Transcript Public Issues Forum

Moderator Training
1

Provide safe spaces for public discourse on complex issues.

Identify underlying values that inform our ideas. (Not just
what, but why.)
2




Be more than “one who votes.”
Work with others to solve common problems.
Understand other points of view.
Actively seek common ground for greater good (solutions
that address everyone’s concern).
3
Debate, Discussion, and Deliberative Dialogue
Deliberation is a particular kind of talk. It’s the kind of talking that people do when they realize that they are responsible for making decisions and
choices—or giving guidance to others who will make those decisions—that not only will affect them and others, but also will have costs,
consequences, and benefits. Deliberation is hard work. People work at looking at the pros and cons of each approach, or perspective. That involves
making a real effort to discover how other people see the issue and, more importantly, why they see it the way they do. In deliberation, this means
listening to the people you don’t agree with as carefully as to the people you do agree with.
It is, of course, possible to debate an issue by presenting evidence that supports your chosen view, countering and undercutting the arguments that
others present for their chosen views, and trying to win by presenting the best and most eloquent persuasive argument. It is also possible to have a
discussion about issues and problems by sharing opinions, personal experiences, and favorite solutions. That’s a fine, and often satisfying, thing to
do. But with deliberation, talk goes beyond just discussion or debate. Deliberation tries to understand the problem together and to find solutions
that will be best for everyone. Deliberation happens when a group of people work on a problem as if solving it is up to them and no one else, and
when they recognize that they (and others) will be living with the consequences, both good and bad, of the choices they make.
DEBATE

Goal is winning.

Searches for glaring differences and weaknesses in
others’ positions.
DISCUSSION

Goals are varied and complex: sharing, learning,
spending time together, strengthening relationships,
building and maintaining social capital.

Can focus on the experience of talking without any
particular goal or desired outcomes.
DELIBERATIVE DIALOGUE

Goal is shared understanding of the issue or problem,
and finding solutions best for everyone.

Assumes that many people have pieces of an answer
and a workable solution.

Examines costs and consequences of even most
favored approaches

Invests wholeheartedly in own beliefs.

Defends own assumptions as truth.

Has back-and-forth exchange of information, stories,
experiences, and viewpoints.

Counters another’s position at the expense of the
relationship.


Listens to understand and find meaning.
May focus on a topic, theme, idea, problem, issue, etc.
or may be broad.


Presents assumptions for re-evaluation.
Listens to find flaws and counterarguments.

May be between two people or among many.


Opens possibilities for new solutions
Seeks to prove the other wrong.

Is oppositional.
May mean many kinds of talking together (such as a
deliberative discussion, informative discussion,
debate, dialogue, etc.)


Requires people to explore what’s important to them
and others by asking questions

Usually implies participants are not adversarial or
competitive (as in debate) and is non-confrontational

Leads to mutual understanding of differences and
ways to act even with those differences
Most useful when: A position or course of action is
being advocated and winning is the goal.
Most useful when: People want to talk together about
something without desiring any particular outcome
from the conversation.
Most useful when: A decision (or criteria for a decision)
about the best way(s) to approach an issue or problem is
needed.
4
Compromise, Consensus, and Common Ground (for Action)
Compromise, consensus, and common ground each have a role to play in our decision making activities. Compromise is most often associated with
adversarial bargaining with a predetermined outcome (e.g., contact negotiations) while consensus is more frequently seen in ongoing working
groups or teams where a decision with unanimous or near-unanimous agreement is important (e.g., the League of Women Voters has developed
consensual decision making as an ongoing activity). Common ground, or common ground for action, however, is an essential foundation for public
action, which is action that unites diverse positions into a common direction, even if they don’t agree on specifics.
The strength of compromise lies in its ability to create agreements between polarized parties, particularly when an agreement must be constructed
within a short period of time and when people can be held to that agreement by legal forces. Consensus, on the other hand, is most powerful with
people who have a history of working together, or who are in an organization with such a history. Consensus works best if there is time for people to
work out differences of opinion and to convince each other of the correctness of one position or action. Common ground, however, draws it strength
from the relationships among diverse actors (or groups) that emerge as people work through differences and come to understand each other, and
each other’s values. We seek common ground for action when working through how to act together to address a shared problem involving
fundamental values– e.g., when we must decide how to improve education or make our communities more livable.
COMPROMISE
CONSENSUS
COMMON GROUND

goal is mutual concessions

goal is mutual agreement

goal is mutual understanding

is based on self-interest (starts and ends
with what’s best for me)

agrees on actions even if not on values (on
what to do, not on what’s important)

agrees on underlying values (or overlapping
interests) even if there is disagreement on
which actions get us there

ends when both sides agree they got the
best deal they could

encourages solidarity

ends with stronger connections/community

leads to mutual understanding of
differences and how we can act even with
those differences

may lead to public action

is organic – mutual understanding emerges
or is uncovered as people explore what’s
important to them


leads to single, homogenous action.

can lead to group think, which causes
conformity and discourages dissent

is artificial – create solidarity in whatever
way possible
leads to individual, self-interested action

results in hardening of positions and
continued opposition

is constructed – create agreements by
mutual concessions
success = when each person is more or less
satisfied
success = there is general agreement on
what to do
success = there is mutual understanding
which creates possibilities for
complementary action
5
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Establish moderator and recorder
Review ground rules
Discuss personal stake
Provide equal time for each approach
Incorporate personal and group reflection
6

Provide charge to participants (i.e., it’s the work of citizens
to make choices about public issues)

Understand format is deliberation, not debate.

Encourage everyone to participate.

Do not let one or two individuals dominate.

Focus discussion on the choices.

Consider all positions on the issue.

Maintain an atmosphere conducive for discussion.

Listen to each other.
7

What is your personal experience with the issue?

What concerns you most about the issue?
8

Guide (don’t lead) the deliberation.
 The less said, the better
 Encourage participants to talk to each other, not to you

Present the essence of each approach. Then, ask a starter
question to turn the work over to the group.

Permit periods of silence between speakers. It’s okay.

Reference: “Facilitating Public Issues: Best Practices” in
ANGEL course readings folder for more on moderator styles
and practices.
9
People normally approach difficult decisions by:



looking at the options available to them
weighing advantages and disadvantages of each option
selecting the option most consistent with what they value
10

What concerns people when they think about an issue?
(In other words, what is valuable?)

Given these concerns, what types of actions would they favor?

What benefits and/or negative consequences might result?
(In other words, what tradeoffs must be considered?)
11



Security
Fairness and Equality
Freedom and Self-determination
12
1. Name each issue in a way that does not favor a particular
approach.
2. Provide options for action that reflect the things that
people consider valuable.
3. Clearly expose the tensions between the advantages and
disadvantages of each option.
4. Avoid frameworks that lend themselves from selecting “all
of the above.”
5. Describe consequences in terms of their effects on what is
valuable, not just practical.
13
6. Recognize unpopular points of view.
7. Present each option in the most positive light
8. Avoid making the pros of one option into the cons of
another.
9. Avoid prompting the usual conversations.
10. Allow people to “stew” and recognize the undesirable
results of their favored option.
14

Why is this important to you?

How could that be accomplished?

Whose voice is not represented here?

What do/don’t you like about this approach?

What underlying values are important to people who
favor this approach?

What are the costs, consequences, and trade-offs?

Reference: “Facilitating Public Issues: Best Practices” in
ANGEL course readings folder for tips about successful
questioning techniques.
15
Personal Reflection


How has your thinking about issue changed?
What have you learned that surprised you?
Group Reflection

Is there a shared sense of direction or common ground?
Tensions





What are we still struggling with as a group?
What do we still need to talk about?
Which trade offs are we (or are we not) willing to make?
Whose voice was not at the table?
What will we do with what we learned today?
16