and presenting their counterarguments. The ability of the participants to do this respectfully benefited our deliberation by making it a safe and comfortable place to share one’s opinions without fear of being verbally attacked. It was also good that the participants were engaging with each other, because it challenged them to consider their own ideas and their validity amongst the ideas of others.