Discourse Management: Key to Policy Development

Skills in discourse management are necessary in order for democractic policydevelopment groups to be productive. These skills, like other skills, are developed by practicing their utilization. A general cognitive framework, however, can assist one in this development. This paper develops and then describes the use of such a general framework. Discourse management is a range of activities that give direction to the work of a policy-development group. Ideal discourse management facilitates the development and integration of descriptive and value premises with prescriptive conclusions (general policy statement). Failure to manage discourse frequently causes policy development groups to be unproductive. The resulting frustration may be blamed upon insufficient time or funds to collect data or on more subjective factors such as personality conflicts among group members. It is, likewise, not uncommon to hear planning group members blame their collective difficulties in developing policy statements on the ignorance of peers or an inherent inability of persons representing diverse professional and lay interests to work together. Little recognition exists regarding the importance of discourse management skills on the effectiveness of policy-development groups. It is assumed that planning groups generally have, or have access to, a knowledge and value base that exceeds what they are able to functionally use in policy-making activities. The application of discourse management skills helps a group organize knowledge and values into premises that logically lead to policy statements. The thesis of this paper is that discourse management skills are important determinants of whether a democractic group can rationally develop policy. A general framework will be developed in the first part of the paper that will assist in the development of discourse management skills. Following this, the application of this framework with a Catholic Charities social planning group will be described. Descriptive Premises, Value Premises and Prescriptive Conclusions Ideal discourse management includes a range of activities that facilitate the development and integration of descriptive and value premises with prescriptive This paper was presented at the NASW 20th Anniversary Symposium, "Social Work Skills: To Promote the General Welfare... ," October 23, 1976, at Hollywood-by-theSea, Florida. -1025conclusions. 1 "Descriptive premises" are statements derived from observation and classification of empirical phenomena. Research findings or descriptions of a social context are examples of descriptive premises. "Value premises" are statements which communicate preference. For example, quality is preferable to quantity, or the opposite premise, quantity is preferable to quality. "Prescriptive conclusions" are statements derived from descriptive and value premises that designate what ought to be done in a specific situation. Principles developed for enactment in social programs are clear examples of prescriptive conclusions. Discourse that hinders the development of specific premises and conclusions impedes a policy-making group's productivity. Failure to acknowledge the importance of value premises is a common shortcoming of policy-development groups. Such groups characteristically move from the development of descriptive2premises to prescriptive conclusions without articulating and using value premises. This omission which can effectively block policy development, is characteristically followed by repeated frustrated attempts to obtain "more valid" data. In fact, overemphasis upon the validity of data (descriptive premises) at the exclusion of articulating value premises can block policy development indefinitely. Misconceptions regarding the importance of preferences exist which cause value premises to be ignored. The belief that reliable data (descriptive premises) are a sufficient source for deducing prescriptive conclusions is common,3as is the belief that personal preferences should not influence policy development. This misconception means that if premises cannot be objectively verified by the scientific method, they are to be rejected from further consideration. Likewise, the social norm of avoiding discourse in areas where conflict over personal preferences is present causes many policy-making groups to avoid specifying value premises. Focusing upon descriptive premises, where agreement may be possible, is an effective but The importance of values in social work practice is greater than providing an ill-defined philosophical base. Ideally, values are part of the instrumentality of determining direct practice activities and for directing social policy-development (Bitensky, 1973). Deriving prescriptive conclusions from only descriptive premises is known as the "naturalistic fallacy." One cannot logically move from a descriptive use of language to a prescriptive use of language without implying a set of value assumptions. Edward Best refers to this common misuse of language as an attempt to suppress value premises (Best, 1967). Joseph Vigilante claims that our treatment of values as sacrosanct religions, like beliefs, may have lowered their prestige. He goes on to say, "The difficulty of operationalizing values in our society has led to their being shelved, to their being revered from a distance, but kept separate from the daily business of succeeding. We sometimes become embarrassed by them: a perfect condition for searc1ing out an escape through science... The scientific method has become the hallmark of validity. Logical positivism, the objective scrutiny of available facts pointing toward factually revealed conclusions, ... looks upon bonds as restraints, values as prejudices, customs as impositions, and the final absrdiy emeres: it is only true if it is proven, and if it is proven, t." (1974: 107-116.) -1026costly4way to avoid conflicts over value premises, where agreement may not be possible. When value premises are avoided in policy-development discourse, they will likely become conflicting underlying agendas that effectively block progress. The behavior that reflects these conflicting underlying group agendas is frequently referred to as "personality conflicts" of members. To the extent this common misnomer is accepted, justification for not being able to work together effectively is accepted. Helping a policy-making group articulate value premises diminishes the source of conflicting underlying agendas and contributes to effective discourse and its results. A helpful formula to keep in mind as one attempts to develop discourse management skills is: descriptive premises (DP) plus value premises (VP) equals prescriptive conclusions (DP + VP = PC).5 Facilitating planning-group discourse in each of these three areas is vital to sound policy formulation. This formula is no more than an abbreviated way to show relationships among important parts of a whole. It can help keep discourse focused; focused upon areas that are important but incomplete. It also reveals clearly that the best research data or other descriptive premises will not, without value premises, permit the logical development of prescriptive conclusions. And conversely, failure to develop principles for enactment does not necessarily mean that "more valid" data are needed, a judgment that is often rendered. Developing prescriptive conclusions may be perceived to be the most difficult task of the policy development process. This is a misperception. Specifying principles for exactment is a relatively simple, enjoyable, time-limited task when sufficient development of descriptive and value premises has taken place. It is much more difficult to determine the scope and focus of relevant descriptive and value premises and to complete their development than it is to deduce prescriptive conclusions from well-formulated descriptive and value premises. Nevertheless, each group planning activity benefits from the application of well-developed discourse management skills. Different world views of planning group members become evident when social policy development takes place. Each view has its own paramount values, philosophical assumptions, historical traditions, and implications for social policy (Steiner, 1975). Quotations taken from social work literature reveal that the basic idea of combining descriptive and value premises to develop practice behaviors is not new to social workers. "The limits of social work practice are derived jointly from social workers' value base (what is wanted for people) and from knowledge (what is known about people) and how the two will fit together." (Arkava, 1967:13). "A revised working definition should include 'knowledge,' a wide range of propositions with respect to their degree of verification, but should also include all assumptive propositions that are governed by preference rather than necessity." (Gordon, 1962:7). "Although we have identified social work practice as a preeminence of values, most of our sparce research efforts have been directed at knowledge and skill components." (Vigilante, 1974:105). -10o27Application of Discourse Management Skills The utilization of discourse management skills to facilitate the deliberations of a specific planning group will be described in this section. Special attention will be given to the activities that enabled this group to articulate value premises, since this is the discourse area that is most frequently underdeveloped in policymaking efforts.