Frequently Asked Questions
What are values?
Why don't you set questions for each issue?
Occasionally I can't seem to use the wedges and tiles to express exactly what I want
What about the evidence?
Who decides what cases and proposals to debate?
Does the Values Exchange encourage majority rule?
What is deliberative democracy?
What happens as a result of using the Values Exchange?
How is the Values Exchange different from other ways of finding out what people think?
Why do you ask for names?
If I choose to be anonymous, how do I find out what my number is?
What is the source of the Values Exchange?
User instructions
What are values?
A value is simply a preference for some thing or some process. Values are expressed through behaviours and words.
All value-judgements are based on human feelings: ‘I like this’, ‘I am drawn toward this’, ‘This makes me feel sick’, ‘I am afraid of this’, ‘I find this beautiful’.
We are so accustomed to emphasising the technical aspects of decision-making that we massively underestimate the influence of our values. The Values Exchange aims to restore our lost perspective.
The Values Exchange uses two question frameworks only - one for health cases and one for e-democracy cases. This means that some questions are bound to be irrelevant for each issue. However, by employing single frameworks that can be used for all possible issues, we have created an extraordinarily powerful values-survey tool able to plot meaningful trends over an indefinite number of cases, groups and time periods.
It also means that we do not have to design new questionnaires each time and that we can automatically produce instant results for as many parameters as we or our clients desire.
It is possible to use the Rings and Grid framework to set up bespoke surveys. This can be done swiftly and without any loss to the system's reporting power, other than the inablility to compare responses with other responses in our default frameworks. If customers require this option we recommend that they consult fully with us. It may well be that our default frameworks - which have been established over several years reflection - will work best.
Using a single-framework for every case is inevitably less issue-specific than designing a fresh survey every time. However, the single-framework approach works remarkably well for about for about 90 - 95% of cases, and is enormously more efficient than traditional surveys.
For those cases where you feel a need for different or additional wedges or tiles you should:
1. Use free text more liberally than usual: state clearly that you were unable to find exactly the right categories in your Rings and Grid analyses. We will shortly incorporate a text search engine to enable intra- and inter-case text comparisons
2. Use only those wedges and tiles that DO work for you - there will always be at least one wedge and one tile per case. An analysis that uses just one wedge and one tile with free text comments is just as good - and sometimes better - than more complex postings
3. Do NOT try to make your views fit with the wedges and tiles - the system is meant to make YOUR values transparent
4. If all else fails, just have an instant vote. However, we are confident that even a slightly imperfect considered response will be much more helpful both to you and others than a poll 'quickie'.
After using the system for a handful of cases you will find that it becomes increasingly easy to make it say exactly what you want. Please also bear in mind that:
1. A single-framework enables everyone to express themselves using the same vocabulary - thus assisting people with limited experience in ethical debate. We will soon incorporate a scale where users can say how well the system enabled them to express themselves per case
2. A single-framework means that we can make meaningful comparisons across cases and between different groups and demographics that are simply impossible using multiple-framework surveys
3. A single-framework can be used instantly for any case - eliminating the need to design new surveys and interpret their results for each case
4. Our single-framework system can be used with any other form of survey - it is designed as a unique complement to other methods, not as a replacement for them
5. Currently it is very unusual for health professionals to be asked their views about daily issues systematically, and even more unusual for citizens to be directly and openly consulted about what we think and value. By building a simple-to-use system for everyday practice the Values Exchange not only improves communication and reduces misunderstandings - it changes our social expectations.
Sensible value-judgements always include evidence – good evaluators take account of as much relevant evidence as they can.
For example, the Values Exchange for health services links seamlessly with electronic patient records in order to create the best health outcomes.
Cases debated on the public Values Exchange are selected by Values Exchange staff. We select three cases per week. We try to choose topical cases with the most far-reaching implications.
We strongly encourage Values Exchange members to suggest cases for debate. We provide live news links on our home page and offer a weekly prize for the best idea for a case submitted to us.
Cases debated within organisations (our subscription service) are suggested from within each organisation. We recommend that each organisation appoints a designated administrator (or administrators) to manage their systems (though we can do this for them if required).
It is sometimes suggested (usually as a criticism) that the Values Exchange tends to encourage majority rule.
The Values Exchange believes there is a place for majority rule, but we recognise that true democracy is many-faceted. Above all else we encourage decision-making transparency - openly sharing feelings and thoughts greatly improves communication, understanding and tolerance.
Using the Values Exchange helps people become more open to new ideas, more willing to compromise and less likely to want to impose their own biases on other people.
The ultimate purpose of the Values Exchange is to promote deliberative democracy.
 |
"Given a particular decision context and a decision maker with a set of personal values, it may be very difficult to see all sides of the issue. Being able to view the decision environment from multiple perspectives enhances the decision maker’s ability to make better-informed choices." |
Kim Woodbridge, Bill (K.W.M.) Fulford, Whose Values? A workbook for values-based practice in mental health care. The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health 2004
Deliberative democracy is quite different from the simple polling sometimes undertaken by news-media.
Simple polling typically asks for a Yes/No response to a single question set by the pollster. Deliberative democracy is a process in which participants review evidence, learn more about the issues, learn from each other, debate with each other and eventually create new questions for debate. It is a continuing process of communication, learning, insight and growth - and the purpose of the Values Exchange.
To find out more about deliberative democracy click here or here.
The most common objection to attempts at local democracy is that even if people are consulted (by telephone, mail, or public meetings) their views are not included in the final decision.
By contrast, the Values Exchange:
There are already many ways to render people’s values transparent.
Technical approaches to values transparency include:
Commonplace approaches to values transparency include:
The Values Exchange does not replace these methods, rather we offer unique ways of complementing them:
We advocate values transparency. If people offer opinions anonymously, transparency is compromised. Members who submit their views openly feel a sense of community with other members who attach their name to their views.
It is possible to post your views anonymously. Simply check the anonymous login box as you register. You can change your status either way at any time by clicking 'My Details'.
We require an e-mail address to send you your password and to notify you if you have won a prize.
We will not share this information with anyone, ever.
Do a considered response, then request a report for 'my analysis'. Your number is on that report.
The Values Exchange is inspired by the work of David Seedhouse, a well-known writer on health, ethics and decision-making. Professor Seedhouse invented a number of decision-making tools which have been adapted by the Values Exchange.
The conceptual background for these tools in explained in David's many books - most notably in Health: the Foundations for Achievement (2nd edition), Ethics: the Heart of Health Care (2nd edition) and Health Promotion: Philosophy, Prejudice and Practice (2nd edition), all published by Wiley.
His 2005 book, Values-Based Decision-Making for the Caring Professions, provides the perfect backcloth to the Values Exchange. And watch out for the extensively revised third edition of  Ethics: the Heart of Health Care out in mid-2008. This book contains a complete chapter on the Values Exchange.
Members of the public Values Exchange can order directly from books@values-exchange.com or through amazon, which stocks the full range of David Seedhouse's texts.
|