|
Objectives
|
Enabling citizen participation in the democratic process; obtaining input on citizen views on a specific societal challenge
|
Reaching consensus on a roadmap of actions to address/resolve complex societal challenges that generate conflict and disagreement
|
|
Educational objectives
|
None
|
Learn to apply structured problem-solving methodologies to complex, real world challenges; better understanding of own preconceptions and weaknesses (self-trust); and, ability to respect the constraints and vulnerabilities of fellow participants (mutual trust)
|
|
Role of organiser
|
Moderation and control
|
Facilitation only
|
|
Role of influencers
(experts/ Officials)
|
Provide inputs and influence relations
|
No role in dialogue process. However one or more experts may be selected to participate as equal members of the dialogue, with no ability to utilise power dynamics, as facilitator will ensure random selection of speakers during dialogue and each will be granted equal “microphone time”
|
|
Selection of participants
|
Participants selected to ensure valid stakeholder representation relating to views on the subject matter
|
Participants selected to ensure valid stakeholder representation across differing ethnic, socio-economic backgrounds, viewpoints, roles, etc
|
|
Timing and actions
|
Physical participation in a small number of workshops convened over a period of time;
|
Virtual participation over 4 weeks with 3 online sessions of 2.0 hours each and individual ‘homework’ activities
|
|
Participation
|
No all participants are required to participate in all events
|
All participants (up to a maximum of 25) jointly collaborate in a highly structured process, irrespective of their role/position in the University
|
|
Methodology
|
Presentations on the topic of the workshops are delivered by experts to the assembled participants; participants can ask questions and require additional inputs and clarifications. Participants discuss issues formally and informally. Possible recommendations are drafted by teams from the organisers and the participants and one or more voting sessions are performed to reach agreement on recommendations to put forward
|
A Triggering Question is prepared to focus the dialogue. Each participant contributes 2-3 responses to the TQ. They listen to and discuss the ideas of others. The list of factors produced goes through processes of Clarification, Clustering, then selection of the most important (Voting), which are subsequently “structured” in terms of how they influence each other. The result is an Influence Map (tree) on which the factors at the root are those with the greatest leverage for producing the desired change[1]. With some further processing, involving evaluation of key factors in terms of their potential impact, feasibility, etc, an institutional roadmap for change is produced
|
|
Final Deliverable
|
Final report of Workshop discussions and recommendations.
|
Visual Co-Laboratory Report including consensual action maps, roadmaps and other plans, to which all participants are committed
|
