Pro and Cons of Face-to-Face and Online Deliberations.
After attending the face-to-face (F2F), some online simulation and class, and reading some materials, I would like to share the disadvantages and advantages of F2F and online deliberations. Those advantages and disadvantages are based on my reflection and experience as a user/participant. The main advantage of F2F of the small groups is detection whereas F2F has a disadvantage of when participants are not confident to speak. In terms of online deliberation, its benefit is accessibility. However, online deliberations might be difficult for those who do not like reading.
Before discussing the benefits and disadvantages of F2F and online deliberation, defining deliberation can give readers a sense of what it is. Deliberation refers to public engagement that citizens, who are not experts or politicians, have chances to contribute their different ideas/perspectives about issues and solutions, and listen to each other to understand and think critically about those points of views (Pearce, 2007). As a result, some actions will be in the form of a reasoned public judgment. This author continues that deliberation has its differences from dialogues because throughout deliberation, participants are asked to provide inputs about policy options, which is including costs and consequences, for making decisions.
The question of when deliberation should happen is at a various time dependent on the levels of complexity of issues, but the answer is that it should be in the early stages of policy developments. According to Wright (Case Study: Who gets born? Pre-birth testing, November 25, 2019), one of the values of deliberation is about doing it before issues become politically hot; also, doing deliberation in the early stages can add value or influence on the decision makings. If deliberation does not have impacts on decisions, it is not worthwhile to do so.
F2F
F2F deliberation of small groups can provide opportunities for both moderators/facilitators and participants to detect facial expressions (surprise or curious), body gestures (nodding or shaking heads) and be able to see whether participants feel unwell or less energy, whereas online deliberation cannot detect these expressions. A reason that I raised this difference between F2F and online deliberation is that participants and moderators can support each other if they are sick or cannot understand some parts of deliberations spontaneously. From my experience, it is extremely important for participants to be able to clarify and ask questions spontaneously. As a result of this, they can answer questions which have been asked rather than just throwing ideas but not answer the questions. In addition to this, supporting each other when participants or facilitators do not feel well can build good relationships amongst participants and with facilitators.
Some might argue that this can also find through other social media including Facebook, Twitter with the stickers of shaking or nodding heads. However, personally, online can give me a minute to think before I click the button which means it somehow impacts my decisions whether I should ask them to clarify or support.
Despite its advantage, having the confidence to speak in F2F deliberation could take some time for some participants. Again, from personal experience, speaking in English and discussing new topics (related to e-government) create barriers for me to express my opinions or ask questions because internally, I feel I might delay the group progress or my questions might be too basic or the groups already discussed. Another example is when I was a participant of F2F deliberation of legal support for same-sex families in Cambodia (my home country), LGBTIQ community and I did not any inputs for legal teams at the first stage of the project. After then, we realised that training and workshop should have been provided before deliberation. As a result of a series of workshop, we understand some relevant laws and gained some confidence in using legal terms, and ultimately, we were able to participate in F2F deliberation.
Online deliberation
Regarding online deliberation, one of the main benefits is accessibility anytime and anywhere. This approach is helpful for those groups who have different schedules and places because they can contribute to deliberation anytime. For example, in New Zealand, people can take some time when they commute from work to their home to read comments and contribute their ideas to deliberation. To reflect with online stimulation, this convenience allows me to get involved with the groups.
On the other hand, because not all people like reading, it might be a challenge for those who cannot concentrate on reading; for example, myself. I find it is time-consuming to read some comments which are long writings because in my age, we do not have a reading habit. There are also some links you can read about reading habits in Cambodia and other Asian countries. Therefore, to be perfectly honest, I cannot read all comments of online stimulation in order to understand all participants’ justifications of their points of views. I read selectively based on tasks that I was assigned to do, and sometimes, I started with the summaries in order to give me a overview before I read members’ comments. In conclusion, this reflection is helpful to understand the different cultures which online deliberation might function differently based on contexts/cultures.
Having said that, because of technology, reading texts are available in Adobe PDF and may be available in other applications. This advanced technology can help people to overcome the long text. Still, the accuracy of reading might questionable for this solution.
References
Pearce, W.P. (2007). Dialogue and deliberation, virtuosity as a practitioner, and taking a communications perspective, working paper. Retrieved from http://www.pearceassociates.com/essays/essays_menu.htm
Wright, S. (2019). Case Study: Who gets born? Pre-birth testing [Zoom online class]. Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
