Learning for Deliberation Quadrant
Recently I was asked what my Masters degree research proved.
I had to explain that social research is primarily about finding meaning in the world. While numbers can play a part, explanations are often based on observing patterns and interpreting them in their particular context. The positivist concept of proof just doesn't fit.
In the citizens jury case I studied, I was interested in how the approach taken by the experts and stakeholders who presented to them affected the deliberation. I had coached the presenters to provide a workshop and talk with the jury rather than at them, but none seriously took my advice. However, I was able to make a clear qualitative distinction between those who were warm and open to conversation with the jury, and those who were decidedly not. I respectively categorised these presentation styles facilitative (generously) and authoritative.
In this particular case, the jury was substantially aligned in their preferences from the start. In addition, both presentation approaches were evident in the two overarching positions presented. This created an ad-hoc experimental opportunity, the findings of which can be summarised in the following table, which I called the Learning for Deliberation Quadrant:
In this case I demonstrated that an authoritative approach to address citizens preparing to deliberate does not serve the enterprise as well as a more facilitative approach, regardless of the expounded position.
This also supports my claim that the learning phase of participatory processes like citizens juries or citizens assemblies should align in its communicative ideals to the deliberation which follows. Most importantly, the respect for and knowledge of participants needs to be acknowledged.
I had to explain that social research is primarily about finding meaning in the world. While numbers can play a part, explanations are often based on observing patterns and interpreting them in their particular context. The positivist concept of proof just doesn't fit.
In the citizens jury case I studied, I was interested in how the approach taken by the experts and stakeholders who presented to them affected the deliberation. I had coached the presenters to provide a workshop and talk with the jury rather than at them, but none seriously took my advice. However, I was able to make a clear qualitative distinction between those who were warm and open to conversation with the jury, and those who were decidedly not. I respectively categorised these presentation styles facilitative (generously) and authoritative.
In this particular case, the jury was substantially aligned in their preferences from the start. In addition, both presentation approaches were evident in the two overarching positions presented. This created an ad-hoc experimental opportunity, the findings of which can be summarised in the following table, which I called the Learning for Deliberation Quadrant:
| Authoritative Presenter | Facilitative Presenter | |
| Juror agrees with position | Authority of Jury is not enhanced. Strengths and relevance of position not fully recognised. | Strengths and relevance of position recognised. Weaknesses of position not fully recognised. |
| Juror disagrees with position | Antipathy is enhanced. Strengths and relevance of position not fully recognised. Weaknesses of position recognised. | Relevance of and respect for position is enhanced. |
In this case I demonstrated that an authoritative approach to address citizens preparing to deliberate does not serve the enterprise as well as a more facilitative approach, regardless of the expounded position.
This also supports my claim that the learning phase of participatory processes like citizens juries or citizens assemblies should align in its communicative ideals to the deliberation which follows. Most importantly, the respect for and knowledge of participants needs to be acknowledged.
Post a Comment