The original material posted on this page was adapted and expanded by Tom Atlee from Jane Macoubrie's "Conditions for Citizen Deliberation" http://www.ncsu.edu/chass/communication/www/faculty_profiles/macoubrie/ConditionsforDemoDelib.rtf and "Internet-Mediated Democratic Deliberation" http://www.ncsu.edu/chass/communication/www/faculty_profiles/macoubrie/MediatedDemocrDeliberation.rtf which include extensive references to her own sources regarding the elements of deliberation. Two particularly detailed references are given below, from Appendices 1 and 2 of Macoubrie's first paper.
"The emergence of crowd psychology is much less likely in smaller, deliberatively heterogeneous, moderated, and information-focused groups, meeting over time." - Jane Macoubrie
see also Operational Levels Of Democratic Deliberation
Macoubrie's "Level Model of Democratic Deliberation" has three levels, to which Atlee added a fourth ('intrapersonal"), to produce the following:
FOUR LEVEL MODEL OF DEMOCRATIC DELIBERATION
Political System Process Level Group Process Level Interpersonal Level Personal Level
+++
Political System Process Level - features of political systems that support quality deliberation, or design factors that are outside of the control of facilitators and participants
- representativeness; diversity reflective of the larger population
- independence from partisan bias - the process is not controlled by partisan interests; partisan information and views are included, but in a balanced way; out-of-session lobbying of participants may be limited, so they aren't unduly pressured or tempted to neglect the deliberative merits of the case
- early involvement - citizens are engaged before certain values-based options dominate the decision-making process
- potential for impact - on decision-makers (often directly) and/or on the broad public (often via media or broader public dialogue)
- process transparency - the public can see what is going on and how decisions are made
- resource accessibility - information, funds, support personnel, etc., needed for the deliberation to succeed
- cost effectiveness - the deliberative design chosen should provide a quality outcome meeting the needs of the situation with the least expenditure
- institutionalized process designs - for example, Consensus Conference - which determines a particular approach to deliberation
- good group process design that supports the other elements
- good group process facilitation that supports the other elements, including by productively directing (but not manipulating) the group's attention
- an adequately defined group task or "charge"
- clarifying shared goals, which may be reconsidered as needed
- achieving specific deliberative subtasks (e.g., developing common goals, analyzing problems, identifying solutions, identifying shared evaluative criteria, evaluating solutions, crafting decisional statements, etc.)
- having mechanisms for structuring and displaying work
- an open, decentralized process that allows free information flow, free thought, voluntary change and increased understanding within and among participants
- a heterogeneous discussion/dialogue involving a range of diverse views, arguments, interests, options, etc.
- overt inclusion of differences of all kinds - including differences in modes of reasoning and communication (e.g., logical, mathematical, intuitive, narrative, conceptual, practical, etc.)
- information gathering, provision and sharing - especially access to balanced and heterogeneous information and views on all relevant dimensions of the issue (this is particularly effective with a combination of briefing materials and interactive engagement with experts)
- admitting and addressing informational issues such as quality, quantity, variety, balance, contrary info, sources, questions, etc.
- size-of-group issues are addressed - for example, large size may limit participation, interaction, and minority influence if not consciously addressed, e.g., by arranging for parallel deliberations in subgroups with some means for integration
- time issues are dealt with - length of deliberation, length of sessions, timeliness of recommendations, etc. - for there is such a thing as too long, too short, too soon, too late, too often, etc.
- all parties are exposed to the reasoning behind diverse positions and recommendations
- respectful dialogue, ensuring that participants have sufficient opportunity to speak
- vigilant (critically aware) and systematic (thorough) engagement with the problem or issue
- maximizing focus on substantive'' issues, reasoning and challenges, while minimizing ''non-substantive normative pressures, personal attacks, dismissive and perjoritive comments, etc.
- no control over the content of the dialogue, itself, so that the group has considerable control regarding how it views the nature of the problems and possible solutions it is considering (within the confines of its defined task or charge)
- in internet deliberations: synchronous virtual meetings preferable to asynchronous postings
- in internet deliberations: no topic threading, which divide and confuse the group
- in internet deliberations: moderator interventions to assist collaboration and integration if conversation degrades
- listening to each other
- articulating one's own views, including one's reasoning for one's positions and explanations for one's criteria and one's disagreements with others
- considering and comparing each others' views - reasoning collaboratively, not just in an attempt to persuade - which includes evaluating, critiquing and integrating different perspectives, including one's own
- cognitive engagement with each other, focusing on substantive'' issues, reasoning and challenges, while minimizing ''non-substantive normative pressures, personal attacks, empty dismissals, etc.
- asking substantive questions, including clarifying one's own failures to understand others' points
- analyzing the problems in question
- identifying a range of solutions - including creating new options as necessary, especially to address (in an integrated fashion) newly-understood diverse views, needs, interests, goals, circumstances, etc. (i.e., the picture that's bigger than one thought it was when one started out...)
- identifying shared evaluative criteria
- evaluating the merits of various solutions
- identifying areas of agreement and areas requiring further dialogue (can be done by voting)
- choosing and articulating preferred solutions, preferably through consensus, or through a mix of agreements and clarification of remaining disagreements with their divergent rationales - or, if necessary, through majority or supermajority vote or some proportional representation method
- becoming more aware of one's views, values, assumptions, etc., and owning them as one's own
- exposing and opening oneself to multiple perspectives and options
- evaluating information
- weighing options and their consequences
- seeking new possibilities and larger viewpoints that take into account the perspectives and needs of others
A Note re "Weighing"
Many of the cognitive activities embraced by the deliberative concept of "weighing" and organized by some processes into steps - developing common goals, framing problems, analyzing problems, identifying solutions, identifying shared evaluative criteria, evaluating solutions, etc. - are sometimes done non-sequentially or even extremely non-linearly. Research in creativity shows that most individual creative minds and spontaneous conversations among creative individuals do not proceed in a linear fashion, but jump around as one thought or image stimulates another, coming back and leaping forward, delving deeper, filling out details, and then leaping again, often leaving pieces of the puzzle undeveloped, and sometimes leaving the whole project on a back burner, only to have a breakthrough solution burst out in a dream or in the midst of other activity hours or days later.
Some group processes like Dynamic Facilitation (DF) attempt to support that kind of nonlinear creative exploration in groups. In "deliberative" activities using DF, participants don't rigorously weigh and compare every option and perspective, especially in a linear way. Rather, options and perspectives are explored when, as and for as long as the group has energy for them, and new options and perspectives (including new framings of the problem) are likely to emerge at any time.
While this has limited utility in the evaluation of pre-determined options (which is often the case in public deliberation activities), it is a powerful tool when existing options are unsatisfactory, when there is an impasse over existing options, or when the convening authority wishes to have citizens (or others) take a creative look at a larger issue or at the whole "state of the union [or community]".
The amount of deliberative conversation in such a nonlinear dialogue (see Operational Levels Of Democratic Deliberation) probably equals or exceeds that of normal deliberations due to its high energy (although this is subject to experimental verification); the ground covered is probably greater; and the full range of cognitive activities (identifying and analyzing problems, identifying and evaluating solutions, etc.) may be undertaken - yet any single option may not be considered (weighed) with the same depth or clear linearity as in more traditional forms of deliberation.
Therefore, whether such nonlinear forms should be categorized as "deliberative" is open to debate. However, it seems clear that they have a productive role to play in efforts to generate high-quality policy and program options through democratic discourse, in tandem with other forms of deliberation. So efforts have been made to include factors related to both linear and nonlinear forms on this and related pages.
-- Tom Atlee
Appendix 1 from Jane Macoubrie's "Conditions for Citizen Deliberation" http://www.ncsu.edu/chass/communication/www/faculty_profiles/macoubrie/ConditionsforDemoDelib.rtf
Evaluative/Necessary Criteria for Deliberative Processes - Rowe & Frewer (2000)
Acceptance Criteria 1. Criterion of representativeness: The participants should comprise a broadly representative sample of the population of the affected public 2. Criterion of Independence: The process should be conducted in an independent, unbiased way 3. Criterion of early involvement: The public should be involved as early as possible in the process as soon as value judgments become salient 4. Criterion of influence: The output of the procedure should have a genuine impact on policy 5. Criterion of transparency: The process should be transparent so that the public can see what is going on and how decisions are being made Process Criteria 6. Criterion of resource accessibility: Public participants should have access to the appropriate resources to enable them to successfully fulfill their brief 7. Criterion of task definition: The nature and scope of the participation task should be clearly defined 8. Criterion of structured decision making: The participation exercise should use/provide appropriate mechanisms for structuring and displaying the decision-making process 9. Criterion of cost-effectiveness: The procedure should in some sense be cost-effective
Summarized from Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25(1), 3-29.
Appendix 2 from Jane Macoubrie's "Conditions for Citizen Deliberation" http://www.ncsu.edu/chass/communication/www/faculty_profiles/macoubrie/ConditionsforDemoDelib.rtf
Deliberative Discourse Criteria - Burkhalter, Gastil, & Kelshaw (2002)
Careful Weighing Deliberation is characterized by engagement in problem analysis, identification of a range of solutions, evaluative criteria, and evaluation of solution merit. 1. Information. A discussion is more deliberative if it incorporates accurate knowledge of relevant information 2. Range of perspectives. A discussion is more deliberative if it considers a broad range of perspectives on an issue 3. Evaluative criteria. In deliberative forums, arguments need to link to evaluative criteria that are broadly, if not universally, shared 4. Evaluation of solutions. Participants in deliberation also must consistently apply these evaluative criteria to the full range of identified solutions to determine the impact of different solutions on the goals and interests of diverse stakeholders 5. Communication functions and democracy. Participants should have access to the necessary and available information, representing the diversity of interests involved. Participation Rights and Responsibilities 6. Sufficient opportunity to speak. Provide each participant in a deliberative group with adequate opportunities to speak 7. Adequate comprehension and consideration. Participants must speak intelligibly to one another, and must consider the arguments that other make, considing the arguments on their merits Language, Reasoning, and Dialogue 8. Respect differences in modes of reasoning. To successfully mediate divergent perspectives, language use, etc., deliberation requires creation of a common language for and reasoning about problems. 9. Include some measure of dialogue. Dialogue is an orientation to conflict that involves being open to changing what one believes and how one talks about and thinks about an issue.
Summarized from Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J., & Kershaw, T. (2002). A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Communication Theory, 12 (in press).
Hey, Tom. I just have one comment to add, and this perhaps deserves more thought as well. Your "personal" level of communication would not be recognized by the field of speech communication, except as intrapersonal communication. Intrapersonal communication, within one's self, is not, however, really quite accurately reflected in the list under that heading. Cognitive activity is a more accurate label for the sub list, and the distinction is that not all cognition is represented by conscious use or awareness of language. Having said that, it is an interesting idea from a research viewpoint to add intrapersonal communication to the model. Techniques to study intrapersonal communication as it might reflect deliberation could be really helpful. This thought I draw from present work in which a team of RAs and myself are using the operationalized 4-level model of deliberation in a study. We are finding that what is spoken certainly reflects some features of the 4-level measure of deliberation activity in my paper. The intrapersonal might also add a new layer of clarity about what is going on for people, however. [More later...ciao] -- Jane Macoubrie
:Thanks, Jane. Note that by dictionary definition, deliberation does not require communication. A person can do it by themselves (in their own heads) or'' with others. Deliberaton is (1) the act or process of thinking carefully, often slowly, about a choice to be made and (2) the act or process of consulting with another or others in a process of making a decision (American Heritage). So the idea that deliberation is going on inside at least some participants' heads while their group is in a deliberative process can, I think, be assumed as fact. However, ''measuring whether deliberation is happening inside someone's head is another challenge entirely! --TomAtlee
