Hi Paul, we are reading the same things these days!

Deliberation does not necessarily require consensus to be deemed successful. It could just lead to meta-consensus, such as agreeing to disagree, understanding and appreciating difference, and finding common ground language and approach. In the Health Care debate, for example, a two-tier system of private and public might satisfy both sides, if only the proponents would get beyond raging disinformation and listen to each other properly. And that's the problem: unlike some other cultures (especially indigenous), we've been sucked into believing that aggression and competition is the normal way to proceed.

Moodle might be able to register people and deploy resources, but online public deliberation needs more. In the absence of face-to-face facilitation, it needs scaffolding to promote civil behaviour and collaborative problem solving. It also needs to be sufficiently de-institutionalised to attract those on the right who would eschew group activity in general. The contradiction is that deliberation requires commitment, yet many would avoid it because they incorrectly see both the process and possible outcomes as coercive and threatening to their autonomous freedom. As researchers, we need to do what we tell deliberating citizens to do: put ourselves in the shoes of others.

Public Participation in Europe: great report! Best of success with your endeavour! Blogged here.