In analyzing my group’s deliberation, “Okay, Scooter!? How Should Penn State Ride the Scooter Issue on Campus?”, several of Gastil’s criteria for the deliberation process can be very clearly evaluated in how the deliberation played out. The deliberation was successful in fulfilling some of the criteria and had room for improvement in regard to some of the others. I also attended the deliberation “We Are Survivors: How We Can Do a Better Job of Supporting Survivors of Sexual Assault” on Thursday, March 5, and this experience gave me another opportunity to see how some of the fundamental criteria were satisfied, or not, in another deliberation.
First, Gastil identifies “creat[ing] a solid information base” as a fundamental step to the analytic process(Gastil Processes). This was one of the strengths of “Okay, Scooter!?”. Throughout the deliberation, each section was supported with research to establish the facts, and participants were also able to share their experiences of seeing scooters, receiving scooter warnings, and visiting universities where scooters are allowed. As a result, there was a clear and comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand. In comparison, “We Are Survivors” created a solid information base, but the foundation could have been supported with more research to explain how their approaches were feasible solutions. Moreover, “We Are Survivors” was able to elicit a lot of information on people’s personal experiences with CAPS and sexxual assault awarness which supported the issue at hand. However, people questioned basic ideas pertaining to the approaches, and the moderators took a fairly hypothetical, rather than factual, approach to answering these questions. In turn, this made their information base somewhat vulnerable.
Second, “identif[ying] the key values at stake” is another one of Gastil’s criteria for the analytic process of deliberation, “Okay, Scooter!?” was successful in delivering this criteria (Gastil Processes). The moderators came in with key values identified, including safety, personal freedom, and clarity, and these values were built upon throughout the deliberation. Additionally, through discussion, another key value was established: modernization. Keeping these key values in consideration allowed the discussion to move towards a general consensus of allowing scooters with defined regulations. Through this regulation, riders and pedestrians would be safe; students would have the freedom to ride; the gray area of regulation would be eliminated; and Penn State would keep up with modern transportation methods being implemented at other universities. “We Are Survivors” established supporting mental health as the key value in their deliberation, and this way was the foundation of each approach. Through each proposal, the moderators sought different ways to improve upon this key value.
Third, according to Gastil, it is fundamental to “adequately distribute speaking efforts” to ensure success regarding the social process of the deliberation (Gastil Processes). This seems to be a challenging criteria to satisfy due to the natural tendency for passionate, extroverted participants to want to contribute at every opportunity. With that, this was a weakness of “Okay, Scooter!?” Although the moderators took on an increased participation role due to the small number of attendees, the moderators’ participation seemed to significantly outweigh that of the attendees. As a result, I felt that “Okay Scooter!?” did not reach its potential on gaining outside insight. This criteria seemed to be a weakness for “We Are Survivors” as well. There were several times where the Team Overview jumped in to share her insight, and I felt that these remarks were out of place and took away from the opportunity to hear from the large number of attendees.
Fourth, it is essential to “identify a broad range of solutions” (Gastil Processes). “Okay, Scooter!?” considered one extreme to the other and everything in between as we looked at prohibition, allowance at free will, and allowance with regulations. With that, a wide array of solutions were identified in our deliberation. “We Are Survivors” also had a broad range of solutions as they proposed three completely different solutions that did not overlap with each other at all. Their solutions included: expanding CAPS, partnering with Centre County Women’s Resource Center, and/or increasing education through NSO. This variety of solutions stimulated thinking and discussion that spanned a large spectrum of solutions.
Fifth, for the analytic process of the deliberation, the “pros, cons, and trade-offs among solutions” must be considered (Gastil Processes). In “Okay, Scooter!?,” there was room for improvement as this criteria was not consistently fulfilled throughout the deliberation. Some of the approaches clearly outlined and discussed the pros and cons separately, and they were identified in the civic issues guide. However, there were other times where, per se, the cons were to be discussed, but the discussion did not remain focused on the cons. “We Are Survivors” could have improved upon this criteria as well. The pros and cons were clearly identified with each approach. For one of the approaches, the Team Overview asked the participants for the pros and cons at the same time. It seemed like it would have been better if the moderators identified these pros and cons and discussed each area separately. Also, with another approach, the moderator said, “there are some pros and cons,” but did not go on to clearly identify any of them.
Sixth, it is critical to “respect other participants” in order to ensure the success of the social process of the deliberation (Gastil Processes). Throughout “Okay, Scooter!?,” this element was certainly upheld. Each participant was listened to when speaking, and everybody’s comments were much appreciated. The tone remained very conversational and never got controversial in a negative sense. Maintaining this tone invoked a sense of respect for all participants, and this respect seemed to make all attendees comfortable with participating. “We Are Survivors” also did a great job of ensuring the respect of participants. Sexual assault is a very sensitive subject and can be very emotional for some. The moderators and all attendees were very respectful and understanding of people’s potential personal and emotional stake in the matter. With this respect, people were able to open up and share their personal experiences.
All in all, both deliberations were very insightful and provided the opportunity for public discussion of relevant issues and potential solutions. Through each deliberation, moderators and participants were able to gain a deeper perspective on the matters discussed and understand how the public could respond to the possible solutions. With that, both deliberations seemed to overall be successes!
____________________________________________________________________________________
Works Cited
Bello, Nick, et al. “Okay, Scooter!? How Should Penn State Ride the Scooter Issue on Campus?” 1 Mar. 2020.
Gastil Processes. sites.psu.edu/rcl2ohara/files/2015/01/Gastil-processes-28hp7lg.png.
“We Are Survivors: How We Can Do a Better Job Supporting Survivors of Sexual Assault.” 5 Mar. 2020.
It is very difficult to have an effective discussion when there are so few people in attendance. It becomes even worse when the few people that are there are hesitant to speak and share their opinions. Pros and cons seemed to be an area that many groups were lacking in, either addressing them incompletely or even not at all. However, I feel that all of the deliberations did a very good job of making sure everyone’s voice was heard, and that no one got drowned out or felt like their opinion was invalid.
I cannot imagine the difficulty of holding a deliberation with a small group of participants. I attended four, all of which had a large attendance. This was massively important to the success of their deliberation as it provided many talking points and provided the moderators to pivot and create new questions on the fly.
Being part of this debate, I thought we did a good job with the given circumstances. It was difficult with only a few amount of people in attendance, but I feel like we were still able to hold a productive deliberation.
I agreed with your evaluation, but especially liked that you identified those key values of safety, personal freedom, clarity, and modernization because they really did shape the entire deliberation. However, I would have loved to see how interesting it could’ve been if more people attended.