The Public’s Voice: Building Community Engagement through Deliberative Dialogues

1. The Public’s Voice: Building Community Engagement through Deliberative Dialogues March 7-9, 2006 Springfield, MO Sandra S. Hodge, Ph.D. Extension Associate Professor State Public Policy Specialist University of Missouri Columbia, Missouri USA Patty Dineen NIFI National Faculty and Board of Directors Editor, NIFI News Online

2. Introductions Name Organization Main job or the focus of your work

3. Public Deliberation - Participatory Governance What do citizens do when they come together to solve their own issues? The Role of the Public in Civil Society

4. Civil Society Public as Primary Actors Choice work Public Policy Common Ground for Action Deliberative Dialogue Public Voice

5. Public Problems What is a problem or issue that affects a large number of people is difficult to solve or understand, and may require lots of people to work together even if they don’t know each other, or like each other?

6. Why are Public Problems So Complex?

7. CROSS TRADITIONAL BOUNDARIES SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED Characteristics of Public Issues NO OPTIMAL SOLUTION

8. Public Problems -- Cross Traditional Boundaries • Organizational and jurisdictional • Functional • Temporal and inter-generational • Interrelated web Luke, Jeffrey. 1998. Catalytic Leadership: Strategies for an Interconnected World

9. Public Problems -- Socially Constructed • Differing values, beliefs, cultural traditions and worldviews • Strategies for dealing with problem are based on people’s definition and mental model about “cause and effect” • Goes beyond the scope of scientific and technical data Luke, Jeffrey. 1998. Catalytic Leadership: Strategies for an Interconnected World

10. Public Problems -- No Optimal Solution • Intractable; never entirely solved • Technical remedy only is ineffective; requires deeper systemic changes Luke, Jeffrey. 1998. Catalytic Leadership: Strategies for an Interconnected World

12. TYPE I PROBLEMS • “How to” questions; usually technical in nature, solved by technical fixes. • High levels of agreement on both the definition of the problem and possible solutions. • Experts can solve the problem. • Tend not to require much consideration of values and beliefs; may not require high levels of participation and involvement of the public

13. Type II Problems • Thought of as “value” problems in that solutions are less clear because value dimensions are present; difficult to find “reasonable solution” • Even though there may be general agreement on the definition of the problem, there is little or no agreement on potential solutions.

14. Type II Problems • Not solved just by experts. Information alone isn’t sufficient for decision-making. Involves values so must be solved by people who must implement the solutions or live with the outcomes. • Type-II problems evoke the emotions and stubborn responses associated with worldviews, ideologies, and belief systems

15. ARTICLE TOOLS Arctic Countries Agree on Perils of Climate Change but Not Solution By ANDREW C. REVKINPublished: November 25, 2004 Arctic Countries Agree on Perils of Climate Change but Not Solution -- By Andrew c. Revkin New York Times, November 25, 2004The United States and the seven other countries with Arctic territory jointly expressed concern yesterday about profound changes in the Arctic climate and said they would consider new scientific findings concluding that heat-trapping emissions were the main cause. But they did not agree on a common strategy for curbing such emissions, to the disappointment of environmental groupsand Arctic indigenous groups.

16. Confusions & Challenges Many problems are both technical ANDvalue driven. Example: a planned 140-mile offshore gas pipeline, designed to carry gas to southern Thailand from the Malaysia-Thailand Joint Development Area. People tend to not recognize, dismiss, or underplay value problems because they are harder and more difficult to deal with. Example: AIDS drugs can be produced cheaper. Determining WHO should have access is values based. People often prefer to have an issue treated as if it were purely technical because then they don’t have to own the problem or the solution. Combating Drug Use – People like the idea of an enforcement agency it sounds like the problem is “out there” rather than in families, neighborhoods, schools. Someone else will take care of it.

17. Type III Problems • Often referred to as “wicked” or “intractable” because • multiple stakeholders • overlapping jurisdictions • powerful moral dimensions • deep histories. • Large variety of stakeholders with differing perspectives; no agreement on what “the problem” actually is. • Competing solutions create conflict among stakeholders when discussing “the problem.” (people come up with solutions instead of defining problem) • No one has power over the whole situation. No one party is capable of both defining the problem so that everyone agrees on the problem and a solution.

18. Points to Think About • Intractable problems are very rarely “solved.” • Slowly “tamed” as people begin to recognize the issues and work on resolving the conflict. • Type II and Type III problems may involve contested technical information and scientific uncertainty, linked to divergent values • Large public issue may involve aspects of TYPE I, II, III

19. Public problems do not respect conventional boundaries. No one sector – governmental, industrial, and civic – can “own” them. • Technical remedies alone are insufficient. • No one agency of government has full jurisdiction to solve them. No one locale can wall itself off and deal with them exclusively • No one special interest group has the power to force a solution. • No one discipline, or mental model, can fully explain them.

20. www.iap2.org

22. What is Deliberation? To take careful thought; reflect To consult with another or others as a process in reaching a decision Premeditated; intentional To weigh well – to ponder completely

23. What is Deliberation? Careful and slow in deciding or determining Not rashly or hastily determined Leisurely or slow in motion

24. About deliberation How have we experienced deliberation? When have you deliberated?

25. 3-D Exercise Take a page from the flip chart. Draw a picture of debate on one side and a picture of deliberation on the other What distinguishes debate from deliberation? Next, on another sheet of paper, draw dialogue on one side and deliberation on the other What distinguished dialogue from deliberation?

26. Characteristics of Debate, Dialogue and Deliberation

27. D E L I B E R A T I O N D E B A T E VERSUS

28. Deliberation is based on the premise that many people have pieces of the answer and that together they can develop new approaches and solutions to problems.

29. If you want to change things, it is simply a matter of changing the conversation. Paul Axtell

30. Six Democratic Practices Naming: What is the problem we face? Framing: What are our options? Deliberating: What might happen if we do certain things? Committing: What are we willing to do? What consequences will we accept? Public Acting: Who will do what? Civic Learning: Did we get what we wanted? What did we learn? Mathews, David. The Politics of Self-Rule: Six Public Practices. Connections. Winter 2005.

31. Strategies for Promoting Deliberation Authentic framing or discussion guide Structured conversation with ground rules Neutral and trained moderator and recorder Committed participants

32. Issue Approach Approach Approach Action 1 Action 2 Action 3 Action 1 Action 2 Action 3 Action 1 Action 2 Action 3 Likes Concerns Likes Concerns Likes Concerns Value 3 Value 5 Value 1 Value 7 Value 9 Value 4 Value 6 Value 2 Value 8

33. Criteria for an Approach Issue is framed in an authentic voice that reflects the commonly held positions.

34. Criteria for an Approach Not mutually exclusive. Elements of each will be appealing. Tension within the approach because of trade-offs and consequences. Tension between the approaches because of competing values.

35. Criteria for an Approach No approach is the direct opposite. The differences are due to different ranking of values or definition of the problem. The approach requires that we accept trade-offs and consequences – make choices.

36. Structure of the conversation Welcome 10% The convener or moderator introduces the program, acknowledges the host, explains the process, reviews the guidelines, and collects the pre-forum questionnaires. Personal Stake 5% As an icebreaker, participants tell personal experiences related to issue. This establishes that the issue is relevant, important and provides participants with a starting point for their conversation. Deliberation 65% Participants examine all of the approaches. The moderator directs the flow of conversation to make sure that everyone gets a chance to speak and that all sides of the issue get a fair hearing. Reflection 20% Hearing a public voice. Going from my voice to our voice. The moderator guides the participants to reflect on their own learning, then to reflect on what they learned about how others think and finally to construct statements that reflect the common ground of the group.

37. Roles Convening Team or Steering Committee Moderator Recorder Reporter

38. Evaluation Day One

39. Day Two • Convening the Forum • Basic Principles of Moderating • Preparing to Moderate • Opening the Forum • Moderator Questions • Ending a Forum • Reflection on “Common Ground” • Moderator Challenges • Effective Recording • Evaluation Day Two

40. Convening a Forum • Forum goals? Why have it? • Intellectual deliberation --educational? • Complex issue where there is agreement on what the problem is • Participation • Form a committee (Who, Why?) • Start early (with initial planning stage) • Be inclusive • Clearly define member’s roles • What is the ideal number of participants?

41. REPRESENTATION MATRIX

42. Convening the Forum—Other things to Think About • Moderators, Recorders, Observers? • Logistics • Publicity (getting the word out)

43. Basic Principles of Moderating An effective moderator… • Is neutral regarding the subject matter • Does not take on an expert role • Keeps the discussion focused on approaches • Listens for values • Intervenes as necessary

44. An effective moderator… • Asks clarifying questions • Encourages everyone to join in the conversation • Asks thoughtful and probing questions to surface costs and consequences • Helps participants find common ground. • Encourages deep reflection

45. Opening the Forum Moderator Questions Questions to Promote Deliberation

46. Common Ground for Action What Difference Does It Make? Common Ground is NOT consensus or compromise Consensus---Total Agreement Compromise – Apportioned agreement Deliberation – helps find overlapping interests – common ground

47. Practice Forum

48. Opinion vs. Judgment • Forums move people from unchallenged individual opinion to considered judgment • Thinking together publicly leads to a shared understanding of an issue and carefully weighed personal judgment • Public opinion evolves from incoherent bits toward integrated, coherent and considered judgment

49. Handling Moderator Challenges • dominating discussion • difficult participant • misinformation

50. Reporting from the Forum Report how deliberation changed or influenced people’s thinking Can provide information on how well people understand the issue Is there still large disagreement on the issue? Are people still polarized? Why might this be? How can this report be used? Policy makers?