Hi, folks! Posts can no longer be added to the Thataway Forum, but we are keeping it online as an archive of past conversations and announcements.
Please use our discussion lists, blogs and members network to start conversations within the D&D community.


Categorizing the D&D Community / Field
Thataway Forum Index -> Practitioner Advice Forum??? This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.???This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
View previous topic :: View next topic ?
Author Message
Sandy

Joined: 20 Jan 2004
Posts: 148
Location: Boiling Springs, PA

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 9:37 pm?? ?Post subject: Categorizing the D&D Community / Field Reply with quote??? ???

I wanted to start a new forum topic to encourage us to explore how best we can categorize the broad practice of dialogue and deliberation.

This is important to me right now for two reasons:

1. One of the greatest needs in our emerging field is to provide dialogue & deliberation practitioners, community leaders, educators, and policymakers with guidelines and tools for selecting the most effective D&D technique(s) for a particular set of circumstances. Being able to clearly categorize our practice can get us much closer to being able to diagnose what process should be used when.

2. One of NCDD's goals is to provide meaningful ways for members to communicate, collaborate, support each other, and learn from one another. We've learned from our members that they have a need to network and interact with people who share their specific interests and experiences. If we can agree that some clear categories do exist in the dialogue & deliberation community and name them, maybe those categories will help us figure out how best to support the formation of smaller networks within NCDD in order to better meet our members' needs.

I'll start replying to this introductory post now with information that I've been gathering for a while that shows how different thought leaders have conceptualized this broad field.
_________________
Sandy Heierbacher
Convenor, National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD)
Back to top
View user's profile???Send private message??????Visit poster's website????????????
Sandy

Joined: 20 Jan 2004
Posts: 148
Location: Boiling Springs, PA

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 9:46 pm?? ?Post subject: How NCDD Originally Categorized the Field Reply with quote??? ???

In preparation for our first national conference in 2002, we developed a document to share with everyone on the planning team. The document provided an overview of various streams of practice that center around dialogue and deliberation.

Most of these categories came directly out of an article written by Ximena Zuniga and Biren (Ratnesh) A. Nagda that was published in Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community and Workplace, edited by David Schoem and Sylvia Hurtado (2001).

The categories we identified were:
- Arts-Based Civic Dialogue
- Collective Inquiry (Bohm, OD dialogue, World Caf?ĩ)
- Community Building & Social Action (Study Circles, HIC, NCCJ)
- Conflict Transformation and Peace-Building (SD, IMTD)
- Critical-Dialogic Education (dialogic pedagogy in the classroom, using dialogue to educate people about social justice issues)
- Deliberative Democracy
- Online Dialogue & Deliberation

Note: Some categories didn‚?€?™t resonate well with people. People didn‚?€?™t identify with collective inquiry, for instance (too broad), or critical-dialogic education (too academic-sounding). Others identify with things not covered well enough by these categories: Whole system work (future search, open space), Large-group interventions, and Diversity work (in general).

Each of these seven streams of practice are described below.

Arts-Based Civic Dialogue
Arts-Based Dialogue works within many of the categories below. It includes arts-based collective inquiry, participatory creative process, Freire-based theatre, and arts-based social action. It has gained prominence and sophistication in recent years thanks to the Animating Democracy Initiative (ADI) of Americans for the Arts. Since 1999, ADI has fostered artistic activity that encourages civic dialogue on important contemporary issues. The Liz Lerman Dance Exchange, The Andy Warhol Museum, Flint Youth Theatre and Urban Bush Women are all examples of organizations that have become known for their innovation in integrating the arts with civic dialogue.

Collective Inquiry
Dialogue practitioners from the Collective Inquiry sector feel that suspending judgments and assumptions is essential to finding shared meaning among dialogue participants. This sector focuses on nurturing participants' abilities to engage in collective thinking and inquiry for the development of synergistic and meaningful relationships. Originating in the work of the late Physicist David Bohm, this model is central in the work of Linda Ellinor and Glenna Gerard, co-founders of The Dialogue Group, and William Isaacs and colleagues at the Dialogue Project of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Variations of this model have been implemented in organizations and communities throughout the United States.

Community Building & Social Action
Practitioners in this sector strive to involve a broad base of citizens in addressing contentious community issues. These dialogues are usually area-specific, and tackle such issues as racism, educational inequities, development, immigration and crime. The dialogues tend to progress over a fixed period of time, emphasize dialogic elements that ensure that relationships and mutual understanding and respect will be developed among group members, allow group members to deliberate about various possible solutions to community problems and often lead intentionally to action steps. President Clinton's Initiative on Race helped to spread this sector's reach, and successful organizations like the Study Circles Resource Center, Hope in the Cities and the National Conference on Community & Justice continue to help build intergroup understanding and solve community problems today.

Conflict Transformation and Peace-Building
Dialogue leaders in the conflict transformation and peace-building sector of practice bring together members of conflicting groups to identify issues of conflict; build understanding, generate empathy and foster forgiveness through dialogue; generate action plans and, if possible, achieve a workable agreement to conflicts or disputes. The dialogue process is driven by a conflict mediation method which asks participants to strive to understand the perspectives of the other group, to become open to the idea that mutual compromises may create a new situation, and to respect and respond to the psychological needs and concerns of the other group. Applications of these models draw from national and international peace studies and conflict mediation movements, and some of the sector's leaders are individuals like Harold Saunders, who has helped spread the idea of sustained dialogue as an important aspect of the peace process and organizations like the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy which work internationally to help groups transform conflicts and rebuild relationships.

Critical-Dialogic Education
This sector of practice, which has been very active on college campuses in the past seven years or so, integrates sustained dialogue with consciousness-raising and bridge building across differences. The educational dimension of this model focuses on exploring group differences from a social justice perspective with a goal of systemic change. The pedagogy underlying this model draws from Paulo Freire's 1972 work on liberatory education. This dialogue process, as applied in college settings, facilitates increasing awareness about social inequalities, intergroup understanding and alliance building among participants. Leaders in this sector are Ximena Zuniga, Ratnesh Nagda and others who initiated this type of dialogic practice at the University of Michigan's Program on Intergroup Relations, Conflict and Community. Variations of this model have been implemented in several college campuses across the U.S., and will doubtless be duplicated more and more.

Deliberative Democracy
The deliberative democracy sector focuses on the importance of citizens deliberating (often with their representatives) about public problems and possible solutions under conditions that are conducive to reasoned reflection and improved decision-making. Deliberative democracy replaces often uninformed public opinion with public judgment, an informed, stable consensus reached through thoughtful deliberation. It often involves dialogue to help ensure that members of a group will be open to others' opinions and perspectives, even when they conflict with their own, but does not always. Results of deliberative forums are meant to influence the decisions of policy-makers. Some leaders in the Deliberative Democracy sector are AmericaSpeaks, the Kettering Foundation's National Issues Forums, the Study Circles Resource Center (which overlaps with the Community Building & Social Action because of its focus on citizen-led change efforts), and the Jefferson Center, which organizes Citizen Juries.

Online Dialogue & Deliberation
Dialogue and deliberation among groups of all sizes has thrived online thanks to individuals and organizations that partner structured, civil conversations (a rarity online) with modern technology. Online dialogue and deliberation efforts have spanned the above sectors in terms of application and structure, and have reached people who might not have otherwise engaged with others about topics as varied as interracial dating, environmental justice issues and education reform. Leaders of this sector include such organizations as Web Lab and E The People, which organize their own online dialogues, and Information Renaissance and GroupJazz, which help others organize effective online dialogues and deliberative processes.
_________________
Sandy Heierbacher
Convenor, National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD)


Last edited by Sandy on Sun Sep 18, 2005 8:17 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile???Send private message??????Visit poster's website????????????
Sandy

Joined: 20 Jan 2004
Posts: 148
Location: Boiling Springs, PA

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:22 pm?? ?Post subject: Patricia Wilson's Method of Categorizing the Field Reply with quote??? ???

In her 2003 article (Deep Democracy: The Inner Practice of Civic Engagement) for the Shambhala Institute's Fieldnotes publication, Patricia Wilson introduced her chart of "Social Technologies for Civic Engagement."

The chart had four columns, titled:

- Deliberation
- Dialogue
- Collaborative Action
- Community Conflict Resolution

Under each column headline were a number of tools. Since most of these tools are actually widely considered as dialogue, deliberation, or deliberative dialogue models, I felt strongly that two of the column headings should be changed into more descriptive headings. I preferred the headings:

- Decision-Making
- Personal and Group Transformation
- Collaborative Action
- Community Conflict Resolution

Here is a listing of tools for each of these categories:

Decision-Making
Citizen Summits
Citizen Juries
Consensus Conferences
Scenario Workshops
National Issues Forums
Deliberative Polling
Planning Charrettes (I added this one)

Personal and Group Transformation
Conversation Caf?ĩs
Public Conversations Project
World Caf?ĩ
Dialogue Circles
Compassionate Listening
Transformational Conversations
Wisdom Councils (I added this)

Collaborative Action
Study Circles
Appreciative Inquiry
Community Collaboratives
Policy Dialogues
Future Search
Open Space Technology

Community Conflict Resolution
Sustained Dialogue
Community Mediation
Narrative Mediation
Circle Sentencing
Community Conferencing
Peacemaking Circles
Healing Circles
Victim-Offender Mediation (I added this)
Sustained Dialogue (I added this)

Here is how Patricia Wilson described these four categories:

Decision-Making (Deliberation)

The deliberation approaches, varying in size from citizen summits with thousands of people to citizen juries with a dozen people, involve a cross-section of everyday citizens (as opposed to recognized stakeholders). In some cases participants are randomly chosen to ensure representation.

The deliberative forums typically offer information or expert input to inform the participants about the public issue under consideration. These forums emphasize rational analysis that looks at all sides of an issue as opposed to defense of predetermined positions or emotional arguments.

Most of the deliberative approaches are designed to bring the participants into agreement on a recommendation for action to be presented to a decision-making body, usually a government entity....

Personal and Group Transformation (Dialogue)

The dialogue approaches are social learning processes that aim to build mutual understanding and trust among diverse participants through non-judgmental listening and sharing of the personal experience and meaning of public issues. Social learning takes place through emotional response as well as cognitive appreciation.

Dialogue is not aimed at coming to agreement around a course of action or recommendations and does not involve outside information or expert briefings. It is generally done in small groups, often with a facilitator or host, and usually with the participants agreeing at the start to certain guidelines to promote respect and mutual learning....

Collaborative Action

The collaborative action approaches bring together diverse citizens, as well as public, private, non-profit, and community actors, to increase community motivation and capacity for collaboration around issues of public concern, especially the ‚?€?œwicked messes.‚?€? Collaborative action technologies, which have taken root over the last ten years in the U.S., use dialogue, inquiry, and deliberation to inspire participants, build working relationships, and make decisions about collaborative actions they will take to improve their communities....

These approaches work with the organizational landscape of the community or region in order to ensure continuity of collaboration and implementation....

Community Conflict Resolution

In North America and internationally the field of alternative dispute resolution has opened up a new arena for civic engagement through community conflict resolution. Consistent with the systems theory maxim of ‚?€?œbringing the whole system into the room,‚?€? community conflict resolution assumes that healing a conflict must reach well beyond a legal decision involving the immediate disputants.

In the case of a conflict between stakeholder groups who reside in the same community‚?€?” e.g., ranchers, loggers, and environmentalists‚?€?”the relationships must be rebuilt, understanding of each other‚?€?™s frames established, the possible solution set expanded creatively, and a commitment to follow-through made by each party.

This transformative approach to community conflicts is being used not only for broadly divisive community issues, but also for victim-offender cases.

--

Patricia closes her descriptions of the 4 categories with:

"In addition to these four categories, innovations in facilitation approaches (e.g. dynamic facilitation, strategic questioning), communication skills (compassionate communication, nonviolent communication), and group decision-making processes (e.g., consensus) are enriching public dialogue and deliberation...."
_________________
Sandy Heierbacher
Convenor, National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD)
Back to top
View user's profile???Send private message??????Visit poster's website????????????
Sandy

Joined: 20 Jan 2004
Posts: 148
Location: Boiling Springs, PA

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:09 pm?? ?Post subject: Matt Leighninger's Categorization of Public Dialogue Reply with quote??? ???

Matt Leighninger, a Senior Associate of the Study Circles Resource Center, wrote a guidebook for the League of Women‚?€?™s Voters last year called "Citizens Building Communities: The ABCs of Public Dialogue." In it, he provided guidance for community leaders who may want to initiate a public dialogue. He categorized a variety of D&D processes first by size and whether they were face-to-face or online, and then by a combination of purpose (visioning, decision-making, info, action) and type (focus groups, structured conversations, group blogs).

Here is how he broke down the categories of "Best Practices":

Large-group formats for public dialogue
- Informational forums (Public Forum Inst., LWV)
- Decision-making forums (AmericaSpeaks, NIF, Study Circles, deliberative polling)
- Visioning forums (AmericaSpeaks, charrettes, NCL, NeighborWorks Training Inst)
- Action Forums (Study Circles, NeighborWorks)

Small-group formats for public dialogue
- Democratic small-group meetings (NIF, PCP, Study Circles, Viewpoint Learning, NeighborWorks)
- Focus groups (Public Agenda, Harwood, NeighborWorks)
- Structured Conversations (Wisdom Councils, Conversation Caf?ĩ, PCP, World Caf?ĩ)

Online fomats for public dialogue
- Listservs, bulletin boards and group blogs (e-democracy.org, e-thepeople, wikipedia)
- Online dialogue (Web Lab, Info Renaissance, Info Society Project, Group Jazz)
_________________
Sandy Heierbacher
Convenor, National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD)
Back to top
View user's profile???Send private message??????Visit poster's website????????????
Sandy

Joined: 20 Jan 2004
Posts: 148
Location: Boiling Springs, PA

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:19 pm?? ?Post subject: Tom Atlee‚?€?™s Spectrum of Dialogue & Deliberation Reply with quote??? ???

THE SPECTRUM OF DIALOGUE & DELIBERATION (with examples)
By Tom Atlee

1. Citizen dialogue and deliberation (of any and all kinds)
(see http://www.conversationcafe.org)

2. Citizen dialogue and deliberation with a coherent outcome (i.e., whole-group statements, actions or outcomes)
(see http://www.wiki-www.thataway.org/index.php?page=DeliberativeOpinionPoll)

3. Citizen dialogue and deliberation with a coherent outcome that plugs into policy-making and decision-making (usually in an advisory role) (see http://www.nifi.org)

4. Citizen dialogue and deliberation with a coherent outcome that plugs into policy-making and decision-making where the citizens are selected to reflect the diversity of the community (see http://co-intelligence.org/CDCUsesAndPotency.html)

5. Citizen dialogue and deliberation with a coherent outcome that plugs into policy-making and decision-making where the citizens are selected to reflect the diversity of the community and the whole process is officially institutionalized (see http://co-intelligence.org/P-DanishTechPanels.html)

6. Citizen dialogue and deliberation with a coherent outcome that plugs into policy-making and decision-making where the citizens are selected to reflect the diversity of the community and the whole process is officially institutionalized and empowered such that it drives policy-making (see http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public/inaction)

7. A democratic political and governance system that is grounded in 1-6 above at least as much -- or more than -- in the competitive lobbying, voting, litigating modes of politics. (no real-world examples currently available) (for an imaginary example, see http://www.co-intelligence.org/S-PatandPat.html)
_________________
Sandy Heierbacher
Convenor, National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD)
Back to top
View user's profile???Send private message??????Visit poster's website????????????
Sandy

Joined: 20 Jan 2004
Posts: 148
Location: Boiling Springs, PA

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:22 pm?? ?Post subject: Bill Potapchuk's Reaction to Tom's D&D Spectrum Reply with quote??? ???

After I forwarded Tom's D&D Spectrum to the main NCDD discussion list, Bill Potapchuk responded with some great points and suggestions. Here's his response:

Sandy . . thanks for calling this to our attention . . . Tom . . .I love your work and your thinking . . . and have lots of thoughts about this spectrum . . .

‚?€Ę The assumption in this spectrum if that if citizens dialogue and deliberate effectively . . . and policy making and decision making becomes more congruent with those citizen interests we will have wise democracy

‚?€Ę My assumption is a different . . it is rooted in the idea that a wise democracy can (needs to) effectively address and make progress toward solving/improving/reducing public problems . . this is for two reasons . . . first, is that studies of citizen participation (and much anecdotal evidence) suggests that unless participants feel like they make a difference (they have agency or a sense of efficacy), they will not continue to participate . . . secondly, structures of society . . .. our form of government and governance needs to solve problems if it is to be sustained

I also think that:

‚?€Ę Most public problems (especially wicked public problems like poverty, environmental degradation, the lack of decent outcomes for too many children and youth, etc.) can not be solved by government alone nor by government persuading or regulating other actors

‚?€Ę In order to address public problems effectively, changed behaviors and actions among individuals and organizations are necessary

Therefore, a spectrum of wise democracy might:

‚?€Ę Create several threads to reflect the characteristics of the issues being deliberated . . . for issues that are within government's sphere of influence (e.g., budgeting, public works, land use, regulated industries, etc), a spectrum something like the draft makes sense . . . for issues that require coordinated action among multiple private and public entities, we need processes that engage citizens and other stakeholders that have some linkage to the "problem shed" (e.g., a problem of regional sprawl can not be solved by a deliberative process in one jurisdiction, sprawl is addressed when many jurisdictions act somewhat jointly)

‚?€Ę And one of the threads might focus on how we work on issues where changes in individual behavior are necessary . . . in my neighborhood, there are now five Prius's and a Honda hybrid . . . a marker of some kind of environmental sensitivity . . . but four of the six hybrid owners are a part of the prevailing norm in the neighborhood . . . that green grass lawns are good and let's pour tons of fertilizer on the lawns to keep them that way . . .how might a deliberative process focused on the health of the Chesapeake Bay promote invididual behavioral change?

Bill Potapchuk
President
Community Building Institute
_________________
Sandy Heierbacher
Convenor, National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD)
Back to top
View user's profile???Send private message??????Visit poster's website????????????
Sandy

Joined: 20 Jan 2004
Posts: 148
Location: Boiling Springs, PA

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:25 pm?? ?Post subject: Tom's Thoughtful Reaction to Bill's Feedback Reply with quote??? ???

Here's what Tom wrote back to the list. I like this new thinking a lot, and can see its usefulness in helping people figure out what process to go with.

--

What a juicy response, Bill!

I always thought that policy-making and decision-making ARE (when not corrupted) primarily concerned with "addressing and making progress towards solving/ improving/ reducing public problems". So that's what my spectrum addressed -- engaging the citizenry appropriately and powerfully in THAT.

But what I THINK I'm hearing you say (and please do correct me if I'm wrong) is that there are a number of "participatory engagement" tracks on which we need to operate in order to cover the range of interventions needed to solve a major public problem:

1. citizen engagement in crafting government policies and programs
2. integrated efforts by diverse stakeholders, sectors, organizations, etc., involved in that problem and
3. changes in the individual attitudes and behaviors of very large numbers of people.

Certain public problems can be effectively addressed by one or two of these, but some -- especially the wicked ones that stick around -- need sustained engagement on all three "tracks".

I hear you suggesting that we develop a spectrum of engagement-approaches along each of these three tracks.

Assuming for a moment that that's what you mean (and I think it is a brilliant model - so I'll claim it if you don't!!!), I'm thinking that we might put (for example)
-- National Issues Forums and citizens juries in (1),
-- open space and future search in (2), and
-- study circles and Ecoteams (neighborhood and workplace training and support groups for more sustainable individual behaviors) in (3).
This would not imply that they fit ONLY on their assigned track, but that each exemplifies a particular approach (track) to community problem-solving.

Our next challenge would be to decide on appropriate standards for the spectrum-gradient of each of the three tracks. On the first track (citizen engagement in government policy-making) I suggested that the levels of (a) representativeness of community diversity and (b) empowerment were the most useful criteria. For simplicity, my spectrum assumes a certain level of quality of dialogue and deliberation (a fact that should be made explicit) It also early on introduces the idea of "a coherent outcome" -- a factor more important in government decision-making than in the other two tracks (e.g., although competing government policies just make for confusion, 200 stakeholders at an Open Space conference on poverty can go off and engage in 50 different and not necessarily coordinated initiatives to ameliorate poverty, and that will likely have an overall positive impact).

So our questions become:

How do we make a SPECTRUM on each of the other two tracks -- stakeholder actions and mass behavior -- or even, for that matter, on the first track, governance (if we view my attempt as a draft instead of a final model)?
And, once we position different approaches at different places on a spectrum, how do we think they relate to each other?

What a juicy inquiry!

Coheartedly,
Tom
_________________
Sandy Heierbacher
Convenor, National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD)
Back to top
View user's profile???Send private message??????Visit poster's website????????????
Sandy

Joined: 20 Jan 2004
Posts: 148
Location: Boiling Springs, PA

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:43 pm?? ?Post subject: Atlee's Functional Characteristics of P2 Processes Reply with quote??? ???


_________________
Sandy Heierbacher
Convenor, National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD)
Back to top
View user's profile???Send private message??????Visit poster's website????????????
Sandy

Joined: 20 Jan 2004
Posts: 148
Location: Boiling Springs, PA

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:51 pm?? ?Post subject: Diagnostic Questions from Fielding Graduate Inst. Faculty Reply with quote??? ???

Barnett Pearce, Jan Elliot and Hal Saunders, all faculty of Fielding Graduate Institute's certificate program in dialogue, deliberation and public engagement, co-presented a workshop at the 2004 NCDD conference. The workshop was focused on helping practitioners decide when to use which model, and they distributed an article to participants called "Diagnostic questions for dialogue, deliberation and collaborative action." This is a copy of that document.

DIAGNOSTIC QUESTIONS FOR DIALOGUE, DELIBERATION AND COLLABORATIVE ACTION

‚?€Ę What is the status of the relationship among the participants? Are they members of the general public who likely have limited, relationship with each other? Are they members of polarized groups who know each other very well as enemies? Do they have a history of hatred or suspicion? Are they personally capable of listening to positions with which they disagree and of seeking to find ways of moving forward together constructively with the other?

If the relationships are sufficiently strong and characterized by trust and respect, then they are able to engage in the clusters of ways of working that we call "deliberation" and "collaborative action." But if these relationships are not strong or not good, then they need to be created or repaired through dialogic communication.

‚?€Ę What is the status of the dispute, situation or public dilemma? If this is a public policy matter, where is the issue at in the policy development process? Are there clear alternatives or choices emerging on the public issue? Is there a ‚?€?œreadiness‚?€? among the public to consider or discuss the issue? Specifically, are the issues still in the process of being framed and the participants open to learning and persuasion? Or have positions hardened and participants become polarized?

If the participants are relatively open-minded and the issues still emerging, then deliberative processes of naming and framing are the most appropriate starting points. If there are multiple groups with issues already framed, but the relationships between them are good, then they should be capable of engaging in the cluster of techniques we call collaborative action. But if the issues are polarized and relationships are bad, some form of dialogic communication is called for in order to unfreeze positions and open minds.

‚?€Ę How is the issue being framed? Is the issue framed in a way that expresses the richness and complexity of the interests and alternatives involved? Or has the expression of various sides de-evolved to the point where it consists predominantly of slogans and accusations? Are important perspectives excluded from the framing of the issue? Is the issue framed way that the participants can see "win-win" outcomes, or do they see it as involving their loss if the other wins?

If relationships are bad, relational repair is likely a prerequisite of other, more issue-specific forms of communication. If the framing is still in process and relationships among participants are good (or at least not bad), then deliberative processes including naming and framing should be effective. If the issues are already framed, and framed in a way that includes the requisite diversity and richness, and relationships are good, techniques of collaborative action are appropriate.

‚?€Ę What is the purpose of the process? Is it to come to a "settlement" or compromise about a specific issue, or does it involve transforming the relationships among the participants? Is it to influence policy, policy makers or decision makers? Or to increase the voice of the public in public decision-making? Is moving to some form of collaborative action the goal?

In some situations, the participants in a process do not expect to have a continuing relationship, and any process that allows them to reach an agreement and move on with their lives is sufficient. Many of the processes based on the idea of "negotiation" lend themselves to such situations. But if enhanced public engagement with issues or transformed relationships among the participants is a goal of the process, other models of interaction are called for, specifically those that allow all participants to both feel and be acknowledged, respected, and empowered. The experience of being in productive conversation with others, whether in dialogue, deliberation, and collaborative action processes, is a powerful way of achieving this goal. The quality of the relationship among participants and the specific features of the issue dictate which of these is most appropriate, but these characteristics provide criteria for planning, facilitating and evaluating the process.

‚?€Ę What does "success" mean in a public engagement process? Does "success" mean that members of the public feel more involved or have developed skills in participation? Or does success require that appropriate decision-making groups act upon the decisions reached by members of the public? Does "public engagement" succeed if the public is more engaged but the decision-makers are not? Does success require direct linkages to policy makers/decision makers and/or a commitment to listening on their part? Does "success" require that the participants in the process come to agree about issues that divide them, or is it enough for them to find something about which they agree and can move forward together?

Different ways of working produce different outcomes, and the ways of working selected should be congruent with the criteria for success for the project. For example, some dialogic practitioners think that dialogue is a quality of conversation that is valuable whether or not the group reaches a decision, and attempts to reconcile differences or reach decisions detracts from the quality of the experience. Other dialogic practitioners see dialogue as vitally involved with decision-making. Some collaborative action processes (Appreciative Inquiry Summits; Future Search) deliberately set aside topics on which there is disagreement so that the group can focus on moving forward on those issues about which they can agree.
_________________
Sandy Heierbacher
Convenor, National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD)
Back to top
View user's profile???Send private message??????Visit poster's website????????????
leilanihenry

Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:52 am?? ?Post subject: D & D categories Reply with quote??? ???

Sandy,
thanks for introducing the topic of D & D categories. I understand based on your two reasons for doing this, and agree it is important and it does come up frequently in conversations about the field.

I was most curious about Tom Atlees' characteristics are as framework and it lead me to wonder about what an outcome driven list might be, rather than categories of where D & D is used, i.e. public forums, community, etc.?? His categories are more about the outcomes we might gain from a particular D & D event or process. What do others think?



summary of Atlee's characteristics
Community Alignment Characteristics

Engagement/Participation Characteristics

Learning/Creativity Characteristics

Input/Recommendation Characteristics

Process Characteristics

Logistical Characteristics
Back to top
View user's profile???Send private message??????????????????
Sandy

Joined: 20 Jan 2004
Posts: 148
Location: Boiling Springs, PA

PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:08 pm?? ?Post subject: Where are we now with this discussion? Reply with quote??? ???

This discussion and others led to NCDD's Engagement Streams Framework, which has quickly been embraced by many people in this community as a great way to help people understand the myriad options that are available to them when they are considering D&D.

Our Engagement Streams Framework helps people decide which dialogue and deliberation method(s) are most appropriate for their circumstance. The framework is a series of two charts that categorize the D&D field into four streams based on intention or purpose (Exploration, Conflict Transformation, Decision Making, and Collaborative Action), and show which of the most well-known methods have proven themselves effective in which streams. The second chart also outlines 20 dialogue and deliberation methods, and includes information such as size of the group and how participants are selected.

Download the framework from the Learning Exchange at http://www.thataway.org/exchange/resources.php?action=view&rid=2142
_________________
Sandy Heierbacher
Convenor, National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD)
Back to top
View user's profile???Send private message??????Visit poster's website????????????
Display posts from previous: ??
Thataway Forum Index -> Practitioner Advice Forum??? This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.???This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

?
Jump to:??
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB ? 2001, 2005 phpBB Group, theme subLite