Civic Issues Forim Evaluation
No society is perfect. However, a higher level of societal success and productivity can be attained by utilizing deliberation. Especially within the realms of politics and civic issues, deliberation can be imperative to improvement. While deliberation is not difficult to engage in, it requires several criteria in order to be constructive. Socially, deliberation requires evenly distributed opportunities to speak, mutual comprehension for all participants, open-minded attitudes of participants, and respect. Analytically, a strong information base, recognition of key values, identification of a variety of solutions, determination of tradeoffs of solutions, and the ability to make the most advantageous solution are all required. The Civic Issues Forum on sustainability was very successful in the social category, but was not fully adequate when it came to the analytical components.
The forum was introduced with a moderator’s description of sustainability, the focus of the deliberation. Next, each participant stated his or her own key values at stake in relation to sustainability. This step related to the analytic component of identifying key values, and was moderately successful. It was recognized that many participants held common ground when it came to the reasons why they felt impacted by sustainability. For instance, key values such as the concern for future generations and the desire to maintain the natural beauty of earth were reoccurring themes. However, it was often difficult for participants to state their key values while withholding their opinion on the matter, and in this aspect the determination of key values was not properly attained.
Once the key values at stake in relation to sustainability were confirmed, the deliberation could begin for each of the three options presented. The three options (and the packet that described them) provided the information base for discussion, as well as personal research and experiences. While more substantial research relevant to each of the options could have been performed, the participants were very effective at utilizing personal experiences and knowledge bases for speaking points. Overall the success of this analytical aspect of deliberation could have been higher because greater information would have led to more concrete solutions. However, personal experiences such as recycling plans in high schools provided the basis for very constructive reflection.
Personal experiences also ensured mutual comprehension by making perceptions and perspectives relatable for all participants. In this area, the deliberation achieved great success. When a participant did not understand a concept, an anecdote such as a participant’s experience with the change in seat belt usage helped confirm comprehension. Each participant respected the experiences shared by the others, which exemplified the high level of respect maintained throughout the deliberation. When participants disagreed, they expressed their reasons for differing opinions through educated explanations. At times, excitement led to raised and overlapping voices. However, this was never the result of a lack a respect as much as fervor about the delusional tone of one of the options (option three to be specific).
Frustration with the options was a ramification of the tradeoffs that were identified for each of the options. When the forum weighed the pros, cons, and tradeoffs of each solution an excessive amount of cons was established. This aspect of analysis was very productive as the forum discussed in detail every possible downside of each solution. When it came to the third solution of altering American culture, the forum was so impacted by the tradeoffs that it deemed the solution completely unrealistic. The recognition of the many cons of each supplied solution led the group to create many of its own options. The variety of these solutions made it apparent that the forum attained success in the analytic aspect of deliberation relating to identifying a broad range of solutions. For example, the forum introduced solutions such as increased youth education, improved recycling programs, and a combination of option two and three. Overall, the forum was very adept at brainstorming possible solutions.
Throughout the brainstorming process, each participant voiced an opinion yet still considered the ideas of others. These were the most successful deliberative components of the discussion. The diversity and productiveness of the forum were mainly due to these components as every participant willingly and equally contributed various ideas. These ideas were met with acceptance and enthusiasm, which made way for compromise and awareness of new solutions. For example, one participant originally believed that government regulations would be the best solution, but altered his belief after hearing his peer discuss the economical ramifications and implications of this solution. Other participants learned new methods for achieving sustainability through their peers, such as oil made from recycled bottles and windmill stations in the ocean. The ability of each participant to take in the opinions and ideas of others made the forum a very informative and productive deliberative environment.
While the deliberation process ran smoothly and efficiently, difficulties were faced when it came time to decide on the best solution. This was a weakness of the group because no single solution could be decisively stated as the best. However, the forum did come to a consensus on the lack of a superior solution, the necessity of including education in the solution, and the possibility of combining options 1 and 2 to achieve the best solution. Common ground was established on the fact that the topic was not controversial enough to create great disparities in opinions. This lack of controversy allowed the group to be much more successful in the social components of deliberation than a controversial subject might have. Overall, the deliberative nature of the Civic Issues Forum on sustainability was efficient, productive, informative, and successful.
Moderator Philosophy
While it would be ideal for deliberation to proceed without moderation, this ideal is unrealistic in the face of conversational tendencies. These tendencies include getting off topic, speaking over others, and utilizing misinformation. To counteract such occurrences, a moderator is imperative to the success of deliberation. As a result of my own experience as a moderator, I determined the principles that guided my moderation approach and discovered my own unique moderation characteristics.
I based my moderation style on the forum’s habit of losing focus and its need for a deliberation instigator. The group found it difficult to maintain productive debate on one option at a time; therefore I felt it was my duty to keep the group focused on the topic at hand. The debate also tended to lose its lively voice at times, so I would formulate provoking questions to keep the deliberation flowing. These moderation principles helped characterize my style by encouraging me to take an authoritative role as moderator. In this role, I enabled the deliberation to continue without lapses or lulls by quickly stepping in when I felt the debate was losing productivity.
While my quickness to step in was a moderator strength of mine, it contributed to my weaknesses as well. For instance, I found it very challenging to maintain an unbiased voice and refrain from voicing my opinion. To combat the urge to speak my mind, I focused on encouraging others to voice their opinions on subject matter I found relevant to the option at hand. In this way I could shape the discussion without actively participating. Overall I believe I gained valuable experience as a moderator that will be relatable to everyday deliberation.