Back in December, Tom Atlee shared some interesting thoughts over on the NCDD listserv about what he refers to as Creative Participation. He recently joined the growing list of NCDD guest bloggers and today shared his post on the NCDD blog: Creative Deliberation
The article brings up some good points that highlight the need for better learning design in deliberative processes. Here’s the comment I left today (also a re-posting of my reply in December):
This comment appeared first on the NCDD listserv on December 6, 2010 in reply to Tom’s original post there. I am reposting it here with a few minor edits.
Hi Tom,
Great to see your writing here!
I find the information piece particularly challenging (and a more iterative approach like the one you outline seems helpful).
Most issues that warrant deliberation are so hugely complex to the average participant that they require extensive education efforts. Meaningful participation is impossible as long as participants lack a basic understanding of the issues at hand. Traditionally, there seem to be at least three problems:
1) Inadequate learning design
Rarely is learning ever adequately designed into the process (it takes more than just “briefing materials”).
2) Lack of trust
While conveners are under an obligation to provide “complete and unbiased information” (see post), they aren’t always trusted as a neutral source. Participants who for whatever reason don’t trust the information they are being given can cause a lot of friction (see the recent “Our Budget, Our Economy” project).
3) Top-down approach
The process of informing the participants is usually a one-way street. It assumes that the convener alone can provide the best possible participant briefing (both in terms of content and process). There is little to no opportunity for participants to improve, customize or otherwise take ownership of their learning experience.
Learning should play a key role in citizen deliberations. And participants should be enabled to take on the role of researcher, interviewer, fact checker, curator, editor etc. (see post) in collaborative ways that help educate the group as a whole (something your steps #2, #4 and #6 hint at). This doesn’t replace the need for subject matter experts nor does it diminish the convener’s overall responsibility to provide the best information possible.
Your approach is multi-day, but that may still be fairly limited. At every deliberative event I’ve attended or observed, a lot of time was spent on activities that could have well been handled prior to meeting face-to-face (particularly education/learning). That’s why I strongly encourage the use of (online) technology to complement any in-person activities.
Cheers,
Tim
Anyone already doing interesting work in this area? Anyone creating great learning experiences as a building block for successful deliberation?
Related posts:
{ 1 trackback }