Out in Public

McDonald references Govier when he explains that “the aim of public deliberation … need not be to consolidate different points of view but rather to learn, understand, and test a party’s beliefs about an issue by juxtaposing them with those of an opposing party” (McDonald, 200).  McDonald claims that democratic societies get great use out of public deliberations; “solutions that were unthinkable at the beginning of a controversy may eventually be considered and privileged by all parties (McDonald, 200).  Giving ‘the public’ space and opportunities to speak their mind and share their views on a subject may bring to the surface solutions that leaders had never even considered.

He introduces sociotechnical controversies, which pertain to society, science, and technology.  When these sociotechnical controversies arise, sociologists, scientists, and techies are not the only ones invited to deliberate.  ‘The public,’ though they do not share an expertise or vast knowledge of the subjects, are involved in the conversation.  “Deliberation forums over these controversies…allow experts to discuss social issues with ordinary citizens” (McDonald, 201).  Basically, where ever you sit on the “expert” spectrum, you are going to be exposed to new thoughts and ideas—and probably learn something—by participating in these public discussions.  “The deliberation exposes both experts and citizens to solutions they may have overlooked” (McDonald, 201).  After defining and explaining several uses of public deliberation, McDonald puts it into practice.  He turns to a specific case in which public deliberation was effective: the case of “Le Suroit.” 

Kaufer focuses on the practice, process, and teaching of writing public policy.  In his informative and instructional essay, he breaks down his pedagogy: the first stage is discussing generic sources of policy conflicts while the second stage focuses on steps for providing concrete plans for trying to resolve these conflicts.

According to Kaufer’s explanation, the conflict that McDonald shares in his essay (Le Suroit) should have sources (as in, what caused the conflict; where/how did it arise?) and should be argued from a specific level (1-5).  The sources include environmental and consumer protection groups, unions, independent experts, politicians, professors and ordinary citizens who believed that there were better options than one that will result in raising Quebec’s greenhouse emissions by 2.8% a year.  In this situation, they are not so much arguing against each other (like Kaufer’s example of two people arguing about a nice, big car), but rather looking for an alternative solution.  They share the evidence and have full understanding of the sense and frame of reference.  While HQ may be arguing for their solution, which they anticipate will lead to economic gains (local), the public is more concerned with the consequences of the environment on a more global scale.  Kaufer would agree that this is a level 5 conflict.  “Level 5 conflicts cannot be resolved directly” (Kaufer, 59).  Further reading on the case McDonlad shares, one can pick out elements from Kaufer’s steps for solving conflicts.

-erp