Upload
british-science-association
View
414
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Impact through dialogue & deliberation
Impact through dialogue and deliberation
Oliver Escobar
Lara Isbel
Heather Rea
One hour 15 minutes!
• Intro (5 mins)
• Panel Discussion (20 mins)
• Time to reflect & discuss (20 mins)
• Q & A (20 mins)
• Summing up (10 mins)
Reasons for researchers to facilitate dialogue
• To gain diverse points of view as an input or inspiration to your research
• To build awareness and understanding of your work
• To understand and potentially respond to any concerns
• To explore and deal with social and ethical issues raised by your research.
• To do the groundwork for policy deliberation based on shared inquiry and collective intelligence
From my viewpoint…
The blind men and the elephant
http://www.nature.com/ki/journal/v62/n5/fig_tab/4493262f1.html
Positions
Interests& ValuesNeeds &
Fears
Win-Win
Win-Lose
PIN diagram (created by Andrew Acland)
1. Enhanced understanding o of different people’s standpointso of the complexity of the issue or topic
2. Relationship buildingo between sponsor and publics/stakeholderso between stakeholders
--Dialogue is NOT about decision-making
Defining Goals of Dialogue
Key dynamics in dialogue (micro-foundations)
• Building a safe space Fostering openness and respect
• Storytelling
• Listening: Suspending assumptions and automatic
response
• Collaborative inquiry: Finding common ground and exploring
differences
• Balancing advocacy and inquiry
CommunicationAdversarial Dialogic
ADVOCACY(persuading)
INQUIRY(understanding)
Confrontational forms of communication
Collaborative forms of communication
Certainty Curiosity / Openness
Expertise as superior knowledge Multiple forms of knowledge (e.g. local, experiential)
Outcome orientated:Communication as message-
transmission
Process orientated:Communication as co-creation
of meaning
The D + D Process
Challenges
• Creating the right environment
• Managing expectations
• Redefining expertise
• Advocacy vs Facilitation (the SciComm dilemma)
• Chair person vs Facilitator
.
Building capacity
“The main learning point for me was the importance of the emotional content of dialogue, and the understanding that I need to be aware of both the emotional content and the factual content in group discussions and to be able to act on both as a facilitator.”
- Course participant evaluation form
Time to reflect and share
Take 5 minutes to write down your reactions and reflections to what you have heard
o Challenges you face, top tips
Share this with the people on your table
Questions from the floor
Ground Rules1. Everyone here has something to contribute.
2. One person speaks at a time.
3. Listen actively to what everyone has to say.
4. Respect different views; try to understand one another, not to judge or impose your views.
5. Make your points concisely, and don’t dominate the discussion.
6. People have the right to be silent, but not to be silenced.
Management of Lay-Expert Divide
Knowledge
Confidence
Different standpoints
All contribute to power imbalances in a mixed group discussion
People with less education or strong views scientists disagree with often feel patronised, silenced or dismissed
So important to ‘think from the other’ …
Taster of a facilitation technique: Reframing contentious or disruptive
contributions• Goals
o Regain a generative focus for the conversation
o Move from I/You to We, from the general to the specific, and from deficit to proactive thinking
• 3 basic steps:o Acknowledge what has been said
o Ask an open question that seems to be at the heart of the problem
o Involve other members of the group in solving the issue
Reframing (adapted from Acland 1997)
• I object to landfill sites!• How might we deal with community waste? • shift from close to open• You are so negative about this proposal• How might we evaluate proposals?• shift from you/me to we• The project officer has not been keeping us informed• How might we improve communication?• shift from deficit to affirmation and problem-solving• Last time I went to a meeting like this it was a complete
waste of time!• How might we overcome this here? What would it take
for this meeting to be worthwhile for everyone?• shift from past problems to future opportunities
Impact through dialogue
• Building partnership & relationships → long term mutual benefit
• Creating interpretive communities → End of the research project is not the end of knowledge co-production
• Developing civic capacity to engage with complex issues
• Groundwork for deliberative policy making• Caveat. Upstream engagement →
Downstream policy making?
Take away points
1. Conflict is valuable in public engagement; confrontation is not.
2. We need to build capacity for dialogic facilitation (invest in the micro-foundations of dialogue)
.