Envisioning the Role of Facilitation in Public Deliberation

Abstract

Research has neglected a critical factor in promoting successful citizen deliberation: the public forum facilitator. The facilitators create the discursive framework needed to make deliberation happen while setting the tone and the tenor for how and what participants discuss. This essay brings facilitators more clearly into the discussions about deliberative practice by offering an expanded and nuanced notion of facilitation in action. I modify D. Ryfe's continuum of involvement concept to outline three distinct types of facilitators: passive, moderate, and involved. Using this continuum, I investigate how the various moves, types of talk, and discursive strategies used by each of these facilitators differ during six National Issues Forums style deliberations. Results demonstrate that facilitators are not neutral, inactive participants in deliberative forums. The analysis indicates that the pedagogical choices made by facilitators about their involvement in forums affect deliberative talk and trajectories. Scholars evaluating deliberation should take into account facilitation and its different dimensions.

Keywords:

• Deliberation
• Facilitation
• National Issues Forums
• Public Forums
• Political Communication

This work is the result of a collaboration with the Charles F. Kettering Foundation. Any interpretations and conclusions are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, its staff, directors, or officers. The author wishes to thank Alice Diebel, staff of the Institute for Civic Discourse and Democracy, Michele Jackson, and the anonymous reviewers for their guidance.

Notes

[1] Black et al. (2011) notes hearing David Mathews, Charles F. Kettering Foundation president, argue against the idea of facilitation. The collection of Mathews' published works indicates an emphasis on facilitators' purpose and centrality to his vision of deliberation. A recent NIF Institute Guide to Forums includes a directive for the facilitators to “think through the essence of each approach” as it is “a critical part of preparation.” These guides give the impression that the facilitators should be engaged in the process from start to finish.

[2] Ryfe uses the terms “weak” and “strong” to describe the facilitators which may erroneously infer a judgment about a facilitator's leadership ability. To avoid this problem, the terms were renamed to more accurately reflect the facilitator's involvement.