Alex Walsh Moderating Philosophy Statement Moderating a deliberation may come across as a simple undertaking to a spectator, but in reality

it is not as trivial a task as one may think. During our National Issues Forum style of deliberation on the reform of higher education, I was able to practice and refine my methods of moderation in addition to learning some new techniques. Namely, I discovered both the importance of introducing and/or expanding on concepts to deliberators, and the technique of reinvigorating a fading conversation with a novel perspective on the issue. As a moderator on the first day of deliberation I was forced to truly formulate my own approach to the task, considering no one had gone before me to set an example. I knew to provide a brief introductory statement of what encompassed Option One, but I did not expect that the response would be utter silence. Thinking on my feet, I narrowed the discussion to a direct question that had to elicit a response: What is the significance of STEM careers in the global economy and how does the U.S. compare to the rest of the world? This immediately got the conversation moving, and it went relatively smooth from there. Additionally, I made a point to clarify or expand on any idea that may have come across to group members as vague or confusing. After the first day of deliberation, I had learned that providing a clear introductory statement and clarification of topics were vital aspects of the deliberation process. In addition to starting off the deliberation with an engaging introduction, I found that a strongpoint of my moderating style was redirecting a diminishing conversation. The group would often discuss an aspect of higher education reform so thoroughly that no member had any additional comments or opinions. Upon sensing this imminent lull, I brought up a different aspect of the conversation that had not yet been discussed. For example, we discussed the idea of

orienting college towards a more career-focused path for approximately fifteen minutes, after which no one really had anything else to add. I then proposed, So weve concluded that STEM education needs to be focused on more, but how is our nation going to fund this? Should it be the job of universities, tax payers, or industry? Group members were quick to answer the new prompt, and discussion continued from there. The techniques of providing a clear introduction, expanding on concepts, and reinvigorating the conversation are all characteristic of my moderating style. Although my strength was in refocusing the deliberation after it began fading, I had a weakness in trying to wrap things up when it was time for closing statements. If the group was mid-conversation, I found difficulty in attempting to prompt closing statements and bring things to an end for the day. In the end, however, our deliberation was able to further develop my individual moderating philosophy and refine techniques that will surely be utilized in the future.