The previous chapter helped you appreciate and participate in deliberative discussions. It explained the goals, historical uses, benefits, and limitations of such discussions. It also described five intellectual virtues participants should adopt to ensure productive conversations.

But how do you lead deliberative discussions? This chapter provides detailed instructions for facilitators. The chapter will first identify the basic structure a deliberative discussion can follow. It then explores one of the most important facilitation tasks: asking effective questions. Next, we provide instructions for helping participants talk through an issue instead of talking about it. The chapter ends with additional specific tasks that discussion leaders should fulfill.

Deliberative Discussion Structure

How should you begin a deliberative discussion? What should you spend the most time on? How might you conclude a discussion? Facilitators often use a template or structure for guiding participants through a deliberative discussion. We will adopt a structure inspired by the National Issues Forum (NIF). It includes five major stages: personal stakes, approach one, approach two, approach three, and reflection period. This structure can and should be adapted to suit a specific community’s problems and needs, and the structure itself evolves as NIF and related scholars and practitioners develop adaptations.

Personal Stakes

Deliberative discussions often begin with introducing personal stakes by inviting participants to state their connection to the issue. In chapter 10, we defined personal stakes as an individual’s financial, material, and/or psychological investments that could be improved or worsened based on how an issue is addressed. In chapter 20, we explained the related concept of stakeholders, or groups and organizations that have vested interests in a wicked problem and its outcome because of the impacts on their lives. Ideally, participants in your deliberative discussion include a variety of stakeholders.

As a facilitator, you can invite discussion participants to self-disclose their personal stakes in the issue. Ask if they are comfortable sharing their connections to the problem and even how it has impacted them or people close to them.

This stage serves several functions. It encourages discussants to empathize with one another and gravitate toward shared concerns and interests. It also immediately moves the discussion from an abstract consideration of the topic to something more tangible and personal. Finally, this opening helps equalize participants because it avoids formal introductions that could emphasize differing degrees of societal power.

Approaches

After the personal stakes stage, a deliberative discussion group typically explores each of three or more approaches, one at a time. Recall from the previous chapters that the deliberative presentation and the deliberative discussion work hand in hand. In setting up the discussion, the deliberative presentation identifies and explains the problem and each of the approaches that participants will consider during the discussion.

Deliberative discussions explore every approach with the goal of building public knowledge. In the previous chapter, we defined public knowledge as participants’ shared and improved understanding of the wicked problem and possible solutions as they offer and hear multiple points of view.

To build such knowledge, facilitators encourage participants to share their perspectives on each approach, consider and possibly generate specific actions that fall within that approach, invite consideration of what stakeholders stand to lose or gain from the approach, and evaluate the benefits and drawbacks (i.e., trade-offs) of the approach.

Discussion leaders also ask participants to weigh approaches, specific actions, and values against one another. Such weighing requires discussants to really talk through the problem and confront tough choices rather than simply talking about each approach independently. We’ll more fully explore this task in a later section about the groan zone.

Reflection Period

A deliberative discussion usually ends with a reflection period. This stage allows discussants to reflect on the conversation they just had and shifts them toward public judgment. We defined public judgment in the previous chapter as the community’s thoughtful choice about its desired approach or next steps to address the problem based on the public knowledge developed during the discussion.

As a facilitator, it is typically not helpful to use the reflection period to merely repeat what was said during the discussion. Instead, it is more useful to highlight or invite participants to name the common ground and key tensions that arose during the discussion.

By recognizing common ground and key tensions, the reflection period helps the group identify which approaches and actions they prefer and the next steps to address the issue. They should try to name actions appropriate for a wide range of actors, including ideas for community members in addition to elected or appointed officials or experts. While the group may not achieve consensus about the actions it prefers, the members should decide the next steps to take to continue their momentum.

Talking through all five stages of a deliberative discussion can be time-consuming and tiresome. Indeed, it’s not always possible when time does not allow. In those cases, you may need to truncate the stages, such as by shortening the personal stakes stage or even spending time on two approaches instead of three. However you progress through the discussion, asking effective questions is critical to a productive deliberative discussion.

Asking Effective Questions

Asking effective questions is crucial to facilitating a deliberative discussion. Questions drive discussions. Knowing when to narrow or broaden questions and what type of questions to ask are skills a discussion leader must learn over time.

Use Broad and Narrow Questions During the Deliberation Stages

Starting Questions

Early in a discussion, relatively broader questions—that is, questions that are not overly narrow or specific—tend to help, especially about participants’ personal stakes in the issue. Box 23.2 includes examples of broad questions. You want participants to learn about one another, and such questions invite a wide array of responses.

Broader questions are also best when you start a conversation about each of the approaches. Beginning that way allows discussants, rather than facilitators, to determine what specific ideas or trade-offs they want to consider.

If you begin a conversation about an approach with questions that are overly specific, the discussion can become mired in details and, consequently, lose participants. On the other hand, if questions are too broad or unclear to begin with, the discussion will suffer from confusion. Box 23.7 illustrates this tension with a specific example.

Midway Questions

As discussion about each approach progresses, somewhat more specific questions work well to guide participants. For each approach, consider following this sequence of questions:

• A discussion leader can start with a broad question about an approach’s benefits.
  • Then they can follow up with somewhat more specific questions, such as why or which stakeholders are advantaged.
    • Next the leader can narrow participants’ attention to particular sample actions and ask even more specific questions: Which sample action does the group find most appealing? Why? For whom?
    • The facilitator can do the same as they turn to the approach’s trade-offs. Which trade-offs are most concerning? Why? For whom?
  • The leader can end discussion of an approach by asking rather pointed questions: Do the benefits of this approach outweigh the drawbacks for our community? Why or why not? Is this approach more or less desirable than other approaches? Why or why not?

Ending Reflection Questions

The reflection period can be a time to return to broader questions to encourage participants to reflect on the entire issue and think ahead to the next steps. Boxes 23.5 and 23.6 provide examples of broad questions.

Whenever facilitators ask questions, they should keep in mind several considerations in addition to how broadly or narrowly to word them.

Question Forms and Directions

Discussion leaders should also consider both the form and the direction of their questions. Typically, you should ask open-ended and indirect questions.

Question Forms

There are two major forms of questions: open and closed.

Open questions call for more than a one-word response, making possible a range of answers.

• “What are your reactions to…?”
• “For what reasons do you believe that…?”
• “How do you feel about…?”

Open questions are usually the best type of questions to generate discussion because they allow a wide variety of responses.

Closed questions prompt a single, one-word answer—usually yes or no.

• “Is this option your favorite choice?”
• “Would you agree that…?”
• “Can we conclude, then, that…?”

Closed questions can be helpful for shifting the focus of discussion, for stopping someone from going on a tangent, or for preventing someone from dominating the discussion. However, closed questions should be used sparingly because they tend to shut down conversation. You should almost always avoid “Don’t you think…?” questions because they are actually veiled arguments.

Question Directions

A question can take at least four directions: indirect, direct, reverse, and relay.

Indirect questions target the entire group and tend to stimulate thought. They are very useful for deliberative discussions.

• “What might be the consequences of choosing this solution?”

Direct questions target one individual and should be used sparingly to draw out timid group members.

• “Tim, how do you respond to what Joan just said?”

Reverse questions reflect a question back to the group and are especially helpful in preventing the discussion from turning into a question-and-answer session.

• After Tim has asked which approach the leaders like best, you could respond by asking the whole group, “Well, how would you all answer Tim’s question?”

Relay questions encourage group members to share experiences. This can help ground the conversation in personal examples and better understand where someone is coming from.

• “Nia, what experiences have informed your perspective?”

Ultimately, keep in mind that good discussion leading is both an art and a science. That means a good leader prepares for a discussion as much as possible. For example, develop a list of questions for each of the five stages of the discussion, anticipate how the discussion is likely to unfold given the topic and specific participants, and think through how you might respond to potential difficulties, such as members who dominate, withdraw, or try to debate.

At the same time, the art of discussion leading lies in the following abilities: remaining present during the actual discussion, listening closely to the participants’ comments, observing nonverbal communication, and guiding the discussion accordingly. The discussion may take a totally different direction than anticipated and unforeseen challenges may arise. A good discussion leader adapts to the situation as it develops. They also use questions to guide participants into the groan zone.

The Heart of a Deliberative Discussion: Working Through the Issue

When a discussion leader is executing their role well by asking effective questions and adapting to the group’s needs, participants will raise numerous conflicting perspectives on the problem, approaches, and specific sample actions. That experience typically leads participants to encounter what Sam Kaner and associates have labeled the groan zone. The groan zone is a stage of confusion and frustration that results from the broad representation of viewpoints, opinions, and ideas shared.^[1] Put simply, this is when participants groan and say, “Ugh! This problem is too complicated and hard!”

Effectively dealing with this zone requires participants to work through diverse perspectives and not simply name them. As we mentioned earlier, they must weigh options against one another, confronting tough choices—and working through the conflict such confrontation brings—rather than simply talking about each approach independently. That means probing more deeply to explore their conflicting reasons and values. The objective of deliberative discussions, after all, is to discover and discuss the real underlying sources of conflict so the group can ultimately move through the groan zone into shared public judgment.

Due to the discomfort of the groan zone, deliberative discussion participants may try to skirt around it. This section will explore three common ways a group might avoid the groan zone and specific strategies you can use in each case.

When Participants Claim They Need More Information

Some groups may claim they need more information before discussing the issue. Of course, there is some truth to this. In the previous chapter, we discussed the importance of researching and correcting misinformation and disinformation when preparing a deliberative presentation. However, wicked problems result from deep disagreements over underlying values and trade-offs rather than a lack of sufficient information.

Thus, if requests for information emerge and the discussion leader cannot easily fulfill them, then the leader should encourage discussants to temporarily set their questions aside and gear their conversation, instead, toward the larger issues involved.

When Participants Emphasize Their Differences

Alternatively, groups may try to avoid the groan zone by solely emphasizing their differences from one another, perhaps due to misconceptions they have about one another. To work through the issue, participants can be asked to identify their relevant common ground. Common ground refers to any perspectives, interests, values, or concerns shared by some or all members of the discussion. Even discussants with opposing perspectives are likely to agree on important core values, fundamental aspects of the problem, or particular needs.

Sometimes participants’ disagreements are reflected in their use of very different labels, phrases, or metaphors to discuss the problem or the people affected. Some of these terms may be off-putting or even offensive to other participants, driving them further apart as well as away from the groan zone.

Consequently, facilitators should draw attention to such divisive or controversial rhetoric and invite participants to discuss and even contest its meaning and implications. This invitation “calls out” the language while “calling in” participants to share why they used or objected to it.^[2] It avoids shaming or silencing participants while also enabling frank conversations around divisive language. Such direct conversations can give participants a chance to explain why certain catchphrases or metaphors are dehumanizing, are unfair, or even draw on histories of oppression. The discussion can also reveal where and why participants perceive the problem differently. A facilitator can use those insights to guide participants through the groan zone, likely after they have asked the group which phrases and labels they will agree to use or avoid.

When Participants Quickly Agree

In contrast to emphasizing differences, groups may try to avoid the groan zone by too quickly agreeing. They may, for instance, agree on the best solution before exploring its trade-offs or additional stakeholders’ perspectives, or they may simply state preferences without offering reasons behind them.

In cases like this, a discussion leader should probe participants for the reasons, values, and personal experiences that inform their conclusions. A discussion leader may also ask the group to consider the costs, challenges, and trade-offs of their preferred option to encourage the exploration of possible disagreements.

Ideally, as the discussion progresses through the groan zone using the strategies provided, participant investment increases. Discussants begin explaining their reasoning, listening to others, and weighing options. Participants shift from their individual perspective (“I”) to using collective terms that reflect their broader shared community (“we”). Encouraging participants to talk through the groan zone requires discussion leaders to create an inclusive environment.

Creating an Inclusive Environment

The discussion leader is responsible for creating an inclusive environment in which all participants can contribute. That means facilitators must seek to engage all participants, help quieter members join, excite discussants to want to participate, and allow the conversation to flow.

Engage All Participants

First, discussion leaders seek to engage everyone in a productive manner, no matter their ideological, political, or personal perspectives. That means facilitators should do the following:

• 

  Avoid answering questions themselves and withhold their own opinions. As discussed in chapter 20, a discussion leader may share personal experiences related to the wicked problem if/when relevant, but you should avoid dominating the discussion or swaying opinions toward one solution.

• Function like a referee at a football game or soccer match. The leader is not focused on who wins or loses but rather on how the game is played. They should refrain from taking sides.
• Intervene if any participant is personally attacked or ridiculed.
• If a group repeatedly asks them questions, leaders should redirect the questions back to the discussants to answer.

Help Quieter Members Join the Discussion

Second, discussion leaders should also create an inclusive environment by helping quieter members get involved. For example, facilitators can try the following:

• Invite multiple participants to respond to a single question.
• Redirect the conversation outward if one or two people dominate.
• Allow silence after asking a question and even after hearing a couple of responses, since discussants need time to consider their input, and some need more time than others.
• Rephrase the question or even direct it toward a specific person if no one responds after a period of silence.

Excite Discussants to Participate

Third, getting diverse participants engaged also means creating an atmosphere in which members want to participate. That means that as facilitators, you should do the following:

• Ask questions with enthusiasm, maintaining eye contact with group members if that is comfortable or possible for you.
• Be conscious of your facial expressions and posture. Your body may communicate messages you don’t intend to send (disgust, disinterest, anger, etc.).
• Express gratitude when a participant shares something personal or vulnerable.

Allow the Conversation to Flow

Finally, facilitators allow the conversation to flow if it is on topic. Sticking too strictly to a prepared list of questions may squelch discussants’ interest and wrest too much control away from them. With that said, it is OK to get the discussion back on topic if a string of irrelevant tangents arises.

Remember, participants will naturally look to the leader for cues, so if you are positive and welcoming, you can succeed at drawing multiple participants into a productive and healthy conversation.

Specific Discussion Facilitation Tasks

In addition to creating an inclusive environment, deliberative discussion facilitation consists of several important tasks. Typically, at least two facilitators lead a deliberative discussion: a moderator, who sits with the group and asks questions through the stages of a discussion, and a recorder, who takes notes of the group’s conversation. It is very difficult to guide a group’s discussion and take notes simultaneously.

Further dividing facilitation tasks among a small group of discussion leaders enables each person to focus on just one or two jobs, yet it also necessitates a greater degree of cooperation among group members. However many people facilitate a discussion, the tasks listed in box 23.10 should be accomplished to help ensure its success.