I enjoyed getting to read about your perspective in this blog, because I attended the same deliberations. I agree with what you said about building an atmosphere of acceptance and trust, especially when discussing such sensitive topics. I also agree with you about finding a balance between difficult questions (that people may have to silently think about) versus easy questions (that people may feel more comfortable answering. I think, though, that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the participants.
I had similar thoughts regarding the mutual respect between participants and thoughtful considerations of ideas and experiences. For my personal deliberation, both of these were welcome strengths that allowed the conversation to proceed smoothly. The presence of difficult questions was also a concern in the deliberation that I attended, but I think that coming up with questions is a difficult task in itself, especially in the middle of the discussion.
I also attended the deliberation on porn, and I agree with a lot of the points that you made. I felt that the moderators tried to encapsulate too wide of a range of topics in their deliberation, and were forced to provide too much background research that ate into the rest of the deliberation. I also agree that the conversation was respectful at this event, and I am glad to hear that it was at yours as well; I think that both of these topics are quite polarized, so it is good that people were able to find mutual respect on them. I was very interested to hear how your conversation was impeded by the presence of an IFC officer. I would think that having such a knowledgeable individual present would have led the conversation at all, but I know understand that this can impede conversation by people trying to be polite.
I liked how you discussed how a specific structure was needed for an organized and comprehensible conversation. It definitely helps orient everyone, especially those who do not know all of the background information and did not research the approaches. I also enjoyed seeing the mutual respect between peers at the deliberations. Attending some of them, I thought that for sure, people would lash out a bit at people’s controversial opinions, but everyone was very respectful, which made me very happy. Follow up questions are something that are very important, and I wish that my group would have implemented them a bit more.
I agree with your analysis, as moderators, it’s hard to anticipate what direction the conversation will take and ask questions that are of the appropriate level of complexity to entice participation while still driving meaning.
I enjoyed getting to read about your perspective in this blog, because I attended the same deliberations. I agree with what you said about building an atmosphere of acceptance and trust, especially when discussing such sensitive topics. I also agree with you about finding a balance between difficult questions (that people may have to silently think about) versus easy questions (that people may feel more comfortable answering. I think, though, that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the participants.
I had similar thoughts regarding the mutual respect between participants and thoughtful considerations of ideas and experiences. For my personal deliberation, both of these were welcome strengths that allowed the conversation to proceed smoothly. The presence of difficult questions was also a concern in the deliberation that I attended, but I think that coming up with questions is a difficult task in itself, especially in the middle of the discussion.
I also attended the deliberation on porn, and I agree with a lot of the points that you made. I felt that the moderators tried to encapsulate too wide of a range of topics in their deliberation, and were forced to provide too much background research that ate into the rest of the deliberation. I also agree that the conversation was respectful at this event, and I am glad to hear that it was at yours as well; I think that both of these topics are quite polarized, so it is good that people were able to find mutual respect on them. I was very interested to hear how your conversation was impeded by the presence of an IFC officer. I would think that having such a knowledgeable individual present would have led the conversation at all, but I know understand that this can impede conversation by people trying to be polite.
I liked how you discussed how a specific structure was needed for an organized and comprehensible conversation. It definitely helps orient everyone, especially those who do not know all of the background information and did not research the approaches. I also enjoyed seeing the mutual respect between peers at the deliberations. Attending some of them, I thought that for sure, people would lash out a bit at people’s controversial opinions, but everyone was very respectful, which made me very happy. Follow up questions are something that are very important, and I wish that my group would have implemented them a bit more.
I agree with your analysis, as moderators, it’s hard to anticipate what direction the conversation will take and ask questions that are of the appropriate level of complexity to entice participation while still driving meaning.