| DISCUSSION LEADING NOTES ON METHODS The Political Action Course does not employ a large number of methods or those most difficult to use. Nevertheless, experienced and inexperienced leaders alike may feel more comfortable in conducting the course if they understand something about how the methods were selected.In recent years educators as well as industrial training people have been studying and experimenting with various means of helping learners to learn. As a result, in addition to such familiar methods as the lecture, panel discussions, symposiums, group discussion, case problems and demonstrations, there are now such approaches as role playing (with infinite variations), brainstorming, buzz sessions, T-groups, business “games,” etc. This whole concern with methods, with working out new approaches, is based on the assumption that a person learns as a result of his own experiences. In general, his experiences in a training program can include various ways of being told, ways of being shown, ways of participating in discussion, and ways of learning by direct experience, that is, by doing. Methods, then, are merely different ways of providing meaningful experiences in one or more of these areas. Ideally, the kind of “experience” provided will always be the best way of learning what needs to be learned at the time. A point of significance, then, is that no one method is a substitute for another; no method is good or bad, right or wrong. Each provides at least one way of learning that is different from ways provided by other methods; many of them have features in common. Old or new, each method is best when it is most appropriate. Courses having multiple sessions and multiple a single method. The reason is that different kinds of different ways, are sought in different segments of the Political Action Course is a case in point. Final judgments on methods used in this course, as in any other, were based on too many considerations to enumerate. However, the Discussion Leader may be helped in his understanding by a review of four factors that influenced the selection of methods in a general way. These factors are: 1. The objectives of the course as a whole and its segments 2. The knowledge, skill, and attitudes of trainees at given times in the course (based on previous experience or learning, experiences provided by the course 3. Characteristics of various methods 4. Total time available for each session and for the course as a whole Methods Related to Objectives In general there are good reasons why every segment of the course is included and placed where it is. Each segment is expected to accomplish something which will contribute to the over-all objectives of the course. Usually, the choice of methods was narrowed to one which would serve both short and long-range objectives. For example, the broad objective of the program includes the words: “To enable individuals…to learn…how they can become active…in the political party of their choice, in their own communities.” One specific objective of the program is to “provide opportunities for participants to get firsthand information about politics on the local level.” One assignment requires each group member to visit his precinct leader. In the other, participants are split into two groups. One group is assigned to study local, county, and state political party organizational structure and characteristics; the second group is assigned to study local, county, and state governmental organizational structure and characteristics. The follow-up on this two-part assignment introduces another method, that of having spokesmen for the two groups report on their findings. Methods Related to Previous Learning of Participants Ideally, attempts to develop new learning should begin where people are. This means that at any point in a course the method used must be selected and refined to permit new learning to be based on what group members already know and on their ideas, opinions and attitudes at the time. This involves timing. For example, case problems are used in the groups, after the group members have read the pamphlets on which they can base some of their discussion of the cases. Another example is the method of inviting guests with practical political experience to meet with the group, answer questions, etc. This approach is saved for the final Workshop. One reason for this is that only after the first six sessions will group members in the best possible position to make good use of this opportunity. They will know what they want to ask the politicians, how to phrase questions, and so on. Characteristics of Methods In the broadest possible terms, characteristics of methods can be sketched in terms of such considerations as what they will accomplish, what their shortcomings are, what skills are required of the Leader, whether they accomplish more than one result, etc. The most important characteristic of any method is what it will accomplish. If, for purposes of illustration, we look at methods employed in the Political Action Course from that viewpoint, it is possible to put most of them into three overlapping categories: When the objective is primarily to help participants acquire new knowledge, these are the methods used: individual study of written material, outside assignments, reports to the group by fellow members, and the appearance of guests with knowledge the group does not have. When the objective is that of helping members develop awareness or appreciation, modify viewpoints, develop more thorough understanding, bring what they know into better focus, etc., the method of group discussion mainly of prepared sets of questions is used. When the objective is primarily that of helping members to develop skill in applying knowledge, develop a “feel” for the way things are done in politics, relate what they know to common political situations, etc., the case-problem method is used. Total Time Available In this course, as in most others, group members are exposed to more than they can assimilate. The specific objectives of the course, however, attempt to be realistic, to aim at what groups can reasonably expect to accomplish. All the methods used are intended to help group members organize their learning toward these specific objectives. Outside assignments and the use of visiting politicians help members relate broad learning about politics to the local scene and to their personal interests. Discussions and case problems especially are designed to help members bring knowledge into focus in other ways. One of the main points to be understood is that the methods, as used, are an integral part of the course. They have purpose in themselves, reasons for being used as they are and where they are. On the other hand, there is no doubt they will be effective to different degrees with different groups and that some will be more helpful or more popular with participants than others. The most the Leader can do is try to understand their intent and how they work and seek to get as much out of them as he can. NOTES ON LEARNING The basic features of a training program are materials (or content), methods, and administration. Another way to look at these things is to consider some of the principles behind them. People who develop program, as well as those who conduct them, are influenced in what they do by what they know — or assume — about the way people learn. In varying degrees they employ psychological principles of learning whether they realize it or not. And generally speaking, people in both groups are most successful when they are conscious of what principles they employ. While it would be impractical to review all the principles of learning established experimentally by psychologists, it might be interesting and helpful to review a few of those principles that can be most readily related to the handling of materials, methods, and administration in this particular course. It should be understood, however, that the principles reviewed here relate to one another — even overlap. For that reason, citing illustrations from the course for each principle would involve considerable repetition. Chances are that having read this far, the Leader can supply his own illustrations from his knowledge of the course. At any rate, it would be a good exercise for him to try. Learning can produce various kinds of changes, including changes in: Each type of change is most likely to be induced by methods uniquely appropriate to it. For example, to change attitudes or interests, a lecture or a reading assignment is likely to be less effective than an experience in which the individual works out his own conclusions. No change is likely to take place unless the learner wants it to, i.e., is motivated to learn. “Learning,” it has been said, “is a personal thing.” It is an internal process. It takes place within the learner and involves a reintegration of his experience. a. This means that learning is most likely to occur when it makes use of — and is based on — the experience of the learner. b. It means that at any given time, the starting point for further learning must be where the learner is. c. It means that from the same experience (e.g., a discussion, case problem, etc.) different individuals will learn different things in different ways and at their own rates of speed — for each will re-late the experience to different previous experiences, different beliefs, different values, etc. Learning is a process of using the mind. This suggests that: a. We are helped to learn by being made to think. b. One way we are made to think is by being challenged or required to think, given responsibility for working out our own understandings. Learning is largely a process of relating one thing to another. a. We relate new learning to something learned before (as in a course). b. We relate new learning to our own previous experiences. We learn by application — by trying to do things, by testing our learning against our own experiences, feelings and opinions or against the experiences, feelings and opinions of others. Things that are learned and understood tend to be better retained than things learned by rote. We learn by repetition. Generalized learning tends to be transferred to specific situations only when its relevancy is perceived by the learner. This can mean that: a. The more specific the application of general principles to practice can be made in a learning situation, the more likely the learner is to apply them in his own practice. b. An opportunity to practice new items of learning free from fear or failure increases the likelihood that the learner will try to use new learnings. Learning sometimes involves supplanting comfortable, established beliefs, ideas, opinions, attitudes, ways of doing things, etc., with new ideas or ways of doing things, and, therefore, it tends to be resisted. This can mean that: a. The more the learner feels that he is respected as an individual and has the right to decide for himself whether to change his views, the less he will resist changing. b. The more items of new learning can be reinforced by successful experience in applying them, the more permanent they are likely to be. THE INFORMATIONAL APPROACH It can be said of almost anybody that the overwhelming majority of his experiences in formal learning situations have been experiences with what might be termed, very broadly, the “information approach.” This is to say, most of our learning in meetings — in public school, in college, in church or civic meetings, and at work — has come about through being “told” or — as in school — being “taught.” As a result, we have been conditioned, perhaps more than we realize, to a concept of the service a man is supposed to perform when he stands before a group. We expect him to know more than the group — to inform, to teach. Perhaps, too, we have a certain set of expectations in regard to the way he should act. We are conditioned to certain traits that seem to make one man a better teacher or speaker than another. We associate personal effectiveness with posture, enunciation, gestures, a ready wit, an ability to entertain, and so on. Consequently, when we are leaders for the first time — even when we know we are supposed to conduct discussions — we may tend to drift into behavior that is characteristic of the leader’s role we know best, that of the teacher-leader authority. It often takes a conscious effort to remind ourselves what role we are in, that we can afford to act differently, that we’re not there to teach or in any way attract undue attention to ourselves. In such circumstances, understanding of the discussion approach is our most important asset. First of all, it should be emphasized that although the informational approach is used sparingly in this course, there is nothing wrong with it. The question, as always, is one of appropriateness. There are subjects that have to be lectured. There are conditions under which subjects can best be “taught” in the traditional sense, with an instructor or teacher carrying the burden of exposition, explaining, building relationships, answering questions, testing, etc. And there are certainly times in business and industry when it is most appropriate for leaders to assume the role of authorities — giving instructions, passing on information, giving directions — just as there are times when other approaches are in order. By way of broad definition, we might think of the “informational approach” as that in which the leader’s objective is to pass on information the group doesn’t have. The approach would be characterized by the fact that the leader does most or all of the talking. Looking at it this way, it should become clear that in this course the so-called informational approach has been delegated to the pamphlets, which supply general background information, and to participants, who develop some information for themselves. What, then, by way of the informational approach is left for the leader in the workshop meetings? Not much. And none of it puts him in the role of an authority i or lecturer. Most occasions for him to talk fall into two categories. First, he provides at odd times certain miscellaneous information, most of which is relative to administration of the course. Secondly, he provides stage setting for each discussion portion of the workshops. What he says is for the purpose of capturing the group’s attention and directing their thinking to the question or problem to be discussed. As developed, then, the course does not require the leader to perform in the role that is perhaps most familiar to him, that of an expert or an instructor. Doubtless some leaders will know the subject well and will feel group pressures for expert information, for approval of their ideas, and for help in their discussions. This could be unfortunate. A limited amount of help can be given, of course, but should the leader fail to clearly establish that he has laid aside the mantle of expert, more harm than good could result. When the teacher approach is used, it conflicts with methods around which the course is built. These methods require participants to think for themselves and learn largely from the interchange of ideas and opinions within the whole group. THE DISCUSSION APPROACH Informational Meeting vs Discussion Meeting What simple distinctions might be made between the informational meeting, with which we are most familiar, and the discussion meeting, as we normally find them being used in training programs? Informational meeting: The leader’s objective is to pass on information. Participants do not necessarily need a background of experience on the subject. The leader makes up the difference. Discussion meeting: The leader’s objective is to get the group to make a decision or arrive at conclusions on a subject through an exchange of ideas and opinions. Participants do need a background of ex-perience on which to base ideas and opinions — think constructively. This experience can be part of their general background or background provided earlier in the course. Participants do most — nearly all — of the talking, with all of them being given a chance to express themselves. Differences in Discussion Meetings On the other hand, there are different types of discussion meetings and many different ways of conducting them. For example, at one extreme there is the non-directive discussion, in which the leader begins with neither a specific objective nor a specific set of questions. At the other extreme, there can be types of highly structured problem-solving discussions in which the leader has both a specific objective and plans for discussing certain aspect of the problem. Discussions planned for the Action Course in Practical Politics are between these two extremes. The leader gives the group no specific objective to reach in a limited amount of time — e.g., to make a decision, to reach agreement about a problem, etc. On the other hand, he does have a “plan” — a predetermined set of questions on which to get discussion. Another way to say this is that discussions have built-in purpose and direction in relation to the long-range objectives of the course (see section on OBJECTIVES in “About The Course” on page 3), but no limited objective for a single discussion or workshop. Discussions are for the purpose of general education over a range of related topics — with emphasis on developing real understanding – rather than for the purpose of making decisions or reaching specific conclusions. This is the discussion approach generally taken with case problems. The Way Discussion Works in this Course It may be helpful to follow an outline of the kind of discussion that takes place in this course. This description will deal with the discussion of a case prob-lem, since most discussions are of that type. The participants have varying backgrounds of experience, both generally and in relation to the subject. The leader does not necessarily know more about the subject of the meeting than participants, but he is thoroughly familiar with plans for the meeting. For example, through careful preparation as well as reading the pamphlet dealing with the broad subject under discussion. He has studied how the case problem deals with certain parts of the broad subject and he has analyzed how discussion questions focus on important aspects of the case. Further, through preparation, he realizes that his objective will be to stimulate real thinking about the questions. Emphasis will be on interpretation of problem situations and the weighing of possible solutions, rather than on final conclusions or group agreement. STEP I — INTRODUCING THE CASE In introducing the case, the leader tries to capture the group’s interest by GENERALIZING about the broad subject. NARROWING to aspects of the subject dealt with in the case, and ISOLATING particular problems pointed at by questions (assuming that the questions do not ask members themselves to define the problems). In general his remarks serve to do some or all of the following: Define the problem (if appropriate) Supply any pertinent Arouse interest Focus attention information necessary This step recognizes that at the start of discussion, group members may not be mentally conditioned to discuss the subject. Their minds may be on personal problems, job problems, current events, etc. Or, when the second case problem is being introduced, minds of group members may still be on the first. STEP II — POSING THE QUESTIONS The leader carefully and slowly reads the discussion questions, even though members have copies of the questions before them. Some questions are of the “drawing-out” type. They ask members to think of different ways, different causes, interpretations, reasons, possible solutions, etc. They do NOT ask which is best, which is most important, etc. One of their purposes if to stimulate thinking Another purpose is to get a wide range of thoughts that would help in any further efforts to exercise sound judgment. On these questions the leader usually asks the group NOT to evaluate or argue about contributions as they are drawn out. Disagreement at this point curtails the number of contributions, hangs up discussion on one or two points. – Some questions are of the “evaluation” type They ask members which possible solution is best, what they would do, etc. On these questions disagreement and controversy among group members is welcome. However, the leader does not insist that the group reach COMPLETE AGREEMENT. To do so might stop the meeting cold. In response to the discussion questions, members begin to express their ideas and opinions. As participants thus express themselves, the leader directs other questions at their remarks. He is using CLARIFYING questions. For example, when a member’s remark is not understood, not strictly on the subject, or when the leader feels that it would be helpful to hear more details, he asks: “What do you mean?”–“Would you explain?”–“How would you do that?”–“Why do you say that?”–“How would that apply here?”–etc. If the leader feels it may be helpful later, he records the gist of members’ remarks on the blackboard or chart pad. As this questioning and expressing of ideas goes on, participants are mentally accepting or rejecting the thoughts expressed by others in the group. At the same time, they are revising and restating their own ideas and opinions. When. the leader feels that members are satisfied they have adequately explored a question, he closes that portion of discussion with a summarizing remark and moves on to the next question. When all questions have been discussed, he moves into Step III. STEP III — SUMMARY Here the leader briefly summarizes (or has a member of the group summarize) the main thoughts of the group. Detailed summaries are usually impossible. Too many things have been said. The leader bases his summary on what has transpired in the discussion. The “Leader’s Guide” can’t help. The Discussion of a QUESTION in Brief Stripped down, the leader’s functions in conducting a discussion on a single question follows this simple outline: 1. He makes a simple lead-in statement (“This next question asks us to criticize Jim’s analysis”–“Now let’s look at the same problem from another point of view”–etc.). 2. He reads the question to be discussed (slowly, carefully, with proper emphasis). 3. He sums up and moves on when the question has been fully discussed. Leadership in the Discussion Approach There is no one pattern or unified set of rules for discussion leadership any more than there is one type of meeting that incorporates all there is to the discussion approach. Leadership is made up of a number of things. By way of background the leader needs: It should be emphasized that “skill in leading” is not something that can be counseled or learned independently. It makes use of and is based on the other three factors of importance. It should be recognized, too, that none of these things can really be taught, by words or a page or by any other means. A prospective new leader has the responsibility for working out his own understandings. To assist leaders in this endeavor, each of the factors of leadership mentioned above is taken up briefly on the pages that follow. What is Accomplished by Discussion? The accomplishments of any one discussion meeting are relative to many things — the kind of meeting conducted, the objectives of the meeting, the subject being discussed, background of participants, the leader, and even such things as time and setting. However, some of the accomplishments common to most well-conducted discussions can be summarized in terms of generally recognized advantages of the discussion approach. It recognizes and utilizes what members of a group already know It stimulates thinking — as opposed to passive acceptance It permits pooling of ideas and experience, exerting a broadening effect on individuals It brings about modification of viewpoints and changes in attitudes, interests, values, etc. It provides means of developing understanding It serves to correct misunderstandings It helps to develop analytical ability and a questioning attitude It provides means of arriving at sounder conclusions than persons might arrive at individually It provides means of trying out ideas and opinions It provides means of maintaining high interest For the duration of a meeting, at least, the most successful discussion leaders take the position that “You can’t teach people anything. You can only give them an opportunity to learn.” They encourage members to think for themselves. They depend upon minds within the group for whatever progress is made. They offer little if any direct help — beyond the raising of mere questions — but they will help people help themselves. Their most important question is “What do the rest of you think about this?” Respect of what can be accomplished through group discussion. Patience in achieving these benefits Respect for the ideas and opinions of others, for differences in point of view A genuine interest in what people say and their reasons for saying it Respect for personal feelings When this attitude exists, it shows. And it is this attitude on the part of the Leader, rather than ground rules, a set of questions or “techniques”, that establishes the permissive atmosphere essential to a successful and pleasant discussion. Importance of Preparation There are many causes of wasted time in a discussion meeting. People can get off the subject; discussion can be shallow; discussion can bog down in confusion over meanings; quibbling can eat up time: and so on ad infinitum. The person who is in the best position to do something about these causes is the leader. It is, in fact, his responsibility. Whether he can do anything about these problems, however, depends largely on how well he has prepared for the particular meeting. Preparation is a must Studying the case problem(s), working out answers to the questions Anticipating the kinds of responses participants will give to the questions Judging which questions will require the most time, which will be most productive Reading the “Preparation Checklist” Reading the “Orientation” section Studying the meeting outline in the “Leader’s Guide” Judging what the timing should be on various segments of the discussion There are a number of ways in which this kind of preparation will help him in specific meetings, to avoid common causes of wasted meeting time. Some are: He will know when people are on tangents He can detect when discussion is superficial He can detect more readily when people are in agreement or disagreement He can better understand what people are saying, what they mean He can better understand why they say what they do He can see relationships between remarks of different people He can better sense when discussion is productive He can better sense when it is time to move on. Introduction to Leader Skills Some of the more important areas in which leader skills might be called into play are taken up in the pages that follow. They are reviewed here both to alert leaders to problem situations which make them necessary and to suggest some of the things that leaders can do in these situations. Pointers or specific suggestions about what leaders might do are held down in number on the theory that they will thus be easier to remember. However, it is recognized that this approach leads to over-simplification, and the reader is so warned. The Use and Wording of Questions Questions are used in a number of ways, and only a small number of those the leader will actually use are provided in the meeting outlines. Some ways they are used follow. Those with asterisks are of the type the leader will have to “make up” on the spot, and they represent the large majority of questions he will ask in the course of a meeting. *-To draw out facts, ideas, or opinions Questions provided with the cases should cause least difficulty because members can read them for themselves, check them against copies of the cases, etc. However, questions made up by the leader can be more of a problem. Participants can go only by what they hear. Some of the features of well-worded questions follow: *-They are phrased clearly and concisely It is also true that the wording of questions, as well as intonations and inflections, can discourage participation on the part of group members, Some of the things to avoid: *-Questions permitting a “yes” or “no” answer Handling Questions from the Group The inexperienced Leader is often tempted to answer questions he shouldn’t try to answer. He can unwittingly give the impression that he is (or thinks he is) the expert. His safest position is in a neutral role. There are four major types of questions that the Leader might be asked. They are listed below with suggestions for handling them. 1. A question asking for clarification of a statement by the Leader. 2. A question asking for clarification of a question from the Leader. 3. A question asking for simple factual information. 4. A question requiring,the Leader to give an opinion or make a proposal. Acknowledging Responses The success of a discussion meeting depends on participants’ expressing their thoughts. When one member expresses himself, it tends to stimulate other members. Participation is a chain reaction. The way in which a Leader acknowledges responses can have a favorable or unfavorable effect on the willingness of members to participate, express themselves. Realizing this, the Leader tries to acknowledge responses in such a way that he maintains a permissive atmosphere in which all members of the group feel free to express themselves. No doubt there are times when he wishes that one individual would not talk so much. However, he keeps in mind that his acknowledgment of that person’s response is heard by all other members of the group. His acknowledgment affects them too. While staying in a neutral role, however, the Leader should not appear uninterested. He must somehow indicate that he is attentive, that he respects the contribution, and that he appreciates it. Examples of acknowledgments that might encourage and discourage partici-pation follow: Examples of WHEN THE LEADER AGREES WITH WHAT THE PARTICIPANT HAS SAID “John has made a point. What do the rest of you think?” “That’s interesting.” “That’s a possibility.” “Could be.” “John feels that we should. Are there other possibilities we should consider?” “That’s a good point, John.” “Very logical reasoning, John.” “Yes, I can recall some instances like that.” “Sounds good to me. How about the rest of you.” “You’re right.” WHEN THE LEADER DISAGREES WITH WHAT THE PARTICIPANT HAS SAID “How does that strike the rest. ” “Yes, but that wouldn’t apply of you here.” “What do you think of this suggestion?” “There’s not much we could do about a thing like that.” “Anyone want to add anything to that?” “That isn’t the point, John.” “We have one idea. Are there any other ideas?” “I don’t think that’s important.” Handling the Talkative Member Even in well conducted meetings the problem of one member who, for one reason or another, does more than his share of talking comes up. Others are prevented from making contributions, and from a group standpoint the meeting is less interesting and effective that it could be. Again, there are no pat solutions for this kind of problem. In many instances, the leader’s tactics will depend on his analysis of what causes the member to talk too much. Below are three broad categories of talkative member. Each includes a number of sub-types that can be easily imaged. Being alert to these types could help somewhat in handling them. 1. He may be trying to dominate or impress the group. He may be an authority or think he is. He may try so hard to stand out in the group that he talks too much. He may use the meeting as an ego-inflating opportunity. He may be in the habit of taking a dominant position in his job or profession. He may be young and ambitious, using the meeting to advertise himself. He may have a strong competitive spirit and want to argue everybody down. He may use the meeting to blow off steam. 2. He may think faster than the group or have superior knowledge. This individual is always ready with an answer or an idea which is pertinent. He is impatient with the slower members of the group. He sometimes want to speed up the pace of the meeting. 3. He may be unable to get to the point. He rambles in his talk. He gets off the subject, bringing in irrele-vant details. He gives long descriptions of personal experiences. He is unable to come to a stopping point. Often he does not think clearly. Sometimes he has some nervous difficulty and can’t seem to stop himself once he get started. Sometimes he simply can’t express himself, can’t find the words, but won’t give up trying. Following are some approaches used, some more commonly than others. The leader has to be the judge of which to try. 1. Talk with him outside the meeting. 2. Direct discussion away from him. 3. Interrupt tactfully. 4. Help him phrase what he has to say. 5. Explain distribution of time. 6. Avoid looking at him, letting him catch your eye. 7. Seat him where you can look past him. 8. Identify contributions, to reveal that all are coming from one source. Can be done on the chart pad by placing the initials of contributors by each contribution. 9. Let members of the group take care of him. Handling Tangents to the Subject Participants bring up tangent thoughts for various reasons. Whatever the reason, the leader must evaluate the thought introduced and the circumstances and decide what to do. Generally there are three things to consider. First, does the tangent have any bearing on the main subject? Will dis-cussing the tangent help? If there is little connection between the main subject and the tangent, will it clear the air or help members see things more clearly to take time out to discuss the tangent? Second, what about the member who side-tracked the discussion? What had he in mind? Is he simply confused, or does he have something he wants to express and get considered? Or is it just that he wasn’t paying attention and lost the thread of the discussion? Third, the leader should also think about the rest of the group. It may be that the group as a whole is very interested in the tangent subject. It may concern a real, immediate interest, and as a group they may resent being prevented from discussing something they think important. It may be tactful to allow some discussion of the tangent rather than offend a member by cutting him short. On the other hand, it may be best for all concerned to stop the discussion promptly. Following are some suggestions on what the leader might do in certain circumstances. I. Bring discussion back to the subject When the leader believes that free discussion of the tangent might be difficult to control Stimulating Deeper Thinking It is possible for a meeting to have the appearance of success and run very smoothly without accomplishing anything worthwhile at all. The leader is very successful in getting responses. Ideas come quickly. The group seems to agree on almost everything. To the casual observer this may appear to be a successful meeting. To the more perceptive observer, there appears to be a lack of real participation. There were too many nods and assents from the group. They came too quickly. It seemed that any member of the group could lead the others in any direction he chose. No one was thinking below the surface. There was no emotional involvement in the subject, no real interest in it. Everyone seemed anxious to finish the meeting and get back to something else more interesting. Meeting success can really be measured only in terms of what it accomplishes, in terms of the thinking and learning that takes place. It is the leader’s responsibility to gauge the effectiveness of discussion and take steps, if necessary, to make the meeting more vital. Here are some of the things he might do: 1. Delay acceptance of the quick response until the group has had time to think. 2. Throw the idea back to the individual or to the group with a “how” or “why” question attached. 3. Ask for clarification or amplification. 4. Ask for examples. 5. Try to get a contrary opinion or another course of action from the group. Using the Chart Pad or Blackboard Recording on the chart pad or blackboard the contributions of members during a meeting enables participants to make use of their eyes as well as their ears. Some advantages: Stimulates the flow of ideas Shows duplication in thoughts Shows important relationships or lack of them — in thoughts Demands clarification in the thinking of participants contributing thoughts Discourages trivia, facetious comments Encourages serious thinking — each participant wanting to be represented by a worthy idea Provides a record of progress or lack of it In addition, it is sometimes important that recorded responses give the leader a record of what has happened in the meeting — or on a given question –which he can make use of in various ways. 1. Place the chart pad or blackboard (if portable) where it can be seen best 2. Give the pad or blackboard a heading, such as “Causes,” “Possible Solutions,” “Advantages,” etc. 3. Write as quickly as you can without sacrificing neatness. The effort here is to avoid having the meeting go dead, group interest lag, while writing. Use standard abbreviations. 4. Keep the meeting going: 5. Write legibly and large enough to be seen by the member farthest away 6. Condense thoughts It is often difficult to reduce an idea or opinion to a few words. The leader can get the group to help him by asking: “How can we phrase that?” or When an idea has been cut down, the leader should make sure it means what the member had in mind: “Does that indicate what you meant, Tom?” 7. If contributions are coming too fast, slow things down. A List of Dont’s The most important single consideration is the placement of table(s) and chairs. The general objective is to place people in a square, rectangle, or oval arrangement so that each member can see most or all the other members and talk to them directly. This is consistent with the plan to have group discussion, a meeting in which people talk to one another. Placed in rows, “classroom” style, members have to talk to the backs of other members’ heads; or swivel around to address someone directly. But worse, perhaps, is the fact that this arrangement fosters a teacher-pupil relationship between Leader and participants. Discussion tends to be a ping-pong, back-and-forth process between Leader and participants, rather than discussion among members of the group — as it should be. Ideally, chairs would be around a large table or a cluster of tables. If this is impossible, chairs with arm rests can be used. In any case, crowded arrangements, with some members back in corners, should be avoided, A good rule of thumb is to get a conference room to fit the group or schedule a group that fits the conference room. Beyond this basic arrangement, there are other pointers that might be considered to make conditions more convenient or pleasant and conducive to success-ful discussion meetings. Ample passage should be provided all the way around tables and chairs. There should be enough room for the Leader to manipulate his visual aids and place material that will be used during the meeting. Participants should not feel crowded, but they should still have a feeling of intimacy. Too much space an too high a ceiling give a feeling of emptiness. A supply of pencils and paper should be available. Name cards should be placed where they are visible to everybody. Temperature should be controlled so that participants will not be in drafts or warm enough to get drowsy. In most climates, air conditioning is a must for crowded meeting rooms during the summer. Lighting should be adequate. Sound characteristics of the room should be good — no reverberation or echo to interfere with conversational tones. Background noise should be low. An easel holding the 28×32 inch chart pads is the most common auxiliary tool used in meeting rooms. A blackboard will serve the same purpose -is not as versatile. The meeting room should be out of the way of interruptions; or inter-ruptions should be barred from the meeting room. Arrangements should be made to slip important messages in quietly and unobtrusively. THE CASE PROBLEM APPROACH What Is A Case? A case is a brief story or description of problem situations drawn (as cases are used in this course) from typical experiences of people active in politics. It relates events that happen in real life and, up to a point, what the people in those events do. The case has a problem and a person who is faced with solving that problem. It may stop “in the middle” where the person has to decide how to solve the problem, or it may include descriptions of actions he took, leaving up to the group an evaluation of what he did. The case can be simple or complicated, long or short. Some of both are used in this course. Since they are typical political situations, they usually deal with a number of important factors and variables and rarely involve only one “point,” “issue,” or “problem.” There may be a central problem, but usually a number of important factors have a bearing on this problem. As in life, not all facts are available, and some of the so-called facts may turn out to be relatively unimportant. Cases in this course are presented in writing. Other forms of presentation have been used, such as moving pictures, filmstrips, recordings, or skits The Leader’s Role and Groin Discussion Whatever its make-up or form of presentation, the group first studies the case and then discusses it. The leader does not lead in the sense of telling the group what to think or in any way exercising a “teaching” influence. Rather, he encourages them to think for themselves. He does not try to lead the group toward a pat conclusion. He does not have any, because usually there is no one right answer on which people could agree. Neither is his objective to draw out general principles. As cases are used in this course, participants spend part of their time putting themselves in the roles of persons in the case, to consider situations in the light of their own background of experience and judgment, and to determine what specific things they might do in the specific situation and how they would do them. In some instances, when it is assumed that their experience would make it difficult for them to propose specific action, participants are invited to interpret what has already been done. But it is also true, and very important, that part of the time in the discussion of each case is devoted to having group members relate the case situation to politics in their local communities. In all events, members are invited to arrive at their own conclusions. They express attitudes and feelings toward, and evaluations of, the case factors. They also appraise, and react to, the views expressed by other members of the group. By asking the basic questions provided in the leader’s guide, and by posing further questions for purposes of clarification, the leader provides an important means whereby participants may sharpen their individual perceptions and understandings of practical politics. Because of differences in background and differences in point of view, no two participants will see the same things in a given case nor evaluate them the same. Consequently, no two participants will learn exactly the same things from a given case. Most members of a group will agree on certain interpretations, and they may agree even on certain conclusions. However, there will be differences of opinion as to emphasis, and each participant will take away from the discussion individual views and perhaps highly personal meanings. The decision to use cases in this course was predicated on the assumption that training in practical politics cannot be attained by the accumulating and memorizing of facts, the memorizing of “rules” and “principles,” nor by discussion of generalities and abstractions. One reason for emphasizing this kind of experience: participants in this course are pictured as being part of local political situations which are different from all others and not subject to many general rules and principles. Men acquire judgment and understanding mainly from experience. The case method simulates experience up to a point, exposing members to a variety of cases which they can relate, in their own ways, to their individual interests and to local interests and to local political scene. Advantages of the Case Method In summary, here are some of the advantages of the case method: 1. The experience simulates reality. Members become involved in dis-cussing typical political situations. 2. It puts the burden of thinking on the members and arouses their interest by making them active rather than passive participants. 3. It is practical. Members discuss specific facts and events rather than general principles. 4. It takes advantage of what people can accomplish in a group situation, pooling experience, considering large numbers of ideas and opinions, many of them valid. 5. It produces realization that the types of problems discussed do not have a single answer. 6. It encourages the development of judgment and ability to think independently. 7. It provides experience helpful in preparing people to do things that actually have to be done — in politics, in this case. 8. It brings about a modification of viewpoints and fixed attitudes, such as “politics is dirty business” and “big money wins the elections.” |