GE Dialogue Tauhara 2004

8/14/2019 GE Dialogue Tauhara 2004

1/84

D IALOGUE ON G ENETIC ENGINEERING TAUHARA CENTRE, TAUPO22-25TH APRIL 2004

REPORT FOR THEMINISTRY OF RESEARCHSCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

dialogue is an altogether very different way oftalking together. Generally we think of dialogue as abetter conversation. But there is much more to it.Dialogue, as I define it, is a conversation with a centre

not sides. It is a way of taking the energy of ourdifferences and channelling it toward something thathas never been created before. It lifts us out ofpolarization and into a greater common sense and it isthereby a means of accessing the intelligence andcoordinated power of groups of people

- William Isaacs 1999, Dialogue and the art of thinking together:A pioneering approach to communicating in business and in life


2/84

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Purpose: To provide an opportunity for New Zealanders to experience a new way of dealingwith otherwise intractable issues.

Outcomes: Enhanced trust, respect and understanding and the possibility for emergence.

Process: Dialogue.

The Dialogue on GE began when a scientist attended a gathering of Heart Politics at the TauharaCentre, Taupo in July 2003. Heart Politics provides a forum for social change issues, discussion andeducation. The experience of having a conversation on GE that did not involve an argument overfacts or a debate over merits, being rather an occasion of listening and reflection, prompted thoseinvolved in the conversation to suggest a similar opportunity be made available to a wider group.

A small Holding Group was established comprised of members of Heart Politics, Tauhara, andrepresentatives from the science community. Funds were obtained through Ministry of ResearchScience and Technology [funding from the same intent as the Dialogue Fund], and extensive

planning was undertaken.

A central and less usual feature of the planning was the particular attention paid to interpersonalclarity within the group. The Holding Group sought to establish an atmosphere of clarity, trust andopenness that would strike a note for the Dialogue itself, in a way that would be different to themore traditional conference situation.

A range of participants was sought that would reflect as wide a range of stake-holders in the issueas possible within the constraints of the venue and the funding, although the possible participantsfar outnumbered the spaces available. Where invitations were declined, an invitation went to thenext person on the list, and, as far as possible, the breadth of range was maintained. The list that

generated the invitations was formed from contacts or suggestions from within the Holding Group,and from the contacts' recommendations.

It was deemed important to invite families of participants, so that an inter-generational mix waspresent, as well as having a living reminder of the interests of the future. Childcare facilities weremade available, yet no requirements were made for children or spouses to remain separate from theDialogue, although it was clear that the Dialogue processes were taking place in adult space.Indeed, it proved valuable for spouses and children to be present and to participate in this way.

Invitees were given some background papers on Dialogue and invited to leave their corporateidentities behind, attending rather as informed and engaged individuals.

The Dialogue itself was structured to allow time for meeting and engaging, firstly, with the otherparticipants, then with the Dialogue concept, and finally with the GE focus of the Dialogue. Withinthe programme, particular attention was paid to ensuring that the individuals' visions and concernswere able to be heard.

The business/commercial interests in the technology and its applications proved the mostchallenging sector to engage in the process. There were also one or two significant last minutecancellations across the board. Nevertheless, given the commitment of the two workdays and one

ii


3/84

weekend that was required the range of participants was representative and inclusive.

The participants were immediately notable for the enthusiasm and goodwill that they broughtalong. This posed an early challenge for the Holding Group which was required to respondorganically to the perceived needs of the group and resulted in some deft reformatting at times. Amixture of monologue, duologue and small group conversation paved the way to the possibility of whole group dialogue. In hindsight, more small group opportunity may have proved useful.

This and other feedback from both the Holding Group and the Participants is included in thereport, with more detail in the appendices. The Dialogue process served to bring the various voicesaround the GE issue together. Some informal co-operative initiatives were formed between peopleof apparently opposing points of view. Significantly, issues around decision-making power,purpose, and responsibility took on as much, if not more, importance than discussion about thetechnology itself. This raised the importance of the values upon which society is based, andaffirmed the need to keep focussed upon these societal values in the few opportunities to engagewith them.

iii


4/84

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 PREPARATION FOR THE DIALOGUE EVENT 2An Overview of the Organising or Holding Group Preparation 2The Invitation Process 2

3.0 THE DIALOGUE EVENT 3Who attended 3Facilitation 4Child Care Facilities 4Spaces and Styles of Interaction 5The Programme 5Description of the Programme Sessions 7

4.0 FEEDBACK , EVALUATION AND LEARNING FROM THE DIALOGUE EVENT 13

4.1 FEEDBACK 13Feedback of the organizing group to their employers, groups or communities 13 A Powerful Way to Experience the Dialogue On GE 14

4.2 EVALUATION 19Evaluation by the Participants 19Evaluation of Tauhara as a location for the Dialogue event 19Evaluation of this Event as the First of the Tauhara Dialogues 20

4.3 LEARNINGS 20The Learnings of the Holding Group from the Dialogue on GE 201. What worked well 202. What did not work well 223. What would we do differently next time 24Thoughts on Dialogue and how to achieve it in a group 25

5.0 A P ROPOSAL 25A Second Event, Dialogue on GE Plus 6 25

6.0 BUDGET 26

7.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 27

8.0 L IST OF APPENDICES 28

8.1 PROPOSAL TO THE MINISTRY OF SCIENCE , RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY 29

8.2 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY PARTICIPANTS 34Invitation to attend the Dialogue on GE 35

iv


5/84

Further information to invitees 39Letter accompanying the Dialogue Reader 43Dialogue Reader 44First email sent to all participants following the Dialogue on GE event 52Second email sent to all participants following the Dialogue on GE event 53

8.3 DOCUMENTATION DISTRIBUTED OR ATTAINED DURING THE EVENT 54

Information for home groups 55Participant Feedback form 56Compilation of the Evaluations of the Dialogue on GE 58Evaluation from the throne 70Image of Seed in Pastel 72

8.4 DOCUMENTATION ARISING FROM THE DIALOGUE ON GE 73The GE Information Bulletin #22 74Article in Tauhara Newsletter 78Article for the Taupo GE Free group 80

v


6/84

1.0 I NTRODUCTION

This document tracks the processes involved in planning and holding a dialogue event on the topicof Genetic Engineering/Modification (GE/GM). It is intended to provide a baseline for othersconsidering holding such an event, as well as an account of what happened at this particular event atTaupo, held in April 2004, and funded through the Ministry for Research, Science, and Technology.

How did a biologist, a plant virus scientist, a documentary film-maker, an associate professor of computing, a psychotherapist, a social scientist, an eco-village architect, and a business managerend up planning an event together?

Most of us met through a commitment to social change, and a concern that the GE/GM debate waspotentially extremely damaging, whereas it might have the potential to add some new depth to ourcommunities. The range was particularly useful since there are stories - behind these thumbnailsketches of direct experience of the difficult process of communication, and the results of itsfailure.

We imagined a situation where diverse interests came together not to score points off each other,

but to listen as deeply as possible. We envisaged putting difference aside without ignoring ordismissing it, in order to pursue whatever common vision a group of concerned and committedindividuals might discover between themselves. We were inspired by influences as varied asQuakerism and Quantum Physics, and in particular by commentators such as physicist David Bohmwho observed the field capacities of group mind available to human beings meeting with intention.

There was nothing particularly new about what our group intended or about what Bohm had tosay. Human beings have always known that if you want to get to the bottom of an issue or problem,a good place to start is sitting down together with a fairly open ended timeframe and a commitmentto mutual respect. The rediscovery, if that is what it is, was intentionality.

Some of us had had experience of Dialogue in this form, and it is often described in quitemetaphorical and even poetic language. For example, the tensions between different perspectiveshave been described as being like the tension between the body and skin of a drum, noting that bothare needed to make an instrument and a sound. This way of engaging with paradox has been calleda level shift and invokes Einsteins observation that problems cannot be solved at the same levelof consciousness from which they were originally perceived.

From the start of the planning process it was deemed important to clarify any misunderstandings,however apparently trivial, between individuals. Mostly we achieved this. Someone watching thissometimes tortured process would have eventually recognised that particular attention was beingpaid to understanding where we, as individuals, located our sense of our own identity.

The intention was made to establish a meeting where the more superficial aspects of individualhuman doing could yield to the deeper potential of collective human being. It is an approach thatmoves on from a confrontational and colonising Victorian vision of survival of the fittest to a visionof thriving that comes from interactive co-operation survival of the best fit.

1


7/84

2.0 P REPARATION FOR THE DIALOGUE EVENT

An Overview of the Organising or Holding Group Preparation

The preparation for this event was enormous. The nine organisers in the holding group metfortnightly, at night in a private home, and on a voluntary basis, and also went away for a planningweekend together at Hahei. The total time of preparation was approximately 500 hours. The

sustaining drive was the possibility for New Zealanders to experience a new way of dealing withotherwise intractable issues.

Key considerations during the preparation for the dialogue were: Distillation of the purpose, objectives, and process of the event. Determining what funding was appropriate for this Dialogue concept. Writing and revisiting the funding proposal. Determining the timing of the event. The invitation process: How were people going to be invited, who to invite initially and as

replacements, The involvement of children. Warming-up of participants to the dialogue process through one-to-one interactions and a

dialogue reader. Forming the shape of the gathering to fulfill the purpose, objectives, and desired process. The needs of participants, especially on the first day, and how to meet these. Facilitation of the dialogue process. The need for the organising group to be transparent about our purpose, involvement regarding

GE and our motivations for organising the event. Practical organisation details.

The Invitation Process

The initial intention was to create a flyer, distribute it to possible participants and ask if they wereinterested in writing an expression of an interest in attending. We would have then selected thosewe thought would have been suitable and invited them.

What we decided to do, however, was to identify the different sectors that we wanted involved andthen use our own personal networks to identify and invite people from those sectors who wethought would be suitable and willing to participate.

Possible invitees were assessed on our judgement of their potential to be able to put aside theirpreconceptions and assumptions, to suspend judgement and be willing to listen wholeheartedly. Wewanted to bring in whole people. Identity linked to the topic was seen as limiting the ability to shift,and people were asked to come as individuals not representing organisations.

A short list was put together, and these people were contacted to see if they were interested inparticipating. A written invitation was then sent to those indicating interest. There was a cut off datefor registering but this passed with only about half of the anticipated participants registering.Further people were then invited from all the identified sectors

2


8/84

The sectors used were as follows: Biotechnology Industry; Commercial; Educationalists; GE FreeActivists; Gene Scientists; Health Professionals; Heart Politics attendees; Maori; Media;Musicians/Artists; Organics; Scientists; Social Scientists; and Women.

One group that was not invited was politicians. This was an early decision made on theassumption that a politician, almost by definition, would be unable to suspend their position or theirpartys position, and listen with an open mind.

We also generally avoided journalists in the belief that it would inhibit a free and open exchangeof views, although one journalist did attend to contribute to the dialogue as an individual, but not toreport.

Early on we made the decision to provide childcare facilities and thereby enable parents,especially mothers, to attend. We were also conscious that the presence of children might add aunique dimension to the dialogue, as everyone would be able to connect through the young ones,and we would have our future so visibly with us.

We kept a spreadsheet showing the different sectors and the acceptance rate across the sectors. We

then continued to invite further people from the relevant areas until we achieved as much of abalance as was possible.

Unfortunately we had a number of key withdrawals close to the beginning of the Dialogue thatskewed the attendance from some of the sectors. This meant that we were under-represented by thebiotechnology industry, Maori and business.

One of the barriers to attending across all sectors was the need to commit to the full four days, andthis was most apparent in the business and Maori groups. Some invitees declined the invitationwhen asked if they could come without feeling the need to argue their position. This appliedparticularly to the scientific and GE activist communities.

3.0 T HE DIALOGUE EVENT

Who attended

The event included 58 participants; 49 adults and nine children. Seventeen of the adults werewomen, three Maori, two artists, three from business, two from the media, one educationalist, sixanti-GE activists, six gene scientists, one from the biotechnology industry, two medicalpractitioners, four organic growers, three other scientists, seven social scientists, one church

professional. A number of the people crossed sectors as would be expected and this helped to buildlinks between people. The childrens ages ranged from 13 months to 15 years. The youngest adultwas 16 and the oldest was an octogenarian.

While it is not a simple question to answer, it appeared that the participants were split roughlyequally between being pro GE, not sure and being against GE. However as the dialogue discoveredit is very simplistic to even consider such a division.

3


9/84

Facilitation

The Holding Group was comprised of professionals from a mixture of disciplines, skills bases,experience and age. Initially, some were committed to GE as a powerful and useful technology,others were less certain, and some were actively involved in the anti-GE protest. An outline of thebackground of the holding group members is in the Appendix (8.2 Further information to invitees).

However, from the outset Heart Politics trustees had stressed the importance of externalfacilitation, and, indeed, made their support contingent on this being addressed. The usualfacilitatory process may not always manage the transferential issues very effectively. Thus, whilstfacilitators may manage the structure and procedures well, they also take on a role of considerableimportance to the group. Comments that may be perceived as from a facilitator can trigger stronglynegative responses.

Therefore, contemporary facilitation may often include process facilitators, who are not associatedwith those organising and running the event thus external. A process facilitator was consideredas especially useful at an event that was aspiring to be different to a more traditional conference.The role was seen as potentially offering mentorship in an unfamiliar environment, to provideinsight and clarification, and even discrete coaching to individuals. It was also seen that a Process

Facilitator might offer a neutral meta-comment on the process as it happened. Whilst they were verycleanly delineated from the Holding Group, they were invited to give them feedback as deemednecessary.

Process facilitators Richard Jakob-Hoff and Lynne Holdem are both experienced group workers.Richard, trained with Zenergy, is a veterinarian and zoologist who has facilitated groups connectedwith international wildlife conservation, whilst Lynne is a teacher of psychotherapy and personaldevelopment courses with particular interest and skills in the process and dynamics of groups. Theyenvisaged their role as one of being around and attentive, focussing on process not content and,where necessary, darting in and engaging clearly, visibly and sonorously. With this in mind theydecided to call themselves tuis. Their aim was to provide a mirror for the dialogue group; to

reflect back what they saw happening in the group, and also to be an independent resource forparticipants to consult on issues of process.

Another significant aspect of the facilitation process was the establishment of Home Groups.These were self-facilitated meeting groups of four to six people, designed to allow a more personaland private reflection and reaction to the larger group meetings. Their intention was to allowfeelings and responses to events in the larger group to be processed in a manner that could receiveappropriate support and feedback from peers.

Child Care Facilities

Two childcare coordinators were paid to assist with the children. As the dialogue programmebegan at 9 am and finished around 9.30 pm each day, it was essential to have good coverage so thatparents could participate as fully as they wanted to.

On the first evening the families met with the two childcare coordinators to establish how theywould interact and determine levels of responsibility. It was agreed that the children would have adedicated room that was their space and that the dialogue hall would be adult space with an opendoor policy operating. In practice this worked exceptionally well with the children coming andgoing in a mostly non-disruptive and positive way. The children were a powerful force in the event.

4


10/84

Spaces and Styles of Interaction

The dialogue itself was held as a circle of people in the main hall. The words that were said andheard in the dialogue space seeded knots of conversation elsewhere so that while taking a break onecould observe in the hallways, the dining hall, on the lawns, and in the bunk rooms, knots of peopleearnestly engaged with each other. The conversations in these groups seemed to be in the attitude of dialogue: inclusive, inquiring and open.

The toilets also had evaluation forms (Evaluation from the Governance Position, see appendix 8.3for details) that acted as graffiti boards for ongoing conversations.

Other opportunities and styles of interaction apart from whole group Dialogue were: the HomeGroups formed to daily discuss matters in a small and constant group of people; interactions overthe childrens activities and their care giving; the caf, an evening of informal entertainment arisingfrom the gathering and a great place to joke about the interactions that had been experienced;mealtimes; and room mates.

The Programme

The programme that was developed used the learnings from Heart Politics gatherings such asthose in Winter and Summer and also the Wananga, an eight-day event exploring the process of gathering itself. The programme that we developed was customised for the needs of the Dialogueprocess and the high proportion of participants who had not previously experienced the HeartPolitics culture (see photograph below).

The sessions were developed to lead the participants through a structured first day starting with anemphasis on the background and development of the Dialogue on GE event, and a building togetherof understanding about the dialogue process on the second day, including the opportunity for eachvoice to be heard in the circle, and then moved into an opportunity for dialogue on the third day. Analternative interaction style was

provided through the caberet-style,self-entertaining Caf held onSaturday night. The final day wasstructured to reflect on the sharedprocess, to evaluate the event, to distilland name the key take homeessence, and to farewell each other.

Due to the enthusiasm of theparticipants and their perceived degreeof comfort with the Dialogueenvironment, the programme wasaltered. On Friday morning theIngredients session was broughtforward providing an opportunity foreach participants voice to be heard inthe circle naming their perspective onthe issue of GE.

5


11/84

GE DIALOGUE PROGRAM TAUHARA CENTRE 22 ND 25TH APRIL, 2004

THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAYAn

7.45 Breakfast Breakfast Brea9 Dig

reflundrelarespgrogroabo

11

IngredientsWhole group round of deeperintroductions what broughtyou here, and what is yourrelationship with GE

CookingSilent reflectionWhole group dialogue

Feewricom

12 Lunch Lunch Lasack

1.30PM 1pm

3 Registration. Hosts welcomepeople and make sure theyknow where their rooms are,cup of tea.

4

Alchemy

Reflection on process

Whole group dialogue linkingthreads

Reflection on process5

Welcome to Tauhara Centre,the land and the space.Welcome to the Dialogue itspurpose, organising group.

Recipes

Group agreements, principlesof dialogue, then begin wholegroup dialogue

Reflection on process Home Groups meet6 Dinner6.45 Children, family and child

carers meeting

Dinner Dinner

7.35 Menu - Orientation,introductions, history of theevent. Organising group nametheir relationship with GE.Overview of programme,introduction to home groups

8.30 Home Groups meet9.30 Supper

Home groups meet 7.45Caf Chill out - entertainment


12/84

Description of the Programme Sessions

Each session of the programme, except the welcome, was facilitated by two people from theholding group and has been described in terms of what was planned, what happened and thereasoning behind these.

THURSDAY

The welcome was simple. It comprised of a welcome to the place, Tauhara; its environs, bywalking the scenic lawns and viewing the land and lake; and its people, through words of welcomefrom the manager. This elicited an impromptu response from a Kaumatua, one of the participants.We then welcomed the participants inside where two members of the holding group, keyprecipitators of the event, met them. We then welcomed the participants to a Heart Politics eventand to a MoRST funded event.

Menu

What was planned

The Menu session was held in a circle of participants. It explored (A) the history of how we eachgot to be together in this place and the importance of the central space in the middle of us all in thecircle. We then explored (B) the process of being together and creating the central space with eachof us at the rim forming the container for dialogue.

B

What happened What happened approached what was planned. It was clear that the participants were very keen to

interact and be involved with each other therefore the sociograms near the end of this session took longer than planed i.e. about ten minutes each rather than the planned five minutes.

This is an unusual type of conference so we may as well start unusually. This is a poem from theFour Quartets of TS Elliot, Little Gidding, Section 5.

What we call the beginning is often the endAnd to make and end is to make a beginning.The end is where we start from. And every phraseAnd sentence that is right (where every word is athome,Taking its place to support the others,The word neither diffident nor ostentatious,An easy commerce of the old and the new,The common word exact without vulgarity,The formal word precise but not pedantic,The complete consort dancing together)Every phrase and every sentence is an end and abeginning,Every poem an epitaph. And any actionIs a step to the block, to the fire, down the sea's throatOr to an illegible stone: and that is where we start.We die with the dying:See, they depart, and we go with them.

We are born with the dead:See, they return, and bring us with them.The moment of the rose and the moment of the yew-treeAre of equal duration. A people without historyIs not redeemed from time, for history is a patternOf timeless moments. So, while the light failsOn a winter's afternoon, in a secluded chapelHistory is now and England (here Ed).

With the drawing of this Love and the voice of thisCalling

We shall not cease from explorationAnd the end of all our exploringWill be to arrive where we startedAnd know the place for the first time.

7


13/84

I am a scientist from HortResearch and I was given the opportunity to attend a HeartPolitics gathering in the winter of 2003. I was also given the invitation by a fellow attendeeto offer a Conversation on GE. I decided to attend and offer this session, a Conversation onGE. Going down there to Taupo I felt as if I was walking into the mouth of a lion, a solitarygenetic engineer going to talk with assumed anti-GE people. At the gathering we had the

Conversation on GE and it was a transforming experience. People met across difference,were heard and respected even though they didnt necessarily agree with each other. Wewere inspired to share this with a wider group of kiwis. This seemed to fit with the cultureof Heart Politics as this is a group of people who are active community members.

The organizing or holding group formed and we have met voluntarily over many meetingsto develop this Dialogue on GE event. The holding group is comprised of a diverse range of people. For us to be here with you it is important that we let you know a little bit aboutourselves especially in relation to GE.

At this point each of the holding group named their background with regard to GE.

This event was intended to be the first of a series of Tauhara Dialogues and someindividuals from Heart Poltics gifted money to initiate that concept. In addition, the holdinggroup discussed and applied for supporting funds from the Ministry of Research, Science,and Technology, in short, MoRST. MoRST is very active in the field of supporting theinteraction between science and society and has developed a Dialogue Fund for that specificpurpose, to trial different dialogue approaches in the NZ cultural setting. Our timing hadmissed that funding round and we applied for some funds from a pool of money alignedwith the Dialogue Fund. The proposal is available for you to read, copies are on theresource table. In addition you will find information about MoRST in their booklet on theresource table.

With funds in hand we were able to start inviting and developing the event. Our objectivewas to invite an eclectic group of people of diverse backgrounds and ages. It is you thathave come.

Participants were then encouraged to meet each other using three sociograms as tools.Participants first distributed themselves within an imagined world map around the room toanswer the question, Where you were born? and to meet the two people closest. Thesegroups of three people were then asked to interact over the question What hooked you in tocoming. After discussion people were asked to look at the native animal on their name tag,to group with people with the same animal (i.e. the home group) and then discuss What doyou know about Dialogue, what dont know you know about dialogue, what might it be?What might happen?

The process of dialogue was then described and likened to three blind people eachdescribing different parts of an elephant; each person may understand or hold clues toparticular aspects or viewpoints and together the whole is brought together and perhapsunderstood. The programme during the rest of the Dialogue event was then loosely outlined.

8


14/84

With the promise that there would be time for everyone to contribute and for lots of conversations during the event, the purpose of home groups (to meet daily in small groups)was explained and the home groups met in groups of up to six people for the next hour.

Reasoning behind the Menu session

We intended to give people the history of the gathering, to be transparent about theholding group and our purposes. The aim was to allow the participants to feel comfortablein meeting others, and to get an idea of the flavour of the gathering now that they were here.A high priority in this session and the home groups was for people to have their needs of safety met.

FRIDAYBecause people were so engaged in the Menu session the previous night, and so willing to

get into dialogue, and because the only those people in the holding group had had a chanceto powerfully speak into the big circle the night before, it was decided to change the order

of the Recipe and Ingredients sessions with the Ingredients going first. This allowed theparticipants the opportunity to all speak their connection with GE into the big circle.

Ingredients

What was planned The ingredients session was planned to provide all participants the opportunity to speak

once into the circle of the whole gathering. This was planned to happen after the Recipessession and to initiate the Dialogue through serial monologue.

What happened Participants seemed to be very keen to take action and be involved and therefore this

session happened first on Friday morning. Each participant verbalised their perspective onGE to the circle. This session was very moving and spanned most of the morning.

The reasoning behind the Ingredients session There is a power to knowing that you will be heard and also that you will have an

opportunity to speak freely. There is also responisibility in choosing your contribution as eachperson has only one time to speak. This process brings consciousnes to contributing your voice andfor some a needed encouragement to contribute.

Images of a Pottery Seed Distributed by One Participant to Everyone During the Ingredients Session

9


15/84

Recipes

What was planned We planned cafe-style interactions, with successive rounds of small group conversation

around key questions, then recording the links and themes emerging. This would lead in to

large group sharing and the final principles of dialogue and group agreements.The questions used during this session were:1. What are the principles/key themes of dialogue that are important to us here?2. What group agreements do we want to have in order to facilitate this dialogue?3. Do we want to record and if so, how? (Notes, drawings, photos, video diary etc.)

What happened Because we had all been in the big circle in the morning, and the experience was very

powerful, we decided that participants would be frustrated going back into small groups,and were eager to get on with dialogue, so we facilitated the principles of dialogue andgroup agreements in the big group (recording them on large flip charts), and opened the

floor to dialogue. What happened was a serial monologue mainly from the scientistsoutlining the parameters of GE.Before breaking for dinner, we had a 15 minute reflection on the dialogue process i.e.,

were we acting within the principles of dialogue and group agreements.

In retrospect, it would have been a good idea to stay with the small groups, and drop in aquestion like what are the key questions for us to address in the GE dialogue?

The reasoning behind the Recipe session The aims of this session were: to facilitate people meeting each other in a relatively non-

challenging environment, and to participate in, and own, the agreements on Dialogue; toevolve group agreements (recipes, a map, ways of being with each other) for being together,including what and how we record information; to warm people up to the principles of dialogue.

SATURDAY

Cooking and Alchemy

What was planned These sessions were intended for dialogue and were loosely facilitated. Since dialogue

arises from a company of people yet cannot be prescribed, a space was allowed for it toemerge.

What happened Two people from the holding group introduced the day with notices and housekeeping,

and an outline of the day - a whole day session with breaks, with 15 minutes of reflection onthe process before lunch and at the end of the day. The participants were led in a fewminutes of silence where they were invited to breathe and notice all of the information

10


16/84

around them. A bell was rung then the participants were reminded of some of theagreements that were made together on Friday. Other points made included:

We've been moving through different ways of talking to each other, from serialmonologue on Friday morning, to duologue on Friday afternoon. Let's learn how to

dialogue. Dialogue is about the flow of meaning between people - listen for when it's your piece of

the meaning that needs to be spoken Listen for the meaning of the whole dialogue, not just the last speaker Stand up, step into the space we create together, speak what is true for you, not questions

of others Be aware of and comment also on the process - what is happening here, how we're

speaking. The circle was then open for people to speak, which they did with varying levels of

passion and intellect, and on wide-ranging topics related to GE. The circle generallyproceeded well without any intervention from the facilitatiors, although a late and very

long contribution just before lunch could have been handled more actively to avoid oneperson dominating the process.

After lunch there were some attempts to invite a short reflection on the process,but participants were keener to keep talking. Talk and some moments of "dialogue"continued for the afternoon. Late in the afternoon an invitation was put out from oneparticipant for members of the holding group to contribute rather than holding back fromthe interactions, and it was suggested that this involvement from the holding groupmembers would possibly have been useful earlier in the process. Another period of reflection on the process wrapped up the day.

The reasoning behind the Cooking and Alchemy sessionsThe consideration was that the previous sessions would have warmed participants to the

point where we could spend a full day together in the circle and dialogue on GE with eachother.

CafWhat was planned The Caf was loosely planned and relied heavily on the spontaneity of the artistic and

imaginative talents in the room.

What happened

The Caf buzzed hot with dancing, performances, jokes, and songs (e.g. Gene Genie, aduo sung by an anti-GE activist and a gene scientist). The children set the pace with lip-synching to rock music and then initiated dancing by dragging participants up to join them.The room was resounding with music and laughter long into the night.

The reasoning behind Caf sessionThe Caf provides an opportunity to interact at a totally new level; to entertain, to joke

both with and at each other. It provides a light relief to the more serious parts of the event.

11


17/84

SUNDAY

Digestion

What was planned We found it almost impossible to plan this session in advance, because it depended so

much on what went before. So this session was planned immediatly beforehand, by theholding group and particularly the Tui observers.

What happened Participants were invited to participate in individual reflection on: new or increased understandings new or increased relationships new or increased responsibilities

that had emerged during the event. This started with individual reflection in a manner thatwas personally comfortable (e.g. walking outside, sitting, drawing, writing) then after ten

minutes small groups (5/6 people) were formed for discussion and to further develop andverbalise thoughts. The entire gathering then congregated to voice and hear the distillationor seeds or memes that had emerged fro each person. In a round each person spoke to thewhole group for a minute. By agreement these were recorded in writing (See section 4.1 forthese words).

This session then dovetailed seamlessly into the feedback session.

The reasoning behind Digestion sessionThe intention of this session was to draw the threads of dialogue together, to verbalise

what was emerging from the group and to obtain a record of the distillations from thedialogue event.

Feedback session

What was planned This session was planned to break in to the home groups for; discussion about the event

and what had emerged; to allow the time to complete the relationships built and shared inthe home group; and to provide time to complete the evaluation forms.

What happened at Feedback sessionThings went as planned and what happened was unique to each home group.

Reasoning behind the Feedback sessionThis session was intended to gather data to evaluate the event for both ourselves as the

holding group and for MoRST; to allow all types of evaluation i.e. art, words,quantification/numbers (e.g. too little to heaps), and to appreciate and farewell the people of each home group.

12


18/84

Last Word s

This final session was provided to allow participants to complete with the dialogue andready themselves for returning to their normal lives. The children were keen to be involvedand came into the centre of the circle of participants. The children were the first to

acknowledge others and to be acknowledged. The circle was then opened for any other lastthanks, regrets and acknowledgments and/or words that needed to be said to complete andbe ready to return to our lives beyond Tauhara. We ended on a song (May the road risewith you). This last session was facilitated by the resource people who had initially meteveryone as they first arrived for the gathering.

4.0 F EEDBACK , EVALUATION AND LEARNING FROM THEDIALOGUE EVENT

4.1 F EEDBACK

All participants were asked to feedback their experience and interactions from the event totheir respective employers / groups / communities. In addition, to foster interactionfollowing the event a contact list of all participants was distributed and a post-eventinformal gathering was held at a private house.

Feedback of the organizing group to their employers, groups or communities

Members of the holding group for the Dialogue on GE have fed back their experiences of the event in many ways including written reports or accounts, formal talks and also informaldiscussions. A list of some of these is included below:

Report back and discussions of the learnings and experience of the Dialogue to theHeart Politics community at the Winter gathering July 2004,

Report back to the Tauhara Centre Trustees about the process and what happened, Report back to the Tauhara Centre community including one article, Report back to Wananga community, An account of the Dialogue on GE was included in scientific presentations to

HortResearch, Massey University BioSciences Department (Palmerston North andAlbany campuses), Department of Microbiology and Biochemistry at the University

of Otago, and the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Auckland. Report back to the Taupo GE Free group including two articles to the GE FreeNewsletter,

Report back to the Taupo branch of the Green Party, Personal reporting of the Dialogue event to the senior executive team of

HortResearch. Report back to the Zoo Director

13


19/84

Description of the event in an Interim report for a Social Entrepreneur grant from theCommunity Employment Group.

Numerous informal discussions with a wide range of individuals e.g. Earthsongcommunity, HortResearch, Massey University, Otago University, and a Bioethicsconference.

In development: Article on the Dialogue on GE on HortResearch web-site.Report to the Psychosynthesis community, a community of therapists.

Future: Talk and poster presentations to the Sixth Australasian Plant VirologyWorkshop (August 2004), and the International Association for Plant Tissue Cultureand Biotechnology Conference (February 2005)

Many people additional to attendees are interested in receiving a copy of the reportwhen it is available.

A Powerful Way to Experience the Dialogue On GE

A powerful technique to experience the Dialogue event is for individuals in your group toread a participants words that were said during the final circle. Each voice at the Dialogueevent comes alive through a voice in your group.

This was the final plenary session. The floor was open, and people simply stood andspoke. Two scribes wrote down as much as they could of what was being said. Their notesare in the appendix. The distillation below is a reconstruction from these notes, with minor

additions to capture the flow and feeling of the occasion. This was a moment when thesense of dialogue was especially apparent, and one can sense the coming together andweaving of ideas and expression as the account develops.

The words spoken are below and throughout this report.

1. As with genes, there are far more similarities and connections between us thandifferences. However, there are differences and these can be seen as enriching, and arebeautiful and essential to diversity. Differences such as those we have experienced in theroom need to be valued and taken account of.

2. Almost everyone in the room has expressed their sense of being unheard in someway about this issue in the past. If there were a more effective forum it would be useful toinfluence government about process and issue.

3. It is important that even those who are suspicious of government use their positionsto be vocal and to be heard. Use your positions become political.

14


20/84

4. As an organic grower I am trained to look for how coexistence can be mutuallybeneficial. I want to embrace this even more fully, and I am interested to see how sciencecan help organics and how the organic vision may be able to help the processes used byscientists.

5. I learned a lot from this. I am remembering something I read about the essentialseven values. It offers an amazing change from the usual fundamentalism, of science andof activists - and in this NZ is different. The key is perspective, I think: we need to look forthe shared values between us, and this will help mend the relationships broken betweenscience and community, and even within science itself. We need to address values of spirituality v/v practicality, and, in this how we approach the process is everything.Regulation does not work. Prescription reduces shared values. There are two levels of responsibilities, and it is important to bring representatives of the economy and thecorporate interests to these events, and attempt to achieve the clarity needed to healrelationships and move, move forward together.

6. I have a deeper understanding of looking first for common ground. It is reallyimportant to listen to those who need to be heard.

7. I stand for being a seed crystal for diversity of people around the issue of GE. Itstime to include memes as well as genes in our decisions, and the way that we think. Memesneed to be anchored deeply and truly in society. And they need diversity of interactions toanchor well.

8. It has been valuable to see that the scientists do not have horns. In our concerns for abetter society we are all trying to do the same thing.

9. This process is absolutely invaluable. It is a reminder that, in a civil society, we haveto take responsibility to engage and deal with people with influence when they forget todeal with us.

10. It is true, we all have to balance the power and responsibility. We need to get clearon the balance and to connect, respect and acknowledge each other when we relate topeople who work with genes.

11. I appreciated this insight into dialogue and especially the unexpected

understanding that arises through openness. It is great to be given deeper understanding of the Maori world view and values.

12. I see that the dialogue is a beginning not the end. It is a process that holds thepromise to be able to work through issues to eventually be able to celebrate diversity

15


21/84

13. It has been immensely valuable to recognise GE as much an issue about humanrights, democracy, and the global commons. It is about our relationship with all beings, andthe need to approach this with responsibility. It has been a wake up call for my own work.

14. It affirms the power of relationship, knowing whos behind the face and the job, to

sit down together and to hear stories. I feel that I can trust more now, like having been givenhope. It is important to feel there is the power to influence government, rather than sufferthe tension of disempowerment.

15. The common ground here is, as it were, empty of content but it is positively sizzlingwith values. It is refreshing to move beyond the ists and isms to see how we can holdvalues together, to play together. It is humbling to able to contribute and put ideas into themix and see it start to bubble up and fizz like foam.

16. As a journalist I see my role as being that of looking over the shoulder to see themiddle ground to move from the individuals narrow view to see the wide view. Then it isour task to voice our truths and give the community the chance to discuss the middleground. Its important to think that sometimes No might mean something different likeslow down. If these sorts of initiatives are to be successful they need to move at pace of the slowest person in regard the ethical issues. It is always necessary to try and read thesubtext behind the slogans, and for those writing the slogans to recall that responsibilitycomes with power. It is said that intuition favours a well-stocked intellect and a well-stocked intellect is often best guided by intuition.

17. I found that being in the large circle meant that some of us reached saturation point.There are so many views in this room. Sometimes I just felt like it should all shut up!

However, despite that I discovered some real feelings of appreciation for scientists. It isclear that vital linkages have been damaged and need restoring, not just for us but for thechildren.

18. Ethics, principals and values are the way to overcome and find solutions toproblems. These can help us lead to real relationships. The context is important in helping itto happen. For example, this has been a small group in NZ. The questions are difficult. Forexample: what do we mean by finding balance? We must find the means or context of holding these conversations, and we all have a responsibility to develop skills in this sort of process. It is time to take GE out of the too hard basket.

19. And all around us the sky is burning and the seas are rising high. We have thefeeling and the wisdom of a child crying kiwi is angry hes so very angry that he cant flyaway tui sings, kokako calls, piwakawaka dances on holy ground. We must once againseek ways to distil our sense of belonging in this place, and find ways to respect and honourour responsibility.

16


22/84

20. Well. I have been sitting here listening to all of this. And I am a woman, and we liketo keep our hands busy. So, I am doing this knitting. And I am knitting this jersey of scrapsof wool, and look at it, some of these colours clash, but, in the jersey as a whole, theymanage to cohabit. In a way, what we are trying to do, or beginning to try to do, is to knit a

jersey for the next generation

21. I am struck by the importance of the power of listening to each other, and especiallyto how difficult it can be, and how much it can hurt to be so misunderstood or condemned. Isee these as important steps in bringing these colours together.

22. I have enjoyed the power of this process. The freedom and lack of structure hasallowed all voices to be heard. I have seen the responsibility of science to look after theenvironment. And it is important to listen to the potential of GE and not just close down myhearing.

23. When we do these sorts of things, it seems that I/WE are in the process of culturemaking. Legislation is a beginning point but its not the end. It is vital that all the differentparties stay connected, name our truth and listen deeply.

24. I now understand the context of why we all came together in this way. It seems likethere were some who had a huge weight of responsibility and now we can shareresponsibility together.

25. It is valuable to be in such a circle of diverse viewpoints. I believe that we must keepup to connect and engage with these issues.

26. It is raining today. My head was clear when it was still sunny. More difficult now feels more humid, and more cool. It is as if history is happening here. There is a sense of itssignificance, and an incredible promise. I have much gratitude to those who made it happen.I feel the responsibility to be vigilant with the truth about the goods and bads of technology,the knowns and unknowns. I am changed forever by this experience, and have a hunger todiscuss and know more.

27. It feels a bit unnatural to stand up, but it feels natural to say I really value thissense of community that I have shared. And yes, I have expressed anger and frustration attimes, but now I feel moved to peace and confidence. And I am frustrated by the time

constraints we have set here, and I am sad that we could not examine all the values that arebeginning to be mentioned.

28. I have a renewed appreciation of significance of dialogue and its power in this sortof issue to disentangle techniques and their use, to separate the people from the issues, andto identify matters of power and control as separate from the technical people and technicalissues. There is a significant concern about the power relationships which can certainlybegin to be addressed as we start building values and begin to look both to what we dont

17


23/84

know - and remembering that we dont know we dont know some things, and we need toenquire into what isnt there.

29. And we can live with difference. At an event like this we have seen that beingtogether isnt necessarily agreeing together. But we can reach for a common humanity. I

feel relieved to see that the Wicked scientist was just so much movie propaganda.

30. I want to stand and acknowledge all of us our spirit, scientists, activists, ourcultures and our expertise. And I value this holistic approach, it is also our way, a Maoriresponsibility, to listen, talk and educate in order to move forward together. We need tolook at all perspectives, and to do so we need to look at the values of Maori, the otherimportant values and weigh them up against what is important to Maori. Balance is needed.At the moment the economic outweighs culture, spirit, and conservation. The challenge is toput yourselves into the middle, look at the issues, seek balance. When we leave as peoplethe land remains. The decisions we make now affect the environment for generations tocome.

31. Well, I came along to get the information I needed in order to win an argument witha girl in my class. When I came along, it was as if I had one pillar of the knowledge, and shehad three. Now I think I have mapped the floor with new knowledge. And, thank you: theprocess has been great. I have felt as if I am seen on an equal footing to you all. Were allequal here, whereas at school we usually get made to feel inferior, somehow.

32. I stand with a deep sense of appreciation to everyone for giving the time to honourprocess properly time to be really present, to really listen. Someone said something aboutcreating new culture, and I really believe that this is important for future, for a future for the

children.

33. The power of this understanding is amazing. The steps towards relationshipbuilding, the wisdom, the integrity, the honesty and the intelligence in the room are simplyremarkable. I am leaving with a huge sense of the responsibility to do something with thisenergy.

34. I also want to acknowledge everyones contributions. We have all mentioned values,and it is amazing how shared common values serve to help create a community. The waywe have met about this GE issue is indicative of how we can withstand bigger forces. Ascommunity of NZers we are increasingly challenged to contain and not be dominated byscience, technology and the market economy. It is easy to feel overwhelmed by suchpowerful forces like when they announced that Monsanto were going to plant in the SouthIsland. It seems essential to remember our shared humanity. And our role as parents: wehave a responsibility to the earth community and all its elements. We must learn to subsumeour power to the greatest good for all of these.

18


24/84

35. I will never be lost, I am the seed that was sown. The song of Raiatea is about theimportance of knowing who you are and where you came from. If you know this you cannever be lost, you can carry the knowing with you on to other journeys. It has been great,and I hope we dont leave it here. Carry on this journey of understanding, dont wait forothers to do it, do it at home and work.

36. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

4.2 E VALUATION

Evaluation by the Participants

The event significantly increased understanding of and respect for other perspectivesaround GE and trust in other participants. Participants experienced feeling heard and thattheir opinion counts. The length of the dialogue was about right as were the number of participants. Participants felt that they understood what they were being invited to and thatthe process of dialogue and the personal invitation were important in deciding whether tocome. Many enriching and valuable experiences were had although the process was notalways comfortable. An abundance of rich experiences, relationships, understanding andhope was taken away from the dialogue event. The dialogue process was highlyrecommended to address other issues and many suggestions were made for future dialogues.The participants felt as if this was a landmark event and were extremely thankful for theopportunity.

This is a summary of the evaluations that were received from the Participant EvaluationForm. For specific remarks, comments and recommendations please refer to the appendixfor the entire compilation of evaluations.

Evaluation of Tauhara as a Location for the Dialogue Event

The vision of Tauhara is to be a place for everyone ( www.tauharacentre.org.nz/vision ).Tauhara Retreat and Conference Centre is the expression of an unfolding vision. It wasfounded to create a spiritual and educational centre which would draw together people of differing viewpoints and methods of working, but united in their search for truth and theestablishment of goodwill and understanding in the world. Tauhara is a free association of people from throughout New Zealand and beyond, who come from all walks of life, allfaiths, and who hold many diverse views.

We found that the purpose of Tauhara Retreat and Conference Centre, the beautifulphysical environment, and the caring for guests that is intrinsic to Tauhara values, addedvery positively to the quality of interaction that was experienced at the Dialogue on GEevent.

19
http://www.tauharacentre.org.nz/visionhttp://www.tauharacentre.org.nz/vision


25/84

Tauhara Retreat and Conference Centre is more than a commercial venue; the philosophyof care and service is embraced by both paid and voluntary staff; for instance a local GEactivist elected to volunteer in the kitchen as a contribution towards supporting this event.

The benefit of the shared bunkrooms was apparent during this dialogue event as these

provided yet another level of interaction between the diverse particpants.

Evaluation of this Event as the First of the Tauhara Dialogues

The Dialogue on GE was a huge undertaking and the next Tauhara Dialogue will need tobe organised in a way that uses less lead time and only two or three planning meetings. Itwould be desirable to be able to hold these dialogues at a months notice, so that topicalissues can be addressed. The GE event was an excellent first event and has generated a lotof ideas and experience on how to bring about a dialogue and how the next dialogue can bemost effective.

The planning of the first Tauhara Dialogue, the Dialogue on GE, was exhaustive and willhugely benefit future dialogue events. The planning identified a basic structure and theconcepts required to hold and sustain the interactions between diverse views so that thereexisted a space for dialogue.

4.3 L EARNINGS

Some contrasting views have been written and are juxtaposed below. These contrastingviews provide starting points for developing new aspects for a future dialogue and have notyet been resolved by the holding group into clear recommendations.

The Learnings of the Holding Group from the Dialogue on GE

This section has been collated and summarized from the individual reflections of theholding group members and the resource people as they addressed three questions inthe month following the dialogue event:1. What worked well2. What did not work well3. What would we do differently

1. What worked wellPreparation before the event

Our passion and commitment to the potential of dialogue All the planning Attending to our own process as a group well, such that we were well aligned and

formed a close connection as a holding group (given there were already connections of pre-existing relationships and for most a shared culture of Heart Politics)

Being able to spend a planning weekend together at Hahei

20


26/84

Being together as a group for the day and half at Tauhara immediately before thegathering started, to pull all the loose ends together, and also to enjoy going together tothe hot river! This all gave time to connect-in and fine tune.

Self and group reflection that allowed us each to clarify to ourselves and to the group ourposition on the issue.

The venue Tauhara, the place matched the tone and intention of the dialogue event absolutely

perfectly, it also brought a sense of togetherness in staying overnight and eating together.And the food was awesome too!

Children The child-care was superb and allowed families to come The help of the children

i. in greeting people,ii. making the welcome signs

iii. writing their questions in the corridoriv. participating in the Cafe and in the Final Words

The kids seemed really happy, and came and went from the large group in a reallyunobtrusive and lovely way. Parallel and complimentary to the whole gathering.

Holding group and Tuis at the event Holding group modelling transparency, respectful interactions, and depth of passion for

the event Our committment to the process and to the vision and intention of dialogue that held the

holding group through a difficult and sometimes painful process. Having Lynn and Richard as participant supporters and process observers was useful in

providing an 'independent' place for people to go and talk about process issues (theywere only used once for this but at a critical point in the dialogue and it did help to easethe concerns of the participants who had spoken with them) and to mirror back to thewhole group what the Tuis saw happening.

Holding group participating in the home groups. Holding group meetings over breakfast time - though these sometimes finished too late

for comfort (especially for those members who were also holding the morning session). Being flexible and not being too afraid.

The programme The children greeting people and making the welcome signs, these aspects seemed to

somewhat relax attendees immediately upon arrival The home group assignment process Having the program outlined on the whiteboard in the dining room at the beginning as

registration and cups of tea were happening. This gave people a focal point and aconversation starter.

The simple Welcome (no obvious ritual), especially Moira's walk and Andrews and thetwo Robins welcomes and the Kaumatuas response was wonderful

21


27/84

The hour-long break between the welcome and dinner In the orientation the brief sociogram and the small groups asking "what would you be

doing today if you weren't here?" The transparency statements by the holding group/resource people was good in

modelling honesty and openness at the outset Initial Home Group met around the participants understanding of dialogue Opening the space for everyone to introduce themselves more deeply on Friday am Changing the scheduled program on Friday morning to allow everyone to state their

position on GE, to introduce themselves more deeply The celebration caf worked above my expectations, it showed that it can happen

without MC's doing more than kicking it off Emergence and evaluation flowed seamlessly and were a good example of the focused

use of time; they and the Final Words were excellent. Dinners were fantastic for the intense and diverse interactions that happened Staying in the large group Informal and formal small group meetings/process worked well Nearly managed to avoid all presentations, which allowed us to meet more equally, and

without falling into as rote states.

Invitation Process and Outcomes Diverse mix of people - everyone connected to someone The invitation letter and the concept of dis-connecting attenders from their work identity The personal invitation process, especially where there was good communication

between invitor and invitee The invitation to a different kind of conversation (dialogue) meant people were very

willing to engage from the start Participants were so willing to be involved and engage, they were primed for dialogue

through our invitation process People came with enthusiasm and openness to each other

Overall We occasionally struck the deeply resonating and all-moving centre of the drum-of-

dialogue We built a platform of trust

2. What did not work well

It was particularly unfortunate that one participant had to leave in the middle of theGroan Zone, where the way forward was not obvious, on Saturday lunch time.

Achieving Dialogue We were somewhat attached to dialogue being a whole group process, so didnt make

full use of small groups.

22


28/84

The dialogue rarely achieved a level in which the whole group got beyond theintellectual and therefore missed out on what deeper meanings and insights might haveemerged. Maybe this was the best we could hope for a first try. Perhaps the holdinggroup could have modeled dialogue by being more involved

Facilitation and Leadership/Modelling Over concern about safety - the process was very contained, stilted and controlled,

and therefore lacked the spontaneous spark of authentic interaction Meeting the concerns of participants on the fly, for instance there was a desire for an

agenda, in retrospect I think would have been a good idea. We were a little tentative, handled participants with "kid gloves" We were overly concerned about over-facilitating, or respecting people. This resulted

in not interrupting or intervening to stop hijacks of the process Holding to time boundaries, and managing the flow-over where something else is

happening Difficulties meeting challenge. When we were hijacked by the demand to respect and

honour the wisdom of the old people, we might have countered with the need to do thisin a way that respects and honours the agreements of the current people!

The regular reflection on process by the whole group at intervals through the gatheringshould have been good, but didn't quite make it.

Programme Friday night felt like a non-event after home groups and yet there was not enough timely

spaciousness in programme. The orientation was too long for the time of day; for instance could have gone over the

program more briefly Holding group members did not stick to their commitment to brevity in their

'transparency' statements resulting in a long orientation and later contributions beingabbreviated

Never enough time for Holding Group daily meetings

Planning and event development The long drawn out invitation time for people and the delays in registering was really

hard work, long, and involved. We were not clear about the implications of non-attenders from outset i.e the lack of the

best cross section of people that happened because of withdrawals. There were a lot of planning meetings and these were held in the evening when we were

tired A lot of email traffic Not having further explored and practised how to handle rudeness/challenge

23


29/84

3. What would we do differently next time

Planning It would have been better to set aside a few weekend/whole-day meetings and had time

to group-build, be seen and heard, air concerns, have dialogue, and do more taskstogether. In this time we could have also practiced more deeply our facilitation methods as a

planning/holding group and therefore allowed this facilitation to be modelled or reflectedinto the Dialogue event.

We could have also had more dialogue on GE in the holding group prior to the event i.epractise more and use the topic to identify, develop and learn about these dialoguemuscles, be confident in ourselves.

Perhaps we could radically reduce the planning time we lost some spontaneity. [e.g.:What would happen if we just invited people to a nice place, with good food andenvironment but without organizational structure?]

Have fewer holding group meetings, and not sweat the details too early. Plan a pair of dialogues. One of which was much like this one, and the next [a month

later] with an extra day, and some processes built in that could be fleshed out from thegroup at the first one.

Programme More small group interaction to start the event. Make sure everyone has a chance to speak into the big circle early on (as we did in the

change of programme for Friday morning). Stronger directions to Home Group facilitators to set a culture of emotional and personal

reflection, rather than discussion. Schedule time for group sporting activity

Facilitation Make more use of small groups for synthesizing themes and developing key questions

(eg. caf style) Model debate, conversation and dialogue in a fun, memorable way at the outset and do

more modeling and guiding on what is dialogue. Contract with the group at the outset that facilitators will gently intervene so that

dialogue process is honoured, or, gently pause the speaker and check if this is workingfor the group as a whole. This would establish the Meeting Agreements in a moreexplicit way and then we could display them more prominently (i.e. up on the wall)throughout the gathering.

Share the insights we had on group processes (the Groan Zone etc) at the outset or duringthe Groan Zone that we indeed experienced ourselves. Also we could have had theknown group processes on the wall. This would have provided a greater sense of safety,a better understanding of the behaviours needed for dialogue to happen and would haveprovided the intellectual understanding of what was happening in the group when it gotuncomfortable (and that this was expected and normal).

24


30/84

Had a time for people to give their presentations. This would have given participants theopportunity, the time and space that they needed and have the benefit of people notneeding a space to hijack later in the event. This would have also allowed a platform tobe set i.e. a level playing field of knowledge (spiritual and intellectual etc).

Holding group feeling more able to participate in the content, and model dialogue. The

holding group stymied ourselves by holding back in the interests of "impartiality" ratherthan being more vocal and more interpretive of the process. Be more clear for ourselves about the roles of the Resource People such that they would

not be constrained and concerned about stepping on the toes of the holding group bycoming in over their facilitation.

Invitation Process Make it clearer at the outset that if people dont respond to the invitation, or respond late,

or pull out at the last minute, that they are taking a place of someone else Be more courageous about inviting a wider range of participants even the more

extremists. This would now be easier as we have a base of previous attendees whose

personal contacts could be used to personally invite more people. Perhaps if we got people to pay a deposit with registrations it may have caused some to

think twice about registering

Thoughts on Dialogue and How to Achieve it in a Group

As a way of leading people into dialogue, perhaps it is not useful to describe whatdialogue and its elements are. It's a bit like explaining what sex is to someone who hasnever experienced it and then thinking that the explanation could be helpful. Maybe itwould be useful. Maybe the explanation takes people into thinking about dialogue or maybe

it takes them to thinking about dialogue rather than doing it. Not helpful in sex or dialogue.

Modelling of dialogue is so important, particularly when the heat rises in the dialogueenvironment.

It might have been useful to pause more often and talk about the process or just to havehad the holding group speak out more. Speaking out about the actual process in the roomrather than about the content of the dialogue.

5.0 A Proposal

A Second Event, Dialogue on GE Plus 6

This event would be held at Tauhara in October 2004, i.e. 6 months after the first. The eventwould carry forward the idea of a pair of dialogues. The participants would be those thatattended the first event and their recommendations. This invitation process would draw onthe depth of experience generated thus far and widen the breadth of invitees. Thepreparatory organization would be minimal. The event would be held Tuesday throughFriday.

25


31/84

6.0 BUDGET

Facility Use $ 50

Administration $ 724Accommodation & Catering

49 Adults @ $324 $15,8769 children @ $150 $ 1,35012 Core Group @ $110 $ 1,320

Child Care $ 1,200Report documentation, collation and distribution $ 1,200

Total $ 21,720.00

Funding: $21,720 (including GST)

Contact:Dr Robin MacDiarmid,HortResearch,Private Bag 92 169, AucklandTelephone (09) 815 4200 x7131

Fax (09) 815 4201e-mail: [email protected]

Contracting Entity: Tauhara Centre,60 Acacia Heights Drive,P.O.Box 125, Taupo.Telephone (07) 378-7507Fax (07) 3787528e-mail: [email protected] website: www.tauharacentre.org.n

26
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


32/84

7.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

MoRST for recognizing the need for dialogue between scientists and society, forproviding funding for this event, and in particular to Richard Meylan for his enthusiasm

and incisive questions, Tauhara and staff, and especially the cooks, The woman from the Taupo GE group who wanted to contribute and did so by

WWOOFing in the kitchen, Heart Politics trustees for endorsing, encouraging and guiding the concept and

development of a Dialogue on GE, Richard Jakob-Hoff and Lynne Holdem in their important roles as minders of the

process and resources for people to draw from, Heart Politics winter 2003 and summer 2004 attendees who helped form and guide the

Dialogue on GE event, The wider Heart Politics and Wananga communities for their experience and learnings, People and organizations who gave koha to establish and continue the Tauhara

Dialogues, including the The Jobs Letter, All the participants (including families who came) and also the people who were invited

but couldn't come at the last minute, Partners and families who supported their loved ones to come, Glenna Gerard & Linda Teurfs, authors of the chapter Dialogue and Community-

Building, in A Dialogue Reader, 2003 Public Conversations Project whose insights helped to create the evaluation form, Scientists at HortResearch and the University of Auckland who did not attend but acted

as sounding boards for the process as it developed, Childcare co-ordinators, Amy

Lilburn and Willa Christie, whoco-ordinated both the childrenand their parents and who alsoassisted in the childrensinfluence and contributions ingreeting people and making thewelcome signs, writing theirquestions in the corridor andparticipating in the Caf and inthe Final Words.

And thanks to the kids. Youreally rocked!

A quote from the holding group (including the Tui resource people)Youre the best bloody team Ive ever worked with!.

27


33/84

8.0 L IST OF APPENDICES

8.1 P ROPOSAL TO THE MINISTRY OF SCIENCE , RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY 29

8.2 C ORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY PARTICIPANTS 34Invitation to attend the Dialogue on GE 35

Further information to invitees 39

Letter accompanying the Dialogue Reader 43

Dialogue Reader 44

First email sent to all participants following the Dialogue on GE event 52

Second email sent to all participants following the Dialogue on GE event 53

8.3 D OCUMENTATION DISTRIBUTED OR ATTAINED DURING THE EVENT 54

Information for home groups 55

Participant Feedback form 56

Compilation of the Evaluations of the Dialogue on GE 58

Evaluation from the throne 70

Image of Seed in Pastel 72

8.4 D OCUMENTATION ARISING FROM THE DIALOGUE ON GE 73The GE Information Bulletin #22 74

Article in Tauhara Newsletter 78

Article for the Taupo GE Free group 80

28


34/84

8.1 P ROPOSAL TO THE M INISTRY OF SCIENCE , R ESEARCHAND T ECHNOLOGY

29


35/84

Proposal

to the

Ministry of Research Science and Technology

for a

Dialogue on Genetic Engineering

Funds requested: $21,720 (including GST)Contact:Dr Robin MacDiarmid,HortResearch,Private Bag 92 169, AucklandTelephone (09) 815 4200 x7131Fax (09) 815 4201e-mail: [email protected]

Contracting Entity:Tauhara Centre,60 Acacia Heights Drive,P.O.Box 125, Taupo.Telephone (07) 378-7507Fax (07) 3787528e-mail: [email protected] website: www.tauharacentre.org.nz

30
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


36/84

Dialogue on Genetic Engineering"Dialogue is about creating an environment that builds trust, encourages

communication with respect, honours and values diversity as essential, and seeks a level of awareness that promotes the creation of shared meaning

(culture) that supports individual and collective well-being" Glenna Gerard & Linda Teurfs in Dialogue and Organisational Transformation.

Overview A three-day Dialogue on Genetic Engineering (GE) will be held in April 2004 at the Tauhara Centre,

Taupo. The dialogue is organised and held through the synergy of the Tauhara Centre, Heart Politics andNew Zealand scientists, and is to be the first of the Tauhara Dialogues series. We intend to provide a safeplace of meeting for a diverse group to interact, communicate and learn about this topical issue. The opendialogue on GE will provide an opportunity to tap the creative potential of bringing diverse viewpointstogether.

The Dialogue on GE will involve approximately 62 people including the core organising/culture holdinggroup (8 people), participants (approximately 42 adults, and up to 12 children). The culture for the dialoguewill be nurtured by Heart Politics (a group of active community members) both through participants who

engage in the dialogue as fully as they wish and assist in modelling and holding the culture; and cultureholders whose role is entirely that of holding the highest Heart Politics values of inclusivity and dialogue,and will stay out of the discussion on the actual topic of GE.

Participants in the Dialogue on GE will be identified through a process of direct invitation and applicationto attend, with selection by the core organisational group (augmented by two impartial individuals). It isintended that an eclectic range of viewpoints and stakeholders (for instance Maori, scientists, primaryproducers, artists, health care workers, economists, and family) will be represented and that participants willbe open to understanding and relating with others, regardless of their own view on the issue of GE.

Parents are encouraged to bring their children and weave an integrated social fabric of whole people in a

community over the three days. The presence of children will provide the opportunity of seeing each otheras loving parents, foster interactions across divides, and provide an added purpose to the dialogue as weinteract with the future of our country. Childcare will be provided at the Tauhara Centre and theirinteractions with the participants will occur especially at meal times and evenings.

The word dialogue comes from the Greek roots "dia" and "logos", literally "through meaning". It is agroup communication process for collective learning and shared meaning. The format of the event is basedon Heart Politics gatherings and is arranged to build an environment where discussion and interaction canoccur before introducing the topical focus. The forum aims for an interweaving of different stories ratherthan winning debate. Through dialogue we will explore between the polar extremes of this topical issue.This event encompasses the ideals of national and community participation in science and technology.

Heart PoliticsHeart Politics gatherings are held twice yearly at the Tauhara Centre and provide a forum to explore with

others the idea of "conscious participation in change". Gatherings are open to anyone who has a desire for amore just and sustainable world, and recognises the links between personal ways of being and politicalchanges. Through networking for support and inspiration, developing skills, sharing questions and wisdom,challenge, laughter and celebration, participants gain a better understanding of how to be more effective inbringing about positive change in the world.

31


37/84

After 14 years of gatherings, the Heart Politics network and culture have reached a level of maturity thatcan be of service to the wider community of New Zealand. It aims to provide a container within whichimportant and potentially divisive issues can be explored.

The Core Group The core organisational / culture holding group for this event is comprised of people from the Tauhara

Centre, Heart Politics and our New Zealand science community. As needed, individuals will be invited

from identified stakeholder groups. The core group includes:

Robin Allison is an architect specialising in socially and environmentally sustainable design. She is theinitiator and co-ordinator of Earthsong Eco-Neighbourhood in west Auckland, a co-housing neighbourhooddeveloped by the residents as a model of co-operation and environmentally responsible construction. Shehas been involved with organising Heart Politics and other gatherings for many years and is currently aTrustee of Heart Politics.

Dale Hunter, is a facilitator, mediator and consultant in organisational and community development. Sheis a founder of Zenergy Ltd., a facilitation, mediation and coaching company based in New Zealand and co-author of several best-selling books on facilitation and cooperative ways working. She recently gained her

PhD in facilitating cooperative processes in organisations, and facilitates world-wide, including at theWorld Summit on Sustainability in Johannesburg in 2002. Dale is a Trustee of Heart Politics and Vice ChairInternational of the International Association of Facilitators.

David Jacobs, a documentary film-maker, lecturer and director of the Connected Media Trust. David hasbeen coming to gatherings at Tauhara over the last 10 years and has recently become a Trustee of HeartPolitics.

Peta Joyce , is a trainer, facilitator and mentor with many years experience in education, social change,and therapeutic practice. She has been employed in her own business for the past 15 years, and worksthroughout New Zealand and in the UK. She is an active member of Heart Politics and wananga gatherings.

Andrew Lilburn is the manager of the Tauhara Centre in Taupo. Since living at Tauhara he has becomeinvolved with the Heart Politics and Wananga gatherings. Prior to moving to Taupo he was involved inseveral community groups and was a District Councillor with an interest in Resource Management planning.

Robin MacDiarmid, is a scientist at HortResearch where she studies plant-virus interactions and leads agroup discovering plant gene functions. The work in Robins PhD formed the basis for the transgenictamarillo field trial in her home town Kerikeri, and she uses genetic engineering as a tool for discovery.Robin has recently become involved in Heart Politics.

Mere Roberts is a biologist at the University of Auckland. She teaches indigenous environmentalperspectives, and her research interests are in Maori traditional ecological knowledge. Mere is also amember of Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao, the Maori advisory committee to the ERMA.

Mark Skelding, who has worked in marketing and fundraising for community and non-profit organisationsfor over 20 year - arts, cultural and environmental agencies, including a World Bank project in Jordan.Since 1997 he has been working as a counsellor and psychotherapist, and has been involved with Youthlineand mentoring projects. As well as a private practice in Auckland and Thames, he is also involved indelivering the foundation course for a counselling and psychotherapy training programme, and in facilitatinga programme for children who have experienced domestic violence. Mark has been co-ordinator for HeartPolitics since 1998, and is a member of the Trustee group.

32


38/84

Tauhara Centre

The Tauhara Centre was founded to create a spiritual and educational centre, which would draw togetherpeople and groups of differing viewpoints and methods of working, but united in their search for truth andthe establishment of good will and understanding in the world.

Tauhara is a free association of people from throughout New Zealand and beyond, who come from allwalks of life, all faiths, and who hold many diverse views. Through coming together to share and learn, to

give and receive - working together physically, mentally and spiritually - they extend and add richness to theexpression of Tauhara.Fundamental to Tauhara is the vision of a free and loving network of people throughout the planet

dedicated to the realisation of the harmony within all creation.

Tauhara DialoguesUsing a whole-group dialogue approach, these gatherings aim to explore and deepen debate and opinion

on issues that have the potential to cause division within our society. The participants are drawn from awide range of experience and concern, science, art, psychology, health, economics, agriculture, community,and from all sides of the political spectrum. They are selected as much for their role as culture shapers as fortheir expertise on the particular topic, and a dialogue format encourages listening and reflection, more an

interweaving of stories than the spinning of lines. Tauhara Dialogues build a forum where discussion canoccur before introducing a topical focus. In April, the topic will be Genetic Engineering.

AgendaWed 2pm Full holding group assembles

The event (Thurs 4pm-Sun 2pm)Thurs PM Registration; dinner; introductory commentsFriday AM Building culture

PM Exploring diversityEve Whaikorero

Sat AM Dialogue about GEPM Dialogue about GE

Sun AM Dialogue about GEPM Leave

Two weeks later Evaluation meetingTwo months later Completion of collation and summarisation of feedback from evaluation forms,

documentation and report distribution to MoRST and participants.

Feedback and the learning process Feedback from the event will occur in two or more ways:

1. All participants are asked to feedback their experience and interactions from the event to

their respective employers / groups / communities. The eight core group members willfeedback to their respective employers / groups / communities.2. Participants are requested to reflect and comment on the process of the holding of the event

through an evaluation form to be distributed at the event. A report summarising the event, thelearning from the process, and including the feedback will be created and distributed to allevent participants and to the Ministry of Research Science and Technology (MoRST).

3. MoRST will be invited to suggest a key participant from the Ministry.4. Artists will be invited as participants and we hope they will use the experience as material for

their art e.g. song,

Date post:	31-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scribd7
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

GE Dialogue Tauhara 2004

Documents