Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

Brody Bassett

The Importance of Notetaking

by

Stock Image of Person notetaking

By Brody Bassett ’25 (DCI Fellow)

Going into my second semester of being a DCI facilitator, I was very excited to host my first D-Team of the new year! Before my D-Team, I made sure to look over my suggested self-improvements from last semester. Amidst the comments of stop fidgeting, sit up straight, and smile was buried the comment: “take notes.” While the comment seemed simple at first, I realized it held a lot of value. Notetaking allows the facilitator to record important ideas to follow up on and allows the facilitator to fade into the background.

In my previous DCI facilitator events, I always took notes but did not give them much attention. Notetaking was simply an extension of my memory, and from my notes, I was able to pull relevant questions and pose them to my group. The exercise of taking notes was helpful to me because while my brain was busy making sure DCI agreements were followed and monitoring everyone’s speaking time, I could simply write down important points brought up to the deliberation. This allowed me to put my main focus on the fluidity of the deliberation. When the time came, I had an abundance of questions to choose from to continue the conversation.

Simply, notetaking acts as an extension of the brain, so the facilitator can solely focus on maintaining the agreements and learning environment of the deliberation.

Secondly, the practice of taking notes allows the facilitator to fade into the background of the deliberation. By notetaking, the facilitator starts to resemble a scribe. A member of the group talks about their thoughts on a specific topic, and the facilitator diligently records the central point for comparison with other people’s ideas. It is important to state, however, that the facilitator must be careful not to become a scribe and remember that they are in charge of maintaining a good environment for deliberation. So the difference between a scribe and a facilitator is that the facilitator interjects comments in the deliberation to keep it on track and oriented towards the expected outcomes.

Keeping that thought in mind, the act of notetaking helps put the facilitator more at the same level as the members of the deliberation. The deliberators respect the facilitator’s advice and direction of the conversation while the facilitator respectfully records the main comments from the discussion to provide important points to return to later in the deliberation. This reinforces the idea that the facilitator is present not to simply direct and lead the conversation but to facilitate listening and sharing among the group, and will fade into and out of the conversation as needed to do so. Notetaking helps the facilitator remind the group of questions and ideas to consider.

At the time of writing this blog, my D Team has just finished the meeting, and I used my notetaking tactic. By notetaking, I was able to focus on maintaining a productive deliberation environment, and I found myself able to produce relevant questions for my group members to continue the conversation. Overall, I think notetaking is a valuable tool for a facilitator to use during their deliberations.

Don’t Expect It, but Persuasion is Possible

by

Stock Image of multiple headshots making the shape of a lightbulb.

By Brody Bassett ’25 (DCI Fellow)

Going into my first semester as a facilitator with the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative, I was excited to hopefully help people hear different opinions. I hoped to help facilitate discussion to break people out of potential “echo chambers,” so there could be more understanding between opposing viewpoints on and off Davidson’s campus. 

After my first week of facilitations, I was pleased with the development of the deliberations. The members of my group were openly conversing about their opinions and viewpoints. During the first session, I was able to see the different perspectives within the groups. These different perspectives led to differing political beliefs which were talked about during the discussion. I was happy to see that my deliberation team engaged with each other despite their differences in opinion.

One of the first deliberation topics of my session brought about a specific voting option: mail-in voting. People certainly had different opinions about this option and its effects on the overall electoral process.  Specifically, one person voiced the opinion that mail-in voting leads to a potential for less integrity within the voting system. Another individual from the deliberation voiced their own belief that mail-in voting allows more accessibility for working-class Americans. The two then began to weigh the pros and cons of the mail-in voting system, each expressing their own opinions. I was happy to facilitate this discussion, and both parties productively expressed their opinions while other members began to weigh in as well, leading to a fruitful exchange of ideas. My first facilitation lived up to my expectations as people shared different viewpoints, exposing each other to different opinions. In my next facilitation, however, the conversation did not follow my expectations.

As stated above, I was committed to being a facilitator of deliberation groups to hopefully show people different perspectives on politically contentious topics. I frankly did not realize the potential of deliberation groups to change people’s opinions on political topics. As facilitators, we don’t expect our group’s participants to necessarily alter their views on these topics; we are more focused on encouraging listening, sharing, and exploring new ideas together.  So my expectations were broken when I was pleasantly surprised that one of my D Team members humbly started our time by admitting that they conceded their viewpoint from the last deliberation. The member recounted specific details from the opposing point of view, leading them to the conclusion that they might be wrong. They shared this revelation with the group and thanked everyone for the discussion that helped change their viewpoint.

Following my second meeting with my D Team, I was impressed by the humility and the bravery the individual took to let go of their views and acknowledge to a group their change in opinion. This interaction showed me that deliberation groups were more than just tools to break people from their “echo chambers,” and that deliberations could bring people to accept new ideas. While not all the members of D Teams will come forward to share their change in opinion, the environment of a deliberation group does allow for the change of opinions in a healthy space. We shouldn’t expect it but it does happen and I was very pleased to see it firsthand.