Ammara Ansari CAS 138T Anne Kretsinger-Harries Moderator Philosophy Moderators essentially use listening and directing skills

to lead a deliberation. The main goal of one who moderates is to provoke greater understanding between the participants and to take care that the deliberation runs smoothly. But how are these goals achieved?

Ideologically, the moderator excludes her own sentiments from a focused deliberation and keeps the participants levelheaded. She allows everyones voices to be heard while refraining from expressing her own biases. A moderator also must be confident in times of conflict between the participants. J ohn Gastil, in his Political Communication and Deliberation, does believe that disagreement can be positive (pg. 26). For this reason moderators should not intervene too much. But at the same time they need to restrict any serious clash between the participants. Making sure that the deliberation sticks to the issue at hand is a vital part of the moderators role as well. Time is always limited in these discussions and sidetracking is a luxury that one cannot afford. Yet how should a moderator put these principles of deliberation into practice?

The moderator must follow certain steps in order for any deliberation to be successful. First, it is important to introduce the issue at hand. When acting as moderators for our Rhetoric and Civic Life class issues forum, Mike and I divided the introduction on economic incentives imposed by the government in order to solve the problem of pollution. Providing a clear

introduction helps the participants focus on what is to come. Then the moderator should start with questions that allow the participants to voice their initial thoughts on the issue. Then as time progresses, the questions should get deeper and deeper into the matter. The moderator should make sure, however, that people are given enough time to answer each question and respond to each other. When the time is over, the moderators should wrap up the deliberation and review the discussion. They should ask questions like: Have your points of view changed throughout the deliberation? Is there anything else you would like to add? Is there anything different you would like to have seen in the conversation? The purpose of reflection is to wrap up the deliberation and to see whether the participants have come to a consensus with the arguments put forward.

When observing my own moderation techniques, I discovered both the strengths and the challenges I have to overcome. My method did have some positive aspects. For instance, even though I felt that I did not speak as well as I could, I was confident. Moreover, I knew how to keep the conversation tied to the question that I asked. When Jeff and Pavara started elaborating on bombs and attacks on the United States, I told them to stop and went ahead with the deliberation in order to avoid conflict. I also noted that I kept my own opinions out of the pool. Instead of talking about my own beliefs on economic incentives as a means to reduce pollution (except for in the reflection), I let the participants express themselves. Lastly, even though I had to improvise and create my own questions, they often sparked conversation amongst the participants. An example would be when I asked the group what should be taxed in the economy if not food or fossil fuels and taxation was the only way to solve the sustainability issue. However, I definitely found challenges while trying moderate. For example I seemed not to be able to form my questions correctly and kept stuttering. In addition, the questions I had prepared

for the deliberation on the issue were extremely basic and the class was too ahead in communication skills to be bored by simplicity. That is why I often had to make up questions on the spot. I intend to improve my moderation skills by coming up with more complex questions and rehearsing the way I will ask them. But I as a moderator cannot be successful if the participants are not willing to actually take part in the deliberation.

One can see, then, that the role of the participants is also vital. Although moderators are supposed to prepare their own questions and direct the conversation, the participants are often meant to take things into their own hands. It is beneficial if the participants ask each other questions or respond to each others comments. This way the deliberation has a natural flow. The participants should be willing to express their opinions and hear from others.

Overall, the goal of the moderator should be to encourage active participation in the deliberative process; she should be the ears rather than the mouth.

Works Cited Gastil, John. Political Communication and Deliberation. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, 2008. Print.