Dimensions for Assessing Dialogue
What follows is a five-part framework to evaluate dialogues. In this framework, social interventions such as dialogue work by affecting participants on one or more of five dimensions: knowledge, awareness, motivation, skills and connections to others.
Knowledge
What and how much new knowledge do participants gain through dialogue? This dimension concerns a participant’s understanding of the central facts and concepts related to the issue. If dialogue designers use fact sheets, presentations, or audiovisuals to present facts, it may be possible to assess an increase in factual knowledge. These facts and concepts might include key distinctions, prevalence rates, or impacts of the issue on different groups. Factual knowledge can be measured through surveys about the causes and dynamics of the issues and topics discussed.
Awareness
This dimension concerns the way participants perceive the connection between their own behavior and the issue being discussed. Emotional intelligence is increasingly valued as much as—if not more than—factual knowledge. Increasing participants' awareness of their role in an issue, and their sense that they can affect change either individually or collectively, is a measurable impact of a dialogue. Changes in awareness can be measured by asking people to identify their own role in the issue before and after the dialogue.
Motivation
This dimension concerns the degree to which participants feel inclined to take action—whether by themselves or with others—to address a problem. Motivation can be measured by identifying the number of people who took individual or collective action as a result of the dialogue, and, if possible, the types and impacts of those actions.
Skills
Dialogue participants may learn or improve on a wide range of skills in the process. Their communication skills may improve as they practice respectful and careful listening, learn empathy, and speak diplomatically, honestly, and assertively. They may also increase their problem-solving skills. Participants may develop concrete ideas about what they might do to affect change in a situation. Skills can be measured by asking people to rate the growth of their personal communication and problem-solving skills.
Connection to Others
This dimension concerns the quantity and quality of relationships between people in the dialogue. In modern societies, meaningful connections tend to decrease, but the dialogue process ideally builds people’s networks. Effective action to address a problem requires group cooperation. Connections to others can be measured by asking people if they have increased levels of email, phone, or personal contact after the dialogue, or are engaged in a group effort to foster change.
|
|
|
Data Collection Strategies
Data collection strategies fall broadly into two types: qualitative processes like interviews and quantitative tools like surveys.
Interviews
Interview-based strategies are often the most appropriate choice for assessing dialogue’s impact. Yet measuring the impact poses many challenges. Evaluating internal shifts in participants’ outlook, the ways people think and feel, is not reliably observed.
One challenge when using interviews is that dialogues often have a delayed effect on participants. Many people report that they didn't fully recognize how much their outlook had shifted until some time had passed. On the other hand, people’s willingness to take time for an interview often declines quickly after the dialogue ends.
Surveys
The other major strategy for assessing dialogue’s impact involves conducting a survey of participants. Some of the same dilemmas that apply to interviews apply to surveys. For example, the ideal time to access the greatest number of responses is at the end of the last session, even before people leave the room. On the other hand, responses that are completed 30, 60, or 90 days after a dialogue ends give a better indication of any long-term effects that the dialogue process had on participants. A further challenge with surveys taken during the last session is that it is impossible to assess whether the dialogue has affected people's actions or behaviors with respect to the problem.
Interview and survey strategies can be combined. One possibility is to use different data-gathering tools at different times. For instance, one could administer interviews or surveys at the conclusion of a dialogue, and also attempt to gather data about participants’ experience at some interval after the experience ends.
|
|
|
It is important to accurately gauge people’s willingness to participate in any assessment. Participants will perceive evaluations as primarily benefiting the facilitator or organizer, and they will give limited time and energy to any reflection process. Therefore, carefully consider how much data is necessary for your purposes. It doesn’t make sense to bother participants with extensive evaluations if the data will go unused.
9. Dialogue for a New Century
The world is becoming a smaller place. As people and societies in far-flung places grow more intertwined through immigration, trade, travel, and technology, what happens in one country, region, or population often impacts another. These growing realities of globalization present a new set of challenges for this century.
For example, efforts to combat global climate change must address energy consumption patterns in countries with widely different cultures, development levels, economies, and vulnerabilities to the problem itself. Decisions to drill for new oil in China affect the price of gasoline in Iowa.
Killer diseases in one country can spread via airplanes to countless cities around the world. High unemployment, crime, and violence in one region can fuel terrorist movements that threaten people in another.
As the world shrinks through global interdependence, more people will experience cultural diversity in new ways, including interracial marriage and immigration. With this often comes an increased expectation to include minority voices in decision-making processes.
In this new century, a widespread capacity for dialogue is essential. Dialogue is especially suited to accommodate the challenges of including an increasing number of stakeholders in a decision-making process. It can increase understanding of other people’s values, religious and cultural identities, life experiences, and perspectives. It can help both citizens and political leaders create the greatest number of “winners” and the fewest number of “losers” by developing a deeper understanding of the experiences and needs of diverse people. And it can harness the creative power of people working together to find the most amenable solutions for all stakeholders.
|
|
|
At the global level, dialogue will need to replace coercive diplomacy if political leaders want to address the root causes of conflicts in the Middle East and in other embattled regions. While some skilled international negotiators use elements of dialogue in their work, often state-sponsored or Track I diplomacy is based more on coercion and force rather than dialogue’s characteristics of careful listening, understanding, and joint problem-solving.
International dialogue can often occur through religious, media, academic, or other civil-society leaders, often with great effectiveness. This is called Track II diplomacy. For example, in the spring of 2007, a delegation of U.S. church leaders met with Muslim leaders in Iran to dialogue on ways to prevent war between the two countries. This dialogue created a space for Christian leaders to apologize to Muslim leaders for the war in Iraq, the torture used in prisons like Abu Ghraib, and the number of civilian casualties. Researchers have verified that apologies like this have a significant influence on official negotiations, supporting a diplomatic outcome. [15]
Examples of Track II diplomacy are occurring in Kosovo, where journalists dialogue with each other about the impact of their reporting on that nation’s ethnic conflict and the opportunities for peace. In Israel/ Palestine, women's groups from both sides of the conflict dialogue about how they can build the foundation of peace together. In unofficial dialogue, religious leaders or journalists can exchange ideas, explore unconventional options for resolving conflicts, or simply gain greater understanding of the deeper issues involved in the conflict.
Track II diplomacy complements Track I or official diplomatic efforts and is more likely to include the elements and skills of dialogue. The dialogue of Track II diplomacy is often more able to get beyond the high-level politics and face-saving posturing characteristic of official diplomatic efforts.
|
|
|
| Dialogue is the essence of democracy. |
Dialogue is about helping people think better together. It is the essence of democracy. The spirit of community care and civic action at the heart of healthy democracy requires that people participate in learning, understanding, and shaping decisions that affect their families, communities, regions, and nations.
We hope this book helps people in different contexts think about how they can communicate more effectively on difficult subjects. In the next century, our very lives may depend on how well we as individuals, communities, and members of humanity can creatively address the challenges before us with the tools of dialogue rather than with weaponry, coercion, or force.
Дата добавления: 2019-02-13; просмотров: 217; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!