Impact through dialogue & deliberation

Impact through dialogue and deliberation

Oliver Escobar

Lara Isbel

Heather Rea

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)

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

From my viewpoint…

The blind men and the elephant

http://www.nature.com/ki/journal/v62/n5/fig_tab/4493262f1.html

Positions

Interests& ValuesNeeds &

Fears

Win-Win

Win-Lose

PIN diagram (created by Andrew Acland)

1. Enhanced understanding o of different people’s standpointso of the complexity of the issue or topic

2. Relationship buildingo between sponsor and publics/stakeholderso between stakeholders

--Dialogue is NOT about decision-making

Defining Goals of Dialogue

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

CommunicationAdversarial Dialogic

ADVOCACY(persuading)

INQUIRY(understanding)

Confrontational forms of communication

Collaborative forms of communication

Certainty Curiosity / Openness

Expertise as superior knowledge Multiple forms of knowledge (e.g. local, experiential)

Outcome orientated:Communication as message-

transmission

Process orientated:Communication as co-creation

of meaning

The D + D Process

Challenges

• Creating the right environment

• Managing expectations

• Redefining expertise

• Advocacy vs Facilitation (the SciComm dilemma)

• Chair person vs Facilitator

.

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

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

Questions from the floor

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.

6. People have the right to be silent, but not to be silenced.

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’ …

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

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

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?

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)

.