Phase 3: Exploring Diversity and Commonalities
Once participants have had a chance to share their experiences, the dialogue then moves to helping participants identify the underlying conditions that account for their different experiences and perceptions. People tend to see their own perspectives and experiences as “the truth” and other’s perspectives as “wrong.” In Phase 3, participants collectively examine, “Why are our experiences and perceptions so different?”
Hopefully by this point the participants share an emotional bond with each other, and are less inclined to dismiss each other's perspectives about divisive issues. If the dialogue has gone well, the participants heard perspectives that do not fit easily into their preconceived notions, and are willing to join others in finding a larger understanding of the truth.
This phase focuses on helping people reexamine everyone’s experiences in a larger context. In Phase 2, the central question was “What was your experience?” In Phase 3, the central question is “What factors cause us to have different experiences and different perspectives?”
Sample questions, such as the ones below help participants recognize differences and similarities between individuals and subgroups within a dialogue. They raise awareness about how people’s perceptions shape their interpretations of reality. Participants explore influences that have shaped a problem; ideally, this helps them see their own role in a problem.
Sample Questions for Exploring the Diversity of Experiences
|
Caucuses
Sometimes separating dialogue participants into subgroups or “caucuses” of people with similar experiences may be helpful in this phase. Caucuses can help participants more fully explore potentially sensitive dialogue themes. In a family dialogue, for example, a facilitator could caucus with the children and parents separately to ensure that the children are empowered to articulate their experiences and needs. In a dialogue on racial divisions, caucuses may help groups safely explore facts, ideas, and/or behaviors in a comfortable group before discussing them with the “other” group.
|
|
|
When discussing particularly divisive subjects, the greater level of honesty in a caucus can help move a dialogue forward. For example, a caucus used in a dialogue between members of a divided church could ask each subgroup to develop three questions they’d like to ask the other group. Caucus discussions can be summarized and brought back to the large group to accelerate progress on key issues.
Suggested Caucus Questions
|
Before probing these questions directly, make sure that participants acknowledge the group's diverse experiences and perspectives. In some cases, the exchanges in Phase 2 will make this quite plain for everyone. In other cases, the facilitator needs to highlight the similarities and differences in people’s experiences so everyone can see them. This process of lifting up the group’s similarities and differences can help transition between Phases 2 and 3.
As people begin to sort out the diversity of narratives expressed in Phase 2, they often raise the issue of perception. People or groups may suggest that others are paranoid, and thus see mistreatment where there might be other explanations for people’s behavior. Conversely, some will argue that other groups just don’t “get it” and are blind to obvious dynamics.
The facilitator does not necessarily need to settle this issue, but rather to manage the atmosphere so that the participants can work through these perceptions and develop a shared understanding of the differences. The facilitator may acknowledge that perceptions generally play some role in the creation of our experiences. The primary job of the facilitator is to help construct a fair and honest exploration of the question.
An additional task of the facilitator is to help the participants step back and see that none of them has created the problem. The issue (in most cases) was not created by the people in the dialogue. Rather, it was most likely created by a combination of historical or institutional actions, and has been handed down over time and across distances and groups. The facilitator may need to remind participants of these larger factors that create different experiences and perceptions.
|
|
|
A final task in Phase 3 is helping participants see that even though they have inherited the problem, they may choose to perpetuate or change it. The facilitator’s goal is to help participants see a connection between their own perspectives and behaviors, and the forces that perpetuate the problem. In this way, the dialogue highlights that each participant is an agent for change.
The Role of Independent Research and Statistics
In the Richmond dialogues on race, we began each weekend retreat with a factual presentation on the different educational, employment, housing, and transportation opportunities available to black, white, Latino, and Asian people in the city. These statistics, generated and presented by a local university professor, helped dialogue participants recognize various disparities between racial groups in the city. The facts provided a starting point for the dialogue.
In some cases, a presentation of facts may distract from a dialogue process. Several considerations help determine the benefits and the risks of presenting facts in a dialogue.
Benefits of an Initial Focus on Facts
Depending on the strategy used to recruit people into the process, some participants may not have much knowledge about the topic but may have chosen to attend because someone they trust invited them. Presenting facts helps raise awareness about the issues.
If facts will eventually play a major role in the group's exchanges, there can be great benefit in creating a common baseline of foundational knowledge from the outset. This makes it less likely that people will bring to the dialogue “facts” that may not be true and induce others to spend energy debating what is factual.
|
|
|
For example, in a dialogue on Muslim-Christian relationships, it might be helpful to start by inviting several speakers to give a factual overview of different teachings and forms of both Christianity and Islam. This factual overview can provide space for people with different experiences to recognize that they have only experienced some forms of the other's religion, or have only heard about some of the teachings.
| Facts can create an experience of surprise that bonds participants. |
In discussions on race relations, a central dynamic is “How much has discrimination lessened since the bad old days?” Findings from the large-scale federally funded studies of the prevalence of housing discrimination might be relevant. Similarly, longitudinal studies that show the softening of racialized attitudes might also be relevant to such a discussion.
In addition, little-known but relevant facts can create a common experience of surprise for the participants that can bond them.
Strategies for Presenting Facts
Facilitators can introduce facts near the beginning of a dialogue process using a number of different strategies. Each has different implications for the process. Some dialogues have combined more than one of the following strategies.
a) Fact Sheet or Quizzes. A fact sheet with research findings or an interactive quiz can be presented and reviewed fairly quickly. Fact sheets are particularly valuable for indisputable facts and when these facts might play a role through the entire dialogue.
For example, in a Memphis, Tennessee, community dialogue about rising child obesity rates, facilitators distributed a fact sheet showing the prevalence of adolescent obesity, the general relationship between food and exercise, recent trends in the food industry, trends in schools, and factors of the physical environment. A quiz on surprising facts on the topic also gave participants a common experience. [11]
b) Audiovisuals. A short video can also play an important function. At the Memphis dialogue on obesity, facilitators used a short video featuring an adolescent reflecting on his struggle to lose weight. The video exposed the painful social dynamics of obesity and created an emotionally touching experience which bonded the participants. In large-scale dialogues with substantial budgets, organizers sometimes devote resources to producing audiovisuals to introduce topics.
|
|
|
c) In-Person Presentation. Authoritative leaders or experts can introduce facts through presentations. The Richmond dialogues on race began with a 40-minute PowerPoint presentation by a local scholar who had done extensive research on the ways that jurisdictional issues were contributing to racial and economic division in the city. In Fiji, the dialogue process included presentations by Christian, Hindu, and Muslim religious leaders emphasizing common religious teachings about peace.
Risks of Drawing Early Attention to “The Facts”
Presenting facts can distract from the dialogue process. Some members of the group will turn their attention to disputing your facts, especially if any of your facts are controversial. Some may begin to question whether the dialogue process is actually a neutral setting, or whether your depiction of relevant facts betrays the bias of the facilitator or organizers. If you choose to use facts, do so in a way that does not raise concerns even among skeptical participants.
If the factual presentation is experiential—such as watching a movie—the group may veer to talking about the experience of watching the movie rather than the issues that the movie highlights. This is another way that facts can distract a group from exploring its own experiences and perspectives. If this happens, the facilitator needs to refocus the group’s attention on the dialogue’s underlying issues.
The presentation should not cause any participant to feel attacked or defensive, as this generates unproductive resistance. This concern is particularly relevant in cases where the dialogue addresses issues of historical conflicts between groups. Typically, part of the dialogue’s purpose is to move people past a tendency to think of other groups as the cause of ongoing tensions, and toward a shared responsibility.
| Take care to present facts in a nonbiased way. |
Finally, some in the group may interpret an initial focus on facts as a signal that what matters in the dialogue is a proper analysis of the facts. Positioning facts early in the process makes it more difficult to reestablish participants' experiences as important sources of learning.
A Word About Key Concepts
Just as one must take care in presenting facts in a dialogue, it is also important to think through how to use key concepts. Defining concepts like “racism,” “obesity,” or “homosexuality” can be controversial. If your dialogue design or facilitation choices depend on a common definition of key concepts, the dialogue can be sidetracked by this discussion. Yet it can be dangerous for a facilitator to impose definitions of key terms on a group without discussion. A handout with a set of definitions from a range of scholars or public figures can be helpful to demonstrate a consensus or diversity of opinions. Facilitators can ask group members to agree on one definition.
Record-Keeping and Feedback
Dialogue makes it possible to gather insights from many people. It is important to find a way to unobtrusively gather the data from the group and distill the most important themes that help produce a sense of both the common ground and the diversity of opinion. Notes from different phases of the dialogue may be taken on large sheets of paper at the front of the room. The dialogue designers should decide ahead of time when it is appropriate to take public records of the dialogue, and when it would distract from group members listening to each other.
The task of collecting information is particularly challenging in large dialogues, as group reporting takes too long. AmericaSpeaks uses modern technology for this process, with each dialogue subgroup or table sending its information from a laptop computer to a central bank of computers for distillation. The primary themes from the dialogue are transmitted on a wireless network to a “theme team” that distills the main points of consensus among the participants. These themes are fed back to the entire group on large video screens, and each participant uses a keypad to vote on which of the themes or options for action are most important to him/her.
There are lower-tech ways as well. For example, subgroups can decide on a few top insights or conclusions from a conversation, and submit those to someone (maybe a lead facilitator) who discerns common points throughout the entire group.
Дата добавления: 2019-02-13; просмотров: 221; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!