Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

SCC 2012 Impact through dialogue and deliberation


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

SCC 2012 Impact through dialogue and deliberation

  1. 1. Impact through dialogue & deliberation
  2. 2. Impact through dialogue and deliberation Oliver Escobar Lara Isbel Heather Rea
  3. 3. One hour 15 minutes!• Intro (5 mins)• Panel Discussion (20 mins)• Time to reflect & discuss (20 mins)• Q & A (20 mins)• Summing up (10 mins)
  4. 4. Inform Research Consult InvolveCollaborate Empower Spectrum of Public Participation
  5. 5. Reasons for researchers to facilitate dialogue• To gain diverse points of view as an input or inspiration to your research• To build awareness and understanding of your work• To understand and potentially respond to any concerns• To explore and deal with social and ethical issues raised by your research.• To do the groundwork for policy deliberation based on shared inquiry and collective intelligence
  6. 6. From myviewpoint…
  7. 7. The blind men and the elephant
  8. 8. PIN diagram (created by Andrew Acland) Win-Lose Positions Interests & Values Needs & Fears Win-Win
  9. 9. Defining Goals of Dialogue1. Enhanced understanding o of different people’s standpoints o of the complexity of the issue or topic2. Relationship building o between sponsor and publics/stakeholders o between stakeholders --Dialogue is NOT about decision-making
  10. 10. Key dynamics in dialogue (micro-foundations)• Building a safe space  Fostering openness and respect• Storytelling• Listening:  Suspending assumptions and automatic response• Collaborative inquiry:  Finding common ground and exploring differences• Balancing advocacy and inquiry
  11. 11. Communication Adversarial Dialogic ADVOCACY INQUIRY (persuading) (understanding) Confrontational forms of Collaborative forms of communication communication Certainty Curiosity / OpennessExpertise as superior knowledge Multiple forms of knowledge (e.g. local, experiential) Outcome orientated: Process orientated: Communication as message- Communication as co-creation transmission of meaning
  12. 12. The D + D Process
  13. 13. Challenges• Creating the right environment• Managing expectations• Redefining expertise• Advocacy vs Facilitation (the SciComm dilemma)• Chair person vs Facilitator.
  14. 14. Building capacity “The main learning point for me was theimportance of the emotional content ofdialogue, and the understanding that I needto be aware of both the emotional content andthe factual content in group discussions andto be able to act on both as a facilitator.” - Course participant evaluation form
  15. 15. Time to reflect and shareTake 5 minutes to write down your reactionsand reflections to what you have heard o Challenges you face, top tipsShare this with the people on your table
  16. 16. Questions from the floor
  17. 17. Ground Rules1. Everyone here has something to contribute.2. One person speaks at a time.3. Listen actively to what everyone has to say.4. Respect different views; try to understand one another, not to judge or impose your views.5. Make your points concisely, and don’t dominate the discussion.
  18. 18. Management of Lay-Expert Divide Knowledge Confidence Different standpointsAll contribute to power imbalances in a mixed group discussionPeople with less education or strong views scientists disagree with often feel patronised, silenced or dismissed So important to ‘think from the other’ …
  19. 19. Taster of a facilitation technique: Reframing contentious or disruptive contributions• Goals o Regain a generative focus for the conversation o Move from I/You to We, from the general to the specific, and from deficit to proactive thinking• 3 basic steps: o Acknowledge what has been said o Ask an open question that seems to be at the heart of the problem o Involve other members of the group in solving the issue
  20. 20. Reframing (adapted from Acland 1997)• I object to landfill sites!• How might we deal with community waste?• shift from close to open• You are so negative about this proposal• How might we evaluate proposals?• shift from you/me to we• The project officer has not been keeping us informed• How might we improve communication?• shift from deficit to affirmation and problem-solving• Last time I went to a meeting like this it was a complete waste of time!• How might we overcome this here? What would it take for this meeting to be worthwhile for everyone?• shift from past problems to future opportunities
  21. 21. Impact through dialogue• Building partnership & relationships → long term mutual benefit• Creating interpretive communities → End of the research project is not the end of knowledge co- production• Developing civic capacity to engage with complex issues• Groundwork for deliberative policy making • Caveat. Upstream engagement → Downstream policy making?
  22. 22. Take away points1. Conflict is valuable in public engagement; confrontation is not.2. We need to build capacity for dialogic facilitation (invest in the micro-foundations of dialogue).