View
221
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
7/30/2019 First Seminar Report En
1/12
1st SEM INAR IN LISBON
Project phase: DIAGNO SIS
Object ive of the 1st seminar: describe our pract ices, share on W H A T we do (describe the pract ices
that w e are invo lved in ) , and H O W w e do i t (M e thodo log ies)
Do not create abst ract de f in i t ions on w hat is PARTICIPATION an d PARTICIPATO RY PROCESSES bu t
star t f rom the par t ic ipa tory pr ocesses tha t w e are actua l ly invo lved. Do not rem ain a t the descr ip t ive
level of W H A T we do bu t m ove on to the H OW w e do i t (m ethodo log ies) . In order to go deeper in
the HOW w e im plem ent th ese processes; we w i l l fo rm ula te quest ions in order to s tar t a d ia logue
with our experience (to ourselves and to the part ic ipants). The quest ions wil l enable us to ident i fy
some o f the e lements tha t we th ink is poss ib le to modi fy in order to create more par t ic ipa tory
processes.
In orde r t o achieve these object ives several act iv i t ies have been used a iming t o:
Focus on ou rselves as acto rs involved in d i f feren t part ic ipatory processes. Observe an exper ience t hat has been presented as a s tudy case Create the r igh t sp ir i t and m ot iva t ion among t he par t icipan ts in o rder t o w ork on t he
v i r tua l p la t fo rm .
DAY 1: 3rd o f De cem ber
M o rn in g
Present at ion o f the Project
Presentat ion of t he faci l i tato rs ( in h is/ her ow n language) nam e, organisat ion , count ry Presentat ion o f the part ic ipants - name, organisat ion, countr y PPP presentat io n of the p roject and refer ence to p revious experiences. (Susana ppt ) Divide part ic ipants in 3 grou ps (per count ry). Analyse the logo of the pr oject , ident i ty th e key
w ord s and object ives.
7/30/2019 First Seminar Report En
2/12
Presenta t ion o f the w ork ing groups in p lenary
7/30/2019 First Seminar Report En
3/12
Key wo rds from th e Project logo and o bjectives (in nationa l groups)
Key wo rds Goals
PeopleDiversi ty
Grow th
Citizenship
N e t w o r kFoundat ions
Sustainabil i ty
ImpactsTogether
M u l t i p l y
Transformat ion
CircleDigital
Dynamic
Capaci ty bu i ld ing/ emp owerm entResources developmen t
Quest ioning and transforming democracy
Lobbying and advocacy
Red
A ntennaUp, down, around
Tree
A n tenna
Concentr ic
BalanceExpansion
Opaci ty
Learn about concrete experiences, case stu dies
and key elemen ts; Foun dat ion s of part ic ipat ionand m eth odology; Interdiscipl inary - to learn
th rou gh the experience of oth ers; To create a
netw ork ; To c reate our on w ay to do.
Part ic ipat ion
Raising aw areness
GrowthNe tworksDirect democracy
Col lect ive procedur es
Exchange exper ience on a local level
Concept ual ize on the term o f part ic ipatory
democracyUnd ertaking ini t iat ives at local and regional level
Presentat ion o f the Project schem e: com ponen ts and ph ases
7/30/2019 First Seminar Report En
4/12
Create a v isual m ap of t he group
On a b ig Poster w e drew a map represent ing the th ree count r ies . Each par t ic ipant w ro te o n 5dif ferent post- i t the personal, professional and organisat ional characterist ics. They put i t onthe m ap and then they compare w i th each o ther . Each t im e they f ind som eone w i th a sim i lar
or com plem entary character is t ic they draw a l ine connect ing the tw o post - i t .
7/30/2019 First Seminar Report En
5/12
Exercise: The r iver and the sto nes
7/30/2019 First Seminar Report En
6/12
Ref lect ion in Plenary about t he exercise
From th e e xercise crossing the r iver (deb riefing)
Precipi tat ion , over thin king, to o m any opinions, concern about ( focus on) my opinion .
W hat he lped W hat d idn t he lp
Collective approach
At tent ion to d i f ferentprof i les
TrustAdaptat ion
Cooperat ion
Responsibi l i ty
Participation vs.effectiveness (big
group vs. sm al l group )Organizat ion +
representat ion
Plan
Win -w in
Negot ia t ion
Condi t ionsSupport
ProcessCommunicat ion
Learning
Safe environm ent
Equi ty/ balanceIni t iat ive
Time, threat, opposit ion, risk, stress, challenge,
rules.
Expecta t ions o f t he pro ject and th e seminar
7/30/2019 First Seminar Report En
7/12
Each par t ic ipant w ro te on a post i t o f d i f fe rent co lour w hat he / she expects tha t : the pro ject w i l l
b r ing to m e, I w i l l b r ing in the pro ject , and i t w i l l b r ing to m y organ isa t ion . They have put the
post - it in th e b ig poster (um bre l la ) under the spec if ic quest ion .
Part ic ipants wro t e on d i f fe rent post - i t the expecta t ions they have in re la t ion to t he f i rs t sem inar and
they pu t t hem unde r the umbre l la.
Ppt evaluat ion
7/30/2019 First Seminar Report En
8/12
DAY 2: 4 th o f Decem ber
M o rn in g
Ob sta cles/ facil ita t ors of part icipat ion
W ork in 4 groups. Each group re f lected o n w h ich are t he obstacles and w hich the faci l i ta tors o fpart ic ipat ions.
Presentat ion in p lenary and debate.Facili tato rs and Ob stacles (group w ork)
Facilitators Obstacles
W ell def ined goalsListen
TrustResources
Team w ork
Enough t im e
SharingOpen to
env i ronmenta l s t imul iM o t i vat i on
Freedom
PleasureBalance
Lack of t im eFear (fai lure , acceptance, e tc)
No instruct ionIndivid ual issues
Find a grou p
Personal needs/worr ies / dreams
Sense of belo ng
Conf ron tat ion/ conf li c t
Self /eteroconscience
Cri t ical t hinking/d i f ferent pro f i les
Negot ia t ion Adaptat ion
Time
Di f ferent prof i lesInsecuri ty
Lack of com m unicat ion
O u t
Good comm unicat ion
Empathy Act ive l isten ing To shar e a code Accessibi l i ty t o
physicalin format ion
M eans to par t i c ipate
and too ls Accessibi l i ty Shor t process Feedback Possibi l i t y to
interact and
change the plan
In
M ot ivat ion and sense
of responsibi l i ty in the
subjectSelf confidence
Educat ion
In
Out
Scale and t im e As poten t ial facil i tator or
obstacle
Both p ossible facilitat ors or obstacles
CompromiseCommunicat ion
N e t w o r k
Engagement
Feeling that you canm ake it
The d i f ferenceDistance
Time
Resources
Shar e values and goalsPlan Tran sparency
7/30/2019 First Seminar Report En
9/12
Qu estions rose from t he presentation of the group w ork
W hat m akes i t go wrong?
W hat s in terna l / inherent vs. ex terna l?Part ic ipat ive met hod ology maybe enf orcing (not f r ee)The shape is not im port ant
Shor t or long term processes?
Cris is/ insecuri ty as obstacle or o ppor tun i ty?Do di f f erent p rof i les make col lect ive bui lding imp ossible?
How to generate t rus t betw een wh at i s d i f ferent impor t ance of ind iv idual w ork dur ing par t i cipatoryprocess.
How relat ions of t rust and pow er are bui l t in the process?
Group dynam ic A- observers Group BsFrom th e deb riefing of th e rules/ part icipation exercise
Facts, sensations, int erpret ationUnders tand the ru les
W e so lved prob lemsDeciding on a strategyAnt ic ipat ing chal lenges
Roles distr ibu t ion
Leader choice f i rst (dro pped af t er)
Spon taneo us leadership
No v isua l commu nicat ion/ cou ldn t par t i c ipate(al l)Breaking the r ules and be aw are of i t
It s easiest to give th e answer
How str ic t are the ru les w e have?
W hat possible scenariosDecision on w ho w i l l go to t he faci li tato r
Di f ferent levels of h aving ini t iat ive
Not enthusiast icGroup B as part ic ipants of group A
Rely on percept io n of 1 personNot h appy about carry ing 4 persons
Impact o f t he leader
M ore cohesion af ter solv ing things toget her
M ore energy when the group is un i tedBet ter commu nicat ion (more and more)Str ategy organizat ion, c lar i fy ing/ f orm ing, fusion
(product ion)
High level of part ic ipat ion
Easy f low of com mu nicat ion
4 m ore engaged, m ore expect ing what m ay comeSatisfaction because of task accomplishmentFocus on the out come
I wanted to be a par t o f the group
If I found the I should solve i t
Com m on Knowledge of the ru lesCooperat ion w i th in group A
No t eam w ork w i th in group B because of focus on
task and ot her groupWhat f o r t o do t h i s
Tim e is imp ort ant ( looking for a solut ion).
Afternoon
Present at ion of pa rt icipatory p ract ices
Part ic ipants organised the space and they have prepared the materia l in order to presentthe i r exper ience fo rm the organ isa t ions tha t t hey w ork or a re act ive in .
Part ic ipants organised the w ay that these presentat ions wil l be done. Visit the experiences.
7/30/2019 First Seminar Report En
10/12
DAY 3: 5 th o f Decem ber
M o rn in g
Go de eper in th e ana lysis of the HOW and W HY of th e par t icipatory processes.
Presentat ion of t he study case (Fel ix) (ppt ) Part ic ipants in groups elabora te the quest ions in ord er t o estab l ish a d ia logue w i th t he
exper ience tha t Fe l ix p resented. The a im o f t he quest ions w as to u nderstand t he HOW the
part ic ipatory pro cess w as im plem ented. Four groups were created in order to go deeper in the
HOW the par t ic ipa tory pro cesses are im plement ed. Each group w orked on a d i f fe rent t op ic :
W ho par t ic ipated, in what they par t ic ipated, W hy they par t ic ipa ted, fo r w hat they par t ic ipa ted
and How they par t ic ipated.
The fo l low ing quest ions were e labora ted by the group s. Susana: CLEAR m od el Lucrecia: pp tIdeas generat ed o n discussion abo ut p articipat ion
Act ive engagement;
D i f ferent m eaning;Di f ferent levels & str ategy;Part ic ipat ion, part ic ipator y demo cracy;
Com m i tm en t ,
Qual i ty cr i ter iaDoes par t i c ipat ion need a f ramew ork ;Bot tom up vs. top dow n.
Ho w m uch participat ory is a process?
W ork don e in group s in the sequen ce of the que stions presente d by Lucrecia
W ho par t i cipates? How does part ic ipat ion takes place? W hat for to par t i c ipate? In wh at do on es part ic ipate? (When w hat part o f the pr ocess)?
Element s that cam e ou t f rom par t icipants pract ices (how )
W ho W h o n o t ?
People who are interested
People who can cont r ibut e
Context
Relat ions betw een w hos
Roles of h im / her : Prom oter?
Gender/ age/ organizat ions (quant i tat ive
data)
H ow Organizat ion of the p rocess + pow erExpre ss = Listen (abil i ty, m ot ivatio n, open
act)
Tools and m ethod (adapt , appropr ia ted,accessibi l i ty ; comf ort able)
Cul ture
E m powerm en t
Facil i tatorRules
Ambient
TransparencyFeedback about resul ts
Time
W h a t fo r To change, im prove at t i tudes,
com m un i t y
To enable people to take part of
To confr ont v isions and needs
7/30/2019 First Seminar Report En
11/12
ImpactTo pro tect
Transform ideas
Promo te values (?) to change the w ay
you perce ive the w or ld
To channel / or ganize mot ivat ionsTo change or affect lo cal social policies;
To get access to infor m at ion
To create sense of belo nging (be part of)
I n w h a t
peoplepartic ipate
Init ial phase
Ident i f ies th e problem
Com m on ru les/ goals v isionDecision pro cess
Planning ph ase
Priorit ies decision
Implement at ion - moni tor ing (act ion)
Evaluat ion/ fo l low u p
Other ideas - Relevant to peop le;- How open (f lexible);- Scale, context, external factors.
DAY 5: 6 th o f Decem ber
M o rn in g
H ow w e w i ll cont inue ?
Sum m arising the ob ject ives o f t he pro ject and ident i f icat ion o f t he key e lements : next seminarin Barce lona, in Apr i l . Wor k on t he v i r tua l P la t fo rm in order to share the how o f our pract ices,
create groups o f co l laborat ive w ork, and ident i fy the top ics o f in terest in o rder t o p lan t he next
seminar.
Presenta t ion o f t he actua l si tua t ion o f the p la t fo rm . Discussion in order to adapt t he p la t fo rm to the needs o f the pr o ject and the par t icipants. Create a comm on ca lendar fo r the fo l low ing act iv i t ies unt i l th e next seminar .Evaluat ion of th e sem inar
Each par t ic ipant v is ited t he um bre l la and took t he Post i t w i th t he expectat ions sta ted in thef i rs t day. They sa id to t he group i f the i r expecta t ions have been fu l f i l led or no t .
They needed t o kn ow W HO PARTICIPATES in a p rocess and w hat are th e e lem ent s they could
observe?
HO W do you par t icipate?
W hat p ar t ic ipa tory m echan ism s do w e use ( in form at ive , consu lta t ive , de l iberat ion , representa t ive ,
d i rect dem ocracy)?
How are the decisions taken, how do w e arr ive at consensus?
How w e organ ise the w ork ing groups (governance)? By pro ject , by them e, by te rr i t o r ia l c r i te r ia, dothe t e rr i to r ia l and them at ic cr i te r ia over lap?
7/30/2019 First Seminar Report En
12/12
Is the pro cess open t o new actors (ent i t ies, organisat ions, persons)?
Where do the resources ava i lab le fo r the process come f rom ( f inanc ia l & human)? How do we
m anage them ?
Do we keep open d i f fe rent channe ls fo r par t ic ipa t ion? Do we take in cons idera t ion the d i f fe rentpro f i les of the possible part ic ipants?
How do w e d issem inate : st ra tegy fo r externa l com m unicat ion , re la t ions to the M edia .. .
IN W HAT DO W E PARTICIPATE?
Do we w ork on a theme that t he peop le invo lved cons ider imp ortant?
How d id w e iden t i f y t h is theme? Among whom ?
Which moment o f the process have we opened to par t ic ipa t ion ( ident i f ica t ion o f the
prob lem / them e, def in i t ion o f p roposa ls, p lann ing, m oni to r ing , eva luat ion , .. )?
W HO PARTICIPATES?
How do w e ident i fy the re levant actors?
Are w e sure th at a l l actors of the com m unit y are involved? (Yout h, chi ldren, seniors, im m igrants.. )?
I f we work specif ical ly with a group, have we taken in considerat ion al l the possible prof i les of i t ,
(educational level, socio-economic level, gender, )?
Did w e try t o involve th e pol i t ical, social and adm inistrat ive actors?
Did w e t ry to open the pro cess more to the fo r m al netw orks (assoc iat ions) in order to arr ive at t he
non form al one (group s, col lect ives, individuals)?
Do w e w ork on ly w i th peop le w ho th ink l ike us ? (They are having a f fin i t ies, are next - us) o r do w e
inc lude peop le tha t th ink d i f fe rent ly ?
FOR W HA T DO W E PARTICIPATE?
To wh at exten t t he pr ocess is inf luen cing or t r ies to inf luence publ ic issues?
Is i t in creasing th e capacity o f inf luence of th e ci t izens on the publ ic issues?
To wh at exten t is i t br inging changes at inst i tut ional, organizat ion al and personal level?
Is i t gener at ing a change of values and dem ocrat ic at t i t udes of c i t izens, pol ic ies and t echnicians?
Recommended