Preconditions for a Successful Dialogue Process
The nearly infinite variations and uses of dialogue make hard-and-fast rules difficult. Yet some conditions are particularly helpful.
A Diversity of Experiences
If a primary purpose of dialogue is to help people examine their own and others' perceptions, ideas, and understandings, then it is critical that participants bring diverse experiences. A dialogue on homosexuality within a church, for example, will lead to greater understanding and growth if it includes people from different perspectives, orientations, experiences, and religious understandings.
If it is impossible to gather people who hold diverse views on an issue, the benefits of holding a dialogue around that issue likely will be diminished. Such scenarios require more skill from the facilitator, who must find ways to bring unrepresented experiences and perspectives into the discussion. The degree of transformation in a dialogue is largely related to the level of diversity in the group, as participants see that different experiences lead to different perspectives on the same issue.
No Immediate Decisions Need to be Made
Dialogues are usually more successful when no imminent decision is required. Dialogue can help create the conditions for collaborative action, but is most effective when there is no pressure for immediate action. To a large extent, dialogue is about discovery; participants explore their perspectives around a topic, probe what might lie beneath their differences and similarities, then try to discover whether there is any basis for common action.
| Dialogue is about discovery. |
Urgency or pressure to act tends to reduce participants’ patience with the process of exploration and discovery. This impatience makes people less capable of doing the deep listening that dialogue requires.
Furthermore, when a group is pressed to make a decision, the focus turns to generating and analyzing facts that are seen as relevant to the decision. In the process of decision-making, the group loses focus on the varied experiences of the participants and the implications of those differences.
While we offer this caution, we also note that dialogue is useful to deescalate tensions in situations of impending conflict or violence. This was the case in Cincinnati, Ohio, in April 2001, when tensions between law enforcement and the community boiled over after police shot an unarmed person. A large-scale effort took place to address police/community relations, using dialogue processes to talk within racial groups and across racial lines. The dialogues resulted in a set of citizen recommendations about what might be done to improve relationships between communities and the police force. In this context, dialogue helped to reduce tensions and create a safe space for people to build relationships across the lines of conflict. [8]
|
|
|
Relatively Balanced Power
Ideally, participants of a dialogue should have relatively equal levels of power. Dialogue is more difficult when individuals in one group are perceived as having more power from education, wealth, or social position than individuals in other groups. Significant power imbalances tend to undermine a group’s capacity to dialogue. This is particularly true if the dialogue occurs as a precursor to potential joint action in which some dialogue members have more power to shape the actions the group might take.
In settings where power is uneven among participants, those with more power are likely to be taken more seriously than those with less power. Conversely, less powerful members of the group may psychologically disengage from the process and/or resent the more powerful members. They may sense that the exchanges in the dialogue are merely a false ritual to prepare everyone for what the more powerful members intend to do anyway.
Similarity in Perceived Language Capacity
Dialogues are more successful when people share similar abilities in their capacity to express their thoughts, emotions, and spirit through words. Experience, education, age, or language background may make some people perceive themselves or others as less capable of expressing themselves verbally.
In the interracial dialogues we facilitated, participants with less formal education spoke less often. In discussions with those participants, we learned that they kept quiet because they thought the participants with more formal education could talk about the issues in “a fancy way.” This became a major issue, as one goal was to create partnerships across all the lines of division in the city, including race and class. While the dialogues were able to bridge race lines, we had greater challenges in crossing class and education lines.
|
|
|
If possible, it is important to avoid putting groups with vastly different language capacities together. For example, some dialogue specialists do not put youth and adults in the same small-group setting. To bridge language differences that reflect education levels, some dialogue specialists incorporate nonverbal communication techniques, such as drawing or group games, to help put everyone on equal footing.
Types of Dialogue
Dialogue takes a variety of forms according to diverse needs. Dialogue can be used interpersonally, as a one-time event, within a larger event like a conference, in a series of meetings, or as a sustained process over many years.
One-On-One or Small-Group Informal Dialogue
Anyone can use dialogue skills informally to ease discussions on difficult subjects. Dialogue can take place if one or more people in a discussion can use facilitation skills to model good communication, listening, and an attitude of learning from others’ experiences.
One-Time Dialogue
Dialogue can be incorporated into a one-time event like a conference or retreat to explore a special topic. Workshops or seminars can use a dialogue format to help participants share experiences and explore a particular theme. Or a conference can include a block of time in which all participants join small groups to dialogue with the help of facilitators.
A one-time dialogue process can be used to address a conflict that is reaching a boiling point. Dialogue allows people on different sides of a conflict to hear each other more clearly than they might otherwise. The presence of facilitators and the use of small-group conversations often minimize public grandstanding and distorted depictions of opposing positions that often happen in public meetings designed to address tensions. In addition, dialogue is valuable in helping people witness the “other side’s” interest in increasing community harmony.
|
|
|
One-time dialogues are also useful for gathering information. Bringing together hundreds or thousands of people for a one-time dialogue or “town-hall meeting” can help organizers to quickly assess stakeholders’ preferences.
Another purpose of one-time dialogues is to further mobilize a community. If the organizers have successfully generated interest from the press, gathering together a large group of people for dialogue helps increase a community’s awareness of an issue. In addition, as people experience authentic dialogue around difficult issues with people unlike themselves, they are more likely to galvanize new support for community change.
Dialogue with Multiple Sessions
Many organizations use a series of three to eight dialogues as a way to address ongoing community issues. Although most difficult community issues could benefit from more sessions, participants are not likely to sign on for an open-ended process. Thus, limiting the number of sessions makes it easier to solicit participation.
Sustained Dialogue
Some dialogue processes have no defined ending. Open-ended dialogue processes are sometimes called learning communities or support groups that intentionally use dialogue in their meetings. In many cases, open-ended dialogues grow out of a dialogue series that has excited participants about the power of such exchanges.
For example, during the 1980s, citizens of the Soviet Union and the United States held an ongoing, open- ended dialogue. For years, facilitators brought together people from the two countries in an effort to build positive relationships and deescalate tensions. Harold Saunders, a dialogue expert who facilitated many of these exchanges, called these open-ended dialogues “sustained dialogue.” [9] Sustained dialogue is helpful in situations where the problems or conflicts are deeply rooted in history and in people’s perceptions of their identity, religion, or culture; and where the conflict is complex, involving many stakeholders.
Large-Scale Dialogue
Large-scale dialogues can include hundreds or even thousands of people in centrally organized, simultaneous, small-group conversations. In contrast to a typical town meeting where only a relatively few people can speak, a coordinated large-scale dialogue gives all participants a chance to express their perspectives. Large-scale dialogues give people a more palpable sense of “community” writ large.
|
|
|
Using highly skilled facilitators and technologies such as teleconferencing, organizations like AmericaSpeaks lead processes for large communities or cities. A process involving 1,000 people may organize participants into 100 dialogue tables of 10 people each. In New Orleans, for example, AmericaSpeaks organized two dialogues involving 2,500 in December 2006 and 1,300 people in January 2007 to ensure that both the citizens remaining in the city and those living in other cities could examine emerging plans for city rebuilding. These meetings gave city planners and public officials concrete feedback about citizen perspectives on key issues. The dialogues also began to rebuild trust among the public in the planning process itself. After the second meeting, residents recommended that the city convene quarterly and hold annual dialogue-based meetings to get citizen input in the recovery process.
In large-scale dialogue, participants and organizers can have a more accurate sense of stakeholders’ diverse needs. If people feel included and truly heard, they may be less likely to resist group decisions that oppose their positions.
4. Organizing a Dialogue Process
While anyone can create informal dialogues in one’s home, organization, or business, larger and more formal dialogues require a team effort. It begins with assessing individual strengths and dividing responsibilities accordingly. Specifically, the roles include dialogue organizer, dialogue designer, and dialogue facilitator:
Dialogue organizers /promoters coordinate invitations for people to attend the dialogue. The organizing role also involves managing the logistics and atmosphere of the dialogue process.
Dialogue designers develop the sequence of steps in the dialogue process. This includes developing the questions for leading the group through the topic. It also involves planning other interactions for the participants, such as introductions, a discussion of ground rules, or group meals and activities.
Dialogue facilitators guide participants through the dialogue process. Usually the facilitator works from a dialogue plan created by the designer, and carefully makes decisions about when to stray from that design.
This chapter primarily discusses the tasks of a dialogue organizer/promoter, whose role is to develop a strategy for persuading people to be part of a dialogue. Some people make good facilitators because they are calm and balanced. These same people may be less skilled in effectively promoting a dialogue or persuading someone to participate in the process, which requires generating and conveying enthusiasm. As a team defines leadership roles, it is useful to keep these distinct roles in mind. As important as it is to design a first-rate dialogue process and to involve highly skilled facilitators, these are meaningless if the efforts to organize and promote the dialogue are not successful.
Several points apply when organizing most dialogues: Develop savvy marketing plans, choose a strategic location for the dialogues, and deploy a team that wisely capitalizes on people's diverse strengths.
Marketing a Dialogue Process
Convincing people to join a dialogue process takes effort. Dialogue is a somewhat unnatural process, particularly in cultures that prefer heated debates, discussions of how to accomplish specific tasks, or trainings focused on disseminating information. Dialogue is different than all of these in that the focus is on collaborative learning.
| A savvy marketing plan can persuade people to join a dialogue process. |
Organizers can learn how to persuade people to join a dialogue process by borrowing marketing strategies that corporations use to sell their products. The product is the dialogue process. Businesses know that they need to appeal to consumers’ needs and interests. Similarly, dialogue marketing strategies should be tailored to specific audiences. The following set of questions may help identify the best way to frame a dialogue to persuade diverse groups to join.
1. Who are the constituency groups that you want represented in the dialogue?
2. What does each constituency group identify as its current needs or interests regarding the dialogue topic?
3. Why might each constituency group be interested in joining a dialogue process? What will its members get out of it?
4. What marketing message will most likely appeal to each constituency and motivate its members to join the dialogue process?
For example, some communities are motivated to participate in dialogue because they want politicians to hear the will of the people. In other communities, the idea of people coming together across lines of conflict might hold more appeal as a marketing message. A savvy dialogue promoter tailors the messages used to publicize the event based on stakeholders' unique needs.
Because dialogue differs significantly from typical forms of communication, it is essential that invitations strike the right tone. Few adults are excited about signing up for a process that promises to change them. By contrast, people may be more receptive to the idea that they will learn how other people think on an issue, or that they will have a chance to explain to others how they think.
The Invitation Process
Using flyers, posters, or email solicitations to invite people to a dialogue are often unproductive. Many dialogue organizers find face-to-face persuasion the best way to invite people to a dialogue process. Organizers can invite key leaders first, then invite others using the commitment of participation from others as a selling point. Committed participants in a proposed dialogue may also be asked to suggest names or extend invitations to others they think should be included.
When dialogue is task-focused, broadly advertising dialogue as a necessary step in a problem-solving process may effectively recruit participants. However, a task-focused invitation creates expectations of a quick “solution,” and may undermine participants' willingness to patiently explore the details of people’s experiences.
Transparency about the duration of the process is important. It is better to start small and go for reenlistment than to try signing people into a lengthy process or extending it beyond the initial agreement.
Diversity
Significant care and resources must be expended to ensure all stakeholders in a community are present. In very large dialogues with multiple subgroups or dialogue tables, it is important to have a strategy that guarantees diversity in each small group. People tend to come to dialogues with people like themselves, and usually are hesitant to sit down at a table of strangers. A system of random seat assignment with gentle enforcement is important.
Choosing Dialogue Space
The space in which a dialogue is held needs to be neutral, both symbolically and logistically. The choice of venue should not inadvertently give some participants an advantage over others. Care in choosing a location can reassure people's sense of fairness and equality before the process even begins.
Sometimes dialogues may require more than one venue. For example, in a sustained dialogue between Muslims and Christians, it may be wise to alternate between meeting in a church and a mosque.
When choosing a venue, symbolic associations matter. Some locations may be currently occupied or controlled by neutral institutions, but have a historical association with one or another side of an issue. It is vital that dialogue organizers consciously examine how a location affects different potential dialogue participants.
Food, Time, and Aesthetics
Attention to hospitality, such as making food and drink available, helps people relax and gives them something to do as they interact with each other at breaks. A beautiful and comfortable space also helps people relax enough to consider multiple points of view and to see the humanity in others. [10]
Scheduling dialogue sessions requires a sensitivity to members' varying job schedules, child-care availability, transportation options, and other aspects that may affect participation. Avoid scheduling sessions in a way that consistently compromises one group’s ability to attend.
Good, Trained Facilitation
Dialogue organizers also oversee the selection and training of dialogue facilitators. The quality of participants’ experience is dependent on the quality of facilitation they experience. It is important to recruit facilitators who are reasonably experienced in this role and to offer them a brief training in the dialogue design so they are clear on the objectives of each small-group conversation. Given their role in the process, it is essential to make them feel sufficiently appreciated before, during, and after the event.
In large dialogues with multiple facilitators, a lead facilitator should convene, manage, guide, and conclude the experience from a main stage. In many cases, a small team of lead facilitators is used to demonstrate diversity in the leadership process. The person or people in this role must be able to effectively command the attention of dozens or hundreds of people. They should convey confidence and even passion about the process itself; be thoroughly familiar with the design so that they can make decisions about adjustments that might be needed; and convey a calm, likable presence.
Ideally, dialogue organizers choose their facilitators early in the process, so the facilitators can be involved in the dialogue design, which is the focus of the next chapter.
5. Designing a Dialogue Process
There are no hard-and-fast rules for designing a dialogue process. However, our experience identifies a few essential components that underlie most successful dialogue models. Successful dialogues have four general components or phases:
Phase 1: Establishing Common Intentions and Norms
Phase 2: Sharing Experiences and Perceptions
Phase 3: Exploring Diversity and Commonalities
Phase 4: Exploring Possibilities for Action
Дата добавления: 2019-02-13; просмотров: 248; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!