Towards Generative Community Dialogue

This post has been inspired by Inspiring Education: a Dialogue With Albertans  see Inspiring Community Action Dialogues.  For more background see DIALOGUE LINKS

Organic Growth and Inorganic Development:

Dialogue networks of people grow organically while inorganic computer systems are developed and built.   FACTSnet is attempting to do both by growing people networks using digital tools to augment this growth. 
    The rest of this post outlines some initial thoughts on how this might happen and summarizes background articles used for the Alberta Education dialogue.  For our current initiatives see Inspiring Educational and Heritage Dialogue

    Post Commenting is key to Online dialogue: see Facilitating Online Dialogue Using blogger and other tools. Comments need to follow respectful online protocol see blogger Terms of Service Some FACTSnet blogs moderate comments, others publish everything and delete inappropriate comments as necessary. If you find an inappropriate comment notify the blog coordinator.

    Make a comment to this post on topics related to Generative Public Dialogue see background below.

    Background: The balance of this post is quotes and notes from articles related to the "Inspiring Education" dialogue.  The quotes and notes are intended to give an overview of the articles for the purposes of presentation and follow-up to a presentation.  Therefore, large type is used for emphasis an ability to read from a projected image. .

    Changing the World by Changing How We Talk and Listen

    Quotes & Notes from the above link

    Four Ways of Talking and Listening
    1. Downloading [Can either be factual (based on established fact and or research or stating an opinion]
    2. Debating
    3. Reflective Dialogue - In Reflective Dialogue, we move outside of ourselves...We also listen self-reflectively to ourselves, and hear ourselves through the ears of others. We inquire into how things came to be as they are and envision how they might be
    4. Generative Dialogue - In Generative Dialogue, we are fully present to what is emerging in the whole system... They moved from appreciating each other’s different perspectives (as in Reflective Dialogue) to being, for a while, a whole collective “I.” “We did not put our ideas together. We put our purposes together. And we agreed, and then we decided.”
    Deliberative Public Engagement – Nine Principles
    Quotes & Notes from the above link

    What is deliberative public engagement?

    Deliberation is an approach to decision-making that allows participants to consider relevant information, discuss the issues and options and develop their thinking together before coming to a view...

    For the public participants, the experience provides opportunities to share and develop their views with each other and directly with experts and decision-makers....

    Deliberative public engagement should not be used:
    • when crucial decisions have already been taken; or
    • there is no realistic possibility that the engagement process will influence decisions....
    Is accessible to all participants.

    Tailor Made

    Formula (page 10)

    A Case Study in Deliberative Democracy: Dialogue with the City

    Quotes from the above link

    Deliberation is an approach to decision-making in which citizens consider
    relevant facts from multiple points of view, converse with one another to think
    critically about options before them and enlarge their perspectives, opinions and
    Deliberative democracy strengthens citizen voices in governance by
    including people of all races, classes, ages and geographies in deliberations that
    directly affect public decisions. As a result, citizens influence – and can see the result
    of their influence on – the policy and resource decisions that impact their daily lives
    and their future....

    The end result of effective deliberation is not only good governance, but also the opportunity to remind participants what it means to be a citizen.

    Deliberation: open dialogue, access to information, space to understand and reframe issues, respect, movement toward consensus...

    Peter Malcolm said...
    Moving toward consensus is a useful approach as long as we don't get hung on reaching it in any pure sense. Finding common ground may be a phrase that is also useful for this important dialogue.
    To help inform the public, comprehensive issues papers were published on the web, and an interactive web site enabled browsers to access information, input ideas and exchange views.

    This involved a painting competition for primary schools and a short essay competition for high schools on the sort of city the students would like to live in by 2030....

    Each group was supported by a trained facilitator, withbthe task of encouraging in-depth discussion and respect for others’ views. A trained scribe at each group input data to a computer that the group deemed to be a fair representation of their discussion...

    The computers on each table were networked, transmitting the data to a ‘theme team’ who analysed the data in real time and broadcast the common themes back to the entire room via large screens along the breadth of the room. In a very short space of time, participants could see the build-up of collective views from the individual tables to the whole forum...

    If the critical measure of deliberation is an increase in intellectual, social and political capital, this feedback would indicate that the Dialogue with the City’s deliberative process was effective...

    An Implementation Team consisting of thirteen representatives from the Dialogue process from the community, industry, local and state government, nominated by the Minister, oversaw the
    development of the plan. The Implementation Team had the final say on any issues that could not be resolved by other teams...

    In terms of city planning, regardless of the technical merits of experts, experience has shown that if proposals do not reflect the values of the community, implementation is fraught with problems;

    • Prior to Dialogue with the City, the Department had invested more than $200,000 over several years on technical expertise to develop background information and best practice urban plans. However, these expert plans were not ‘owned’ either by the Government of the day or the community, and hence were not likely to be implemented fast. Indeed, the Department had been persisting with a multi centred city model, which the Dialogue deliberations cast aside, clearly favouring the network city model...

    ...if the engagement process is perceived by citizens to be political manipulation, this legitimation will not occur. On the other hand, if the engagement is perceived by citizens to be fair, transparent and accountable, it reflects good governance, developing political capital, and is likely to result in a ‘virtuous cycle’ that increases social and intellectual capital.

    The agenda of Government-supported sustainability was a bias, based on what was broadly perceived to be a looming problem that many believed needed to be addressed quickly and authoritatively.


    Peter Malcolm said...

    Moving toward consensus is a useful approach as long as we don't get hung on reaching it in any pure sense. Finding common ground may be a phrase that is also useful for this important dialogue.

    David Ibsen said...

    Perhaps we should also consider "Degenerative" Community Dialog and how to overcome it. Anyone have any research or articles on this.