過去台灣的審議式民主相關研究大多著重在與審議民主的理念對話、案例分析，或是審議籌劃者的互動關係等，但有關審議實作過程中的主持人(facilitators)一角卻鮮少被直接地討論。審議主持人作為審議民主實作程序中的實踐者，一舉一動都會影響著審議討論的結果，所以去理解主持人在審議過程中的互動關係、遭遇的困境和如何化解的策略與技巧就顯得十分重要。因此，本文透過深度訪談11位審議主持人與進入田野參與觀察，勾勒出主持人在審議過程中可能的互動關係、主持形象跟相應的策略與技巧，試圖完整審議主持人的圖像。本文運用 Goffman的「劇場理論(dramaturgy)」作為研究分析的框架，發展三種不同面向的研究發現:
2.形塑出主持人與審議參與者的互動過程，運用兩軸線-知情程度與配合程度，形成了四象限的參與者類型分類。與不同參與者互動有相應的策略與技巧，像營造審議情境與製造行動者間的距離的策略，以及正面的表述、借力使力與壓制的溝通技巧，但也強調技巧的使用要恰當，以免過猶不及，沒解決問題反而還製造問題。
3.指出主持人與審議計畫的設計所造成之外部挑戰，像是審議程序的設計與參與者的招募等都是影響主持的因素。但對主持人而言，他們無法主動地改變，所以只能在討論過程中盡力去完成討論，讓主持人參與進議程設計可以有效地降低這種困境。
這三種不同的互動關係各有遭遇到的困境與挑戰，因此有不同的行動策略，且會互相影響。最後，本文也將審議主持人作了一個社會關係層次的討論，發現審議主持人在審議討論這層社會關係中，不只是Simmel「陌生人」的性質與功能，更是在審議討論中積極追求達成目標的「助產士」概念。更提醒審議主持人的特質與工作的特性造成情緒勞動問題與後台的失衡需要被重視，指出主持人成就感來自於參與者的正面回饋。
Deliberative democracy research in Taiwan has long focused on concept discourse, case analysis, or the interaction among different actors in the sphere of public discussion. The role of facilitators, on the other hand, is rarely discussed. As the practitioners in the practice of deliberative democracy, how facilitators act and speak affects the outcome of discussions. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the interactions of facilitators in the discussion process, what dilemmas they encounter and how they overcome them. Hence, this research is based on the in-depth interview of 11 facilitators and actual field observations, aiming at exploring the interactions of facilitators, hosting image, and strategies and skills, providing a whole picture of the positioning of facilitators. The research adopts the theory of Goffman’s dramaturgy and discovered three research findings as follows:
1. Understanding the interaction process between the facilitators’ self and ideal image and categorizing three types of facilitators: rational AI robot that focuses on the results and tasks of discussion; sentimental facilitators that focuses on the experience of deliberative democracy; facilitators with a moderation approach that do not focus on the attitude during facilitation but balance both the deliberation objectives and the deliberation experience. The facilitator's "immersive level" and "deliberation style change" are common skills during facilitation. The dynamic of facilitator is specifically highlighted when they adopt different style to deal with problems accordingly.
2. Shaping the interaction process between the facilitators and the participants- presented in two axes - the level of knowledge and the level of cooperation— forming a four-quadrant classification of participant types. Facilitators demonstrate corresponding strategies and techniques for interacting with diverse participants. For instance, some facilitators create a suitable atmosphere for discussion, or create distance among different participants. Others adopt a positive attitude in communication, or leverage and suppress certain discourse. It is especially noted that communication skills should be appropriately adopted. Otherwise, it creates problems rather than solving them.
3. Identifying external challenges posed by the design or administrative process of program, such as the design of facilitation and the recruitment of participants. These are two of the factors that significantly affect facilitation. However, facilitators usually stand in an awkward position that they cannot actively change the process. Therefore, they can only try their best to accomplish the discussion. The finding concludes that involving facilitators in the agenda design can effectively reduce this dilemma.
Facilitators with these three different interactions have their own difficulties and challenges, and result in the distinctive strategies that eventually affect each other. Finally, this research also discussed facilitators at the level of social interaction. I discovered that in the deliberative democracy discussion, facilitators play beyond the role of what Simmel’s theory portrayed as a "stranger". Rather, they are actively engaged during the facilitation process. They seek for the goal of being a "midwife" in discussions. This research also brought up the value of facilitators’ emotional labor and the imbalance “backstage” issue. It is concluded that the facilitators’ sense of achievement is derived from the positive feedback of the participants.
