-------------------------------------------------------- The Israeli-Palestinian School for Peace Overview In 1972, a group of Arabs and Israelis came together to create a village where they would live together voluntarily. They called this village "Neve Shalom" / "Wahat El Salam", which means "Oasis of Peace" in Hebrew and Arabic. In 1976, the community founded a School for Peace which was to create encounter programmes for Jews and Arabs, drawing on the community's rich experience of living together. They believed that if they could just bring Jews and Arabs together in a real personal encounter, the dominant stereotypes would be reduced, and peace would become possible. Today, the founders recognise that they began with a naïve outlook. They soon discovered that the "contact hypothesis" - the idea that all you need to do is to meet and get to know the other - doesn't actually fare well empirically. If you just bring people together and enable them to become friends, what happens is that they simply manage in their mind to separate their new friend from his/ her group. The attitude is essentially, "You are ok, you can be my friend, but you're not typical, you're not like all the other Jews/ Arabs/ black people/ white people..." This mental rationalisation is called "sub-typing". The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a conflict between two peoples, rather than between individuals. The School for Peace team realised that stereotypes are just a symptom, revealing deeper conceptions that are hard to eradicate. Collective identities are real, and constructed by stable and deep-rooted beliefs. Contrary to some theories, they are not easy to educate away, or to buy off with economic development. Based on this reality, the School developed a more sophisticated and critical approach to encounter programmes. They set it up as an encounter between two national identities, and started encouraging participants to identify with their group. Today's approach was developed through trial and error, and only gradually and in hindsight did they find more and more social science theories supporting it. The Process The intention with the programmes is to allow participants to examine their own identity through the encounter with the other group in authentic and direct dialogue. It is really around creating awareness and understanding, enabling participants to comprehend the turbulent and violent processes taking place all around them in Israel, and their own role in the conflict. The School creates a safe space that allows participants to examine their feelings and thoughts in a group. They critically examine things ordinarily taken for granted, challenge the existing reality, and pose new possibilities. According to Rabah Halabi, "In awareness, however painful, is embodied one of the most human values: the right to have a choice, and the option to change and be changed." Each of the programmes involves equal numbers of Arabs and Jews as participants, and equal numbers of Arab and Jewish facilitators as well. The groups are usually divided into small groups of approximately 16 participants - 8 Arabs and 8 Jews, with one Arab and one Jewish facilitator assigned to each group. Both Arabic and Hebrew are official languages and participants are encouraged to speak in their mother tongue with translation. The facilitators' role is to clarify the processes, to analyze and mirror back to the group what is going on, and to create links to the external reality in ongoing dialogue with the participants. The groups meet in two fora: the binational encounter group (Arabs and Jews together), and the uninational group (Arabs and Jews meeting separately). The participants usually spend about 3/4 of the time in the encounter group and 1/4 of the time in their uninational group. At first, participants tend to criticise the introduction of the uninational group. They don't see its value given that they have come together in order to meet across cultures. But as the conversations become more conflictual, the uninational group becomes a safer place where they can feel free to be vulnerable, to examine their own identity, to share deep realisations, and also to explore sub-identities within their group. These sub-identities include for example the difference between Muslim, Christian and Druze Arabs, and between Ashkenazi (European) and Mizrahi (Middle Eastern) Jews or liberal and nationalist Jews. It is harder to examine these differences in the bi-national encounter group because the Jewish-Arab line of identity is what is prominent there. The topics that are central to the intergroup dialogues are around inequities, Israeli politics, cultural dynamics, and the experience of being Jews and Arabs in Israel. The participants are inviting to bring up topics that they find interesting or troublesome. The idea is that for social change to happen, a dialogue needs to happen between these two groups that is real, genuine, and eye-to-eye. In order for the two groups to come together at an equal and authentic level though, the facilitators have found that the Arab group in every process has to first become strong, to shake off their inferiority, and uproot their internalised oppression. If they can build a clear, confident, aware, and demarcated in-group identity, they are better equipped to conduct intergroup dialogue. The groups at the School for Peace are assumed to be a "microcosm". This means that even though they are not demographically representative, all the elements of the larger society may be found in some form in each person and each group. The facilitators at the School believe that the process that unfolds over and over again in these groups reflects the path the overall society is on, and the journey Israel as a country needs to go through. The actual process may differ depending on the programme. We provide two examples below - a university programme and a youth programme. Applications So far, the School's programmes have been attended by 35000 people from different walks of life - from attorneys to activists, schoolchildren to teachers. Through these programmes, they have not only impacted the individuals participating but also their friends, colleagues, and families. They also teach courses at Israel's main universities. We are not aware of the extent to which the approach has spread and been replicated in other countries. The situation in Israel and Palestine is of course extreme, but many of the dynamics that show up sharply in this process are archetypal dynamics common between minority groups and powerful majority groups. We feel that the process is highly relevant to racial, ethnic, or other minority-majority dynamics in different contexts, and aspects of it even to dialogues between sectors, generations, or other kinds of groupings. Case Examples - Adult and Youth Programmes Adult Programmes The university programme described here took place at Tel-Aviv University in 1996-97. A group of 16 students, half Arab half Jewish, met over 22 sessions of 3 hours each. The group went through five phases, typical of these programmes: 1. Initial explorations and declarations of intent: In this first phase, the participants were being polite and cautious and the group boundaries were unclear. Each group was identifying with members of the other group, and the discussion was focused on the nature of the encounter. The Jews were trying to focus on the individual level, to avoid political discussions, and to separate this experience from reality, and were more vocal. The Arabs were criticising the process for being unreal because it wasn't representative. 2. Strengthening the Arab group: Now, the Arab group started to solidify and unite, showing courage, and drawing strength from each other through the uninational meetings. They would express differences in the uninational meetings but not in front of the Jewish group. The groups started sitting separately and expressing their identity more clearly. The Arabs started dominating, focusing on demanding rights, and criticising the Jews as oppressors. The Jews, as liberal university students would support their cause, but start to feel hurt and distressed. 3. Resumption of power by Jewish group: The Jews experienced a loss of control and power, and hence an eradication of their identity. They didn't know how to cope with the unfamiliar, strong Arab identity. They expressed frustration and despair and considered leaving the programme. They started now joining the victim position, pointing out how the Arabs were reversing the roles, and alluding to the Arabs' lack of sensitivity and humanity. "We understand you, but you don't understand us." A struggle ensued over who is more humane. The Jews regained control by targeting the Arabs at their weak spot. The Arabs now felt distressed, and the Jews felt they were back in control. 4. Impasse: Both sides were exhausted and despairing. The dialogue felt as if it had been wrung dry. Then, one person started speaking to the choices facing them. Despair shifted to action, and out of a sense of lost cause emerged a different depth of dialogue. The Jews accepted the balance of power and met the Arabs "eye to eye". 5. A different dialogue: The Jews owned up to their own sense of superiority and became willing to talk about themselves as rulers and the strong group. There was a sense of breakthrough and mutual respect. The humanity of both sides was restored as both the "oppressed" and the "oppressors" were liberated within this microcosm. The group identity became less central again and participants returned to being individuals. The dialogue returned to practical questions around how to live together and how to return to reality. Youth Programmes The Youth Programmes are the most common programmes at the School for Peace. These are four-day programmes, more structured than the adult programmes, and not quite as psychologically intense as what is described above. In the youth programmes, usually about 60 eleventh-grade students aged 16-17 come together and divide into four groups of 14-16 people who work in parallel through the four days. The first day is focused on getting acquainted personally and easing anxieties. A comfortable and optimistic atmosphere is created. Participants introduce themselves, learn each other's names and the significance of their names, talk about familiar topics such as school, home, and future plans, and share personal stories in pairs. The focus is on what they have in common. Games and activities help to break the ice, and an exercise is introduced that can only be solved through collaboration across cultures. Political discussions are avoided. The power relations are still present however, in that the Jews will tend to be most vocal and everyone is speaking Hebrew. The second day they start getting to know each other's cultures. In mixed groups of 4, they are given cards with discussion topics about cultural differences. The conversation starts being about "the way we do..." and "the way they do...". Here the dialogue transitions from interpersonal to intergroup dialogue, and the youth start coming face-to-face with their feelings of superiority and inferiority. After a uninational meeting, they come back into an encounter session that now starts to broach politics through a "photolanguage" exercise. Participants are asked to select a photo from a collection, and use it to describe how they feel as an Arab/Jew in Israel. The Jews tend to pick photos that reflect peace, comradeship, complexity, and possibility while the Arabs tend to pick photos that reflect destruction, despair, and grief. The Arabs become strong and start talking about rights and discrimination. The Jews challenge them on their humanity. Each side is struggling to justify its own narrative. The day ends in uninational meetings. Here, the Arabs oscillate between actively demanding unity and feeling disappointed and hopeless. The Jews oscillate between their desire for equity and friendship and their need to protect the status quo. This is the first time many of them have been required to really engage and argue with a group of Arabs. The third day is run as a simulation game. The youth are asked to imagine that 50 years into the future there is a comprehensive peace between Israel and the Arab states but the status of the Arab minority within Israel hasn't changed. Demonstrations happen, and the Israeli government opens up negotiations with the minority around: security, education, symbols and representation, and the character of the state. The youth now have to create negotiating teams for each of these four topics and imagine that they are in this political process. They struggle with whether it is just a game, or whether it is for real. They are challenged to really figure out what they stand for and what kind of society they want. The fourth day, they have a closing dialogue and talk about how to take their lessons home. Each participant writes a letter to be copied for all the others in an album to remember the experience, and each is given a certificate of attendance in a celebratory ceremony. Commentary The School for Peace approach is surprising and contrary to much of what we have been taught about dialogue. What attracts us to it is its emphasis on authenticity and facing up to reality, and developing a process that is not imported from a different context, but truly applicable to Israel. Most, if not all, of the other methods in this collection emphasise strongly that individuals have to speak for themselves, and that being a representative of a group or organisation inhibits dialogue. Here, the centrality of collective identity is not ignored but incorporated. It is interesting that the Jewish participants at the School for Peace often initially want to emphasise the individual, develop friendships, create sub-categories, divide the Arabs into different types of individuals, and generally separate people from politics. The Arabs in turn emphasise unity and group affiliation. We feel that it's important to understand this perspective of minority and disempowered groups, and we are aware that many of the other tools profiled here have been developed by people of more privileged backgrounds. That said, the School for Peace approach is difficult and complex, and participants can feel it is not respectful of individual differences and allowing personal expression. To us, including this approach is not so much a suggestion of replicating it as a whole, but more to consider the questions it raises about the difference between individual and group encounters, and to incorporate aspects of it in other processes where groups are coming together and power differences are present. Resources Rabah Halabi, Ed. Israeli and Palestinian Identities in Dialogue: The School for Peace Approach http://sfpeace.org Open Space Technology Overview "With Open Space, there are not ideas that remain hidden or unspoken. Everything emerges." - An Open Space practitioner Open Space Technology allows groups, large or small, to self-organise to effectively deal with complex issues in a very short time. Participants create and manage their own agenda of parallel working sessions around a central theme of strategic importance. What Open Space presents to us is, at the very least, a new way to hold better meetings. It can however grow to become a new way of organising that infuses entire organisations or smaller communities. Harrison Owen initiated Open Space Technology in the mid 1980's. He had had several experiences of good to great conferences where the real highlights were the conversations outside of the formal agenda. This led him to wonder whether a different way of organising might not be possible. His question moving forward became how to combine the level of synergy and excitement present in a good coffee break with the substantive activity and results characteristic of a good meeting. In seeking for answers, he took some of his inspiration from witnessing a four-day long rite of passage for young men in a west African village in Liberia. Though there was seemingly no organising committee or formal structure, the four days ran smoothly with all 500 people managing themselves, the activities, events, food, music, and all the other aspects of the ceremonial process. From this experience, Owen took some of the fundamental principles that have come to shape Open Space today. In brief they are: the circle as a centre from which organising takes place; a breath, or rhythm, that people know and can organise around; the village market place where connections are made around different offerings; and the bulletin board, where information is posted and shared. Open Space has since become the operating system beneath some of the largest self- organising meetings the world has seen. The benefit of Open Space is that people get involved in contributing, and working through, the areas that they are truly engaged in and committed to. The danger (to some) is that freedom is given to people to choose their response and involvement without being controlled by a planner or organiser. How it works An Open Space meeting can last from two hours to several days. When people gather they co-create the agenda of the meeting together, allowing it to be shaped by the passion and interest of the people. Every Open Space meeting begins in a large circle. One facilitator is all that is needed. After an initial welcome, he or she will open the space, by introducing the theme, or burning question, which has brought people together. She explains that within the next hour, their agenda will be formed on the large seemingly very blank wall. She explains that all of the sessions will be posted and hosted by the participants themselves. People are invited to propose sessions and discussions on topics that they themselves are passionate about and willing to take responsibility for, in response to the theme or question at the centre. But before beginning the collective agenda-making, the facilitator still needs to explain the basic principles and one law of Open Space. Four Principles 'Whoever comes are the right people'. This principle speaks to people to let go of their need to have certain specific people join their group. Perhaps they would like the people in established positions of power, or the experts in an area. With this principle people are invited to acknowledge that those who care enough to freely choose to join a conversation are the best ones to do good work in that area. 'Whenever it starts is the right time'. This principle recognizes that while a session may begin at a certain hour, creativity and inspiration don't always work according to our desired timing. Things really get started when they are ready, not before, and not later. 'Whatever happens is the only thing that could have'. This invites people to let go of expectations for how things should go, or where they should lead to. We need to learn to let go of these expectations and instead be present and pay attention to what is actually happening and emerging between us. 'When it's over, it's over.' We don't know how long it takes to deal with an issue. In Open Space, the issue is more important than the schedule. If we finish before the allotted time is over, then move on to something else. We should not stay somewhere just because the schedule tells us to. It also works the other way. If we have not finished when our agenda slot is over, we can self-organise to extend it into another agenda slot, making sure we post it on the wall for others to know, and/or find ways to continue the work on the issue beyond the conference. One Law The "law of two feet" encourages people to take responsibility for their own learning, peace of mind, and contribution. If someone is in a place where they feel they are not learning, or able to contribute, the law of two feet encourages them to leave and move on to another group, where they think they might add more value, and feel more engaged. They may also choose to do something else altogether. Most importantly people shouldn't be somewhere where they feel they are wasting their time. From this law follows that some participants will become "bumblebees", people who fly from one session to another, and just like bees, cross-pollinating what is going on between sessions, and/or "butterflies", who choose at times to skip formal sessions and listen to their own sense of what they need to do in a given moment. Sometimes two butterflies meet outside of the sessions in informal conversation, and a new topic might arise out of that conversation. These principles and the law provide the container for the Open Space, enabling people to take full responsibility for their own learning and contribution. They create a context in which people can be focused and work hard, but remain flexible and open to surprise. "Be prepared to be surprised' is a typical reminder in an Open Space gathering. With these basic instructions, the group is now ready to fill their empty wall: Main Room Tea Room Lounge Library Garden 8:30-9:30 Community Meeting 9:30-11:00 11:30- 13:00 13:00- 14:00 Lunch 14:00- 15:30 16:00- 17:30 17:30- 18:00 Convergence The facilitator asks people to think about their idea or burning question in response to the theme. After a short period of silence she invites whoever is ready to come to the centre, grab a marker and piece of paper, and write down their idea or question, read it out loud, and post it on the wall - choosing one of several pre-arranged space/time choices. Sometimes there are a few moments of quiet, but invariably people jump up and begin to write and post sessions. Within a short period of time, the agenda for the day or for the week is laid out. People go up to the wall to read the different offerings, signing up for the groups they wish to join. Now the work can begin. During a longer Open Space, the group will come back together as a whole for a brief meeting in the morning and evening, to report on main breakthroughs, to post new sessions as they occur to people, and to help maintain a sense of the whole. The facilitator of each group needs to compile the report of their session. Typically the outputs are typed and compiled during the duration of a meeting for people to go home with the final report. Where decisions need to be made, time needs to be allowed for focusing and prioritizing the full output. This can be done in a matter of a few hours, even with larger groups. "The 2 days of Open Space that followed were a success, a miracle in the words of the CEO and he added that 3 years ago they received a thick report from ___ (a famous international strategic company meeting in Israel) that cost $1.5 milion, and they could implement a little. Now we produced something much better in the cost of 1 page of their report, and it seems that we can implement it all." - Avner Haramati Application Open Space is being used around the world - it has been used in townships in South Africa, in dialogues between Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East, in many corporations, in the NGO sector for planning and community involvement, and in the Public Sector with similar uses. It can be used for 5 people or 1000. According to Harrison Owen, Open Space works best where conflict is present, things are complex, there is huge diversity of players and the answer was needed yesterday. The personal investment is critical coupled with a real sense of urgency among participants. The greater the diversity, the higher the potential for real breakthrough and innovative outcomes. It works particularly well in the move from planning to action, where real action is facilitated by people stepping in and taking responsibility where they care. Case Examples - South Africa's Transition and International Summer Villages The first case is a description taken from an article by Harrison Owen on the beginning of Open Space Technology. In the early summer of 1992, OST was used in one of the South African townships to promote useful discussion among several political groups. The focus of conversation was on improving communications in the area. For a full day, representatives of the various political parties along with nearby industry (largely white) worked together. It would be a supreme overstatement to say that all issues were resolved, or that love and light broke out in full abundance. But the discussions were intense, productive, without rancor, and contrasted sharply with conditions in a neighboring township where conversations had ceased and bloodshed commenced. There was also a continuing benefit. Several days after this particular gathering, one of the participants called to say that for two years as president of a local school organisation, he had been attempting to get the people involved in creating their future. Nothing had worked. They sat like bumps on a log. Then he tried Open Space Technology, and his problem was reversed. The people became involved, and he had but one option. Get out of the way. A second case shows an example of how Open Space together with an Appreciative Inquriy process helped an international organisation build a common platform and plan for the future. Children's International Summer Villages (CISV) is a not-for-profit organisation, which develops cross-cultural understanding in children and youth from around the world through peace education. They have over 60 national offices. They wanted to develop a new strategic plan involving the grassroots of their organisation. They decided to use an Appreciative Inquiry process with Open Space to combine the potential of Appreciative Inquiry to collect information, and build a shared foundation, direction and vision for the future with the potency of Open Space to mobilise people into action in areas they care deeply about. Each country received a handbook explaining the Appreciative Inquiry process, and began a large-scale interview process to collect stories of personal experiences of inspiration and beauty that people carried with them from their time with the organisation. Several thousand interviews were synthesized into a storybook with a summary of core values and wishes for the future. The book became the foundation for a 2 1/2 day AI summit, in which people immersed themselves in the stories and data, building pride and clarity around what they do well and where they can naturally grow their strengths. From this, they developed tangible goals for the future (in the form of provocative propositions). An overall umbrella theme for the future became the theme for a one day Open Space session, which included 150 people from across the world. The results were explosive. Lots of practical ideas, and plans, and focus areas emerged for CISV, which at the end were prioritized and voted on by the participants and several others who participated online. When reporting on outcomes from small groups, people related their reports to the overall goals, ensuring that everyone understood the implications of each report and how it tied to the overall vision before voting. Everyone, including online participants, voted on the top priorities for CISV. They also identified where they were willing to initiate moving the organisation forward. What they accomplished with this process was a plan, which had become alive in people and had in a sense begun even before the action steps were executed. They used AI and Open Space to rekindle grassroots passion, engaging commitment to implement from the outset. Commentary Open Space works particularly well when the passion, engagement and burning questions are present. In such a situation, it truly helps a group move forward swiftly and clearly. On the other hand, it can fall flat when the engagement or interest is low. People need to be present because they want to be, not because they have been told they must be. For these reasons the intention is vital, as is expressing it clearly in the invitation to join an Open Space session, meeting or conference. With a clear intention and in the presence of a real need, Open Space is a beautiful testament to how little organising is required by an organiser when allowing people to self-organise their way forward. In fact, the art of the planner, with most potent Open Space sessions, is learning to truly get out of the way. Open Space can be run on its own, but our feeling is that it works equally well and sometimes better when combined with other tools and processes, such as World Café, Appreciative Inquiry, Scenario Planning, and others. In this case, ending with Open Space is most typically the norm, allowing an initial process of clarifying ideas and views to be followed by stepping into taking responsibility for certain pieces. One of the reasons why it's important to combine Open Space with other processes is that a key risk is that an Open Space conference ends without convergence happening between the different groups. A lot of great conversations may have happened in small groups, but they haven't been woven together adequately. Finding the ways to lay the groundwork for a productive Open Space session and to create this convergence and reconnection with the whole is an important challenge for facilitators and organisers using this process. Also, while Harrison Owen points out that Open Space is useful in situations of conflict, the risk is that conflicting parties choose to just work with the people who agree with them. In that situation, combining it with processes that are more directly aimed at resolving conflict (rather than being productive in spite of conflict) can be useful. Open Space is all about handing the responsibility back to people themselves. Two core questions characterizing Open Space are: "What do you really want to do," and "why don't you take care of it?" As with the World Café and many other forms, the real art form lies in identifying the right calling question that truly draws people out of themselves and into a shared arena of thinking and acting together. "I can't imagine that there could be a better method for enabling a group to discover its potential." - Open Space practitioner Resources Owen, Harrison. Expanding our now. The story of Open Space Technology. Owen, Harrison. Open Space Technology, A users guide. http://www.openspaceworld.com Scenario Planning Overview Scenarios are possible and plausible pictures of the future. They are created through a series of conversations, through which a group of people invent and consider several varied stories about how the world may turn out. Ideally, these stories should be carefully researched and full of detail, able to expose new understandings and some surprises. Scenarios are powerful tools for challenging assumptions about the world, and in so doing, they lift the barriers of our own creativity and understanding about the future. The term "scenario planning" was originally coined by the RAND Corporation during and after World War II, as part of their corporate strategy. When Herman Kahn left the RAND Corporation, he set up the Hudson Institute and further developed the process, and went on to write a book called "The Year 2000" which was published in 1967. Since the late 60's, the process has taken off as a tool and has evolved considerably from its origins. Scenario planning as a process started with a paradigm of "predict and control", where probabilistic scenarios were sketched out about the future. This paradigm as a basis for the process has changed significantly over the years, mainly due to the work of Pierre Wack at Shell in the 1970's. Wack separated issues which were predictable from those which were uncertain, and worked with uncertainties and how they influenced various scenarios. Nowadays, scenario planning then supports the notion that the world is inherently uncertain. Scenarios are used not so much as a tool for predicting the future, but rather as a process which challenges assumptions, values and mental models of various stakeholders about how uncertainties might affect their collective futures. By encouraging scenario planning processes at different levels of an organisation or community, old paradigms are challenged, and innovation encouraged through surprising possible stories of the future. Scenarios therefore help develop new and valuable knowledge. By bringing multiple perspectives into a conversation about the future, a rich and multidimensional variety of scenarios are created. Scenarios encourage storytelling and dialogue between people who would not necessarily share their perspectives with each other. As Peter Schwartz points out: "Scenario-making is intensely participatory, or else it fails." Preparing for a Scenario Planning Process Before embarking on a scenario process, it is important to establish whether it is the right process to use, and in what context it would be most useful. Scenarios are generally used when the following conditions exist: - There is a high level of complexity in a given situation which is difficult to understand - There is a longer term (at least a few years ahead) focus required in looking into the future, and how to respond to it - There is uncertainty about how the external environment will impact a particular situation - There are resources available to invest in a series of conversations amongst different stakeholders over a period of time, and to distribute these scenarios extensively. Scenarios can also be very broad and are not necessarily useful if the focus and purpose is unclear. Once a particular organisation or community has decided to use scenarios, the following questions will help make the outcome relevant to all concerned. The scenario- planning process can then be adapted to these specific needs: - What is the purpose of this process? - How many "players" need to be part of this process in order to view the necessary perspectives of the future? - What parts of the external environment are important to focus on when considering these scenarios? - Is there any level of control by any of the stakeholders of these external variables? - What is the time horizon? - Who is endorsing this process at a leadership level? - Who needs to "buy-in" to the potential outcomes? The Process There are many ways of developing scenarios. The process below is but one simple example of how to facilitate a scenario-building exercise, which considers the important principles of uncertainty and control. South Africans Chantal Illbury and Clem Sunter have mapped out this process for building a set of scenarios to consider for future strategy: The horizontal axis represents the continuum of certainty/ uncertainty, and the vertical axis represents the continuum of control/ absence of control. All of the steps of this scenario process are numbered in order and move through the four quadrants highlighted in the diagram. The scenarios themselves are generally based on a set of different uncertainties which may play out in the future, and where there is absence of control by the "players" of the game. The steps of the process are explained as follows: 1. What are the rules? In any given situation, rules of "the game" are certain, but not necessarily controllable. "The game" is a metaphor of the context being examined in the scenario process. It is important to firstly distinguish between the written and unwritten rules of the game. The unwritten rules can also be referred to as "tacit", and are often socially constructed. By surfacing these unwritten rules, it is easier to better understand "the game". On the other hand, written rules are often aspirational - they are aspired to by the organization, but not necessarily implemented in reality. Control Absence of Control Certainty Uncertainty 2 a. Key Uncertainties 2 b. Scenarios 1. Rules of the Game 3. Options 4. Decisions Predictability Potential impact Uncertainty 2 Uncertainty 3 Uncertainty 1 Uncertainty 4 2. a. What are the key uncertainties The next step in this scenario process is to map out the key uncertainties for the future. This is a highly creative step, where it is important to get multiple perspectives of what is uncertain. By mapping the key uncertainties in order of importance and level of uncertainty, the group can start to decide which ones to explore in more detail to start developing scenarios. The diagram below assists the process of prioritizing scenarios: 2. b. Develop the scenarios As mentioned above, scenarios can be viewed as multiple pictures of the future. This glimpse can give participants an understanding of what is possible, and the motivation to plan towards their preferred scenario. A useful technique to decide on the preferred scenarios is to expand on the key uncertainties by examining the possible outcomes of those uncertainties. For example, in a country context, one of the uncertainties might be economic growth. So the scenarios could explore the stories which would unfold if there would be high economic growth or low economic growth. To give a scenario a more multi-dimensional aspect, two key uncertainties could be explored - see graph below. Scenarios are developed to surprise us, and to bring to the surface possibilities we wouldn't normally anticipate for the future. This means it is important to base the scenarios on uncertainties which have low predictability and high impact (uncertainties 3 and 4 in graph above). The graph below is an example of scenarios which may be developed based on 2 key uncertainties. 3. Identify options for future action Options are determined from the scenarios. The scenarios can be seen as the bridge between the key uncertainties and options - they help order a group process in a way that paints a set of vivid and detailed pictures of what is possible, and therefore the possibility to map out options to match each of these scenarios. It is therefore important that the scenarios are written up in a lot of detail, and explore all components of a given situation. This will assist the process of mapping out options of action for each scenario. 4. Make decisions The final stage is to make decisions based on the scenarios and the options. Illbury & Sunter refer to George Kelley who introduces us to the "personal construct theory". He claims that we make decisions based on our own interpretations of the world, which are informed by our experiences. If our experiences are cut off from those of others, we limit the decisions we make. Scenarios help bring these different experiences into pictures of the future through a dialogue, which in turn helps us make more informed decisions for the future. Applications Scenarios have been used since the 1960s. Back then, the process was mostly used within companies to help them make more informed decisions about the future. Since then, the process has been more widely applied to social contexts with multiple stakeholder involvement. Scenarios have been used extensively all over the world in varied contexts from mapping out country strategies (Jamaica, South Africa, Botswana, Kenya and others), corporate strategies (Shell, Anglo American, OldMutual), as well as at multiple community levels. Case Example: Mont Fleur Scenario-Process, 1991, South Africa In his book, Solving Tough Problems, Adam Kahane tells the story of facilitating the Mont Fleur Scenarios. In 1991, 22 key influential South African figures came together for a scenario-building process about the future of the country. It was shortly after Mandela's release, when the future was very uncertain and divided. The group attending included leaders from the left (ANC, PAC, National Union of Mineworkers, South African Communist Party), as well as their adversaries from white business and academia. They all saw the reality of South Africa from different perspectives. Participants included Trevor Manuel, Tito Mboweni and Vincent Maphai. The group sat for a couple of days talking to each other. They met multiple times over a period of months, and talked through a number of scenarios. They eventually decided on four scenarios they found most plausible for South Africa. These scenarios were all based on the question of: "How will the transition go, and will the country succeed in "taking off"? The four, richly explained stories were based on bird analogies. Firstly, there was the Ostrich, where the white government sticks its head in the sand to avoid a negotiated settlement. Then there was the Lame Duck where the transition goes on for too long, trying to satisfy all parties and not succeeding. Thirdly, there was Icarus, where a black government comes to power and institutes a massive public spending policy which bankrupts the economy. Finally, the most positive scenario was The Flight of the Flamingos, where a successful transition takes place, and where everyone is South Africa rises slowly together. From the group, the Flamingo scenario was unanimously agreed on as the best alternative. These scenarios were written up in a 25-page report and distributed widely through the media, and workshops all over the country. From these multiple engagements, the outcomes of Mont Fleur had a significant effect on the economic policy of South Africa. Many leaders and politicians have referred to these scenarios in various debates and discussions. This process was so remarkably successful for four overarching reasons: 1. The timing was right - it was the window of opportunity to create a new future at the beginning of South Africa's transition. There was much uncertainty and absence of control. 2. There was top political buy-in and participation at all levels. 3. The process itself built meaningful relationships and all involved bought into the scenarios, which also demonstrates excellent facilitation. 4. The follow-up was extensive - the stories were well written in detail, and communicated through mass media, television, and workshops. Many political speeches and strategy sessions referred to this documentation. These scenarios proved to be powerful tools for both planning and debate, and are still spoken of over 10 years later. The Mont Fleur process highlights the impact of facilitated dialogue about the future, and the power of stories. Commentary Many organisations work in an increasingly complex situation both internally and externally. When we are faced with complex systems, one of the key capacities that is needed is to be able to not only work from one point of view or frame of reference. Scenarios help us to work simultaneously with more than one perspective and story, and to take actions that make sense across multiple frames. The real power of the scenario planning process is the ability to bring many different stakeholders into a conversation about the future, thereby creating collective ownership of these sets of pictures, and building important relationships across differences. The outcome of a scenario-building process can be useful in two ways: 1. The set of possible stories of the future help a group/ organisation/ community respond to that situation should the event arise. This is a more responsive interpretation of the process. The 4 scenarios chosen at the end may not have an order of preference (good or bad), but rather map out the positive and negative outcomes of all scenarios. This is typically an outcome of an organisation-specific process, where the primary purpose would be to respond in a more informed manner to situations as they arise. 2. A more proactive response would be to strive towards the scenario of choice, and map out strategies to help a group move towards that picture. Scenarios would therefore have an order of preference amongst stakeholders involved, and the most preferred scenario is the one to strive for. Peter Drucker once said: "The best way to predict the future is to create it". Scenarios are a powerful way of moving towards a more desired future, as has been highlighted by the incredible outcome of the Mont Fleur scenarios. The process and examples we have used in this explanation demonstrates this view of futurist thinking. Resources Hansen, M. et al. What's Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge? In Harvard Business Review: 106-117 Illbury, C & Sunter, C. The Mind of a Fox: Scenario Planning in Action. Schwartz, P. The Art of the Long View: Planning for an Uncertain World. Van der Heijden, K. The Art of Strategic Conversation. Kahane, A. Solving Tough Problems. Sustained Dialogue Overview The key distinguishing feature of Sustained Dialogue is precisely that it is sustained. Over extended periods of time, the same group of people join in consecutive meetings. The underlying assumption behind this is that, in order to address conflictual issues, we need to not just look at the concrete problem to be solved, but at the underlying relationships that get in the way. And, changing relationships isn't something that happens in a day, or at a brief workshop or conference - it's a dynamic, non-linear process which takes time and requires commitment from those involved. Sustained Dialogue was developed primarily by veteran US diplomat Dr. Harold Saunders, inspired by a long career in international affairs and peace processes. Key to the inspiration behind Sustained Dialogue was his work as co-chair of the "Dartmouth Conferences", an unofficial, multilevel, unique peace-making venture between the US and the USSR, started in 1960 and continued over a process of more than 30 years. Over years, the same participants sustained their conversation from one meeting to the next, speaking with an increasing sense of freedom, reaching greater and greater depth, and building trusting relationships and a foundation of shared knowledge. The agenda was open-ended and cumulative, picking out themes and taking them to their logical conclusion, and allowing new themes to arise. In 1992, members of the Dartmouth Conference's Regional Conflicts Task Force decided to draw on their experience to foster dialogue in a national conflict in Tajikistan, and it was through this work that Sustained Dialogue was further elaborated and conceptualised into its current basic model. While the process was born from situations of conflict and extreme stress, it reflects a more universal pattern of human relationships, and can be used in a variety of community, corporate, regional and national settings. This section is based on writings of Harold Saunders as well as an interview and materials provided by Teddy Nemeroff, who is currently working with IDASA in Pretoria specifically on Sustained Dialogue. Teddy has worked with Sustained Dialogue in a wider range of contexts beyond the international peace-building arena, including on youth issues, local governance, and with universities. He launched the Sustained Dialogue programme at Princeton University which has now evolved into a programme at 10 US university campuses, specifically looking at race relations among students. Sustained Dialogue is informed by two conceptual frameworks: five elements of relationships and five stages of a sustained dialogue. Five Elements of Relationships As mentioned above, the focus of Sustained Dialogue is on the underlying relationships that affect a given problem. Given this focus, it's important to understand what is meant by relationships and what the different aspects of relationship are. The following five components or arenas of interaction make up a definition of relationships. They work in constantly changing combinations. Identity: The way that participants define themselves including the life experiences they bring to the present moment Interests: The things people care about, that are drawing them together Power: The capacity to influence a course of events Perceptions of the Other: Including misperceptions and stereotypes Patterns of Interaction: Including respect for certain limits on behaviour This framework is analytical but also operational in the sense that participants in a Sustained Dialogue will usually be introduced to these elements and will draw on them in understanding the nature of the relationships that divide them. Sometimes participants can find it hard to talk about relationships, but they become apparent in the dialogues, to both participants and moderators. In that situation, this framework provides a point of reference. Five Stages of Sustained Dialogue The Sustained Dialogue process is mapped out in five stages. These stages have been identified, not based on what the creators of the process necessarily would want to happen, but rather on what they observed happening as a natural evolution when participants came together in a dialogue sustained over time. It's important to point out that these stages are a kind of idealtype description and not a recipe. Generally participants will move back and forth between the stages, and will not follow this rigidly. The Sustained Dialogue facilitator also will not push them through the process. Still, this basic pattern seems accurate and provides aboveall a sense of direction for both participants and facilitators to a process that is otherwise open-ended. Stage One - Deciding to Engage First a group of participants needs to be convened. A good size for a Sustained Dialogue is 8-12 people. They should ideally be people who are respected community leaders (but not necessarily in official positions), who reflect the key viewpoints of the topic, conflict, or community, and who are willing to come together to listen to one another in an ongoing process. Though Sustained Dialogue is intended and designed to shift relationships, the participants will generally be coming together because they are motivated by, and focused on, a particular problem. They don't necessarily see relationships as the heart of that problem from the outset. Convening an appropriate group of participants can be a difficult and drawn out process. It may be hard to get them to commit the time, to accept the value of the process, or to be willing to engage with others where there is a dysfunctional relationship. Their motivation to join will depend on whether they are the right people to be involved, whether they have a compelling desire to solve a problem, whether they are aware of their common interest and interdependence in solving it, and whether the conveners succeed in communicating the value of the dialogue process. Once the participants have been identified, Stage One is also the time where they together agree on the purpose, scope, and ground rules of the dialogue. Sometimes the participants actually sign a "covenant" to contract with each other. Stage Two - Mapping Relationships and Naming Problems This is where the conversations actually begin. Stage Two is first a process of naming the issues - telling stories of personal experiences, venting grievances, downloading or "dumping" all the concerns, letting it all out, and clearing the air. Towards the later parts of this stage, participants will start to map the problems and the related underlying relationships out in a more structured way and they will identify a few major issues they want to focus on in a deeper exploration. Stage Three: Probing Problems and Relationships At the end of Stage Two and beginning of Stage 3, the character of the conversation shifts. "Me" becomes "We". "What" becomes "Why". Participants shift from speaking "to" each other to speaking "with" each other. The group is finding patterns and explanations, making connections, and developing concepts. They are more interpretive and analytical at this stage, probing the dynamics of the underlying relationships causing their problems, and identifying broad possible ways into changing those relationships. The group is now focusing on some narrower or deeper issues or leverage points in the system, bearing in mind the connections to the other issues that were mapped in Stage Two. They are arriving at the insights that will drive their choices for action. They are also accessing their individual and collective will to enact change, and coming to a sense of direction. "I would as a white student talk about interacting with a black student, and how it was uncomfortable. A black student would tell a story about how a white student treated them. Stage Three would be where someone would say 'maybe our experience is similar'. 'Maybe in my story, the way I felt is like how the white person in your story felt.' This is where we are getting into each other's shoes." - Interview with Teddy Nemeroff Stage Four: Scenario-building While the group has been primarily focused on problems until this point, they really step into a positive solution space now. They work out what practical steps they and the wider community need to take in order to change troublesome relationships and to overcome obstacles to their agreed direction. If the dialogue is related to the political level, they will suggest steps to be taken in the political arena, and may relate to actions needing to be taken by influential players beyond the dialogue group. If it is at a more local or organisational level, the dialogue group may be focusing more on designing its own direct actions. These may be collective or individual. The use of the word "scenarios" to describe this stage in Sustained Dialogue is quite different from its use in our section on scenario-planning. A Sustained Dialogue facilitator could choose to do an actual scenario-planning process in this stage, but the stage is really about defining scenarios in the very broad sense of simply, options for action and possible ways forward. Stage Five: Acting Together In Stage Five the shift is from talking to action and the previously inward focus is redirected outward. The participants are now either working out how to put their suggestions in the hands of those who can implement them, or going out to implement their activities themselves. The nature of this action depends greatly on the subject of the dialogue, the level of influence of members, the level of risk involved, and the specific context in which it is taking place. This may be the conclusion of the process, or it may be that the participants now start addressing a new issue or return to one of the issues that was raised earlier in the dialogue and not followed up. As stated earlier, these five stages are not linear, but there are some patterns even in the non-linearity: a genuine and effective Stage Three will typically depend on the group having gone through Stage Two, so it would generally not happen that a group skips from Stage One to Three. They may oscillate back and forth quite a bit between Two and Three though, and then jump to Stage Four when ready. In Stages Three-Five especially the difference between the diplomatic/ political level work with Sustained Dialogue and the more community/ youth level work is apparent. There is a lot of diversity in how these stages play out in different processes, and Sustained Dialogue takes a healthy open-ended approach to that variety. As the group moves through the five stages, they will usually increasingly take ownership of the process, and at times will easily self-manage it. It's important to have a facilitator guiding them through it, who understands the needs of the group and who is able to recognise the five stages and help the transitions to happen without pushing the group into a new stage prematurely. The style of facilitation and the degree to which the facilitator intervenes will vary greatly from dialogue to dialogue. At times, the facilitator may not need to say anything at all. At other times s/he may be intervening much more directly, in a more workshop-style form. This depends on the characteristics of the dialogue group and what elements of relationship are at the forefront at any given time. Applications Sustained Dialogue is being applied in several distinct types of settings. Hal Saunders and the Kettering Institute focus on its effectiveness in conflict resolution at a political or societal level. In addition to the extensive work in Tajikistan they have applied it in Azerbaijan/Armenia/Nagorno-Karabakh, in the Middle East and elsewhere. Teddy Nemoroff's work at Princeton as mentioned has led it to being used on about 10 university campuses in the US, primarily focused on improving race relations. Meanwhile, IDASA with Teddy are now applying it in both urban and rural areas in South Africa and Zimbabwe. IDASA is also working on training moderators for the groups. The training is always run alongside an intervention and so is very action-learning oriented. In KwaZulu-Natal currently 9 villages are running their own Sustained Dialogue process. Case Example - IDASA Youth Project in Zimbabwe In a time of deepening crisis in Zimbabwe, youth are a particularly vulnerable group, more at risk to hiv/AIDS, and suffering greatly under the economic collapse and high unemployment. Because of this, they are also more likely to be taken advantage of by political parties. From May 2004 through December 2005, IDASA supported a Sustained Dialogue initiative to empower youth in Zimbabwe in collaboration with the Coordinating Committee of the Organizations for Voluntary Service (COSV), and its Zimbabwean partner the Amani Trust. The intention of this project was to reduce the political exploitation of youth and strengthen their self-reliance, by building relationships, developing a deeper understanding of their issues of concern, and developing actions to improve their lives. The project engaged 120 youth leaders in Harare from across the socio-economic and political spectrum. The collaboration between the Zimbabwean organisations originally was formed as a media and advocacy campaign, mobilising 14 Zimbabwean NGOs to participate. But as this became an increasingly risky political exercise, they decided to try Sustained Dialogue instead. This shift significantly changed the scale of the project, now reaching only about 120 rather than the intended 1000's. But depth of impact replaced breadth. The project worked strategically with youth leaders who could subsequently make a difference in their communities, and impact could be more easily monitored. Also, rather than the message being defined centrally and broadcast to the youth, the youth defined the issues they wanted to focus on themselves, primarily unemployment and hiv/AIDS. Eight youth dialogue groups of 15 members each were launched simultaneously throughout the city of Harare. Each had one youth and one NGO activist as co-moderators, who were trained in Sustained Dialogue by IDASA. These moderators held orientation sessions for the participants, where expectations were aligned and discussion topics were selected. The groups launched at two-day overnight retreats, and then they started meeting at monthly half- day meetings at venues in their communities. The groups started out cautious because of the political situation and the sensitivity of the issue of hiv/AIDS, but as they progressed and trust increased, they began opening up to sharing more intimately. The political climate and events in Zimbabwe made it difficult for the project to function and for youth to make it to meetings. Despite these challenges, the project achieved significant results. It succeeded in created spaces the youth didn't have, for talking and thinking together about their challenges. Half of the groups managed to engage youth from both sides of the political spectrum while all of them managed to bring in diversity of interests and backgrounds. The youth gained knowledge about the issues, an increased sense of agency, stronger relationships and skills in dialogue and conflict management. This led to increased youth leadership in the communities, mitigation of community conflicts, and youth violence, and the development of plans for addressing community challenges. Commentary According to Teddy, there are two questions to be asked. The first is: will dialogue and improved relationships help this situation and is it worth the effort? Convening and sustaining a Sustained Dialogue can be a lot of work. The second question is: is the timing right and how is this going to interact with the context, with what is going on in the outside world? Will it conflict with other processes that are already going on to try and resolve the issue? Sustained Dialogue is most useful in situations where relationships are dysfunctional, there is a lack of trust, and official processes are not working because the issues are not easily solved in a negotiation-type setup. Sustained Dialogue is not a space for debate or for official negotiations among formal representatives. It is also not a purely interpersonal process, nor is it a skills training. And it is not a quick fix. The strength of Sustained Dialogue is in its flexibility and simplicity. The open-endedness allows a group to go where it needs to go, and it is important to look not only for the expected impact, but also for the positive unexpected results. The main challenge is that it isn't a ready- made methodology, with a step-by-step guide. The two frameworks - the five elements of relationship and the five stages of Sustained Dialogue - provide a very basic but useful sense of direction and reference point. This means that the process relies greatly on the intuition of the facilitator, as well as his/her skills, personal attitudes and capacities, and contextual understanding. The facilitator needs to be able to respond to a wide variety of situations and to draw on a wide repertoire of possible ways of interacting in the group. Ideally, this repertoire is built up from experience. Besides the nature of this process as sustained over time, another aspect that strikes us about this process as distinguishing it from most of the others in this collection is the nature of Stage Two and the transition to Stage Three. Venting seems to us to be highly underrated in many processes. The release participants get from letting everything out and getting things off their chest, and the shift that happens when that has been done, can be highly generative. Resources Saunders, Harold A Public Peace Process : Sustained Dialogue to Transform Racial and Ethnic Conflicts Sustained Dialogue: A Citizen's Peace Building Process - Guide prepared by Teddy Nemoroff Diving In: A Handbook for Improving Race Relations on College Campuses Through the Process of Sustained Dialogue By Teddy Nemeroff & David Tukey Empowering Zimbabwean Youth Through Sustained Dialogue by Teddy Nemeroff (case study prepared for UNDP) www.sdcampusnetwork.org www.sustaineddialogue.org www.kettering.org The World Café Overview The World Café is an intentional way to create a living network of conversations around questions that matter. It is a methodology which enables people (from 12 to 1200) to think together and intentionally create new, shared meaning and collective insight. Although people have been meeting in ways sharing the same spirit of the World Café for centuries, the actual methodology was 'discovered' and formalized by Juanita Brown and David Isaacs in 1995. Since then hundreds of thousands of people have been meeting in World Café style across the world. The host of a World Café makes use of the café metaphor quite literally. The room is actually set up like a café, with people sitting spread out in groups of four at different tables, for deeply participative, high-quality conversations. They are guided to move to new tables as part of a series of conversational rounds around questions that matter to them. With each move, a table host remains behind, sharing the essence of his/her table's conversation. The others move out into the room and connect to what other tables have talked about, in this way networking and cross-pollinating the conversations. The café, with its ability to weave and further build insights, new ideas or new questions, enables collective intelligence to evolve through a group. The World Café is based on a core assumption that the knowledge and wisdom that we need is already present and accessible. Working with the World Café, we can bring out the collective wisdom of the group - greater than the sum of its individual parts - and channel it towards positive change. Finn Voldtofte, one of the early World Café pioneers actually sees the café as the unit of change force in any system or organization as it engages, inspires and connects different parts of a system. As Margaret Mead once said, "Never doubt that small groups of committed people can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has." Four conditions to create café magic Many people who have participated in a really energetic and effective World Café, speak of the human "magic" that arose in the conversations and exchanges, as they moved from one to another conversation, evolving a theme or deepening a question. Through the work of café practitioners, four conditions have been identified that enable 'café magic' to occur: 1. A question that matters: Identifying compelling questions is an art form. For a question to matter to a group, it needs to have personal relevance to each person. They need to be invested with a real stake in the question and its answers. Good questions open up to a diverse range of thinking, are thought provoking and stimulate creativity. A good question places the ball in the court of the participants - showing them they are needed, valuable contributors to the whole. 2. A safe and hospitable space: Often meeting spaces are not very inviting. Here the café metaphor gets played out, and care is taken to create an inviting and warm environment. Often it is complete with café tables, table-cloths, flowers and candles. When people step into the World Café, they immediately know that this is not just another formal meeting. In addition to the physical environment, though, is the creation of an actually safe space, where people feel comfortable enough to contribute what they are thinking and feeling. If for example a group from the same organization participates in a World Café, care should be taken that people know they will not be punished later for saying something in disagreement with a colleague or superior. 3. Mutual listening: This condition emphasizes the importance of listening over talking. It connects to the underlying assumption that the knowledge and wisdom we need is already present. Collective insight will only emerge as we honour and encourage each person's unique contribution. Margaret Wheatley has said that "Intelligence emerges as a system connects with itself in new and diverse ways." As each person offers his or her perspective, they are contributing to the increasing intelligence and insight of the whole, often in surprising ways. 4. A spirit of inquiry: It is common for people to arrive to workshops and events with their expert knowledge, deliver it and leave without having shifted or grown in their own views at all. In the World Café, a spirit of inquiry is key. This means that people are truly in exploration together. They bring what they know, think and feel about a given question to the table, but they are willing to go beyond that, to work together to uncover new insights, different perspective, and deeper questions. We can all always learn more. Fostering a spirit of inquiry and curiosity for what is not known, will help overcome resistance to new or different thoughts. The following guidelines are directly related to the four conditions, and can help a facilitator to enable the creation of these conditions. 1. Clarify the purpose: Before bringing together people for a café, clarify the purpose of the café. Understanding the purpose is necessary to be able to decide who should be there, the questions to discuss and the finer details of the design. 2. Create Hospitable Space 3. Explore Questions that Matter: Don't underestimate the care needed to succeed in identifying good questions. 4. Encourage Each Person's Contribution 5. Connect Diverse People and Ideas: The opportunity to move between tables, meet new people, actively contribute your thinking, and link discoveries is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the World Café. Design your cafe for maximum cross-pollinating without making the rounds themselves too short. 6. Listen for insights and share discoveries: Encourage each café group to take a bit of time for reflection to notice "what's at the center of our conversation?" After several rounds of café conversation it is helpful to engage in a conversation of the whole group to explore together which themes and questions are arising. Café Etiquette The World Café homepage suggests that a simple way to invite participants to engage optimally in the World Café is by sharing the following "Café Etiquette" with them. * Focus on what matters * Contribute your thinking and experience * Speak from the heart * Listen to understand * Link And Connect ideas * Listen Together for deeper themes, insights and questions. * Play, Doodle, Draw-writing on the tablecloths is encouraged! Applications The World Café website and the new book released in 2005 about the World Café profile numerous stories of how this approach has been used in different contexts across cultures, sectors, social classes, and generations. According to the website, the World Café is valuable when you aim: * To generate input, share knowledge, stimulate innovative thinking, and explore action possibilities around real life issues and questions * To engage people--whether they are meeting for the first time, or are in established relationships--in authentic conversation * To conduct in-depth exploration of key strategic challenges or opportunities * To deepen relationships and mutual ownership of outcomes in an existing group * To create meaningful interaction between a speaker and the audience * To engage groups larger than 12 (up to 1200!) in an authentic dialogue process The café is less useful if there is a predetermined outcome, there is a desire to convey one- way information, or a group is working on detailed implementation plans. Case Examples - From Maori Forestry Claims to Norwegian Town Planning The café is a very simple tool, which has been used in many different settings. We include a couple of examples to show it breadth of use. These cases have been chosen from several others from the World Café website. In New Zealand the café was used by an organisation to create a gathering to increase knowledge, networking and agreement among diverse Maori groups all working to claim back forests from the Ministry of Justice. The informal warm atmosphere of the World Café worked incredibly well with the traditional ways of the indigenous Maori people. Experts on the claims process were brought in to provide insights and perspective, and conversations among claimant groups and others around tables occurred throughout. The purpose was to progress Maori treaty claims, and the process was to hear diverse views, network with those who knew more, and to consider next steps. This first three day café looks likely to spark several others in other regions in New Zealand, with an intention that the final outcome be a vision of partnership between the Maori and non-maori people of the land. The World Café has also proven itself as a tool for town planning in Norway. The head of culture for a suburb of Oslo made use of the café as a way to get input and involvement from citizens involved in culture for a plan for the cultural activities of the future. They were used to people being rather passive at town meetings, and so the World Café was brought in as a way to fully engage people. The café kicked off with a simple exercise that everyone had to join in: everyone had to draw a simple picture to express what they wanted to achieve with culture in their community. From here they began sharing their ideas, writing down their comments, insights and questions on the tablecloth. Weaving in and out between groups, they gathered new ideas or solutions to elaborate on. Each table had members of the cultural department helping to gather the main ideas that would later be used in the formal cultural plan. The set-up and structure of the café meant that everyone became deeply involved in thinking together around the issues, challenges and possibilities of culture in the future of the town. Ideas that could work for many sectors had been shared. The informal creation of relations and the creation of a sense of wholeness in the group was a very important side-benefit. At the end of the meeting, the main learning for the organizers was that it is much more important to find ways to engage the energy and commitment of the people who are involved, than it is to produce a piece of paper with the formal plan. Our third example is the Financial Planning Association - a membership association of financial planners in the US. They have been making use of café as a way to build and bridge their new organization after a merger of two independent groups. During the first year, they hosted around 15 cafes, described as falling into three overarching categories: Member cafes were cafés for members that mostly focused on bringing members together for networking. The questions asked were very broad and simply aimed to generate stimulating conversation and new insights together. Event-driven cafes were cafes integrated as part of existing events for the different constituencies of the association. These enabled people to participate in technically specific conversations, learning from each other in the process. The goals of most of these were personal and business specific notes that the participants took for themselves. Purpose driven cafes were convened with a very specific purpose in mind and some kind of expected outcome, such as reaching consensus on a major decision, or to plan out specific workgroup activities. Commentary The World Café is a strong tool to ignite and engage a larger group of people through good meaningful questions and inviting safe space. The process of bringing the diverse perspectives and ideas together can really give a group a sense of their own intelligence and insight that is larger than the sum of the parts. One can use the World Café with as little as an hour, or convene a gathering over several days. If it is part of a longer gathering it is often used in combination with other tools. The divergence and breadth of ideas often generated through a Café are helpful to follow with an "Open Space" process, where participants have to step in and take responsibility for specific areas of an issue, joining with others with a shared commitment to further an area. The Café can also offer a useful alternative to "report backs" if people have been in working in "taskforces" or "committees". Rather than having each group stand in front of plenary to speak to words on a flipchart, a Café can be created where people from different groups move between the tables and capture the key insights. The aspect of meaningful questions is absolutely essential for a successful Café. Questions that may matter to the organisers may not be as compelling to participants. Where a designer of a World Café process is not sure of the questions that will ignite a group, he or she can simply have an initial question which seeds further questions, eg. "What question, if answered, would make the greatest difference to the future of the situation we're exploring here?" Resources Brown, Juanita and David Isaacs. The World Café: Shaping Our Futures through Conversations that Matter http://www.theworldcafe.com ADDITIONAL TOOLS The dialogue universe seems endless. In addition to the ten tools we selected to cover in depth and exemplify by cases, we have, through experience and research, come across a wide variety of other approaches. We've included this section as a brief overview of some of these additional tools which it was beyond the scope of this project to cover in depth but yet deserve mention. Bohmian dialogue "What is the source of all this trouble? I'm saying that the source is basically in thought. Many people would think that such a statement is crazy, because thought is the one thing we have with which to solve our problems. That's part of our tradition. Yet it looks as if the thing we use to solve our problems with is the source of our problems. It's like going to the doctor and having him make you ill. In fact, in 20% of medical cases we do apparently have that going on. But in the case of thought, its far over 20%." - David Bohm David Bohm (1917-1992) was a well-known quantum physicist, who made significant contributions to theoretical physics, particularly in quantum mechanics and relativity theory. The connection from physics to dialogue may at first seem unclear. However, Bohm's understanding of physics was deeply aligned with his view of the nature of reality, the nature of thought and the meaning of dialogue, and the connections between them. Throughout his life, he was actively involved in politics and philosophy, with one of his key inspirations being the Indian philosopher J. Krishnamurti. We include David Bohm's approach to dialogue in this collection because it is a method unique in its own right. It's important to recognise however that Bohmian dialogue is far more than a method. It's a philosophy and a worldview, which we can only introduce very briefly here, and Bohm is one of the most quoted people in this field. Bohm believed that thought shapes our reality, and that dialogue shapes thought and thought processes. He used to emphasise that dialogue comes from the roots "dia" ("through") and logos ("meaning") and so to him the word "dialogue" signified "meaning flowing through us". He saw dialogue as a process of direct face-to-face encounter by which people could participate in a common pool of meaning - a kind of "shared mind" or "collective intelligence". It was not a process by which one person would try to convince everyone else of his/her idea, but rather where the participants would engage in creating a common understanding. To him, thought was one big process, and it didn't really make sense to break it up into "my thought" and "your thought". You could say Bohm's approach to dialogue was his form of activism. He observed many of the crises faced by the world, and attributed them to a dominant worldview of fragmentation rather than wholeness. He saw a breakdown of communication and relationships, and he believed that the key problem was an incoherence of thought, and an inability to see how our own thinking behaves, and how the process of thought creates problems even more than it solves them. The overriding intention with his approach to dialogue was thus to understand consciousness, to explore day-to-day relationship and communication, and to overcome fragmentation. "Dialogue is really aimed at going into the whole thought process and changing the way the thought process occurs collectively. We haven't really paid much attention to thought as a process. We have engaged in thoughts, put we have only paid attention to the content, not to the process." - David Bohm In a Bohmian dialogue, 15-40 people convene in a circle. This range of group size is specified as a number that is not too large for depth and intimacy but large enough to allow subcultures to form and become visible. The groups generally meet more than once, for about two hours at a time, regularly over an extended period of time. There is no pre-set agenda. The idea is that the absence of an agenda allows for meaning to flow freely and undirected. The group decides when they meet what they would like to talk about and how they would like to proceed. It's important to emphasise here that the fact that there is no objective or intended outcome for the dialogue, does not mean there is no reason for it. As the group stays with the process over time, the deeper meanings are revealed. The dialogue leads to increased coherence, creativity, and fellowship. This process of undirected inquiry often leads to frustration and discomfort. The groups are encouraged to work through the anxiety, and to allow it to draw them creatively into new areas. While emotion is not in focus, it is considered useful. Frustration, chaos, and emotion can all help to create meaning if the group doesn't try to move away from them. Friction among subcultures allows participants to surface their assumptions - to see their own thoughts and those of others. The most important practice of Bohmian dialogue is suspension. Participants try to suspend their assumptions, judgments, reactions, impulses, emotions. Suspension is not the same as repressing them, postponing them, or blindly following them. It means attending to them, noticing them, and observing them without judging them as right/wrong. Your thoughts, physical sensations, and emotions are exposed so they can be seen by yourself and others. The group becomes your mirror, mirroring back the content of thought and the underlying structures. The listeners reflect back the assumptions they think are behind what is being said. As the thought process becomes observed, it changes. A facilitator is useful in the beginning of a Bohmian dialogue to hold the group through this process. The facilitator would usually start by talking about dialogue and explaining the meaning of the word, and the principles and practices of this particular approach. The facilitator is however not seen as a neutral outsider, but rather participates in the group as an individual. She should ideally work herself out of a job as soon as possible, once the group has established a dialogue practice. Bohmian dialogue is clearly very different from how we normally function. We generally pay attention to the content of our thoughts - our ideas, opinions, questions, insights - but not the process of forming them. We usually find it very difficult to let go of judgments or ideas because we identify deeply with them, we hold on to and defend them. If we view thought as a larger system that moves through us and around us, we may be able to take a step back and to see how what is going on within each of us is a reflection of the dialogue group and how what is going on in the dialogue group is a reflection of the larger society. Bohm, David. On Dialogue Bohm, David, Donald Factor, and Peter Garrett (1991) "Dialogue: A Proposal" http://www.laetusinpraesens.org Citizen Councils Citizen Councils are experiments in democracy. Their purpose is to define through dialogue what the People of a community, city, or nation as a whole would really want if they were to carefully think about it and talk it over with each other. There are a variety of different related forms, which we are roughly grouping under the overall header "citizen councils". These include "citizen consensus councils", "citizen deliberation councils", "wisdom councils", "citizen juries", "consensus conferences", "citizen assemblies", and "planning cells". They differ in the number of participants, the selection process, the mandate, the meeting time and frequency, whether they are permanent or temporary, their level of expertise, the media participation, etc. The common thread of the Citizen Council is the act of collecting a small group of citizens (usually 12-24) who together comprise a "microcosm" of their community or society. These are not elected representatives in the political sense. They speak for themselves as individual citizens, but they embody the diverse perspectives and capacities of their wider group. Because of this composition, their decisions are likely to be similar to the decisions the wider group would have come up with if able to engage in a similar dialogue at a large scale. If their process is made visible to that wider group as it unfolds, they can also be stimulating similar conversations to happen informally across an extended area. The members of the Citizen Council come together face-to-face to engage in a facilitated dialogue or deliberation around one or more issues concerning the population from which it was selected. The dialogue approach needs to be one that enables diverse members to really hear each other, to open their minds and expand their understanding, and to engage each other in seeking creative solutions. The dialogue may be a few days or may be a longer period of time. It usually results in a final statement released to the larger population and to the authorities. In order to come up with such an agreement, the members have to explore their diversity, go deeper to the point of common ground, and help each other to see the whole picture. One of the most famous examples of a Citizen Council was the MacLeans experiment in Canada. In 1991, Canada's leading newsweekly Maclean's brought together 12 Canadians at a resort north of Toronto. They held firm divergent beliefs, reflecting the main differences in public opinion in the deeply divided country. But they were also all interested in listening to each other's points of view. For three days they engaged in a facilitated dialogue, all the while being recorded on television. At the end of the process, they published a four-page consensus vision for their country. http://co-intelligence.org http://www.wisedemocracy.org Atlee, Tom. The Tao of Democracy Communities of Practice Communities of Practice are part of life, though they are often not explicitly named. A Community of Practice is an organisational form that assists with knowledge sharing, learning and change. It is generally a self-organising group of people who have come together to share knowledge on a particular field of practice. The process of explicitly naming and cultivating Communities of Practice is becoming increasingly widespread in both corporate, government, and civil society settings worldwide. This development is a response to increasing complexity and the shift to a knowledge society. The assumption here is that knowledge can no longer be packaged, externalised, and put in databases and remain relevant over time. We need to be able to draw on living, tacit, contextual knowledge, which primarily exists within people and can only be volunteered, not conscripted. Communities of Practice are designed to be able to transmit knowledge voluntarily on a "pull" basis (as and when needed for a specific problem or situation) rather than on a "push" basis (where the expert decides what others need to know and presents it to them in a one-way communication). This process requires strong and trustful relationships, because it relies on "know-who" in order to transmit "know-how". Communities of Practice employ a number of different dialogue tools in order to to build these relationships and enable learning among their members. The paradox of this organisational form is that it often fails if it is over-managed, but does need to be cultivated to be sustained. It needs to be supported, yet be left to create its own boundaries and identity to be successful. After all, relationships are largely determined by chemistry and by building trust over time. Wenger, Etienne. Communities of Practice http://www.etiennewenger.com Deep Ecology Deep Ecology is both a philosophy and a movement. The term was coined by Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess to contrast with the kind of environmentalism that is motivated by purely human interests. The Deep Ecology philosophy is premised on the assumption that nonhuman life on Earth has intrinsic worth beyond its usefulness for human purposes, and that the current level of human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive. This philosophy has inspired an array of experiential and dialogic practices, primarily developed by John Seed and Joanna Macy, intended to help "decondition" people from centuries of putting human interests above all others. Joanna calls this work "the Work that Reconnects". The Work that Reconnects aims to help people experience their innate connections with each other and the web of life, so that they may become motivated to play their part in creating a sustainable civilization. Participants experience and share their innermost responses to the present condition of our world, reframe their pain for the world as evidence of their interconnectedness, and build relationships of mutual support and collaboration. They also gain concepts, exercises, and methods which help to make visible the power they have to take part in the healing of the world. This work came mainly out of the 1970's in North America where it brought together thousands of people - antinuclear and environmental activists, psychologists, artists, and spiritual practitioners. One of the most famous exercises is called "The Council of All Beings". Here, participants take on the role of different living beings and engage from the perspective of that being in a dialogue on what is happening to their world. Deep Ecology is really a different worldview. We include it here because it challenges and widens our conception of what dialogue can be, to include dialogue with the non-human world, as well as dialogue with our past and future. We also find that the structured exercises it offers can shift participants out of their comfort zones and into a state of openness, in which further dialogue can then take place. Macy and Brown's "Coming Back to Life: Practices to Reconnect our Lives, Our World," provides an up-to-date description of the theory behind the Work that Reconnects, some sixty exercises, both new and old, and guides to designing and facilitating workshops. http://www.deepecology.org http://www.joannamacy.net Dynamic Facilitation and Choice-Creating Breakthrough. The most exciting and uplifting experience a group trying to solve a problem can have, is when a new option becomes available which no one had thought of before. Something that creates synergy between the different options the group has been disagreeing about. Something that overrides or somehow makes previous concerns irrelevant. This is what Dynamic Facilitation tries to make happen by creating a space called "Choice-Creation". Choice-Creation brings together the openness and transformative approach of dialogue with the deliberative approach of trying to actually reach specific conclusions to specific problems. The facilitator plays an active role, helping participants to determine an issue they really care about, and to say openly, clearly, and respectfully what is on their minds about it. Throughout this process the facilitator is working with four flipcharts at the same time - lists of Solutions, Problems, Data and Concerns. As group conclusions emerge, a Decisions flipchart is added. The facilitator is constantly following the natural dynamic flow and spontaneity of the conversation, rather than trying to manage an agenda. Dynamic facilitation was developed by Jim Rough in the early 1980's. According to Jim, it is particularly valuable in situations where people face important, complex, strategic, or seemingly impossible-to-solve issues, when there is a conflict, or when people seek to build teamwork or community. http://www.ToBE.net http://www.SocietysBreakthrough.com Focus Groups Focus groups are a form of group meeting used primarily in the qualitative research field - in academic and market research. It usually consists of a relatively small group of 6-12 people. Often a focus group is brought together early in an exploratory study, and the conversation can be used to help develop questionnaires or other surveys for more quantitative research. The benefit of a focus group as opposed to a survey is that participants have a chance to interact, bouncing ideas off each other and reacting to each other's comments. This helps to get more conscious answers from participants, creates possibility for new ideas to be generated, and also provides information about the relationships and dynamics of the group. Most importantly, a focus group helps to answer "why..." questions whereas surveys can primarily answer "what..." questions. The focus group is particularly useful when an organisation wants to start up a new project, and it is unclear how the community will respond. What will their key concerns be? What are the obstacles that might get in the way of the success of this project? What are the forces that might help it succeed? What are the reasons behind people's preferences? This is generally more of a consultative process than a meeting of stakeholders who will actually be involved in acting together to implement the project. A Focus Group is not necessarily a dialogic process but it can be. The other tools described in this section such as Circle and World Café can be used creatively within a focus group session. Flowgame The flowgame was created in Denmark in the late 1990s by a group of friends and fellow faclitators, who had come together to design a game that would support each of them in furthering their own work and learning. The members of this first group were Toke Moeller, Monica Nissen, Finn Voldtofte, Jan Hein Nielsen and Ouafa Rian. The game has since been through several iterations, and continues to evolve. The purpose of the Flowgame is to bring "flow" to an area of the lives of the people playing. Each player brings a question or a personal intent to the game, which s/he wishes to develop clarity and insight around. The game is played over a period of one to three days with 4-6 players and a host around a gameboard. The game draws inspiration from the four directions of the "medicine wheel", a concept drawn from Native American cultures, in which each cardinal direction holds a perspective for personal and authentic leadership. Whichever the question or intent that one brings to the game, it will be viewed from these perspectives during the course of the game. The following description is taken from the Flowgame briefing materials: The North - The innovative perspective: Your courage to find new paths and break new ground in your life and work, to move ahead when called for. The East - The deep vision and perspective, the long view: To clarify your passion, vision, energy - to keep the overview and find coherence and connectivity to the world surrounding you. The South - The perspective of the community: To open the good relations, to be in rhythm with others, team spirit, synergy, synchronicity. The West - The perspective of action: Getting things done making it happen, being methodical, being practical and doing it in a sustainable way for you and the greater whole. A pile of cards lies in each of the four directions on the gameboard. Each card poses a meaningful question, enabling joint reflection and sharing of knowledge and experiences. Depending on the way the die falls, as players are sailing through the four rivers on the gameboard, a player will pick a card, and reflect with fellow players around a question drawn in one of the four perspectives. The end of the game is when someone has sailed through all the four rivers, and thus had his or her question illuminated through shared reflection and inquiry from many different angles. It is quite normal for the time to run out before people have actually sailed through the full scope of the game. The Flowgame is a fun, interactive way of dealing with deep and meaningful issues and questions as an individual, but also as a team. After the success of the Flowgame focusing more on the personal leadership of individuals, the game has been adapted to be able to deal with more collective questions, of teams or groupings within organizations. Additional questions relating to the organisational sphere will then be added, specific to each particular organization or grouping. The Flowgame is facilitated by a Flowgame host, and cannot as yet be run by someone who has not been trained for this. For more on the Flowgame, or if you would like to play a game, contact Marianne [•••@••.•••]. Graphic Facilitation and Information Design A picture is worth 1000 words. A graphic facilitator is skilled at visualising what people are saying during a dialogue. When a graphic facilitator is present, a wall will be covered with white paper at the beginning of a dialogue process. At the end of the workshop that paper will colorfully tell the whole story of the process, with words, mindmaps, symbols and images. Rich pictures can capture the complexity of the discussions and the meeting in simple overview. An information designer will listen to what people are saying throughout a process and turn it into diagrams, tables, and models. S/he will continually be reflecting back to participants their own knowledge in a different form for them to react to. Graphic facilitation and information design are not necessarily dialogue processes in and of themselves, but they are tools that can play a major role in the quality and success of a dialogic process. They help to make the group more aware of itself and of the patterns that are emerging in the conversation. http://www.groveconsulting.com http://www.biggerpicture.dk Learning Journeys John le Carre has said that "the desk is a dangerous place from which to view the world". Learning journeys are about getting out from behind the desk, out of the comfort of the home, the conference room or the hotel, to explore and experience the world first-hand. Learning journeys are physical journeys from one place to another. They are also mental journeys, challenging participants' preconceived notions and assumptions about current reality and possibility. Learning journeys as such, once again, are only dialogue methods in the very broadest sense of the word - engaging in a dialogue with reality. But the key distinction between a real learning journey and a typical "field trip" or "study tour" is created by introducing dialogue methods. In a learning journey, when a group visits an organisation or community, they are invited to sit down one on one or in small groups in empathetic dialogue with local stakeholders to understand their reality. Before a visit, they clarify their own intention and questions, and they often receive training in how to "suspend judgment" and listen not only with an open mind, but also with an open heart and open will. After a visit they hear each other's perspectives and through conversation come to a deeper understanding and a more whole picture of what they have experienced together. They become aware of what others saw that they themselves may have been blind to, and discover the value of broadening our understanding of what it means to see. Listening Projects and Dialogue Interviewing Many of us are actually not used to being genuinely listened to. The most common form of listening is the kind where we are constantly judging what the speaker is saying, or waiting for an opportunity to say what we ourselves want to say. When you create an opportunity for really just asking questions, listening with an open mind, and connecting to what another person is saying, you can actually help that person to uncover a knowledge they didn't even know they had. Through an open-ended conversation delving deeply into the interviewee's life experience, knowledge, needs and concerns, the issues are brought to life in their mind and heart. They themselves realise things they hadn't seen before, about how they feel and what they can do about it. This kind of interviewing and listening can be relevant in many situations. It may be a way to mobilise people to participate in a particular project, to develop a network, or simply to awaken them to act as individuals. As an example, "Listening Projects" are a specific form of community organising, used since the early 1980s, in which trained interviewers go door-to-door asking citizens powerful questions about local issues. The interviews will usually last about one hour. Once the interviewees become convinced that the intentions of the interviewer are genuine, that this person is sincerely there to listen to them and not to judge them, they will open up and share their perspectives. The Project generates change not by telling people what to do, but really just by asking questions and listening. http://www.listeningproject.info http://www.ottoscharmer.com Quaker Meetings The Quakers are a Christian group, more formally known as the "Society of Friends". The group was founded in 17th Century England, when many were challenging established beliefs and the institutionalisation of the Church. Friends emphasise the personal relationship with God and believe that if they wait silently, there will be times when God speaks to them directly in the heart. They hold regular "business meetings", quite unlike any other business meetings you might have experienced, and their model has inspired many secular groups as well. The meeting is an exercise in attentiveness, and in listening to the promptings of the Spirit. Whatever the topic, the overriding intention is to discern the will of God, and the entire meeting is seen as worship. The Quakers prepare to come to the meeting in an open state of mind and willingness to listen attentively. They strive to open themselves to what others are saying, suspend their prejudices, and always consider the possibility that they their own strong convictions may be wrong. People who attend their first Quaker meeting are always struck by the silences. The meeting begins and ends with silence. They observe silence in between individual contributions. The silence allows for reflection, and act as a brake to avoid any one individual seizing control or dominating. Each person normally only speaks once on a subject unless responding to questions with factual information. Having spoken once to the issue, they trust that if further valid points occur to them, someone else will raise them. They speak honestly and frankly, but do not have arguments or debates. When there are differences they are resolved through conversation. The facilitator continually identifies areas of agreement and disagreement to push the dialogue further. Quakers also work by consensus rather than majority decisions. Their perspective is that a prophetic voice is often lonely, and so if a deeply felt concern or dissenting perspective continues to come back, they will listen to it. All the ideas and solutions belong to the group, not to individuals. The names of the people who speak ideas are not reported. The goal is "unity, not unanimity." http://www.quaker.org Socratic Dialogue A Socratic Dialogue is a search for truth. This approach of course draws its origins and name from the life of Socrates, the ancient Greek philosopher. It usually takes place in quite a small group, for example 6 people. The most important rule in a Socratic Dialogue is to "think for yourself". The dialogue usually starts with a philosophical question, that is, a fundamental question that can be answered by thinking about it. Participants are invited to suspend their judgments, approaching this question with an open mind. They strive for consensus, not because it is necessarily achievable but because the desire for consensus helps to deepen the investigation and to listen deeply to all points of view. They allow their underlying assumptions to surface, unravel, and be examined. Key to a Socratic Dialogue is that, while the question is philosophical, it is always applied to shared concrete experience, and the group remains in contact with this experience throughout. Participants bring in specific examples, against which what is being said can be tested. General insights are drawn out from this in-depth understanding of concrete examples. Story Dialogue As with the circle, it is clear that human beings have always used stories to communicate. Before we had writing, stories were used to convey information and wisdom across generations because they are easier to remember than isolated facts or concepts. We are in a sense, "hardwired" for stories. Yet, we increasingly tend to disassociate the concepts we are trying to convey from personal stories that illustrate them. The "Story Dialogue" technique was developed by Ron Labonte and Joan Featherstone when working in community development and health in Canada. They saw it as a way to bridge the gulf between practice and theory, and to recognise the expertise that people have in their own lives, and which is best communicated through stories. It uses stories to draw out important themes and issues for a community, moving from personalised experience to generalised knowledge. In Story Dialogue, individuals are invited to write and tell their stories around a generative theme - a theme that holds energy and possibility for the group. As a person shares their story, others listen intently, sometimes taking notes. The storytelling is followed by a reflection circle where each person shares how the storyteller's story is also their story, and how it is different. A structured dialogue ensues guided by the questions: "what" (what was the story), "why" (why did events in the story happen as they did), "now what" (what are our insights) and "so what" (what are we going to do about it). The group closes by creating "insight cards", writing down each insight on a colored card and grouping these into themes. http://www.evaluationtrust.org/tools/story.html Theatre of the Oppressed During the 1950's in Brazil, theatre director Augusto Boal started asking questions about why theatre had to be in the form of "monologue". Why did the audience have to always be passively consuming the performance? He started experimenting with interactive theatre, creating instead a "dialogue" between the audience and the stage. His assumption was that dialogue is the common, healthy dynamic between all humans, and that oppression is the result of the absence of dialogue and the dominance of monologue. Over the past 50 years, the "Theatre of the Oppressed" (TO) has developed into a large system of diverse games and interactive theatre techniques, being used in communities across the world. TO is primarily created as an instrument to enable the "oppressed" to concretely transform their society, by transforming monologue into dialogue. All the TO techniques pose dilemmas and challenges to participants, related to the core social problems and power structures of their particular communities and society at large. The techniques help to move out of the head, and more into the body. This enables people to meet across diversity of cultures and levels of education, and it also allows to access more unconscious dynamics. The TO workshops, now run not only by Boal but by hundreds of facilitators, are a training ground for action not only in theatre but in life. The most well-known form of TO is called "Forum Theatre". In Forum Theatre a dilemma is posed to the group in the form of a theatrical scene, which usually has a negative outcome. Participants are asked to step into the play and take on the role of one of the actors to try to change the outcome. They are invited to imagine new possibilities and solutions, and to actively try to make them happen in the moment. As a result of the group problem solving, highly interactive imagining, physical involvement, trust, fun, and vigorous interpersonal dynamics, the participants learn how they are a part of perpetuating their own problems and how they can be the source of their own liberation. Boal, Augusto. Games for Actors and Non-Actors http://www.theatreoftheoppressed.org The 21st Century Town Meeting How do you engage 5000 citizens actively in one town meeting, and enable them each to give substantive input to public decision-makers? This is what happens in the 21st Century Town Meetings of AmericaSpeaks. Updating the traditional New England town meeting to address the needs of today's democracy, AmericaSpeaks restores the citizen's voice. At the gatherings, facilitated deliberations happen at tables of 10-12 participants. Technology then transforms these discussions into synthesized recommendations. Each table submits their ideas through wireless computers, and the entire group votes on final recommondations. Results are compiled into a report in real-time for participants to take home at the end of the meeting, immediately identifying priorities and recommendations. Since the organization's founding in 1995, AmericaSpeaks methodologies have engaged over 65,000 people in over 50 large-scale forums in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Meetings have addressed local, state and national decisions on issues ranging from Social Security reform to the development of municipal budgets and regional plans. http://www.americaspeaks.org PART III: ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT Having explored through this diverse set of tools, you may be excited about some that you want to experiment with, perhaps nervous or apprehensive about others, or overwhelmed by the variety. How do you decide what method to use in a given situation? How do you perceive whether what is needed is a Future Search, Open Space, Deep Democracy, a Change Lab, or just a contemplative walk in the park? The intention of this section is to give some pointers on how to navigate the variety of options offered in the preceding pages. We confess to a certain wariness in writing this piece. The reality is that there are no universal recipes, and there is an infinity of different contextual situations. While there are most certainly good and bad process choices for each case, there is never only one ideal method that will work. Experienced facilitators and dialogue conveners will be able to ask explorative questions to understand the particularities of a situation, and work with the options posed by the different methods. Often, they will develop a customised process which is not fixed until it is past, because they will continually be responding to what is happening in the group. On the other hand, a facilitator with such a high level of experiential knowledge, skills, sensitivity and creativity is not always available. For these situations, World Café, Open Space, Circle, and Appreciative Inquiry in particular are a big gift. These processes are easily applied by less experienced facilitators and can still make a world of difference. In general, one of the most important things to consider is that the facilitator should be comfortable with the approach chosen. You are better off with a grounded and confident facilitator applying a simple methodology well, than with a sophisticated methodology applied poorly. The variety of dialogue methods available to us today have emerged in different situations but in response to quite similar needs and discoveries. They are part of a wider shift that is happening as complexity and diversity increase and people become more aware of their interdependence, and hence their need to hear each other, to understand, and to collaborate. We noticed in our research that most of them in defining themselves contrast themselves to the mechanistic paradigm of organising - the boardroom, the classroom, the bureaucracy, the traditional conference model with speakers and audiences. They generally don't explain how they are better than or different from other genuinely dialogic methods. While bureaucracies and expert-driven conference models are surely alive and well, we find that there is broadly an increasing awareness of more participative forms. It is misleading to present the choice as being only between the "traditional" or "mechanistic" and one specific dialogic approach. Here, our intention then is rather to make some comparisons within the dialogic field. Assessing the Methods In comparing and assessing the methods, we've tried to break some of the different possible situations down into two matrices. The first matrix covers different possible broad purposes you are trying to achieve. The second covers the broader context, who the participants are, and whether the process requires a facilitator specifically trained for this approach. We have then listed the ten methods which have been profiled in depth here and put an "x" underneath each situational factor if we think it applies to the pure form of that method. We have for now not included the methods which are only briefly described in the "additional tools" section. It's important to recognise that this matrix approach is a bit brutal and has clear limitations. This type of analysis isn't the way a facilitator would decide on what process to use in a given situation. That person would rather go to the "foundations for a successful dialogue process" - assessing what is the purpose and the need and who are the participants, and then designing content, process, and physical requirements based on that. However, this rough picture may still help someone who's trying to get an overview and to distinguish between the different applications at a more general level. There's a story and a conversation behind every "x" we have placed in these matrices. This is subjective on our part, and in going through it, we became aware that the originators, practitioners, and advocates of some of these methods might well feel that theirs matches all of these purposes and situations. We've tried to be a bit more selective than that, but of course it always depends on how you are using the method to fit with a particular purpose. This is a level of detail which is beyond the scope of this assignment, and really where the facilitator's own tacit knowledge from experience and intuition comes in. The matrix would obviously be useless if we put an x in every box, and so we have chosen not to do that. That doesn't mean it would be wrong. Each of the processes can basically be used in most if not all of these situations, but it would require a creative adaptation or sensitivity on the part of the facilitator, and most likely involve combinations with other methods. For example, a Change Lab as it is currently designed assumes implicitly that the participants are leaders from their fields meeting on an equal footing. When the Change Lab participants reflect serious power differentials or diversity of social class, they might need to draw on the principles or practices of Deep Democracy or the School for Peace in order to level the playing field, but they would still continue with the Change Lab as their overarching process. The Purpose Matrix As mentioned earlier, being clear on purpose is key to a successful dialogue. Here, we have outlined 11 different possible purposes a process can have: - Generating awareness - Problem-solving - Building relationship - Sharing knowledge and ideas - Innovation - Shared vision - Capacity-building - Personal/ leadership development - Dealing with conflict - Strategy/Action planning - Decision-making We have then tried to assess which tools work particularly well for each purpose. A process will usually have a combination of these purposes and be more specific, but some will be in focus. The large bold X's are the purpose for which we feel this process is best suited, while the smaller x's are additional strengths of the approach. 1. The Purpose Matrix This matrix may be useful not only in assessing what methods work for a given purpose, but perhaps also to provide inspiration in articulating the intentions and objectives of a dialogue. In looking at the purpose matrix, you will notice that the Change Lab for example has a large number of x's because it meets a large number of purposes, but it is also an intense and high- investment approach. If only some of these purposes are required, you may well be better off with a more simple approach. Similarly, Future Search has a large number of x's, but is a very structured approach, emphasising strategy planning. To understand these matrices, it is important to reflect back to the applications and commentary sections of the descriptions of the specific method. The Context Matrix In this table we considered a few of the situational factors that might vary across methods, including contextual factors, the nature of, and requirements for, participants, as well as the facilitator's level of training. The factors include: High complexity <- -> Low complexity in the context By complexity, we mean that cause and effect are far apart in space and time in relation to the issue being discussed, there are divergent opinions and interests related to the issue, the context is constantly changing, and old solutions no longer work (no simple recipes are available). It is worth noting that, as mentioned in the introduction, the overall emergence and evolution of these approaches is really in large part a response to increasing complexity, so in fact, all the approaches are intended and specifically designed to be applicable in situations of high complexity. You will notice in the matrix, that we see five of them as really only relevant in such situations, while the rest can also be useful in situations of lower complexity. Conflictual <- -> Peaceful context In defining conflict, we were looking at whether the issue or group was emotionally charged, and whether different, entrenched positions seem incompatible. Is it difficult for people to "agree to disagree"? Are there sub-groups who have conflicts with each other beyond a meeting of individuals, perhaps related to a larger societal conflict? This could include situations where agression, anger, and attack are taking place, but it wouldn't have to be that explicit. All the approaches may be found useful in conflictual situations if the focus is just on finding common ground despite the conflict, being able to move forward without getting drawn into negativity and stalemate. But if the intention is to go directly into the conflict and resolve it, to release underlying tensions and relationships, and to negotiate a way forward acknowledging the differences, there is a smaller set of approaches that are relevant. These are the ones we have chosen to "x". In the deeper version, where emotions need to be surfaced and the group is going into its more unconscious processes, we would limit this list even further to Circle, Deep Democracy, Sustained Dialogue and the School for Peace. Small group <- -> Large group We picked the number 30 as a useful breaking point between small and large groups. Our understanding is that this is where a critical mass of diversity exists, but where the whole group also starts to be constraining and the need emerges to alternate between small groups and the whole. For some of the processes, that number may not exactly be accurate. Scenario Planning for example could be done with a larger group than 30 though not too much larger. For more specific numbers, see each process description. Microcosm/ Multi-stakeholder <- -> Peer-focused Several of the processes are specifically designed to "get the whole system in the room", while others are less dependent on this, and can work within a more homogeneous group. Under "microcosm" we have ticked only the processes that explicitly are designed for a group that is seen as a reflection of the larger system, though other processes might also be useful for such groups. Diversity of power and social class Power dynamics may bring specific requirements in. Can this process work across levels of power and social class? Often participants will be very aware of other forms of diversity such as culture, gender, race, and age, but will not necessarily realise the diversity of power and how power dynamics and hierarchy affect the group. Some of the approaches are explicitly conscious of this impact and include ways of dealing with it. Generational and cultural diversity We have picked generational and cultural diversity, but this category could also include gender differences, sectoral differences, and other forms of diversity of thought. Generational and cultural diversity often overlap with diversity of power and social class but this isn't always the case. Note that for this category and also for the power category we have only ticked the processes that are particularly good for this kind of diversity. Dialogue is always about bridging differences. Facilitator Training This final column looks at whether a facilitator needs to be specifically trained for this process. Note that Circle, Open Space, World Café, and Appreciative Inquiry are the easiest for beginner facilitators to use. We have also not ticked Future Search because we felt a person with strong facilitation skills does not necessarily need a Future Search specific training, but they do need to be a strong facilitator. 2. The Context Matrix Assessing a Facilitator Choosing the right facilitator is as, or in some cases more, important than choosing the dialogue method. As with the methods, however, your choice of facilitator will depend on the situation. In thinking about this, we developed four spectrums, reflecting different types of facilitators: "One method by the book" ----------- "Mix-and-match" Some facilitators choose to become experts in a particular method and do it by the book, while others will never tire of discovering new methods and will draw on a broad repertoire in a "mix-and-match" type of approach. The benefit of a facilitator who is deeply experienced with one method is that you know what you get. If you know what you want is an Appreciative Inquiry conference, you are better off with someone who sees him/herself specifically as an AI facilitator. The "mix-and-match" type will likely not be able to stick with one approach because they will constantly see possibilities of combining. The benefit of the combining is that you may get a more customised process that fits your need and your group like a glove. Two old adages are relevant here. When you meet a single method facilitator, remember that "if the only tool you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail". But maybe you are not a nail. The facilitator should be able to explain what the situations are in which their method doesn't work. On the other hand, when you meet a mix and match facilitator, remember the saying, "know the rules before you break them". A lot of these methods have an internal consistency and logic - there is a reason why they are designed as they are. A facilitator who enjoys combining needs to be very clear on why s/he is doing it rather than using the methods in their pure form, and should be able to develop a process with its own internal consistency, logic, rhythm and flow. "Directive and structured" ------------- "Going with the flow" Some facilitators will co-design an agenda, usually with the client or group coordinator, and then guide the participants through that process. A Future Search is an example of a process that is quite structured. The group moves from one phase and exercise to the next, and there is a time limit on each step. The facilitator needs to help the group move through this process in this order. Other facilitators will literally go with the flow and allow the process to unfold. The idea here is that no one knows in advance what exactly needs to happen for a certain group, certainly not an external facilitator. Such a facilitator will come in and will respond to the group's needs, offering methods and approaches as they go along that are relevant in the moment. An example in terms of the methods in this category would be Sustained Dialogue, where there is a natural direction groups tend to go in, but the facilitator is drawing on a variety of approaches and needs to help the group to uncover what it needs to uncover. Again, this approach may be the most appropriate because it is the most adapted to your specific needs, but it requires a high degree of trust in the facilitator, and a willingness on the part of participants to engage in an open-ended process. "Knowledgable on content" -------- "All that matters is process knowledge" A common debate among facilitators is around whether a facilitator needs to know anything about the content the group is discussing. For example, if a facilitator is hired to support a dialogue around hiv/AIDS, do they need to know anything about who the players are in this field, what the key inter-related issues are, what the politics around it are, and what the statistics are? Or is it enough that they know how to facilitate a process that enables the participants to process their own information and come to their own answers? Some facilitators like to know something about the content so that they can help the group find patterns and draw out conclusions, while others believe neutrality and objectivity on the part of the facilitator are fundamental and that deliberate lack of knowledge of the issue in fact helps in this regard. Which type of facilitator you go for will depend on whether you feel your group needs help in processing information, or whether they have that covered and just need help with process, preferring for the facilitator not to get too involved in the content. "Societal knowledge" --------- "Psychological knowledge" The issues at the center of a dialogue can be located at different levels. Some are deeply psychological issues. The relationships within a group may be related to participants past traumas or current insecurities. Sometimes a facilitator may find him/herself in a situation that borders on therapy. Some facilitators have a very clear boundary here emphasising that facilitation is not counceling or therapy, and will take the conversation back to the core issues the group is dealing with. Others see these psychological factors as deeply intertwined with the group's ability to solve everyday problems, and will go into them to try and resolve them. These are two very different sets of skills. Often a facilitator with a deeper psychological knowledge may not be as well-versed with societal, political, economic issues and vice versa. What kind of facilitator you choose depends on whether you feel this group needs to go into its group unconscious or whether it needs to focus on more conscious, rational, or practical issues outside of themselves. If a facilitator with a deep understanding of psychology comes in, the group is likely to go into that space sometimes even if they don't want to. If a facilitator without it comes, they will be restricted from going into it even if they do want to. Because of the nature of dialogue, all the processes can lead to people going through a fundamental questioning of their core beliefs, which can be unsettling. Deep Democracy is the most psychologically oriented approach here, but the School for Peace approach also benefits from facilitators who have some psychological awareness. The Circle and Sustained Dialogue can also be processes where participants open up to a point of significant vulnerability, but in these and the other approaches, therapeutic skill is not necessarily required. "Teamworker" --------- "Solo" Some facilitators prefer to work "Solo" because they will then have the freedom to improvise and follow their intuition without having to check first with partners, which they fear slows down the process. Solo facilitators sometimes describe their work as an artform, and focus on the interplay between them and the group as opposed to wanting to work with a facilitation team. At the other end of this spectrum are facilitators who see they have some limitations, and prefer to build a team with other facilitators where they can complement each other. This teamwork approach can provide a balance between some of the other spectrums here - for example combining a facilitation team where one is more knowledgeable on process, the other on content, where one is more knowledgeable on societal issues and the other on psychological dynamics, or where one is good at seeing the overall flow of where things are going and the other brings in an expertise in a particular technique. Among Sustained Dialogue practitioners, the prevailing wisdom is that the best moderating teams are "insider/outsider" teams. The insider would be familiar with the content, culture, and personality dynamics of the group, while the outsider brings in process knowledge, and the ability to be objective and ask stupid questions or "play dumb".1 General qualities We have outlined a number of common differences in facilitators, and pointed out that there is no one perfect facilitator for all siutations. Still, there are a few general qualities that we think are important for every facilitator to have. These include: 1 Thanks to Teddy Nemeroff for pointing this additional spectrum out to us in his feedback to Version 1.0. Strong listening skills. All facilitators need to be able to listen. They need to listen to and hear the intention behind the dialogue in advance, and be able to listen to and hear participants during the process. This enables the facilitator to be flexible to design an appropriate process, and during the process to mirror back to participants what is going on and to help the group become more aware of itself. Strong listening skills depend partly on the facilitator's ability to let go of her own agenda. Personal awareness. A really strong facilitator need to be able to understand what is going on within herself when she is with a group, as much as what is going on in the group. This is quite a profound meta-skill of facilitation, which is particularly important in less structured, more open-ended processes, and especially the more psychologically oriented processes. The facilitator is essentially holding the group, and needs to avoid projecting her own issues and insecurities onto the group. Personal awareness also relates to confidence, humility, the ability to be honest about one's own limitations (what one is and isn't capable of), and the willingness to not control or "over-facilitate", and to hand over a process to participants when they are ready. Asking good questions. As mentioned earlier in this report, asking good questions is in our field an art form. The right questions will wake participants up, "light their matches", link in to what they care deeply about, and make visible their interdependence in finding the answers. They will surface new insights they hadn't thought of before in understanding the issue in focus. A simple phrasing of a question can determine whether people feel hopeless and despairing or curious, energised, strong and excited. A holistic approach. Being able to assess which method to use in a given situation, or whether one's preferred method is applicable, requires a facilitator to understand the particular context. Taking a holistic approach is also about being able to see patterns and help the group make connections as they work, and recognising that multiple intelligences are at work. The more the whole person can be invited in to a dialogue the more successful it will be, and the more equitably people will be able to engage. WHERE TO FROM HERE? We have greatly enjoyed this process, and are left deeply impressed with all the work we have found going on in this field. We look forward to continuing the journey, and to experimenting with the new knowledge we have gained. Contact: Mille Bojer Pioneers of Change Associates PO Box 197 Westhoven 2142 Johannesburg South Africa Phone: +27 11 673 4333 Cell: +27 83 260 9163 Email: •••@••.••• -- -------------------------------------------------------- Escaping the Matrix website http://escapingthematrix.org/ cyberjournal website http://cyberjournal.org subscribe cyberjournal list mailto:•••@••.••• Posting archives http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/ Blogs: cyberjournal forum http://cyberjournal-rkm.blogspot.com/ Achieving real democracy http://harmonization.blogspot.com/ for readers of ETM http://matrixreaders.blogspot.com/ Community Empowerment http://empowermentinitiatives.blogspot.com/ Blogger made easy http://quaylargo.com/help/ezblogger.html