This statement is one that I wrote after I participated in a group deliberation activity in class. At one point in the deliberation, I was a moderator and wrote this paper about my specific style of moderating and how successful or unsuccessful it may have been. I talk about some strategies that did work and some that didn't. I hope you enjoy.
Moderator Philosophy Statement
During my experience as the moderator for my group’s deliberation, I learned many things about how I moderate. I discovered that I seek to encourage a more furious type of deliberation, in the sense that everybody would get time to talk and make a point, but the point would have to be made quickly so as to keep the deliberation going and to allow others who would like to make their points and express their views, do exactly that. To achieve this goal, I incorporated a speaking time of sorts. My partner and I allotted forty-five seconds for each individual who wanted to speak. This was not strictly enforced, however. It was used as a tool to cut down on points that were maybe redundant or to force people who were rambling to quickly wrap up their statements so that others may comment. I felt this tool was fairly effective when it came to encouraging more deliberation, however, it is a tool much better suited for much larger groups, such as a general assembly meeting within the United Nations.
While I was the moderator, one of the individuals made a comment relating to how the government had become “too big” and how that person was tired of “the government running [their] life”. Even though this comment was technically on the topic of government involvement in the issue of sustainability, I still felt that it would quickly encourage the group to take the deliberation in a much different direction than I would have liked it to go in. So I acted against it by declaring that area of discussion as off-topic and, therefore, not of our immediate concern. This showed me that, even though I personally love to discuss politics in any given situation, as the moderator, I try to avoid having others unnecessarily discussing it when they could be directing the conversation in more fruitful directions.
Overall, what I have discovered about my moderating style is that I seek to lead an orderly discussion which address the large points of the issue first, and then delves into the smaller issues that correspond with the bigger issues. I seek to allow everyone to express their ideas and try and keep the conversation from being dominated by only a select few people. I feel that this is the best way to run a deliberation seeing as it is composed of many people and not just three or four who are the loudest of the group. Through the method I have described, a fruitful deliberation can be had on any topic that is worth discussing, because everyone, big or small, young or old, educated or not, has the ability to put forth their ideas to the community in an attempt to serve a greater good. This I believe.
Moderator Philosophy Statement
During my experience as the moderator for my group’s deliberation, I learned many things about how I moderate. I discovered that I seek to encourage a more furious type of deliberation, in the sense that everybody would get time to talk and make a point, but the point would have to be made quickly so as to keep the deliberation going and to allow others who would like to make their points and express their views, do exactly that. To achieve this goal, I incorporated a speaking time of sorts. My partner and I allotted forty-five seconds for each individual who wanted to speak. This was not strictly enforced, however. It was used as a tool to cut down on points that were maybe redundant or to force people who were rambling to quickly wrap up their statements so that others may comment. I felt this tool was fairly effective when it came to encouraging more deliberation, however, it is a tool much better suited for much larger groups, such as a general assembly meeting within the United Nations.
While I was the moderator, one of the individuals made a comment relating to how the government had become “too big” and how that person was tired of “the government running [their] life”. Even though this comment was technically on the topic of government involvement in the issue of sustainability, I still felt that it would quickly encourage the group to take the deliberation in a much different direction than I would have liked it to go in. So I acted against it by declaring that area of discussion as off-topic and, therefore, not of our immediate concern. This showed me that, even though I personally love to discuss politics in any given situation, as the moderator, I try to avoid having others unnecessarily discussing it when they could be directing the conversation in more fruitful directions.
Overall, what I have discovered about my moderating style is that I seek to lead an orderly discussion which address the large points of the issue first, and then delves into the smaller issues that correspond with the bigger issues. I seek to allow everyone to express their ideas and try and keep the conversation from being dominated by only a select few people. I feel that this is the best way to run a deliberation seeing as it is composed of many people and not just three or four who are the loudest of the group. Through the method I have described, a fruitful deliberation can be had on any topic that is worth discussing, because everyone, big or small, young or old, educated or not, has the ability to put forth their ideas to the community in an attempt to serve a greater good. This I believe.
RSS Feed