From the November 26 issue of the Deliberative Democracy eBulletin (a must-read resource for us, click here to get to their archive and email subscription):
1 | Four Years of DDC Research and Practice
—–
Matt Leighninger writes about a draft discussion report, “Where is Democracy Headed? Four years of DDC research and practice” which is now available on the DDC wiki. In the report, Peter Levine and Lars Hasselblad Torres have described the findings, publications, and other products of the 2003 and 2005 Researcher and Practitioner meetings, and incorporated those ideas in an insightful essay on the future of deliberative democracy. They make twelve key observations on the state of the field and suggest seven critical steps for moving forward.
To read the draft and provide feedback visit: http://wiki.deliberative-democracy.net/index.php/Summary_Report
You can find Matt’s full blog post (and follow the discussion) here: Four years of DDC research and practice
Under “Ideas for Moving Forward”, the report lists a number of proposed areas for future research. The last paragraph is especially interesting with regard to what Intellitics does:
19. Give deeper attention to online methods
Since the Airlie House meeting in 2002, the DDC has deliberately included practitioners and proponents of online deliberation. However, the bulk of research has been devoted to face-to-face processes, and several interviewees wondered if there might still be a bias against technology. Polletta said, “I really think online is really important. We operate with this idea that face to face is the ideal form. All the research seems to suggest that you should generate your theories of deliberation based on what happens in face to face deliberation. Online is seen as a ‘peculiar’ form. ” However, face-to-face methods are more expensive and in some respects harder to implement.
At Intelltics, we want to contribute to this exciting field of work as much as we can. A few guidelines come to mind that we will try to follow:
- Plan ahead — Design and build with research in mind (instead of it being a mere afterthought).
- Provide access — Be available and open to outside research.
- Share — Make any findings available to the dialogue and deliberation community or the public.
So, if you are a researcher and would like help us bring online dialogue and deliberation to the next level, let’s talk!
It came up in the last post, and it is something we’ve been thinking about quite a bit: How to listen online?
Listening in real life is sometimes hard enough. It may require skilled facilitation. Oftentimes, we’re not trained to listen well. It is much easier to talk than to listen, and listen carefully.
Online, however, listening seems to become that much harder. Many of the cues we are used to in real life are missing: for example sound, tone of voice, facial expressions etc. — even silence.
So, if listening is essential to leading meaningful dialogue and the same holds true for online dialogue, then the 1,000,000 dollar question is:
How to listen online?
Over the coming weeks, I plan to share some of our findings here in this blog. If you have resources to share or questions you want to see addressed, please comment.
Sandra S. Hodge, Ph.D. and Program Director Discovering Common Ground: Missouri Communities Deliberate at University of Missouri has a nice comparison chart that looks at the differences between debate and deliberation: Deliberation and Your Community: How to Convene and Moderate Local Public Forums Using Deliberative Decision-Making (training manual) (PDF, 1.1MB). The training manual is part of a resource kit for deliberative decision-making projects.
Debate vs. Deliberation
| In debate, you search for weaknesses in another position |
In deliberation, you search for strength in another position. |
| In debate, you search for glaring differences. |
Deliberation involves concern for others. |
| Debate involves countering the other’s position at the expense of the relationship. |
Deliberation assumes that many people have pieces of an answer to a workable solution. |
| Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in your beliefs. |
In deliberation, you temporarily suspend your judgment of other’s beliefs. |
| Debate is oppositional and seeks to prove the other wrong. |
Deliberation is collaborative and seeks common understanding. |
| The goal of debate is winning – often only for a short-term advantage. |
The goal of deliberation is common ground for action, which is the basis for consistent policy. |
| In debate, you listen to find flaws and counter-arguments. |
In deliberation, you listen to understand and find meaning in agreement. |
| Debate defends assumptions as truth. |
Deliberation reveals assumptions for reevaluation. |
| Debate defends original solutions. |
Deliberation opens the possibility of better solutions. |
| In debate, you submit your best thinking and defend its rightness. |
In deliberation, you submit your best thinking in order to improve it. |
Interestingly enough, while there have recently been quite a few initiatives that focus on building better tools for online debate the same cannot be said for online deliberation (at least as far as I am aware of).
One reason for that, in my view, is the fact that both dialogue and deliberation require very good listening skills on the part of the participants. And as difficult as listening may seem in real life, it is generally that much harder to do online.
Recent Comments