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.
5.
6. Inform
Research
Consult
Involve
Collaborate
Empower
Spectrum of Public Participation
7. 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
9. The blind men and the elephant
http://www.nature.com/ki/journal/v62/n5/fig_tab/4493262f1.html
10. PIN diagram (created by Andrew Acland)
Win-Lose
Positions
Interests
& Values
Needs &
Fears
Win-Win
11. Defining Goals of Dialogue
1. Enhanced understanding
o of different people’s standpoints
o of the complexity of the issue or topic
2. Relationship building
o between sponsor and publics/stakeholders
o between stakeholders
--Dialogue is NOT about decision-making
12. 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
13. Communication
Adversarial Dialogic
ADVOCACY INQUIRY
(persuading) (understanding)
Confrontational forms of Collaborative forms of
communication communication
Certainty Curiosity / Openness
Expertise 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
15. Challenges
• Creating the right environment
• Managing expectations
• Redefining expertise
• Advocacy vs Facilitation (the
SciComm dilemma)
• Chair person vs Facilitator
.
16.
17.
18.
19. Building capacity
“The main learning point for me was the
importance of the emotional content of
dialogue, and the understanding that I need
to be aware of both the emotional content and
the factual content in group discussions and
to be able to act on both as a facilitator.”
- Course participant evaluation form
20.
21. Time to reflect and share
Take 5 minutes to write down your reactions
and reflections to what you have heard
o Challenges you face, top tips
Share this with the people on your table
23. Ground Rules
1. 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.
24. Management of Lay-Expert Divide
Knowledge
Confidence
Different standpoints
All contribute to power imbalances in a mixed group discussion
People with less education or strong views scientists disagree
with often feel patronised, silenced or dismissed
So important to ‘think from the other’ …
25. 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
26. 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
27.
28. 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?
29. Take away points
1. 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)
.
Editor's Notes
Conflict is key to democracy, confrontation is not… because confrontation prevents us from meaningfully exploring conflict Communication patterns Beyond ritualised communication
Relational benefits It builds networks and trust amongst participants. It generates trust of the sponsor and ongoing engagement. It builds capacity for future dialogic efforts. It enhances ‘social capital’ more generally. Decidere= to murder the alternative
Local decision making Community participation in planning Development projects Environmental issues Organisational change All stakeholders are involved, so the decisions arrived at are better informed, and they address ‘real’ problems The process looks for the positive and for common ground, so it can serve to avoid or manage conflict, or move people away from polarised positions The process generates ‘buy in’ and lasting support, so implementation is smoother and quicker the process is cheaper overall
Local decision making Community participation in planning Development projects Environmental issues Organisational change All stakeholders are involved, so the decisions arrived at are better informed, and they address ‘real’ problems The process looks for the positive and for common ground, so it can serve to avoid or manage conflict, or move people away from polarised positions The process generates ‘buy in’ and lasting support, so implementation is smoother and quicker the process is cheaper overall
Local decision making Community participation in planning Development projects Environmental issues Organisational change All stakeholders are involved, so the decisions arrived at are better informed, and they address ‘real’ problems The process looks for the positive and for common ground, so it can serve to avoid or manage conflict, or move people away from polarised positions The process generates ‘buy in’ and lasting support, so implementation is smoother and quicker the process is cheaper overall
Local decision making Community participation in planning Development projects Environmental issues Organisational change All stakeholders are involved, so the decisions arrived at are better informed, and they address ‘real’ problems The process looks for the positive and for common ground, so it can serve to avoid or manage conflict, or move people away from polarised positions The process generates ‘buy in’ and lasting support, so implementation is smoother and quicker the process is cheaper overall
Dialogue with a capital D Is a ‘deep’ communication process Prizes mutual listening and mutual understanding Brings together diverse groups, often with differing or conflicting perspectives, to work collaboratively Seeks to move beyond adversarial ‘positions’ to look for the positive and for common ground Carries a conviction that dialogue can ‘make a difference’; if the process is good the outcome will be good
Relational benefits It builds networks and trust amongst participants. It generates trust of the sponsor and ongoing engagement. It builds capacity for future dialogic efforts. It enhances ‘social capital’ more generally.
Relational benefits It builds networks and trust amongst participants. It generates trust of the sponsor and ongoing engagement. It builds capacity for future dialogic efforts. It enhances ‘social capital’ more generally.
Relational benefits It builds networks and trust amongst participants. It generates trust of the sponsor and ongoing engagement. It builds capacity for future dialogic efforts. It enhances ‘social capital’ more generally.
Relational benefits It builds networks and trust amongst participants. It generates trust of the sponsor and ongoing engagement. It builds capacity for future dialogic efforts. It enhances ‘social capital’ more generally.
