TAT Amsterdam Meeting

1. THE POLISH AND DUTCH TESTS
TESTED GOOD PRACTICES
THE AMSTERDAM MEETING DECEMBER 4, 2014
FUNDACJA CITIZEN PROJECT/
EZZEV FOUNDATION

2. GOOD PRACTICE 1
Promoting individuals saying:
• Sometimes I make mistakes
• Sometimes my motivation is egoistic
• I am part of the problem

4. TESTED IN NL AND PL
• In writing online (NL): only offline reactions
• In video online (NL): only offline reactions
• On air (national radio in PL): great discussion
• Live in groups (Conference Gdansk for trainers; in
workshops Gdynia with trainers, senior citizens; at school
Gdansk with teacher and students)
• Shame, laughter
• Reflection
• Great discussions with instructors, among themselves
• Informal one-on-one contact with trainers, marketers
(NL): great dialogues
• With football hooligans (NL): Shame, laughter

5. ALTERNATIVE SENTENCES - PL (1)
 Sometimes I make mistakes
• Everyone makes mistakes but the key is to fix
them
• I'm not perfect. I'm only human
• It's not like I make everything perfectly, but I try to
get better
• I often makes mistakes
• Experience tells me I rarely make mistakes

6. ALTERNATIVE SENTENCES - PL (2)
 Sometimes my motivation is egoistic
• Everyone has to be satisfied, even me
• It's also in my best interest, but we can both
benefit
• Often, in actions, I think only about myself
• Sometimes I notice that my motivation is egoistic
• I take care of others but I also take care of myself

7. ALTERNATIVE SENTENCES - PL (3)
 I am part of the problem
- I'm not perfect
- I know that I've done mischief
- My habits are part of the problem with interpersonal
relations

8. CONCLUSIONS
This good practice rather works in live contact
and is ineffective online

9. GOOD PRACTICE 2
C2C/ citizen to citizen – dialogue training
• First 90 seconds silence to feel the duration
• 2 people sit opposite each other
• One asks the other answers – fate decides who has which
role
• Rules of behavior are established: listening, good will,
honesty, respect, patience, being interested
• Goal: establish what the two have in common and on
what they differ on a given theme (social exclusion)
• Duration: 90 seconds
• Evaluation by a trainer afterwards

11. TESTED
• In workshops (Gdynia) with trainers and 2
groups of seniors:
- Lively dialogues
- Intense listening, intense searching for the right
words
- The hardest for professionals: they lapse into
techniques
- Hard for individuals who are in a hierarchical
relationship

12. CONCLUSION
This good practice is great to let individuals in a
non-hierarchical relationship exchange
opinions.
Professionals tend to hide behind what they’ve
learned before.

13. GOOD PRACTICE 3
• Intervention in online discussions
- Providing moderate alternatives
- Providing doubt
- Asking for more time, more reflection
(proposing “slow dialogue”)

14. TESTED
• Online in the Dutch Zwarte Pieten-discussie
- Great distrust – accusations of trolling
- Great aggression – you’re a hypocrite afraid
to have a clear opinion

15. CONCLUSION
Slow dialogue does not work online.

16. GOOD PRACTICE 4
• Publishing essays
• Publishing questionnaires

17. TESTED
• Publication of articles online – on Slideshare - on the
Zwarte Pieten discussion:
- [essay] 2 weeks ago: 207 views
- [essay] 4 months ago: 141 views
- [press release] 4 months ago: 401 views
- [PPT essay] 4 months ago: 355 views
- [good practices & literature overview] 4 months ago: 194
- No discussion
• Questionnaire published (Surveymonkey - distribution by
well-connected members in the network):
- Participants: 110 in PL; 472 in NL
- Results published (NL): 536 views
- Discussion with the distributors not with the authors

18. QUESTIONNAIRE PL
• Questionnaire published (Surveymonkey - distribution by
well-connected members in the network) - Participants: 34
• Questionnaire handed out during workshops and
conference:
• Conference Gdansk for trainers – Participants: 53
• workshops Gdynia with trainers, senior citizens –
Participants: 23
• Total number of participants: 110
• Age: 20 – 70+
• Mostly with higher education

19. QUESTIONNAIRE PL (2)
- Many respondents wrote that they either are not interested in the
subject or there are more important issues not being discussed
- They describe it as a work of art, symbol of freedom, tolerance,
equality
- They see proponents & opponents as normal people fighting for their
rights and believes
- They think that the discussion should stop – it would be bether for
everyone and there are more urging matters than rainbow
- There were few radical responses against the rainbow, that
„zoophiles, murderers, thieves will be trying to make a monument for
themselves”

20. CONCLUSION
An online questionnaire about a real taboo
subject does not work but about an explosive
subject does work.
Articles on an explosive subject are read but
not discussed – or maybe that’s the effect I
[Onno] have. In 6 years of being a journalist I
got 2 reactions, 1 by my cousin in Australia
who found me for private reasons.

21. ANNEX – PL RESULTS

22. ANNEX – PL RESULTS (2)

23. ANNEX – PL RESULTS (3)

24. ANNEX – PL RESULTS (4)

25. ANNEX – PL RESULTS (5)

26. ANNEX – PL RESULTS (6)

27. ANNEX – PL RESULTS (7)

28. ANNEX – PL RESULTS (8)

29. ANNEX – PL RESULTS (9)