Greetings all. This conversation reminds me of work I did in South Africa in 1987. “Indaba” is a word used by the Xhosa and Zulu people that by meaning, was a perfect word for describing a community dialogue. Unfortunately, in the mid-1980s, the word was used to name dialogues that were ultimately about maintaining the apartheid system. So, by the time my colleagues and I arrived, Indaba was an off-limits word for any kind of dialogue, deliberation, or negotiation.

In looking up the word today (see below), it was interesting to find out that the word has been resurrected two decades later.

My point is that words and phrases used to describe dialogue and deliberation process often have a local meaning that must be respected as we go about describing our work.

best . . bill

Context is critical. As Rosa writes, “no one framing will work for all audiences”.

What sort of process is being framed? Processes that fall at different points along the IAP2 spectrum (particularly Consult – Involve- Collaborate-Empower) should most likely be framed in different ways. A frame that worked superbly for an empowering process would likely be perceived as deceptive for a process that had consultation as its primary goal.

To what extent are we dealing with different understandings or different definitions in a context where goals are largely shared? I’d infer from what Brian writes that the problems he’s experienced with “deliberation” as a label fall in this area. That is, people aren’t substantively against deliberation, but they do find it to be, at first blush, a dry and “dead” term.

Are we dealing with negotiation, i.e.divergent and even directly opposed goals? For instance, I gather from Norquist’s comments that it’d probably be impossible to involve him in a deliberation about how to structure health care reform, as currently being debated in DC, since, for instance, individual and employer mandates as well as additional insurer and provider regulations do in fact “tell people what to do”, and he’d be against it on those grounds.

It might make sense to look at framing from a perspective of teaching – how can I inform my audience about aspects of the D&D process that would help them realize the value of their participation? And it may be that in some contexts a good framing will lead some audience members to sit out the process this time (e.g. as with Norquist above). That’s not ideal, but it’s better than creating expectations that the underlying process can’t satisfy.

Chris Berendes
citizentools.netalyst.com

I agree about the deadness of the concept “deliberative democracy” and “deliberative dialogue.” Even among practitioners these terms don’t generate passion. On the other hand “community problem solving” focuses on the problem and doesn’t resonate either. Lately, the concept of “building community capacity” has warmed up some groups–capacity to solve problems, make decisions, build on assets–it encompasses a breadth of possibilities. And even that play on words “building or creating community possibilities” suggests hope, which is desperately needed these days.

I agree wholeheartedly that “community problem solving” seems to speak to a lot of folks — and it works great for me.

At the same time, as you said, no one framing will work for ALL audiences… I know that within professional circles, some of us AI and dialogue people prefer to think about “problem dissolving” rather that “problem solving”…

Seriously though, we need to meet people where they are at, and I generally find it more helpful for us as professionals to become “multilingual”, rather than to preserverate on “teaching” others our professional argot, useful as it may be for communicating among ourselves…

with all best wishes,

Rosa

Rosa Zubizarreta
Diapraxis: Facilitating Creative Collaboration
Organization Development * Community Engagement

Great Barrington, MA
(413) 528-5296
http://www.diapraxis.com

[This framing works for me.]…as I have arrived at D&D through communication-rhetoric… Aristotle claimed that deliberation is only possible on future courses of action. Dewey, also an influential thinker, was a proponent of a problem-solving strategy that has served as a basis for many discussion groups. And lesser well known in the US, but no less influential to me, is Bent Flyvbjerg, a Danish planning scholar, who is a proponent of phronesis, a classical Greek term meaning practical wisdom. Phronesis is about what to do next… so yes, way to go!

Have a wonderful Thanksgiving!!

Rebecca

Rebecca M. Townsend, Ph.D.
Instructor of Communication, Manchester Community College
Office: Lowe 218G * Phone: 860-512-2685
Email: RTownsend@mcc.commnet.edu
Great Path M.S. #19, P.O. Box 1046
Manchester, CT 06045-1046

Sandy, I frame our work in terms of hosting/facilitating/convening conversations that matter. Rather than problems, I focus on the issues and opportunities that we need to collectively understand so that we can co-create our desired future.

Thanks for asking and asking again. I really appreciate your dedication to representing our collective wisdom.

Christine

Christine Whitney Sanchez
Collaborative Wisdom & Strategy
480.759.0262
http://www.christinewhitneysanchez.com
Skype: christinewhitneysanchez
http://www.facebook.com/ChristineWhitneySanchez

This makes a great deal of sense to me. I’m generalizing here, of course, but it seems that so many Americans favor the concrete over the abstract, prefer to deal with immediate issues over long-term problems, and are motivated by self-interest (the “what’s in it for me?” business). Add in the frenetic pace at which many live their lives, and it all makes a strong case for short-term dialogues to solve immediate problems in which the participants are personally invested.

And yet, people have such a need to make their voice heard on larger, more abstract issues as well. I think of interfaith dialogues in this context. Promoting mutual understanding and interfaith peace is hardly a short-term proposition, and the issues can be abstract if not esoteric. Yet many people are deeply motivated to discuss these issues. The same could be said of a dialogue on national health care policy: it’s doubtful that one group of people in dialogue would produce a blueprint for such a policy, but would the need to hear and be heard motivate them to attend a general dialogue on the topic? Surely it motivated those who took part in the town hall meetings of the past summer.

John Backman
The Dialogue Venture
http://www.dialogueventure.com

“Community problem solving” is the only phrase that had any resonance with my family and friends. At the “No better time” conference in July one of the sessions was specifically about how to frame the work we we call “Deliberative democracy.”

The term “deliberative democracy” sank like a lead weight. No recognition, no interest. All of the variations also failed. I’ve tried to talk about it to very smart people in other fields, and deliberation and deliberative don’t connect, they don’t even knock on a mental door. Explain it in terms of juries, and they “get” what I mean by deliberation, but it still doesn’t translate beyond the legal system.

I settled on the term “community problem solving” just before I read Martin Carcasson’s “Beginning with the end in mind” where he strongly adopted the same phrase.