Asking Questions: A Sine Qua Non of Facilitation in Decision Support?

Abstract

This paper reflects our ongoing interest in discovering essential elements of facilitation in decision support for groups with members having different perspectives on a strategic problem. We investigated questioning behaviour, a critical aspect of microlevel behaviour, of the facilitator in a classroom experiment with five-person groups (N 26). The supported groups used a facilitated modelling approach, that is, group model building, which is based on system dynamics. In the control condition, one of the participants led the group discussion in the role of chairperson. As expected, we found that the facilitator asked more questions than the chairperson. Subsequently, based on proposed functions of questions by discussion leaders in group decision making, we distinguished three categories of questions; related to (a) rational and social validation, (b) reflection, and (c) information management. Analysis of question type frequencies revealed that facilitators mainly ask questions from the rational and social validation category, and that this question type declines over the course of the discussion process. Questions prompting reflection increased over time. Information management questions were mostly used in the beginning and middle part of the session. In the groups led by a chairperson, a less clear picture emerged. There was a great variety between groups with respect to type of questions and sequence in which the chairperson asked questions. The only consistent result for unsupported meetings is that information management primarily took place at the end of the sessions.

Dynamics of interdisciplinarity: a microlevel analysis of communication and facilitation in a group model‐building workshop

“…With few exceptions (e.g. Dwyer and Stave, 2008; Herrera et al ., 2016; McCardle‐Keurentjes and Rouwette, 2018), previous research has focused primarily on the outcomes of participatory engagements (Rouwette et al ., 2002; Scott et al ., 2013, see also Franco et al ., 2021 for a categorisation).…”

“…One study zoomed in very closely to conversational details and analysed how the facilitators' wording encourages reflection and action, but without providing much detail on coding (Franco and Nielsen, 2018). McCardle‐Keurentjes and Rouwette (2018) focused exclusively on the facilitator's framing of questions. There is overlap between our, this, and the other frameworks.…”

“…(2016), the interaction‐focused analysis by Hager and coauthors (Hager et al ., 2015; Kopainsky et al ., 2017), the facilitator‐focused analysis by Cunico et al . (2023), Tavella and Papadopoulos (2015a, 2015b), Huxam and Cropper (1994), and the question‐focused analysis by McCardle‐Keurentjes and Rouwette (2018). Detailed subthemes of the disciplinary and facilitation foci are described in Section C in the online supporting information S1.…”

Towards Artificial Intelligence Augmenting Facilitation: AI Affordances in Macro-Task Crowdsourcing

“…Besides completing a burdensome amount of work before, during, and after the collaboration (Vivacqua et al 2011 ), facilitators must also evince particular character and behavioral traits (Dissanayake et al 2015a ). Training and experience (Clawson and Bostrom 1996 ), appearance and behavior within a group (Franco and Nielsen 2018 ; Ito et al 2021 ; McCardle-Keurentjes and Rouwette 2018 ), and the handling of feedback and reflection (Azadegan and Kolfschoten 2014 ; de Vreede et al 2002 ) play an essential role here. Thereby, facilitators maintain a delicate balance between situations in which they moderate and observe the group and instances in which they intervene – for instance, due to content-related issues (Khalifa et al 2002 ) – without compromising the outcome of the exercise (Dissanayake et al 2015b ).…”

Scripting, Situating, and Supervising: The Role of Artefacts in Collaborative Practices

“…With her intervention, the facilitator sees herself in charge of supervising, and eventually steering, the interaction between artefacts and participants on a relational level. Questions thereby become 'a possible means to exercise power' [86] in two different ways: firstly, the facilitator changes the conditions of the exchange among participants, by prompting reflection on the current group dynamic [87]; secondly, the previously standing participant, as a consequence of the facilitator's intervention, opens up the floor of discussion to the formerly excluded participants, by asking their opinions. One interviewed participant of the group finds a similar metaphor to describe her work as follows: 'Someone has to hold the rudder in this context.…”