The original material posted on this page has been adopted 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.
Macoubrie's operational levels chart has four levels, to which I've added a fifth to accommodate methods like Dynamic Facilitation where the "weighing" - that is usually considered central to deliberation - is so nonlinear that some (including Jim Rough the creator of Dynamic Facilitation) don't consider it deliberation at all. But Macoubrie's Level Four comes so close to including Dynamic Facilitation that I found it worthwhile to include a Level Five, if only to make it clear what's possible and to stimulate further exploration. (It may also make sense to simply divide Level Four into two parts, Constructed and Breakthrough.)
I feel this is within the realm of Macoubrie's frame of reference because she says, "Integrating different perspectives to form a satisfactory decision ... lifts deliberation into the realm of creativity, where the problem is not just one of consideration and weighing, but one of devising solutions that satisfy different perspectives.... Solutions that satisfy an array of goals and perspectives require putting thoughts and ideas together in entirely new ways." This comes right to the edge of Dynamic Facilitation.
Using conversation analysis Macoubrie can quantify the amount of conversation in each segment of a deliberation that falls into each Level of her chart. And, since the higher Levels represent higher quality deliberative conversation, she can track and describe the quality of deliberative conversation throughout the deliberation. This provides not only one measurement of success (there could be others, such as legitimacy, recommendation effectivenes, etc.), but also guidance on interventions. Her papers, above, provide an example of how she used these measurements to decide on an intervention on the last day of an online Consensus Conference which had a profound effect on the quality of the deliberative conversation - an effect she was then able to measure quite elegantly.
-- Tom Atlee
See also Basic Elements Of Deliberation, particularly the note about "weighing" and nonlinear processes
Five Operational Levels of Democratic Deliberation
Most Levels describe individual cognitive or speech acts which can be observed and quantified. Level Five is observed primarily through group dynamics and energetics, but can also be analyzed and quantified through individual speech acts.
Creatively Energized Deliberation (Beyond Deliberation?)
5. Emergent Breakthrough
Free-flowing co-creativity and high quality listening produces integrating insight(s) and solution(s) by shared realization - often with a collective "aha!" - rather than collaborative construction and compromise (see "How to Make a Decision without Making a Decision" http://co-intelligence.org/I-decisionmakingwithout.html). Individual behaviors: offers a new insight, integrating articulation or integrating solution that comes out of and moves beyond what others have said - especially when it is part of a series of such comments triggering each other among several participants; expresses energetic or heartful appreciation (including through body languate) of another participant's creative idea (beyond simple agreement); makes comments indicating a major transformation in thinking or feeling. [For possible others, see note below.]
Active Deliberation
4. Integrative Decision Resolution
Develops integrating solution or frame of reference; changes issue views; agrees on integrated solution; changes preferred solution; clarifies points of agreement and remaining disagreement in effort to move towards greater agreement.
3. Cognitive Integration
Agrees/disagrees, explains, relates to other issue; requests information about other*s views; provides information in response to request; accepts position, adds new argument and issue; tries to persuade by taking into account the views of another; includes multiple viewpoints or options in one's evaluation or critique; critiques one's own viewpoint or solution.
Moving into Deliberation
2. Thoughtful Argument
Agrees/disagrees and explains (provides reasoned support for one's position or disagreement); offers criteria for solution; contributes facts.
1. Exchange Views
Agrees, disagrees, acknowledges other*s view, offers own view, raises a topic
. NOTE: There are speech acts that support Emergent Breakthrough, but I'm not sure if they belong AT level five or earlier. This conceptual awkwardness MAY indicate that methods like Dynamic Facilitation and Choice Creating do, indeed, belong in an entirely separate category from deliberation, and deserve a scale of speech acts of their own. These speech acts include: reflecting or mirroring what another says or feels in an effort to understand AND help the other feel fully heard (e.g., "I'm hearing you say X. Am I getting that right?"); collegially challenging another to push their ideas further in creative directions (e.g., "If you were in charge of things here, what would YOU do?"); framing one's own (or inviting another to frame their) complaints and critiques as "concerns". These are standard facilitation tools in Dynamic Facilitation, and are often used by participants with each other in non-facilitated Choice Creating groups.
Tom: I don't see a difference between your Level 5 and My Level 4. I think Level 4 already includes Level 5, even if the brief explanation given in the paper does not use an example that explicitly says "outside what has already been said." An integrative solution can be a new combination of old ideas, but does not exclude a new idea. JM
:Jane: very true. I wondered about that myself. I wrote earlier (in para 2 above) "It may also make sense to simply divide Level Four into two parts, Constructed and Breakthrough." Ultimately this may be best decided by studying tapes of normal deliberations and Dynamic Facilitation to see if, indeed, there are phenomena more characteristic of the latter, or if the latter is just a concentration of Level 4 phenomena. -- Tom Atlee
