{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015215553677092139, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.883720930232558, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Envisioning the Role of Facilitation in Public Deliberation

Research has neglected a critical factor in promoting successful citizen deliberation: the public forum facilitator. The facilitators create the discursive framework needed to make deliberation happen while setting the tone and the tenor for how and what participants discuss. This essay brings facilitators more clearly into the discussions about deliberative practice by offering an expanded and nuanced notion of facilitation in action. I modify D. Ryfe's continuum of involvement concept to outline three distinct types of facilitators: passive, moderate, and involved. Using this continuum, I investigate how the various moves, types of talk, and discursive strategies used by each of these facilitators differ during six National Issues Forums style deliberations. Results demonstrate that facilitators are not neutral, inactive participants in deliberative forums. The analysis indicates that the pedagogical choices made by facilitators about their involvement in forums affect deliberative talk and trajectories. Scholars evaluating deliberation should take into account facilitation and its different dimensions.